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

[Dazzler9]

If the AFL moves to a top ten (which sucks) because of 20 teams (too many), then cut the H&A down to 19 rounds and expand the finals series. Somebody can do the maths but this proposal probably works out to roughly the same number of games so the broadcasters will be happy -

Teams 7-10 Elimination finals. 8 teams remain.

Top team plays lowest team, second top plays second-lowest, etc. BEST OF 3 SERIES!!

Losers knocked out. 4 teams remain.

Repeat. 2 teams remain.

GF.

 

[9874123]

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.

View attachment 2064542

This is my favourite system here so I drew it up to make it easier to visualise. Home team is first, and assumes the higher ranked team wins each week. I like it better than simply adding a 7 v 10, 8 v 9 wildcard weekend because it further benefits teams in the top 2. In the current system, there is a huge difference between finishing 4th and 5th. In this system, the advantages are evened out a little between every 2 position drop.

In this system:
- finishing 2nd is much much better than 3rd
- finishing 4th compared to 5th is basically the difference between finishing 2nd and 3rd in the current system
- finishing 6th rather than 7th is comparable to 4th and 5th in the current system


This system may be a little confusing for the casual fan though.

 

[shammersting]

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!

What I've always thought. 5 weeks is too long for finals, and if top 2 can't beat those bottom teams, they don't deserve 2nd chance. If AFL wants to get super greedy and add extra team could go to 11.
6 v 11
7 v 10
8 v 9

Then do the 1 v 8 etc. week 2 and follow suit. Now I'd hate them to do 12 finalists and 11 too, but I would take 11 finalists if (when) they start getting greedy..

 

[phlogiston]

Some interesting systems in here but if we are having 4 “semi finals” then we should be calling them “quarter finals”.

FWIW, I always thought 5/12 was a good proportion: made finals spots scarce enough that they were worth something. Taking a 5/12 proportion to 20 teams is 8.33, so using the scarcity principle keep it at 8 is my vote.

P

 

[Chiz]

View attachment 2092490

So I'll point out a few flaws:

• 3-6 get a double chance, but 1&2 don't (they get a bye instead, but this seems odd).
• Mathematically, finishing top 2 provides no advantage (not strictly a flaw, but a limitation).
• Winning a QF results in an easier SF than the top two sides. So you could have a paradoxical situation where you have say 6v9, 5v10, 1v4 and 2v3 all playing for elimination.

Given 3v6 and 4v5 are simply reseeding games, why not replace those games with a bye, then play single elimination games with the highest seed playing home against the lowest seed (i.e. 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5) - essentially the same system from week 2, but without the paradoxical situations. Keeps the finals to 4 weeks, 9 games (same as current).

 

[HeHateMe]

This has probably already been proposed by someone else but this is how I would do a final 10.

Week 1 (current bye week)
1 and 2 get the Bye.
3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 has second chance
7 vs 10 and 8 vs 9 is an elimination

Week 2
Now we are down to 8 teams the winners from the second chance games keep the second chance.

1 vs 4 with second chance
2 vs 3 with second chance
6 vs 7 Elimination
5 vs 8 Elimination

Week 3
Finals plays out normally from here. Winners 1 get the bye again the losers vs the winners from the eliminations.

4 vs 6
3 vs 5

Week 4
1 vs 3
2 vs 4

Week 5
1 vs 2

 

[Chiz]

View attachment 2092675

A couple of issues:

• Huge advantage finishing 6th compared to 7th, with 3 paths to the GF (WWW, WLWW, LWWW) compared to one (WWWW) - 1/4 chance of getting through compared to 1/16 (four times the chance).
• Top seed gets a harder PF (similar issue with current system) - PFs should be 1v4, 2v3, but this is compromised to avoid repeated match-ups.

 

[Dan26]

Cmon guys. No double chances. How many times do I have to tell you?

10 teams, 9 finals. Straight knockout. There are just two ways of doing it.

