The NRL and AFL top eight places are determined on the for/against differential model. This is an unacceptable system given the season’s imbalanced and unfair draws.
Teams don’t play each other twice, some play easybeat teams just once and in NRL’s case State of Origin skews results and margins.
At the moment when two or more teams finish on the same points their allocated position on the Top 8 table is determined by points differential.
In the NFL where the 32 teams do not play each other twice, the play-off positions of teams finishing on equal points are separated by tie-breaker rules.
In the first instance it just comes down whether Team A beat Team B during the season.
If they played twice then the combined scores are added to calculate a winner.
In the AFL some teams have played GWS twice, others have not had this opportunity to pile on the points.
In the NRL during the State of Origin period and just after some teams usually strong opponents were easily beatable.
In the NRL, Bulldogs and Storm could finish in equal first place this weekend, but Melbourne’s superior for/against will give them the minor premiership trophy even though in the cumulative two match total they lost to Canterbury 26-16.
Manly beat both the Cowboys and Rabbitohs in regular season but if the three teams finish on equal points for third to fifth place, Manly has the worse for/against and miss the Top four.
Souths beat North Queensland but that counts for nothing to decide play-off places.
When two or more teams finish in equal eighth place the team with the inferior for/against will be relegated to ninth place even though they may have twice thrashed the 8th place team during the season.
Both the NRL and AFL should fix this for 2013 by looking at the NFL model.
The NFL system essentially replaces a mid week play-off between the two teams to decide places.
The NFL tie-breaker rules address the unfairness of the imbalance in for/against due to teams not playing two complete rounds and also makes winning individual matches against rival teams during the season very important.
It is a joke and unfair that teams don’t play each twice during the season.
It is a bigger joke that the top eight systems of the AFL and NRL still use a points differential system.
This worked when everyone played everyone twice, but is outdated in the current draw.
What do you think Roarers? Which is the fairer system?
AIS
Guest
As I've typed above, when you've got 32 teams (in comparison to Aussie Rules' 18 and NRL's 16) spread out over great distances, you can't make it any more fair than they have it. Seattle didn't win their conference, they won their division fair and square. They proved that they were worthy as they earned a victory over (favoured)New Orleans when it mattered the most to advance further. Tampa Bay had their chances to win their division, or to beat out New Orleans for the next spot which would've given them a wildcard birth. In the end, they lost out on qualification to Green Bay as well, so they had their chances. Boo Hoo.
AIS
Guest
When the NFL has 32 teams spread out the way they are, they're doing things the best way possible.
Billo Boy
Guest
My crusade for reform has not ended here. I will take on board all your comments & devise a fair & exciting Top 8 solution. No more McIntyres my friends. It will be called the Billo Boy Top 8 system!
Meesta Cool
Guest
Kasey, in theory, this is a good model. teams 1-2 get a rest week.. What worries me is that this 'rest week' can sometimes do more harm than good, how many times have we seen good teams beaten after having the rest during Origin, it seems to unsettle some teams very badly, I am sure that some of our Roar statisticians could give approx figures!
btn
Roar Pro
Billo boy, I think this idea is definitely reasonable, particularly in the AFL, with expansion teams and in a year where percentage will really shape the finals sides. Though, I don't necessarily think that a head-to-head decision is that much fairer. If two teams play in the State of Origin hangover period and that is the only time that they play, then that a result is not necessarily indicative of their whole season performance. Head-to-head playoffs are just as susceptible to being skewed and unfair as the percentage/ for and against is, especially if teams have only played each other once.
Matt
Guest
Exactly what I was about to say. Nothing like a few cheap wins against the top sides which would have been a loss any other time.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
"In the NFL where the 32 teams do not play each other twice, the play-off positions of teams finishing on equal points are separated by tie-breaker rules. " Ive got your NFL unfairness right here, baby. First, they check if you won your conference. If you did, you're in. In 2010-11, Seatte were 7-9 and played finals, and Tampa Bay were 10-6 and didnt. Using the NFL as a model of fair finals is like using it as a model of safe working conditions.
