Finals models

[parrawentyfan]

Now that we are through most of the finals series, I'm wondering what people think about the different finals models.

We've now had a few years under the current system. Any fond memories of the McIntyre system? I'm really enjoying the current system.

I've seen a few different models around and one which i thought was really interesting is the one where the highest ranked team gets the choice of their opponent.

Eg this year Penrith would have had first choice. They could pick any of the other 7 finalists.

A bit of strategy here and potential to build a rivalry or drama around the choice. The draw itself would get ok ratings i think.

- Do they pick a local rival out of spite or to increase the chance of a big crowd?
- Do they pick a lower placed team in red hot form, or a higher placed team in a rough patch?
- Maybe they have a 'bunny' team they always beat? Do they pick them and rub salt in the wound?
- How would teams take the 'insult' of being chosen as the easiest opponent?

As the weeks progress, the higher ranked team maintains the choice. I think it would be quite a spectacle and give higher ranked teams real control over what they 'think' is in their interest. No more complaining about soft or hard sides of the draw.

Anyway- that's a random idea for the day.

 

[forby]

A load of Rubbish!

 

[blue bags]

i like the ideas

 

[Diesel]

The McIntyre system was terrible. The current one we have, which I think is the old 1996 ARL model is the best.

For a 16 team competition, a 5-6 team finals in the best option but for what Fox/Nine is paying each year, they want to maximise revenue to as many finals as possible and as little dead rubber round-robin games

 

[Last Week]

The McIntyre system was terrible. The current one we have, which I think is the old 1996 ARL model is the best.

For a 16 team competition, a 5-6 team finals in the best option but for what Fox/Nine is paying each year, they want to maximise revenue to as many finals as possible and as little dead rubber round-robin games

The McIntyre had its positives. The higher ranked you were, the easier your opponent. And for entertainment value, it was great when 7 and 8 beat 2 and 1.

But the 4 v 5 and 3 v 6 games were almost redundant at times.

The current one is best. And we'll have it until we go to 20 teams.

 

[Valheru]

The McIntyre sucked and you need to look no further than 2011 as proof.

The Warriors finish 6th, get thumped to the tune of 30 points by the 3rd placed Broncos and get 'punished' by playing a lower ranked Tigers the following week. They then go on to make the GF.

6th should under no circumstances ever get a 2nd chance in an 8 team finals format.

 

[Last Week]

The McIntyre sucked and you need to look no further than 2011 as proof.

The Warriors finish 6th, get thumped to the tune of 30 points by the 3rd placed Broncos and get 'punished' by playing a lower ranked Tigers the following week. They then go on to make the GF.

6th should under no circumstances ever get a 2nd chance in an 8 team finals format.

Devils advocate here, if 1st or 2nd lose against weaker opponents (weaker than 6th place) then the competition is closer than the rankings suggest and a 2nd chance may then be reasonable.

 

[mongoose]

The McIntyre sucked and you need to look no further than 2011 as proof.

The Warriors finish 6th, get thumped to the tune of 30 points by the 3rd placed Broncos and get 'punished' by playing a lower ranked Tigers the following week. They then go on to make the GF.

6th should under no circumstances ever get a 2nd chance in an 8 team finals format.

yep, scenarios like that one pretty much made the mcintyre system too flawed to continue with it.

 

[Captain Apollo]

The main advantage the McIntyre system had was it made it possible for any combinations of the finalists to play in the Grand final.

The current system doesn't.

As to what happened in 2011? So what?! There is nothing to say with the current system that a team that finishes in the top 4 gets pumped by 30 points in week 1, yet wins in week 2 against a lower ranked team and goes on to make the grand final. Blaming the outcomes in 2011 on the system used is just complete rubbish.

 

[mongoose]

The main advantage the McIntyre system had was it made it possible for any combinations of the finalists to play in the Grand final.

The current system doesn't.

As to what happened in 2011? So what?! There is nothing to say with the current system that a team that finishes in the top 4 gets pumped by 30 points in week 1, yet wins in week 2 against a lower ranked team and goes on to make the grand final. Blaming the outcomes in 2011 on the system used is just complete rubbish.

you have a point but finishing 4th and getting pumped by first isn't as bad as finishing 6th and getting pumped by 3rd....

 

[Valheru]

Devils advocate here, if 1st or 2nd lose against weaker opponents (weaker than 6th place) then the competition is closer than the rankings suggest and a 2nd chance may then be reasonable.

But 6th only gets a 2nd chance if 1 and 2 both win.... If teams 1, 3, 4 and 7 win then 6 and 8 are eliminated.

 

[Valheru]

The main advantage the McIntyre system had was it made it possible for any combinations of the finalists to play in the Grand final.

The current system doesn't.

As to what happened in 2011? So what?! There is nothing to say with the current system that a team that finishes in the top 4 gets pumped by 30 points in week 1, yet wins in week 2 against a lower ranked team and goes on to make the grand final. Blaming the outcomes in 2011 on the system used is just complete rubbish.