Final-10 number 1:

WEEK ONE
1st elimination final: 5 v 6
2nd elimination final: 4 v 7
3rd elimination Final: 3 v 8
4th elimination final: 2 v 9
5th elimination final: 1 v 10

Three highest placed winners straight to Preliminary Final


WEEK TWO
Semi-final: 4th-highest winner vs 5th highest winner: 4 v 5

Winner to Prelim


WEEK THREE
1st Preliminary Final: highest week one winner vs semi-final winner: 1 v 4
2nd Preliminary Final: 2nd-highest week one winner vs 3rd highest week one winner: 2 v 3


WEEK FOUR
BYE (ensuring 14 day break for Grand Final)


WEEK FIVE
Grand Final: 1 v 2


Probabilities
1st - 12.5 %
2nd - 12.5 %
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 11.72%
5th - 10.55%
6th - 10.55%
7th - 9.375%
8th - 7.81%
9th - 6.25%
10th - 6.25%


Final-10 number 2:

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
Bye (ensuring 14 day break for Grand Final)

WEEK 5
Grand Final (1 v 2)

Probabilities
1st - 12.5 %
2nd - 12.5 %
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 12.5%
5th - 12.5%
6th - 12.5%
7th - 6.25%
8th - 6.25%
9th - 6.25%
10th - 6.25%

 

[btdg]

I hate the idea of a 10 team finals series for two reasons:

- It rewards mediocrity. Do we really NEED the teams finishing 9th and 10th in finals? It's been awesome the last few years having had genuine competition to get in... even if stressful for Carlton supporters. Imagine that was removed this year, both Freo and Collingwood were 'in', with Essendon in 11th the unlucky team to miss out? Meh

- In most models we end up with the same number of finals (9) but with no double chances. This means that we effectively remove two matches between top 4 teams (the current qualifying finals) and replace it with matches involving 9th and 10th. That's not better... putting 10th on the road against 7th is pointless

Instead, my preferred option in a 20 team league is:

• Play everyone once = 19 games = 9 home, 9 away, 1x gather round
• At this point, teams who are mathematically out of finals contention are eliminated.

For the remaining 4 rounds, we play a version of Swiss pairings (1v2, 3v4, etc) that reset each week. Matches are played as the reverse of the first game in the season, and teams are eliminated each week as they drop from finals contention.

This gives us a month of cut-throat games, with teams from 9-14 or so having to win against direct competitors or face elimination. Teams at the top can swing rapidly up and down the ladder because they are playing direct opponents.

Then, after 23 rounds we all pause for a breath (bye), and come back for a 4 week finals series as per the current system.

 

[braddsey]

So I'll point out a few flaws:

• 3-6 get a double chance, but 1&2 don't (they get a bye instead, but this seems odd).
• Mathematically, finishing top 2 provides no advantage (not strictly a flaw, but a limitation).
• Winning a QF results in an easier SF than the top two sides. So you could have a paradoxical situation where you have say 6v9, 5v10, 1v4 and 2v3 all playing for elimination.

Given 3v6 and 4v5 are simply reseeding games, why not replace those games with a bye, then play single elimination games with the highest seed playing home against the lowest seed (i.e. 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5) - essentially the same system from week 2, but without the paradoxical situations. Keeps the finals to 4 weeks, 9 games (same as current).

All fair. I'm no expert.

This was my thinking on your first point:

• Finishing 1&2 - the bye is essentially an automatic win, without the physical impact. Much like winning the QF in the current system give an automatic pass to the PF.
• I don't get maths. sorry.
• Agree on the SF issue. I'd wasted enough time on it already at that point.

 

[9874123]

A couple of issues:

• Huge advantage finishing 6th compared to 7th, with 3 paths to the GF (WWW, WLWW, LWWW) compared to one (WWWW) - 1/4 chance of getting through compared to 1/16 (four times the chance).
• Top seed gets a harder PF (similar issue with current system) - PFs should be 1v4, 2v3, but this is compromised to avoid repeated match-ups.

