Two Final-9's. Which do you prefer?

[Dan26]

With the 18-team league on the way, which system do you prefer? Both are total knockout as finals need to be. Because both are knockout they are both ridiculously simple.

FINAL NINE NUMBER ONE (Brackets indicate match-ups if higher teams win. Bold are the winners)

WEEK 1
Elimination Final: 4th vs 9th
Elimination Final: 5th vs 8th
Elimination Final: 6th vs 7th


WEEK 2
1st Semi Final: 1st vs lowest seeded Elimination Final winner (1v6)
2nd Semi Final: 2nd vs second-lowest seeded Elimination Final winner (2v5)
3rd Semi Final: 3rd vs highest seeded Elimination Final winner (3v4)

(Highest seeded winner straight to Grand Final)

WEEK 3
Preliminary Final: The two lowest placed Semi-Final winners play-off. (2v3)

WEEK 4
Grand Final: Highest seeded winner from week 2 vs winner of Preliminary Final (1v2)

Probabilities of winning the premiership (based on all matches being 50-50) under that final-9 system

1st - 25.00%
2nd - 18.75%
3rd - 15.625%
4th - 7.8125%
5th - 7.03125
6th - 6.640625%
7th - 6.640625%
8th - 6.25%
9th - 6.25%

Total knockout, as finals should be. Yet, it still gives a good advantage to the minor premier, and progressively to the other teams. The total elimination of double chances should be a priority.

.
.
.
.
.
FINAL NINE NUMBER TWO (Brackets indicate match-ups if higher teams win. Bold are the winners)

WEEK 1
Elimination Final: 1st vs 9th
Elimination Final: 2nd vs 8th
Elimination Final: 3rd vs 7th
Elimination Final: 5th vs 6th
(4th has a week off)
The three highest placed winners advance to week 3


WEEK 2
Semi Final: 4th vs lowest seeded Elimination Final winner (4v5)
Winner to week 3


WEEK 3
Preliminary Final: Winner of Semi-Final vs highest-placed week one winner (1v4)
Preliminary Final: The second and third highest winners from week one play-off. (2v3)

WEEK 4
Grand Final: Winner of the two Preliminary Finals (1v2)

Probabilities of winning the premiership (based on all matches being 50-50) under that final-9 system

1st - 12.5%
2nd - 12.5%
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 12.5%
5th - 11.72%
6th - 11.72%
7th - 10.94%
8th - 9.38%
9th - 6.25%

*1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th all have to win 3 knockout matches over the 4 weeks, with 1,2,3 having their week off before the Prelimnary Finals and 4th having their week off in the first week.

*5th and 6th will need to win 4 knockout games IF 1,2,3 all win in the first week. If anyone of 1,2,3 lose in the first week, the winner of 5v6 goes straight to the Prelim and therefore 5th or 6th would need to win 3 games.

*7th also need to win 4 straight knockout games, but they have a chance of going straight to the Prelim (and therefore needing only to win 3 games) but the chances of going straight to the Prelim are a bit less than 5th and 6th.

*8th also need to win 4 straight knockout games, but they have a chance of going straigth to the Prelim (and therefore needing only to win 3 games) but the chances of going straigth to the Prelim are a bit less than 7th. In fact, the only way they can advance straight to the Prelim is if 1st lose to 9th

*9th needs to win 4 straight knockout games and cannot go straight to the Prelim

 

[Dan26]

So, hypothetically, if the second system was used in 2009, it probably would have unfolded like this:

WEEK ONE
St.K (1) vs Haw (9)
Gee (2) vs Ess (8)
W.B (3) vs Carl (7)
Adel (5) vs Bris (6)
Coll week off


WEEK TWO
Coll (4) vs Adel (5)

WEEK THREE
St.K (1) vs Coll (4)
Gee (2) vs W.B (3)

WEEK FOUR
St.K (1) vs Gee (2)


Interesting to throw a spanner in the works and put in a week one upset. Say, Carlton to beat the Bulldogs because the Blues do have a good record against the Dogs.

