General PLAYOFF RULES??

AmeriKiwi_old

Guest
I watched the Broncos lose last night, but heard the commentators saying the loss wouldn`t necessarily eliminate them from the next round of playoffs... can someone please explain why that is?
 

KeepingTheFaith_old

Guest
4 matches, 4 teams lose. The 2 lowest ranked teams will be eliminated. Therefore having finished 7 and 8 at the end of 26 rounds Canberra and Parramatta would automatically be eliminated if they lose.

Canberra are eliminated after last night and the Eels will be eliminated if they lose today. If the Eels win though then Manly will be eliminated because the four losing teams wil be ranked.

1. Storm
3. Brisbane
5. Manly - Gone
7. Canberra - Gone
 

warriorfaithful*_old

Guest
KeepingTheFaith said:
4 matches, 4 teams lose. The 2 lowest ranked teams will be eliminated. Therefore having finished 7 and 8 at the end of 26 rounds Canberra and Parramatta would automatically be eliminated if they lose.

Canberra are eliminated after last night and the Eels will be eliminated if they lose today. If the Eels win though then Manly will be eliminated because the four losing teams wil be ranked.

1. Storm
3. Brisbane
5. Manly - Gone
7. Canberra - Gone

Yeah thats right. It can be quite confusing sometimes, some people want to get rid of the mcintyre system(as its called)
 

westie stylz_old

Guest
To me it doesn't make sense having the Dragons coming 6th and winning and now they get the Sea Eagles who came 5th, whereas the Knights come 4th and win and they have to play the Broncos who came 3rd, which to me is the harder game.

It's all round the wrong way.

The Knights should have the easier game which would mean a repeat of last week where they played the Sea Eagles while the Dragons have to knock the Broncos over again. I realise it's silly to have two rematches but it's fairer than what they do do.

Alternatively they could simply switch to the AFL system which would have seen week one matches
Storm v Knights
Bulldogs v Broncos
(winners get week off and losers play the winners of...
Sea Eagles v Eels
Dragons v Raiders
(losers eliminated)
 

AmeriKiwi_old

Guest
Wow! Had a look at the link, JJ, and it left me more than a little confused, although the 1st paragraph that KeepingTheFaith wrote is easy enough to follow. The McIntyre system looks all bass ackwards to me.
I like westie stylz system far better... it actually makes sense.
Thanks for the explanations, all you guys.
Jessbass`s playoff results thread will come in very handy... might not understand the system, but at least I can follow the results.
 

Kav_old

Guest
westie stylz said:
To me it doesn't make sense having the Dragons coming 6th and winning and now they get the Sea Eagles who came 5th, whereas the Knights come 4th and win and they have to play the Broncos who came 3rd, which to me is the harder game.

It's all round the wrong way.

The Knights should have the easier game which would mean a repeat of last week where they played the Sea Eagles while the Dragons have to knock the Broncos over again. I realise it's silly to have two rematches but it's fairer than what they do do.

I understand that Manly will play the Broncos while the Knights will play the Dragons next week. That is fair enough as the better placed team (Broncos) gets the advantage of playing the losing team. In saying that, I think Manly can regard themselves as fortunate to be playing another loser.

Kav
 

warriorfaithful*_old

Guest
Kav said:
I understand that Manly will play the Broncos while the Knights will play the Dragons next week. That is fair enough as the better placed team (Broncos) gets the advantage of playing the losing team. In saying that, I think Manly can regard themselves as fortunate to be playing another loser.
Kav

Yeah but despite the broncos losing this week i dont think manly playing the broncos will be easy whatsoever. If i was manly i would rather be playing the knights actually cos they(knights) could be without a few key players.
 

KeepingTheFaith_old

Guest
The McIntyre system was designed because in theory any combination of the 8 playoff teams could meet in the grand final. Obviously in the AFL system because the 5 v 8 and 6 v 7 games are straight elimination games, there's no way we could end up with a 6 v 7 or 5 v 8 grand final. That's why I dislike the McIntyre system. WHo wants a 5 v 8 grand final or a 6 v 7 grand final (aside from the clubs fans of course).

While the McIntyre system does give the top 2 teams an advantage because they play the weakest 2 teams and then get a week off if they win, teams 3rd and 4th are really left in no man's land. They have to rely on teams 7 & 8 winning to get any week off advantage and then if a string of results go against them they can find themselves eliminated after 1 playoff game.

The Knights are a good example this week. As it turns out it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference whether or not they'd won because either way next week they're in an elimination final.

On top of that, the way the system is, the only way to ensure teams don't know the outcome of next week before they play their game is to have 1 v 8 as the last game of the week. Surely you'd want to finish off the week with potentially the best game of the round. Granted Parra put up a good fight, but the game wasn't exactly the best way to end the playoff week on a high note.

The AFL system is the way to go. All 8 teams have something to play for. Either survival or the right to a week off.
 

KeepingTheFaith_old

Guest
Kav said:
westie stylz said:
To me it doesn't make sense having the Dragons coming 6th and winning and now they get the Sea Eagles who came 5th, whereas the Knights come 4th and win and they have to play the Broncos who came 3rd, which to me is the harder game.

It's all round the wrong way.