That is quite an interesting way of breaking it down, and a fair criticism, but I think that is unavoidable in a system with a double chance. Right now, 4th can go WW or WLW, while 5th has to go WWW. This is obviously a huge difference as teams basically never win from outside the top 4. For me, this system probably results in the top 2 winning about 75% of the time, with 3rd,4th,5th,6th occasionally pinching one and 7th,8th,9th, and 10th probably win 1 in 25.

I don't really think the harder prelim is much of an issue personally, because when 1st plays 4th, 4th has played an extra game, while when 1st plays 3rd, 3rd has played two extra games. So I think you'd rather the easier opponent earlier to 'bank' the advantage. As you said, this is the same as the current system.

I also really don't like the systems where the highest rank team 'chooses' their opponent. I much prefer to have a predefined bracket.

In the end though, I do think the AFL will just add a 'wildcard weekend', but we will see. This system add 4 more finals rather than two, so maybe the AFL will see $$$.

 

[Dan26]

There is a third final-10 also, which works perfectly mathematically but only has the one Preliminary Final.

WEEK ONE:
1st and 2nd (bye)
1st Elimination Final: 3rd vs 10th
2nd Elimination Final: 4th vs 9th
3rd Elimination Final: 5th vs 8th
4th Elimination Final: 6th vs 7th

All winners progress to week 2

WEEK 2:
1st semi Final: Highest seed vs lowest seed (1 v 6)
2nd-semi-Final: 2nd-highest seed vs 2nd lowest seed (2 v 5)
3rd semi-Final: 3rd highest seeded vs 3rd lowest seed (3 v 4)

Highest winning seed straight to Grand Final. Other two winners to Preliminary Final

WEEK 3:
Preliminary Final: 2 v 3

WEEK 4:
Grand Final: 1 v 2


Probabilities
1st - 25%
2nd - 18.75 %
3rd - 7.8125%
4th - 7.8125%
5th - 7.4218%
6th - 7.32%
7th - 7.32%
8th - 7.32%
9th - 6.25%
10th - 6.25%

 

[WesternSydneyHawk]

Okay, here's a left-field suggestion.

Let's break up the AFL into two conferences of 10 teams.

Conference 1:

West Coast
Fremantle
Adelaide
Port
Tasmania
Geelong
Hawthorn
North Melbourne
Western Bulldogs
St Kilda

Conference 2:
Brisbane
Gold Coast
Sydney
GWS
Canberra
Carlton
Collingwood
Essendon
Richmond
Melbourne

Top five of each conference make a finals series.

In each conference:

First round of the finals:

4 vs 5. Loser gets eliminated.
1st, 2nd, 3rd get a bye

Second round:
1 vs 2
3 vs [the winner of 4 vs 5]. Loser gets eliminated.

Third round
[3/4/5] vs [Loser of 1 vs 2]
[Winner of 1 vs 2] gets a bye

Conference final:
[Winner of 1 vs 2] vs the other remaining team for the conference championship.

Grand final:
Conference 1 champion vs conference 2 champion.

 

[Chiz]

All fair. I'm no expert.

This was my thinking on your first point:

• Finishing 1&2 - the bye is essentially an automatic win, without the physical impact. Much like winning the QF in the current system give an automatic pass to the PF.
• I don't get maths. sorry.
• Agree on the SF issue. I'd wasted enough time on it already at that point.

• You're right that the bye replacing a game is essentially replacing a double chance. The logical extension to this is to remove double chance from finals systems and instead reward top teams with a bye instead.
• I suspect you're in good company. But the maths is an important component of any finals system integrity.
• I think you illustrate a major problem with double chances in finals - to avoid repeated match-ups before the GF, the system needs to compromise on its integrity in some way. There was a similar issue with the old final 6.

 

[Chiz]

That is quite an interesting way of breaking it down, and a fair criticism, but I think that is unavoidable in a system with a double chance. Right now, 4th can go WW or WLW, while 5th has to go WWW. This is obviously a huge difference as teams basically never win from outside the top 4. For me, this system probably results in the top 2 winning about 75% of the time, with 3rd,4th,5th,6th occasionally pinching one and 7th,8th,9th, and 10th probably win 1 in 25.

