There's a reasonable chance...

[liz]

In many ways I think the AFL might be relieved, at least from a "fairness" point of view if the mandatory MCG game is between two non-Vic teams. Can't happen in the first round of the finals, but if, say, the teams competing in the second week are (in some order)

Brisbane
Adelaide (these two being the losers from the double chance matches)
Sydney
Collingwood

surely it would be fairest to more teams, based on ladder position finish, if the Pies travel to either Brisbane or Adelaide and the other of these to play the Swans at the G. The one out of Brisbane or the Crows who missed out on a home final would feel aggrieved but at least they'd be playing on neutral territory. It would be far worse for them if they had to play the Pies in Melbourne, effectively handing their opposition home ground advantage. Of course, the fact that I'd far prefer Sydney to be playing on of these teams on neutral territory has nothing to do with my assessment of "fair"!!!

Of course the dollars may speak louder and the AFL may deem it daft not to schedule the Pies game in Melbourne.

This is a highly likely scenario in week two and it will be very interesting to see how the AFL plays it. Who can tell me, in week two of the finals, how the games are matched up? Assuming 1 and 2, and 5 and 6 each win in week one, does 5 then play 3 or 4 the following week. In other words, assuming 3 has the right to the home final in week 2, do Sydney have to finish above or below Collingwood on the ladder for this scenario to arise?

[penga]

Originally posted by lizz
Brisbane
Adelaide (these two being the losers from the double chance matches)
Sydney
Collingwood

surely it would be fairest to more teams, based on ladder position finish, if the Pies travel to either Brisbane or Adelaide and the other of these to play the Swans at the G. The one out of Brisbane or the Crows who missed out on a home final would feel aggrieved but at least they'd be playing on neutral territory. It would be far worse for them if they had to play the Pies in Melbourne, effectively handing their opposition home ground advantage. Of course, the fact that I'd far prefer Sydney to be playing on of these teams on neutral territory has nothing to do with my assessment of "fair"!!!

i really really like this idea lizz!!! that is "fair" in my books...

[sharp9]

The AFL made it really clear a couple of weeks ago...

1) All teams who earn home games will play at home.
2) If all home teams are from interstate then the lowest ranked of those interstate teams hosts their final at the MCG - no exceptions....

So if Collingwood finish 3rd (God forbid!) and Weagles and Freo are 5th and 8th, then the Perth Derby WILL BE PLAYED AT THE MCG.

This continues all through the finals.

There is one thing they have not clarified, however.....

If 4th BEATS 1st and 2nd beats 3rd then who is the higher ranked "home team" in the second and third weeks of the finals? Is it the team which finished higher on the ladder or do the minor premiers now get ranked below the 3rd place getters (seeing as they lost to the 4th place getters)?

In other words, by beating a higher ranked team in the finals, do you assume their ranking?

Continuing this scenario - If the minor premiers, having lost to 4th, then won their semi (against the winners of 6th vs 7th) then who would get the ONLY true home preliminary? In my opinion the 4th placed team would have earned that right by virtue of beating 1st in the Qualifying final.

The AFL website only talks about home finals (not the MCG situation)

Opinions?

[sharp9]

Congratulations to me....I've found the answer in the small print (I think)

It says on afl.com "final 8 explained." that the "winners of the qualifying finals host the preliminary finals"

Normally this would end up being 1 hosting 3 and 2 hosting 4....

However if 4 beats 1 in the QF and there are no other upsets then the PFs would see 4 HOSTING 3 and 2 HOSTING 1.......

Therefore......

Victories in the finals take precedence over year-end ladder postions when determining how teams are ranked later in the finals.

Therefore....

The team that finished 4th on the ladder, but beat the minor premiers in the QF would be the number 1 ranked team,

Therefore.....

4th would host at home and 2nd would host at the MCG

Therefore....

the only way to host all your finals is to finish 1st, have a derby or be Victorian

Because.....

1) If you finish second you will always be second ranked come PF time, no matter what

2) If you finish 5th-8th you can't host a PF anyway

3) If you finish 3rd or 4th your QF is away (unless it's a derby)

[SXP]

Well done, sharp9!

Is AFL paying you for this? They should, you know!

[ugg]

Re: There's a reasonable chance...

Originally posted by Charlie
... that at the end of next week, we could be in 2nd spot. If:
- We beat Carlton
- Port Adelaide beat West Coast (AAMI Stadium)
- Essendon beat Brisbane (Docklands)
- Fremantle beat Adelaide (Subiaco)

We go into 2nd spot.

So Charlie, what are the lottery numbers for this week

[j s]

Originally posted by sharp9
[B]Victories in the finals take precedence over year-end ladder postions when determining how teams are ranked later in the finals.

Therefore....

The team that finished 4th on the ladder, but beat the minor premiers in the QF would be the number 1 ranked team,
]

This is not true. nder the current final 8 system there is NO re-ranking of any kind. All that changes in an upset loss is WHICH WEEK you get your (nominal) home final(s) Thus #2 would outrank #4 for the PF thus making the rest of your analysis incorrect.

#2 would get the home PF and #4 would miss out.

Home finals work as follows:

Week 1: Teams 1, 2, 5 & 6 get a home final

Weeks 2 & 3: Teams 1, 2, 3 & 4 get a home final - winners in week 3, losers in week 2 but the original rankings remain for "MCG rule" purposes.

[Charlie]

JS - I'm not sure I've gotten exactly what you mean... but I think you've got it wrong.

If 4th comes out and beats 1st in the first week, then 4th would become the 2nd ranked team, behind the winner of the 2nd vs. 3rd game. 1st would be relegated to third as the highest ranked loser, but would still have their second home final in the semis. The team that is now 2nd would have a nominal home preliminary final, which could be ripped from them to feed the MCC.

I apologise if I've misunderstood what you've said... but rankings can certainly change during the finals series.

[sharp9]

Well...I guess it is open to interpretation.

I think if logic prevailed then you would be right, JS.

So let's say that in my 1st losing to 4th scenario we agree that of the two hosting teams for week 2 (1st and 3rd) that 1st gets to play at home regardless and 3rd has to host at the G (Unless 1st is Victorian). That means that 1st placed team gets two home finals No Matter What....which is probably fair reward for being minor premiers.

And if followed through it would mean that in the PF 2nd would host 1st at home and 4th would host 3rd at the 'G.

I wonder how we can find out for sure?