Tarkyn_24
Okeydoke7 is [redacted]
- Dec 23, 2006
- 53,759
- 76,625
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
No offence, but I can't see this system functioning at all. I'd rather finish 9th than 5th in this system.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 8 - 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
No offence, but I can't see this system functioning at all. I'd rather finish 9th than 5th in this system.
And on top of the narrow, flip-a-coin analysis, which rainman26 keeps swinging around mindlessly at everyone, using it like the blunt primitive weapon it is, its actually not true that you can't reward teams on "base-probabilities" in an "all-knockout system"
For instance, with 4 teams you play 3rd v 4th the winner of which plays 2nd, the winner of which plays 1st. three week break for 1st
I actually think the biggest issue with the current finals system is with the scheduling of round 22. It's been said on other forums before, but have a Super Saturday with all 8 games and minimal to no travel. It would have a minor impact on attendances though would obviously be an significant issue for TV.
With a Super Saturday you would no longer have the situation we've had in previous years where the finals scheduling can be impacted all the way through to the Preliminary final, particularly if interstate travel is a major factor.
Did someone mention 6 day break vs. 8 day break? No wonder we were spent by the time we met Geelong...
With a Super Saturday you would no longer have the situation we've had in previous years where the finals scheduling can be impacted all the way through to the Preliminary final, particularly if interstate travel is a major factor.
Did someone mention 6 day break vs. 8 day break? No wonder we were spent by the time we met Geelong...
Yes, I did mention that anomaly regarding 5th (or 3rd or 4th) having a good chance to be knocked out after Week 1 while 2 of 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th are guaranteed to play on in Week 2.
Here's a new version that does remove that anomaly, while hopefully not opening any others.
FINAL 9
Week 1
QE Final
2nd v 9th
Qualifying Final
3rd v 4th
1st Elimination Final
5th v 8th
2nd Elimination Final
6th v 7th
Bye
1st gets a valuable week off and gets to host a relatively easy opponent in Week 2.
Now there are a four different scenarios that can transpire from here based on what 1st and 2nd do in their first respective finals.
Scenario 1: If 1st and 2nd win.
Week 2
1st Semi Final
1st v Winner of 2nd Elimination Final
1st wins
2nd Semi Final
Loser of Qualifying Final v Winner of 1st Elimination Final
Week 3
1st Preliminary Final
1st v Winner of 2nd Semi Final
2nd Preliminary Final
2nd v Winner of Qualifying Final
Scenario 2: If 1st wins but 2nd loses.
Week 2
1st Tri Final
1st v 9th
1st wins
2nd Tri Final
2nd v Winner of 2nd Elimination Final
3rd Tri Final
Loser of Qualifying Final v Winner of 1st Elimiation Final
Week 3
1st Preliminary Final
1st v Winner of 3rd Tri Final
2nd Preliminary Final
Winner of Qualifying Final v Winner of 2nd Tri Final
Scenario 3: If 1st loses but 2nd wins.
Week 2
1st Semi Final
1st v Winner of 2nd Elimination Final
1st loses
2nd Semi Final
Loser of Qualifying Final v Winner of 1st Elimination Final
Week 3
1st Preliminary Final
2nd v Winner of 2nd Semi Final
2nd Preliminary Final
Winner of Qualifying Final v Winner of 1st Semi Final
Scenario 4: If both 1st and 2nd lose, meaning 9th reaches the Preliminary Finals...
Week 2
1st Tri Final
1st v 9th
1st loses
2nd Tri Final
2nd v Winner of 2nd Elimination Final
3rd Tri Final
Loser of Qualifying Final v Winner of 1st Elimiation Final
Week 3
1st Preliminary Final
Winner of Qualifying Final v 9th
2nd Preliminary Final
Winner of 2nd Tri Final v Winner of 3rd Tri Final
...
