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

[Herne Hill Hammer]

Play it like the old top 5 finals series except with 10 teams it would got for 5 instead of 4 weeks. Top two are guaranteed the first week off and all of the top 6 get a double chance.

The two sides of the draw are :

1, 4, 6, 8 and 10

2, 3, 5, 7 and 9

First week 1 and 2 have a week off. (old qualifying and elimination final weekend)

Two qualifying finals, 4 v 6 and 3 v 5. Two winners play 1 and 2 the next week, two losers player the winners of the elimination finals.

Two elimination finals, 8 v 10 and 7 v 9. Two losers out, two winners move to next week

Second week, (old 1st and 2nd semi final weekend)

1 v winner of 4 v 6, 2 v winner of 3 v 5. The winners of these games have a week off go through to the preliminary finals. (the old grand final weekend)

Loser of 4 v 6 v winner of 8 v 10

Loser of 3 v 5 v winner of 7 v 9

Third week (old preliminary week)

Can't be bothered putting who plays who up, it's pretty easy to work out.

Fourth week (old grand final weekend)

Preliminary final weekend.

Fifth week

Grand final weekend.

 

[underthestars]

16 teams make finals - straight knockout. 1 v 16, 2 v 17, etc.
Minor premier gets an advantage over runner up, as runnerup will play third if no upsets, whilst first plays fourth.
all sudden death so every game will be vital.
the current system is almost a top four round robin and gives no advantage at all to the minor prem - if anything they are disadvantaged having to play the higher team in the sudden death prelim.

 

[Inferno]

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

You're probably closest to the mark, but the bolded match is a nothing match to the point that you may as well give them both a bye.

 

[LicoriceAllsorts]

You're probably closest to the mark, but the bolded match is a nothing match to the point that you may as well give them both a bye.

True, but it could be the difference between playing 5th and 9th

 

[madmug]

20 teams?

Does Tassie get a gig yet?

 

[longsuffreosupp]

7 v 10
8 v 9

winners go into 7 & 8 spots in the current final 8.

 

[Fyfetheknife]

Finals should be a challenge to get into, not 50/50. Winning half your games should not get any team into finals in any code.

 

[Fyfetheknife]

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

Best one of the lot. Only 2 more games then in the current 8 team system.

 

[Inferno]

True, but it could be the difference between playing 5th and 9th

Yeah but by that logic the winner would be worse off if both 9th and 10th won. Let's face it at most the underdog would win maybe 25% of the time. The off chance of somewhat of an advantage isn't worth going flat out for.

And if an interstate team finishes 5th and a team from your state finishes 6th it may well be advantageous to lose.

 

[Blackas87]

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)

So the second qualifying final doesn't really matter if you win or lose, you're playing the following week, its a dead game.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Yeah but by that logic the winner would be worse off if both 9th and 10th won. Let's face it at most the underdog would win maybe 25% of the time. The off chance of somewhat of an advantage isn't worth going flat out for.

And if an interstate team finishes 5th and a team from your state finishes 6th it may well be advantageous to lose.

Thems the breaks. Maybe the winner could choose.

If there was an upset in the elim finals, then seeding might be the way to go.

 

[Inferno]

Thems the breaks. Maybe the winner could choose.

If there was an upset in the elim finals, then seeding might be the way to go.

Not sure if a team picking who they get to play next is fair. Besides that, "themes the breaks" doesn't really fix the fact that we'd have a final played with preseason like intensity (the priority being fitness and avoiding injury rather than winning).

 

[FootyJunkie]

I reckon it should be kept as a Final 8 in the event the league expands to 20 sides.

Doing a single elimination Final 10 with the Top 6 all getting a week off is a bit much. 6th should have the same advantage as 1st? In fact, you could even say 6th may even have a slightly better advantage given that it knows it will play 3rd in Week 2 and have two weeks to prepare while 1st only knows its Week 2 opponent after Week 1 finishes, although it would be a lower ranked side.

A single elimination Final 10 still produces the same number of finals matches as the current Final 8, but the idea is that it would reduce late season dead rubbers with lower sides trying to get a crack at 10th.
This would be the AFL's argument.

Doing a 5 week Final 10 where 7th-10th playing elimination matches is a bit silly given the current history of 5th-8th in the current Final 8.
Last year alone was a minor miracle regarding North and Port. Over a 15 year span, its still only 4 Elimination Finalists making Prelims, and 0 making a GF.

Doing two Final 5s is a bit better, but do you really want it to go 5 weeks? AFL would have to let go of doing the GF replay and decide the flag on the day, in that case.

Doing a Final 12 (a la the NFL) for a 24 team league would be a bit better as only the Top 4 share the same advantage, similar to the current system. But we are far off from a 24 team league.

Keep the Final 8, but I know the AFL will be tempted to fiddle.

 

[D-N-R]

At 20 teams I would have 2 divisions and they would play each team in their division H&A for a total of 18 games.

Bottom two teams in the first division (9 & 10) relegated for next season, top two teams in the second division (1 & 2) promoted.

The second division has an elimination play-off in the first week of finals for the teams finishing 5-8. (8 vs 5, 7 vs 6).

The first division has a top 8 playoff as per normal. The losers of the first elimination final have to play the winners of the second division elimination play-off. Winners either move up a division or stay in the first division.

This way, there is the possibility of 2-4 teams moving divisions each year, more finals games for teams vying for promotion. Downside, the season is shorter and teams from the two divisions may not meet.

