The annual finals system debate thread

[Cockadoodledoo]

Has the 8th placed team ever won?

No they haven't



There's no 4v5 match in Ryans finals

1 play 4. If 1 wins they get a week off
5 plays 8. If 8 loses they're out

So the matches mean something. Not like the current 4v5 match.

Why does team 5 get an easier match in the first week, than teams 1-4? Why can team 7 lose in the first week and remain?

 

[Jono078]

Now that would make each game count and be interesting.

Week 1

1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5

All losers out

Week 2

winer 1v8 plays winner 3v6
Winner 2v7 plays winner 4v5

Losers out

Week 3

Grand final.

Each game counts. None of this easy ride crap, and if you lose your still in crap. 1v8 gives 1st place the biggest advantag playing the lowest team, and so on down the top 4. Even give the top 4 home semis in the first week.

You realise thats the same as what I said..?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Now that would make each game count and be interesting.

Week 1

1v8
2v7
3v6
4v5

All losers out

Week 2

winer 1v8 plays winner 3v6
Winner 2v7 plays winner 4v5

Losers out

Week 3

Grand final.

Each game counts. None of this easy ride crap, and if you lose your still in crap. 1v8 gives 1st place the biggest advantag playing the lowest team, and so on down the top 4. Even give the top 4 home semis in the first week.

Another joke of a system

Lets say teams 1-4 all win week one.

Means in week 2,

The team that finished 1st playes the team that finished 3rd and
The team that finished 2nd plays the team that fished 4th.

Why does the team who finished 2nd get the easier game? It is so frustrating that people don't think things through before they post.

 

[Jono078]

Another joke of a system

Lets say teams 1-4 all win week one.

Means in week 2,

The team that finished 1st playes the team that finished 3rd and
The team that finished 2nd plays the team that fished 4th.

Why does the team who finished 2nd get the easier game? It is so frustrating that people don't think things through before they post.

How do they get the easier game ? Have you not seen how bloody even our comp is!?!?

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

I think the current system is very good. It allows for a grading in week 1 of the top 8 sides - with games getting 'easier' the higher you get. The 2nd side gets a 2nd bite of the cherry. 3rd and 4th are relaitvely safe, but on a diminishing scale. 4th v 5th is a tussle. 6th, 7th and 8th have to prove their worth v top sides, with only 6th with a chance to lose, and not be eliminated.

Week 2 is where the Mac system gets it's critics, with the crossover. This is where a still alive 7th can play, say, the 5th placed team, while 4th cops the 2nd placed team. (this happens when 7 beats 2, and 4 beats 5 in week 1). BUt if 2 loses in week 1, they deserve to have a harder run. However, 4, as a reward for winning, plays 2, while loser 5 gets to play 7. That's the problem.

In comparison, Ryans system robs any advantage of coming second, as opposed to the top 4. In a top 8, I thinks it's fairer that 2 teams have a week off, rather than 1. Under Ryan's system, the team with the week off sits and recovers while another 6 teams battle it out. This give's it a big advantage to make the GF. Team 2, therefore, is little better of than the rest.

I like the fact that teams 1 and 2 have the double dip advantage, and by mathematics, 3 and 4 also have the chance. 5 and 6 can guarantee success by winning, with a slight chance of reprieve if 7 abnd 8 lose. And 7 and 8 need to prove themselves by winning against a gun side to enter the rest of the finals.

Can't believe that I find something to agree with you Misty Bee, the current system for all of its criticism is alot fairer than people will give it credit. When you wade through all the other proposed systems, The MacIntrye system comes out on top.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

How do they get the easier game ? Have you not seen how bloody even our comp is!?!?

arghh.. my head hurts..

 

[Jono078]

Im sure it does, you said big load of blah blah...

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Im sure it does, you said big load of blah blah...

how old are you? 12? If you cannot see the flaws in your system then I am afraid there is no hope for you.

 

[Jono078]

Explain the flaws in depth mr im older and know much better...

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

How do they get the easier game ? Have you not seen how bloody even our comp is!?!?

This season? Perhaps it won't be so even next season.. Why should the team who finished 1st have to play the team that finished 3rd, yet the team who finishes second, gets to play a team with a inferior record over the premiership rounds?

Anyway your system does not provide an incentive to finish at the top of the preliminary rounds as come the finals.. Teams 1-8 are all in the same boat.. The top teams deserve a second chance.

 

[pcpp]

How do they get the easier game ? Have you not seen how bloody even our comp is!?!?

\

You do realise not every year we have such an even comp...

What if the comp was not so even?

 

[Jono078]

They do... All I figure is you have to make the 8, then once handed a chance you grab it, simple.

 

[Jono078]

\

You do realise not every year we have such an even comp...

What if the comp was not so even?

Well whats the difference then, all I read is him blowing up about why 2nd gets to play an 'easier' team...

 

[Parraletic]

The current system is the best unless we get back to a top 5 which will never happen.

 

[pcpp]

Well whats the difference then, all I read is him blowing up about why 2nd gets to play an 'easier' team...

The difference is that you assume teams 1-4 are currently very even... but what if they weren't?

Your system, in a competition where the 3rd placed team is better than the 4th placed team, would technically make coming second better than coming first.

 

[mepelthwack]

By simply adding 1 week and reverting to week 2 of the old top 5 by week 3, all flaws get eliminated and all top 4 sides gain 2 bites regardless of any results. All bottom 4 play constant elimination as they should. It's fair and all matches mean something. With the Gold Coast being admitted the season can reduce to 22 weeks to accomodate this.

In this example assume the highest ranked team wins but remember no matter who wins the top 4 all get 2 bites and the bottom 4 always play sudden death.

