The annual finals system debate thread

[Ron Jeremy]

Top 5 was awesome, but 8 is better, interest from fans i samazing compared to the five.

What about top 7 then?, could we have a better system?

 

[Y2Eel]

Top 5 was awesome, but 8 is better, interest from fans i samazing compared to the five.

What about top 7 then?, could we have a better system?

i'd say there is a way for a top 7 similar to the top 5 system..

 

[BrisVegas]

Home finals will be given for weeks 1, 2 and 3 starting in 2007. The contracts with Aussie Stadium and Telstra Stadium expire at the end of this year, which has been the only thing preventing the change from coming in sooner.

 

[Ron Jeremy]

Thank god, that would be much better!!!

 

[adamkungl]

I reckon the AFL system is probably better, but there will always be people against either.

 

[mepelthwack]

Here's my system (The GlennC system). For the sake of this example the high ranked side wins but no matter which way you shuffle the results teams 1-4 get 2 bites prior to GF day and teams 5-8 play constant sudden death.

nb - E = Elimination

-----------------

week 1 (home teams first)

1v4
2v3

5v8 E
6v7 E

-----------------

week 2 (home teams first)

3v6 E
4v5 E

nb - as can be seen the reward for a top 4 finish is that even if you lose in week 1 you will still have home advantage against the survivors of 5-8.

-----------------

week 3 (from now on always neutral grounds and from here follows week 2 of the old reverred top 5 onwards precisely, right through to completion)

1v2 (winner straight to GF)
3v4 E

-----------------

week 4

2v3 E

week 5 (GF)

1v2

------------------

Ok now under the McIntyre System there are 9 semis. This system extends the series by 1 week and is 10 semis. The extra week is necessary to eliminate all the flaws existing in the McIntyre (and AFL) formats.

There will always be 1 team that plays 3 games only in the 5 weeks. This is unavoidable but cast your minds back to the old top 5. The best of the Minor Premiers in those days did EXACTLY the same, ie. week off on the first weekend then if they won on the 2nd weekend a further week off until GF day. Remember, the best sides can and did overcome this situation. It is arguable in any case that it can be good to get a week off. There are pros and cons either way.

It is necessary (and fair) to allow ALL teams in the top 4 the 2 bites they deserve for a consistent season. IF a team from 5-8 wins the premiership there can be no doubt they deserved it as the road is a long and tough one.

 

[*Paul*]

could have a top 10 then 2 lots of 5 :crazy:

Which was the case in 1998, for one season only.

 

[Sea Eagle Scuba]

Here's my system (The GlennC system). For the sake of this example the high ranked side wins but no matter which way you shuffle the results teams 1-4 get 2 bites prior to GF day and teams 5-8 play constant sudden death.

nb - E = Elimination

-----------------

week 1 (home teams first)

1v4
2v3

5v8 E
6v7 E

-----------------

week 2 (home teams first)

3v6 E
4v5 E

nb - as can be seen the reward for a top 4 finish is that even if you lose in week 1 you will still have home advantage against the survivors of 5-8.

-----------------

week 3 (from now on always neutral grounds and from here follows week 2 of the old reverred top 5 onwards precisely, right through to completion)

1v2 (winner straight to GF)
3v4 E

-----------------

week 4

2v3 E

week 5 (GF)

1v2

------------------

Ok now under the McIntyre System there are 9 semis. This system extends the series by 1 week and is 10 semis. The extra week is necessary to eliminate all the flaws existing in the McIntyre (and AFL) formats.

There will always be 1 team that plays 3 games only in the 5 weeks. This is unavoidable but cast your minds back to the old top 5. The best of the Minor Premiers in those days did EXACTLY the same, ie. week off on the first weekend then if they won on the 2nd weekend a further week off until GF day. Remember, the best sides can and did overcome this situation. It is arguable in any case that it can be good to get a week off. There are pros and cons either way.

It is necessary (and fair) to allow ALL teams in the top 4 the 2 bites they deserve for a consistent season. IF a team from 5-8 wins the premiership there can be no doubt they deserved it as the road is a long and tough one.

I really like the sound of this system. It means that Top 4 teams not only get a second bite of the cherry should they lose, but they also benefit from gaining a top 4 position by gaining a home final if they lose in week 1. Really like the idea tbh. ;-)

 

[Kilkenny]

AFL system for mine.

It is totally unfair and ridiculous that a side finishing in 3rd or 4th after 26 rounds can theoretically be eliminated in the first round.

It may sound stupid but perhaps now we have a 16 team competition in 2007 perhaps the NRL could look at experimenting by having some sort of secondary competition for those not making the top eight. Perhaps a midweek 8 team knockout. Obviously, it would have to be something which will not detract in any way from the main fare (not that it would) but something for the fans of those sides less fortunate in not making the eight. It could be an opportunity for the NRL to experiment with some rule changes, allow clubs to blood some young up and comers and allow match practise for those players named in the train on squad. Sounds good to me as my side our not in the eight.

