Finals models

[Valheru]

What are you talking about? The tigers finished 4th in 2011.

The tigers reward for winning week 1 was playing the warriors

The warriors played a lower ranked team in week 2 than week 1.

The tigers beat 5 and got to play 6 whilst the broncos beat 6 and then had to play 5.

 

[siv]

I would like to see 1st & 2nd get the week off in week 1 of the finals

I also use a ranking concept every week

Week 1
1 - bye
2 - bye
3 v 4 - winner ranked 3 / looser 4
5 v 8
6 v 7 - highest placed winner 5 / lower placed winner 6

Week 2
1 v 2 - winner ranked 1 / loser ranked 2
3 v 6
4 v 5 - highest ranked winner ranked 3 / lower ranked winner 4

Week 3
1 v 4
2 v 3

Week 4
Two winners

 

[Valheru]

I would like to see 1st & 2nd get the week off in week 1 of the finals

I also use a ranking concept every week

Week 1
1 - bye
2 - bye
3 v 4 - winner ranked 3 / looser 4
5 v 8
6 v 7 - highest placed winner 5 / lower placed winner 6

Week 2
1 v 2 - winner ranked 1 / loser ranked 2
3 v 6
4 v 5 - highest ranked winner ranked 3 / lower ranked winner 4

Week 3
1 v 4
2 v 3

Week 4
Two winners

That's not a bad effort.

It falls down at 3v4 in week 1 for me though. They are playing for nothing more than to see who gets to play the worst remaining 5-8 side.

 

[siv]

That's not a bad effort.

It falls down at 3v4 in week 1 for me though. They are playing for nothing more than to see who gets to play the worst remaining 5-8 side.

Current system due to cross over has a flaw also

Week 1
1 v 4
2 v 3

Week 3
1 v 3
2 v 4 - winner of 2v3 has the easiest run into the grand final

 

[Valheru]

Current system due to cross over has a flaw also

Week 1
1 v 4
2 v 3

Week 3
1 v 3
2 v 4 - winner of 2v3 has the easiest run into the grand final

Yes theoretically that's true.

That is where a choice to team 1 could come in to it or just have 1v3 and 2v4 in week 1.

 

[Deacon]

The only real issue with the McIntyre system I had was the fact lower placed teams after a week one win got to host a final in week 2 against a higher ranked loser from the first week, your finishing position after regular season should count for this, two examples of this 2009 Dragons and 2010 Panthers losing in wk one however both traveled away wk 2 and got knocked out

 

[Vic Mackey]

When the NRL floated the idea of the wildcard system it was widely misunderstood as a top 10 finals series. When you look at it properly it gradually rewards the top teams in sets of two, making where you finish vitally important

Teams 1 & 2:

Week off
Two chances
Guaranteed two home finals

Teams 3 &4:

Week off
Two chances
Guaranteed one home final

Teams 5&6:

Week off
Guaranteed one home final

After the regular season 7 plays 10, 8 plays 9 with the winners making the Top 8. The top 6 get a week off which will eliminate the farcical weekend we had of Storm, Raiders resting 12 players. Then teams 7-10 will have to win 5 games straight to win the comp which of course will never happen, however it will keep interest in every game of the regular season.

 

[unforgiven]

When the NRL floated the idea of the wildcard system it was widely misunderstood as a top 10 finals series. When you look at it properly it gradually rewards the top teams in sets of two, making where you finish vitally important

Teams 1 & 2:

Week off
Two chances
Guaranteed two home finals

Teams 3 &4:

Week off
Two chances
Guaranteed one home final

Teams 5&6:

Week off
Guaranteed one home final

After the regular season 7 plays 10, 8 plays 9 with the winners making the Top 8. The top 6 get a week off which will eliminate the farcical weekend we had of Storm, Raiders resting 12 players. Then teams 7-10 will have to win 5 games straight to win the comp which of course will never happen, however it will keep interest in every game of the regular season.

Doesn't matter how you word it, 10 out of 16 teams make the post season. It would make our game a joke, might as well take on the BASEketball playoffs

 

[Vic Mackey]

Doesn't matter how you word it, 10 out of 16 teams make the post season. [/MEDIA]

Except that you know, they don’t

 

[Perth Red]

Current system would work better under 20team comp!

 

[siv]

Old McIntyre system had a big flaw

Teams 5-8 should not have the right to play 1 or 2 until the preliminary finals

And there was the joke when 8 beat 1 and 1 lost the right for a home final

Though home finals must be played a venues that can hold 30,000 plus Week 1 / 2 and at 50k plus stadiums week 3

We need to get to the thinkng if ANZ and the new SFS as Sydney match of day venues. And thats what finals are and always were. Big venus for big games.

 

[Valheru]

The only real issue with the McIntyre system I had was the fact lower placed teams after a week one win got to host a final in week 2 against a higher ranked loser from the first week, your finishing position after regular season should count for this, two examples of this 2009 Dragons and 2010 Panthers losing in wk one however both traveled away wk 2 and got knocked out

Yes but there is an issue in that system if you have the higher ranked team host in week 2 which I outlined earlier.