You're right, the double chance is the cause of these issues (one reason why it should be done away with). In short:

• Rewarding a higher-placed team with a guaranteed bye doubles their chance of getting to the GF - a lower-placed team has to win one additional final.
• Rewarding a higher-placed team with a bye OR a double chance (as per current system) triples their chance of getting to the GF compared to a lower-placed team - there are now 2 paths to get there, each with fewer wins required.
• Rewarding a higher-placed team with TWO double chance games and a bye if they win both (as per your system) quadruples their chance of getting to the GF - 3 paths to get there and one fewer win.

This is before you account for home games, the benefit of playing after a bye etc.

What some of the double chance advocates don't get is that you can still reward top teams without giving them a double chance.

I don't really think the harder prelim is much of an issue personally, because when 1st plays 4th, 4th has played an extra game, while when 1st plays 3rd, 3rd has played two extra games. So I think you'd rather the easier opponent earlier to 'bank' the advantage. As you said, this is the same as the current system.

1 and 2 have the benefit of the extra week off, but you're still compromising on the integrity of the system - essentially the second seed becomes the first seed if the top two both win their first finals.

I also really don't like the systems where the highest rank team 'chooses' their opponent. I much prefer to have a predefined bracket.

I'm not a fan of choosing either, but in a knockout system you can ensure the top seed always plays at home vs the bottom seed before the GF.

In the end though, I do think the AFL will just add a 'wildcard weekend', but we will see. This system add 4 more finals rather than two, so maybe the AFL will see $$$.

While the AFL see $$ as an indicator of their success, a bit of longer term thinking would help them see that more finals, particularly over 5 weeks, probably results in a bit of finals fatigue and some people losing interest. Sometimes less is more.

 

[Billy ray]

Only way you can do 1v10,2v9, etc is if they are all best of 3 series.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Cmon guys. No double chances. How many times do I have to tell you?

10 teams, 9 finals. Straight knockout. There are just two ways of doing it.

Final-10 number 1:

WEEK ONE
1st elimination final: 5 v 6
2nd elimination final: 4 v 7
3rd elimination Final: 3 v 8
4th elimination final: 2 v 9
5th elimination final: 1 v 10

Three highest placed winners straight to Preliminary Final


WEEK TWO
Semi-final: 4th-highest winner vs 5th highest winner: 4 v 5

Winner to Prelim


WEEK THREE
1st Preliminary Final: highest week one winner vs semi-final winner: 1 v 4
2nd Preliminary Final: 2nd-highest week one winner vs 3rd highest week one winner: 2 v 3


WEEK FOUR
BYE (ensuring 14 day break for Grand Final)


WEEK FIVE
Grand Final: 1 v 2


Probabilities
1st - 12.5 %
2nd - 12.5 %
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 11.72%
5th - 10.55%
6th - 10.55%
7th - 9.375%
8th - 7.81%
9th - 6.25%
10th - 6.25%


Final-10 number 2:

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
Bye (ensuring 14 day break for Grand Final)

WEEK 5
Grand Final (1 v 2)

Probabilities
1st - 12.5 %
2nd - 12.5 %
3rd - 12.5%
4th - 12.5%
5th - 12.5%
6th - 12.5%
7th - 6.25%
8th - 6.25%
9th - 6.25%
10th - 6.25%

I like both of these scenarios. We shouldn't be afraid of going to knockouts too early. I understand if people think the second scenario doesn't reward the highest ranked teams enough, which is why I'd adapt it to allow higher ranked teams to choose their opponents each week. If a lower ranked team is in ominous form, the minor premier can choose to avoid them until GF day.

I also really don't like the systems where the highest rank team 'chooses' their opponent. I much prefer to have a predefined bracket.

I'm not a fan of choosing either, but in a knockout system you can ensure the top seed always plays at home vs the bottom seed before the GF.

How come? It's all good if people don't like the idea, but I'm curious as to the reasoning.

 

[Chiz]

I like both of these scenarios. We shouldn't be afraid of going to knockouts too early. I understand if people think the second scenario doesn't reward the highest ranked teams enough, which is why I'd adapt it to allow higher ranked teams to choose their opponents each week. If a lower ranked team is in ominous form, the minor premier can choose to avoid them until GF day.



