The annual finals system debate thread

[The Elephant In The room]

the mcintyre final 8 is a crock. the survival of losing teams in wk 1 depends on other results. what a joke. then, seedings earned after 24 qualfying games over 6 months of the year are also void after one week. pathetic.

QUOTE]

Alot of the conjecture over the finals system comes back to who should get "rewarded" in week one of the finals. The NRL reward teams 1 & 2 (and to a lesser extent teams 3&4), where as the AFL rewards teams 1-4 evenly (except for the potentially non-existant home ground advantage). I wouldn't look at a change unless teams 3 & 4 regularly got punted in week 1.

Thats said, i have always liked the idea of "conferences" in the NRL so that fans could see local rivals play each other more often. But the trouble with that, and you see it regularly in the US, is that some conferences become stronger/weaker over time (expected given the salary cap) and so some teams missing the finals from one conference will actually have a better record that a team making it from another conference. And then we will all be back here arguing again

 

[meltiger]

Elephant. Prime example of what you ate saying was two years ago, New Orleans coming third nationally were a chance of missing the playoffs because they were running second in their division. From memory ended up getting the wildcard spit but had to cross the country to play Seattle, who had at absolute best a 50/50 record.

If we ever went to conferences, we need to find a better way of deciding play off rankings than the Anericans use.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Elephant. Prime example of what you ate saying was two years ago, New Orleans coming third nationally were a chance of missing the playoffs because they were running second in their division. From memory ended up getting the wildcard spit but had to cross the country to play Seattle, who had at absolute best a 50/50 record.

If we ever went to conferences, we need to find a better way of deciding play off rankings than the Anericans use.

And probably wouldn't work until there is expansion anyway because with 9 Sydney teams in the comp, who misses out of the 8 team "Sydney Conference"? Unless there was 4 conferences which could probably be split along general geographic lines (Maybe A - Eels, Dogs, Tigers & panthers, B - Manly, Knightsm, Rabbits & Roosters, C - Brisbane, cowboys, Titans & Warriors, & D Storm, Canberra, Saints & cronulla), but then what happens if there is expansion?

I would love to see more than 2 games a year between my hopeless eels and the Bred-not-bought Dogs though. If only for the rivalry.

 

[ozjet1]

Alot of the conjecture over the finals system comes back to who should get "rewarded" in week one of the finals. The NRL reward teams 1 & 2 (and to a lesser extent teams 3&4), where as the AFL rewards teams 1-4 evenly (except for the potentially non-existant home ground advantage). I wouldn't look at a change unless teams 3 & 4 regularly got punted in week 1.

Thats said, i have always liked the idea of "conferences" in the NRL so that fans could see local rivals play each other more often. But the trouble with that, and you see it regularly in the US, is that some conferences become stronger/weaker over time (expected given the salary cap) and so some teams missing the finals from one conference will actually have a better record that a team making it from another conference. And then we will all be back here arguing again

what people ignore in arguments re the NFL about teams missing finals or earning a lower seed to other teams regarded as inferior is that teams in different groupings have different schedules. all teams will play different teams twice and different teams once. a team doesnt even play every team once - 32 teams in league/16 matches per team in regular season.

because each group has a unique schedule, at least 1 team from each group (the group/division winner) is owed a post-season berth. they are the best team amongst other teams with the same or near-same schedule. to take into account the possibility of stronger teams in some groupings, the conference-wide wildcard is designated to next best (not a division winner) teams. you have to remember too that some divisions have harder schedules than other groupings. so fundamentally, teams are compared to others who have the same schedule and the best of them (division winners) are seeded higher than those that arent the best in their division (wildcard) even though the latter has a better season record. that's why seattle (div winner) were seeded higher than New Orleans (wildcard). the concept of unique schedules and the associated importance of being the best performing team amongst other teams with the same schedule (winning the division) is foreign to australians.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

what people ignore in arguments re the NFL about teams missing finals or earning a lower seed to other teams regarded as inferior is that teams in different groupings have different schedules. all teams will play different teams twice and different teams once. a team doesnt even play every team once - 32 teams in league/16 matches per team in regular season.

