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

[Mr Meeseeks]

Its pretty simple and doesn't need to be so complicated. Apologies if someone has posted this, I tried reading through the thread but it got very tiresome....

Top 10. Five weeks.
------------------------------------------
Week 1
1 & 2 week off

qualifying finals
3v6
4v5 winners play 1 & 2 with d-chance, losers play winners of elims

elim finals
7v10
8v9
------------------------------------------
Week 2 you will be left with a top 8 that will follow the current system which I believe is very fair and rewards ladder position justly.
------------------------------------------
1 and 2 get a week off and a double chance
7,8,9,10 have to win all games to get to granny
Still have the two prelims (its the best week of the year anyway)

You could argue the first week isnt necessary, why not leave it as a top 8? And you could be right, but I also believe that while it might not stop tanking, a top 10 will decrease tanking as teams will still have a chance to make the finals deep into the season.



Booya. Done.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

^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.

I agree 100%.

1 and 2 must not play in the finals (presuming they keep winning of course)

 

[Dan26]

I believe that, again given my subjective preferences, the current system has empirically proved exemplary.

You keep alluding to this. Why?

Why has it proved exemplary? Because more often than not the best two teams make and/or win the Grand Final? Is that why?

Wouldn't ANY system do this? Wouldn't a knockout system, also see the top two teams have more success than the rest?

If we had been using a knockout system for 100 years and someone suggested changing to this new double chance final-8, do you think you'd accept it? Honestly?

If you're going to have a double chance final-8 which has an "exemplary" record (according to you) of fairness and allowing the best teams to figure prominantly in the finals, and by contrast, you have a knockout finals system which does the same thing...... then why not just have the knockout finals system?

After all, when I suggested that YOU like knockout (whch as an assumption) and so did everyone else (another assumption) you didn't refute it. It's a pretty reasonable assumption that we all enjoy the drama of knockout finals. So, lets use a system that plays to the very ideology of what finals are supposed to be about.

By the way I don't think the current final-8 has proved exemplary as far as "fairness" goes either. 1st has to play 4th in the first week - a tough match-up that should be saved for the Preliminay Final, and as stated earlier has won only 6 times out of 10.

They (1st) are getting a more difficult match than they deserve, and are losing that match about half the time. It's a Preliminary Final match-up two weeks early, which in my opinion is wrong.

As for the rest of your personal insults... I'll just stick to the topic as I always do. You should too.

 

[Dan26]

There is another knckout final-9, which I developed which has 2 finals, in the first week, three in the second week, and then two Preliminary Fnals in the third week.

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

WEEK 1
Elimination Final: 1st vs 9th
Elimination Final: 7th vs 8th
Highest placed winner to Preliminary Finals. Lowest placed winner to week 2



WEEK 2
1st Semi Final: (3v6)
2nd Semi Final: (4v5)
3rd Semi Final: 2nd vs lowest seeded Elimination Final winner (2v7)

All three winners to Preliminary Finals.


WEEK 3
Preliminary Final: Of the 4 remaining teams, the highest seed and the lowest seed play off (1v4)
Preliminary Final: Of the 4 remaining teams, the other two seeds play off (2v3)

WEEK 4
Grand Final:Winners of the two preliminary Finals play off. (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 - 12.5%
6th - 12.5%
7th - 9.375%
8th - 9.375%
9th - 6.25%

- if 1st beats 9th, they get a week off in preperation for their home Preliminary Final. They would be the only one of the 4 teams to enjoy that advantage.

- 1st to 6th all need one win to make the Preliminary Final

- if 1st beat 9th as expected, then the winner of 7th and 8th need two wins to get to the Preliminary Finals. The winner of 7th and 8th need one win to make the Preliminary Finals IF 9th best 1st.

- 9th is the only team that is guaranteed to be required to win 2 matches to make the Preliminary Final.

- if 9th beat 1st, then the winner of 7th and 8th goes straigh to the Prelim, but it would be an "away" Preliminary Final as it would be impossible for them to be higher seeded than their opponent.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

You keep alluding to this. Why?

Why has it proved exemplary? Because more often than not the best two teams make and/or win the Grand Final? Is that why?

Wouldn't ANY system do this? Wouldn't a knockout system, also see the top two teams have more success than the rest?

