The annual finals system debate thread

[attila_the_gorilla]

A team that finished 6th and loses by 50 in week 1 can still play in week 2? Very good chance.

 

[Doomednow]

That's true, the highlight of my fan career was the Warriors winning in Melbourne from 8th spot.

That was such a great game, and is one of the major reasons I love the system. Warriors beat them and did it in style, securing them a game the next week and at the same time taking away the home ground advantage of my least favourite team (even back then). Awesome.

And yes, I could hack it if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Note the "Melbourne" part of my post mate.

There is only 2 out of town clubs in the VFL top 8 this year also.

The host allocates the tickets for the game where they are the host, no matter what stadium it is in. Obviously it will be their members who get the priority.

 

[Lego_Man]

Most people bag the system because they dont understand it properly.

Or because they look at a single permutation and say "that's unfair", without realising that on average, the McIntyre System is set up to provide both the fairest outcomes and the outcomes desired for the fans. I agree the venues could be tweaked, but that is a decision for the NRL to make separately and not a flaw of the game allocation system itself.

I'm glad the NRL isnt going to listen to the geniuss though. Just like how anyone can jump up and down for the next 50 years and seek a return to the Top 5 or 6, but it will simply never happen for financial reasons.

 

[docbrown]

AFL:
1-4 - double chance, 2 home finals, risk elimination in weeks 2 & 3
5-6 - 1 home final, risk elimination all weeks
7-8 - risk elimination all weeks
Week 1 Top 4 Winners 1 & 2 - home preliminary finals
Week 1 Top 4 Losers 1 & 2 - home semi finals
Week 1 Bottom 4 Winners 1 & 2 - play away semi
Week 1 Bottom 4 Losers 1 & 2 - eliminated

So the top half get rewarded for losing in week 1 with a week 2 advantage
The bottom half get punished for winning in week 1 with a week 2 disadvantage

NRL:
1-2 - double chance, 1 guaranteed home final, risk elimination in weeks 2 & 3
3-4 - 1 guaranteed home final, risk elimination all weeks
5-8 - risk elimination all weeks
Week 1 Winners Ranked 1 & 2 - home preliminary finals
Week 1 Winners Ranked 3 & 4 - home semi final
Week 1 Losers Ranked 1 & 2 - play away semi
Week 1 Losers Ranked 3 & 4 - eliminated

So winning is the only thing that guarantees an advantage during the rest of the finals and losing risks elimination

If Teams 3 & 4 lose in Week 1, do they deserve a home final against Teams 5 & 6 who won? In my opinion - No.

The current NRL system is better in this regards, although the fairest system would be all elimination finals - though that means 2 less final games.

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

Most people bag the system because they dont understand it properly.

I'm listening, Great Teacher.

 

[Danny-Boy]

The AFL system sh*ts all over the NRL system. Why?

Because no teams fate should be decided by other games. Simple as that.

It's absolutely sh*t that the loser out of Titans vs Warriors has to wait for the other games to complete to find out if they are still alive.

Absolutely sh*t!!!

 

[docbrown]

The AFL system sh*ts all over the NRL system. Why?

Because no teams fate should be decided by other games. Simple as that.

It's absolutely sh*t that the loser out of Titans vs Warriors has to wait for the other games to complete to find out if they are still alive.

Absolutely sh*t!!!

It's a potential Bottom 6 elimination versus a potential Bottom 4 elimination.

The only thing that guarantees your fate is winning, unlike teams 3 & 4 in the AFL who can lose and still be in it.

Do teams 3, 4 & 5 deserve a guaranteed double chance? No. Wrap'em up in cotton wool otherwise.

If Titans and Warriors want the Grand Final trophy they'd better learn to win in Week 1.

 

[Jason Maher]

First off, take your "he's just a whinging Saints fan" comments and shove them up your arse. My opinions on finals systems were formed long before last season.

Oh come on, we're not so different.



As for everybody else who thinks our system is good, here's a scenario for you....