If teams could handle playing 27 games in a season plus finals (your division H&A and once against the other teams, then traditional rivalries would be possible each year). That would require much bigger playing lists or maybe tweaking the game to only have 15 per side, thus increasing the pool of players and teams having the opportunity to rotate players through the squad.

The final 8 series is nicely balanced for me. It gives teams that finish higher advantages like a week off and playing at home. It eliminates the chance of a top team having a bad week and being booted from the finals after the first round like what can happen with 1 vs 8, 2 vs 7, etc.

 

[Sherrinator]

Would be nice if Uni students would do something that genuinely benefits society.

 

[BF Tiger]

With 20 teams running around even I might get a game. There would've some seriously poor AFL players out there.

But I think the two groups of five, split into 1,4,5,8,9 and 2,3,6,7,10.

 

[FootyJunkie]

With 20 teams running around even I might get a game. There would've some seriously poor AFL players out there.

But I think the two groups of five, split into 1,4,5,8,9 and 2,3,6,7,10.

Repeat match ups are the evil with having two separate Final 5 systems.

A cross over could be applied in Week 3 to avoid repeat match ups from Week 1.

However, repeat match ups may not be avoidable in Week 4 (Prelims).
It would really depend on previous results.

The two sides that have the bye in Week 3 should be ranked 1st and 2nd accordingly, with the Week 3 winners ranked 3rd and 4th accordingly.

An attempt would be made to apply 1st v 4th and 2nd v 3rd for Week 4.

If this causes repeat match ups and if by switching 3rd and 4th would eliminate or reduce the repeat match ups, then 1st v 3rd and 2nd v 4th would be applied instead.

Winners play off in the GF.

Again, if this were implemented, the AFL will have to let go of the GF replay. Can't expect the final series to last 6 weeks and piss off racing.

 

[ioppolo]

20 teams?

Does Tassie get a gig yet?

Darwin and a third WA team.

 

[Riccardo11]

The AFL are always more likely to value money over logic, and an extra final or two, no matter how pointless, will always be a fair bet over keeping it the way it is.

Though it's not common, it does happen where a team that barely makes the finals nearly wins the whole thing, like last year in the NRL, the 7th placed finisher made it all the way to the decider, though they got flogged.

 

[madmug]

Darwin and a third WA team.

Maybe.

I wonder what longer term plans AFL do have. I mean they toddle off to the USA every 5 minutes & look at other pro sports. I wonder if they see an advantage in a USA/European style finals system. ie a home & away game matches, conferences, 20 teams etc

I know the players want a bigger slice of the $, but what if we have another 2 clubs which would be another 72 full time players. Would that be better for the games future?

 

[ioppolo]

Maybe.

I wonder what longer term plans AFL do have. I mean they toddle off to the USA every 5 minutes & look at other pro sports. I wonder if they see an advantage in a USA/European style finals system. ie a home & away game matches, conferences, 20 teams etc

I know the players want a bigger slice of the $, but what if we have another 2 clubs which would be another 72 full time players. Would that be better for the games future?

Australia's population is growing rapidly. Another decade or so, it's a real possibility.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Not sure if a team picking who they get to play next is fair. Besides that, "themes the breaks" doesn't really fix the fact that we'd have a final played with preseason like intensity (the priority being fitness and avoiding injury rather than winning).

Ok, just play that final on the friday night so they have to try.

 

[steve-o]

Found it - sorry I'm almost a decade late.

Top 3 get the double chance, and there's a semifinal in Week 2 that only gets played if there's a big upset in Week 1.

Prelims & Eliminators:
A - 2nd vs. 3rd (double chance)
B - 1st vs. 10th (double chance for 1st only)
C - 4th vs. 9th
D - 5th vs. 8th
E - 6th vs. 7th

Semifinals:
BYE - winner A & winner B (if 1st won)
F - (if necessary) 1st vs. second-lowest seed remaining
G - loser A vs. lowest seed remaining
H - remaining two

Prelims:
J - 1st vs. loser A (if possible); or winner A vs. 10th (if possible); or highest seed vs. lowest seed (all other scenarios)
K - remaining two

Grand Final:
L - remaining two

---

What it means on the ladder:

Minor Premiers get the double chance, faces 10th seed to secure the bye, and can't play a team coming off a bye.
2nd and 3rd also get the double chance, but must face each other to secure it. 2nd gets the extra home final.
4th and 5th don't have to face a Top 3 team until the prelims. 4th gets the extra home final.
6th gets a home final.
7th and 8th are just glad to be in and not be:
9th, who probably has to beat two Top 3 teams to reach the Grand Final, but are just glad they're not:
10th, who has to beat ALL the Top 3 teams to reach the Grand Final and guaranteed to face less rest in the Prelims.

From a design standpoint, this is a stronger incentive for being the Minor Premiers, and there's a little more stratification down the bracket than the current 8-team system. You're only taking away one double-chance spot, and the 10th seed is really a very hard road to the GF, you don't just want to eke into the finals.

Game J (the wacky preliminary final) is complicated, but it's doing ALL the heavy lifting to generate the crossover and still give the minor premiers the easiest path available. For simplicity you can replace it with "1st seed vs. second-lowest seed remaining," but that has the same seeding issues as the current system.

---

I think the AFL could probably adopt this with the current 18-team league and not have a huge issue, but it's definitely geared towards when the 19th (and 20th, and 21st, and 22nd) teams join the competition. If anyone is still reading this after 9+ years and interested in the format, please let me know.

 

[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.

Called it 9 years ago.

Long overdue

 

[Clark G]

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!

Not impossible according to the Western Bulldogs of 2016!