If we had been using a knockout system for 100 years and someone suggested changing to this new double chance final-8, do you think you'd accept it? Honestly?

If you're going to have a double chance final-8 which has an "exemplary" record (according to you) of fairness and allowing the best teams to figure prominantly in the finals, and by contrast, you have a knockout finals system which does the same thing...... then why not just have the knockout finals system?

After all, when I suggested that YOU like knockout (whch as an assumption) and so did everyone else (another assumption) you didn't refute it. It's a pretty reasonable assumption that we all enjoy the drama of knockout finals. So, lets use a system that plays to the very ideology of what finals are supposed to be about.

By the way I don't think the current final-8 has proved exemplary as far as "fairness" goes either. 1st has to play 4th in the first week - a tough match-up that should be saved for the Preliminay Final, and as stated earlier has won only 6 times out of 10.

They (1st) are getting a more difficult match than they deserve, and are losing that match about half the time. It's a Preliminary Final match-up two weeks early, which in my opinion is wrong.

As for the rest of your personal insults... I'll just stick to the topic as I always do. You should too.

I understand what you are saying Dan but you keep saying the system we have which has been in place in every Australian football league forever and a day (well as far back as I know anyway) is wrong?

We have always had elimination finals and qualifying finals.
If you lose an elimination final then you are eliminated.
If you lose a qualifying final that just places you somewhere else in the final system.

What is really so bad about it?

The double chance gives the people what they want to see.
More often than not the best side of the year wins the premiership. The current system that has been there forever allows for some sides in the finals to have an off day and not be eliminated.

Under your system what happens on the day when 8th beats 1st? I don't think it has happened but what if it did? A side that has won probably 6-8 more games in a season is eliminated???

That is not our game. That is for as you refer it as the NFL.
Christ the NBA gives you 3 chances, best of 7???

Why do people always want to change our game? Always looking for quick fixes to problems which are not there.

Its great that you spend time on coming up with idea's and I think its great that you think outside the box. But you also ask for peoples views on your idea's and they give them to you.
Why is it that you feel they need to explain or debate their view with you just because it does not go along with your thoughts?

The current system is fine and has been for many years. The top 4 deserve the opportunity of a double chance if needed in the first 2 weeks.

The crowds are huge and everyone is happy. except you?? Thats your option and you have put up an alternative, the majority just don't agree.

 

[Dan26]

So, in the unlikely event that 9th beat 1st, it would play out like this (winners are in bold) :

WEEK 1
Elimination Final: 1st vs 9th
Elimination Final: 7th vs 8th
Highest placed winner to Preliminary Finals. Lowest placed winner to week 2



WEEK 2
1st Semi Final: (3v6)
2nd Semi Final: (4v5)
3rd Semi Final: 2nd vs lowest seeded Elimination Final winner (2v9)

All three winners to Preliminary Finals.


WEEK 3
Preliminary Final: Of the 4 remaining teams, the highest seed and the lowest seed play off (2v7)
Preliminary Final: Of the 4 remaining teams, the other two seeds play off (3v5)

WEEK 4
Grand Final:Winners of the two preliminary Finals play off. (2v3)

7th cannot play a Preliminary Final at home. It is impossible for them to be higher seeded than their opponent. They can only be the away team.

 

[Bizzaro]

I don't see why there has to be a final 9. The top 8 we have now is perfect so long as teams rightfully get their home games.

Got to have the highest qualifying teams getting a double chance or its crap.

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

- if 9th beat 1st, then the winner of 7th and 8th goes straigh to the Prelim, but it would be an "away" Preliminary Final as it would be impossible for them to be higher seeded than their opponent.

Let me get this straight, all that the winner of 7th/8th has to do is sit at home and watch 9th beat first, and suddenly they are in a Prelim with a weeks rest???!! Come on.

I havent even mentioned you have less finals overall than we have now... How is that going to make more money for the coffers??

Top ten is the way to go

 

[gothecrows]

So much from Dan26 about the NFL system, so I'd just like to point out:

NFL - Top 4 teams guaranteed to play in week 2 of finals (through week off)
AFL - Top 4 teams guaranteed to play in week 2 of finals (through 'double-chance')

Essentially, the same reward is given for the top 4 teams in terms of how far their progress is assured.