Friday night next week. Titans v Warriors: Game of the season candidate, Warriors win it in the last 30 seconds with a Maloney FG, 25-24. An incredible effort to come to Skilled Park and get a win. We get 2135236 WOW's from Gus and Freddy's gibberish is even less coherent than usual due to his excitement. All and sundry agree it's a five star match.

Saturday at 6:30: Tigers and Roosters sell out the SFS. 42,000 cram in to see another excellent game, which the Roosters win through a freakish try to Todd Carney in the last couple of minutes...another five star clash.

Oh wait. Penrith and St George both win and these two epic games were a complete waste of time. And that, friends, is why the McIntyre system is f**ked.

That is my first objection to the McIntyre system. If 1 and 2 win, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 simply do a do-si-do and go around again the following week. Ridiculous outcome for mine.

My problem with the McIntyre system, is the amount of 4 v 5, 3 v 6, 4 v 8 finals that we've had.
As well as the fact that after being somewhat dominant during the year, teams 3 or 4 could be eliminated in the very first week.

At least with the final 5 system, one of the spots was assured of being filled by the team that came first or second in the regular rounds.

With the AFL (or more correctly, old ARL system), there is a stronger bias towards those teams that finished top half, as there should be.

Some good comments. The absolute worst thing about the McIntyre system (and to a lesser extent, the ARL/AFL system) is that it only takes a week to overturn 26 weeks. 3 and 4 being possibly eliminated is also ridiculous. But I fundamentally agree that there should be a definite advantage to finishing in the higher places, which is the key thing that was good about the final 5. Also, to win the Grand Final required a team to beat the minor premiers at some stage. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. THis should be a faeture of any finals system for mine.

The one good thing about the McIntyre system is that any Grand Final pairing is theoretically possible (though some are far more probable than others).

We have this thread every year.

when we had the AFL implemented system
contested between

premiers first.

Current AFL System

1995 : 6th vs 1st
1996 : 1st vs 7th

McIntyre System

1999 : 3rd vs 6th
2000 : 1st vs 2nd
2001 : 3rd vs 1st
2002 : 4th vs 1st
2003 : 1st vs 2nd
2004 : 2nd vs 1st
2005 : 4th vs 5th
2006 : 1st vs 3rd
2007 : 1st vs 2nd
2008 : 2nd vs 1st
2009 : 4th vs 8th

Top 5

1973 : 1st vs 2nd
1974 : 1st vs 3rd
1975 : 1st vs 3rd
1976 : 1st vs 2nd
1977 : 2nd vs 1st
1978 : 3rd vs 2nd
1979 : 1st vs 5th
1980 : 2nd vs 1st
1981 : 3rd vs 2nd
1982 : 1st vs 2nd
1983 : 2nd vs 1st
1984 : 1st vs 3rd
1985 : 3rd vs 1st
1986 : 1st vs 3rd
1987 : 1st vs 3rd
1988 : 2nd vs 6th* Balmain won the 5th place playoff
1989 : 4th vs 3rd
1990 : 1st vs 3rd
1991 : 1st vs 4th
1992 : 1st vs 2nd
1993 : 5th vs 2nd
1994 : 3rd vs 1st

So judging it by this the McIntyre system is more likely to produce a 1st vs 2nd Grand Final then any other system. So it is in essence the fairest system.

4/11 vs 7/22 - 36% vs 32% - about as close as you could expect with different smple sizes. Statistics fail.

An interesting anomaly is that there have only been two 2nd vs 3rd GFs in the last 37 years, under any system. I would have expected a few more.

I prefer the NRL's over the AFL's (though both are sh*te). Top 5 or Top 6 is perfect but unworkable ($$$) these days.

This thread comes about EVERY BLOODY YEAR!

Indeed it does. Which is its own evidence (and incidentally rules out the "Dragons fans bitching about last year" hypothesis). No one ever bitched about the final 5. And that's because it was a fundamentally fair system that rewarded teams for their efforts in the regular season. I believe its possible to construct a much fairer final 8 system if we must have such a thing, but to do so requires more than 4 weeks of finals. That is the fundamental problem - squeezing a size 8 body into a size 5 dress.

