A Final 16

[thebaldfacts]

Posted this on the Other AFL thread, but thought I would share it here as well.


With the debate about the bye being a disadvantage to those in the top 4, maybe it is time to consider a final 16.

Not only would this have the benefit of eliminating tanking, it gives those higher up the ladder easier games leading into the GF.

Basically we would have 8 finals in the first week based on finishing order -1 v 16, 2 v 15 etc.

Week 2, assuming that top 8 won, then 1 v 8, 2 v 7 etc.

Week 3, assuming top 4 win, then 1 v 4 and 2 v 3.

Week 4 - GF.

Under this system, you get real advantage in finishing higher by getting easier games. But also tanking for the spoon is virtually eliminated as you still have a faint chance of premiership glory as long as you avoid the bottom 2.

Great for the AFL as it eliminates meaningless games as all sides are still a finals chance going late into the season.

Also helps alleviate the unfairness of the draw because the draw could be the difference between 8 -12 under the current system.

Maybe it cheapens the finals a bit, by allowing poor sides to play finals, but it will maintain interest for all clubs for the whole season.

If this was already in place, then Bucks would of made finals 6 years running.

[Skids]

I think the top 5 format is by far the best.

The teams that finished 7th & 8th this season will be totally humiliated on the weekend. How's that good for the game?!

[E]

[Damien]

Or just have no finals like the Premier league. Nah I love finals, but let's face it, the move from 4 to 5 and now 8 was only ever about money.

[The Boy Who Cried Wolf]

Originally I hated the concept but all of the above is exactly why there should be 2 conferences (or something along similar lines). It would fix the not playing each team home and away issue and frankly you'd have more finals (2 x top 5.. from 9), or there about's the same amount of finals. At the end you could have the 2 conference winners square off in the actual GF.

[Collingwood Crackerjack]

[Damien]

Yep finishing top should give a distinct advantage. As it stands it doesn't.

[Skids]

[thebaldfacts]

[thebaldfacts]

Duplicate post.

[thebaldfacts]

Duplicate post.

[Skids]

Nah, final 16 is ridiculous.
The Wolf mentioned the 2 conference idea, that is much more realistic.

[thebaldfacts]

[duke750]

I've often thought the 2 "conference" idea would allow teams to play each other twice in a season. But given 9 teams in each conference that means 16 games for the season. Not really long enough.

I have mulled this over quite a bit and I think the solution might be to complete two sets of home and away fixtures over 3 seasons. Each set consists of 34 games, and that could be completed as 23, 22 and 23 game seasons over the 3 years. The extra round in the middle season could be used for some representative fixture.

There might be slight advantages or disadvantages each year, but over 3 seasons everything would equal out.

This would probably mean that the Anzac Day and Queens Birthday fixtures would be distributed among other clubs, but so be it.

I would retain the final 8, but without the week's rest before the finals.

[E]

top 8 is the best system for an uneven draw. It gives too many teams a double chance, which means if you are good enough you should get one no matter what the draw.

Its also means too many teams make finals but that means you should still make the finals even with a tough draw if you are good enough.

teams with easy drws will make top 4 when they dont deserve it and some teams with easy draws will make finals when they dont deserve it, but they get sorted out in the first two weeks of finals.

A top 5 means the draw needs to be very even as there is no margin for error. I havent seen a top 6 format that works. in both of these system, percentage matters! as does the draw.

Top 16 is stupid, especially as envisaged by the OP, but at least Buckley could get a team to qualify!!!!!