McIntyre System

[Hamm.0]

To make this poll fair, we need a 5 top teams option! Because people that compare McIntyre to AFL obviously don't realise how unfair it is to have top 4 or knocking each other off, in order to reward to lower ranked teams.

 

[radicaljack]

it would be a bit boring to have a top six, the bottom 6-7 teams would have nothing to play for after about 2/3 of the season. With the top 8 system, theres only about 3-4 teams out of contention mathmatically. It at least gives them something to play for.

 

[Jeba]

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

When did we try top 6? The last time we had top 5 (apart from Super League) was in 1994. From then it went to top 8, in 1998 we had top 10 ( [icon_lol1. ) then back to top 8 in 1999 when the McIntyre system started.

I am all for the top teams being rewarded with easier games in the finals. But in week 2 of this system, the top team gets the harder game playing against the highest ranked loser. So therefore the top teams aren't being rewarded under this system.

 

[Dexter]

Hammo I don't think the comparison should be made between top 8 and top 5 they are 2 different systems.
You are creating a scenario to suit your arguement

The top 5 puts more emphasis on finishing 1st and gives a second chance if they lose and gives the top placed side 2 chances to go straight to the final but once you move away from the top 5 there is no way to do that unless you use a top 7 system.

A top 8 AFL style puts the emphasis on finishing top 4 and means all sides that finish top 4 get a second chance which is fairer overall. The team finishing 1st gets the home final and retains the home final even if they lose, how much more advantage does a team deserve.

In the AFL system if a side finishes 1st then loses 2 games then stiff shit you deserve to be out.

Top 7, the minor premiers get 2 chances to go straight to the GF and like a top 5 they only play 2 games in a month if they win the major semi. Its harsh on the 2nd and 3rd placed sides because they play knockouts in week 1 but apart from a top 5 there is no perfectly fair system.

Week 1 all knockouts ( ) teams win. Minor premiers rest.

(2) v 7
(3)v 6
(4) v 5

Week 2

MAJOR SEMI Team (1) v team 2 the highest ranked winner . Winner goes to GF
MINOR SEMI Team (3) v 4 the lowest placed winners. Loser eliminated

Week 3

Team (2) loser of the major semi v winner of the minor semi Team 3 Winner goes to GF

Week 4

GF

 

[Dexter]

The top 5 finals system is just faultless. I'd love an NRL top 5. At least then only the GOOD and best teams would make the finals, which is how it should be. It's embarrassing to the sport itself that you can make the finals by winning only 54% of your games.

Agreed and the Warriors made it with a for and against of minus 65

 

[Bucking Beads]

It will always be top 8 because they get more games out of the finals series. IMO the AFL system is better and should be used.

 

[Dexter]

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

When did we try top 6? The last time we had top 5 (apart from Super League) was in 1994. From then it went to top 8, in 1998 we had top 10 ( [icon_lol1. ) then back to top 8 in 1999 when the McIntyre system started.

I am all for the top teams being rewarded with easier games in the finals. But in week 2 of this system, the top team gets the harder game playing against the highest ranked loser. So therefore the top teams aren't being rewarded under this system.

NFI idea what I am on about :oops: :oops: Somewhere back in my damaged braincells existed a top 6. [icon_lol1. [icon_lol1.

 

[Jeba]

Hammo I don't think the comparison should be made between top 8 and top 5 they are 2 different systems.
You are creating a scenario to suit your arguement

The top 5 puts more emphasis on finishing 1st and gives a second chance if they lose and gives the top placed side 2 chances to go straight to the final but once you move away from the top 5 there is no way to do that unless you use a top 7 system.

A top 8 AFL style puts the emphasis on finishing top 4 and means all sides that finish top 4 get a second chance which is fairer overall. The team finishing 1st gets the home final and retains the home final even if they lose, how much more advantage does a team deserve.

In the AFL system if a side finishes 1st then loses 2 games then stiff shit you deserve to be out.

Top 7, the minor premiers get 2 chances to go straight to the GF and like a top 5 they only play 2 games in a month if they win the major semi. Its harsh on the 2nd and 3rd placed sides because they play knockouts in week 1 but apart from a top 5 there is no perfectly fair system.

