How do you think the new system of the finals rate?
1 v.4 2 v.3 5 v.8 and 6 v.7
Do you think this system is fair?
Tell me your thoughts
GO PIES!
How does the new finals system rate?
Moderator: bbmods
-
AlfAndrews
It's much fairer than the previous system. It's a bit like the old final-4 system in stereo. The thing I like about it is that a team's fate is in its own hands. You're not relying on results of other matches to determine whether you're eliminated or whether you get a week off or whatever.
However, I think the idea of having 8 teams out of 16 contesting the finals is bollocks.
To make the finals these days you only have to be in the top half of the ladder. What a load of crap. Only the very best teams should contest the finals. They should go back to the old "final-4" system ... the one that operated from the early 1930s until the early 1970s. Teams 5 to 8 don't deserve to be there. Stuff them.
------------------
**floreat pica**
However, I think the idea of having 8 teams out of 16 contesting the finals is bollocks.
To make the finals these days you only have to be in the top half of the ladder. What a load of crap. Only the very best teams should contest the finals. They should go back to the old "final-4" system ... the one that operated from the early 1930s until the early 1970s. Teams 5 to 8 don't deserve to be there. Stuff them.
------------------
**floreat pica**
-
Greg J
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Thu May 13, 1999 6:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Well of course, Joffa, the finals are irrelevent if the Pies are not in them. The one exception being injuries to opposition players that will extend to when we might play them next season.
In fact, only two weeks left in the Footy season as far as I am concerned. The rest I will consider practice matches.
In fact, only two weeks left in the Footy season as far as I am concerned. The rest I will consider practice matches.
-
AlfAndrews
-
Greg J
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Thu May 13, 1999 6:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
I am glad you asked that Alf.
The way I figure it, the finals are for the best teams.
While I do not agree that falling into the top half of the ladder qualifies you as one of the best teams, there is some justification for it given that the draw is uneven.
To make sure that the best teams make the finals, we have to allow more teams in the finals to capture those that would have been one of the best teams if not for an unfortunate draw. In practical terms, there is no way we can guarantee that the top four teams have not had an easy draw for any given year. The team that came fifth could have played the teams above them twice, but the top four teams could have played each other once.
It is impossible to use even last years results to seed the next years draw to eliminate unfairness. The teams change too much from year to year.
There is some arguement for a top 6 but not a top 4. It would be too unfair, and it would be too easy for them to conspire against us!
The way I figure it, the finals are for the best teams.
While I do not agree that falling into the top half of the ladder qualifies you as one of the best teams, there is some justification for it given that the draw is uneven.
To make sure that the best teams make the finals, we have to allow more teams in the finals to capture those that would have been one of the best teams if not for an unfortunate draw. In practical terms, there is no way we can guarantee that the top four teams have not had an easy draw for any given year. The team that came fifth could have played the teams above them twice, but the top four teams could have played each other once.
It is impossible to use even last years results to seed the next years draw to eliminate unfairness. The teams change too much from year to year.
There is some arguement for a top 6 but not a top 4. It would be too unfair, and it would be too easy for them to conspire against us!
-
AlfAndrews
Er, OK. I think I understand.
So, then. The logical extension of your argument is that we should have a final-16. That way we would make sure that all the teams that had a hard draw make the finals.
Of course, it would also have the added benefit of ensuring that Collingwood make the finals every year.
------------------
**floreat pica**
So, then. The logical extension of your argument is that we should have a final-16. That way we would make sure that all the teams that had a hard draw make the finals.
Of course, it would also have the added benefit of ensuring that Collingwood make the finals every year.
------------------
**floreat pica**
-
Greg J
- Posts: 1509
- Joined: Thu May 13, 1999 6:01 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
No, no Alf. I started by saying that the finals are for the best teams. There was no arguement for including the bottom eight teams in the finals.
Actually it turns out the general opinion is that the AFL bowed to the clubs demand and changed the finals in 1993 to include two more games so that the clubs would get a slightly bigger dividend from the AFL. I guess money was tight even in those days. Those two extra games have never brought a club more than a couple of extra thousand dollars, but now the final 8 is a fixture of the game. I do not seeing them changing it until they get rid of a team or two.
Actually it turns out the general opinion is that the AFL bowed to the clubs demand and changed the finals in 1993 to include two more games so that the clubs would get a slightly bigger dividend from the AFL. I guess money was tight even in those days. Those two extra games have never brought a club more than a couple of extra thousand dollars, but now the final 8 is a fixture of the game. I do not seeing them changing it until they get rid of a team or two.