why play footy for 5 months just to eliminate 8 clubs?
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Two Final-9's. Which do you prefer?
- Thread starter Dan26
- Start date
- Tagged users None
why play footy for 5 months just to eliminate 8 clubs?
- Thread starter
- #80
What are the reasons. I'm not saying the system should be used but what are the reasons?
The second system:
- gives the top 4 a mathetmatical advantage over 5th and 6th
- gives 5th and 6th a better mathematical chance than 7th
- gives 7th a better mathemtical chance than 8th
- gives 8th a betetr mathematical chance than 9th.
- still has two Preliminary Finals
- allows the top seeded team in the Prelims (after their week off) to play a team who played thw week before, giving that top seeded a team an advantage. The other prelim is played between two teams who both have a week off and both have the same advantage
- total knockout, no double chance.
That's seven positive aspects.
What are the negatvie aspects? Eight finals as opposed to the current 9? Yes, I suppose that's a financial negative but it's only one less match. One. Big deal. If anything, total knckout over 8 games will generate bigger crowds than the current final 8 where the first week of the finals has often produced disappointing attendances.
Yes I'm sure that final in 2008 between the Swans and Kangas that drew 19,000 was a huge boost to the AFL's coffers.
Heaven foribid if that final wasn't played that season and only 8 finals were played that year instead of 9. How would the AFL have got by? Ditto for the 36,000 who saw the Hawks-Crows Elimination Final in '07
Ditto for the 25,000 who saw the Kangas-Port final in '05
Ditto for the 33,000 who saw the Bris-Saints final in '04
Ditto for the 33,000 who saw the Port-Swans final in '03
Ditto for the 27,000 that saw Port-Ess in 2002
Ditto for the 32,000 that saw Hawks-Swans in 2001
Ditto for the 25,000 that saw Lions-Dogs in 2000
Ditto for the 31,000 that saw Kangas-Port in 1999
Yes, if those finals hadn't been played and the AFL hadn't received the HUGE finances on offer from those massive crowds (i'e only 8 finals had been played instead of 9) I don't know how the AFL would have financially been able to cope.
The reality is that playing 8 finals as opposed to 9 won't make a rats ass of difference.
So it's easier for everyone whose used to the current system, it could just be a final 10, with week 1 the top 6 have it off, with matches:
7x10, 8x9 at 7 and 8's home ground.
Loser's out, winners become 7 and 8 in the current system.
Keeping it simple in this way fulfills the AFL's goals - more money from more finals and fans of teams 9 and 10 thinking happy thoughts about being in the finals (even though no club outside the top 4 is yet to win a flag with the current final 8).
However, more importantly any final 10 that gives the top 6 teams the week off, turns it into a Clayton's final 6 system. Sure teams 7 - 10 are still in it, but most of the time the team with the week off wins. A win-win, for finals purity and the almighty dollar - unless you're particularly pig-headed.
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
Malthouse has said for years that 50% of clubs making the finals promotes mediocrity.
A final 8 in an 18 team comp is still too many - though it does keep the interest in the middle of the table for the last month
- Oct 7, 2008
- 9,702
- 42
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- GWS, NA Roosters, ATL Falcons
- Banned
- #85
looks like my post got completely ignored.
I beleive it is better than that in the OP though, so just to re-iterate my idea for a final 9 (even though I dont want 1, I just felt I had to put some sort of counter arguement up instead of just criticising a top 9 as bullshit)
I beleive it is better than that in the OP though, so just to re-iterate my idea for a final 9 (even though I dont want 1, I just felt I had to put some sort of counter arguement up instead of just criticising a top 9 as bullshit)
- Mar 2, 2007
- 43,265
- 62,161
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Cowboys, Packers, Scorchers
^Any system that has 1st and 2nd meeting in week 2 gets a no from me.
We should be aiming to keep them apart until the GF. The drama of the top 2 teams (or any teams) meeting in the GF is diminished if they've already played each other during the finals.
We should be aiming to keep them apart until the GF. The drama of the top 2 teams (or any teams) meeting in the GF is diminished if they've already played each other during the finals.
