An ALL NEW finals system

[oldmancraigy]

Love to hear what you fans think of this system:

It's a 5 week finals system, so would involve finishing the regular season 1 game earlier (we could simply eliminate the bye?)

At the end of the regular season, teams get split into 2 pools

Pool A: 1,3,6,8
Pool B: 2,4,5,7

The first 3 weeks of finals football involve playing against the teams in your pool. Whichever team had a higher ranking through the season gets to host the game.
Week 1: 1v6, 3v8, 2v5, 4v7
Week 2: 1v3, 6v8, 2v4, 7v5
Week 3: 1v8, 3v6, 2v7, 4v5
At the end of the 3 weeks, we take the two top teams from each pool, and play a semi-final.

So in week 4 we have the semi finals ('home city' advantage?):
Winner of Pool A plays the runner up of Pool B
Winner of Pool B plays the runner up of Pool A.

The winner of those two games plays in the grand final in week 5.

Advantages:
There is a genuine benefit in finishing higher up on the ladder - above 7th and you get to host a game.
Finishing 6th has an advantage over 7th, 5th over 6th etc etc.
The Grand Final can be a combination of ANY 2 teams that make the top 8 thanks to the 'switch' in week 4
There are no 'weeks off' for teams and the endless controversy that brings (did it make the team 'less ready' etc)
There are more finals matches - 15 games in total compared to the current 9 - and that means more revenue for the clubs hosting the games, and a bigger 'carrot' of high rating matches to use in rights negotiations
It'll be hard to argue that the winner wasn't "the best team" as they will have played 5 games!

Disadvantages:
These lie mainly in the administration side of thngs - ie, getting your home ground booked for (potentially) 3 finals matches? (5 if you are the Storm/ Warriors/ Raiders/ Knights?)
There is the slim possibility of a 'dead rubber' in week 3. However if we use the 'draw' I proposed, then the 'dead rubber' is pretty unlikely.
1 win from 3 in the pool stage could possibly see a team progress to the 'semi final' - some people might say that's a disadvantage (lose 2 and progress?) but then again, this is finals footy, and you're playing the best teams, and it'd be pretty rare anyway (3-0, 1-3,1-3,1-3).


It's a better system than McIntrye (what isn't?)
And I think it's better than the 1v4, 5v8 combinations:
(1)because it means that every game is crucial to win, but it also rewards the top teams with home ground advantage, and the minor premier is favoured over team 2 with the 'easier' pool.
(2) because teams 1,2,3,4 don't smash each other senseless in the first week and then the losers have to 'back up' the next week to face (potentially) teams 5 and 6 who had easy wins over teams 7 and 8 (possibly).

 

[macavity]

personal opinion is we had the concept right at top 5. the minor premier got a non-sudden-death bite at the grand final.

 

[mattyg]

I don't mind this idea, but I reckon it could possibly be improved if you make it a 6 week finals comp.

Top teams from each pool play for a spot in the grand final, loser plays the winner of second from each pool, while the loser of the second from each pool game is eliminated. Say for example 1 and 3 finish on top of pool A, and 2 and 4 finish on top of pool B it would work as following

Week 4 Game 1 - Winner Pool A (TEAM 1) v Winner Pool B (TEAM 2) - Winner to Grand Final, Loser to Elimination Final
Week 4 Game 2 - Runner Up Pool A (TEAM 3) v Runner Up Pool B (TEAM 4) - Winner to Elimination Final, Loser ELIMINATED

Week 5 - Loser Game 1 v Winner Game 2 - Winner to Grand Final, Loser ELIMINATED

Week 6 - Grand Final

this way team 1 can still potentially play team 4 in the grand final, and team 2 can play team 3, whereas the one you mentioned would make that not possible.

 

[Dogs Of War]

Someone made a final series that copied the old top 5 system, but used the top 8 instead, and it went for 5 weeks. I think that is the way to go.

 

[RufusRex]

I would go with a system like this

Week 1 ...
1 v 4 winner to week 3
2 v 3 winner to week 3
5 v 8 loser out
6 v 7 loser out

Week 2
Rank the two losers from the top 2 games and two winners from the bottom two games 1-4 based on their final ladder positions

1 v 4 - loser out
2 v 3 - loser out

Week 3

You have four teams left .. again rank them 1 to 4 based on their final season ladder positions

1 v 4
2 v 3 ..

this is potentially the same as the first two games from week 1 BUT the minor premier should have the advantage of playing the lower placed team .. in the AFL system this week would be 1 v 3, 2 v 4 ... Why should team 2 get an easier opponent than the minor premiers

Week 4 - Grand Final

The two winners from week 3



It is a little complicated .. but in weeks 2 and three you just rank the four contenders 1-4 based on their final ladder positions.

