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

[Rourke]

Four-week finals series with 10 teams.
Week 1
Major Qualifying Final A v B. Winner gets a week off, loser gets second chance at home
Minor Qualifying Final C v D. Winner gets weakest opponent in Week 2 (could even allow them to choose). Loser gets second chance but plays away
Elimination Finals E v J, F v I, G v H. Losers out. Highest-ranked winner gets hosting rights against loser of C v D

Week 2 (Assuming higher seeds won)
A bye
C v G (Qualifying Final winner gets the lowest-ranked Elimination Final winner)
B v F (next lowest)
E v D (highest-ranked Elimination Final winner retains hosting rights)
All losers out

Preliminary Finals
A v winner C/G
B/F v E/D. Can't get a repeat of Week 1

Grand Final
Two Preliminary Final winners

 

[ibd77]

Not sure if the AFL would go for this but this would be a pretty straight forward finals setup with qualifying finals, elimination finals and 1 week breaks for highest ranking teams in week 1 & week 3.

 

[Dan26]

WEEK 1
1st elimination final: 7 v 10
2nd elimination Final: 8 v 9

WEEK 2
1st Semi Final: 1st vs lowest ranked Elimination final winner (1 v 8)
2nd Semi Final: 2nd vs highest ranked Elimination final winner (2 v 7)
3rd Semi Final : 3 v 6
4th Semi Final : 4 v 5

WEEK 3
1st Preliminary Final: highest ranked team vs lowest ranked team (1 v 4)
2nd Preliminary Final: 2nd-highest ranked team vs 2nd lowest ranked team (2 v 3)

WEEK 4
Grand Final (1 v 2)


None of the top-6 can be eliminated before the second week so, no different to how the top-4 are currently treated under the current system, where they can currently only be eliminated from the second week onwards

There are five sets of advantages:

• 9th-10th - have to win 4 finals, all away from home.
• 7th-8th - have to win 4 finals, but get the first one at home
• 5th-6th - have to win 3 finals. Home finals depend on other results
• 3rd-4th - have to win 3 finals, the first one at home
• 1st-2nd - have to win 3 finals, all at home until the Grand Final but unlike 3rd,4th,5th and 6th, their first final has the advantage of being against a team who played the week before.

NO DOUBLE CHANCES (good riddance)

Finals are about performing on the day, not getting second chances. This system encapsulates everything finals should be, whilst giving the AFL less dead rubbers in the last few weeks of the season.

 

[BF Tiger]

If a ten team finals series comes into play watch the AFL f*ck it up for years and years, and just when they get it right they'll introduce wildcard weekend (again).

 

[ibd77]

Probably an unpopular approach but use something similar to the Formula 1 style qualifying system.

26 week season including finals but excluding byes.
19 weeks home & away minor round games. Scheduled at the start of the season.
7 weeks major round games to determine finalists with highest ranking teams having home games.
3 of those weeks you eliminate a portion of the bottom table from the competition each week.
Then the final 4 weeks, you use the standard top 8 finals series format including the double chance and weeks breaks.
No pre-finals bye round.

 

[L_W_P]

20 teams.
40 rounds.

Play everyone twice + two bye weeks. Team on top of the ladder is the Premier.

All games streamed on Amazon Prime. Except for Collingwood who sign an exclusive deal with Optus.

Simultainiously run an In Season, single elimination tournament with the Grand Final being held at the MCG each year to honour that contract. The Grand Final starts at 4:40pm, Abu Dahbi time, as it will be sponsored by the Saudi Sports Commission.

A crossover event called the AFL Royal Rumble will be held every January to determine draft order. Each team sends two players to the ring. First player out gets pick 40 for his team, then 39, 38 etc until pick 1. If both of your players make the top two you get picks 1+2. Great way for rebuilding clubs to rebound up the ladder!

Gonna be huge!

 

[Cam Payne]

There will be no equity in AFL until the big 4 vfl clubs automatically qualify for finals.

