The system is fundamentally flawed because it rewards teams who are inconsistent. Teams just need to be in good form at the time, and instantly they are rewarded, even if they were sh*thouse for most of the comp. If we had a comp with 20+ teams, then the mcintyre system would be great, because you'd need to win at least 60% of your games to make the finals, which means you were pretty consistent. As it stands at the moment, you can get teams who have a good 5 week run into the finals, and if they get past that first week, they are on equal terms, even if they were terrible for most of the season.
The McIntyre system works when you don't have half your comp qualifying for the finals. There is some genuine competition for that top 8 in that case. As it stands you can have teams winning 10-12 more games than 8th place but if they have an off day in a final, automatically that is wiped. It rewards inconsistency. If you come in the bottom 4, you should have the hardest run ALL the way through the finals. 1 or 2 games does not wipe a season of poor performance IMO. I've held that stance ever since it came in, whether we were in the top 4, bottom 4 or outside the 8.
It should be 1 v 4, 2 v 3, 5 v 8, 6 v 7. Winners of bottom 4 play losers of top 4, at their home region or venue. Then winners of that progress to semis, then to grand final.