Under a 20 team league, construct a 10 team final series

[deano the hawka]

Hey everyone,
I'm doing a current research project on AFL for Uni and I was chatting with a project partner about a hypothetical 20 team league and what the final structure would be. We were considering adding a Pre-Elimination round between 7/10 and 8/9 but got stuck with that. So I wanted to ask the public and see what hypothetical ideas there are around this area.

So the question is "How do you construct a 10 team final series for a 20 team competition?"

Thoughts?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

"How do you construct a 10 team final series for a 20 team competition?"

You don't.

 

[Big_Birdy]

Split into two at the start.

1,3,5,7,9 and 2,4,6,8,10

Then play out both sides like the SANFL (can't be bothered typing that out here so just look up their final system)

Winner of each side plays the GF.

In this scenario, top 6 gets the double chance. Top 2 automatically advance a week. bottom 4 play off in elimination.

The final 5 system is the best around in terms of fairness IMO. But obviously the AFL has too many sides.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Split into two at the start.

1,3,5,7,9 and 2,4,6,8,10

Then play out both sides like the SANFL (can't be bothered typing that out here so just look up their final system)

Winner of each side plays the GF.

In this scenario, top 6 gets the double chance. Top 2 automatically advance a week. bottom 4 play off in elimination.

The final 5 system is the best around in terms of fairness IMO. But obviously the AFL has too many sides.

So you're better off finishing 2nd than 1st? And better 4th than 3rd? And so on?

 

[Borderline]

Why not just leave it at 8?

 

[TubbsFarquhar]

So you're better off finishing 2nd than 1st? And better 4th than 3rd? And so on?

Same advantage.

Group A:
First week:
QF: 3 vs 5
EF: 7 vs 9
1 gets the week off

Second week:
SF1: 1 vs QF winner
SF2: QF loser vs EF winner

Third week:
PF: SF1 loser vs SF2 winner

Fourth week:
Play-Off: SF1 winner vs PF winner - winner to GF

Group B:
QF: 4 vs 6
EF: 8 vs 10
2 gets the week off

Second week:
SF1: 2 vs QF winner
SF2: QF loser vs EF winner

Third week:
PF: SF1 loser vs SF2 winner

Fourth week:
Play-Off: SF1 winner vs PF winner - winner to GF

Not a fan of it myself and would much prefer it to be left at 8 if the league ever does expand to 20 teams. The current system works fine and 9th and 10th would just make up the numbers. Yet I can see it happening because, you know, money.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

Week 1:

1st Qualifying Final: 1 vs. 2 (Winner goes straight to 1st Preliminary Final, loser plays winner of 3rd Elimination Final)
2nd Qualifying Final: 3 vs. 4 (Winner plays winner of 2nd Elimination Final, loser plays winner of 1st Elimination Final)

1st Elimination Final: 5 vs. 10 (Loser is eliminated)
2nd Elimination Final: 6 vs. 9 (Loser is eliminated)
3rd Elimination Final: 7 vs. 8 (Loser is eliminated)


Week 2:

Bye: Team 1

1st Semi-Final: 2 vs. 7 (Winner plays winner of 2nd Semi-Final)
2nd Semi-Final: 3 vs. 6 (Winner plays winner of 1st Semi-Final)
3rd Semi-Final: 4 vs. 5 (Winner plays winner of 1st Qualifying Final)


Week 3:

1st Preliminary Final: 1 vs. 4 (Winner plays winner of 2nd Preliminary Final)
2nd Preliminary Final: 2 vs. 3 (Winner plays winner of 1st Preliminary Final)


Week 4:

Grand Final: 1 vs. 2

 

[Big_Birdy]

So you're better off finishing 2nd than 1st? And better 4th than 3rd? And so on?

Yeah sort of. I thought of that, and tried to sort it out, and then I went screw it. It's a start.

1,4,5,8,10 and 2,3,6,7,9 works better I guess.

