An alternative to the McIntyre system
Roar Rookie
By Dean - Surry Hills, 5 Sep 2010 Dean - Surry Hills is a Roar Rookie
- Tagged:
- McIntyre system, NRL, NRL finals, Rugby League
Will Chambers (Melb) scores the 1st try NRL - 2009 Preliminary Finals Melbourne Storm vs Brisbane Broncos Etihad Stadium, Melbourne Saturday 26 September 2009 © Sport the library/Jeff Crow ©Action Photographics
In last year’s NRL finals series, Melbourne Storm advanced to the Grand Final without having to play either teams that finished first or second over the 26 competition rounds. The McIntyre system, in my humble opinion, is flawed.
Here I have provided an alternative for a five week finals system rather than the current four. The benefits of this system are as follows:
1. Maximisation of crowd numbers and television ratings.
2. Top four teams cannot be eliminated in the first week.
3. Top four teams given advantages throughout finals.
4. Top two teams given one weeks rest.
5. More evenly matched contests throughout the finals.
6. Higher chance of top two teams facing each other in the GF.
7. Quality finals matches from beginning to end.
Australian League Finals System (ALFS):
WEEK ONE
Friday night – 6 (at their home ground) play 7
Saturday night - 5 (at their home ground) play 8
Sunday daytime – 3 (at their home ground) play 4
Teams that finished 1 and 2 earn and deserve one week’s rest. The losing sides from Friday and Saturday’s games are eliminated. This leaves 6 teams in the race for the trophy.
WEEK TWO
Friday night – The loser from teams 3 and 4 game gains a home ground advantage and plays the lowest placed winning team from week one. The winner advances directly to the MAJOR FINAL (A). The losing team is eliminated.
Saturday night – The winner from teams 3 and 4 gains a home ground advantage and plays the highest placed winning team from week one. The winner advances directly into the MAJOR FINAL (B). The losing team receives a second chance and plays in the week three match.
Sunday daytime – Team 1 plays Team 2, at the nearest major venue to the Minor Premiers. The grounds may include Homebush, SFS, Suncorp, Telstra Dome, and/or Ericson. The winner advances directly into the MAJOR FINAL (A).
Five teams are still in the race. Three teams are now in the Major Finals.
WEEK THREE
Saturday night – The loser from teams 1 and 2 play (at their home ground) the loser of week two’s Saturday game. The winner advances to the MAJOR FINAL (B). Loser eliminated.
Teams that have already qualified for the Major Finals earn a week’s rest. Four teams remain in the race for the ultimate prize.
WEEK FOUR
Saturday night – MAJOR FINALS – (A) and (B) – double header at Homebush. Alternately two separate venues are utilised such as Suncorp, SFS, Homebush, or Telstra Dome. Winners of each match proceed to the GRAND FINAL.
WEEK FIVE
Saturday night – GRAND FINAL – Homebush.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Rugby League articles
- An open letter to Channel Nine (107)
- Gallop and some of his precious Sydney NRL clubs must go (101)
- The NRL is back baby! (65)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (48)
- Bulldogs setting benchmark for Sydney’s NRL clubs (46)
- Rugby league’s new era: where to now? (27)
- Federal Court has it wrong on sports broadcast copyright (53)
- An open letter to Channel Nine (112)
- The NRL’s scariest players (56)
- Is the All Stars match increasing the divide? (25)
- Channel Nine needs NRL-cricket ODI compromise (36)
- The NRL needs a vision (52)
- Explore:
- McIntyre system, NRL, NRL finals, Rugby League
Neutral Fan said | September 5th 2010 @ 1:32am | Report comment
Way better than the current McIntyre system this or the AFL Finals system should be implemented.
Stevo said | September 5th 2010 @ 1:53am | Report comment
If you’re looking at maximising revenue, a double header at one ground for the major semi finals are not the way to go. There’s also only one more match than the present system, but an extra week, including one week with a single game.
I still think the 1996 ARL finals series (now used by the AFL) is the best way to go. This one is a little convoluted, and there are some big issues which are the same as problems with the McIntyre, particularly for 1st or 2nd position.
Say you come 2nd, lose in Week 2 to the minor premiers, then you’re in a knockout game in Week 3 against probably the 3rd or 5th placed team (depending on results). Whereas the team who came 4th, who gets smashed in the first week, beats the 6th-8th placed team in week 2 and is automatically in the major semi final.
The only real answer to team equality is the 5 team finals series, but as there is less money in it, and less teams in the finals, it won’t happen.
Jay said | September 5th 2010 @ 8:10am | Report comment
AFL’s finals system is the way to go. This is still overly complicated.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
Dean - Surry Hills said | September 5th 2010 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Stevo – there will always be some hard luck stories with the finals. I spent a great deal of time trying to invent a system that was as fair as possible. All teams throughout the finals are playing matches that should be far more evenly contested than the current McIntyre system – this alone should reap benefits financially with extra bums on seats, and increased television ratings.
The team that loses in the 1 v 2 clash will have a distinct home ground advantage in week 3, and also have the advantage of momentum coming into the Major Semi Final (MSF). In reality they should be short priced favourites to beat the lower placed team, especially at home.
That team who comes fourth as you say and gets smashed in the first week – yet makes it through to the MSF, will have to contest against the team that won the 1 v 2 clash – so I don’t like their chances either !
sheek said | September 5th 2010 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Not bad, but the AFL system is best I reckon. That is the MCINTYRE system. Whether the NRL version is another version of the McIntyre system, I don’t know.