I agree with the original poster in that I think double-chances are boring and a system without them would be more exciting/better. I'm surprised how many of you are nuthugging the current system and refuse to listen/think about alternatives.
Once the last 4 rounds of the World Cup start, should Brazil get a second-chance if they are knocked out? World Cup fever is so infectious because its a knock-out and every game is critical.
Tennis tournaments - Should Federer get another go if he's knocked out in the first round? I mean, he's the number one seed damnit he's earned it all year!
NFL - as stated by the OP, they run a true knockout system while still giving advantages (week off, home stadium) to those who have earned it. Same with NBA.
Compared to true knockout systems, the AFL's current Final 8 is unexciting. Which are the most exciting games pre-Grand Final? They are the Preliminary/Elimination finals. You cannot argue you find qualifying finals more exciting. They are easily the most boring because they mean the least.
I don't even like the final 8, personally I'd have a final 6.
Semi finals:
->#1 & #2 have a week off
->#3 plays 6, #4 plays #5
Preliminary finals:
->#1 plays winner of #3 & 6
-> #2 plays winner of #4 & 5
Grand Final:
-> Winners of prelims
Whatever the system, I am wholly opposed to two things: 50% of the competition making the finals & second-chances. I also give props to the OP for arguing in the face of ignorance.
Once the last 4 rounds of the World Cup start, should Brazil get a second-chance if they are knocked out? World Cup fever is so infectious because its a knock-out and every game is critical.
Tennis tournaments - Should Federer get another go if he's knocked out in the first round? I mean, he's the number one seed damnit he's earned it all year!
NFL - as stated by the OP, they run a true knockout system while still giving advantages (week off, home stadium) to those who have earned it. Same with NBA.
Compared to true knockout systems, the AFL's current Final 8 is unexciting. Which are the most exciting games pre-Grand Final? They are the Preliminary/Elimination finals. You cannot argue you find qualifying finals more exciting. They are easily the most boring because they mean the least.
I don't even like the final 8, personally I'd have a final 6.
Semi finals:
->#1 & #2 have a week off
->#3 plays 6, #4 plays #5
Preliminary finals:
->#1 plays winner of #3 & 6
-> #2 plays winner of #4 & 5
Grand Final:
-> Winners of prelims
Whatever the system, I am wholly opposed to two things: 50% of the competition making the finals & second-chances. I also give props to the OP for arguing in the face of ignorance.
Tarkyn_24
Okeydoke7 is [redacted]
- Dec 23, 2006
- 53,759
- 76,625
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I actually like the second final nine system. It makes sense.
Though really, I'd prefer a final 8, with 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 -> losers eliminate, no double chance
Highest ranked winner v lowest ranked winner -> loser eliminated
2nd highest ranked winner vs 2nd lowest ranked winner -> loser eliminated
Grand Final
Though the AFL would never go for this because it runs on $$$ and you'd be losing two finals. Although this would allow either a second bye week or an extra game every season...
Though really, I'd prefer a final 8, with 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 -> losers eliminate, no double chance
Highest ranked winner v lowest ranked winner -> loser eliminated
2nd highest ranked winner vs 2nd lowest ranked winner -> loser eliminated
Grand Final
Though the AFL would never go for this because it runs on $$$ and you'd be losing two finals. Although this would allow either a second bye week or an extra game every season...
I disagree totally with this statement:
"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"
Any contestable issue has two components. The first component is a subjective one "what are the objectives of trying to achieve and what weighting do we put on these objectives". The second component is an objective one " how do we best achieve these objectives given there various weightings".
The reason controversial issues are so hard to solve is due to different values and prejudices that make it very difficult to reconcile and achieve consensus on the first component
What makes it almost impossible is opinionated fools who have some cognitive flaw which means they are incapable of separating out what is subjective from what is objective.
There is no objective reasoning in the conclusion that the double chance is an "awful and unacceptable"
I personally believe that the current system has worked remarkably well in achieving what I believe to be the important objectives of
1. ensuring that the best teams throughout the season are rewarded in the finals series
2. ensuring the best teams at the right time of the year are likely to be the ones winning the premiership.
