The annual finals system debate thread

[Greenbits]

The "Should we have finals" thread got me thinking about this thread again how about this:

Week 1
Game 1A - 1 v 4
Game 1B - 2 v 3
Game 1C - 5 v 8
Game 1D - 6 v 7

Losers of 1C and 1D eliminated

Week 2
Game 2A - Loser 1A v Winner 1C
Game 2 B - Loser 1B v Winner 1D

Losers eliminated

Week 3
Game 3A - Winner 1A v Winner 1B
Game 3B - Winner 2A v Winner 2B

Loser 3B eliminated

Week 4
Game 4A - Loser 3A v Winner 3B

Loser Eliminated

Week 5
Winner 3A v Winner 4A



The way this would pan out if the favourites won each game:

Week 1
Game 1A - Team 1 v Team 4
Game 1B - Team 2 v Team 3
Game 1C - Team 5 v Team 8
Game 1D - Team 6 v Team 7

Team 7 and Team 8 eliminated, Team 1 and Team 2 through to Week 3

Week 2
Game 2A - Team 4 v Team 5
Game 2 B - Team 3 v Team 6

Team 5 and Team 6 eliminated

Week 3
Game 3A - Team 1 v Team 2
Game 3B - Team 3 v Team 4

Team 4 eliminated, Team 1 through to Grand Final

Week 4
Game 4A - Team 2 v Team 3

Team 3 Eliminated, Team 2 through to Grand Final

Week 5
Team 1 v Team 2

There is one extra week and one extra game than the current system, not sure if thats a good thing or a bad thing. Top 4 teams potentially get two shots at getting to the GF, and bottom 4 teams have to win 5 games straight to win the premiership.

I'm sure there are plenty of flaws and look forward to having you all point them out

 

[Frailty]

Is the Top 8 system in it's current form the best form of finals system for the NRL? Should the NRL adopt the AFL System (Top 4 play each other, Bottom 4 play each other - losers eliminated)? Or should there be a change in numbers for teams competing in the finals?

What do you think?

 

[Frailty]

I'd have a Top 6 finals system...

The current Top 8 system to me awards mediocrity where 50% of the competition makes it - meaning if you win half your games, generally you are in. Let's not forget, the majority of the time teams 7 and 8 are bundled out in the first weeks.

So how would my system work?

Week 1:
GM1 1 v 4 (Winner proceed to Week 3) (1 Home)
GM2 2 v 3 (2 Home)
GM3 5 v 6 (Loser eliminated) (5 home)

Week 2:
GM4 Winner GM 2 v Winner GM3 (GM2 Home)
GM5 Loser GM1 v LoserGM2 (Loser eliminated) (GM1 Home)

Week 3:
GM6 Winner GM1 v Loser GM4
GM7 Winner GM4 v Winner GM5

Week 4:

GF Winner GM6 v Winner GM7

Some notes:
- None of the top 4 sides could be eliminated in the first week.
- After that first week, it reverts to any side who loses twice will be eliminated (with the exception of the top rated team who gets the advantage of moving to the GF qualifier).
- All games would be played in the 'regional' main ground at the highest ranked winner for each of the first two weeks - Sydney sides have the choice of SFS or Homebush.
- Less games would mean less TV revenue though (meaning this is unlikely to ever be implemented)

 

[POPEYE]

Everyone knows imo the season designed to find the best team of the year is over after 26 rounds.

But I'm in the minority, so if the 'grand' final series must be conjoined and can't be a separate entity, why not be decided between the top four.

If the media scream for their pound of flesh make it 5 with the 5th team being decided by a repercharge with the other 4

 

[RockWheel]

Minor premierships are rubbish. Seen my team win 2 of them and I don't even care.

 

[Jason Maher]

Final 5 in a 16 team comp worked wonders from 88-94. We actually had the best teams fighting it out, and winning the minor premiership was a major advantage (and to win the comp, you had to beat the minor premiers at some stage in the finals).

 

[POPEYE]

Minor premierships are rubbish. Seen my team win 2 of them and I don't even care.

In that case why not have every team in the 'grand' final series. The positions from the year before as a guide to who plays who to kick it off.

We could have most of the year minus what's needed to have a 26 team playoff at the end classed as trials only.