WEEK ONE
St.K (1) vs Haw (9)
Gee (2) vs Ess (8)
W.B (3) vs Carl (7)
Adel (5) vs Bris (6)
Coll week off


WEEK TWO
Coll (4) vs Carl (7)

WEEK THREE
St.K (1) vs Coll (4)
Gee (2) vs Adel (5)

WEEK FOUR
St.K (1) vs Gee (2)

The highest placed winner from week one (which will almost always be the Minor-premier) gets the advanatge of playing their Preliminary Final against a team who played the week before.

 

[fabulousphil]

I like final 5, top team gets week off ... you know the rest.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Why do we need a final 9.

I think a final 8 would be fine in an 18 team comp, and what it does is stop teams settling for 9th and make them fight that little bit harder (with extra teams, it is likely that a 2009 scenario with 2-3 teams being in contention for 8th come round 22 will occur)

Eliminate set draft picks and you eliminate tanking down the lower end of the ladder also.

 

[Dan26]

Why do we need a final 9.

We don't "need" a final-9. Nor do we "need" a final-8 necessarily.

But 9 teams making the finals in a 18-team legaue is 50%.

What proportion of teams in the current 16-team legaue make the finals? Yep, 50%.

The issue I have had with the finals system since the McIntyre system came into the VFL in 1931 is the awful unacceptable use of double chances. And we've become so used to double chances that we don't question how awful they are.

Finals are about performing on the day. They are NOT about getting second chances. In 2009, Geelong and St.Kilda could have both been eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Final (and fair enough too. It's good that they faced brutal, sudden death knockout games, with the season on the line.)

So, if the top team can be eliminated after one loss in the PF and the GF (which can happen NOW), why in God's name do double chances even exist at all??????????????????

Finals are, have been, and always will be about performing on the day. They are not getting a second chance for losing. That is not what finals are about.

Look at how the NFL do it.

 

[Rocco Jones]

Why do we need a final 9.

I think a final 8 would be fine in an 18 team comp, and what it does is stop teams settling for 9th and make them fight that little bit harder (with extra teams, it is likely that a 2009 scenario with 2-3 teams being in contention for 8th come round 22 will occur)

Eliminate set draft picks and you eliminate tanking down the lower end of the ladder also.

I'm with you. Having extra final spots primarily to motivate sides not to tank really hurts the credibility of the league.

 

[mattys123]

I'm not trying to be a smartarse here, but my answer would be NEITHER.

Why does half the comp have to make the finals.

In most sports in the world that have a playoff/finals system to decide the eventual champion, less then half the competition make the cut.

Why should we be any different.

Leave it at 8, and make 10 sides miss out, other wise we will have even more mediocre sides playing finals.

And also, there is no way the AFL would want a second weekend of the finals with only 1 game.

IF, the AFL do decide to go to a 9 team finals system, there will be at least 3 games in each of the first 2 weeks of the finals.

Stay with a final 8, we all know the system, and it is as fair as a finals system as their is.

 

[sTeeL]

Agreed. Final 8 in a 18 team comp is still fine. Would mean that Essendon or Carlton would have missed out this year and neither were gonna have a real impact anyway.

 

[Dan26]

Stay with a final 8, we all know the system, and it is as fair as a finals system as their is.

Here's what I don't like about the final-8.

Imagine if you finish 4th, and you have a tough match against 1st.

Now, 4th needs to win 3 matches to win the flag, right? The equation is W-BYE-W-W. If they lost to 1st, what changes? Nothing. They STILL need to win three matches.

So, instead of playing your best team, losing to the top team, and playing 4 matches, why not rest all your players, play a reserves team and lose. Effectively you've had a bye. So, the equation to win the flag would effectively be BYE-W-W-W

It's the same thing. Three wins and a bye, just in a different order.

Given 4th needs to win 3 matches to win the flag, and given they may consider themselves unlikely to beat 1st, they are better off giving themselves a guaranteed week off by resting every player, then beginning their quest for the three wins in week 2.

Whilst it wouldn't happen because of the moral question, the fact that a team could do it and improve their chances of winning the flag, simply because of the fact that the double chance exists is totally unacceptable.

