The annual finals system debate thread

[bender]

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.

This is not as clear as most think.

Firstly, under a top 8, most of the top 4 or 5 know they are going to make the top 8 from a long way out, even from the start to be honest. And they know they are going to do so whether they win or not. This means that it really doesnt matter whether they win or not. And while it is true that it is better to get a higher position, it is not really until the last couple of rounds that this is thought about.

Second, The top 8 becomes separated from the rest just as regularly as the top 5 does, meaning that the number of end of season meaningless games at the end of the season is about the same in this regard, especially since a top 3 in the top 5 system is far better than a top 4 or whatever sides are after in the top 8 system.

Third, One problem with a top 8 is that you really have to play badly to miss out. I can t think of any teams who play well and have a good season and miss out. In fact, by the time the finals come around, the teams who are on the fringe of the 8 really are so disillusioned with their side, that many of them dont care by the first round of finals. This is changing over time slightly, but it is more a case of people hoping for a lucky run than getting excited over the teams form. Under the top 8, you really have 1 winner of the comp, A runner up the rest are losers and rarely get any satisfaction from the season. Under the Top 5, there is one winner, and in almost all occassions the next 5 despite being dissappointed all are satisfied with having made the finals, as it is a huge achievement. In fact, often sides who just miss out on the finals feel they have had a very good season.

Fourth, The game is robbed of block busters. 1 v 2,3,4 games mean very little nowadays. With a top 5, these midseason games are absolutely massive affairs with huge meaning and huge consequences for the losers. Now they are decent games but mean nothing at all until the finals series. The top 5 really does change the way the whole season is looked at. Yes, it keeps the season alive for sides like the Titans (this year), for a little longer, but so what, the Titans fans had given up hope, long before their mathematical chances eliminated them. In fact, most sides running below 10th have given up a while ago. In a top 5 system fans rarely gave up, while they had a mathematical chance.

fifth, Let us not forget that the top 5 often has 6 teams in it. The midweek playoff was an integral part.

6th, A top 5 means that there is only 2 games each week. This means that all teams playing get a grand final (almost) style build up to there games. Everyone concentrates on every game and every game is huge and close, as opposed to now where round one of the finals feels just like an ordinary round, because there are so many games.

I really think that those who like the top 8 over 5 just havent experienced both. Very few people who experienced both actually prefer the top 8, and of those who do, 90% support sides who have really struggled for most of the time.

 

[firechild]

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).

To add to this, there have been 2 cases where the winner of 4v5 (has been 4th in both cases), Penrith and Melbourne have earned the week off and the loser (St Merge and Manly) eliminated. Had either result gone the other way, 5th place could get a week off and 4th eliminated. That doesn't make sense at all. 5th should never be in a position to get a week off.

 

[POPEYE]

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?

Ok, so now the Storm can rest the big three until the last round which they'll use for a warm up for the 'grand' final series. No risk of injuries and they'll be rearing to go.

If there is a danger of them missing the 8 they can slip them back in. In the meantime they can give some promising youngsters a headstart for next year

 

[POPEYE]

What I think could happen is that there should be two conferences. Say call one the 'Sattellites', composed of Brisbane, Gold Coast, Melbourne, Nth Q, Newcastle,Warriors, Raiders and for argument's sake Penrith.

Let them play each other twice and the rest play each other twice. The top two teams of each conference come together in a Grand Final Series.

Could even be two tv stations doing the games as well as Fox.

Halfway through the season there would be time for a dedicated Origin period and maybe some promotional games.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Ok, so now the Storm can rest the big three until the last round which they'll use for a warm up for the 'grand' final series. No risk of injuries and they'll be rearing to go.

If there is a danger of them missing the 8 they can slip them back in. In the meantime they can give some promising youngsters a headstart for next year

Momentum is a hell of a thing in modern rugby league, as is match fitness. Blokes like 'the big 3' thrive on playing football week in and week out. The body becomes conditioned to putting itself through the stress of vigourous physical (and mental) exertion. Look at how many players get injured at the start of the season or when they come back from injury.

Clubs who rest players because they think it will benefit them are increasing the risk of injury to these players by doing so. A week's rest may be benificial but not anything greater.

 

[POPEYE]

Momentum is a hell of a thing in modern rugby league, as is match fitness. Blokes like 'the big 3' thrive on playing football week in and week out. The body becomes conditioned to putting itself through the stress of vigourous physical (and mental) exertion. Look at how many players get injured at the start of the season or when they come back from injury.

Clubs who rest players because they think it will benefit them are increasing the risk of injury to these players by doing so. A week's rest may be benificial but not anything greater.

Yes, but suppose Smith, Slater, Dugan, or any 'star' had niggling injuries that could see them play but it would be better to have a few weeks off.