That way teams could spend most of the year trialling, resting, buying and selling players, testing out coaches . . . all the mundane stuff.

 

[RockWheel]

In that case why not have every team in the 'grand' final series. The positions from the year before as a guide to who plays who to kick it off.

We could have most of the year minus what's needed to have a 26 team playoff at the end classed as trials only.

That way teams could spend most of the year trialling, resting, buying and selling players, testing out coaches . . . all the mundane stuff.

Despite the fact I called the minor premiership 'rubbish', what I mean is, it's not a consolation for not winning the premiership. Nothing wrong with a minor premiership - but that's what it is - minor. The finals series is about the best teams of the season playing off for the right to be called champions. So what if a team comes from 8th or 7th? In most cases, they'll have to beat top 4 teams to win the premiership.

While the minor premiership is currently flawed, the finals series is a fair way of determining the premiers.

 

[RockWheel]

Final 5 in a 16 team comp worked wonders from 88-94. We actually had the best teams fighting it out, and winning the minor premiership was a major advantage (and to win the comp, you had to beat the minor premiers at some stage in the finals).

Had to beat every team above you, in fact. Unlikely that we'll ever go back to that system (three less games, etc.), but it was the best possible finals series.

 

[POPEYE]

Despite the fact I called the minor premiership 'rubbish', what I mean is, it's not a consolation for not winning the premiership. Nothing wrong with a minor premiership - but that's what it is - minor. The finals series is about the best teams of the season playing off for the right to be called champions. So what if a team comes from 8th or 7th? In most cases, they'll have to beat top 4 teams to win the premiership.

While the minor premiership is currently flawed, the finals series is a fair way of determining the premiers.

Even in your world the naming is atrocious. How can you call 26 gruelling rounds minor and a lottery major.

It belittles the hundreds of players that are NRL quality who went the distance and missed out to tell them they participated in a minor competition.

What's wrong with telling teams they are vying for the Shield that will declare the winner the best team of the year.

What's wrong with telling the top 5 teams they will compete for the glory of winning the Cup. A chance for the best team of the year to again prove its worthiness or a chance for the other 4 to prove they could have been the best.

 

[Eels Dude]

I'd have a Top 6 finals system...

The current Top 8 system to me awards mediocrity where 50% of the competition makes it - meaning if you win half your games, generally you are in. Let's not forget, the majority of the time teams 7 and 8 are bundled out in the first weeks.

So how would my system work?

Week 1:
GM1 1 v 4 (Winner proceed to Week 3) (1 Home)
GM2 2 v 3 (2 Home)
GM3 5 v 6 (Loser eliminated) (5 home)

Week 2:
GM4 Winner GM 2 v Winner GM3 (GM2 Home)
GM5 Loser GM1 v LoserGM2 (Loser eliminated) (GM1 Home)

Week 3:
GM6 Winner GM1 v Loser GM4
GM7 Winner GM4 v Winner GM5

Week 4:

GF Winner GM6 v Winner GM7

Some notes:
- None of the top 4 sides could be eliminated in the first week.
- After that first week, it reverts to any side who loses twice will be eliminated (with the exception of the top rated team who gets the advantage of moving to the GF qualifier).
- All games would be played in the 'regional' main ground at the highest ranked winner for each of the first two weeks - Sydney sides have the choice of SFS or Homebush.
- Less games would mean less TV revenue though (meaning this is unlikely to ever be implemented)

I think the flaw in your system is that one of Team 5 or 6 is guaranteed to go through to the grand qualifier no matter what, while a higher ranked side is guaranteed to miss out.

 

[RockWheel]

Even in your world the naming is atrocious. How can you call 26 gruelling rounds minor and a lottery major.

It's not my world. The team with the most points at the end of 26 rounds are the minor premiers. The team that wins the grand final are the premiers.

What's wrong with telling teams they are vying for the Shield that will declare the winner the best team of the year.

What's wrong with telling the top 5 teams they will compete for the glory of winning the Cup. A chance for the best team of the year to again prove its worthiness or a chance for the other 4 to prove they could have been the best.

Because that would be disregarding 100 years of history and culture. Bar fifteen seasons pre-war, we've had playoffs - finishing first has never been a guarantee of winning the premiership. A first-past-the-post competition and a knock-out cup competition work in places like the UK (the football competitions, for example) because it's a part of their sporting culture and has been for a very long time. In Australia we've almost always decided the champion with playoffs.