9 or 10 finals, an extra final resulting if 2nd loses to 9th in the QE Final, so they get a double chance, producing "Tri Finals" in Week 2
3 wins to win Flag
1st - Gets Week 1 off, and hosts 6th, 7th or 9th (easy opponent) in a cutthroat final in Week 2.
2nd - Hosts 9th in Week 1, gets a double chance if they lose.
3rd, 4th - Play eachother in Week 1, but the loser gets a double chance
4 wins to win Flag
5th, 6th, 7th, 8th - Same set up as in the current Final 8.
9th - Need to pull off 2 major upsets in consecutive weeks to make into Week 3's Preliminary Finals, beating 2nd and 1st.
...
Using 2009 Ladder
Week 1
Geelong v Hawthorn - MCG
Western Bulldogs v Collingwood - MCG
Adelaide v Essendon - AAMI Stadium
Brisbane v Carlton - GABBA
Week 2
St.Kilda v Brisbane - MCG
Collingwood v Adelaide - MCG
Week 3
St.Kilda v Collingwood - MCG
Geelong v Western Bulldogs - MCG
Week 4
St.Kilda v Geelong - MCG
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,786
- 4,212
- AFL Club
- Sydney
that isnt a problem with the finals system. that's a simple problem with scheduling.
but once again, all one has to do is look to the US - where the AFL pilfers the bulk of its concepts anyway - with their super sunday in the final week of the regular season, or Europe where all matches in the final round of leagues are even scheduled at the same time so matches and standings which hinge on the results of other matches are not influenced in any way.
the NFL has a flexible final week without a sunday night match pencilled in until it can be determined that a match can be allocated which is not influenced by the results of earlier matches.
such a super saturday or flexible schedule should be adopted for the final week of the AFL regular season to ensure a clean scheduling slate for the 1st week of finals, and so later matches arent influenced adversely by the results of earlier matches.
the tv argument is poor. afterall, these OS leagues also encounter the same issues.
but i guess such a flexible/super schedule would be simply americanising the AFL/or turning the game into something it's not because it's been done the current way for years.
folks need to look at a concept on its merits, and not where it may have originated.
So lets look at the merits of the American set up.
The American set up makes perfect sense given its characteristics and peculiarities. They have 32 teams halved across two conferences and then divided into 4 divisions. An all-knock out structure makes perfect sense for them, with the best performing 2 teams in each conference getting the first week off, and the best two teams from each conference that didn't top their division getting a "wild card entry". Ultimately the winner of each conference plays off in the superbowl. Given the evolution of the competition, the number of teams, the geographic spread etc etc it seams like the current set up is a good way of doing it.
The AFL is one league of 16 teams, that play out an unequal draw that roughly establishes a hierarchy based on performance over the year (note does not provide adequately for a robust "seeding"). The relative longish season compared to the NFL, (and the lack of relegation of European football) means that we need a larger finals set up than otherwise to maintain interest. However the nature of our game means that lopsided contests are arguably more of a bore than other codes. The current finals allows for more teams to make it but we are largely spared of matches between premiership contenders and teams that basically finished smack bang in the middle. It ensures:
-all finals matches tend to be between evenly matched teams (between 1-4 spots apart on the ladder)
-the contenders tend to have to be tested against all the other contenders (roughly the top 4) to win the premiership (some may have played only one match during the season against all other contenders)
-that 5 of the 9 finals matches are between the premiership contenders (using the top 4 as a rough rule of thumb of premiership contenders)
In terms of the last round of the season, what they are doing this year is an improvement and perhaps the best we can hope for. In a battle between the dollar and the integrity of the competition, the integrity has always lost out in our game. Tis a shame, but it doesn't mean all else is wrong
Falchoon
Brownlow Medallist
- Feb 15, 2002
- 29,801
- 11,025
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Bluestar Airlines, Anacott Steel
The NFL has one glaring weakness, should the two best teams be from the same conference they can't meet in the ultimate decider.
Cheers Fadge, but I reckon you're just saying that cos we're both Collingwood supporters....