3. ensuring that the premier likely has to beat the 2nd to fourth best teams on the way to the premiership
4. ensuring that finals matches are between equally matched teams
My take on any of the final 9, knockout series mentioned here are that none of them meet any of the objectives here as well as the current system
having some absolute, emotional attachment to a hatred of the double chance (as if this McIntire chap was satan incarnate who inflicted some diabolical double-chance system on God's game with some kind of hellish spite!), leaves you incapable of contributing rationally to what is really a subjective debate.
Like any ideology, it leaves you in a delusional state of mind that convinces you that anyone who disagrees is close minded and doesn't have your "vision" and it manifests in writing that is full of emotionally charged adjectives like "awful" and "unacceptable" to support what is ultimately are very subjective point of view
And these childish references to the World Cup, as if it is analogous to an AFL season, contribute nothing
Obviously the "double chance" reduces the stakes in the qualifying finals as it doesn't mean death if you lose. To suggest the stakes aren't enormous anyway requires an inability to assess dispassionately, the qualifying finals of the last decade
"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"
Any contestable issue has two components. The first component is a subjective one "what are the objectives of trying to achieve and what weighting do we put on these objectives". The second component is an objective one " how do we best achieve these objectives given there various weightings".
The reason controversial issues are so hard to solve is due to different values and prejudices that make it very difficult to reconcile and achieve consensus on the first component
What makes it almost impossible is opinionated fools who have some cognitive flaw which means they are incapable of separating out what is subjective from what is objective.
There is no objective reasoning in the conclusion that the double chance is an "awful and unacceptable"
I personally believe that the current system has worked remarkably well in achieving what I believe to be the important objectives of
1. ensuring that the best teams throughout the season are rewarded in the finals series
2. ensuring the best teams at the right time of the year are likely to be the ones winning the premiership.
3. ensuring that the premier likely has to beat the 2nd to fourth best teams on the way to the premiership
4. ensuring that finals matches are between equally matched teams
My take on any of the final 9, knockout series mentioned here are that none of them meet any of the objectives here as well as the current system
having some absolute, emotional attachment to a hatred of the double chance (as if this McIntire chap was satan incarnate who inflicted some diabolical double-chance system on God's game with some kind of hellish spite!), leaves you incapable of contributing rationally to what is really a subjective debate.
Like any ideology, it leaves you in a delusional state of mind that convinces you that anyone who disagrees is close minded and doesn't have your "vision" and it manifests in writing that is full of emotionally charged adjectives like "awful" and "unacceptable" to support what is ultimately are very subjective point of view
And these childish references to the World Cup, as if it is analogous to an AFL season, contribute nothing
Obviously the "double chance" reduces the stakes in the qualifying finals as it doesn't mean death if you lose. To suggest the stakes aren't enormous anyway requires an inability to assess dispassionately, the qualifying finals of the last decade
- Thread starter
- #90
Your system has a flaw that means it can't be used.
You have St.Kilda and Geelong meeting in week 2.
Which is a problem in itself because the top two seeds shouldn't meet before the Grand Final. The idea is to "build up" to this meeting.
But the main problem is that their meeting in week 2 is meaningless. Both teams, regardless of whether they win or lose go to a Preliminary Final. It's essentially a meaningless match. What's the point of either team trying? They might as well rest all their players because the loser advances to the next week, just as the winner does.
- Thread starter
- #91
You mean other than totally going against the entire ideology of what finals are all about - performing on the day.
You don't need a double chance to do reward the top teams Chaz. Let's nip that argument in the bud right there.
You don't need a double chance for this either. As long as the system is fair and the teams are seeded, then it's more likely than not the higher seeds will perform better. The NFL being a perfect example.
The premier shouldn't be meeting the 4th best team in the first week. That match-up should be saved for the preliminary Final. The top team deserves an advantage. If there are 8 teams in the play-offs obviously the top team should get to play 8th - that's the advantage they play for.