because each group has a unique schedule, at least 1 team from each group (the group/division winner) is owed a post-season berth. they are the best team amongst other teams with the same or near-same schedule. to take into account the possibility of stronger teams in some groupings, the conference-wide wildcard is designated to next best (not a division winner) teams. you have to remember too that some divisions have harder schedules than other groupings. so fundamentally, teams are compared to others who have the same schedule and the best of them (division winners) are seeded higher than those that arent the best in their division (wildcard) even though the latter has a better season record. that's why seattle (div winner) were seeded higher than New Orleans (wildcard). the concept of unique schedules and the associated importance of being the best performing team amongst other teams with the same schedule (winning the division) is foreign to australians.

It may be foreign, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it makes sense. Imagine the outcry if the Sharks had made the play-off/finals this year simply because their conference included the Eels, Raiders and Titans and they were the best of a bad bunch. It would take 20 years+ before the bitching and moaning died down around who did or didn't get given the "easy" conference so that they could regularly make the finals.

 

[ozjet1]

Elephant. Prime example of what you ate saying was two years ago, New Orleans coming third nationally were a chance of missing the playoffs because they were running second in their division. From memory ended up getting the wildcard spit but had to cross the country to play Seattle, who had at absolute best a 50/50 record.

If we ever went to conferences, we need to find a better way of deciding play off rankings than the Anericans use.

3rd best record, but playing different teams than others. records arent accurately comparable between teams of different divisions, despite it being the determining factor in seeding division winners for playoffs. for a start New Orleans and the other teams in the NFC South had two gimme games against carolina, which gave them 2 wins right there.

the record should first and foremost be compared to other teams within their division and not those out of their division. New Orleans didnt have the same schedule as Seattle. they had the same schedule as Atlanta and they were 2nd best to Atlanta.

the NFL comp is structured in 3 stages and excelling in each against 'your' competition at that stage earns progression to the next stage.

intra-division competition (16-game regular season round robin - win the division or earn a wildcard)
intra-conference competition (post season playoffs - win the conference championship)
superbowl (post-season - win the league championship).

 

[meltiger]

You would be better off comparing the non-divisional games of that year to get an accurate reading of the respective strengths if Seattle & New Orleans.

From memory, Atlanta won in NO in overtime, Saints beat them in Atlanta in the back end. Can't remember the final standings but Saints may have dropped one divisional game early in the season when they dropped a few.

Over the full season, any suggestion that Seattle outperformed NO & deserved home field advantage is ridiculous. Yes it's their system, and fair enough. But let's ensure that situation never arises in Australia. .

 

[meltiger]

Just to back that up -

NFC South

Atlanta - 13-3
New Orleans - 11-5 (Divisional 4-2, non Divisional 7-3)
Tampa Bay - 10-6
Carolina - 2-14

NFC West

Seattle - 7-9 (Divisional 4-2, non-Divisional 3-7)
St Louis - 7-9
San Francisco - 6-10
Arizona - 5-11

New Orleans, travel to Seattle for the wild card. If we go down the conference road, we simply cannot allow such stupidity to occur.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Just to back that up -

NFC South

Atlanta - 13-3
New Orleans - 11-5 (Divisional 4-2, non Divisional 7-3)
Tampa Bay - 10-6
Carolina - 2-14

NFC West

Seattle - 7-9 (Divisional 4-2, non-Divisional 3-7)
St Louis - 7-9
San Francisco - 6-10
Arizona - 5-11

New Orleans, travel to Seattle for the wild card. If we go down the conference road, we simply cannot allow such stupidity to occur.

What potentially makes the arguement even more valid Meltiger, and without knowing the results int he rest of the divisions is that Tamba Bay at 10-6 (in a tough division, excluding the Carolina gimme) missed out completely whilst Seattle (in a rubbish division that year) made it through with only 7-9.