Billo Boy
Guest
Kevin. Somehow I can't see the AFL or NRL doing it. As you suggest few completely understand the issues & options. What chance the AFL or NRL ever being able to successfully explain it to the average punter & convince them of its merit? Nil.
Jb
Guest
Can see a flaw in this system. What about teams who have to play during state of origin minus their stars against a team that was full strength. You'd be just as filthy to be judged on that as you would on for and against.
Kevin
Guest
Billo boy , this is possibly one of the smartest things I have read here, I don't know if everyone completely understands what you are suggesting, but I for one think it's about time to add some cerabal to the " lottery" of the draw ...I hope someone from the leagues reads this
Mark Roth
Guest
I've never been fully comfortable with head to head as a tiebreaker for one reason: Imagine that two AFL teams finish the home and away with eleven wins and eleven losses each. Only one gets to move onto the finals. One team won both matches between the two teams. The winner of the head to head tiebreaker won nine games against the other 16 teams in the league. The loser won 11 games against the other 16 teams. Why is the team that was better against the entire competition excluded?
Dan
Guest
There is no way the players want to play round 26 on a Sunday then again on Wednesday and then a semi on a Friday, honestly if they are good enough they will make it. -- Comment left via The Roar's iPhone app. Download The Roar's iPhone App in the App Store here.
Gr8rWeStr
Guest
I agree that head to head record of two teams is a better tie breaker than overall points difference or % but it in no way addresses the underlying issue of an unbalanced draw that produces and imprecise league table.
Australian Rules
Guest
fair enough then :)
Kasey
Guest
Off season mate, the real rioting doesn't start until October;)
Brewski
Guest
The season can't really be expanded because of cricket committments at quite a few grounds, and FWIW i would not like to see the season expanded, 6/7 months of football is great, then we can watch/participate in other sports etc, and when the new season rolls around we are waiting in anticiaption.
Kasey
Guest
Re the A-League: I agree that 6 teams from 10 in the finals is just too much it de-values the accomplishment of “making the finals” but football fans place a good deal of value in the Premiership as it is The every year that we have a top 6 in a 10 team comp, the relative ‘value’ of the Premiers Plate increases IMO - Which is a good thing. IIRC the argument made by FFA for a top6 was we’ll soon be at 12 teams and there is value in having a consistent Finals Series for that time from now. I call B/S. FFA pocket the money from the Finals. A Top6 gives them more games from which to profit. But as I said before the new top6 looks to be a ripper and should provide plenty of squeaky bum timefor the teams and fanbases involved ;) and quality football.
Michael Culina
Guest
A few things to note: a) Although the NRL and AFL comps are unfair in that teams play some other teams twice and some one, at least they're not as bad as the Super 15 where teams play some teams twice, some teams once and some teams not at all!!! Even allowing for the conferences, cumulative points are also important to determining finals spots...I mean how stupid and unbalanced is that? b) The NRL draw used to be devised so that each team, across a season, played against everyone once and a "spread" of the other teams a second time. This "spread" was based on the teams' finishing positions the year before. Not foolproof but possibly the best and fairest way to determine who plays who once and twice in a season. With all the talk of player burnout the current NRL could be done along similar lines e.g. play each team once, and then divide the teams into two pools of 8 (pool A being teams 1,4,5,8,9,12,13,16 and pool B being teams 2,3,6,7,10,11,14,15 from the previous year), have 22 rounds with a few split through Origin time. Done. c) For the A-League, I preferred the old top 4 system, but in a 10-team comp a top 6 is too much. I reckon a top 5 would be the best, just like in the old NSWRL comps. Run it over four weeks, you get six games, all high-stakes and with one team eliminated each week, a thrilling end to the season. How good would that be???
Australian Rules
Guest
You here...nothing much happening in soccer?
Skinnada
Roar Rookie
I would like the NRL to go back to a 7 a side round robin tournament played over a weekend including sides from Fiji, PNG & all NRL sides. Following that the NRL should bring back a month long pre season challenge cup around in country areas where teams can play a few games and the finalists can win prizemoney. This would enable a shorter season proper where teams can play each other once and the finals system we now have in the NRL would be fair for all teams.