Roar and Against: The AFL wildcard week is a terrible idea

Yes, 1916 is the first (and so far) only instance (in almost non-replicable circumstances) of the [Spoon + Flag] double, but not so sure that it is a case of "that’s where the idea started". Would reckon that until Kevin Taylor (Be as well as you can be, Kevin!) began publishing his 'Footystats' in the 90s, and the AFL began its annual Season Guides not long after, very few of us would have been aware of the quirks of the 1916 VFL season. (Except as a 'Gotcha!' trivia item.)

Rather than this wildcard rubbish why not where teams are equal for eighth like North n Saints last year it's not down to percentage but a play off for the place - that's fair and just for eighth - even if it's more than two clubs tied on points

"Adding more excitement" is not (in itself) the main reason for having competitive games (in any sport, though some of us would have trouble in finding any 'excitement' in some particular sports), any more than 'increasing crowds'. 'enhancing the experience' or any other bit of PR BS. The only valid reason for any tweaking of the last few Rounds is to ensure no tanking - and there should be ways to do that which don't include stuffing up the end of the H&A season. This sort of fanciful meddling can mean only one thing: that CEO McLachlan has too much time on his hands. It is yet one more example of a professional disease which has grown in the last few decades: CEOs, GMs, professionals who want to do almost anything EXCEPT their core duties. Worst and most prevalent example: teachers (aka 'teachers') who won't / don't / can't teach stuff to kids in classrooms because they are too busy 'saving the planet / the environment / us from the evil Murdoch / from Trump / from the Pope / from hetero-normatives' to actually do, you know, like, boring stuff like, you know, basically, teach.

Essentiallym, it just expands an already bloated finals structure. Too many teams play finals now. Move to a final six (not the failed McIntyre one) would be my vote - but not the $ vote.

PurpleSparkle (great name), why discriminate for sides that have a poor start and against sides that have a good start? I'd like to adapt Slane's argument. Why not, at the end of the H & A rounds, have a second 23 H & A rounds to see who qualifies?

In 1916, Fitzroy were the wooden spooners. But they ended up winning the Premiership in the same year. The AFL hierarchy must have thought: "what an absolutely fantastic idea. The team that finishes last, can still win the flag. I'd like to see that!". And nobody mentioned to the AFL hierarchy that in that year, the AFL/VFL only had four teams in the competition, because of the Great War. So, that's where the idea started.

There's more than just last years finals series to go on. Running the stats in the H&A seasons 09-15 there was about a 17% difference in winning percentage between both home or away sides and the average winning percentage where bye-differences-the-week-before weren't a factor and where the bye was, which favoured the team who didn't have the bye the week before(for the same state, for interstate travel it runs about 14%). If you put this down to say "quick onset rustiness", I would imagine this would only be compounded by byes that came in close proximity to each other. Plus add this to the pressure of a finals series where the opposition has the fatigue factor lessened by a recent bye. For a while I've had a bit of a gut feel the QF winner has struggled with fluency, particularly early, in the Prelim. Fatigue seemed to be a big player last year, as those who had the first bye during the H&A rounds won their first game back, while the records of return wins against teams who had played the week before for later bye rounds ended mostly in losses.

hate to get all history on you, but it has happened: 1916, when Fitzroy finished last in a season reduced to four teams because of the war. A final four was still deemed viable, and Fitzroy went on to win the flag. I think the idea of a wildcard weekend as proposed sucks but in response to BJ's comment "It won’t feel like a miracle or fairytale, like the Bulldogs’ triumph, it will just feel completely manufactured and fake because the tenth-placed side had no right to be in the finals in the first place," the final eight is also completely manufactured (as were, variously, the final four, five and six).

I don't see whta the problem is. Once you've accepted the second best team can win, then the fourth, then the sixth, and now the eighth, why not just keep going?

PD - did you see that the NBA lottery is facing accusations of tampering because the Lakers keep getting high draft picks?

I think a team needs to earn its right to participate in finals, on the basis of their performance across the whole season; not be "gifted" an entry by performing well in the closing week. But I do think there is merit in exploring incentives for avoiding sides "tanking", by considering a lucky-dip for draft order among the bottom four sides (perhaps weighted towards the bottom side, e.g. by putting four balls into the pot for the bottom side, 3 balls in for the second bottom side, 2 balls in for the third bottom side and 1 in for the 4th bottom side - then drawing four balls out of the pot to determine the draft order of those sides). Tanking has disappeared as an issue in recent years partly because of the frontier teams (GWS and Gold Coast) hogging all the high draft picks and partly because its seen as a bad strategy after we've seen Carlton and Melbourne wallow in mediocrity for a decade after both seemingly attempting to tank. But it will return as an issue one day soon (Freo appeared to tank last year) and we need to de-incentivise it.

