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

[A Living God]

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

So instead of having 6 rounds where 4 teams having nothing to play for you can have 10 rounds with 10 teams having nothing to play for.

 

[witsend]

Yes they are. They are deplorable.



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.



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.

Yes they do. In the 1st week of the finals.
You're on your own here, mate. Under your system there is no advantage whatsoever between 1st and 9th, which makes a mockery of having a season at all.

 

[witsend]

Ahave a Final 8 and have the bottom 10 play for the highest draft picks.

 

[estibador]

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.

It might have been the same thing this year with all top 4 being Vic teams but most years it wouldn't be the same thing at all. It would be the difference between earning a home prelim and having to travel for your prelim. Would you rather have your "bye" in the first week and have to travel to Perth for your prelim or put in a real team for the chance to host it in Melbourne? It's not the same thing at all is it?

That's why I have no problem with the double chance under the current system. If you finish top 4 you earn the right to battle for a home prelim and if you don't get that you're thrown back into the mix.

I didn't like the double chance in the old McIntyre system though. More often than not that was just giving mediocre teams chances for the sake of giving chances.

 

[Chris who]

bring back the night prem for teams 9-14

 

[Dan26]

Yes they do. In the 1st week of the finals.

Wrong. The teams that got the double chance in the first week of the finals were 3rd and 4th.

St.Kilda did not get a second chance after losing, not did Geelong in 2008.

Nor should they by the way. Finals are not about getting second chances. Defeats the whole purpose of what finals are about.

Who the hell WANTS to see a tema lose and then still get to play????????????? The whole concept of the finals is "peform on the day." That's what they're about. That's what the Grand Final is about. That's what the Preliminary Final is about.

And we all like the knockout "season on the line" stuff that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th week of the finals brings, right?

Under your system there is no advantage whatsoever between 1st and 9th

Did you even read the opening post?

1st systems advantages between 1st and 9th
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%


2nd systems advantages between 1st and 9th
1st - 12.5%
2nd - 12.5%
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 12.5%[/b]
5th - 11.72%
6th - 11.72%
7th - 10.94%
8th - 9.38%
9th - 6.25%


Rundown on advantages between 1st and 9th for second system
*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 Preliminary 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 straight 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]

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

The second system I proposed has the highest finishing winner in the first week (which will almost always be 1st, because 1st will beat 9th most of the time) gets to play their Preliminary Final versus the team who wins the semi-final in week two.

The other Preliminary Final is played between the second and third highest placed winners from the first week (2v3 if the higher teams win), so BOTH of those teams have the week off. This would make for an extremely high standard Preliminary Final. Both Preliminary finalists would have had the same preparation. i.e a week off which came after a first week win.

The other Prelim (if the higher teams win) would see 1st playing 4th, but 4th would have had to play the week before.

Technically 1,2,3,4 all have the same mathematical advantage, under the second final-9. Under the current final-8, the top four all have the same mathematical advantage.

Under the second final-9 system 1,2,3,4 all need to win 3 knockout games and all 4 teams are guaranteed to go straight to the Prelim IF they win their matches. The only difference is that 4th would not have the advantage of a week off directly before their Preliminary Final.

 

[Dan26]

It might have been the same thing this year with all top 4 being Vic teams but most years it wouldn't be the same thing at all.

Given that 10 of the 16 (soon to be 18) clubs are Victorian, there's a high chance that home ground advantage won't come into it in lots of other seasons.

It would be the difference between earning a home prelim and having to travel for your prelim. Would you rather have your "bye" in the first week and have to travel to Perth for your prelim or put in a real team for the chance to host it in Melbourne? It's not the same thing at all is it?

In that case, the team wouldn't deliberately lose, but in 2009, the Bulldogs and Collingwood would have been better off fielding reserves team, having their "bye" in the first week, and starting their quest to win 3 finals from the second week onwards.

That way, they can go Bye-W-W-W, which is no different to W-Bye-W-W in principle.

That's why I have no problem with the double chance under the current system. If you finish top 4 you earn the right to battle for a home prelim and if you don't get that you're thrown back into the mix.