Double chances are just so awful, and so utterly against what finals are about, it staggers me that we use them.

 

[Dan26]

And also, there is no way the AFL would want a second weekend of the finals with only 1 game.

Why not?

Under the final-4 system there were 4 matches, one per week. (and they all used to get 100,000 too)

Under the final-5, the Preliminary Final was the only match in week 3.

In fact, having ONE match on a particular weekend actually gives more attention and more publicity to that game than it would otherwise receive.

Having 4 matches over a weekend, whilst necessary, isn't ideal, because not every match gets the exposure they would otherwise get if there was only one or two matches.

What's the favourite weekend? The fourth week, right? Why? Because it's the Grand Final and it's one game. In the final-5, if you asked everyone what their second favourite week was, they'd almoist certainly say the Preliminary Final weekend. Which was ONE game also.

 

[witsend]

Why not?

Under the final-4 system there were 4 matches, one per week. (and they all used to get 100,000 too)

Under the final-5, the Preliminary Final was the only match in week 3.

In fact, having ONE match on a particular weekend actually gives more attention and more publicity to that game than it would otherwise receive.

Having 4 matches over a weekend, whilst necessary, isn't ideal, because not every match gets the exposure they would otherwise get if there was only one or two matches.

What's the favourite weekend? The fourth week, right? Why? Because it's the Grand Final and it's one game. In the final-5, if you asked everyone what their second favourite week was, they'd almoist certainly say the Preliminary Final weekend. Which was ONE game also.

Double chances are not awful. They are a justifiable reward for consistent excellence over 22 Rounds.
Otherwise what's the point? It instills some meaning into the latter stages of the season with jockeying for position.
The only way your system is justifiable is we award the flag to the Ladder Leader after Rd 22.
Will NEVER happen.

 

[mattys123]

Why not?

Under the final-4 system there were 4 matches, one per week. (and they all used to get 100,000 too)

Under the final-5, the Preliminary Final was the only match in week 3.

In fact, having ONE match on a particular weekend actually gives more attention and more publicity to that game than it would otherwise receive.

Having 4 matches over a weekend, whilst necessary, isn't ideal, because not every match gets the exposure they would otherwise get if there was only one or two matches.

What's the favourite weekend? The fourth week, right? Why? Because it's the Grand Final and it's one game. In the final-5, if you asked everyone what their second favourite week was, they'd almoist certainly say the Preliminary Final weekend. Which was ONE game also.

And what if that one game is WSYD vs GCoast in Sydney, you would have 10,000 people at the only game for the week. NO THANKS.

Stay with the final 8 please.

 

[HugeJohnson]

Its all about the $$$......

 

[Dan26]

Double chances are not awful.

Yes they are. They are deplorable.

They are a justifiable reward for consistent excellence over 22 Rounds

Reward? For who? 1st and 2nd never got a double chance. In fact, both Geelong and St.Kilda could have been eliminated after one-loss in the Preliminary Final. And St.Kilda WERE eliminated after one loss in the Grand Final.

The teams that got a "double chance" in 2009 were 3rd and 4th. The Dogs and Pies.

Ironically, both of them would have been better off fielding reserves teams in week one, losing deliberately, and effectively having a bye. Then both the Dogs and Pies could start thier campaign to win 3 matches in week two after a "bye" in week one.

It instills some meaning into the latter stages of the season with jockeying for position.

You don't need to have double chances to put "meaning" into the last few weeks of the season. The NFL don't have double chances but teams are still playing for a week off, and home ground advantage. Plenty of meaning there in the NFL and no double chances to play for.


Same in the AFL. Teams would still jockeying for positons because there are advantages finishing in the higher positions because they guarantee you a week off and home ground advantage. Look at the first system for instance. You finish top-3 you get a week off and home ground advantage.

To say that you need a double chance to "instill some meaning into the latter stages of the season" is total horeshit quite frankly. It's absolute rubbish. Look at the probabilities in the opening post. There's your "meaning." Plenty of advantages in finishing higher up as the probabilites show.

 

[RogerC]

The issue I have had with the finals system since the McIntyre system came into the VFL in 1931....