 

[Hawksboy72]

20 teams.
40 rounds.

Play everyone twice + two bye weeks. Team on top of the ladder is the Premier.

All games streamed on Amazon Prime. Except for Collingwood who sign an exclusive deal with Optus.

Simultainiously run an In Season, single elimination tournament with the Grand Final being held at the MCG each year to honour that contract. The Grand Final starts at 4:40pm, Abu Dahbi time, as it will be sponsored by the Saudi Sports Commission.

A crossover event called the AFL Royal Rumble will be held every January to determine draft order. Each team sends two players to the ring. First player out gets pick 40 for his team, then 39, 38 etc until pick 1. If both of your players make the top two you get picks 1+2. Great way for rebuilding clubs to rebound up the ladder!

Gonna be huge!

Highest ranked 6 players by champion data to face off in a elimination chamber event to decide the Brownlow Medallist.

On SM-S918B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Johnny Bananas]

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

Is #1 rewarded significantly more than #2? They both get home advantage through to the PFs if they keep winning. Other than that, the advantage is playing #3 rather than #4 in the first week, but it's entirely possible the team finishing #4 is a less preferable matchup than #3. It could be drawback rather than a blessing to finish #1 instead of #2.

My solution would be, don't have predetermined matchups based on finishing position. As soon as the season ends, the #1 team has the choice of which other finals team it wants to play in week 1, and in what time slot. Then #2 gets to pick. And so on until all fixtures and time slots are filled. Then after each week of finals concludes, the highest team due to play that week gets to pick their opponent and time slot, then the next highest, and so on, until the GF.

This could be done using the current system once they get to 8 teams, or it could allow the league to have straight knockout finals while also having a clear advantage for finishing higher up the ladder.

 

[Chiz]

Is #1 rewarded significantly more than #2? They both get home advantage through to the PFs if they keep winning. Other than that, the advantage is playing #3 rather than #4 in the first week, but it's entirely possible the team finishing #4 is a less preferable matchup than #3. It could be drawback rather than a blessing to finish #1 instead of #2.

The real issue with the current system is that #1 gets the harder match up in PF - assuming #1 and #2 both win their QF and results go to the home team, the PFs are 1v3 and 2v4. If #3 defeats #2 (as often happens), you get 1v2 and 3v4, which makes even less sense.

 

[Walshawk]

Four-week finals series with 10 teams.
Week 1
Major Qualifying Final A v B. Winner gets a week off, loser gets second chance at home
Minor Qualifying Final C v D. Winner gets weakest opponent in Week 2 (could even allow them to choose). Loser gets second chance but plays away
Elimination Finals E v J, F v I, G v H. Losers out. Highest-ranked winner gets hosting rights against loser of C v D

Week 2 (Assuming higher seeds won)
A bye
C v G (Qualifying Final winner gets the lowest-ranked Elimination Final winner)
B v F (next lowest)
E v D (highest-ranked Elimination Final winner retains hosting rights)
All losers out

Preliminary Finals
A v winner C/G
B/F v E/D. Can't get a repeat of Week 1

Grand Final
Two Preliminary Final winners

This is excellent. Maybe unfair on team D no to get a home final but E get two.

What if you combined your system with the 1990s one.

Week 1
Qual
A v B winner week off. Loser hosts a semi
Elims
C v J
D v I
E v H
F v G
Lowest ranked elim losers eliminated. Highest ranked loser stays alive
Loser of qual and two highest ranked winners host semis

Week 2
Semis
B v G
C v F
D v E

Week 3 Qual winner plays lowest ranked semi winner (so can’t be a repeat of week 1)
Prelims
A v D
B v C

GF prelim winners.

 

[Clark G]

The real issue with the current system is that #1 gets the harder match up in PF - assuming #1 and #2 both win their QF and results go to the home team, the PFs are 1v3 and 2v4. If #3 defeats #2 (as often happens), you get 1v2 and 3v4, which makes even less sense.

