The annual finals system debate thread

[Hutty1986]

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.

Whoa, I didn't know you had a problem with this!

 

[joshie]

what about 1 V 3 and 2 V 4, then a 3 game grand final series

 

[firechild]

As long as old man Popeye goes on about how the minor premiership is the be all and end all, I'm going to retort with the fact that the current setup does not make it a fair and equitable system. I have no problem with the fact that some teams get an easier run than others, I just don't think any more importance can be put on the minor premiership for that reason.

 

[whall15]

The only other system than the one we have that I could see being used is a seeding system

1-4 are seeded, 5-8 are not.

They are picked out of the hat randomly, for example.

Storm play Knights
Broncos play Tigers
Sea Eagles play Warriors
Cowboys play Dragons

 

[POPEYE]

As long as old man Popeye goes on about how the minor premiership is the be all and end all, I'm going to retort with the fact that the current setup does not make it a fair and equitable system. I have no problem with the fact that some teams get an easier run than others, I just don't think any more importance can be put on the minor premiership for that reason.

You can read into it what you want. I only belittle the 'grand' final to draw attention.

In essence I believe that the Grand Final Series should be just that . . . a separate series of games.

All I want is at least equal recognition for the hardest part of the league season.

I would love to enjoy both instead of fighting for something that can only bring more glory to the game.

All that is needed is a function, maybe a parade, media beatup and definitely a change to the record books . . . what's the harm

 

[firechild]

And in an ideal world there would be more value in the minor premiership. But in that ideal world the season would be 30 rounds, each team would play the other 15 teams twice, none of the matches through the seaosn would be affected by rep matches. The problem there is that there would be 30 weeks of regular matches, 4 weeks of finals, 3 weeks for State of Origin, 3-4 weeks for test matches, even longer if there was a world cup. We could end up with a schedule that goes over 40 weeks, plus you'd need aat least a week or 2 between each lot of games, plus 2-3 trial matches and all of a sudden rugby league goes for the entire year. As fans we'd love it, the players certainly would not.

 

[POPEYE]

And in an ideal world there would be more value in the minor premiership. But in that ideal world the season would be 30 rounds, each team would play the other 15 teams twice, none of the matches through the seaosn would be affected by rep matches. The problem there is that there would be 30 weeks of regular matches, 4 weeks of finals, 3 weeks for State of Origin, 3-4 weeks for test matches, even longer if there was a world cup. We could end up with a schedule that goes over 40 weeks, plus you'd need aat least a week or 2 between each lot of games, plus 2-3 trial matches and all of a sudden rugby league goes for the entire year. As fans we'd love it, the players certainly would not.

That's beside the point I'm making

 

[firechild]

Your point was that you "want ... at least equal recognition for the hardest part of the league season". My point is that it will not get equal regognition until it is designed to be a fair system. Noone is to know who the draw will favour each year but it is bound to favour some over others. Before the season fans would have hoped their teams did not have to line up against Wests, Canberra and Canterbury more than once but probably would have been happy to see themselves up against Manly or North Queensland twice. Turns out they probably now would have liked it to be the other way around.

 

[POPEYE]

I know exactly the point you are making, but what you want is not achievable and what I want is.

'Fair' is the hardest thing to police in league. If the game was fair all teams would have to play their bogey teams twice.

All that aside what I want is improve what is already happening and by doing so more supporters of the game will face the off-season happier which can only be good for the game.

Share the lollies and the season will finish with a good taste in the mouth of supporters

 

[muzby]

i really can't see what was wrong with the top 5 system..

we used to have that with a 16 team comp during the winfield cup, so the whole "not enough teams in the finals" argument doesn't hold water...

it meant that to be in the finals, you had to be good. really good, not just have a good run in the last 5 or 6 weeks and just scrape into the 8 (which meant that for most of the season, you were in the worst half of the comp)..

the final 5 setup also meant that to win, you had to beat the minor premier for that year, either in a semi final or the grand final. you could not get to the point where you lifted the trophy without beating the team who was considered best all season...


unfortunately, money is ruling everything in life.. we won't go back to 5 teams as it means less TV revenue and less ground takings..

so instead, we get 3 additional finals games (where normally the results for 1v8, 2v7 and 3v6 are a foregone conclusion..) the real battles and best game on the first weekend is 3v4 (the closest match up based on table standings..)

which is a shame.. bring back the 5!!!

