Conference Finals System

[Jeba]

Yeh whilst McIntyre is not perfect I prefer it over the AFL system. Besides, there is no such thing as a perfect finals system that's going to keep everyone happy.

The thing I like about McIntyre is that each game is must-win. For 1-2 it's must win for the free passage to the prelim, and for everyone else it's must-win or risk bowing out in the first week. With the AFL, if you come up against Collingwood in week 1, you're no worse off treating it as a training run, because you're guaranteed to be there in week 2. And history shows that the losers in week 1 win week 2 99% of the time.

I like the variables of our system and the I like how it's set up that teams just have to win.

 

[dukey]

I honestly cannot see the problems with the McIntyre system. It's no better or worse than the AFL one.

 

[Bucking Beads]

The afl system gives a greater reward for top four finishes and I would think the games would be better and closer in some cases.

 

[Porthoz]

Alright.

David Gallop is an idiot who doesn't run the game well at all. He's out of touch, and doesn't know anything about tribalism. The finals system is stupid, and it's his fault, he should change it completely.

Manly should be kicked out. Titans fans are idiots. And how on Earth did the Dragons get around this cap loophole with Gasnier. Gallop's fault completely.

The website's skin sucks. We need a better one. It won't break stuff, why aren't the admins doing a good job. Stupid admins.


Happy/

Wow, maybe you need to take a chill pill mate. I wasn't talking about Gallop nor vB, but about a general concept.

I meant that without critical spirit, nothing would evolve, because if it's not broken and doesn't need fixing. If everyone thought that way, we would still be in the industrial revolution age...

 

[Kimlo]

Pretty sure he was taking a shot at Rocky, not you :P

On topic - it will never happen. Firstly we don't have enough teams and secondly it's far too radical for the NRL to consider. If they wont kick the Sharks out of the comp...

 

[schmix]

I think conferences would be a backwards step in the game's development. It just highlights the Sydney-centric nature of the game, given there is a whole conference dedicated to one city and the other is just "everyone else". I think we need to be moving away from this viewpoint and looking at the game from a more collective, national perspective.

 

[dukey]

I'd be happy to have conferences in the future, when we're at or over 20 teams. I think it's the logical way to deal with a larger amount of clubs in the one competition. But I don't like the idea of deciding conferences based on geographical location.

 

[Professor47]

Conference won't happen anytime in the future... we MIGHT see it one day but the game would have to be much bigger IMO.

I don't like the McIntyre... week 1 is just so garbage. 3/4 shouldn't be in a situation where they should be eliminated. Especially since 7/8 get a shot at the title as well. There is NO reward for 3/4.

The lesser of two evils is the AFL system. However I think we should bite the bullet and give team 1 and 2 a week off straight away. The counter argument is how about momentum BLA BLA BLA but they get a week off in week 2 ANYWAY.

It should be TOP 7

WEEK 1: (assume higher placed teams win)
1 - WEEK OFF

6v7 (ELIM) - 6 home ground

2v3 - (2 HOME, winner gets WEEK 2 OFF)
4v5 - (winner gets WEEK 2 HOME)

WEEK 2:
1- WEEK OFF
2- WEEK OFF

4v6 (4 HOME)
3v5 (3 HOME)

WEEK 3: (IF a Sydney team plays, the game MUST be played at the SFS/ANZ (I think finals should be in Sydney from Week 3 ANYWAY) - IF BOTH teams are regional, the higher ranked team may move the game to Melbourne/QLD/NZ --> e.g. Broncs/Cows 2004)
1v4
2v3

GF: (ANZ)
1v2

People might complain 2 weeks off kills momentum for the minor premiers - I don't buy it... I think coming 1st in the competition DESERVES to go straight to the Semi. Under the current system you verse team 8 and go straight to the SEMI ANYWAY. This system rewards the minor premiers deservedly. If they can't get up for the semi with a two week break they don't deserve to win it as far as I'm concerned.

6v7 is brilliant - this is a wildcard chance. You came 6th and 7th. You deserve nothing. No home ground (except week 1), no second chances. It's a second life for these teams. The wildcard draw. I like it. If 6 or 7 were to win, they have to do it tough all the way through.

2v3 have everything to play for in week 1 because you advance to week 3 straight away - everything to play for here.

4v5 - everything to play for here as well - you get home ground in week 2 PLUS you verse the winner of 6 and 7, in MOST cases that would be BETTER than taking on the loser of 2/3... correct?

This system makes week 1 so much more meaningful - because you have something to play for. I believe it is only ONE less game than the current system. Hardly commercial suicide. Thoughts?

 

[Dexter]

3 weeks between games is too long, IMO it would kill the minor premiers chances.

 

[Coxy]

3 weeks between games is too long, IMO it would kill the minor premiers chances.

Yeah I can't dislike that system any more! LOL

If we must have 8 teams, I think the ARL 1996 method (currently used by the AFL) is the best. Top 4 get a guaranteed second chance, and a guaranteed home final (either first week or second week or third week), and a chance of a week off. Teams 5-8 know their fate. Win or die. Finishing 5th or 6th gives you at least some advantage with a home semi first week before hitting the road against the top 4 to keep your campaign alive.

The 10 team system in 1998 was good, effectively 2x5 team systems with crossover, but 5 weeks is a long series, and with no chance of having more than 20 teams it'll simply increase the amount of poor quality teams in the finals.