 

[firechild]

Until such time as each team plays every other team an equal number of times, the minor premiership cannot be regarded as anything more than minor. Add to that the fact that certain teams lose substantial portions of their playing squad during that time to representative duties.

 

[BunniesMan]

It's ridiculous that 3rd can be eliminated in the first week and 6th can get to the GF in 2 wins.

Yes those are unlikely scenarios but they shouldn't even be possible. There simply isn't enough reward in trying to climb higher up the 8 once your safely in the top 8.

Our old system/AFL's current system is so much better.

Firstly there is a real reward to finishing in the top 4, secondly the first week of games is so much more competitive. With the top 4 playing each other and 5th-8th playing each other the games are much more evenly balanced.

Fairer rewards+higher quality games = better finals system.

 

[sting]

Even in your world the naming is atrocious. How can you call 26 gruelling rounds minor and a lottery major.

It belittles the hundreds of players that are NRL quality who went the distance and missed out to tell them they participated in a minor competition.

What's wrong with telling teams they are vying for the Shield that will declare the winner the best team of the year.

What's wrong with telling the top 5 teams they will compete for the glory of winning the Cup. A chance for the best team of the year to again prove its worthiness or a chance for the other 4 to prove they could have been the best.

I don't get why this is so hard for you?

"26 gruelling rounds" is the qualifying process, of course it is going to hold less importance. Only the best after your 26 gruelling rounds go through.

In soccer when the world cup is on, do you consider the qualifying process to be more important? After all, teams are generally required to play much more games over a much longer period of time.

If Brazil finish top of their qualifying region (about 18 or so games) is this bigger than winning the world cup?

 

[RockWheel]

It's ridiculous that 3rd can be eliminated in the first week and 6th can get to the GF in 2 wins.

Yes those are unlikely scenarios but they shouldn't even be possible. There simply isn't enough reward in trying to climb higher up the 8 once your safely in the top 8.

That's why the NRL prefers the McIntyre system. It throws up all kinds of possibilities. The NRL isn't really concerned with the fairness of the finals. The idea that a team can get flogged in Week 1 and go on to win the premiership - it's a great story and gets people talking. People love an underdog story.

Our old system/AFL's current system is so much better.

Firstly there is a real reward to finishing in the top 4, secondly the first week of games is so much more competitive. With the top 4 playing each other and 5th-8th playing each other the games are much more evenly balanced.

Fairer rewards+higher quality games = better finals system.

Except that no team has ever won from positions 5 to 8 under the current system. Not saying it will never happen, but it shows that getting a top 4 spot goes a long way towards ultimately winning the grand final.

 

[Mr Angry]

I do agree half the comp making the finals, is not correct.

With 8 I certainly prefer the current system to the old one.

It truly rewards the top 2 sides.

 

[BunniesMan]

I do agree half the comp making the finals, is not correct.

With 8 I certainly prefer the current system to the old one.

It truly rewards the top 2 sides.

The alternative also rewards the top 2 teams more than the 2nd two which are rewarded more than the 3rd two which are also rewarded more than the 4th two.

 

[Raiderdave]

That's why the NRL prefers the McIntyre system. It throws up all kinds of possibilities. The NRL isn't really concerned with the fairness of the finals. The idea that a team can get flogged in Week 1 and go on to win the premiership - it's a great story and gets people talking. People love an underdog story.



Except that no team has ever won from positions 5 to 8 under the current system. Not saying it will never happen, but it shows that getting a top 4 spot goes a long way towards ultimately winning the grand final.

agreed
our old system was boring & predictable ... just like the AFL one is now
its a joke
sides 5 to 8 shouldn't even bother turning up
they will NEVER get near a grand final .. its just 2 extra gates for the AFL

however the McIntyre system has all sorts of twists & turns
its cut throat & on the edge of your seats stuff from week one ...

if you lose a final... you don't know where you are going next week
or if in fact
your even around next week .... Brilliant

in the AFL you pretty much know where you're going ... who you're playing & where ..:? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[RockWheel]

Our currents finals are simple. Win, and you get to keep playing. Lose in week one, you play a dangerous game.