Case in point. In 2008 the Storm were struggling to win the last few games and Smith got suspended. If the fab four had of rested those games the Grand Final would have resulted differently.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Yes, but suppose Smith, Slater, Dugan, or any 'star' had niggling injuries that could see them play but it would be better to have a few weeks off.

Case in point. In 2008 the Storm were struggling to win the last few games and Smith got suspended. If the fab four had of rested those games the Grand Final would have resulted differently.

Please explain.

 

[Canard]

I don't think 3rd and especially the 4th placed teams should get two bites at the cherry, especially when the 4th placed team might have one the same amount of games as the 5th but only be ahead on for and against.

I think the system that protects the top 2 only is fair reward for a finishing top after a long season.

The excuse used about about the Cowboys getting flogged and still getting another would still happen in the AFL system. Essentially they were "rewarded" for there performance during the season, by getting another bite at the cherry.

I also like a system that you have to win to guarantee your progression through the finals. If fourth loses I can't see why they deserve another go if lower ranked teams win.

 

[muzby]

Case in point. In 2008 the Storm were struggling to win the last few games and Smith got suspended. If the fab four had of rested those games the Grand Final would have resulted differently.

80 nil?

 

[flamin]

The excuse used about about the Cowboys getting flogged and still getting another would still happen in the AFL system. Essentially they were "rewarded" for there performance during the season, by getting another bite at the cherry.

Yet as undertaker said in 04 St George were in the same position as the Cowboys in 05 yet only lost by a point and were eliminated. Where was their "reward" for there performance during the season?

 

[gUt]

I think the McIntyre system is unfairly maligned. Think of it as a brand new 8 team comp wherein teams are seeded and are given an advantage depending on where they start in the new comp. The top 2 sides can't be removed in the first week. The next 2 can be removed, but get to play at home. The next 2 can be removed, play away, but have a safety net if the other games produce the most probable results. The bottom 2 sides are playing away for their lives.

To me, that's all the reward the top 4 (esp the top 2) teams need in this new comp. The minor premiers get the bonus of the Shield plus a cool 100k for the club. Congrats, time to play in a new comp now, called the NRL Finals Series.

I don't mind the possibility that teams can face each other two weeks in a row, I think it adds excitement.

 

[POPEYE]

Please explain.

Well, for a starter the Storm could have let Cronulla and Manly fight out the minor premiership and rested its key players.

The Storm wouldn't have played their only bogey team, the Warriors, in 1 v 8 which would have changed everything.

Probably no suspension for Smith and if they played Manly, a team they rarely have trouble with, the result could have been different

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Well, for a starter the Storm could have let Cronulla and Manly fight out the minor premiership and rested its key players.

The Storm wouldn't have played their only bogey team, the Warriors, in 1 v 8 which would have changed everything.

Probably no suspension for Smith and if they played Manly, a team they rarely have trouble with, the result could have been different

That's just conjecture, you could apply the same reasoning to a host of games, grand finals or otherwise.

I will concede that the suspension of Smith had an impact on the storm. However even with him Manly would have won. The sea eagles performance against the cowboys in the qualifying final the week beforehand was sublime. Melbourne had a great run from 2006-2009 (the legality of which I have argued in other places) but IMO the best team throughout 2008 won the premiership.

 

[Canard]

Yet as undertaker said in 04 St George were in the same position as the Cowboys in 05 yet only lost by a point and were eliminated. Where was their "reward" for there performance during the season?

You control your destiny, you lose you are at risk of dropping out, the higher you finish the less chance you have dropping out due to needing lower ranked teams to win over higher seeds.

People seem to think a 1 point loss is more deserved of a reprieve than a 50 point loss. No finals system including the AFL's makes any concession for the volume of the loss.

In the end I prefer a finals system that places the onus on teams winning games.

 

[deadV]

lol one page read and I already see merge whinging

 

[firechild]

That's just conjecture, you could apply the same reasoning to a host of games, grand finals or otherwise.

I will concede that the suspension of Smith had an impact on the storm. However even with him Manly would have won. The sea eagles performance against the cowboys in the qualifying final the week beforehand was sublime. Melbourne had a great run from 2006-2009 (the legality of which I have argued in other places) but IMO the best team throughout 2008 won the premiership.

You're thinking of the 2007 preliminary final where they beat the Cowboys 28-6. But your point stands, in 2008 Manly won their previous finals matches 38-6 against the Dragons and 32-6 against the Warriors.

 

[docbrown]

This is not as clear as most think.

Firstly, under a top 8, most of the top 4 or 5 know they are going to make the top 8 from a long way out,even from the start to be honest. And they know they are going to do so whether they win or not. This means that it really doesnt matter whether they win or not.