An example scenario is:

WEEK 1 (winners in bold)
1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

Fixtures for week 2 are then

3 v 4
5 v 6

Who hosts?

If you go with higher seed then 3 (after losing) gets to host 4 who won in week 1.

5 (after losing) gets to host team 6.

Team 4 would have been better off losing in week 1.

 

[Deacon]

Yes but there is an issue in that system if you have the higher ranked team host in week 2 which I outlined earlier.

An example scenario is:

WEEK 1 (winners in bold)
1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

Fixtures for week 2 are then

3 v 4
5 v 6

Who hosts?

If you go with higher seed then 3 (after losing) gets to host 4 who won in week 1.

5 (after losing) gets to host team 6.

Team 4 would have been better off losing in week 1.

I have no issues with 5 hosting 6 after that scenario in wk one, as for team 4 being better off losing in wk 1 it’s a big risk that could backfire and see them eliminated of course the order of wk 1 finals needs to be always in order of played 4v5, 3v6, 2v7 and 1v8 so it can’t be manipulated

 

[PARRA_FAN]

I do like the current system better, whilst the old McIntyre had advantages, took 4 host a final, and the suspense of watching another finals game to determine who gets eliminated and who goes through, the system we have now is better and easier to understand.

I'm glad we've gone back to the old 95/96 model.

Actually its interesting looking back, both 95 and 96 had the same top 8 format for week 1, however I noticed they were different to week 2.

So in the current system we have loser 1 v 4 plays winner 5 v 8, loser 2 v 3 players winner 6 v 7.

Back in 95 we had Cronulla (loser from 1 v 4) play Newcastle (winner 5 v 8), and Brisbane (loser 2 v 3) play Canterbury (winner 6 v 7)

But it was different in 1996 for some reason.

Week 2 was Brisbane (loser 2 v 3) Vs Cronulla (winner 5 v 8) and Roosters (loser 1 v 4) Vs Dragons (winner 6 v 7)

Not that it wouldve mattered but I wonder how many people were confused back then.

 

[The_Frog]

Who hosts?

If you go with higher seed then 3 (after losing) gets to host 4 who won in week 1.

5 (after losing) gets to host team 6.

Award competition points for the first week of the finals, solely for the purpose of determining home teams for week 2.

Whoever finishes on top of the ladder wins the premiership. Do away with needless play-off matches, so have international test matches instead.

Or have a Championship, which basically is the current finals series. Lifting the status of the Minor Premiership.

 

[Valheru]

I have no issues with 5 hosting 6 after that scenario in wk one, as for team 4 being better off losing in wk 1 it’s a big risk that could backfire and see them eliminated of course the order of wk 1 finals needs to be always in order of played 4v5, 3v6, 2v7 and 1v8 so it can’t be manipulated

5 hosting 6 isn't the issue by itself, it is the fact that 3 is hosting 4.

You can't have a situation where a team is worse off winning their first week fixture than the team they beat.

 

[jim_57]

I used to enjoy the unpredictability of the McIntyre system. Then again my opinion would probably be different if my team had copped a harsh knockout. The current one is definitely fairer but McIntyre adds a bit more mystery in the first week at least. Wouldn't be too fussed either way.

It does seem very harsh a team coming 3rd could be knocked out in week 1 but then again if they get beaten by the team that came 6th would they ever win the premiership?

 

[Captain Apollo]

The only real issue with the McIntyre system I had was the fact lower placed teams after a week one win got to host a final in week 2 against a higher ranked loser from the first week.....

Guess what? That had nothing to do with the McIntyre system at all. The system did not specify what venues were to be used, merely which teams played which. It was the NRL that decided to make t that the winners got the home final. That is merely an administrative decision by the NRL and is not inherent in the design of the system by Ken McIntyre.

Look at the current NRL Finals system. How many times in its usage over the years has the NRL changed the right of which team gets to host a final?

 

[jim_57]

Yes but there is an issue in that system if you have the higher ranked team host in week 2 which I outlined earlier.

An example scenario is:

WEEK 1 (winners in bold)
1 v 8
2 v 7
3 v 6
4 v 5

Fixtures for week 2 are then

3 v 4
5 v 6

Who hosts?

If you go with higher seed then 3 (after losing) gets to host 4 who won in week 1.

5 (after losing) gets to host team 6.

Team 4 would have been better off losing in week 1.

I'd argue that 3 would essentially become 6 when they lose, I don't have a major issue with that. They have been given their advantage for finishing 3rd with a very winnable game against 6th.

 

[Valheru]

I'd argue that 3 would essentially become 6 when they lose, I don't have a major issue with that. They have been given their advantage for finishing 3rd with a very winnable game against 6th.

Yes that's how it worked with the winners from week 1 hosting in week 2 but then we had situations like 2008 when storm as minor premiers had to play away against the 5th placed Broncos.

The scenario I put forward is if the top seeds host in week 2 and under that example 3rd (who lost) would host 4th who won. 4th would therefore be better off losing in week 1 and host 6th the following week.