McIntyre System

[Jeba]

I hate it.

As has been mentioned in another thread, the 1v8 and 2v7 games were pointless exercises. It looks embarrassing when we have finals matches ending up in complete blowouts.

I hate how week 2 is:
4th highest ranked winner v 2nd highest ranked loser
3rd highest ranked winner v 1st highest ranked loser

OK, let's forget about Storm and Manly for a second.

So we've got the Sharks (3rd), Broncos (5th) as the winners.
We've got the Roosters (4th) and Raiders (6th) as the losers.

In all fairness, the Sharks should get the easier game in week 2 because they finished higher than the Broncos. So it should be highest ranked winner v highest ranked loser. However, that would then mean a repeat of the week 1 games. So that can't work either. So therefore, the Sharks (better performed team over the course of the season) are rewarded with a harder game in week 2 than the Broncos. It's a stupid system.

Don't get me wrong, from a Broncos point of view it works in our favour [icon_wink but I wouldn't very much like to be on the Sharks' end of the pineapple.

 

[Flutterby]

Personally I hate any top 8 system. You should have to finish better than half way up the ladder to still be in with a shot at the title. I know they won't get rid of top 8 cause it means more money, even though the games are pointless.

 

[The Brizz]

Yep completely agree with you Jeb. If we are keeping a top 8 which I can't see them changing unfortunately, the top 4 should get rewarded by getting a shot eachother for the week off while the bottom 4 fight it out for survival. If 1 v 8 and 2 v 7 go to plan it means all the 3 - 6 matches in week 1 are pointless. I can't fathom how the Sharks can finish equal 1st on the ladder and be playing a higher ranked team after winning convincingly in week 1 of the semi's.

 

[broncoangel]

I hate how in the second week of the finals the teams just swap and play each other (as long as 1 and 2 win of course). It makes the first week pointless. It gives the winning teams momentum, but other than that why bother?
(Although, in 2006 it was to our advantage? We lost the first semi, but then came back and won on from there [icon_wink )
Back in the top 5 days, if you lost a finals game you were out right? (unless you were minor premiers) I can't remember how it went...

 

[rnabokov]

Agree with Jeb.

 

[The Brizz]

I want a top 6.

Week 1: 1 and 2 have byes 3 v 6 and 4 v5 knock out.
Week 2: 1 v Winner of 4 v 5 and 2 v Winner 3 v 6
Week 3: GF

I know they wouldn't get rid of the 8 as it is less finals matches they can telecast but 6 out of 16 I think is a reasonable number and still rewards the best teams for having a good season.

 

[Jeba]

FCB that is the smartest thing you have ever said. Seriously top 6 is the way to go. But as has been said, less $$$$.

 

[The Brizz]

FCB that is the smartest thing you have ever said. Seriously top 6 is the way to go. But as has been said, less $$$$.

[icon_lol1. I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or not. 8 is too many teams but we know they won't change it but the least they could do is go with the AFL system which is fair to all the teams, its like the NRL don't want to admit the AFL go it right or something.

 

[Dexter]

So if the Sharks finish equal first they go into a knockout under a final 6 system and the teams which finish 1st and 2nd miss a week then go into a knockout. [icon_thumbs_do

Final 5 obviously is best but thats not going to happen so final 8 with top 4 playing each other and bottom 4 playing each other with something to play for ala AFL. icon_thumbs_u

 

[Flutterby]

FCB that is the smartest thing you have ever said. Seriously top 6 is the way to go. But as has been said, less $$$$.

[icon_lol1. I don't know whether to take that as a compliment or not. 8 is too many teams but we know they won't change it but the least they could do is go with the AFL system which is fair to all the teams, its like the NRL don't want to admit the AFL go it right or something.

The NRL started with McIntyre the same year AFL got rid of it [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1.

Agree, 6 would be the way to go.