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,786
- 4,212
- AFL Club
- Sydney
i reckon the crux of this whole thing comes down to what Dan's saying. There are 22 rounds & 5 months in the regular season for teams to achieve a seeding;
the repercussions for losing in the regular season are impounded in the finals seedings;
the premiership is ultimately decided in a play-off;
the double-chance system allows certain clubs the inconsistency of a 'day-off', at a time and within a series where the emphasis should be on winning - BEST TEAM ON THE DAY - and progressing to the next phase.
Unfortunately, the harshness of Dan26s approach has probably galvanised those against his view, and also, fence sitters, against his thoughts on the subject. and many others are quickly dismissive, giving the issue little thought, simply because it's been done a certain way in the past.
you make the comment re the inadequacies of the AFL regular season (a subject for a whole other thread) in deriving an accurate picture of finals seeding, yet support the distinct segregation between a 4th seed and a 5th seed and the great difference in the journey which the current finals system allows, even though there might not be a great difference between the performance of the two teams throughout the year.
i agree with your comment regarding the nature of Australian Football and the ugliness of blow-out matches in the sport. they're not a great advertisement for the game at a time where the great aspects of the game must be highlighted. on the flip-side tho, i think the finals system ends up being repetitive as it generally just ends up being a tournament for the top 4 with a mid-series 'repecharge' for the losers of wk 1. further to this, you admit that just under half the matches will virtually have no impact on the premiership. im of the same view. what is the point of them then?
i dont totally agree with either of Dan's 'final 9' models. but i do support the 'basic' principle of playoffs all the way through. if i had to choose one of his two models, it would definitaley be the 1st. i support the theory of each phase of the series to be a progression from the following one. hence, have lower seeds playoff in the the 1st phase, introduce the top seeds in the subsequent phase, and advance in a tournament-style setup where the absolute emphasis is on winning the match to progress.
Ive considered the imperfections of the national competition structure, i.e., the number of teams from victoria, and it's impact on neutralising home advantages in the finals between Vic teams. nonetheless, the underlying fact remains.........the premiership is decided in a playoff. and in this match itself, an interstate top seed will also always have to travel to play in melbourne, possibly against a lower seeded victorian team.
the punishment for losing within the current (and previous) finals models is inconsistent. just because it has been this way for years doesnt mean that it is correct.
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,786
- 4,212
- AFL Club
- Sydney
that's because each conference has it's own series. it's a league structure issue, not a post-season model issue.
nonetheless, they will probably still meet along the way in the conference championship game.............and the team that loses is rightly eliminated from the series.
Though Dan's approach wouldn't have helped had he put forward a decent proposal, the bottom line is that none of the models presented have any merit whatsoever. As the multitude of flaws have already been pointed out, I won't go into that.
Please do not belittle the intelligence of the numerous supporters of the current finals system. If someone came up with a better model I would be the first one to congratulate them. I, for one, can't. Nor has anyone on this thread to date. In fact, they haven't got anywhere near it.
The legislators saw the error of their ways with the top 6 model that had 3rd playing 6th in the first week, as well a the top 8 model that had 1st play 8th in the first week. They now have an extremely good model that works. The results of the last 10 years are testiment to that. Were Brisbane not worthy premiers in 2003? Sydney in 2005? West Coast in 2006?
Exactly
Assuming the opponents of the alternatives to the current system have not given in some thought or we are too dumb to understand the proposals is simply wrong. Every alternative presented so far is worse that the current 8.
In fact the 8 will be improved when there is 18 clubs as it will be harder to get into. I think the biggest weakness of the current 8 is that half the league make the finals, its is too many clubs.
JohnnyC
Draftee
I'm astounded at the stubbornness presented by Dan. These ideas are terrible and the double chance is a great part of finals football. Perfect the way it is, and it will work for 18 teams, and even 20 teams.