 

[WSmith]

It should only ever be top 4. 10 teams?? Lets make quality finals. So many crap semis and eliminations. Its embarrassing.
This way the top 2 are advantaged.

Week ONE
Brownlow MEDAL, Awards etc

Week TWO
Qualifying Final: 1 v 2
SeminFinal: 3 v 4

WEEK THREE
Preliminary FINAL 2 v 3

Week FOUR
GRAND FINAL: 1 v 2

 

[WSmith]

and we see the top 2 play each other twice so no excuses.

 

[Damon_3388]

I understand the hypothetical, but I feel like an 8-team finals series in an 18-team comp is too much as it is. 10-team finals series in a 20-team comp is madness, and even more of a reward/prestige for mediocrity than the current system.

A 6-team finals series, with the top 2 placed teams getting a bye in the first week, and each final being an eliminator, would be ideal IMO.

 

[The Swans Blog]

Why are you all doing his uni work for him?!?!?!?!!!

 

[Peacock]

Week 1:
7v10, 8v9 knockout (winners become 7th and 8th)

Week 2:
1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 knockout

Week 3e
1v4, 2v3 knock out

Week 4
1v2

I started a thread on the main board once about this.
This is the best system and I wish the AFL would implement it NOW even with an 18 team competition.
Every game is cut-throat.
Under the current system it is IMPOSSIBLE to win from 5th or below.
The advantage given to the team that finished 4th vs 5th is far too big and is completely unfair based on one position which might be %.

You can /close thread now because you won't find a better finals series than this!

 

[Mitchell Madness]

So you're better off finishing 2nd than 1st? And better 4th than 3rd? And so on?

That's how it is now

Assuming results go as predicted, top spot plays the higher ranked team in wk3

 

[master bate]

Wild card weekend - 7v10, 8v9 for the last 2 spots.

Then 4 straight weeks of knock out finals.

In this modern age of fitness and recovery the week off is the biggest manipulator of finals results, it all but guarantees the winners of the qualifying finals will get to the grand final and by doing so has significantly undermined the value of the second and third week of finals.

 

[SwampCreature]

Top 10 is too many.

20-team season: everybody plays each other once. 19 rounds. It's fair.

Final 8 stays the same. It's fair. Is effectively a final four anyway if you look through the records (something like 4 5-8 teams have ever played a PF, none a GF) with bonus games for TV $.

Supplement lost TV games from regular season with knockout preseason (yes, there is a way with 20 teams that would work, over 5 weeks). Legislate teams have to try. Fines or draft picks if they don't. Balance that with incentive: big $.

Also state of origin, because **** it, why not

 

[Sydney Bloods]

you keep it at 8 and introduce a knock out FA style comp to keep the shit teams keen.

 

[SBYM]

Anyone interested in writing a chapter of my thesis?

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Current system is a beauty. Each position is rewarded more the higher you go.

Knock out from start to finish is ****ing stupid. Why even have a home and away season? Teams must be rewarded by finishing higher and by playing all 24 weeks, otherwise the top teams will manage their sides a month out leading to a dull final month.

If you want 10 (and I think 10 would be a good idea even for 18 teams) do this:

Week 1
7 v 10 elim
8 v 9 elim

Week 2 onwards
Same as it is now.

If they ever adopt a final 10 this is how they will go, like it or not.

 

[DAWESOME!!]

OP - do your own homework.

 

[im_a_lazy_sod]

Just split it in to two 10 team divisions

 

[Billy ray]

Hand in a blank piece of paper with the words
"Just leave the ****en thing alone!"

And then sit back and wait for an A+.

 

[deano the hawka]

Ahaha I should state that we've finished the assignment, but we were brainstorming ideas for top 10 and couldn't find an idea that fit into a 4 week schedule. You're not doing my homework for me don't worry. But really interesting ideas regardless

 

[Sydney Bloods]

Anyone interested in writing a chapter of my thesis?

It was the best of times, It was the blurst of times.

 

[SBYM]

It was the best of times, It was the blurst of times.

The BLURST of times?!?!? You stupid monkey!!!!