 

[schmix]

I heard something on the radio yesterday, saying that the NRL asks the clubs every year whether they want to change the system and they all vote to keep it. I can't remember who said it, so I'm not sure how right it is. eusa_think

Agree re. top 6 though. Much better way to go.

 

[Flutterby]

Yeah I heard that too Schmix. I think it was Warren Ryan. He has another system that he would like to see and he gave it to Graham Annesley to take to the next club meeting about what to change in the game and Annesley told him that about the clubs always agreeing to keep it.

 

[schmix]

Ah good, I was also listening to Triple M when I was half asleep and thought I might have twisted Rabs' words in my sleepy head.

You've got to wonder what they all like about it. Maybe they just can't be bothered to look closely at any other systems.

 

[ethos]

I like the way the top 5 system works in the Queensland Cup, that's ideal finals system I reckon. But with 16 teams in the comp, and as others have said the amount of revenue, it's never going to happen.

The AFL system is the way to go (but didn't rugby league originally have it in the mid-90s anyway?).

 

[Dexter]

[icon_lol1. [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1. at a final 6, we tried that and dumped it because it was crap.

 

[Hamm.0]

I LOL at anyone who claims our system rewards mediocrity, yet then point fingers at the AFL system.

Consider this;

In NRL; 8 v 1- Should be a foregone conclusion....because 1 has proven, over 26 rounds they are the best. They deserve something for this...I mean $100,000 doesn't mean much does it? They play 8, win, and sit back and enjoy a week off to prepare for the GF. 8th bow out.

In AFL; 4 v 1- So team 4, which have been simply "above average" all year, play off against the best team all season. If 1 loses, they get no reward, at all, for their entire season's effort. However, 4, who have only been "above average", get kissed and move up as highest ranked winner. Winner goes to GF qualifier, loser has to play semi next week.

In NRL; 2 V 7- Once again, 2 have been very good all season. they play 7th and should take them rather easily, gaining a week off and reward for being very good all season. 7th, which have been average, disappear.

In AFL; 2 v 3- People here claim under the McIntyre system that the Sharks have got a raw deal....imagine coming second and being "rewarded" by playing 3rd place!!! [icon_ee

First week of finals in NRL; the McIntyre system knocks out the two weakest teams, 99% of the time, they are the bottom 2 teams. Then, there is a fighting chance for the average teams (3/4/5/6) to maybe get a leap on the top 2.

First week of AFL; The top 2 get nothing, they get to play 3rd and 4th, just to earn a reward. Then, 5 & 6 play the "just scraped in's"....talk about rewarding medicrity.

Next week things start to even out somewhat between the codes with the top losers and the winning lower ranking teams playing each other for the GF qualifier.

IMO, I don't like the McIntyre system, but by using it the NRL is heads and shoulders above the AFL. What's the point of playing 26 Rounds, if you don't reward the top teams? There is no point. We might as well have a 16 week, round robin knock, then go straight into a knock-out finals series.

To make the NRL finals system more appealing....reduce the amount of teams o a top 5 scenario. Problem is, $$$$$ doesn't like it.

 

[ethos]

What about something totally from left field where the top 2 teams play off in a best of 3 series.

One match at home each, and then one in Sydney if required.

Ok, it's probably a tad wacky..

 

[Hamm.0]

Fact is, top 8 is stupid altogether. Should be a top 6 at the most. It's a FINALS system - how can it be justified that HALF of the competition gets to make it to the finals? Lame. Anyway they won't change that.

I agree the McIntyre system is pretty crap.

Example: If Melbourne lose today, we'll have to play them next week even though we won this week. However, Roosters got beaten and get to play an easier team...It's all wacked out of shape.

It is whacked out of shape, but only just. If you condiser that hypothetically that happen. It is actually the 3rd top ranked winner playing the top ranked loser, and the 4th top ranked winner playing the 1st top ranked loser...

In easier words;
Broncos/Storm would be- 3 v 5
Roosters/Warriors would be- 6 v 4

Which is almost exactly how the AFL have thier finals system!

Confused? [icon_razz1