The finals series should pay attention to the regular season ladder .. if it doesnt then what is the point of having a regular season

 

[marshall stalin]

5 week final/TOP 8 as follows- 25 rounds - 24 games and bye plus 5 week finals-30 weeks -May need to reduce rounds to incorp 2 byes??

week 1- 1/4 finals

A) 1(h) v 4
B) 2(h)v 3

Winners advance to week 3 - losers to week 2
---------
C) 5(h) v 8
D) 6(h) v 7

winners advance to week 2 - losers eliminated

week 2 - qualifying finals

E) loser A V Winner D
F) loser b v Winner C

losers eliminated

week 3- G/F Qualifier 1(G) and semi final(H)

G) Winner A V Winner B

Winner to week 5 Grandfinal - Loser to week 4

H) Winner E V Winner F

Winner to week 4 - loser eliminated

week 4- g/f qualifier 2

I) Loser G V Winner H

winner to week 5 grandfinal and loser eliminated

week 5- Grandfinal

J) Winner G V Winner I

 

[mepelthwack]

Someone made a final series that copied the old top 5 system, but used the top 8 instead, and it went for 5 weeks. I think that is the way to go.

That's my system !! It's tenatively called the 'GlennC' or 'Clarke' system at the moment but if anybody with some clout can help me push it through they can have their name on it as well! The NRL has had it for years now. I first wrote it in 1999.

Annesley is such a McIntyre apologist though and won't seriously consider anything else.

I see Stalin is typing it out here a few times at the moment.

I have it explained in detail in a word document but I don't have a current word so I can't just copy and paster the entire thing here which I'd love to do for people to discuss more fully.

 

[Pigskin]

not sure i'd be that impressed by all the thread hijackers here ... personally, I think the OP has about the best idea i've seen

comment on the original post or make your own thread

nice suggestion oldmancraigy

Oink !

 

[stormtragic]

1vs 3 - winner gets week off
2vs 4 - winner gets home semi
5 vs 6 - winner get home semi against winner of 7 vs 8
7 vs 8 - elim final

 

[oldmancraigy]

not sure i'd be that impressed by all the thread hijackers here ... personally, I think the OP has about the best idea i've seen

comment on the original post or make your own thread

nice suggestion oldmancraigy

Oink !

Clearly I'm biased - but I totally agree with you

In all honesty, any rehash of 'elimination concepts' will have as many strengths/ weaknesses as the McIntyre system. The 'old' NRL system (current AFL one) is the strongest of the '8 team knockout' models.

I'm proposing something totally different, which not only entices clubs to finish higher up the standings, but also gives a LOT of finals football starting in the first week of Sept.

15 games of finals footy - I can hear Phil Goul drooling.

 

[watatank]

Not a bad system but I can see a few problems with it.

There is no real incentive to finish higher on the table...If the top team can't get an easier run to the finals (a week off say) then why would they work to finish first? What you would see is coaches resting their stars, trying their Toyota Cup players say for the next season and lower quality footy only to go in a finals series where anything can happen. There would be dead rubbers all over the place.

* Lower ranked teams have just as much chance as the top teams do of winning. Teams with awesome rosters (the Broncos in particular come to mind) could do nothing all year, limp into the 8 and take the premiership.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Not a bad system but I can see a few problems with it.

There is no real incentive to finish higher on the table...If the top team can't get an easier run to the finals (a week off say) then why would they work to finish first? What you would see is coaches resting their stars, trying their Toyota Cup players say for the next season and lower quality footy only to go in a finals series where anything can happen. There would be dead rubbers all over the place.

* Lower ranked teams have just as much chance as the top teams do of winning. Teams with awesome rosters (the Broncos in particular come to mind) could do nothing all year, limp into the 8 and take the premiership.

There is an incentive - HOME GAMES.
If you finish first or second you get three (3) games at home in the first round of the playoffs.
If you finish 3rd or 4th, 2 games at home
If you finish 5th or 6th you get 1 game at home

Playing 3 games away from home in 3 weeks isn't the recipe for success... if you think a team playing 3 on the road has just as much chance as a team playing 3 at home, you need to go do some research on home and away records. If you can't be bothered, here's the summary: every team in the comp has a better record playing at home than they do playing away from home.

A team with a 'loaded' roster could (in theory) limp into the 8 under the current system and take the premiership. It doesn't happen, because teams that are 'limp' during the regular season are 'limp' in the finals - OR, they don't even make the finals (see Parramatta this season).

You are right though - there are no weeks off - but I think that is a strength. The "week off" is one of the more controversial topics of discussion when it comes to finals footy - some teams claim it kills them; other teams love it. It's like the bye, a lot of teams lose the week following the bye...

 

[watatank]

A team with a 'loaded' roster could (in theory) limp into the 8 under the current system and take the premiership. It doesn't happen, because teams that are 'limp' during the regular season are 'limp' in the finals - OR, they don't even make the finals (see Parramatta this season).