That isn’t avoidable unless you want the PFs to be the same match ups as the QFs. Having a no double chance finals system could remove the problem.

 

[CURVE]

The NRL had a top 10 finals system back in 1998, the first season of the ARL/Super League merger when there were still 20 teams in the Competition..

The Canterbury Bulldogs finished the regular season in 9th but made it into the Grand Final by winning 4 sudden death finals before losing the GF to the Broncos.

 

[Chiz]

That isn’t avoidable unless you want the PFs to be the same match ups as the QFs. Having a no double chance finals system could remove the problem.

Clearly the AFL thinks repeated match-ups should be avoided (apart from the GF) that they are prepared to compromise on the integrity of the finals system.

A knockout system is the ONLY way to remove the problem.

 

[SC_Power]

10 match finals series means
- incl the Grand Final, 9 knockout matches minimum.

How many teams get a double chance? 4? 5?
- if 5, then that’s another 4 non-elimination games minimum.

That takes us to 13.
Already getting out of hand.
Not forgetting that you want the top teams have a distinct advantage.
Maybe a conference system might get us there if we ever decide on one. But knowing how the AFL run things…….groan.
Idea deleted.

(I’m pretty sure Mark Williams reckoned that the best finals series that most rewarded the top teams was a final 13 system. No bulls**t. Can’t find it online but it was nuts.).

 

[Chiz]

10 match finals series means
How many teams get a double chance?

Zero.

9 finals, same as what we have now. Adequately rewards top sides.

 

[steve-o]

(I’m pretty sure Mark Williams reckoned that the best finals series that most rewarded the top teams was a final 13 system. No bulls**t. Can’t find it online but it was nuts.).

I'd love it if you could find it so I can compare with mine; I've ALSO discovered a 13-team straight knockout works incredibly well, and want to see if he's got the same reasoning. After the first round it's very much about rest advantages.

EDIT: Obviously 13 is too many for the AFL, but the argument I'm crafting is for gridiron, not footy.

 

[Fire]

I'm not advocating for it, but you could do a super 5s round.

Two pools of five teams, playing a 4 match round robin over 5 weeks where everyone gets a week off. You still keep advantage for doing well in the HnA season as each team starts with the results of the H&A match between them. In the case where there were two matches, then the average is taken. (i.e, if a team wins both then they get 4 points with the average %. If the games are split, then they each get 2 points and the average %.)


If you finish first then you are likely to have a better starting position than the clubs below you, but if not... well you were minnow bashing so sucks to be you. At least you get the home advantage, as whoever finished higher will host. So first and second will get 4 home matches, and 9 and 10 will get 4 away matches.

Then Prelim finals, where first of one pool hosts the second in the other.

The then Grand final.

Total of 23 games over 7 weeks. CONTENT.

 

[PizzaPie]

Just scrap the H&A season and start the finals straight away. Every team plays 23 finals against teams fixtured by the AFL, and at the end of the finals series the eight teams with the most finals wins are ranked in advance of a four-week series of grand finals, with two teams eliminated in each of the first three weeks of grand finals. The great grand final is played in the fourth week between the two remaining grand final teams, with the winning team awarded the grand premiership.

 

[Coolangatta]

This is excellent. Maybe unfair on team D no to get a home final but E get two.

What if you combined your system with the 1990s one.

Week 1
Qual
A v B winner week off. Loser hosts a semi
Elims
C v J
D v I
E v H
F v G
Lowest ranked elim losers eliminated. Highest ranked loser stays alive
Loser of qual and two highest ranked winners host semis

Week 2
Semis
B v G
C v F
D v E

Week 3 Qual winner plays lowest ranked semi winner (so can’t be a repeat of week 1)
Prelims
A v D
B v C

GF prelim winners.

This is WAY better than Wildcard Round.

 

[steve-o]

This is WAY better than Wildcard Round.