I think a final 8 with 20 teams will be bang on right for the finals (if we ever get 20 teams). To make the 8 a team will need to be well better than average. No more making the finals with less than 11 wins out of 22 and a percentage below 100. Fantastic.
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,786
- 4,212
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Exactly
Assuming the opponents of the alternatives to the current system have not given in some thought or we are too dumb to understand the proposals is simply wrong. Every alternative presented so far is worse that the current 8.
In fact the 8 will be improved when there is 18 clubs as it will be harder to get into. I think the biggest weakness of the current 8 is that half the league make the finals, its is too many clubs.
im not stating that all supporters of the old NRL final 8 model cant think for themselves. just that some people who are open and might be swayed by a good argument might be put out by Dan's style.
but at the same time, it's rare to have a debate on BF where people consider both the pros and cons of alternatives to come up with an opinion. it's almost always the pros of their own supported view, and the cons of the other with any other approach considered weak.
and the number of teams participating in the final series (in addition to more finals = more $$$) is a compromise for the flawed structure of the regular season, i.e., certain teams play each other twice and others once yet all teams are compared to each other within a single ladder for qualification to the post season. this will continue with an 18-team comp unless there is an overhaul of the regular season structure. so an increase in participants isnt beyond the realms of reality.
mcgarnacle
Norm Smith Medallist
- Dec 2, 2003
- 9,786
- 4,212
- AFL Club
- Sydney
the mcintyre 6 was actually modified to a 3 v 6 & 4 vs 5 elimination format from the 3 vs 4; 5 vs 6 of the original mcintyre 6 because of the anomaly that 3rd & 4th seeded teams had a tougher match than the 5th seed.
and whether or not those teams are worthy premiers is beside the point. each of those teams lost at a specific time of the finals where they were a beneficiary of the double-chance, and then subsequently went on to win the GF playoff against the team that they were defeated by in the 1st week. where was COLs (2003), WCs (2005), & SYDs (2006) 2nd shot? the wk 2 bye under these circumstances is not equivalent to a 2nd chance........particularly in a grand final. it's the type of inconsistency that's rife in this comp, such as claims that the neutrality of home advantage for vic clubs against vic opposition is countered by the disadvantage of interstate teams travel.
this finals model, and every other one which has incorporated the double chance since the page-mcintyre 4 was introduced, promotes an inconsistent application of the concept.
McGarnarcle, I clearly set out what I believed to be flaws in the current system earlier in the thread, including the threash-hold issue between 4th and 5th. The system isn't perfect, just a hell of a lot better than any of these knockout systems suggested here.
Dan is a jerk, you are right, but it is an insult to suggest that just cos we see some loser try to shout down and abuse anyone who disagrees with him is going to make us all unthinkingly take an opposing position. He completely lacks critical thinking capabilities but at the same time he has this hyper inflated conception of his own intellect. He posts flimsy rubbish and then attacks anyone who start poking their head and their limbs through the numerous, gaping wholes in his arguments. He encourages people who dislike bullying and ideologues to want to slap him around, but he has zero impact on our beliefs
Its also insulting to suggest that people prefer the current system (first employed by the NRL who switched to our old final 8 system, but evolved over decades more) are just ignorantly and unthinkingly attached to tradition. It is as offensive as saying that all who want to change to a knock-out system are just goo-brained cultural cringers who want "play-offs" based on "seeds" like the americans do
Of course the bye isn't "equivalent" to a second chance - it's just the alternative that is being played for in a QF - it's actually much better than a second chance to make the prelim as the away team!
That's the problem with this double chance talk - why assume that an unused double chance to make the prelim means that you should be able to lose later in the finals series? There's no reason why a "second chance" needs to be a generic right that is maintained till the end! Perhaps it is inconsisten to have it at one stage, but not another, but by that logic it is inconsistent to have a finals series at all.