But you want them to play the top teams so that they "can beat the 2nd to 4th teams on their way to the premiership"
Well, obviously they're going to have to beat the "2nd to 4th" teams if those are the teams who are forced in front of them. They have no choice! Who gets the advanatge of playing 8th? Oh that's right, 5th.
Under the older more flawed final-8 used from 1994-1999 (the one where 6th could receive a second chance) the one good thing was the reward for finishing top. 1st got to play 8th and 1st had a 6-0 record.
Yes, you heard right, 1st had a 6-0 record against 8th. Since 2000, when 1st has been pitted against 4th, their record is 6-4. From 2002 -2006 it was 1-4.
Would you rather have a near 100% chance of winning in the first week against 8th (even if facing knockout) or a 60% chance of beating 4th? I know what I'd take.
1st shouldn't have to play the other top 4 teams until at least the Preliminary Finals. They earnt the right to play the lower seeds. That's how seeding works. It's the whole point. Im staggered you can't see that.
Why should 1st play a risky "more evenly matched" opponent first up?????
Why should they play a team (4th) who they have a 60% chance of beating, rather than 8th who they have a 100% chance (going by history) of beating?
The further you go into the finals the more evenly matched the match-ups become. Having a evenly matched opponent for the minor-premiers first up destroys any advantage they are supposed to have, according to the seedings.
The stakes aren't enourmous.
Mathematically, the four teams in the Qualifying finals have an 18.75% chance of winning the premiership each.
The winner of the Quailfying Finals sees their chances go up massively (sarcasm) from 18.75% to 25.00%
And the loser sees their chances go down the huge amount from 18.75% to 12.5%
So, the winner increases their chances by 6.25% and the loser decreases theirs by 6.25%...... so that's what's at stake - 6.25%.
In fact, the loser, who had to win 3 finals before the match, STILL has to win three finals, the first of which will be a home game against one of 5,6,7,8.
The stakes are not as big for Qualifying Finals. The season is not on the line.
Yes, usually the winner of the Qualifying final goes on to win the Preliminary Final. But that's primarily because they are a better team. Its got very little to do with the extra 6.25% of probability they gained for themselves! The main reason they win the Prelim is simply because they are a better team than their opponent.
In the finals the season SHOULD be on the line. I'm sure you, Chaz, love the excitement of knockout finals. Don't dare tell me you have some soft spot, or some sort of enjoyable stimulation from seeing teams lose and still getting to play. We all love knockout finals. Yes I am speaking for everyone. Would anyone seriously disagree? Speak up.
You know as well as I do that getting a second chance is not the essence of what finals are about.
Re: Build up to Grand Final
The most likely outcome under the current system is for the top two teams to play against each-other in the Grand Final for the first time in the final series. Either this, or at least the two teams that won the qualifying finals winning the preliminary, is the outcome that has eventuated most often under the current system
The second most likely outcome is that two teams that played off in one of the qualifying finals play again in the GF.
The third most likely is that a team from outside the top four makes it through to Grand Final. To do this they have to win their elim and the win two more knock out finals against two top 4 sides (possibly travelling each time). This has never happened but may well at some point. Adelaide last year were perhaps a candidate
The least likely outcome is that the two teams that win the elimination finals go on to make the grand final. This may happen during a particularly cool weather spell in hell.
Of these only second involves teams in GF meeting each-other previously. This has happened three times and 5 of the 6 games were some the best finals of the last decade
The current system has served remarkably well in achieving what i believe to be the important objectives of a final system.
I am a strong believer in not going to a final 9 anyway and certainly not to a silly knockout one that compromises all other objectives because some people have an overblown hangup on the double chance
The most likely outcome under the current system is for the top two teams to play against each-other in the Grand Final for the first time in the final series. Either this, or at least the two teams that won the qualifying finals winning the preliminary, is the outcome that has eventuated most often under the current system
The second most likely outcome is that two teams that played off in one of the qualifying finals play again in the GF.
The third most likely is that a team from outside the top four makes it through to Grand Final. To do this they have to win their elim and the win two more knock out finals against two top 4 sides (possibly travelling each time). This has never happened but may well at some point. Adelaide last year were perhaps a candidate
The least likely outcome is that the two teams that win the elimination finals go on to make the grand final. This may happen during a particularly cool weather spell in hell.