Yes they can but in the proposed finals system you have three guaranteed games on which to build to something. Sure they might all be away but three games is enough to build momentum. In the current (or alternative) its one strike and you're out from the lower positions and IMO that's how it should be.

You are right though - there are no weeks off - but I think that is a strength. The "week off" is one of the more controversial topics of discussion when it comes to finals footy - some teams claim it kills them; other teams love it. It's like the bye, a lot of teams lose the week following the bye...

I think all teams would take the week off option if they could no matter what the consequences....think about it you only have to win two games to get to the grand final, all your players are guaranteed to be healthy and you have two weeks to prepare your side instead of one. I am sure the Storm would have preferred to have watched this weeks matches instead of possibly going out of the finals race altogether.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Yes they can but in the proposed finals system you have three guaranteed games on which to build to something. Sure they might all be away but three games is enough to build momentum. In the current (or alternative) its one strike and you're out from the lower positions and IMO that's how it should be.

You can't exactly afford to lose games in the three weeks though..
Picture it this way, under my proposed system, the Dragons would be last in their pool and would need to win both remaining games to progress.
Even the Storm would be up against the wall - at least they'd have 2 home games to do something about it though...

I think all teams would take the week off option if they could no matter what the consequences....think about it you only have to win two games to get to the grand final, all your players are guaranteed to be healthy and you have two weeks to prepare your side instead of one. I am sure the Storm would have preferred to have watched this weeks matches instead of possibly going out of the finals race altogether.

No doubt they would take the week off option - but if they lose following the week off, there's always talking about the benefits/ disadvantages of the week off.

The question should be: why is the week off so important? I want to see teams put under pressure in finals footy and see the stars being forced to make the big plays (ie Inglis and Vatuvei in that game on Sunday). I don't want to watch games predictable games, or games that don't mean much (Manly v St George/Illawarra). I want to see the top 8 teams slug it out, with the champions walking away with glory.

My system assumes a change in mindset for the fans: regular season success = a better seeding/ draw in the semis, not weeks off!

 

[The Engineers Room]

How about


Week 1
1 v Bye
2 v Bye
3 v 4 (a)
5 v 6 (b)
7 v 8 (c) loser eliminated

Week 2
1 v 2 (d)
winner game a v Bye
Loser game a v loser game b (e) loser eliminated
winner game b v winner game c (f) loser eliminated

Week 3
winner game d v Bye
loser game d v winner game a (g)
winner game e v winner game f (h) loser eliminated

Week 4
winner game d v loser game g (i) loser eliminated
winner game g v winner game h (j) loser eliminated

Week 5
winner game i v winner game j (k) grand final

 

[The Engineers Room]

My system assumes a change in mindset for the fans: regular season success = a better seeding/ draw in the semis, not weeks off!

Yes but your system needs a tweak. Give the minor premiers a 1 or 2 point headstart, so they require less wins to make it. Plus if you are close to the bottom and lose the first 2 games, you know you are gone and the games lose all meaning.

 

[watatank]

Yeah look it doesn't really matter, this could go in circles really. I like it because its awesome for the fans and TV revenue but I am not sure if it does justice for the teams who finish higher and I think it will result in teams will be doing all they can in protecting their players towards the back end of the season (more so than now).

The week off makes for an easier draw really, for the reasons I stated earlier. The debate will go on regardless. I simply believe that higher ranked sides deserve an easier run into the grand final with second chances and all that and lower placed sides don't deserve a second chance, even if the odds are against them.

It's a decent basis, but needs a bit of work. Although I must admit I am not sure how to rectify those problems.

 

[Gaba]

People dont get the idea of what the finals mean

week 1 it where the highest ranks get advantage where they finish in the season, because ranking can change for example
before week 1
warriors finish 8th
dragons finish 7th
raiders finish 6th
Broncos 5th
Roosters 4th
sharks 3rd
manly 2nd
storm 1st
After week 1

dragons ends up 8th
raiders end up 7th
roosters end up 6th
Storm end up 5th
Warriors 4th
Broncos 3rd
sharks 2nd
sea eagles 1st
i may have the sharks and manly wrong way around doesnt really matter they are the new top 2 ranked teams

so thats why broncos and warriors have the home ground because they go to a higher ranking because they beaten an higher ranked side in week 1

this is why the nrl system is fairer shouldnt be touched, because the higher ranked team is getting the advantage

 

[marshall stalin]

That's my system !! It's tenatively called the 'GlennC' or 'Clarke' system at the moment but if anybody with some clout can help me push it through they can have their name on it as well! The NRL has had it for years now. I first wrote it in 1999.

Annesley is such a McIntyre apologist though and won't seriously consider anything else.

I see Stalin is typing it out here a few times at the moment.

because i have patented it - so no one else can use it :lol:

 

[Gaba]

The macintrye system is the fairest one just proved it

you cant just ranked the teams where they finish before the finals throughout the finals because placings /ranking will change