 

[Eels Dude]

The only other system than the one we have that I could see being used is a seeding system

1-4 are seeded, 5-8 are not.

They are picked out of the hat randomly, for example.

Storm play Knights
Broncos play Tigers
Sea Eagles play Warriors
Cowboys play Dragons

How is that fair reward for the top 4 sides if 1 ends up playing 5, and 4 ends up playing 8?

 

[hellteam]

Clearly the NRL Top 8 system is better then the AFL one

 

[BDGS]

Another bitch thread, boo hoo.

 

[jason taylor]

I like the current system.

It works

 

[RHCP]

so instead, we get 3 additional finals games (where normally the results for 1v8, 2v7 and 3v6 are a foregone conclusion..) the real battles and best game on the first weekend is 3v4 (the closest match up based on table standings..)

I don't know if it could be classed as 'normally' in today's game, 5/9 for the last three seasons the underdogs have won in those matches. Minute I know, but really you only have to make it into the eight to be in with a chance.

I like the finals the way we have it now. But then again, I've never known any other system. We lose a lot of tv revenue if we drop the number of games, plus it would be sure to affect crowds and ratings in the latter stages of the season when teams don't have a shot at the title any more.

Discussing alternates can be interesting though. What about a top seven system?

QF1 - 2 v 7
QF2 - 3 v 6
QF3 - 4 v 5
Minor Premiers get a bye
All in home cities

SF1 - 1 v Highest Ranked Winner
SF2 - 2nd Highest Winner vs 3rd Highest Winner
Home Grounds

PF - Winner SF2 v Loser SF1 - Neutral Venue

Winner PF v Winner SF1 - ANZ

Makes the minor premiership, and to a slightly lesser extent top four more desirable. Minor premiers get the advantage of a weeks break, a home semi and 2 shots at the Grand Final. The higher ranked you are after that the better chance you are of getting a second chance in week 2, but you have to earn it in Week one. 5, 6 and 7 don't have the opportunity to have a week off.

 

[docbrown]

The less teams you have in your final series, the greater the number of pointless games towards the end of the season and the bigger the impact on crowds.

I have suggest before that for an 18 comp we could look at -

Week 1:
Teams 1, 2 & 3 from the season get a bye
Teams 4, 5 & 6 get a Home Final

6 v 7 Friday Night
5 v 8 Saturday Night
4 v 9 Sunday Afternoon

Three winners from Week 1 ranked A, B & C

Week 2:
Teams 1, 2 & 3 from season get a home final
Minor premier always has a double chance

3 v A Friday Night
2 v B Saturday Night
1 v C Sunday afternoon

Two bottom ranked losers eliminated
Top 2 (One & Two) ranked winners get Week 3 home finals as a reward

The 3 winners ranked One, Two, Three plus the double chance team in spot Four

Week 3:
Two v Three Friday Night
One v Four Saturday Night

Winners through to Week 4 Grand Final

Every game is a potential elimination game
The minor premiers are automatically guaranteed a double chance, regardless of week 2 result. Their reward for winning in Week 2 is a home final.
Same amount of games as current but 1 less in week 1 and 1 more in week 2 - so that game is 'worth' more
Plus that Week 2 game can be an additional Sunday game which means during the finals, you get a stand alone final on each individual day
Unlike the current system, you can't get a repeat match up until the grand final

In the lead up to finals, under our currently system you usually have 10-11 out of 16 teams fighting to make the cut.
Under this system you'd have about 12-13 out of 18, so although the number of teams that miss out are roughly the same, the % still in contention is slightly larger therefore improve the number of finals-affecting matches during the later regular season rounds.

