Flaw With New Finals System

[ElectricEelMan]

Imagine the ladder looks like this after 26 rounds:

1. Bulldogs
2. Storm
3. Rabbitohs
4. Cowboys
5. Sea Eagles
6. Sharks
7. Broncos
8. Tigers

The first week of finals would look like this:
Bulldogs vs Cowboys
Storm vs Rabbitohs
Sea Eagles vs Tigers
Sharks vs Broncos

What if Bulldogs beat Cowboys and Rabbitohs beat Storm AND then in the second week the highest placed teams (Cowboys and Storm) win.

The preliminary finals then would be:
Bulldogs (1) vs Storm (2)
Rabbitohs (3) vs Cowboys (4)

So in actual fact the Rabbitohs would arguably have the easiest preliminary final game whilst the minor premiers reward for winning would be to host the 2nd placed team.

Argue all you want about the flaws of the McIntyre system, it was never this potentially 'cruel' to the minor premiers.

 

[Rabbit toes]

Meh

 

[Timmah]

Well done on extracting one scenario from the new finals system

Bottom line is that both systems had flaws, this one rewards top four sides better.

 

[Danish]

For those without goldfish memories having 1 vs 2 playing in prelims was the reason we got rid of this system the first time it was used.

The macintyre system's main benefit was that 1st and 2nd could never meet until the grand final,

 

[Danish]

Well done on extracting one scenario from the new finals system

Bottom line is that both systems had flaws, this one rewards top four sides better.

It actually rewards 3rd and 4th better at the expense of 1st and 2nd

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

I don't like the changes because they don't include the Dragons.

 

[The Gambler]

Isn't the argument the Rabbitohs are the 'stronger' team because they have just beaten the Storm in a finals match?

 

[dogslife]

It actually rewards 3rd and 4th better at the expense of 1st and 2nd

Yeah but now we don't have a scenario where 1st could end up losing week 1 then having to play an away game in week 2, ala St George (1st) having to play Brisbane (6th) at Suncorp in week 2 of the finals in 2009

This way, even though 1st and 2nd have tougher games in week 1, they still have to added advantage of a home game in week 2 should they lose

 

[gUt]

I preferred the previous system. It made perfect sense if you considered the playoffs to be a totally new competition that's seeded in week 1. Still it'll be interesting to see how the current system plays out.

 

[Canard]

Yeah but now we don't have a scenario where 1st could end up losing week 1 then having to play an away game in week 2, ala St George (1st) having to play Brisbane (6th) at Suncorp in week 2 of the finals in 2009

This way, even though 1st and 2nd have tougher games in week 1, they still have to added advantage of a home game in week 2 should they lose

That was not the Mcintyre system per se, just the NRL's home and away scheduling, that could have been changed with the stroke of a pen.

I think 3 and 4 are massively rewarded in this system.

The crux of the OP is in how you subjectively rate the "strength" of a team, is it purely ladder position after Round 26, or other factors. For example what is No.2 limps into the finals with 4 losses from there last 5, and 4 has won 7 straight? Also, with most finals the theory is that after Week 1 there is a new "ladder".

 

[ElectricEelMan]

Well done on extracting one scenario from the new finals system

Bottom line is that both systems had flaws, this one rewards top four sides better.

Disagree.
McIntyre system rewarded the top two teams with an easier path to the grand final.
This system is better for teams who finish 3 and 4 though

 

[Timmah]

Complaints about the finals system are ridiculous anyway IMO.

If you're a bona fide contender, you'll win the games necessary to progress in the finals.

 

[newman]

Could be epic to finish fifth under this system.
First game is against 8th, who theoretically are the worst team in the new draw.
Win that (as you should) and you come up against a team in the next week who just lost the week before and have all that pressure on their shoulders.
I want the Sharks to come 5th.

 

[defunk]

Top 5 was still the best. And fairest.

 

[_Johnsy]

meh

it's the finals, if you are good enough you'll get to the big dance. Champion teams always do.

In 2010 not one side scored a point against us in the 2nd half during the entire finals campaign. If you are good enough, you'll get the job done, regardless of obstacles in front of you.

 

[Danish]

Complaints about the finals system are ridiculous anyway IMO.

If you're a bona fide contender, you'll win the games necessary to progress in the finals.

Exactly.

Look at the dragons in 09. Bundled out in straight sets by 8th then 6th. Does anyone honestly think they deserved another shot at the premiership that year because they had to play 1 game away? They were the minor premiers, and if they believed themselves to be the premiers then they should have been able handle the broncos in brisbane, let along parramatta at Kogarah.

Similarly, look at Parramatta that same year. They went through 1st, 2nd and 3rd to get the the grand final, only to be defeated by 4th. Similar story with us in 2010 going through 2nd, 3rd and 4th in our run as well. If either side had taken out the title they'd have been worthy premiers.

Really the only times I'd say the old system was a bit iffy was the warriors in 2011 and the cowboys in 2005. Both were thumped in week one after finishing in the bottom of the 8, but were still given a 2nd chance and then went on a dream run to the GF (the cowboys were even allowed to move their semi to brisbane for some unknown reason that year). And really with the new system we are just as likely to see similarly "unfair" results from time to time as well.

 

[Timbo]

Top 5 is the best system, however it's a terrible system in a game run for television.

This new system is great for the top 4. I think it was criminal that 3rd place could be eliminated after one loss.

This system does far more to reward consistency over the whole regular season. Run 4th, can't be eliminated. Run 5th or 6th, can be eliminated but have a home fixture against the sides that scrape in.

 

[Parra]

Mcintyre is a better system. It is a shame that the first move by the new commission was a knee jerk reaction. The minor premiership is diluted further under this model. With more teams the minor premiers deserve a better reward.

 

[Eels Dude]

If the Bunnies beat the Storm in round 1 then one could argue they are the second most dangerous team and the Bulldogs would be better off playing the Storm than them.

 

[Jason Maher]

That flaw pales into comparison to the benefit of every team having their destiny in their own hands. And, in actual fact, the same flaw exists in the McIntyre system. If all games go according to ranking, then you get 1v3 and 2v4 in week 3.

With final 8 systems, it's a case of pick your poison unless you're willing to stretch it to more than 4 weeks.