NFL - Teams 1-5 in each conference (teams 1-10) have a chance at hosting a prelim
AFL - Teams 1-4 have a chance at hosting a prelim

Personally, I prefer the AFL system, since it ensures that at least 2 of the top 4 teams for the year will be playing in (and hosting) the prelims.

 

[Fadge]

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.

Yet another very simplistic argument from our friend Dan the Man. What you're saying is that the 9th final would be the lowest drawing match of the finals series. Guess what? Wrong again buddy.

Give it up man. You're not getting any support here. If you're an expert on finals fixturing, I'm an expert on alien lifeforms because I read my son a Ben 10 book before he went to bed tonight.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Yet another very simplistic argument from our friend Dan the Man. What you're saying is that the 9th final would be the lowest drawing match of the finals series. Guess what? Wrong again buddy.

Give it up man. You're not getting any support here. If you're an expert on finals fixturing, I'm an expert on alien lifeforms because I read my son a Ben 10 book before he went to bed tonight.

Ha ha, Gold Fadge! A one line dismal of the fool Dan that I wish I was capable of

 

[pjcrows]

I think it will be a final 10 as well.

The higher the number that makes it, the less dead rubber games and use of the word "tanking". The AFL obviously doesnt want to do anything at the bottom end of the ladder to get rid of this.

Anyway, my final 10:

Week 1:
Top 6 week off. All these teams have family/supporter days on the saturday with some open training like Eddie has proposed with all teams having this week off. The buzz before finals is big, and is a good way to get kids and fans to join in, when many may not be able to get to their teams finals game.

7 v 10 and 8 v 9 elimination finals in night games.
A form of "wild card weekend".

Week 2
Highest finishing team gets 7th spot, other winner 8th spot in tennis like Quarter final scenario.

1 v 8, 2 v 7 with 1st and 2nd on opposite sides of draw etc. Qualifying finals.

Week 3:
Winner meet - Preliminary Finals.

Week 4.
GF.

Top 10, 9 games, no double chance. Top 6 have a week off.

They won't have only two games on the first weekend of the finals. The AFL will want to maximise TV coverage.

 

[m0nty]

What are the reasons. I'm not saying the system should be used but what are the reasons?

Okay yes, the AFL would never go for it because it removes one final. That has been pointed out. The second week also kills the momentum of the first. Plus you'd never get TV networks to agree to a second one-final weekend.

I hate the idea of 1 v 9. I don't like 1 v 8 in the NRL, it leads to cheesy results - either it's a walkover that barely raises a ripple of excitement, or it screws up the whole finals balance if the underdog wins. No side who has a double chance should be playing another side who doesn't, imo. A sign of a good system is that both teams in every match have exactly the same outcome from winning each match. Another such sign is that a team's chances are affected only by matches they play, not ones out of their control.

If you're going to have every match be an elimination, why does 4th get the week off? That's a massive advantage.

Any system in which a team in the bottom half of the draw has a chance to bypass week 2 and go straight to a prelim is fatally flawed.

 

[Dan26]

Let me get this straight, all that the winner of 7th/8th has to do is sit at home and watch 9th beat first, and suddenly they are in a Prelim with a weeks rest???!! Come on.

1st - 12.5%
2nd - 12.5%
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 12.5%
5th - 12.5%
6th - 12.5%
7th - 9.375%
8th - 9.375%
9th - 6.25%

7th and 8th chances of winning the premiership are mathematically lower than the top 6. Look at the numbers.

Yes, IF 9th beats first the winners goes to the Prelim. So what? 6th can go straight to the Prelim too. Everyone except 9th can in theoiy.

In fact in a knockout final-8, all 8 teams can go to the Prelim with one win - even 8th. That happens in the NBA Finals.

The final-9 I posted essentially works like this:

- EVERY team except 9th can go to the Prelim with one win.

- 1,2,3,4,5,6 are GUARANTEED to go to the Prelim with one win

- 7th and 8th "could" go to the prelim with one win (but only if 9th beats 1st.) Otherwise they need to win two. They would always be the away team in the Prelim. It is actually impossible for them to host a Prelim.

- 9th is the only team that would have to win 2 matches to get to the Prelim all the time.

The probabilities are the essence of what makes any system fair. If someone who is developing a system does not calculate the probabilities they are not doing their job. And those probabilities assume all matches are 50-50.