 

[meltiger]

Exactly. On the surface, it certainly looks as though the top 3 teams in the south had stronger seasons than anyone in the west.

But yes, this is without going through each teams schedule week by week.

 

[ozjet1]

You would be better off comparing the non-divisional games of that year to get an accurate reading of the respective strengths if Seattle & New Orleans.

From memory, Atlanta won in NO in overtime, Saints beat them in Atlanta in the back end. Can't remember the final standings but Saints may have dropped one divisional game early in the season when they dropped a few.

Over the full season, any suggestion that Seattle outperformed NO & deserved home field advantage is ridiculous. Yes it's their system, and fair enough. But let's ensure that situation never arises in Australia. .

you're still not getting it.

as all teams dont play each other, being the best performing team against those who have the same schedule is what matters in the NFL. as such, outperforming New Orleans over the season wasnt the focus of Seattle. Their concern was about outperforming the other teams in their division that had a near-same schedule as them, i.e., Arizona, San Francisco and St Louis which they finally did.

New Orleans' focus were the teams they shared the near-same schedule with. these were Atlanta, Tampa Bay & Carolina. They were 2nd best amongst that lot and so had to earn a post season berth via wildcard.

seattle got the home playoff because they won their competition. New Orleans didnt. comparing overall W-L records in this case doesnt paint an accurate picture because they had different schedules. the fundamental basis is to win the division. the prestige is in the winning the division, not clinching the wildcard.

transferring the format directly into the NRL without modifications wouldnt work. for a start, all teams will still play each other at least once so the unique schedule isnt a factor. furthermore, the most realistic groupings would be 2 groups of 8, rather than 4 of 4 as the former provides more group games and hence more season games. there would only be 2 group winners and probably 4 to 6 wildcards. i would doubt that there would be 2 separate group playoffs in the post season too. so fears that the NFL system would deliver the similar results are clearly unfounded.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

you're still not getting it.

as all teams dont play each other, being the best performing team against those who have the same schedule is what matters in the NFL. as such, outperforming New Orleans over the season wasnt the focus of Seattle. Their concern was about outperforming the other teams in their division that had a near-same schedule as them, i.e., Arizona, San Francisco and St Louis which they finally did.

New Orleans' focus were the teams they shared the near-same schedule with. these were Atlanta, Tampa Bay & Carolina. They were 2nd best amongst that lot and so had to earn a post season berth via wildcard.

seattle got the home playoff because they won their competition. New Orleans didnt. comparing overall W-L records in this case doesnt paint an accurate picture because they had different schedules. the fundamental basis is to win the division. the prestige is in the winning the division, not clinching the wildcard.

transferring the format directly into the NRL without modifications wouldnt work. for a start, all teams will still play each other at least once so the unique schedule isnt a factor. furthermore, the most realistic groupings would be 2 groups of 8, rather than 4 of 4 as the former provides more group games and hence more season games. there would only be 2 group winners and probably 4 to 6 wildcards. i would doubt that there would be 2 separate group playoffs in the post season too. so fears that the NFL system would deliver the similar results are clearly unfounded.

Oz, I think you're the one not getting it. Yes Seattle did what they needed to do to get to the finals, and good one them for that, but that in no way implies that it is a good finals system.

And I think you will find that the prestige is winning the Superbowl, not merely a division. Thats like saying Cronulla don't really want to win a premiership, they are happy just making the semis.

 

[meltiger]

What part of what I'm saying would suggest I don't get it?

I understand exactly why they do what they do, and am quite clearly stating I don't want to see such a system in Rugby League.

NO, lost 2 games to teams with better records than Seattle in their division, and massively outperformed them outside the division.

What I'm saying OzJ is that it's fine to have conferencing schedule wise, but we need a better system to determine playoff seedings than what the NFL has.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

What part of what I'm saying would suggest I don't get it?

I understand exactly why they do what they do, and am quite clearly stating I don't want to see such a system in Rugby League.

NO, lost 2 games to teams with better records than Seattle in their division, and massively outperformed them outside the division.