Since the whole reason we have a final 8 is to get more finals games for the $$$, then why not stretch it by a week or two, get even more games, more $$$, and come up with a system that properly rewards regular season results.

Here's an idea I came up with just now, which is a modifcation of the ARL/AFL system, or alternatively an extension of the old major/minor semi top 4 system to 8 teams. It provides a double chance at Grand Final qualification for a top 4 team that wins week 1, instead of sudden death. Any team that loses is in sudden death from that point on (as are the bottom 4).

week 1:
A: 1 vs 4
B: 2 vs 3
C: 5 vs 8 (loser eliminated)
D: 6 vs 7 (loser eliminated)

week 2:
E: loser A vs loser B (loser eliminated)
F: winner C vs winner D (loser eliminated)

week 3:
G: winner A vs winner B
H: winner E vs winner F (loser eliminated)

week 4:
I: loser G vs winner H (loser eliminated)

week 5:
J: winner G vs winner I

 

[attila_the_gorilla]

week 1:
A: 1 vs 4
B: 2 vs 3
C: 5 vs 8 (loser eliminated)
D: 6 vs 7 (loser eliminated)

week 2:
E: loser A vs loser B (loser eliminated)
F: winner C vs winner D (loser eliminated)

week 3:
G: winner A vs winner B
H: winner E vs winner F (loser eliminated)

week 4:
I: loser G vs winner H (loser eliminated)

week 5:
J: winner G vs winner I

This looks very good, though I have no issue with the current AFL system either.

 

[docbrown]

week 1:
A: 1 vs 4
B: 2 vs 3
C: 5 vs 8 (loser eliminated)
D: 6 vs 7 (loser eliminated)

week 2:
E: loser A vs loser B (loser eliminated)
F: winner C vs winner D (loser eliminated)

week 3:
G: winner A vs winner B
H: winner E vs winner F (loser eliminated)

week 4:
I: loser G vs winner H (loser eliminated)

week 5:
J: winner G vs winner I

Only 1 team from the bottom 4 makes it through to week 3 - then are forced to play a top 4 side just to get to Week 4. It seems unlikely that teams 5-8 would ever get to week 4 let alone the grand final.

3 teams from the top 4 are guaranteed make it through to week 3 - and they can lose once in doing so - games A & B are just to win a one week bye. It definitely rewards teams 1-4 to the detriment of teams 5-8. Team 5-8 seem to just be making up the numbers.

The grand final - Winner G has a huge advantage (has played 2 finals games, 2 weeks off) vs Winner I (played either 3 or 4 finals games).

I don't like the idea of a bye before the grand final to be honest.

 

[smi962]

3 teams from the top 4 are guaranteed make it through to week 3 - and they can lose once in doing so - games A & B are just to win a one week bye. It definitely rewards teams 1-4 to the detriment of teams 5-8. Team 5-8 seem to just be making up the numbers.


That's the way it should be

I guess maybe its a little harsh for teams finishing 5-6, but better than currently.

 

[mepelthwack]

Jason I wrote that system in 1999. I was already pissed with the McIntyre in year 1. That year Melbourne were thrashed in week 1 and won the premiership while minor premiers Cronulla lost 1 game only and were eliminated. I already realised the McIntyre sucked.

So I submitted that system to the NRL where it's apparently still on file. It went with supporting letter from Manly CEO at that time Ian Thompson.

Annesley rejected it being the Mcintyre apologist he is. I'm still biding my time for his retirement or replacement.

For what it's worth the currently used AFL system is better than the McIntyre.

 

[simostorm]

Change it, see how it goes.. if its better.. so be it.. if its not.. change it back.

 

[Ladmate]

First off, take your "he's just a whinging Saints fan" comments and shove them up your arse. My opinions on finals systems were formed long before last season.



