The annual finals system debate thread

[loveleague]

I dont like the top 8, it rewards mediocrity if you have 14 teams and you can make the playoffs by finishing 8th. Taking into consideration future expansion of 2-3 teams - I would have a top 6 - with the top 2 getting the first week off and the bottom 3-6th place teams vying for a semi the next week. This is fair and the finals are over in 3 wks. I would also reduce the number of games played before playoffs, 22 seems excessive on top of state of origin and a possible expanded test window.
I think this year is a great example - with the top six teams clearly superior to the rest. Just some ideas, a little different from previous posts.

 

[firechild]

I dont like the top 8, it rewards mediocrity if you have 14 teams and you can make the playoffs by finishing 8th. Taking into consideration future expansion of 2-3 teams - I would have a top 6 - with the top 2 getting the first week off and the bottom 3-6th place teams vying for a semi the next week. This is fair and the finals are over in 3 wks. I would also reduce the number of games played before playoffs, 22 seems excessive on top of state of origin and a possible expanded test window.
I think this year is a great example - with the top six teams clearly superior to the rest. Just some ideas, a little different from previous posts.

But we have 16 teams, not 14. I do agree though that teams can make the top 8 by losing as many or more games than they win which is not a good thing. However, the Cowboys have been considered one of the 5 teams with a strong chance of making the GF all season and if they had won their final game, they would have finished 4th so I wouldn't say there is a huge gap between them and the teams that finished 4-6th.

 

[Lego_Man]

I dont like the top 8, it rewards mediocrity if you have 14 teams and you can make the playoffs by finishing 8th.

Spastic.

In a couple of years we are going to have 18 teams.

 

[loveleague]

But we have 16 teams, not 14. I do agree though that teams can make the top 8 by losing as many or more games than they win which is not a good thing. However, the Cowboys have been considered one of the 5 teams with a strong chance of making the GF all season and if they had won their final game, they would have finished 4th so I wouldn't say there is a huge gap between them and the teams that finished 4-6th.

Yeah, I knew that - typo - I would still stand by six teams even if there is 18 in the future - this is a high level comp and excellence should be rewarded

 

[simostorm]

I like the McIntyre System.. i think its better than the previous system we used.. that the AFL now have.. as the McIntyre builds up to the biggest game of the year..
Where as the other system.. the best games of the year are in the first round..

 

[proto]

yeah ive always thought that the afl system rewards teams like 5 & 6 giving them a chance to get off to a better start in the finals then 3 or 4. Its all about getting on a run IMO.

i have no evidence to support this at all. The only downer of the McIntyre is if things all go to plan the 3v6 & 4v5 can be a bit of a waste. But then again i think a team like the warriors has a super chance this weekend & then taking a home final all the way there is great stuff.

 

[seanoff]

I like the McIntyre System.. i think its better than the previous system we used.. that the AFL now have.. as the McIntyre builds up to the biggest game of the year..
Where as the other system.. the best games of the year are in the first round..

horse shit.

if the AFL system goes to seeding the prelims end up as the reverse games of week 1 games, so 3 & 4 end up playing both 1 & 2, then after that 1 play 2 in the GF . so 3 4 have to get thru both 1 & 2 to win it all. how is that bad? :crazy:

i can see the advantages of both systems, but saying the NRL system leads to a bigger game in the GF is fanciful

 

[siv]

NEITHER

I don't like both systems as teams 1 and 2 are not rewarded

NRL system does not reward Teams 3 and 4 and rewards team 7/8 too much if they win

I prefer a variation as follows

WEEK 1
Teams 1,2 - bye
3 v 4 (winner becomes the new 3, loser new 4)
5 v 8
6 v 7 (highest winner new 5, lowest winner new 6)

WEEK 2
1 v 2 (winner becomes the new 1, loser the new 2)
3 v 6
4 v 5 (highest winner new 3, lowest winner new 4)

WEEK 3
1 v 4
2 v 3

WEEK 4
Grand Final

Benefits
Team 1 - bye week 1, one win away from Grand Final, home preliminary final and home semifinal, cannot be eliminated if they lose first match
Team 2 - bye week 1, one win away from Grand Final, home preliminary final, cannot be eliminated if they lose first match

Team 3 - two wins away from Grand Final, two home semifinals, cannot be eliminated if they lose first match
Team 4 - two wins away from Grand Final, one home semifinal, cannot be eliminated if they lose first match

Team 5 - one home semifinal - but must win ALL games to make Grand Final
Team 6 - one home semifinal - but must win ALL games to make Grand Final

Team 7 - must win ALL game on the road to make Grand Final
Team 8 - must win ALL game on the road to make Grand Final

 

[gUt]

I don't like both systems as teams 1 and 2 are not rewarded

NRL system does not reward Teams 3 and 4 and rewards team 7/8 too much if they win

Your idea is interesting but to say that teams 1 and 2 aren't rewarded is to go over old ground imo. They ARE rewarded, and continue to be rewarded if they win. The finals is a new comp. If they lose in this new comp, tough shit.