Good lord - how old are you??

 

[Dan26]

And what if that one game is WSYD vs GCoast in Sydney, you would have 10,000 people at the only game for the week. NO THANKS.

What kind of argument is that?

If it was the old final 4 (one final per week) couldn't those same two teams play in a finals match?

If it was the old final-5, couldn't those teams meet in a week-3 Preliminary Final (one match for thw weekend)

Couldn't the one match also be Essendon vs Collingwood?

It's still 8 matches over 4 weeks. Having one finals match over a weekend is no different to what we get in Grand Final week. A week with one match actually makes that match BIGGER than it would otherwise be.

Is one match ideal? Probably not, but having 4 matches over a weekend (like we do now in week one) isn't ideal either for the opposite reasons. It doesn't allow each match to get the attention it deserves.

At the end of the day there are advantages and disadvantages to having one finals match on particuaor weekend. For every disadvantage you state, there are advantages and positives too.

In other words, it doesn't make any difference.

 

[Subprime]

What is the NFL system?

Anyone care to post it using last years AFL ladder as an example?

 

[Dan26]

What is the NFL system?

Anyone care to post it using last years AFL ladder as an example?

12 teams.

the top 4 have the week off.

5-6-7-8-9-10,11,12 (eight teams, four matches) play in the first week. The four winners progress to meet the top four in week two.

That then leaves 8 teams, and those eight play-off under the quarter-finals, semi-finals, Grand Finals traditional formula.

The four teams that get the week off are the best two division winners in each conference. The other 4 division winners (because there are 8 divisions) are effectively the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th seeds and they get home ground advantage against 9,10,11,12.

Technically, it is done in two groups of six, but I've explained it one group of 12 to make it easier.

It's EXACTLY the same as the finals system for the Twenty20 Big Bash, multiplied by four. Total knockout, no double chances.

One-third of the teams get the week off, the other 2 thirds don't. Totally identical in every way to the Big Bash. The Big Bash is the NFL system divided by four. It's identical.

 

[NEMINI]

NFL system doesn't translate because AFL doesn't have conferences and divisions.

Each conference has 4 division winners and the next two teams with the best records.

The two best records from each conference get the first week off.

 

[Subprime]

It might upset some but I don't mind the idea of a final 12 on that basis. In an 18 or 20 team league it would allow a late charge by an injury riddled team ie Hawthorn last year. Would no doubt be some blowouts too.

Eleven finals would please the AFL.

I don't really see the point of the final 9's proposed as it doesn't increase the number of finals. I don't have any problems with the current system either. I see the double chance as insurance and many people buy insurance in the hope that they won't need it. If St Kilda or Geelong last year had gone out due to one bad game it would have been unfair.

 

[Pessimistic]

Keep the current one but I think there is a tendency for the tem finishing second to get an easier match in the PFs.

The team finising second, if they win week one finals tends to get a team in the PF which have played a tough game the previous week (and usually finished fourth), wheras team finishing first tends to get a team which have had a walkover (and have finished third) Apart form the finals schedule having this effect, there can be a hige gulf in strength between third and fourth on the ladder.

Only thing I can see to give the minor premier evety advantage isn once the final 4 is decided, let the highest finishing team (usually 1st on ladder) play the lowest finisning (usually 4th but could be lower) and the other two teams play the other PF

The last 2 years the team finishing second has won the grand final

 

[ROates]

I say we keep the top 8 system the way it is, and just have a bottom 10.

 

[stmookeyj]

Maybe, to sound almost too radical.....have 2 extra H&A rounds and just have a Final 4?

 

[Lensen]

What's the over/under on total posts in this thread, and Dan26 posts in this thread, by the time it's run its course?

I'm going with 250/100.

 

[TempleKelvington]

Nah....leave it as it is....final 8 works ok...top 4 sides rewarded with a double chance...top 2 guaranteed home finals....fitting reward for a very good home and away season....and it's weighted fairly I think. We once had a top 5 when there was 12 teams and I liked that the elite teams played the finalS...but I like that more teams get a chance to play finals with 8/16...but 9 is step too far IMO.