The Knights should have the easier game which would mean a repeat of last week where they played the Sea Eagles while the Dragons have to knock the Broncos over again. I realise it's silly to have two rematches but it's fairer than what they do do.

I understand that Manly will play the Broncos while the Knights will play the Dragons next week. That is fair enough as the better placed team (Broncos) gets the advantage of playing the losing team. In saying that, I think Manly can regard themselves as fortunate to be playing another loser.

Kav

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure the 2 losers don't play each other and the 2 winners don't play each other. I thought it was Broncos V Knights and Eagles V Dragons?
 

warriorfaithful*_old

Guest
KeepingTheFaith said:
Kav said:
westie stylz said:
To me it doesn't make sense having the Dragons coming 6th and winning and now they get the Sea Eagles who came 5th, whereas the Knights come 4th and win and they have to play the Broncos who came 3rd, which to me is the harder game.

It's all round the wrong way.

The Knights should have the easier game which would mean a repeat of last week where they played the Sea Eagles while the Dragons have to knock the Broncos over again. I realise it's silly to have two rematches but it's fairer than what they do do.

I understand that Manly will play the Broncos while the Knights will play the Dragons next week. That is fair enough as the better placed team (Broncos) gets the advantage of playing the losing team. In saying that, I think Manly can regard themselves as fortunate to be playing another loser.

Kav

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure the 2 losers don't play each other and the 2 winners don't play each other. I thought it was Broncos V Knights and Eagles V Dragons?

Nah, im pretty sure its dragons vs knights and broncos vs sea eagles.
 

westie stylz_old

Guest
Nup, according to the NRL.COM predictor the Broncos have the Knights and the Dragons have the Sea Eagles.

During the game last night between the Broncos and Dragons Phil Gould was talking about a Broncos v Sea Eagles match but like so often he was wrong. The guy is a dork.
 

westie stylz_old

Guest
KeepingTheFaith said:
The McIntyre system was designed because in theory any combination of the 8 playoff teams could meet in the grand final. Obviously in the AFL system because the 5 v 8 and 6 v 7 games are straight elimination games, there's no way we could end up with a 6 v 7 or 5 v 8 grand final. That's why I dislike the McIntyre system. WHo wants a 5 v 8 grand final or a 6 v 7 grand final (aside from the clubs fans of course).

While the McIntyre system does give the top 2 teams an advantage because they play the weakest 2 teams and then get a week off if they win, teams 3rd and 4th are really left in no man's land. They have to rely on teams 7 & 8 winning to get any week off advantage and then if a string of results go against them they can find themselves eliminated after 1 playoff game.

The Knights are a good example this week. As it turns out it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference whether or not they'd won because either way next week they're in an elimination final.

On top of that, the way the system is, the only way to ensure teams don't know the outcome of next week before they play their game is to have 1 v 8 as the last game of the week. Surely you'd want to finish off the week with potentially the best game of the round. Granted Parra put up a good fight, but the game wasn't exactly the best way to end the playoff week on a high note.

The AFL system is the way to go. All 8 teams have something to play for. Either survival or the right to a week off.

I have to agree.

There have been a lot of upsets in the history of the McIntyre system but looking at the matchups on the surface they tend to be a bit lopsided.

It would be great if you started the weekend with the two elimination matches on friday night and saturday afternoon with all 4 teams playing for survival rather than one team playing for survival and one team playing for a week off as it is now.

Then on saturday night and sunday afternoon you have the two big matchups between the best 4 regular season sides where anything could happen and the winning teams rightly get a week off while the losers have to turn around for the following weekend.

What's peoples opinions on having home matches for the winning teams in week two as well as week one?

Then having the semi finals and final at telstra stadium?
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
AmeriKiwi said:
Wow! Had a look at the link, JJ, and it left me more than a little confused, although the 1st paragraph that KeepingTheFaith wrote is easy enough to follow. The McIntyre system looks all bass ackwards to me.
I like westie stylz system far better... it actually makes sense.
Thanks for the explanations, all you guys.
Jessbass`s playoff results thread will come in very handy... might not understand the system, but at least I can follow the results.

Sorry, AK. It (obviously) wasn't my intention to confuse.

Perhaps this link will prove more helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_Final_Eight_System
 

AmeriKiwi_old

Guest
Jesbass said:
AmeriKiwi said:
Wow! Had a look at the link, JJ, and it left me more than a little confused, although the 1st paragraph that KeepingTheFaith wrote is easy enough to follow. The McIntyre system looks all bass ackwards to me.
I like westie stylz system far better... it actually makes sense.
Thanks for the explanations, all you guys.
Jessbass`s playoff results thread will come in very handy... might not understand the system, but at least I can follow the results.

Sorry, AK. It (obviously) wasn't my intention to confuse.

Perhaps this link will prove more helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_Final_Eight_System

It`s not you that left me confused, JB, it`s the McIntyre system itself. It`ll be a lot simpler by week 4, though. :wink:
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
936
LordGnome_old
Replies
15
Views
914
Skinny_Ravs82
Replies
0
Views
801
Guest
Replies
6
Views
674
JonB_old
Replies
5
Views
755
pantera nhl

Last Game

08 May

10 - 29
3.9 Total Avg Rating
2.2 Your Avg Rating

Highest Rated Player

Lowest Rated Player

Compiled from 13 ratings