This is the kind of talk that anges me. Why in the hell do you need a double chance to play for a home Prelim?

The New Orleans Saints are playing the first play-off game tomorrow morning. Thet earnt a week off by having the best record. They play a knckout game and guess what? They are playing for a home Preliminary Final (which they call the NFC championship game)

Yes, you heard that right. They don't have a double chance, but THEY ARE STILL PLAYING FOR A HOME PRELIM.

if you don't get that you're thrown back into the mix.

Teams shouldn't get "thrown back into the mix" in knockout finals football. Don't people get that finals are about performing ON THE DAY? Isn't that what we love about the Grand Final, and the Preliminary Final?

If double chancees are to exist, they must exist all the way through the finals. You can't just have them in the first week. If 1st get a second chance, and they win in the first week, you can't then say "Oh, we'll give the double chance to the team you just smashed (4th) but now you yourselves have to face total knockout."

No, I'm sorry but IF the double chance exists for the minor-premier it must exist at all 4 weeks of the finals or not at all. Like the old Argus system. In that system (prior to 1930) the top team got the right to challenge after a loss even if they lost the Grand Final. The double chance existed all the way through the finals.

So, it's either all the way through the finals or not at all.

I say not at all.

 

[Falchoon]

Wrong. The teams that got the double chance in the first week of the finals were 3rd and 4th.

St.Kilda did not get a second chance after losing, not did Geelong in 2008.

Nor should they by the way. Finals are not about getting second chances. Defeats the whole purpose of what finals are about.

So what are the H&A rounds about?

 

[Falchoon]

No, I'm sorry but IF the double chance exists for the minor-premier it must exist at all 4 weeks of the finals or not at all. Like the old Argus system. In that system (prior to 1930) the top team got the right to challenge after a loss even if they lost the Grand Final. The double chance existed all the way through the finals.

So, it's either all the way through the finals or not at all.

I say not at all.

I say in the first two weeks is fine.

The biggest issue with your first one is one team having a week off prior to the GF, the AFL won't go with it. On average grand finals have been much more competitive since this was done away with.

The second one has merit bar not enough games in week 2. Like it or not, revenue potential plays a part in fixturing.

Personally I'd keep 8/18, half the comp playing finals is too many. The only logical reason we have 8 currently that I can see is that an even number of teams is easier to fixture for.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Wrong. The teams that got the double chance in the first week of the finals were 3rd and 4th.

St.Kilda did not get a second chance after losing, not did Geelong in 2008.

St Kilda and Geelong had their double chances early, if they needed them. They didn't need them, but the safety net was there. And that's the reward for doing well in the H&A season, you get a saftey net up to a certain point. I certainly don't see that as "deplorable" or the other adjectives you ascribed to it, but that is very much personal opinion - we just happen to not have the same one.

Personally, I'd rather revert to the final five - even with a 20 team league, so all talk of a final nine I find rather depressing but the 1st gets the week off and the rest straight knockout makes some sense if a 9 has to happen.

 

[Dan26]

St Kilda and Geelong had their double chances early, if they needed them.

Instead the double chance went to the teams they both defeated. That being 3rd and 4th. Ridiculous.

They didn't need them, but the safety net was there.

Finals are not about getting a "safety net." They are about performing on the day.

And that's the reward for doing well in the H&A season

You can be rewarded in ways that don't require a second chance for losing.

In the NFL, New Orleans (the 1st seed) have a week off along with the second seed, while 3,4,5,6 in their conference do not. They also have home ground advantage.

That's what they were playing for through their regular season - to have that advantage. You don't need a double chance to have an advantage over someone else.

Personally, I'd rather revert to the final five - even with a 20 team league, so all talk of a final nine I find rather depressing but the 1st gets the week off and the rest straight knockout makes some sense if a 9 has to happen.

Final 5 had the same issues. The main problem was that the top two teams met (usually) in the second-semi final. How stupid. You "USE UP" the Grand Final match-up before the Grand Final.

What other system anywhere in the world uses up the "1st and 2nd" matchup before final game? Its better if 1st and 2nd have not met before the grand Final to buld up the climax.

