2012 NRL Finals system changed

[Professor47]

I've never had a major problem with the McIntyre system. with the new system finishing first is irrelevant (apart from the clubs financial gain). as long as you finish top 4 you get the same advantage. also now for top 4 teams since they can't be eliminated in round 1, the run the risk of serious injury to a key player in effectively a nothing game (although they will get higher tv ratings).

Disagree - no difference between 1 and 2... not top 4 altogether. That has always been the iffyness with a top 8 system... Is 100k enough of a carrot to fight for 1? I say bump it up to 20, perhaps 300k and then we're talking. Still... a lot better than the McIntyre system IMO... at the end of the day weigh up the Pros and Cons...

Week 1 is a big deal for top 4 IMO - you win you get an advance into week 3 at HOME. That is huuuuge.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Well I'd say 9 times out of 10 the team finishing first would prefer to play 4th over 2nd or 3rd so they still get an advantage. Plus the game is at home.

 

[Fozz]

In week one, the top two should have home games while the bottom four should play home region games.

Week two, the losers from top four should have home games vs the winners from the bottom four.

Unless Manly is in the top four. Since their fans won't cross the bridge, they should play it at the opposition's home ground. Lazy pricks.

 

[Alec]

As long as 3rd can't get knocked out in week 1, surely it's a step forward?

 

[Broncoman]

Thank god and finally

 

[john1420]

I don't like the fact that team 3 and 4 get to play higher teams away whilst 5 and 6 get lower teams at home

I understand the old system was broken, but this has flaws too

I wish a new system could have been designed, but perhaps that was tried

 

[Alec]

I don't like the fact that team 3 and 4 get to play higher teams away whilst 5 and 6 get lower teams at home

I understand the old system was broken, but this has flaws too

I wish a new system could have been designed, but perhaps that was tried

The difference is that 5 and 6 play sudden death, while 3 and 4 are just playing for a week off and have no chance of being knocked out.

 

[Coxy]

We did. In 1996

 

[Alec]

Both systems have flaws IMO. The new one doesn't reward the top 2 teams as much as the old one. Before, first would usually play an easy game against 8th, and now it could be a much more difficult game against 4th. I still prefer it however (since we haven't finished in the top 2 in ages <.<)

 

[Coxy]

Exactly. If you finish top 2 you are Guaranteed TWO home finals.

If you finish 3 or 4 you're guaranteed a home final in week 2 or 3.

It's by far the best top 8 system

 

[john1420]

The difference is that 5 and 6 play sudden death, while 3 and 4 are just playing for a week off and have no chance of being knocked out.

I understand that Alec, but whilst 5 and 6 have to play sudden death, they do get to play at home to 7 and 8

And while it's nice that 3 and 4 get a double chance, they have to play away to 1 and 2 - thus increasing their need for the double chance

Just saying that, having looked very closely at this system, I don't like it much

Is it better than the old system? Probably

Just wish it could be better again

5 and 6 should not have any advantage in any aspect over 3 and 4

But they do - 5 and 6 play at home against lower ranked teams, while 3 and 4 play away to higher ranked teams

The fact that 5 and 6 are playing sudden death whilst 3 and 4 are not is an advantage to 3 and 4

3 and 4 probably have the better of the deal, but I don't see why 5 and 6 should get the better draw

 

[Alec]

I understand that Alec, but whilst 5 and 6 have to play sudden death, they do get to play at home to 7 and 8

And while it's nice that 3 and 4 get a double chance, they have to play away to 1 and 2 - thus increasing their need for the double chance

Just saying that, having looked very closely at this system, I don't like it much

Is it better than the old system? Probably

Just wish it could be better again

5 and 6 should not have any advantage in any aspect over 3 and 4

But they do - 5 and 6 play at home against lower ranked teams, while 3 and 4 play away to higher ranked teams

The fact that 5 and 6 are playing sudden death whilst 3 and 4 are not is an advantage to 3 and 4

3 and 4 probably have the better of the deal, but I don't see why 5 and 6 should get the better draw

I was just looking at the graph, and it shows that even if teams 3 and 4 lose, they'll still have the home match next week. So team 3/4 losing in week 1 of the new system is pretty much exactly the same as them winning in the old system.

In the old system, if we assume that the higher teams are better than the lower teams, the result of 3 vs 6 and 4 vs 5 make no difference. Actually, it probably makes it worse, considering how week 2 is sudden death, 3 now plays 5 and 4 plays 6. The higher ranking team gets a more difficult match.