 

[Porthoz]

The Mcintyre system gives clubs who have a large number of rep players, a better chance to win the premiership. Those clubs already suffer enough as it is for having a better recruitment/development policy, and we as Broncos fans know it... This year, we were only 2 wins away from a minor premiership, coincidently we lost twice against Manly and Melbourne. Yes, it was Hook's choice to rest most players, but he was put in that position in the first place.

I'd much prefer to see a system where rep footy doesn't affect the minor premiership race. Actually the NRL has the only competition I know of where this happens...

 

[Meat77]

The Mcintyre system gives clubs who have a large number of rep players, a better chance to win the premiership. Those clubs already suffer enough as it is for having a better recruitment/development policy, and we as Broncos fans know it... This year, we were only 2 wins away from a minor premiership, coincidently we lost twice against Manly and Melbourne. Yes, it was Hook's choice to rest most players, but he was put in that position in the first place.

I'd much prefer to see a system where rep footy doesn't affect the minor premiership race. Actually the NRL has the only competition I know of where this happens...

That's the NRL's main argument for keeping the McIntyre system and I for one agree with them

 

[Coxy]

I'm not entirely sure how it helps teams with high rep commitments. Some years Broncos end up as low as 6th because of losses midseason. Their reward for supplying so many rep players is to get an away final against team 3, and a better than even chance of being knocked out if there's an upset in 2 v 7 or 1 v 8.

In the AFL system, finishing 6th gives you a home final against 7th. And then a chance to play a loser from the top 4.

Don't see how that helps at all.

McIntyre certainly helps teams which are successful and relatively unimpacted by rep commitments and thus able to snare a top 2 spot. Home final against a relatively nuffy team in 7 or 8 and then a walk through to a home preliminary final!

 

[Porthoz]

I'm not entirely sure how it helps teams with high rep commitments. Some years Broncos end up as low as 6th because of losses midseason. Their reward for supplying so many rep players is to get an away final against team 3, and a better than even chance of being knocked out if there's an upset in 2 v 7 or 1 v 8.

In the AFL system, finishing 6th gives you a home final against 7th. And then a chance to play a loser from the top 4.

Don't see how that helps at all.

McIntyre certainly helps teams which are successful and relatively unimpacted by rep commitments and thus able to snare a top 2 spot. Home final against a relatively nuffy team in 7 or 8 and then a walk through to a home preliminary final!

If you finish lower than 7th or 8th, you are no chance of playing a home final. If you finish below 4th, you have no chance of playing at home after week 1. At least the McIntyre system rewards "upsets", or allows a team that finished lower because of rep footy, a better chance to progress into the finals imo.
In the AFL system, the higher ranked team always has the home ground advantage...

 

[Ari Gold]

If you finish 7th and upset a team, your reward is staying alive. Why should a team who finishes so low get a bigger reward than that?

 

[Coxy]

If you finish lower than 7th or 8th, you are no chance of playing a home final. If you finish below 4th, you have no chance of playing at home after week 1. At least the McIntyre system rewards "upsets", or allows a team that finished lower because of rep footy, a better chance to progress into the finals imo.
In the AFL system, the higher ranked team always has the home ground advantage...

But that's nothing to do with the system itself, merely venue allocation.

You could easily use the same NRL rules for venue allocation with the AFL finals system. ie, if you win in week 1 you earn a home final. If you lose you play away.

eg:
Week 1: 1 v 4, 2 v 3, 6 v 7, 5 v 8 (1, 2, 5, 6 at home, Teams 1, 3, 7, 8 win, 5 and 6 out)
Week 2: 7 vs 4, 8 vs 2 (7, 8 at home, 7 and 2 win)
Week 3: 1 v 2, 3 vs 7 (1 and 3 at home, 1 and 7)
GF: 1 vs 7 (neutral GF venue)

 

[Dexter]

Yeah I can't dislike that system any more! LOL

If we must have 8 teams, I think the ARL 1996 method (currently used by the AFL) is the best. Top 4 get a guaranteed second chance, and a guaranteed home final (either first week or second week or third week), and a chance of a week off. Teams 5-8 know their fate. Win or die. Finishing 5th or 6th gives you at least some advantage with a home semi first week before hitting the road against the top 4 to keep your campaign alive.

The 10 team system in 1998 was good, effectively 2x5 team systems with crossover, but 5 weeks is a long series, and with no chance of having more than 20 teams it'll simply increase the amount of poor quality teams in the finals.

The trick would still be to get week 2 down to 6 teams, so 4 teams get knocked out the first week but a quick look at the different ways to do this shows a world of potential unfair outcomes.

The current system is ok but the AFL system is better IMO, if you play well enough to finish top 4 you should get every chance to make the GF, who cares if there is a GF preview it used to happen all the time with the top 5 system which is regarded as the best.

 

[Porthoz]

But that's nothing to do with the system itself, merely venue allocation.

You could easily use the same NRL rules for venue allocation with the AFL finals system. ie, if you win in week 1 you earn a home final. If you lose you play away.

eg:
Week 1: 1 v 4, 2 v 3, 6 v 7, 5 v 8 (1, 2, 5, 6 at home, Teams 1, 3, 7, 8 win, 5 and 6 out)
Week 2: 7 vs 4, 8 vs 2 (7, 8 at home, 7 and 2 win)
Week 3: 1 v 2, 3 vs 7 (1 and 3 at home, 1 and 7)
GF: 1 vs 7 (neutral GF venue)

The whole premise of the AFL system is that no matter the results, the higher ranked team plays at home...

Having said that, I like your hybrid system!