The Final-5 also had a situation where 1st can be eliminated after one loss in the Grand Final, but third can get a second chance after losing to 2nd.

In 1982 we had a ridiculous situation where the top team was Richmond and they BEAT third-placed Carlton in the second-semi. Carlton got a second chance. Carlton then beat Richmond in the Grand Final and Richmond was out after one loss, after they already proved they could beat Carlton in a finals match.

Why do you have to beat a team twice????? What's the point of that? If you already beat them once they should be out.

A final 5 should be 4v5 in a "quarter final". The winner plays 1st in a prelim. 2v3 in the other Prelim.

That's a three week finals series. You can "double" it to 10, with 7,8,9,10 playing "elimination finals" with the two winners (say 7th and 8th) advancing to meet 1st and 2nd. 3rd play 6th and 4th play 5th, so you have 4 quarter finals.

So, effectively, the top 6 have a week off,and 7,8,9, 10 play the first week.

With a 20 team comp, that would be perfect.

 

[ToroHombre]

As a Richmond supporter, I think a final 9 system should have been put in place 15 years ago. However, out of those 2 options, I'd have to go the first option. It seems a bit weird to have 4th get a week off, and may result in teams playing for 4th position so they get a rest.

 

[Dan26]

So what are the H&A rounds about?

To position yourself as best you can for the finals, giving you the best advantage you can. Like in the NFL. You are playing for a week off and home ground advantage.

The biggest issue with your first one is one team having a week off prior to the GF, the AFL won't go with it. On average grand finals have been much more competitive since this was done away with.

I agree. the second system is better.

The second one has merit bar not enough games in week 2. Like it or not, revenue potential plays a part in fixturing.

I don't see this as an issue. There are 8 games over 4 weeks, like the first system. Let's face it, under the current final-8 some of the crowds for the Elimination Finals and even some Qualifying Finals have been disappointing over the years. The finals doesn't really "start" until week 2 when the true knockout tournament begins, anyway.

Personally I'd keep 8/18, half the comp playing finals is too many. The only logical reason we have 8 currently that I can see is that an even number of teams is easier to fixture for.

8/18 is good.

But currently we have 8/16.

9/18 is the same as 8/16... so they may go for 9.

The only question is what system do they use?

I'm not saying I agree with a final-10 in an 18-team comp, but don't be surprised if the AFL introduce it. Nine finals (same as we have under the current final-8) and pure knockout.

Remember, they introduced the final-8 in a 15 team league in 1994 out of the blue. Is 8/15 much different to 10/18?

 

[Dan26]

As a Richmond supporter, I think a final 9 system should have been put in place 15 years ago. However, out of those 2 options, I'd have to go the first option. It seems a bit weird to have 4th get a week off, and may result in teams playing for 4th position so they get a rest.

1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th all have a week off on their way to the Prelim.

1st, 2nd and 3rd have their week off in week 2 so they have the advantage of going into the Prelim with a fresh team.

4th have their week off in week one, so that if they win and go to the Prelim, they have to play the highest placed winner (almost certainly 1st) who is fresh and has had a week off.

Why would anyone want to finish 4th, when you could finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd and be better off?

The only difference is 4th has their week off in a different (and less advantageous) week to 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

 

[raskolnikov]

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.

Come again?

 

[damochandler]

top 8 is just fine the way it. the ones posted would make things a hell of alot complicated when the finals come around

 

[Fadge]

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.

Dan, you've obviously put a lot of thought into this thread and you're trying very hard, but you are way, way off the mark.

For a start, both of your proposed system have one fewer game than the current finals system - do you think the AFL will go for that? But that is the least of their issues.

Secondly, you must be the only follower of AFL football that doesn't see the justification for a double chance for being one of the four best teams over the course of a season. Your proposed systems are completely flawed simply due to this.

Third, you're proposing that a team should tank a finals match? There have been a lot of teams win their first final from 3rd or 4th and get the next week off, waiting for their Preliminary final opponent. To tank the first week is to disclose that you don't believe you are worthy of being there, and that is not how you win a Premiership. If (and this is a big if) Carton ever manage a top four place then we may see our first ever tanking of a finals match, but there are definitely 15 others teams currently in the competition that wouldn't/couldn't do it.