Ken said | September 6th 2010 @ 8:38am | Report comment
I don’ t think the current AFL system was created by McIntyre. They used to use the McIntyre 8 system in the 90′s then they swapped to the system RL used to use while RL switched to the McIntyre 8 system.
I personally don’t think it’s a big deal, all 8 team systems I’ve seen can throw up wierd and seemingly unfair results but they’re never going to go back to smaller finals systems. If your team keeps winning they’ll win regardless of the system of course.
Hutchoman said | September 6th 2010 @ 10:42am | Report comment
Correct. The MacIntyre system is the one currently used by the NRL.
beaver fever said | September 5th 2010 @ 11:30am | Report comment
I actually like the final 5 system which really rewards the minor premier, with a week off, dont agree with a top 8 (in a 16 team comp), no matter what the system.
McIntyre devised the 1931 final four system, the final 5 in 1972, the McIntyre Final Six System for 1991, which was revised for 1992, and the McIntyre Final Eight System for the 1994 season. The AFL grew dissatisfied with some of the outcomes the Final Eight system might allow and so replaced it with another final eight system in 2000.
Mcintyre was devising systems for over 60 years for the VFL/AFL, and those systems are used in comps world wide in many different sports.
He passed away in 2004.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_System
Mister Football said | September 5th 2010 @ 4:03pm | Report comment
The AFL dropped the McIntyre Final Eight system before the start of the 2000 season and picked up the then NRL system.
For some strange reason, and I’m not sure why, the NRL dropped their own system and picked up the McIntyre system.
Personally, I never liked the McIntyre system, but one advantage if had was that First and Second can only meet in the grand final (if they are to meet at all).
Whereas the current AFL system has an almost a 50% possibility of first and second meeting in a preliminary final, as might well happen this year (apart from that one flaw, it’s a very good system).
The OP’s system gets around this, and that’s good, but I have to agree with a few others by saying it was too bloody hard to follow.
fingAU said | November 22nd 2010 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
Ted,
I agree that the top 2 teams in the current AFL finals system only meet in the Grand Final 50% of the time. The only way to stop this would be to have no cross-over of the winners of the Semi Finals. This would result, in most years, in the Preliminary Finals being “replays” of the Qualifying Finals. The AFL don’t want that.
By the way, I have written another article about the flawed McIntyre Final 8 System here…
http://gerry.finlay.wattle.id.au/2010/11/flawed-mcintyre-final-8-system.html
What do you think? How can the NRL still keep this system!
JamesG said | September 5th 2010 @ 11:51am | Report comment
I totally oppose the notion that you can lose a playoff game and continue further. Why? Because if you know you can lose and not be eliminated then you cant guarantee that a team will play its hardest.
All playoffs should be sudden death, just like in the NFL. If your team cant ‘bring it’ at playoff then you will have to wait till next season.
NRL playoffs drag on for too long. It should be over far quicker. Give us quality – not quantity. Sudden death guarantees quality .
The goal of the playoffs is to deliver high quality football and design it so the best 2 teams can meet in the GF.
Michael Turner said | September 5th 2010 @ 10:28pm | Report comment
Hmm interesting ideas you present. Maybe The Roar can help League as well as we did union!
I quite like your ideology!
Hutchoman said | September 6th 2010 @ 10:47am | Report comment
This is all too hard to follow and the standalone match in week three makes no sense at all. The five week series is just too long.
Personally, I prefer the final five system of days past but it seems the world has moved on.
If we are going to have a final eight, then I’d go with the current AFL system.
Dean - Surry Hills said | September 6th 2010 @ 2:00pm | Report comment
Here’s what the match-ups may look like with this new system in place and the final top eight as it has now been presented for 2010. I have included mock scores in brackets, and have listed the games in their specific order. Hope this helps with any confusion.
1 Saints 2 Panthers 3 Tigers 4 Titans 5 Warriors 6 Roosters 7 Raiders 8 Eagles
Week One : Roosters (16) v Raiders (30) , Warriors (28) v Manly (12) , Tigers (22) v Titans (18)
Week Two: Titans (26) v Raiders (22) , Tigers (16) v Warriors (20) , Saints (25) v Panthers (18)
Week Three : Panthers (28) v Tigers (22)
Week Four : Saints (20) v Titans (12) , Panthers (24) v Warriors (16)
Week Five : Saints v Panthers
ptovey01 said | September 7th 2010 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
Why would the Titans and the Warriors deserve a week off? I didn’t understand when I was reading it, but I can’t see the logic to giving teams below 1 and 2 more of an advantage of getting to week 4 than sides below them.
Top 8 OK now, don’t mind the AFL system. Would rather have it as a top 6 like the A-League or top 5 like it used to be.
Dean - Surry Hills said | September 8th 2010 @ 6:59am | Report comment
Warriors have won two games, and have also upset the Tigers on their home turf.
Titans who finished fourth – have lost their opening game to the third placed Tigers, and then have defeated 7th placed Raiders. They are not given the advantage of momentum before having to play either 1st or 2nd in the MSF. All advantages are clearly given to the higher placed teams after 26 competition rounds with this system. Nothing in my humble opinion could be fairer !
Renegade said | September 8th 2010 @ 7:55pm | Report comment
I can’t believe your actually serious about this system….please just leave it alone.
M.O.C. said | September 6th 2010 @ 2:10pm | Report comment
I like Beaver Fever’s comment about the top 5 – why should a team in 8th place even get a chance at a premiership? – I think a top 5 or even top 4 should be all that is required – the season is already excruciatingly long – far long enough to figure out which teams are the best of the bunch, it just seems like the NRL trying to squeeze out some more blood from a same stone and milk the cash cow absolutely dry to keep them all paid till next season.