The annual finals system debate thread

[the rebel]

I hate the top eight system. I think they should introduce a top seven format.

Week one: Minor premiers week off
A) 2 vs 3 at 2s home ground
B) 4 vs 5 at 4s home ground
c) Sudden death match 6 vs 7 at neutral venue(ie sydney)

Week two
d) Winner a vs minor prem ( minor prem home ground)
e) winner b vs loser A (neutral venue)
f )Loser b vs winner c (sudden death) (neutral venue0

Still gotta work out the rest. similar to the top five system.

 

[the rebel]

I hate the top eight system. I think they should introduce a top seven format.

Week one: Minor premiers week off
A) 2 vs 3 at 2s home ground
B) 4 vs 5 at 4s home ground
c) Sudden death match 6 vs 7 at neutral venue(ie sydney)

Week two
d) Winner a vs minor prem ( minor prem home ground)
e) winner b vs loser A (neutral venue)
f )Loser b vs winner c (sudden death) (neutral venue0

Still gotta work out the rest. similar to the top five system.

 

[da_sharks]

Firstly, I want to say that I am neither a Parra or Saints supporters. I would actually love to see a Cowboys vs Tigers final.

But I really think the NRL finals system is total crap and disadvantages the top teams. Playing 7th or 8th followed by a week off is a very poor preparation to play a sudden death game against a team that has had two games against tougher opponents.

If the NRL want to "reward" the top teams by giving them the week off at least give them a tough game in the first week as is done in the AFL.

so if thats the case, then the dragons should have beaten the sharks by 30+, but they didnt, and you know why? because they are chokers... and thats why they are not in the finals.

parra was stupid enough to think they can win a game without hindmarsh. i think thats where they went wrong. hindmarsh would have been more useful against cowboys than tigers.

also: nathan brown.... the name says it all...

 

[Cletus]

If it's such a problem having a week off then have a game with the premier league side. I'm sure there are ways to prepare for it.
Just because for once two lower placed teams are in the GF doesn't make it unfair.

 

[simostorm]

The McIntyre system is great. Way better then the faggy AFL system
because...............
The Nrl system builds up to the biggest game which is the GF,
but the AFl one has the biggest games in the first week, which is stupid.
When watching the Afl I find the first week is the best week of footy
but with the Nrl it gets more intense as the weeks progress which is what
its all about.

 

[lockyno1]

The McIntyre system is great. Way better then the faggy AFL system
because...............
The Nrl system builds up to the biggest game which is the GF,
but the AFl one has the biggest games in the first week, which is stupid.
When watching the Afl I find the first week is the best week of footy
but with the Nrl it gets more intense as the weeks progress which is what
its all about.

The thing is with the NRL system is that I do not believe it rewards teams in the top 4. Now I know it is unlikely but we could have teams comins 3 and 4 eliminated in Week 1. To me that is just plain stupid. The AFL system and I know there is no perfect system at least gives the top4 teams the double chance if they lose. Also potentially there is the chance of more blowouts in the NRL system in Week 1. Teams 7 and 8 are really struggling most of the time. It is just me but the McIntyre system is flawed!

 

[mepelthwack]

The McIntyre system is garbage in the years teams 1 and 2 make the GF and in the years they do not.

It's just garbage.

It is racked with flaws, some big and some small and every year at least 1 rears it's ugly head, this year a couple popped up.
No team deserves criticism for making the GF however as they are only playing within the system.

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

The Mcintyre System is the best weve got, and unless there is a better alternative, it will not change

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

I like the tinkered version of the "ARL top 8" system posted on here by a few people (sorry I can't remember who you are).

WEEK ONE:
A: 1 v 4 - winner to week 3
B: 2 v 3 - winner to week 3
C: 5 v 8 - sudden death
D: 6 v 7 - sudden death

WEEK TWO:
E: Highest top 4 loser vs lowest winner - sudden death
F: 2nd top 4 loser vs other low winner - sudden death

WEEK THREE:
G: Winner E vs Winner F - sudden death
H: Winner A vs Winner B - winner to Grand Final, loser to week 4

WEEK FOUR:
I: Loser H vs Winner G - loser eliminated, winner to GF

GRAND FINAL:

J: Winner H vs Winner I


---

When I saw this system I liked it straight away. Very similar to the top 5. Teams in the top 4 have to lose twice to be knocked out. Unlike the current system where a team could be undefeated all season and lose ONE finals match and not even make the grand final.

 

[Hass]

Man of Steel.

That is actually a good tweaking of the other 5-week finals system that has been heavily publicised on this forum and which ensures teams in the top 4 have to lose twice before they are eliminated before the Grand Final.

The only change made is in Week 2. The other five week Top 8 has the loser of 1 v 4 play the winner of 5 v 8 and the loser of 2 v 3 play the winner of 6 v 7.