There is no "deserve" really, you either do or don't and it's playing to the conditions set out before you. Before last year coaches of the likely contenders would be doing all they can to lock away a top 4 spot, I think now the smarter coaches would, while happy for a top 4 spot, instead be keeping some in reserve in the H&A to prime their run more wholly at the finals. So if the wildcard comes in there's a little more value in the two spots just outside the 8 (even down to 13 perhaps), whereas right now it's just too bad if you're scorching it up at 9th when the finals hit and that's just the conditions the teams are faced with.

The bye didn't penalise teams that won in the first week. We have a sample size of two right now. Sydney beat a flaky Geelong team that routinely goes missing in games, and Western beat a flaky GWS team that was in its second final ever. If winning the QF is such a disadvantage then teams should field their second side for the QF and hope to lose.

The game has always been changing, I wonder if people get this idea in their heads that there was at one point in history where there was an ideal "this is the way it should stay" stage?

Why is last year the model to work off? The bye before the finals serves to neutralise much of the advantage of finishing top 4 and downright penalises the winners of the Qualifying Finals.

Keep the top 8 as it is. 17th vs 18th in a playoff for the top 2 draft picks. 9th through to 16th play off for the next 8 picks.

Logically, the questions to ask for this, and all, issues related to season scheduling are: 1. What's the question mark/contention/issue with the current system? 2. How well, if at all, does this proposal improve the identified anomoly? 1. IMO, the primary issue with the current season scheduling is precisely the ordering of the final single table, both with regard to games won and percentages. The primary reason for this is that each season some teams are easier to beat than others, and most teams are significantly more difficult to beat at home. Last time I checked the largest difference between home v away win percentage just over 25% about 15% better than the worst teams home advantage, North Melbourne at around 11%. That's about 2 extra games won at home rather than away. Focusing this issue into the current season, given the choice to play West Coast at home or the MCG this season, where would you choose? 2. Does a wild card round involving teams 7-10 on the end of season table, in any way address this anomoly? Yes, is the only conclusion I can come to, as much as I don't want to because I'm not a fan and I think there are better solutions. Under the current scheduling the team in 9th could actually be a better finals prospect than the team in 8th, the difference over the last 5 seasons has ranged from %age-2 wins. Its more of a stretch for 10th v 7th, with the difference range of 1.5-5 wins, but not totally dismissable. The main draw back of the idea has been stated by others, a line must be, utlimately arbitrarily, draw and 10th has been separated from 11th by %age over the last 5 years on all but 1 occasion, when it was only 1 win. Similarly, the line between 6th and 7th has ranged between %-1.5 wins, most often 1 win, over the last 5 years, so is it fair to make their task of winning the premiership that much more difficult? I tend to think not.

actually think theres merit in the ideas canvassed .... certainly the wildcard game at the very least (would have similarly used the north / saints example cited by jeffrey to support my point so wont go any further) as for the 17-5 fixturing change ... take peoples point some will have issues with respect the lack of certainty it creates when planning games they can attend .... but then isnt that already the case when the season is approaching finals - each season we have scheduling uncertainty when approaching the final round of the home and away: - will a team make it? will a team be awarded a home final? what day / time will the final be played? .... despite the uncertainty, the game proceeds without complaint .... people attend the other added benefit of a 17-5 split is the way it breaks the ladder into thirds ..... the top six jossle for home advantage in finals .... the mid six compete for a wildcard birth ... the bottom six compete for draft points ..... incentive and interest all round as for the cash grab argument ...... who cares .... the games will have merit obvious incentives ensuring a better contest than we currently have from about round 15/16 onwards

The Wildcard week (I even hate the phrase) would make the run the Bulldogs had to the premiership last year impossible. It would serve to make the teams that ultimately make the 7th and 8th placings roadkill for their competitors, who had had the weeks' rest. Dreadful, dreadful idea.

Well if they are going down this route why stop at 10 teams? Why not make it a final 12 or 14 or stuff it make it an 18 team finals series. That way everyone gets to play finals every year! Also think of all the extra $$$ the AFL will make from the extra games! FFS I thought the AFL was supposed to be an elite competition, not some half baked school sports event where every kid gets a participation award. If you don't finish in the top half of the table then you don't deserve to play finals. Try again next year.