 

[Parramatta1947]

AFL system easily - ultimately the top 4 end up playing for a spot in the GF, which is a fair system.

 

[undertaker]

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.

Case in point: 2005 final series. Cowboys get thrashed 50-6 by Wests Tigers in the first week, yet manage to stay in the comp (due to 2 def 7 and 1 def 8) and make the GF. The year before (2004), Penrith just scrape through in the 1st week 31-30 vs St George, and because of the way the cards turned up the following night (with 6 def 3 and 7 def 2), St George were eliminated. However, had Penrith been the team that lost 31-30, they would've been eliminated.

So, regarding the part highlighted in bold, that is so true. You could get your arse given to you like the Cowboys did in 2005 QF and still stay in the comp, yet there is no margin for error if, as I said, 'the cards don't turn up your way' and being a solitary 1 pt on the wrong side of the coin could mean instant elimination 24 hrs later. It just doesn't look very professional that there is a huge component of luck involved with the McIntyre 8 system and that you fate hinges very heavily on other results. Every team should know, before a game, what their fate will be. For teams 1,2,7 and 8, they know what it is (as teams 1/2 get a guaranteed 2nd chance plus the added incentive of the week off, whereas it's sudden death for teams 7/8 right throughout the finals). It's teams 3,4,5 and 6 that suffer the most and left in limbo. Their fate lies on the results of 2vs7 and 1vs8, and as was shown in 2006, a highly entertaining and physical game like the Knights/Sea Eagles QF could all result in being nothing but a dead-rubber, with nothing to gain and everything to lose (e.g. Buderus suspension, as well as injuries and fatigue) if teams 1 and 2 win (as was shown that year when Knights and Sea Eagles got hammered the following week in the semi finals).

 

[Jason Maher]

The McIntyre system is bollocks. The AFL/ARL system at least gives all the advantages to the top 4, which is as it should be.

By the by, the top 8 has 8 finals games, the top 5 had 6 (plus playoffs some years). That's 2 extra games in the first week, not 3. I wonder how much we'd really lose to go back to the old system.

 

[dangerousdave]

The less teams you have in your final series, the greater the number of pointless games towards the end of the season and the bigger the impact on crowds.

I have suggest before that for an 18 comp we could look at -

Week 1:
Teams 1, 2 & 3 from the season get a bye
Teams 4, 5 & 6 get a Home Final

6 v 7 Friday Night
5 v 8 Saturday Night
4 v 9 Sunday Afternoon

Three winners from Week 1 ranked A, B & C

Week 2:
Teams 1, 2 & 3 from season get a home final
Minor premier always has a double chance

3 v A Friday Night
2 v B Saturday Night
1 v C Sunday afternoon

Two bottom ranked losers eliminated
Top 2 (One & Two) ranked winners get Week 3 home finals as a reward

The 3 winners ranked One, Two, Three plus the double chance team in spot Four

Week 3:
Two v Three Friday Night
One v Four Saturday Night

Winners through to Week 4 Grand Final

Every game is a potential elimination game
The minor premiers are automatically guaranteed a double chance, regardless of week 2 result. Their reward for winning in Week 2 is a home final.
Same amount of games as current but 1 less in week 1 and 1 more in week 2 - so that game is 'worth' more
Plus that Week 2 game can be an additional Sunday game which means during the finals, you get a stand alone final on each individual day
Unlike the current system, you can't get a repeat match up until the grand final

In the lead up to finals, under our currently system you usually have 10-11 out of 16 teams fighting to make the cut.
Under this system you'd have about 12-13 out of 18, so although the number of teams that miss out are roughly the same, the % still in contention is slightly larger therefore improve the number of finals-affecting matches during the later regular season rounds.