 

[Hass]

It disturbs me - in fact, it distrubs me greatly, that some people think the top 8 is superior to a top 5.

In 1994 we had 16 teams in the comp and a finals system that rewarded merit.

Fo a team to win the comp under a final 5 they must defeat every side who finished above them on the ladder. To me this seems inherently fair. Finish 5th but beat teams 4,3,2 and 1 and I reckon you are deserved premiers.

Finish minor premiers and I reckon you should only have to win one game to make the Grand Final - in fact you should have to lose twice, not once to get kicked out before the decider. Once again it's another tick to the final 5.

"The Finals" doesn't seem to mean all that much now - instead of being an achievement to make the semis, it's now a failure to miss the playoffs.

If we end up going back to 18 or 20 teams I could accept an 8 team final series. But then it would have to follow the Glenn C system. Any system worth its salt gets to the old final 4 with 3 weeks to go ie 1v2 3v4 etc.

Having 8 teams in the finals is a joke (by the way, I'm a Parra fan so I should be happy about it), while the McIntyre system just adds insult to injury.

If only the powers that be could wake up and smell the coffee.

Cheers.

 

[Raoul Duke]

FOR f**kS SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are they gonna ask this same goddamn question every f**king finals season?!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[spider]

First past the post crowned as "Champions" - would be a long competition.

To be true and balanced you would have to play every team twice, plus rep games - very long.

Top 8 supports the NRL, fan base and football clubs. If its continually improving and the results show - no need to fix it yet - this is the statistical philosophy.

Although IMO - top 5 or 6 may strengthen that period from post origin to the end.

 

[aussies1st]

The AFL system is the best. Top 4 team can't be eliminated, 5 and 6 get a home game so they get something out of it. While the team scraping in get jack all.

 

[Rocky Rabbit]

I prefer the Afl system just because it rewards the top 4.
imagine you come 3rd or 4th and 3 or 4 of the bottom teams have blinders and win you could be knocked out in the first week. Just seems unfair.

 

[waltzing Meninga]

The thing that gets me is that it is possible for the team who comes 3rd to get knocked out in the first week!!, while the team who finishes 8th barely winning 50% of matches during the regular season, can have a flukey win and they progress to the next round.

 

[borat]

I don't like the AFL system, which we have already chucked out once before, because there is little difference in coming 1st or 4th. At least with MacIntyre it rewards top 2.

I like the idea of MacIntyre in that the top 2 ranked winners get a week off and top 2 losers are punted, but would like to see week 1 match ups changed to bring in sudden death a eliminator for lower ranked teams. Thats what I used to enjoy about final 5. 4 v 5 were both playing for survival which made for exciting games.

I would like to see

1 v 8 (reward for coming first)
2 v 3 (garuanteed survival for both and week off for winner)
4 v 5 (possible week off for winner and possible elimination for loser)
6 v 7 (eliminator for two lowly ranked sides)

 

[Raiders Plight]

I don't like the AFL system, which we have already chucked out once before, because there is little difference in coming 1st or 4th. At least with MacIntyre it rewards top 2.

I like the idea of MacIntyre in that the top 2 ranked winners get a week off and top 2 losers are punted, but would like to see week 1 match ups changed to bring in sudden death a eliminator for lower ranked teams. Thats what I used to enjoy about final 5. 4 v 5 were both playing for survival which made for exciting games.

I would like to see

1 v 8 (reward for coming first)
2 v 3 (garuanteed survival for both and week off for winner)
4 v 5 (possible week off for winner and possible elimination for loser)
6 v 7 (eliminator for two lowly ranked sides)

i like that system, except if 1 wins then 4 v 5 becomes meaningless, as they both get a second bite win or lose.

 

[borat]

You play 1 v 8 on Sunday like it is today.

For example:-

(6) Dragons v (7) Raiders (Friday Night - Elimination game)
(4) Newcastle v (5) Manly (Saturday 6:30pm)
(2) Bulldogs v (3) Broncos (Saturday 8:30pm)
(1) Storm v (8) Eels (Sunday)

 

[Nickeel]

1 v 8 (reward for coming first)
2 v 3 (garuanteed survival for both and week off for winner)
4 v 5 (possible week off for winner and possible elimination for loser)
6 v 7 (eliminator for two lowly ranked sides)

But if 8th happens to jag a win then the loser of of 4v5 will be eliminated, while say sixth gets to play seventh, win and continue on?

Nick

 

[borat]

But if 8th happens to jag a win then the loser of of 4v5 will be eliminated, while say sixth gets to play seventh, win and continue on?

Nick

The 4 v 5 game is no different than it is today. Possible week off for winner and possible elimination for loser.

With the current system teams 3 & 4 can be eliminated in week 1. Unlikely but possible. With my system

* top 3 are garuanteed survival like the old top 5,
* either team 6 or 7 will be eliminated. Removal of a lowly ranked team is garuanteed
* Although possible for team 8 to jag a win it is extremely unlikely (never happened in current system).

My system is the same as the current just tweaked slightly. All systems have flaws, I just prefer this one.