 

[witsend]

Wrong. The teams that got the double chance in the first week of the finals were 3rd and 4th.

St.Kilda did not get a second chance after losing, not did Geelong in 2008.

Nor should they by the way. Finals are not about getting second chances. Defeats the whole purpose of what finals are about.

Who the hell WANTS to see a tema lose and then still get to play????????????? The whole concept of the finals is "peform on the day." That's what they're about. That's what the Grand Final is about. That's what the Preliminary Final is about.

And we all like the knockout "season on the line" stuff that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th week of the finals brings, right?



Did you even read the opening post?

1st systems advantages between 1st and 9th
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%


2nd systems advantages between 1st and 9th
1st - 12.5%
2nd - 12.5%
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 12.5%[/b]
5th - 11.72%
6th - 11.72%
7th - 10.94%
8th - 9.38%
9th - 6.25%


Rundown on advantages between 1st and 9th for second system
*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 Preliminary 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 straight 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.

No, you are wrong. St Kilda & Geelong DID get the double chance as did all top 4 sides. They just didn't need it, because they won, and the additional reward for winning the Qualifying and finishing Top 2 was a week's rest after a long hard season.
Whichever way you wanna spin it, the top 2 teams played off in the GF, as they did last year. And in 2007. The system isn't perfect but it works.
And I still maintain that your system of knockout all the way is GROSSLY unfair to the top finishers. there would seriously be no point in aiming for top 4 top 2 under that system.

 

[Perry Pie]

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.

Agree, "double chances" as in the AFL finals are a good thing.
I would go further, I thing the 8 is excellent. Every single place in the 8 has a benefit over the place below it due to home game and who is played. The double chances only applies to the top 4 teams in week one.
Without the double chance/qualifying rounds first play 8th, 2nd play 7th etc. When the 8 came in and this was done the games involving 7th and 8th were mostly rubbish. In essence the first week of the finals are qualifying games against relatively close competators- after that its all knockout anyway.
The one change I would suggest is renaming the week 2 and 3 games as Quarter Finals and Semi Finals. Week 1 stays as qualifying and elimination finals, the Grand Final as is. This is much clearer.

The whole idea of a final 9 is rubbish no matter how its structured. (I have never been keen on half the league making the finals anyway, with 18 teams a final 8 seems about right).

 

[Dan26]

For a start, both of your proposed system have one fewer game than the current finals system - do you think the AFL will go for that? But that is the least of their issues.

I've got no idea what the AFL would go for. I don't work for the AFL. But I know that 8 finals is hardly any different to 9 finals.

Secondly, you must be the only follower of AFL football that doesn't see the justification for a double chance for being one of the four best teams over the course of a season.

Double chances are total and utter crap, and there is NO justification for them unless they exist all the way through the finals like the old Argus system from 1898-1930.

The top two teams in 2009 did not get a double chance. 3rd and 4th did.

The top two teams could have been eliminated after one loss in both the Preliminary Finla and/or Grand Final. In fact the top team WAS eliminated after one loss without getting a second chance. As they were in 2008. St.Kilda got a double chance did they? My ass they did. Where was the double chance for losing?

So, the question is, If it's good enough for the top team to go out after one loss in the PF and GF without getting a second chance, why do we have second chances at all? Doesn't it go against the whole principle of what finals are about?

Your proposed systems are completely flawed simply due to this.

LOL! You're suggesting a system that is knockout is more flawed than a system that allows a double chance in the first week for 3rd and 4th but not for the teams who defeated those two teams?

So, according to you, the NFL play-offs are flawed are they? Is the Twenty20Big Bash final-3 flawed? No double chance there.

Knockout is simple and fairer. It follows a seeding, it allows the top teams to get a week off, and home ground advantage and it means you have to perform on the day. Which is what 1st and 2nd have to do in the Preliminary Final under the current system anyway!

You seem to like and agree that 1st and 2nd can be eliminated after one loss in the Preliminary Final. Yet, you support the double chance? Which is it? Do you want them out after one loss in the Prelim or not? You can't have it both ways.