I'm sure the Roosters thought they would make the Top 4 this year. I don't think they 'planned' on failing.

Second, The top 8 becomes separated from the rest just as regularly as the top 5 does meaning that the number of end of season meaningless games at the end of the season is about the same in this regard

I disagree with this.

Let's look at last year's cut off after Round 21 -

Top 8 - SI, PN, SR, WT, TI, MW, BR, NZ - all above 24 points
Still in contention (SS,PR,NC,CN and mathematically CB) - all about 18 points

If it were a Top 5, CB would be eliminated already meaning 4 teams out of contention - and NC and CN would only be in contention on slim mathematics.

After Round 24 -

Top 8 - SI, TI, WT, PN, MW, SR, NZ, BR - all above 26 points
Still in contention (with 2 games left) - CN, SS, NC, PR
So 12 teams fighting for 8 spots - 75% still in contention

If it were a Top 5, cut off would be 28 points with teams on 26 points contention - so only 8 teams fighting for 5 spots

Top 8 - So 12 teams still fighting for 8 spots = 75% still in contention
Top 5 - so only 8 teams fighting for 5 spots = 50% still in contention

Fourth, The game is robbed of block busters.

Well this is why I develop the Top 9 system. Every game is a potential elimination final except for 1 Week 2 game where the Minor Premier is awarded a double chance (but loses home ground advantage in Week 3 if they lose).

No team is aware of their destiny until the very last game of each week is played out.

Yes, it keeps the season alive for sides like the Titans (this year), for a little longer

Well now you've just contradicted your original point.

A Top 5 affects the crowds and interest in the latter part of the season. This was my point.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

You're thinking of the 2007 preliminary final where they beat the Cowboys 28-6. But your point stands, in 2008 Manly won their previous finals matches 38-6 against the Dragons and 32-6 against the Warriors.

Yes. Wrong year. But as you said best team won in 2008.

 

[age.s]

People talking about one system being more "fair" than the other are wrong. Both systems favor certain positions over others.

1&2 have it much better under McIntyre. You get to play the two weakest teams remaining in the comp at home for a spot in the preliminary, rather than 3&4 for the same payoff.

3&4 have it worse under McIntyre, with 4 having it probably the worst of all positions. Rather than playing for a spot in the preliminary you are playing for a chance at one. In reality there's a good chance you're simply playing for home advantage next week and a chance to watch the remaining games of the weekend without worrying about your place.

5&6 have it slightly better under McIntyre. You're playing tougher opponents, but there's a chance you're playing for a preliminary and there's every possibility you're going to end up with a second chance if you lose.

7&8 have it a fair bit worse. Playing the top two teams away to stay alive. These teams should focus on having a better regular season if they want to be treated better in the finals.

Personally I like McIntyre because it has the strongest rewards for the top two teams in the regular season. Bennett having a whinge in 09 because he had to come up against a freak team on a run that will likely never be repeated doesn't change that the system is slanted heavily in favor of the best teams in the comp. The distinction between the rest of the teams doesn't vary as much, but each spot you climb on the ladder gets you a sound advantage.

The only thing with McIntyre is that the first week of finals often contains less competetive games due to the difference in rankings. It seems a strange contradiction in a comp where the salary cap attempts to create more competetive games week in week out.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

People talking about one system being more "fair" than the other are wrong. Both systems favor certain positions over others.

1&2 have it much better under McIntyre. You get to play the two weakest teams remaining in the comp at home for a spot in the preliminary, rather than 3&4 for the same payoff.

3&4 have it worse under McIntyre, with 4 having it probably the worst of all positions. Rather than playing for a spot in the preliminary you are playing for a chance at one. In reality there's a good chance you're simply playing for home advantage next week and a chance to watch the remaining games of the weekend without worrying about your place.

5&6 have it slightly better under McIntyre. You're playing tougher opponents, but there's a chance you're playing for a preliminary and there's every possibility you're going to end up with a second chance if you lose.

7&8 have it a fair bit worse. Playing the top two teams away to stay alive. These teams should focus on having a better regular season if they want to be treated better in the finals.

Personally I like McIntyre because it has the strongest rewards for the top two teams in the regular season. Bennett having a whinge in 09 because he had to come up against a freak team on a run that will likely never be repeated doesn't change that the system is slanted heavily in favor of the best teams in the comp. The distinction between the rest of the teams doesn't vary as much, but each spot you climb on the ladder gets you a sound advantage.

The only thing with McIntyre is that the first week of finals often contains less competetive games due to the difference in rankings. It seems a strange contradiction in a comp where the salary cap attempts to create more competetive games week in week out.

Well explained sir.