That is my first objection to the McIntyre system. If 1 and 2 win, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 simply do a do-si-do and go around again the following week. Ridiculous outcome for mine.



Some good comments. The absolute worst thing about the McIntyre system (and to a lesser extent, the ARL/AFL system) is that it only takes a week to overturn 26 weeks. 3 and 4 being possibly eliminated is also ridiculous. But I fundamentally agree that there should be a definite advantage to finishing in the higher places, which is the key thing that was good about the final 5. Also, to win the Grand Final required a team to beat the minor premiers at some stage. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. THis should be a faeture of any finals system for mine.

The one good thing about the McIntyre system is that any Grand Final pairing is theoretically possible (though some are far more probable than others).



4/11 vs 7/22 - 36% vs 32% - about as close as you could expect with different smple sizes. Statistics fail.

An interesting anomaly is that there have only been two 2nd vs 3rd GFs in the last 37 years, under any system. I would have expected a few more.



Indeed it does. Which is its own evidence (and incidentally rules out the "Dragons fans bitching about last year" hypothesis). No one ever bitched about the final 5. And that's because it was a fundamentally fair system that rewarded teams for their efforts in the regular season. I believe its possible to construct a much fairer final 8 system if we must have such a thing, but to do so requires more than 4 weeks of finals. That is the fundamental problem - squeezing a size 8 body into a size 5 dress.

Since the whole reason we have a final 8 is to get more finals games for the $$$, then why not stretch it by a week or two, get even more games, more $$$, and come up with a system that properly rewards regular season results.

Here's an idea I came up with just now, which is a modifcation of the ARL/AFL system, or alternatively an extension of the old major/minor semi top 4 system to 8 teams. It provides a double chance at Grand Final qualification for a top 4 team that wins week 1, instead of sudden death. Any team that loses is in sudden death from that point on (as are the bottom 4).

week 1:
A: 1 vs 4
B: 2 vs 3
C: 5 vs 8 (loser eliminated)
D: 6 vs 7 (loser eliminated)

week 2:
E: loser A vs loser B (loser eliminated)
F: winner C vs winner D (loser eliminated)

week 3:
G: winner A vs winner B
H: winner E vs winner F (loser eliminated)

week 4:
I: loser G vs winner H (loser eliminated)

week 5:
J: winner G vs winner I

Dumbest system ever. I would love to finish 5th with that system. Why should game E have the top 4 in an ELIMINATION ROUND, and have 5th/6th/7th/8th in an elimination game.

 

[Ladmate]

First off, take your "he's just a whinging Saints fan" comments and shove them up your arse. My opinions on finals systems were formed long before last season.



That is my first objection to the McIntyre system. If 1 and 2 win, 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 simply do a do-si-do and go around again the following week. Ridiculous outcome for mine.



Some good comments. The absolute worst thing about the McIntyre system (and to a lesser extent, the ARL/AFL system) is that it only takes a week to overturn 26 weeks. 3 and 4 being possibly eliminated is also ridiculous. But I fundamentally agree that there should be a definite advantage to finishing in the higher places, which is the key thing that was good about the final 5. Also, to win the Grand Final required a team to beat the minor premiers at some stage. If you want to be the best, you have to beat the best. THis should be a faeture of any finals system for mine.

The one good thing about the McIntyre system is that any Grand Final pairing is theoretically possible (though some are far more probable than others).



4/11 vs 7/22 - 36% vs 32% - about as close as you could expect with different smple sizes. Statistics fail.

An interesting anomaly is that there have only been two 2nd vs 3rd GFs in the last 37 years, under any system. I would have expected a few more.



Indeed it does. Which is its own evidence (and incidentally rules out the "Dragons fans bitching about last year" hypothesis). No one ever bitched about the final 5. And that's because it was a fundamentally fair system that rewarded teams for their efforts in the regular season. I believe its possible to construct a much fairer final 8 system if we must have such a thing, but to do so requires more than 4 weeks of finals. That is the fundamental problem - squeezing a size 8 body into a size 5 dress.