How come? It's all good if people don't like the idea, but I'm curious as to the reasoning.

If you were to allow the top teams to choose their opponent, it would have to be within tightly-defined parameters. So in a knockout system for instance, you couldn't have the top team choosing to play the second placed team (who has also earned the right to a home final) - it would have to be one of the lower ranked teams.

It could definitely work, just not my preference.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

If you were to allow the top teams to choose their opponent, it would have to be within tightly-defined parameters. So in a knockout system for instance, you couldn't have the top team choosing to play the second placed team (who has also earned the right to a home final) - it would have to be one of the lower ranked teams.

It could definitely work, just not my preference.

Could certainly have such a restriction. Though I support the right of teams to make gobsmackingly stupid decisions if they want to. Unless half their team caught COVID, picking the second best team to play against in a knockout tournament is suicidal.

 

[9874123]

How come? It's all good if people don't like the idea, but I'm curious as to the reasoning.

I guess I never really thought about why I don't like it, it was just an instinct. I have thought about it a little now and here is my conclusion:

For me, it changes the game too much. It over-emphasises off-field strategy in a way that I don't really like. I prefer the idea of the best teams just rocking up to the finals prepared to take on whoever chance has put before them.

It also removes the organic excitement of rivalry clashes in finals. For example, would Port Adelaide choose to play the Crows or would they avoid them? I can understand that some would enjoy that layer of intrigue but I don't think its what the finals should be about.

Once you get to the final 4, I think the team in 1st gets too much power, as they basically get to set both match ups. I could also see this favouring Vic teams. If say, we get to the prelims, and 1st and 4th are Melbourne teams and 2nd and 3rd interstate clubs, the 'natural choice' would be to pick the Melbourne team, but would they choose the interstate team to get an easier prelim? or the Melbourne club to guarantee an interstate team makes the GF. Again, some may like this level of strategy but its just not for me.


These are just my first thoughts so apologies if they are a bit incoherent. I'd be interested in hearing counter arguments.

 

[Billy ray]

Revert to final 5 for the premiership. All games will be at night with gf daytime.
Teams 6-10 do a second final 5. All games during the days with this grand final a curtain raiser at 10am grand final day

 

[9874123]

You're right, the double chance is the cause of these issues (one reason why it should be done away with). In short:

• Rewarding a higher-placed team with a guaranteed bye doubles their chance of getting to the GF - a lower-placed team has to win one additional final.
• Rewarding a higher-placed team with a bye OR a double chance (as per current system) triples their chance of getting to the GF compared to a lower-placed team - there are now 2 paths to get there, each with fewer wins required.
• Rewarding a higher-placed team with TWO double chance games and a bye if they win both (as per your system) quadruples their chance of getting to the GF - 3 paths to get there and one fewer win.

This is before you account for home games, the benefit of playing after a bye etc.

What some of the double chance advocates don't get is that you can still reward top teams without giving them a double chance.

Good post. I do understand that you can reward top teams in ways other than a double chance. Also under ibd77's system, no team gets two double chances, each team can play in maximum one game where the loser survives.

I just think that the double chance works quite well. I don't think any type of single knock-out games adequately rewards the top team. I think 1st having a 2x - 4x mathematical chance of making the GF compared to the lower teams is a good thing, actually, as it ensures that teams keep fighting for those spots right up until the point the ladder position is mathematically guaranteed.

I just don't think fighting for the opportunity to play, say, 7th rather than 6th in week 1 has the same weight. Particulary when form, injuries, match-ups etc. could mean that its no real advantage at all.

1 and 2 have the benefit of the extra week off, but you're still compromising on the integrity of the system - essentially the second seed becomes the first seed if the top two both win their first finals.