E = elimination

WEEK 1 (HOME team 1st)

1 v 4
2 v 3

(winners above advance to GF qualifier week 3, losers get home advantage in week 2 v bottom 4 winners which is more reward for their top 4 finish)

5 v 8 E
6 v 7 E

WEEK 2 (HOME team 1st)

3 v 6 E
4 v 5 E

WEEK 3 (all games from now on neutral venues and the system now flows EXACTLY as it did from week 2 of the old top 5 from here on)

1 v 2 (winner advances to the Grand Final, loser gets their 2nd bite nxt wk)

3 v 4 E

WEEK 4

2 v 3 E

WEEK 5

1 v 2 (Grand Final)

This series is only 1 game extra over what we have now and eliminates all flaws. 1 of the top 4 sides will only play 3 games in 5 weeks BUT this is no different to 1 side only playing 2 games in 4 weeks in the old top 5 system. History has shown the very good sides overcame this and arguments raged whether it was better to have the week off or to play throughout.

IF anyone can help me push this to the the NRL or gain some high profile support, feel free to PM.

 

[Jono078]

The difference is that you assume teams 1-4 are currently very even... but what if they weren't?

Your system, in a competition where the 3rd placed team is better than the 4th placed team, would technically make coming second better than coming first.

Im over it now. But to me it works out even, everyteam worked on where they are on the ladder, 1st vs 3rd is = to 2nd vs 4th imo, 2nd isnt as good as 1st and 4th isnt as good as 3rd...

Im done, like I said, im happy how the finals are now, and if they werent, Id like em to be knockout style.

 

[Nonny1980]

This was brought up last year. I really love this system. Like you said the only flaw is playing 3 games in five weeks but these days there are so many injuries that Im sure clubs wouldn't mind the break, it would mean they have a good chance of having a full strength team. It would also mean an extra game for the NRL to raise revenue.

By simply adding 1 week and reverting to week 2 of the old top 5 by week 3, all flaws get eliminated and all top 4 sides gain 2 bites regardless of any results. All bottom 4 play constant elimination as they should. It's fair and all matches mean something. With the Gold Coast being admitted the season can reduce to 22 weeks to accomodate this.

In this example assume the highest ranked team wins but remember no matter who wins the top 4 all get 2 bites and the bottom 4 always play sudden death.

E = elimination

WEEK 1 (HOME team 1st)

1 v 4
2 v 3

(winners above advance to GF qualifier week 3, losers get home advantage in week 2 v bottom 4 winners which is more reward for their top 4 finish)

5 v 8 E
6 v 7 E

WEEK 2 (HOME team 1st)

3 v 6 E
4 v 5 E

WEEK 3 (all games from now on neutral venues and the system now flows EXACTLY as it did from week 2 of the old top 5 from here on)

1 v 2 (winner advances to the Grand Final, loser gets their 2nd bite nxt wk)

3 v 4 E

WEEK 4

2 v 3 E

WEEK 5

1 v 2 (Grand Final)

This series is only 1 game extra over what we have now and eliminates all flaws. 1 of the top 4 sides will only play 3 games in 5 weeks BUT this is no different to 1 side only playing 2 games in 4 weeks in the old top 5 system. History has shown the very good sides overcame this and arguments raged whether it was better to have the week off or to play throughout.

IF anyone can help me push this to the the NRL or gain some high profile support, feel free to PM.

 

[Cockadoodledoo]

Just been going over this and I believe the system needs an overhaul..

I propose the following.. a top 9.. E = elimination

Assuming highest ranked teams win

Week 1

Rank
1v4
2v3

(winners above advance to week 3)


5v8 E
6v7 E
9 bye

Week 2

3v6E
4v5E
9 bye

Week 3A (Friday night)

1v2
3v4E
9 bye

Week 3B (Saturday night)
2v3E
9 bye

Week 3 C ( Sunday 3pm played over 180 minutes, 2 * 90 minute halves
1v2 E
9 bye

week 3 D (Sunday 6.30 pm, played over 80 minutes 2*40 minute halves)
1v9*

* In the event that team 9 is behind, they may challenge team 1 to a replay on Wednesday night. In the event team 9 loses the replay they are named champions regardless, due to Team 1's inability to wrap up final in the first match.

I believe this system be implemented with immediate effect for this years finals.

 

[Blu`]

By simply adding 1 week and reverting to week 2 of the old top 5 by week 3, all flaws get eliminated and all top 4 sides gain 2 bites regardless of any results. All bottom 4 play constant elimination as they should. It's fair and all matches mean something. With the Gold Coast being admitted the season can reduce to 22 weeks to accomodate this.

In this example assume the highest ranked team wins but remember no matter who wins the top 4 all get 2 bites and the bottom 4 always play sudden death.

E = elimination

WEEK 1 (HOME team 1st)

1 v 4
2 v 3

(winners above advance to GF qualifier week 3, losers get home advantage in week 2 v bottom 4 winners which is more reward for their top 4 finish)

5 v 8 E
6 v 7 E

WEEK 2 (HOME team 1st)

3 v 6 E
4 v 5 E

WEEK 3 (all games from now on neutral venues and the system now flows EXACTLY as it did from week 2 of the old top 5 from here on)

1 v 2 (winner advances to the Grand Final, loser gets their 2nd bite nxt wk)

3 v 4 E

WEEK 4

2 v 3 E

WEEK 5

1 v 2 (Grand Final)

This series is only 1 game extra over what we have now and eliminates all flaws. 1 of the top 4 sides will only play 3 games in 5 weeks BUT this is no different to 1 side only playing 2 games in 4 weeks in the old top 5 system. History has shown the very good sides overcame this and arguments raged whether it was better to have the week off or to play throughout.

IF anyone can help me push this to the the NRL or gain some high profile support, feel free to PM.

I love this system, the only problem is team 1 (provided they win) gets a week off between every match.