If you support the double chance, you'd have to then agree that St.Kilda (if they lost to the Dogs in the Prelim) should somehow not be eliminated and get another chance. After all, didn't the lower placed Dogs get a second chance?

Third, you're proposing that a team should tank a finals match?

I'm not proposing a team would do it. That will never happen. But you can't say that Collingwood wouldn't have been better off in retrospect playing a reserves team in week one, having a "bye", then starting thier campaign fresh in week 2.

 

[RogerC]

Apparently finals are about what Dan says they're about. Despite what's actually going on in the real world.

This is what happens when you start with a false premise - ie: That a double chance is supposed to exist outside of its context. That's what's behind all this manic raving about Geelong and St Kilda not having a double chance due to winning in the first week.

It's really very simple. The advantage the top four have is that if they win they get a week off, and if they lose they get to play again. As opposed to the rest of the finallists, who are playing for survival. That fact is so simple I can't understand why Dan can't grasp it.

Which brings us to the second false premise: That the double chance is wrong. If something is wrong, then it ought to be demonstrably wrong. That is, you ought to be able to point out where it fails in practice. What I see is a finals system that in ten years:

*Has yet to produce a flag winner from outside the top three teams
*Has only twice produced a grand finallist outside of the top three
*In 5 out of 10 cases - including the past three years in a row - has had 1 vs 2 in the Grand Final.
*Only twice has seen a team outside the top four made the Prelims.

Why would you even think about changing a finals system with that sort of consistency? There's enough variety to suggest a team finishing 3rd has a shot at it, or that a team finishing 4th might make the last day; but it generally produces a winner from the top two. That's as it should be.

 

[Dan26]

No, you are wrong. St Kilda & Geelong DID get the double chance as did all top 4 sides.

So, St.Kilda got a double chance did they? So, after losing they got a second chance, did they? I must have missed that.

Last time I checked, because they were so good, they DEFEATED Collingwood, and the team that wasn't good enough to win (that being Collingwood) got the second chance.

St.Kilda was eliminated after one loss. And they almost were in the Prelim too.

And I still maintain that your system of knockout all the way is GROSSLY unfair to the top finishers. there would seriously be no point in aiming for top 4 top 2 under that system.

How is it unfair?

The top teams have a mathematically better chance than the lower teams.

Is the NFL system unfair? New Orelans face knockout tomorrow. They finished top. But they are playing a team who played the week before, while they themselves have had a week off. That's the advantage you play for.

Let's go through why you think the two system are unfair to the top teams:

Under the first final 9, 1st, 2nd and 3rd all get a week off. 4,5,6,7,8,9 don't. 1,2,3 get to host the winners of the other three games. Seems like a very fair and advantageous position to be in. How is that unfair??? Because it's knockout? Umm, can't 1st and 2nd be out after one loss under the current final-8 anyway???

Under the second final-9 1st gets to play 9th. If they win, they go straight through to a knockout Prelim. That's a better advantage than what 1st get now in the final-8!

In the current final-8, 1st go straight through to a knockout Prelim if they win (same thing) BUT they have to beat 4th to do it. That's harder.

In that final-9, sure they face elimination, but the trade off is an easier match. Is it better to face elimination against 9th than to face 4th but have a second chance if you lose? It's a trade off. You face elimination, but you have an easier opponent to beat to get to the Preliminary Final.

there would seriously be no point in aiming for top 4 top 2 under that system.

Worst. Comment. Ever.

So, in the NFL, there is no point aiming for 1st and 2nd seed is there, according to you? Is that what you'e saying? Did you even SEE the probabilties I posted. I put tem there for you to SEE so that you could SEE that there is a mathemtaical advantage for the top teams, particularly the minor-premier in the first system.

 

[RogerC]

Something else to keep in mind is that Dan doesn't like finals at all. He's on record as saying he'd rather see the flag awarded to the minor premiers, and having an FA Cup style knockout comp post-season.

This thread is further evidence that he wants to screw up the finals system until it becomes unworkable.

 

[dmc333]

I appreciate you've got a bit of time on your hands, Dan, but no one wants a final 9.