In reality, the double chance is being given way too much emphasis. The structure of the system is more along the lines of the 3v4 -> winner v 2 -> winner v 1 concept mentioned earlier, but with an extra twist in the first week, so that instead of a whole lot of byes (a "bad" idea for several reasons), the top four play each other for the right to enter the series in week 3 rather than 2. Yes, the matches are no longer sudden death finals, but from that point of view they are they simply add to a good system without any real disadvantages.
- Thread starter
- #171
This is a problem with the current system. To win the flag the top team often has to beat 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Why does the top team have to play other top teams so early?
Wouldn't you, if your team was on top, prefer to play 8th in a knockut match instead of 4th in a "double chance" match? Sure you face elimination if you lose, but the advantage is an "easier" match? History says YES you'd prefer it because since the final-8 changed at the start of the 2000 season 1st has a 6-4 record against 4th, while they 1st had a 6-0 record against 8th from 1994-1999. I know who I'd rather play - 8th obviously.
And that's really the problem. 1st playing 4th first up is too early. That match up shouldn't happen until the Preliminary Finals, and even if the top 4 teams all make it, 1st CANNOT play 4th in a Preliminary Final as they should.
1st should earn the right to have an easier match first up, hence the point of being seeded number one. If they only have a 6/10 chance of winning against 4th, then why the hell are they playing them first up?
You don't want matches between premiership contenders until later in the finals. That's the whole point. You build up, and build up to the bigger matches, rather than pit them against each other first up when one of them HAS to lose, therefore one of them HAS to be disadvantaged compared to the other because they were playing each other and one of them HAD to lose.
As for my final-9's. Constructing a knockout final-9 is the most challenging of all the "numbers." Nine being an odd number and all. But the three I have proposed all work, and are all fair. There are no other realistic ways to construct an 8-match final-nine over 4 weeks.
But as I've said before, I think we will inevitably see a final-10 (knockout of course) ... eventually. I don't think we will actually see a final-9, but if we did see a final-9 any of the three systems I've constructed would work.
One thing is for sure.. whatever system gets used, be in 6,9,10, 12 whatever....straight knockout is the only proper way to conduct a finals series.
Or to phrase it differently, a finals series like the current one that concludes with a knockout Grand Final, and before that a knockout Preliminary Final should be knockout all the way through given that it concludes with these knockout games anyway, and those very knockout games are the essence of what finals are about (performing on the day and not getting a second chance.)
Some people aere just so used to the way things have always been, they have no ability to think about how it should be.
Think about it - if we had been using pure knockout for 100 years would you "all of a sudden" propose a double chance final-8? Would you really? No, I didn't think so.
That's really what you've got to do - distance yourself from everything you've known and construct what you think would be the best system if you had no knowledge of any history. Don't be a slave to history.
Bump a 6 day old thread with another nonsense essay, where 90% of posters have dismissed you as a fool, and provide not one new argument?
Go away Rainman26
Go away Rainman26
Eastern Rangers
2015 Worsfold Medalist - Rowen Powell
Top 8
Bottom 10.
Top eight finish has more prestige than ever before. Infact the sides that finishes 6-8 will be above par sides, unlike Carlton and Essendon in 2009 that just looked out of place in the finals. Something you should be to play finals imo.
Bottom 10.
Top eight finish has more prestige than ever before. Infact the sides that finishes 6-8 will be above par sides, unlike Carlton and Essendon in 2009 that just looked out of place in the finals. Something you should be to play finals imo.
- Thread starter
- #175
First of all I havn't even been ON the internet in 6 days, so obviously I'm going to have my say.
And as for you... well you havn't provided any input in this thread at all except criticising me for coming up with ideas. What have you done? Nothing. As usual I might add. Mr Status Quo himself.
And you still havn't answered my question:
If we had been using pure knockout for 100 years would you "all of a sudden" propose a double chance final-8? Would you "really?"
I think the truth is that you only know the systems we have always used, and are incapable of accepting change. I'm sure if the knockout had been used for 100 years you'd be steadfast in your desire to not change to this "stupid new double chance system".. am I right?
Similar threads