The only combinations that the current system can't have in tthe GF is 5v8 and 6v7 which I don't see as an issue. A counter to that is that 1v2 could ONLY happen in the GF in the McIntyre system which for me is silly.

A team could get beat by 30 and still make GF under this system but at least it is a top 4 team and creates a clear delineation between finishing top 4 and not finishing top 4.

Another ridiculous feature was the winners from week 1 getting home field in week 2 regardless of seeding which resulted in the 8th placed Eeels hosting the 3rd placed Titans in 2009 for example. The counter to this is to just let the higher seed host but that falls over under further analysis. Take the below scenario for example.

1 def 8
2 def 7
6 def 3
4 def 5

You would then have 4th place travelling away (after winning) to play 3rd place whilst 5 (after losing) gets a home game against 6. Under this scenario 5th is clearly better off losing week 1.

The McIntyre system of 1v8, 2v7 etc. only works under a single elimination format (think NBA playoffs), as soon as you want to introduce a 2nd chance then the current one is far superior.

 

[The_Frog]

Now that we are through most of the finals series, I'm wondering what people think about the different finals models.

We've now had a few years under the current system. Any fond memories of the McIntyre system? I'm really enjoying the current system.

I've seen a few different models around and one which i thought was really interesting is the one where the highest ranked team gets the choice of their opponent.

Eg this year Penrith would have had first choice. They could pick any of the other 7 finalists.

A bit of strategy here and potential to build a rivalry or drama around the choice. The draw itself would get ok ratings i think.

- Do they pick a local rival out of spite or to increase the chance of a big crowd?
- Do they pick a lower placed team in red hot form, or a higher placed team in a rough patch?
- Maybe they have a 'bunny' team they always beat? Do they pick them and rub salt in the wound?
- How would teams take the 'insult' of being chosen as the easiest opponent?

As the weeks progress, the higher ranked team maintains the choice. I think it would be quite a spectacle and give higher ranked teams real control over what they 'think' is in their interest. No more complaining about soft or hard sides of the draw.

Anyway- that's a random idea for the day.

1 should have the choice of 3 or 4, avoiding the chance of lesser performed teams throwing games and thereby choosing their opponent/venue. I'm not so big on 5 having such a choice. As things stand there is no advantage in finishing first over second, except you play 4th which may or may not be easier than playing 3rd. Back in the good old days of 5 team finals 1st place did not have to play a game until there were only 2 other teams left alive, and then they could only miss the grand final by losing to both of them. It didn't happen very often. Rabbitohs in 1989 comes to mind.

 

[Front-Rower]

The McIntyre sucked and you need to look no further than 2011 as proof.

The Warriors finish 6th, get thumped to the tune of 30 points by the 3rd placed Broncos and get 'punished' by playing a lower ranked Tigers the following week. They then go on to make the GF.

6th should under no circumstances ever get a 2nd chance in an 8 team finals format.

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

The tigers reward for winning week 1 was playing the warriors

 

[unforgiven]

I always like the old top 4 and top 5 models that allowed the top teams to keep their 2nd chance all the way to the Grand Final if they kept winning, so a few years ago I designed this system. The biggest downfall is the finals would run an extra week and the team that wins the Major Semi would have only played 1 game in a month but that was the same in the old top 5 as well.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

The thing i loved about the old McIntyre system was its chaos. W1 of the finals could see any of the 3rd-8th placed teams knocked out and W2 could have any combination.

While the current system is definitely fairer, it is definitely less fun.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I like the principle of letting teams pick their opponents. The selection itself would be a huge event and the discussion in the lead-up would be great.

It would also give a lot more meaning to the rest of the season (team form, playing style, injures, etc) and it would justify the 24 round; as it is now, the inly point in going beyond 16 rounds is for the TV rights.

I would love to see this idea at least trialed in a lower grade comp somewhere to see the effects.

 

[Hello, I'm The Doctor]

I always like the old top 4 and top 5 models that allowed the top teams to keep their 2nd chance all the way to the Grand Final if they kept winning, so a few years ago I designed this system. The biggest downfall is the finals would run an extra week and the team that wins the Major Semi would have only played 1 game in a month but that was the same in the old top 5 as well.

The best thing about this kind of top 4 is that it has a 1st-2nd matchup.

This means that the most likely GF will have a recent form guide and the GF will function as a rematch.

I remember the 2005 GF between Wests and NQld. I think that definitely benefited from the W1 matchup

 

[GongPanther]

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

 

[unforgiven]

The best thing about this kind of top 4 is that it has a 1st-2nd matchup.

This means that the most likely GF will have a recent form guide and the GF will function as a rematch.

I remember the 2005 GF between Wests and NQld. I think that definitely benefited from the W1 matchup

Yeah, I use to love it when the same teams would play in the Grand Final that played 2 weeks prior in the Major Semi Final, it added that extra spice especially if it was a spiteful match. I really miss the old top 5 and that will never happen again so thought I'd try and create something that replicated it.