Do you think 1st is 50-50 to beat 9th? I don't think so. They are probablity 90-10 to beat 9th, so the unofficial probability for 7th and 8th (assuming 9th only has a 10% chance of beating 1st) are actually 6.875% each, not the 9.375% posted (which assumes 1st is 50-50 to beat 9th.)

I'm not saying it's perfect. I'm not saying it should be implemented. But if it were, it would work, and work well.

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

If we are going to use crowds as a gauge of interest, here are the crowds of qualifying finals under the current system this decade

2009
Geelong v Bulldogs 74700
St kilda v Collingwood 84213

2008
Hawks v bulldogs 76703
Geelong V St Kilda 71, 653

2007
Port V WC 37750
Geelong V Kangas 77630

2006

Adelaide v Freo 42208
WC v Syd 43116

2005
Wc v Sydney 43302
Adelaide v St kilda (FP) 48768

2004

Bris v Saints 33582
Port v Cats 39250

2003
Coll v Bris (MCG Recon) 66092
Port v Sydney 33968

2002
Port v Coll 33131
Bris v Adelaide 31854

2001
Essendon v Richmond 78253
Bris v Port 32380

2000
Essendon v North 68443
Melb v Carlton 75570

Apart from Brisbane and Port finals (earlier in the decade) which may have had something to do with ticket pricing (but were nearly always at least 10% above annual home averages anyway) all these crowds demonstrate a considerable interest in the outcome of the qualifying finals

Every crowd post 2004 is a monster crowd.

The current system, IMO, is brilliant. It balances the commercial / maintaining interest in the season imperatives with a system that best ensures the best teams have to prove themselves against each-other at the business end of the season

The current system is essentially about the top four, providing an eliteness given a 16/18 team competition. Entry into the finals at the lower levels maintains more interest than a smaller number of finalists would, but imbalanced matches are minimalised. Ultimately 5 of the 9 finals are between the top four (apart from the rare and, generally deserved occasions when one of the bottom four gets through to a prelim), the premier has to beat each of the top four in September to win the flag on most occasions.

The current system is not perfect but is the most brilliant given the unique circumstances of our game. Long live the current system!!!

Prelims have much higher stakes than qualifying finals but the whole package is Gold

 

[Falchoon]

I feel Dan's posts would be better received if they contained the words "in my humble opinion"

 

[Dan26]

Okay yes, the AFL would never go for it because it removes one final. That has been pointed out.

You'd have to ask the AFL that. Do you honestly think 8 finals opposed to 9 is "that" much of a difference financially? It wouldn't make a rats ass of difference, in my opinion. So, there are 184 games instead of 185. Big deal.

The AFL have many reason for doing or not doing things. I doubt a reduction in the number of finals by one would be something that would affect the bottom line at all. Hell, most years there is at least one final that gets around 30,000 if not less. Do you think if the Swans-Kangas final in 2008 that drew 19,000 wasn't played (meaning 8 finals instead of 9) that the AFL would have coped financially? Come on.

I hate the idea of 1 v 9. I don't like 1 v 8 in the NRL

1st have earnt the right o play the weakest opponent. Since 2000, 1st has been draw to play 4th (which should be the Preliminary Final match-up) and has only a 6-4 record against them. That itself is a flaw of the system, because the minor-premiers opponent is too difficult. That tough opponent should be saved for later in the finals.

From 1994-1999, 1st had a 6-0 record against 8th. Obviously playing 8th is fairer and works better.

You say you don't like to see 1st play 8th. That's because you like to see the best teams play against each other. Well duh! Don't we all! We all love to see 1st play 2nd in the Grand Final. The problem is if the top teams meet too early, it kills off some of the drama and, more importantly forces one of them to lose, when they should have earnt the right to host the lower seeded teams.

If you're going to have every match be an elimination, why does 4th get the week off? That's a massive advantage.

1st, 2nd, 3rd also get a week off. The only difference is 1,2,3 get their week off in week two while 4th get their week off in week one.

4th is actually disadvantaged compared to 1st, 2nd and 3rd. If the top 4 are all in the Preliminary Finals, 4th will play 1st who will have had a weeks rest. 2nd and 3rd play each other both with a weeks rest. Do you honestly think 4th is advantaged under that situation? Of course not.