EDIT: also under your idea you say teams 1 and 2 are 1 win away from the GF but looking at it, aren't they 2 wins away?

 

[simostorm]

horse shit.

if the AFL system goes to seeding the prelims end up as the reverse games of week 1 games, so 3 & 4 end up playing both 1 & 2, then after that 1 play 2 in the GF . so 3 4 have to get thru both 1 & 2 to win it all. how is that bad? :crazy:

i can see the advantages of both systems, but saying the NRL system leads to a bigger game in the GF is fanciful

The McIntyre system builds up to the biggest game.. the AFL system the top 4 play in the first round then most likely again in the 3rd..
If the NRL system goes to seeding then the top 4 wont play each other until round 3.. how is that bad?

 

[seanoff]

The McIntyre system builds up to the biggest game.. the AFL system the top 4 play in the first round then most likely again in the 3rd..
If the NRL system goes to seeding then the top 4 wont play each other until round 3.. how is that bad?

its not bad, but it doesn't lead to a better or bigger game in the GF. it's just a slightly different way of getting to the same result.

i like the mc system giving 1 & 2 an easier wk1, i dislike that the highest losers have to play away in wk2. the system should reward those that finish higher over the season, ymmv.

in the AFL system i like that 1, 2, 3 and 4 all play each other in the finals if it goes to seeding, i don't think it rewards 1 & 2 enough tho.

i'd like a system where 1 & 2 got a week off, and 3 4 5 6 played eliminations. the winners play 1 & 2 and then the GF is a best of 3 between the winners of the wk 2 games.

 

[Guvner]

The only problem with the current system is they play the games arse about in week 1. 1 v 8 should be first and 4 v 5 last.

 

[docbrown]

The only problem with the current system is they play the games arse about in week 1. 1 v 8 should be first and 4 v 5 last.

If 1 beats 8 then 2 beats 7, 4 & 5 would both know before they play that they won't be eliminated.

 

[simostorm]

its not bad, but it doesn't lead to a better or bigger game in the GF. it's just a slightly different way of getting to the same result.

i like the mc system giving 1 & 2 an easier wk1, i dislike that the highest losers have to play away in wk2. the system should reward those that finish higher over the season, ymmv.

in the AFL system i like that 1, 2, 3 and 4 all play each other in the finals if it goes to seeding, i don't think it rewards 1 & 2 enough tho.

i'd like a system where 1 & 2 got a week off, and 3 4 5 6 played eliminations. the winners play 1 & 2 and then the GF is a best of 3 between the winners of the wk 2 games.

it doesnt lead to a better or bigger game.. but it "builds" upto it.. better.. imo.

 

[Danish]

The finals system will likely be changed if/when 4th place is finally eliminated after losing in week 1.

Personally though I like the current system. I think it is the fairest system to have as it rewards winning a finals match first and foremost. I don't like the idea of losing sides getting a home final the next week, or worse still teams that come 3rd and 4th being thrown into likely losing games while teams 5-6 get much easier ties against the lowest ranked clubs and with home advantage to boot.

People say 1 and 2 aren't advantaged enough in our system, but frankly if you lose in week 1 against a team 6 or 7 rungs below you on the ladder, you don't deserve any more advantage given to apart from the 2nd chance.

 

[El Diablo]

The finals system will likely be changed if/when 4th place is finally eliminated after losing in week 1.

or if 6th wins the premiership after losing in week 1

 

[Noa]

I think Id rather go back to our previous system.

I like the match-ups better and it seems on the surface it would provide more certainty for fans in regards to planning.

I like ED point too that if your 6th, you dont deserve to lose and stay in the comp.

 

[Danish]

or if 6th wins the premiership after losing in week 1

hadn't even considered that....

I think that would leave any even worse taste in the mouth really. Lets hope it never happens!

 

[themacemaceman]

You've got to weigh up the fact that during the season you don't play every team twice so team 6 may have had a tougher draw than some teams above them.

 

[Fingerbang]

And here is the flaw in the current system.....

Broncos and Manly both win today, and tomorrow Knights upset Storm. Where is the reward for Tigers winning last night when they face Storm in week 2, while Dragons face Knights. Say both Dragons and Tigers win in week 2, the Dragons face Manly at ANZ while Tigers get Broncos in Brisbane.