However:

The first week has great interest with prelims at stake in the qualifiers and often up and coming teams trying to win a first final in the eliminations e.g. Freo. The prelim week is possibly even better than GF week with partisan crowds at take-no prisoners high stakes games that the general footy public has a good chance of getting to.

Absolutely.

I just had a look back at the 1998 season and I forgot just stupid the old system is and was.

I recommend people have a look at the results in the above link, but to summarise basically Adelaide finished below Melbourne on the ladder and lost (to Melbourne) leading up to the Preliminary Finals.

Yet, to get into the Grand Final Adelaide had to play the Western Bulldogs, who finished second while Melbourne had to play North Melbourne who finished on top of the ladder.

Melbourne may have got thumped by the Bulldogs but the fact that a team could finish lower on the ladder, lose during the finals and have an easier opponent to get into a Grand Final (as per ladder position) was a joke. Also the fact that Sydney (who finished third) could be knocked out by Adelaide in a Semi Final after winning their first final was a joke.

The problem with the current system is that 1st plays 4th first week of finals, and 2nd plays 3rd. So if all games are won by the higher ranked team, then the team that wins the minor premiership has to beat the side that finished 3rd in the prelim, whilst the team that finished 2nd gets an easier prelim playing 4th.

The problem with the current system is that 1st plays 4th first week of finals, and 2nd plays 3rd. So if all games are won by the higher ranked team, then the team that wins the minor premiership has to beat the side that finished 3rd in the prelim, whilst the team that finished 2nd gets an easier prelim playing 4th.

That's interesting, I did not realise that. I still prefer the current system.

The problem with the current system is that 1st plays 4th first week of finals, and 2nd plays 3rd. So if all games are won by the higher ranked team, then the team that wins the minor premiership has to beat the side that finished 3rd in the prelim, whilst the team that finished 2nd gets an easier prelim playing 4th.

So if you finish on top, you can't play 2nd, because that would be stupid, right? So you either play 3rd or 4th in the first week. Why would you then make the minor premier get the tougher opponent in the first round? If I was Collingwood, I would definitely have preferred the 4th-ranked team first up, get the win, the week off, and prepare for the 3rd ranked team (which is the most likely scenario).

There is no problem with the current system. Any argument against it that I've heard can always be countered.

No changes made, keep the top 8 and continue the current finals format. The more competitors for limited spots, the more urgency, it will make the top 8 more prestigious instead of just being a formality for finishing on the top half of the ladder. Make teams earn it and be more competitive.

Edited September 20, 201014 yr by Deez Nutz

Play 17 rounds (ie each other tream once) varying home and away Each year. After 17 rounds, play:

Week 1:

18 v 15 & 16 v 17, losers eliminated

14 v 11 & 13 v 12, Loser to play winners of above next week

1 - 10 play 1 v 10, 2 v 9, etc, results contributing to ongoing ladder positions.

Week 2:

Winners of 15-18 play losers of 11-14, losers eliminated

Winners of 11-14 play 9& 10, Loser to play winners of above next week

1-8 play in some format to avoid repetition of last weeks games, results contributing to ongoing ladder positions.

Weeks 3-5:

Keep on doing that, losing 2 teams per week, until 8 are left and play the final 8 as is.

Advantages:

Play all teams on fair H&A over 2 years

Works for 17 or 18 teams (Bye is eliminated in first week of "finals")

Hopeless cases go out mercifully early

All matches really count; tanking discouraged

Same number of rounds as at presenr (22 + 5 finals weeks)

Eddie can't get out of travelling

Problems:

Need to work out compensation for missed games by weak sides - some sort of finals gate pooling?

Need to do some work on how games at top end of table avoid repetition.

Leave it as is. Second chances and home finals work well. No need for any changes

What he said......

leave it as it is.

however - if one absolutely must make changes....

top 9 after 22 rounds.

week 1 is 8v9 - for the right to play next week.

week 2 is 1v4, 2v3, 5 v winner 8v9, 6v7

and then have it as it is now.

give the top 7 a week off.

Play 17 rounds (ie each other tream once) varying home and away Each year. After 17 rounds, play:

Week 1:

18 v 15 & 16 v 17, losers eliminated

14 v 11 & 13 v 12, Loser to play winners of above next week

1 - 10 play 1 v 10, 2 v 9, etc, results contributing to ongoing ladder positions.

Week 2:

Winners of 15-18 play losers of 11-14, losers eliminated

Winners of 11-14 play 9& 10, Loser to play winners of above next week

1-8 play in some format to avoid repetition of last weeks games, results contributing to ongoing ladder positions.

Weeks 3-5:

Keep on doing that, losing 2 teams per week, until 8 are left and play the final 8 as is.

Advantages:

Play all teams on fair H&A over 2 years

Works for 17 or 18 teams (Bye is eliminated in first week of "finals")

Hopeless cases go out mercifully early

All matches really count; tanking discouraged

Same number of rounds as at presenr (22 + 5 finals weeks)

Eddie can't get out of travelling

Problems:

Need to work out compensation for missed games by weak sides - some sort of finals gate pooling?

Need to do some work on how games at top end of table avoid repetition.

Interesting approach. Based on that system the team finishing 18th after round 17 could still make the final 8 if it wins all post round 17 games. Not sure if this is a good thing or not but means there is always a "mathematical chance of making the eight" regardless of where you finish after the end of round 17

The NRL have the McIntyre system in place. Because of the results from week 1 of their finals, on the weekend we saw the team that finished 7th take on the team that finished 3rd at...wait for it...the home ground of 7th!!! And, the team that finished 2nd, played the team that finished 6th at...you guessed it...the home ground of 6th!!! That would potentially mean that Geelong would have had to play Freo at Freo under the similar system.

And people are questioning if our current system is fair. There is no other possible scenario that could beat our current system. Don't you think the Collingwood faithful would have come up with it by now? The only alternative I heard was that the highest ranked of the teams that went straight in to the prelim get to chose their opponent after the results of the semi's. There is no logic in that, other than to give the minor premier 4 rewards for finishing on top (1. potential week off 2. choose your own opponent 3. home ground advantage in your first final 4. home ground advantage in your 2nd final).

Please leave it as is. the NRL love our system, but wont change to our system (typical case of mine's bigger than yours).

No change.

AFL ... Done expand finals just because of more teams, it borders on farce with 7 and 8 but we can live with that. There's a logical and not too contrived path to the GF currently. Surely there has to be an understandable standard and reward for finishing in the 8 and more reward the higher. It ain't broke, requires no fixing.