Of these only second involves teams in GF meeting each-other previously. This has happened three times and 5 of the 6 games were some the best finals of the last decade
The current system has served remarkably well in achieving what i believe to be the important objectives of a final system.
I am a strong believer in not going to a final 9 anyway and certainly not to a silly knockout one that compromises all other objectives because some people have an overblown hangup on the double chance
The Falcon Strike
Hall of Famer
The Final 5 generally had the top 2 meeting in week 2 - it isn't exactly unheard of
- Thread starter
- #94
I'm sure a system which was total knockout would also serve those objectives.
Any system, double chances or not, is inevitably going to produce more winners who are 1st and 2nd on the ladder, simply because they are better teams. Just because the current system does that (as any system would) doesn't mean it's a desirable system. We all prefer knockout. I know you do too, without even asking because we ALL love the drama of knockout finals.
I don't necessarily agree with 9 teams in the finals. Eight is fine, although I would prefer the 8 to be knockout. I think we will see ten teams in the finals with the 18 team league similar to the move made by the AFL back in 1994 when they allowed 8 out of 15 to make the finals.
But the reality is that 9/18 is the same as 8/16.
And I take some objection to the final-9's being "silly." I can understand if it was some overly-complicated crap that someone who had no idea what he was talking about had devised. But I know this topic like the back of my hand.
The systems in the opening post are very simple, fair, and follow the basic seeding procedures used in most sports to decide their season champion.
Would they work well in practice? Yes, they would. Does that mean they should be used? Not necessarily. But they WOULD work in practice and they would work well.
- Thread starter
- #95
That's true. And I didn't like that.
There should be a "build-up" to the top 2 meeting. Having the "Grand Final match-up" in the second week of the finals "uses up" that match-up too early.
I understand that mathematically it was fair (just as the current final-8 is mathematically fair) but it is philosophically and ideologically wrong to do that. It's not always about maths - it's about doing the right thing.
You shouldn't take away the build up to the Grand Final by meeting the two best teams two weeks before it. The Final-6 in 1991 was worse. 1st played 2nd in the first week of the finals, while 5th played 6th.
The top teams should always be seeded to meet as late into the finals as possible. You don't put the two tops seeds of the Australian Open Tennis against each other in the first round. They are on opposite sides of the draw where they should be.
Dan26, I've been through this before with you and I'm not interested in doing it again. By "this" I mean arguing with an un-evolved, deluded fool who lacks the most basic logic and self-security levels to have any hope of a reasoned debate.
This includes a complete lack of understanding of what subjectivity is....
Which leads to pathetic claims to authority which make your subjective opinion the only valid opinion....
(...a doosey that one!)
...almost pleading with people who don't share your subjective point of view...
...and finally just telling everyone what they think
Underneath this complete lack of any grasp on the concept of subjectivity is this inferiority complex that manifests in the faux machismo of a keyboard warrior in aggressive shyte like this
and leads to a tedious
Again related to the lack of critical thought that is achieved, in part, through an understanding of subjectivity...you are not capable of assessing evidence you just thrash around desperately looking for "facts" that you then throw out mindlessly in defence of your blind prejudice
You:
1. break up peoples posts and misrepresenting them
2. state obvious points that aren't being debated in a way that implies the other person holds the opposite view
3. repeat points endlessly without any new development and often embodying behaviours one and / or two
Not sure how much these are reflective of the lack of critical thought or the inferiority complex that needs some victoryby any means however they make any reasoned discussion with you impossible and a waste of time (I note I've wasted time on you already, I'm a long way from perfect myself and have a particular weak spot for ideologues and bullies)
Now, I clearly stated in a previous post that the stakes are lower in the qualifying finals than they would otherwise have been if it was a knockout. It follows that they are not ideal, I think though, given the other objectives stated earlier, that there is know way to do it otherwise in a way that better meets all the other objectives.
In a final defence of the current system:
I believe (note: based on my personal weightings on objectives etc) the final eight is a touch excessive for 16 teams but probably adequate for 18 balancing the objectives of maintaining interest and not rewarding mediocrity with a finals birth.