Scroll back and see the format I bumped this thread with (3 second chance teams) - I think it got lost with the normal morass of internet comments. Maybe I could merge that with this and come up with a viable "lucky loser" scenario...having 3 semifinals and a bye in week 2 is really good.

Keeping the finals at 4 weeks should be priority - the finals gap week is going to be needed for H&A soon, not a wild card round.

EDIT: I've been brainstorming the "lucky loser" format for 10 teams, and usually running into the same problem: someone (usually 3rd or 4th) has no clear incentive to win their first game. The most they get is a guarantee not to have to play the team coming off of a bye.

I've considered uncommon Week 1 matchups (1 v 10, 2 v 4, 3 v 9, etc), but there's usually a single game that can throw incentives off badly if it's an upset.

 

[braddsey]

I think with the concussion protocols these days, the finals are too far in favour of the teams in the top-4 that with the 1st qualifying final. The advantage of getting the week off going into the prelim (which qualifies them for the grand-final) is too big. I also don't like the current structure with the pre-finals bye (which won't change with a wildcard round). So assuming a "wild-card" round looks like a reality, AFL should take the opportunity to really change up the finals.

So, I made an attempt:

• Give 1 & 2 first week off, call it an automatic win. No bye for anyone else.
• 3 to 6 get double chance in week-1.
• 7 to 10 elimination.

I like:

• for anyone to win the GF, they need to win at least 3 in a row.
• it makes the wildcard round less irrelevant. If the wildcard round is simply slotted in before the current finals structure for 7&8 place in the finals, there's zero chance those teams go much further.

(and apologies if this has already been posted... i'm visual and couldn't work them all out without a picture!)

 

[9874123]

I think with the concussion protocols these days, the finals are too far in favour of the teams in the top-4 that with the 1st qualifying final. The advantage of getting the week off going into the prelim (which qualifies them for the grand-final) is too big. I also don't like the current structure with the pre-finals bye (which won't change with a wildcard round). So assuming a "wild-card" round looks like a reality, AFL should take the opportunity to really change up the finals.

So, I made an attempt:

• Give 1 & 2 first week off, call it an automatic win. No bye for anyone else.
• 3 to 6 get double chance in week-1.
• 7 to 10 elimination.

I like:

• for anyone to win the GF, they need to win at least 3 in a row.
• it makes the wildcard round less irrelevant. If the wildcard round is simply slotted in before the current finals structure for 7&8 place in the finals, there's zero chance those teams go much further.

View attachment 2092490

(and apologies if this has already been posted... i'm visual and couldn't work them all out without a picture!)

Who is the home team for the PFs? I don't like the idea of 3rd on the ladder winning two finals and then playing away to a team that finished 5th and has lost a game.

 

[braddsey]

Who is the home team for the PFs? I don't like the idea of 3rd on the ladder winning two finals and then playing away to a team that finished 5th and has lost a game.

Home team is always the first listed team.

...and your point is fair. I considered which of SF1/SF2 vs SF3/SF4 is the mix. It always works if the higher rated team wins... but breaks if they don't.

 

[sydney_gws]

I can do a 9 team finals.
1,2,3 get week off , 4 v9, 5v8, 6v7 in elimination.
Then 1vs 6,2vs5, 3 vs4.
Highest ranked winner gets week offband progressea to GF, other 2 winners play in preliminary.

So every game is an Elimination, problem is only 8 games. If higher ranked teams win in second week,
1 only needs to win 2 games for the flag,
2 and 3 need three wins for the flag.
Might advantage 1 too much.

An 11 team final would be 1 to 5 a bye, 6 to 11 play elimination.
Then the next week, all games elimination
1vs8, 2vs7, 3vs6 4vs5.
Then week 3 is the preliminaries, week 4 GF.

So top 4 get best advantage, 5 a pretty good one too.
Problem is if you have byes in week 1, can't have a pre finals bye and hence teams will rest players ( especially if you are 6 to 11 and cabr mathematically drop or rise an important position).