For the reasons I mentioned, I just don't see this as a problem. Also if it compromised things so much, you'd expect 4th to make the Grand Final at least as much as 3rd, and 2nd to make the GF as much as 1st in the current system. However, 4th has made the GF 3/24 times, while 3rd has 12/24. 1st is 17/24 and 2nd is 12/24. So based on the evidence, it looks like it works out pretty well. I understand that theoretically, 1st should be a better team than 2nd, and 3rd better than 4th which helps the numbers, but this doesn't seem like a deal breaking issue to me.

 

[9874123]

Revert to final 5 for the premiership. All games will be at night with gf daytime.
Teams 6-10 do a second final 5. All games during the days with this grand final a curtain raiser at 10am grand final day

Don't see why fans, players, or clubs would be interested in cutting their preseason short by a month and risking their players for the right to be crowned the 6th best team in the comp

 

[Billy ray]

Don't see why fans, players, or clubs would be interested in cutting their preseason short by a month and risking their players for the right to be crowned the 6th best team in the comp

 

[Chiz]

Good post. I do understand that you can reward top teams in ways other than a double chance. Also under ibd77's system, no team gets two double chances, each team can play in maximum one game where the loser survives.

True, but playing two double chance games gives a team two additional routes to the GF, even though you can't use the double chance twice.

I just think that the double chance works quite well. I don't think any type of single knock-out games adequately rewards the top team. I think 1st having a 2x - 4x mathematical chance of making the GF compared to the lower teams is a good thing, actually, as it ensures that teams keep fighting for those spots right up until the point the ladder position is mathematically guaranteed.

While the mathematical probability is one advantage given to higher placed teams, it is not the only one:

• Playing a home game against an evenly matched team is associated with a 57% win probability (based on 10 years of home and away data - this is roughly 50% for games involving two Vic teams and 60% for genuine home ground advantage).
• Playing a home game off a bye against a team that hasn't had a recent bye is associated with an additional advantage. This is harder to quantify, but 28 out of 32 QF winners made the GF before the pre-finals bye was introduced, suggesting the advantage is sizeable. I'm going to assume a 65% win probability.

I posted this earlier in the thread, but when you take these benefits into account, the mathematical probabilities of different systems look like this:

	Finals system
Ladder position	Current system with 7v10, 8v9 wildcard	2x McIntyre final 5	Knockout final 10
1	21.5%	22.8%	18.5%
2	21.5%	22.8%	18.5%
3	19.2%	12.5%	14.6%
4	19.2%	12.5%	13.5%
5	6.0%	10.7%	10.2%
6	6.0%	10.7%	9.6%
7	1.8%	2.3%	4.3%
8	1.8%	2.3%	4.3%
9	1.4%	1.7%	3.2%
10	1.4%	1.7%	3.2%

So even in the knockout system with no double chance, the top team has roughly 6x the probability of winning compared to 10th, assuming all teams are evenly matched.

In the other systems it's 13-15x. But the advantages are not as nicely distributed.

I just don't think fighting for the opportunity to play, say, 7th rather than 6th in week 1 has the same weight. Particulary when form, injuries, match-ups etc. could mean that its no real advantage at all.

The advantage of finishing top two is the opportunity to play fresh off a bye against a team that has come off a knockout final. The ladder position of the opponent is an additional benefit to the top side, but is only minor.

For the reasons I mentioned, I just don't see this as a problem. Also if it compromised things so much, you'd expect 4th to make the Grand Final at least as much as 3rd, and 2nd to make the GF as much as 1st in the current system. However, 4th has made the GF 3/24 times, while 3rd has 12/24. 1st is 17/24 and 2nd is 12/24. So based on the evidence, it looks like it works out pretty well. I understand that theoretically, 1st should be a better team than 2nd, and 3rd better than 4th which helps the numbers, but this doesn't seem like a deal breaking issue to me.

Given 4th has only made the GF 3 times, this also suggests they are typically the easier opponent in the PF, yet the top side never plays them in the PF, instead typically playing 2 or 3. Even though 1 has won most PFs, having the harder PF is a disadvantage going into the GF, which may reflect why the top side has only won half of their GFs under the current system (excluding 2021 where there was a pre-GF bye) - applying the same logic we'd expect 1 to win more than half of the time.