I believe given an unequal draw that the ladder at the end of the year does not adequately "seed" the finalists and so i think the current top 4 bottom four system works better than any alternative I have seen despite having flaws that include:
1) threshold issues around the 4th / 5th spot
2) sometimes under rewarding teams that finish top (or second) several wins ahead or over rewarding sub-standard 4th teams
3) 1 v 3, 2 v 4 problem in the prelim
4) two non-knock out finals at the start of the finals series
Thing is I think these are secondary issues and, based on my preferences, I think the current final 8 system is better than any alternative I've heard of. There is know perfect system.
I believe that, again given my subjective preferences, the current system has empirically proved exemplary.
If I thought that two knockout finals was a satanic evil whose elimination as an objective completely dominated all other objectives than I would no doubt show more of an inclination to some of the knock out systems in this thread
This includes a complete lack of understanding of what subjectivity is....
Which leads to pathetic claims to authority which make your subjective opinion the only valid opinion....
(...a doosey that one!)
...almost pleading with people who don't share your subjective point of view...
...and finally just telling everyone what they think
Underneath this complete lack of any grasp on the concept of subjectivity is this inferiority complex that manifests in the faux machismo of a keyboard warrior in aggressive shyte like this
and leads to a tedious
Again related to the lack of critical thought that is achieved, in part, through an understanding of subjectivity...you are not capable of assessing evidence you just thrash around desperately looking for "facts" that you then throw out mindlessly in defence of your blind prejudice
You:
1. break up peoples posts and misrepresenting them
2. state obvious points that aren't being debated in a way that implies the other person holds the opposite view
3. repeat points endlessly without any new development and often embodying behaviours one and / or two
Not sure how much these are reflective of the lack of critical thought or the inferiority complex that needs some victoryby any means however they make any reasoned discussion with you impossible and a waste of time (I note I've wasted time on you already, I'm a long way from perfect myself and have a particular weak spot for ideologues and bullies)
Now, I clearly stated in a previous post that the stakes are lower in the qualifying finals than they would otherwise have been if it was a knockout. It follows that they are not ideal, I think though, given the other objectives stated earlier, that there is know way to do it otherwise in a way that better meets all the other objectives.
In a final defence of the current system:
I believe (note: based on my personal weightings on objectives etc) the final eight is a touch excessive for 16 teams but probably adequate for 18 balancing the objectives of maintaining interest and not rewarding mediocrity with a finals birth.
I believe given an unequal draw that the ladder at the end of the year does not adequately "seed" the finalists and so i think the current top 4 bottom four system works better than any alternative I have seen despite having flaws that include:
1) threshold issues around the 4th / 5th spot
2) sometimes under rewarding teams that finish top (or second) several wins ahead or over rewarding sub-standard 4th teams
3) 1 v 3, 2 v 4 problem in the prelim
4) two non-knock out finals at the start of the finals series
Thing is I think these are secondary issues and, based on my preferences, I think the current final 8 system is better than any alternative I've heard of. There is know perfect system.
I believe that, again given my subjective preferences, the current system has empirically proved exemplary.
If I thought that two knockout finals was a satanic evil whose elimination as an objective completely dominated all other objectives than I would no doubt show more of an inclination to some of the knock out systems in this thread
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,786
- 4,212
- AFL Club
- Sydney
those stats prove that the AFL's final 8 is a predictable load of shite. year after year, the bulk of games are virtually meaningless in the washup. the whole setup is just an obvious grab for cash.
i know... we can make it 10 clubs when expansion happens
- Banned
- #99
at least with a final 9 richmond will finally get to be in the finals
unless ninthmond turns into tenthmond
unless ninthmond turns into tenthmond
Yianni
Norm Smith Medallist
They should change it so that the team finishing first "nominates" who out of the finalists they want to play so that if they have bunnies among the finalists they can choose to play them no matter where they finished.
Then the second placed team nominates, third, fourth, so on until all the finals are decided.
Would add an extra element of uncertainty and interest to the finals!
Similar threads