However doing it your way is much fairer. It ensures that the higher ranked loser from the Top 4 gets to play the more lowly ranked opponent from the bottom 4.

If we are to have a Top 8 then this is the system it must be.

There's one extra match for the money-hungry NRL as well so there's no reason why it shouldn't be right up their alley.

Cheers.

 

[dingalingbell]

Is there any reason why they can't use a straightforward 3 week system whereby:

a 1v8
b 2v7
c 3v6
d 4v5

1 winner a v winner d
2 winner b v winner c

gf 1v2

this would seem the most logical system and there could be no argument about advantages/disadvantages of the week off. In the second week the teams finishing highest would get home advantage. This would seem the most fair and logical method for the teams/players, the disadvantage being that we get 1 weeks less action and therefore money!

 

[Man_of_Steel_1982]

Well ding they may as well, seen as teams 1 and 2 have been knocked out before the GF this year with only one loss.

Hass, yeah i just made that 2nd week thing up, i couldn't remember how it went. Either 5 week system is far and away better than the NRL/AFL systems.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

Is there any reason why they can't use a straightforward 3 week system whereby:

a 1v8
b 2v7
c 3v6
d 4v5

1 winner a v winner d
2 winner b v winner c

gf 1v2

this would seem the most logical system and there could be no argument about advantages/disadvantages of the week off. In the second week the teams finishing highest would get home advantage. This would seem the most fair and logical method for the teams/players, the disadvantage being that we get 1 weeks less action and therefore money!

The money hungry NRL would not allow that

 

[sting]

seeing as though the mcintyre system is a joke (how can a team belted 50-6 deserve a second go) what do people think of this idea..

top 8 split into 2 groups ( 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th and 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th) and the first 3 weeks they play each other in a round robin format then the top teams of each group would meet in the grand final...

i think it would be fairer as it rewards consistancy and teams dont get to "enjoy" a week off if theyre a high ranked winner, instead they could just get more home ground advantage than lower ranked team... eg in group 1 it'd be (home team first)
week1- 1v8 4v5, week2- 1v5 4v8, week3- 1v4 5v8, etc

any thoughts?

 

[Mr. Fahrenheit]

i lyk it, its innovative compard to all the other formats, its good

 

[sting]

it has its faults eg. in week 3 there could be some dead rubbers with teams no chance of qualifying but then again in mcintyre system there are effectively dead rubbers if say 1 beats 8 then 2 beats 7 then the other teams basically just swap partners...

i doubt theres a system that is flawless anyway

 

[NRL_man]

Ok, here's another idea of a different finals system. I invented it myself and if you look at the structure, you can see that it is a combination of the old top 5 ARL system and the current AFL system. I like the fact that the two teams who play each other in Game 7 BOTH have the week off so there's no one advantage over the other and also that the winner of that game doesn't end up getting two weeks off. As well instead of the current 9 games, this system provides 10 games which is more income/crowds. It also gives the winners of Games 1 & 2 much better chances of making the grand final, which is how it should be.

Week 1
-------
Team 1 vs Team 4 --- Game 1 (Winner gets week off)
Team 2 vs Team 3 --- Game 2 (Winner gets week off)

Team 5 vs Team 8 --- Game 3 (Loser eliminated)
Team 6 vs Team 7 --- Game 4 (Loser eliminated)

Week 2
-------
Loser Game 1 vs Winner Game 3 --- Game 5 (Loser eliminated)
Loser Game 2 vs Winner Game 4 --- Game 6 (Loser eliminated)

Week 3
-------
Winner Game 1 vs Winner Game 2 --- Game 7 (Winner gets week off)
Winner Game 5 vs Winner Game 6 --- Game 8 (Loser eliminated)

Week 4
-------
Loser Game 7 vs Winner Game 8 --- Game 9 (Loser eliminated)

Grand Final
-----------
Winner Game 7 vs Winner Game 9 --- Game 10


If rankings are given more importance, you can change Week 2 to the following:

Week 2
-------
Highest Ranked Loser Game 1/2 vs Lowest Ranked Winner Game 3/4
Lowest Ranked Loser Game 1/2 vs Highest Ranked Winner Game 3/4

 

[Cheesie-the-Pirate]

5 weeks seems a little excessive.

I fail to see the advantage of that system over the AFL system. Your system takes the AFL system and adds an extra week for no apparent reason.

Very strange.

 

[nqboy]

Looks alright. I'll wait for more detailed analysis that I can't be shagged to do and comment from the people who do it before committing myself fully.

How do you see the home games being allocated?

 

[Steelers4eva]

The big problem I see with that system is if you finish first and stay undefeated through the finals you will only play 2 games in 5 weeks leading into a GF. Imagine having a bye in the week leading into the Semis?

2 games in 6 weeks could be a possibility.