Mathematically the top 4 under that system you are talking about all have a 12.5% chance of winning the flag, but the "seeding" puts 4th in a worse position to the top 3.

Why is a week off in the first week more advantageous than a week off in the second, which is directly before the Preliminary Final?

Any system in which a team in the bottom half of the draw has a chance to bypass week 2 and go straight to a prelim is fatally flawed.

That's not a "flaw"... The seeding stipulates that the 4 highest ranked winners go to the Prelims.

If the bottom teams all win, then some teams from the bottom half MUST advance. And that is totally fair. Their chances of winning the flag are mathematically inferior anyway, but if they beat their higher ranked opponents, then they give themselves the opportunity.

Under the system we are talking about, if the top 3 win (1v9, 2v8, 3v7,) then they will be the three teams to advance to the Prelims.

If any of them lose, then the next highest winner will take their place.

So, if, say 3rd lost to 7th, then the winner of 5th and 6th would take their place and go straight to week 3. As they would deserve it too, because 3rd didn't take their chance, so 5th or 6th would be the "next best winner." That's fair.

You can't say the lower teams don't deserve it because if the higher team don't take advanatge of the opportunity presented the next highest winner effectively takes their place, and deserves that place.

So, to say it's not fair is ridiculous. It doesn't mean its the ideal system, but the probabilities stipulate that it is fair and that it would work. There are heaps of systems that would work - it's a matter of finding the best one. I say knockout is clearly the desirable style of system for many reasons.

I would take a guess that you yourself like and enjoy knockout finals, because of the drama they bring. Am I right? Is there even one person who would say they enjoy a Qualifying final more than any knockout final, certainly from the second week on?

What is this obsession with double chances? Last time I checked EVERYONE likes the knockout finals more than the double chance ones.

 

[m0nty]

Dan, your implacable hatred of the double chance has caused you to perform so many mental, mathematical and lingual gymnastics to avoid it that you have lost focus. Talk of percentages and re-seeding makes the whole thing more complicated than it needs to be.

I will repeat this, as you didn't address it: A sign of a good system is that both teams in every match have exactly the same outcome from winning each match. Another such sign is that a team's chances are affected only by matches they play, not ones out of their control.

How about you try just sticking to a system which requires no reseedings, and the path for each team is laid out in stone before they start.

 

[Dan26]

Chaz,

What I will say is that the current final-8 is mathematically fair (1,2,3,4 have an 18.75% chance, 5,6,7,8 have a 6.25% chance)

Every finals system the VFL-AFL has had has been fair. Well, fair in the sense that that probabilities of winning the flag improve the higher on the ladder you are.

The only exception to this was the 1994-1999 system where 3rd entered the finals with a 15.625% chance of winning the flag. If 3rd won (and 1st and 2nd also won) 3rd went into the second week, where their chances went BACK to 12.5%!!!!!!!

Now, THAT is unfair.

But I digress. Apart from that, every system has been mathematically fair.

But this isn't about the mathematics. The AFL would always introduce a system (knockout or not) that offers better probabilities for the higher ranked teams. You can see from my own efforts, that I do the same. That's a given.

No, it's not about the maths. It's about the very ideology that finals are about. Finals are about performing on the day. They are about having your season on the line.

Having a mathematically fair system like the current final-8 (and all my final 9's too) does not mean that current system is true to the essense of what finals should be about.

It's like making a James Bond movie a soppy love story instead of an action film, but it's still a great film as a soppy love story. Whilst it might be a great film, it is against the essence of what a James Bond movie should be. It's not right.

The current system might be fair. But I don't think it's "right"

 

[m0nty]

I agree that 1 v 4 and 2 v3 should be the prelims, thus it makes sense to have the qualifying finals as 1 v 3 and 2 v 4. But it's much of a muchness since if all games go to plan those matches would just get transposed. That's the only minor irritant to the current system I can see.

 

[pacemaker]

No need to change the system at all. Final 8 is fine with 18 clubs approaching

 

[Chaz Pendlebury]

Monty, these are two more "merits" of the current system that I have over looked in my posts in the current thread:

.

A sign of a good system is that both teams in every match have exactly the same outcome from winning each match. Another such sign is that a team's chances are affected only by matches they play, not ones out of their control.

Brilliant system. And, in my humble opinion, only a pathological, irrational hangup of double chances would conclude otherwise.