Since the whole reason we have a final 8 is to get more finals games for the $$$, then why not stretch it by a week or two, get even more games, more $$$, and come up with a system that properly rewards regular season results.

Here's an idea I came up with just now, which is a modifcation of the ARL/AFL system, or alternatively an extension of the old major/minor semi top 4 system to 8 teams. It provides a double chance at Grand Final qualification for a top 4 team that wins week 1, instead of sudden death. Any team that loses is in sudden death from that point on (as are the bottom 4).

week 1:
A: 1 vs 4
B: 2 vs 3
C: 5 vs 8 (loser eliminated)
D: 6 vs 7 (loser eliminated)

week 2:
E: loser A vs loser B (loser eliminated)
F: winner C vs winner D (loser eliminated)

week 3:
G: winner A vs winner B
H: winner E vs winner F (loser eliminated)

week 4:
I: loser G vs winner H (loser eliminated)

week 5:
J: winner G vs winner I

Dumbest system ever. I would love to finish 5th with that system. Why should game E have the top 4 in an ELIMINATION ROUND, and have 5th/6th/7th/8th in an elimination game.

2 vs 4 in an Elimination game
5 vs 7 in an Elimination game

So fair :crazy:

 

[mepelthwack]

Yeh good pickup Ladm8 my system does vary from that afterall. In mine the 2 top 4 losers get a home semi V the bottom 4 survivors in sudden death.

 

[Jason Maher]

The difference is 5 and 7 have to survive an elimination game the week before, teams 2 and 4 are banking their double chance from finishing in the top 4, having lost the week before.

Incidentally, the current system awards team 3 by pitting them against team 5, and gives team 4 the theoretically easier game against team 6, because we can't possibly have a repeat matchup (assuming 1 and 2 win).

edit: ah, I see what you're getting at. Yeah, top 4 losers against bottom 4 survivors is a better option. What I suggested guarantees one bottom 4 team will make week 3, and one top 4 team will miss out (a bit like the 08 World Cup where the best of the rest made the semis at the expense of the worst of the best). Happened because I made some alterations when I realised another direction I was heading wouldn't work, and I forgot to change the week 2 games. Mind you, an argument could be raised that a guarantee of one bottom 4 side reaching the minor semi does give a little extra incentive for those teams. But I think on balance mepel's way is better (and is what I actually intended). Still think "dumbest system ever" is a bit of hyperbole though. The McIntyre system and the World Cup system have me beat easily.

To be clear, the system as I intended it:

Week 1:
A: 1 vs 4 (winner to major semi)
B: 2 vs 3 (winner to major semi)
C: 5 vs 8 (loser eliminated)
D: 6 vs 7 (loser eliminated)

Week 2: (top 4 losers get home ground advantage)
E: loser A vs winner C (loser eliminated)
F: loser B vs winner D (loser eliminated)

Week 3: (highest placed team gets home ground advantage)
Major Semi: winner A vs winner B (winner to Grand Final)
Minor Semi: winner E vs winner F (loser eliminated)

Week 4: (major semi loser gets home ground advantage)
Preliminary Final: loser Major Semi vs winner Minor Semi

Week 5:
Grand Final: winner Major Semi vs winner Preliminary Final

 

[smi962]

Yeh good pickup Ladm8 my system does vary from that afterall. In mine the 2 top 4 losers get a home semi V the bottom 4 survivors in sudden death.

Does that then become the same as the AFL system?

 

[Jason Maher]

Week 2 is the same, but week 3 is different. The top 4 winners play each other in a Grand Final qualifier, with a second chance to the loser in the preliminary final. The two survivors form week 2 playe each other in an elimination final, with the winner advancing to the preliminary final.

Another way of looking at it is to use the first two weeks of the AFL system to reduce 8 teams to 4, and then use the old final 4 system. This eliminates a key disadvantage of both top 8 systems: rewarding the teams who earn a week off with a sudden death qualifier. Top 4 teams that win should keep their second chance until they lose.