Week 1 all knockouts ( ) teams win. Minor premiers rest.

(2) v 7
(3)v 6
(4) v 5

Week 2

MAJOR SEMI Team (1) v team 2 the highest ranked winner . Winner goes to GF
MINOR SEMI Team (3) v 4 the lowest placed winners. Loser eliminated

Week 3

Team (2) loser of the major semi v winner of the minor semi Team 3 Winner goes to GF

Week 4

GF

That system seems OK but for the minor premiers, it means they get a week off, then play, then a week off, then Grand Final. That is not an ideal preparation for the biggest game of the season.

 

[Dexter]

That is the same as a top 5 system.

 

[Jeba]

Correct, which is why I like the top 6 system.

 

[Dexter]

So you're ok with teams 1 and 2 having a week off then going into a knockout game?

I really believe if you finish first you should have a second chance.

 

[Hamm.0]

Hammo I don't think the comparison should be made between top 8 and top 5 they are 2 different systems.
You are creating a scenario to suit your arguement

What scenario??? [icon_shru [icon_shru

I was comparing McIntyre to AFL systems........

 

[Dexter]

Hammo I don't think the comparison should be made between top 8 and top 5 they are 2 different systems.
You are creating a scenario to suit your arguement

What scenario??? [icon_shru [icon_shru

I was comparing McIntyre to AFL systems........

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

The scenario where team 4 have been simply average all year. That is not always going to be the case.

 

[Nashy]

After some of the qaulity, and excitement this weekend, I'm happy to continue with the system.

 

[Hamm.0]

Hammo I don't think the comparison should be made between top 8 and top 5 they are 2 different systems.
You are creating a scenario to suit your arguement

What scenario??? [icon_shru [icon_shru

I was comparing McIntyre to AFL systems........

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

The scenario where team 4 have been simply average all year. That is not always going to be the case.

That makes absolutly no sense? AFL has top 8...you said I shouldn't be comparing top 8 and top 5???

I'm confused? [icon_shru

And IMO, team 4 is average compared to team 1.

Case in point, compare;

08: Roosters to Manly or Storm. The is no comparison.
07: NZ to Storm. The gulf is just LOL
06: Newcastle to Storm. LOL
05: Wests to Parra. Now I know Wests go on to win, but if you remember 05, Parra was a million miles ahead of anyone.

That's why I like McIntyre (if we have 8 finals teams), because it should be set up so number 1 &2 get all the chances to win. Football is about putting a season together, not putting 4 games in the finals together.

 

[Dexter]

Hammo I don't think the comparison should be made between top 8 and top 5 they are 2 different systems.
You are creating a scenario to suit your arguement

What scenario??? [icon_shru [icon_shru

I was comparing McIntyre to AFL systems........

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

The scenario where team 4 have been simply average all year. That is not always going to be the case.

That makes absolutly no sense? AFL has top 8...you said I shouldn't be comparing top 8 and top 5???

I'm confused? [icon_shru

And IMO, team 4 is average compared to team 1.

Case in point, compare;

08: Roosters to Manly or Storm. The is no comparison.
07: NZ to Storm. The gulf is just LOL
06: Newcastle to Storm. LOL
05: Wests to Parra. Now I know Wests go on to win, but if you remember 05, Parra was a million miles ahead of anyone.

That's why I like McIntyre (if we have 8 finals teams), because it should be set up so number 1 &2 get all the chances to win. Football is about putting a season together, not putting 4 games in the finals together.

Yeah me too, sure I read something about a top 5 in your posts but I'm not going back to read it all again.
I probably misunderstood your meaning.

Still I think the AFL system is better than this system. I favour the system that requires the teams 5-8 to keep winning. Why should teams 5 and 6 get a second chance if they lose.

To me the balance is better, finish top 4 you earn a second chance, finish 5 - 8 you play knockout all the way.

 

[Hamm.0]

It's 2 schools of thought....protect 1 & 2 as much a spossible, or give top 4 a shot

 

[Clintos]

I definititly prefer the AFL system. Although it rewards the teams that have performed the best all year, you have to admit that it does create some unfair situations. The Sharks situation had Melbourne won case in point.