Our game has the finals series right, given its particular circumstances (note: references to foreign codes as better models tend to either cultural cringes or lack of recognition of the different circumstances and natures of those codes)

In the current system, IMO, the second week of the finals tends to have the least interest. Both these matches are knockouts but they have less significance than the "non-knockout" qualifying finals.

I am even more convinced then when I first contemplated this thread

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

^^^^^

correct

The final 8 we have is just fine. However I am of the school that a 18 team comp probably needs a bigger finals series.

Its pretty clear its nigh on impossible to do it fairly (and simply!) with a final 9.

I am a big fan of a final 10 and five weeks....
- The AFL will love it as an extra week and more games means more money.
- The top two teams get a weeks break before the finals even start.
- As of week 2, we have a system the same as it is now.
- It sticks to the rules Monty has been quoted as stating above.

Aside from the argument it 'dilutes the quality of football' which is a load of rubbish, I cant see any reason this wont work.

Anyone?

 

[DIDAIC0S]

There is another knckout final-9, which I developed which has 2 finals, in the first week, three in the second week, and then two Preliminary Fnals in the third week.

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

WEEK 1
Elimination Final: 1st vs 9th
Elimination Final: 7th vs 8th
Highest placed winner to Preliminary Finals. Lowest placed winner to week 2



WEEK 2
1st Semi Final: (3v6)
2nd Semi Final: (4v5)
3rd Semi Final: 2nd vs lowest seeded Elimination Final winner (2v7)

All three winners to Preliminary Finals.


WEEK 3
Preliminary Final: Of the 4 remaining teams, the highest seed and the lowest seed play off (1v4)
Preliminary Final: Of the 4 remaining teams, the other two seeds play off (2v3)

WEEK 4
Grand Final:Winners of the two preliminary Finals play off. (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 - 12.5%
6th - 12.5%
7th - 9.375%
8th - 9.375%
9th - 6.25%

- if 1st beats 9th, they get a week off in preperation for their home Preliminary Final. They would be the only one of the 4 teams to enjoy that advantage.

- 1st to 6th all need one win to make the Preliminary Final

- if 1st beat 9th as expected, then the winner of 7th and 8th need two wins to get to the Preliminary Finals. The winner of 7th and 8th need one win to make the Preliminary Finals IF 9th best 1st.

- 9th is the only team that is guaranteed to be required to win 2 matches to make the Preliminary Final.

- if 9th beat 1st, then the winner of 7th and 8th goes straigh to the Prelim, but it would be an "away" Preliminary Final as it would be impossible for them to be higher seeded than their opponent.

Ok numnut
The final 6 was stupid
Your final 9's are even stupidier

At the moment any of the top four teams have to win 3 games in a row to win the premiership.

5-8 have to win 4 games in a row

The double chance is in place for when on the off chance that the minor premiers lose to 4th place, ie Port Adelaide 2002, as it would be a travesty if the team that was clearly best, (or second best) was out in the first week of finals.

It's also in place for 3rd and 4th, who have clearly had better seasons than 5-8th but will still have to beat those teams should they lose to 1st and 2nd and win two more games (ie 3 in a row to win the premiership)

Your system is the stupidiest thing (next to the final 6) that I have ever seen!

Oh and by the may you have "developed" a finals system with two games less then the current one with an extra team with your knockout crap, i'm sure the AFL will love it.

 

[jpdixon]

Dan, your ranting about the double chance is nonsense. In the current system, 5-8 have to win two games to make the prelims. The top 4 are rewarded with a double chance to win a single game to make the prelims. They all get the double chance, even if they don't actually have to use the second chance. If you really can't see that a second chance to make the prelim is meaningless when you have successfully used your first chance, think of it as cashing it in for a week off and a home prelim!

There's no reason to say that a double chance only makes sense if it is a double chance to win the flag, that is if it lasts throughout the finals. Sure, you can reward the top 4 without using double chances, but that's not answer to my point, or all the others who have already made it. The double chance isn't illogical, it just doesn't fit with your idea of finals.

As for the old 1v2 in early weeks, it does seem a bit funny in the abstract, but in practice does it really take anything away from the GF build-up. It hasn't been 1v2, but none of the recent times the finalists have met earlier in the finals back up that theory.