AFL Playoffs Question

Discussion in 'Rugby & Aussie Rules' started by BhoysFC1995, Aug 21, 2004.

  1. BhoysFC1995

    BhoysFC1995 New Member

    Nov 30, 1999
    NYC
    let me say the finals/playoffs really seem a bit odd to me. ok, let me see if i get it right. the top 4 play each other and the 5-8 seeds play each other.

    the losers of 1-4 play the winners of 5-8. so its a huge difference in finishing 1-4 compared to 5-8. there's no difference between 1 and 2, as well as finishing 3 or 4.

    my question is why don't they just do 1v8, 2v7, 3v6, 4v5 do people really think this version is better? perhaps this all seems odd to me b/c i am used to the USA version of playoffs.

    what do aussie readers here think? how the other americans here?
     
  2. Craig the Aussie

    Craig the Aussie New Member

    May 21, 2002
    Sydney, Australia
    They tried the 1v8 etc system (the National Rugby League still use it) with the rider that only the 2 bottom ranked losers dropped out after the first round. Therefore if you were top 2, you could afford to lose the first game.

    There were some problems with it though - especially that the top sides didn't get enough benefit over the lower ranked sides (as home ground advantage doesn't always apply). There is a major expectation in Aust sports that the higher ranked teams get advantages in the finals. The idea of a team finishing 1st and then being knocked out in the first final would never fly. Also there were certain teams which were mathematically impossiblities to meet in the Grand Final.

    The best finals system was the old top 5 when it was a 12 team comp..
     
  3. ScouseCat

    ScouseCat New Member

    Jan 10, 2003
    Melbourne, Australia
    The other problem the AFL found with the old 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 & 4v5 system was that certain games were "dead games" because nothing would hinge on the result. For example, if 7th and 8th lost, 1st and 2nd would get the week off and go straight into the Preliminary Finals and nothing would hinge on the 3v6 & 4v5 games as all four teams would be in the Semi Finals regardless of who won and lost in the first week.

    The system we've got at the moment is probably the best we can do with a Final Eight System.
     
  4. Sykotyk

    Sykotyk Member

    Jun 9, 2003
    Ohio
    Club:
    Columbus Crew
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I like it, because it is an advantage that the #1-#4 teams earned the ability to not face elimination at their first defeat in the playoff. While #5-#8 have to win in the first round to advance or be eliminated.

    Sykotyk
     
  5. ScouseCat

    ScouseCat New Member

    Jan 10, 2003
    Melbourne, Australia
    Very true...

    With the old system, if 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th won during the first week, 3rd and 4th would be eliminated, which kind of defeats the purpose of finishing high up the ladder during the home and away season if one loss finishes you off in the finals.
     
  6. OldFanatic

    OldFanatic Member

    Jan 12, 2004
    Bay Area
    Club:
    San Jose Earthquakes
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I believe such a system is/was also used in the Louis Vuitton Cup (sailing competition to determine which team qualifies as the America's Cup challenger). They used to call the round in which the higher-seeded losing team from previous rounds participated as the repechage round.
     
  7. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
    Indeed. Half the teams make the finals. Making the top 4 is far more difficult, so there should be a bigger reward.
     
  8. ScouseCat

    ScouseCat New Member

    Jan 10, 2003
    Melbourne, Australia
    Especially when the mighty Geelong Cats make it! :D
     
  9. westcoast929406

    westcoast929406 New Member

    Oct 10, 2003
    Perth Western Aust.
    As a supporter of a club that will appear in the finals IF we beat Melbourne FC next saturday at home---
    There is a lot of talk/controversy going on if we win and finish sixth it is likely we will have to play Sydeney Swans but where------
    1/ In Perth - Unlikely because of the AFL/MCG banking of games agreement
    2/ In Sydeney -Latest rumours/statements today (tuesday) are this is likely to happen for politics/promotion of the game.
    3/ At the MCG- The clubs preferred ground if not Perth. However the crowd figures will not be very good for club revenue- ie 2 non Vic clubs.

    Technically it should be played in Perth to reward finishing sixth.

    The Eagles have previously earned 2 home finals but the AFL moved the games to the MCG because of same banking agreement.

    Australian sport is very cut throat generally and decisions are made that stink.
     
  10. BhoysFC1995

    BhoysFC1995 New Member

    Nov 30, 1999
    NYC
    westcoast,

    with what you said- isn't that why brisbane has to play some of its 'home games' at the MCG? what kind of agreement is there, which allows so many games to be played there. also, isn't the grand final always played in the MCG?

    back to what you said, i think if the eagles finish 6, they deserve to play it in their stadium.
     
  11. ScouseCat

    ScouseCat New Member

    Jan 10, 2003
    Melbourne, Australia
    There needs to be at least one game per week played at the MCG in the Finals, at least one in the first week, one of the Semi Finals, one of the Preliminary Finals and the Grand Final.

    The system isn't perfect, but the MCG is the "home of football" and just so happens to be in Victoria.

    And as for West Coast, they're likely to finish 7th as Sydney play Richmond this week and should hold onto 6th spot. West Coast have done well to recover their season, but I don't think they'll qualify for a home final in the first week of September. I hope they beat Melbourne this week though, so Geelong can be assured of finishing 4th! :D
     
  12. westcoast929406

    westcoast929406 New Member

    Oct 10, 2003
    Perth Western Aust.
    There is a good article link on the banking system agreement on todays (Wednesday) front page of this boards- Aussie Rules sister site. www.bigfooty.com.

    It looks like the AFL are wavering on having 5 finals this year at the MCG.

    I have no problem playing in Melb as such - even though our away record this year has been lousy- But a level playing field helps.
    However the club may not get there this year - We have a lot of kids.

    Yes the Brisbane Lions have had the same deal on banking.

    To the moderators of this board- suggestion -In the description of your sister site how about adding "Aussie Rules."
    Our game needs all the help it can get in the USA.
     
  13. Sports Capital

    Sports Capital New Member

    Aug 25, 2004
    OK, I'm an AFL nut so I know most of whats goin on.

    To answer the question about Brisbane being stuck at the MCG, In the 80's the AFL signed a contract saying that a minimum of 4 finals be played there a year. Last year only 3 were played at the G. So this year, to get their quota back to what is required, they have to play 5. And if only one Victorian team earns the right to a MCG final, it means an interstate team is going to get ripped off.

    If only one Victorian teams earns a home final for week one (which looks very likely) and the AFL decide to play an extra MCG final that week, so they can get 5, it means that one of the Interstate teams will be forced to play their "Home" final at the MCG. In the case of the first week, it would be the lowest finishing interstate team that earnt a home final, ie. the interstate team that finishes 6th.

    By the look of it, Sydney will finish 6th. So instead of playing their home final at their home ground, the SCG or Telstra Stadium, they will be forced to play a "Home" final at the MCG.

    Its been made like this because the MCC are being stingy pricks and are refusing to budge on their contract.
     

Share This Page