What I'm saying OzJ is that it's fine to have conferencing schedule wise, but we need a better system to determine playoff seedings than what the NFL has.

^^^^^
Got it in one Meltiger

 

[meltiger]

Elephant OzJ is right in that there is prestige in the lower titles.

Divisional winners, Conference winners & of course the SB champions all win trophies.

They do also sell merchandise as divisional champions regardless of what happens through the playoffs. Alot of strong rivalries ensure that the title of divisional champions does have meaning to them.

 

[meltiger]

Whether we could replicate that without the history is another story

 

[ozjet1]

Oz, I think you're the one not getting it. Yes Seattle did what they needed to do to get to the finals, and good one them for that, but that in no way implies that it is a good finals system.

And I think you will find that the prestige is winning the Superbowl, not merely a division. Thats like saying Cronulla don't really want to win a premiership, they are happy just making the semis.

the qualification and seeding process is what it is due to the structure of their competition. 32 teams playing a 16 game regular season raises peculiarities unique to the league which would not be an issue in the NRL or probably any other major league in the world. not qualifying seattle or not giving them the higher seed in that case would attack the fundamentals of the system, i.e., recognising winner of the division which has it's own unique schedule. how would you propose the NFL otherwise structure the season within those parameters, and find a reasonable way to qualify and seed post-season participants?

apart from that the finals system itself is perfect: 100% playoffs; 6 teams; top 2 seeds get week 1 bye; all teams play for the same reward each week.

and im sure you're not so thick to assume I was implying that winning the division is the ultimate goal in the NFL. the comment was made in relation to regular season play and in comparison to a wildcard. in saying that, it is a title that is recognised.

and Melttiger, Im saying such a format as that utilised by the NFL would never find it's way into the NRL in the same guise due to the peculiarities inherent in the NFL size & structure. due to the opportunity for ALL teams in the NRL to play each other at least once in a season, the option to seed a wildcard ahead of a group winner is a realistic proposition. the argument of unique schedules (although some teams would play each other twice and other once) is of lessor significance.

 

[The Elephant In The room]

Whether we could replicate that without the history is another story

Sadly with the NRL's apathetic supporter base, I would doubt it.

I think there is benefit in looking at every major sporting code world wide to try and take their best bits to see if it would work for the NRL. I'd love for the regular season to have a "Sydney Division" so that I cold see more local derbies. Like you, I just don't think the divisional finals system always works. I'd love for there to be a promotion/relegation system to keep the focus on the "lower" teams for longer in the year (although sadly for my eels, we could have been on the chopping block), but we don't have the teams in the second teir, nor the cash to support such a second teir. But I don't like a first past the post EPL system.

This isn't a shot at you Oz, but I don't think a "100% playoff" final system would work in the NRL, particularly when origin is mid season and disrupts the true finishing position of so many teams. There is already rabid fans out there talking about the McIntyre system potentially not giving team 3 a second chance, well what if the team with the best record went out in their first week. The forum would go crazy.

Speaking of the origin disruption, is there any other competition that does this? EPL and the like obviously have their other leagues (champions league, FA cup etc), but its still the same team chasing the glory in these other competitions, not some new club formed for a 3 game series.

 

[Danish]

Jesus Christ those sooking about a finals system not being fair are pansies.

The best team in the comp is a mixture of the one who can perform well throughout the year mixed with perform when it's all on the line in sudden death games against the best opposition.

Think of the finals like to 100m final at the Olympics. Sure, usain bolt is obviously the fastest man in the world, but he still has to perform on the day and at that time. If he doesn't, and some bloke who qualified 6th manages the race of his life and takes out the gold, then there can be no question that he earned it

 

[Lego_Man]

Think of the finals like to 100m final at the Olympics. Sure, usain bolt is obviously the fastest man in the world, but he still has to perform on the day and at that time. If he doesn't, and some bloke who qualified 6th manages the race of his life and takes out the gold, then there can be no question that he earned it

Best analogy i've heard...