Talk:AFL final eight system

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:AFL finals system)
This article in incorrect. The AFL did not develop the current Final 8 System, it was sent to them in 1994 by Kim Crawford. Despite telling Crawford his system was flawed and they would not use it, in 2000 the AFL switched to Crawfords’ System and have dishonestly claimed it as their own ever since. Exactly the same system was previously used by the ARL in 1996.Crawford sent it to them in 1995 to overcome faults in the system they had used in 1995.

2006 discussion regarding page naming[edit]

The article should be renamed "AFL Finals Series" Pnatt 16:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This is just free advertising. Xtra 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be something like "AFL final eight system" because the finals series is the actual event and calling it "AFL finals system" wouldn't be right either because there have been so many.
Also, I was thinking about a page which describes all these style of finals systems in a page called "Weighted finals systems", "Australian finals systems", just "Finals systems" or something similar. I've put together a collection of different systems at User:ThirdEdition/Finals Systems --ThirdEdition 03:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a naming convention that should apply? We have Adelaide 500, (with Clipsal 500 as a redirect), but we also have Telstra Dome (with Docklands Stadium as a redirect). As much as Pnatt has been annoying, he/she may well be right on this one. --Scott Davis Talk 13:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the word 'Toyota' does not belong, however I'm not sure what the best article name is. AFL Finals Series seems to have excessive capitalisation. If I had to suggest anything I would go with AFL finals system, with reference (even if slight) to previous system's, or even just a note that they existed before whatever year. Remy B 14:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In line with other existing articles, I think AFL Final Eight System might be best. The sponsor has nothing to do with the system used, which is what the article is currently about. IMHO including the sponsor would be inappropriate even if it were about the series - this case is different to Telstra Dome, as the thing is not renamed by the sponsor, but has the sponsor's name added to its common name. JPD (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's been ages since we discussed this and it never got settled, so I have gone ahead and just changed it to what I thought seemed reasonable. Remy B 07:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the external link to "AFL Fact Sheet on the historical playoff systems" is broken and I couldn't find the page on the AFL site to where it should point. Perhaps this should be removed unless someone can find the new location. cheers, DM

Kim Crawford[edit]

An anon editor changed the article to credit Kim Crawford as the inventor of the current finals system. I've reverted this. I have no objection to the claim being discussed [1], but in those terms only - not as a conclusive fact. -- I@n 08:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, there is no discussion of authorship at all, which is odd, given that the previous systems were all named after their author. I'd like to see some discussion of it, even if inconclusive? 123.243.120.100 (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This link https://www.facebook.com/groups/307753682618616/ takes you to a Facebook page showing media reports, AFL and club letters that clearly show Kim Crawford was the author of the current Final 8 System. The AFL refuse to give him any recognition and falsely claim it as their own. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.8.234 (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access that page, but previous claims were not compelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.98.123 (talk) 01:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone at the AFL thought of it independently. It is a logical enough system for people to arrive at for themselves. The previous system was terrible, and over the years it existed we all had plenty of time to think about how it should be improved. I know I personally came up with almost exactly the current system in my musings and spent a couple of years telling people about it before I saw Eddie McGuire propose much the same thing on the Footy Show. But I'm not putting my hand up asking for recognition! 124.149.241.238 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to access the FB page mentioned above ... where Crawford has shared the extensive letter campaign he waged promoting 'his' system. (I note that he had 1v3, 2v4, 5v7, 6v8 in the first round, which is a tiny bit different to what ended up in place.) It makes it clear that the AFL (and various clubs) had to be aware that he had proposed it, but I can't see how that rules out other people having also come up with it (as for instance I did, unaware that he had). 124.149.241.238 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revisions[edit]

The entire section on Proposed Revisions are merely opinions by a non-AFL and hence irrelevant group of people. If there no substantiated evidence that the AFL has given serious consideration to these proposals, then these are just people's opinions and have no encyclopædic merit, and should be removed from the page. I have removed them from the page by enclosing the entire section in comment tags; if you agree with my thoughts, then we can completely delete the section. Aspirex 11:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

There should be a criticism on the fact that if every team has a 50% chance of winning each match 4th is three times more likely to win then 5th. I think that part of the system is really stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.50.161 (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A) I've never heard anyone other than you say that; B) there isn't a 50% chance of each team winning each match; C) the system is intended to make it difficult for teams finishing outside the top four, and every time a team who did finish outside the top four does well, people complain (Carlton in 1999, for example). Thus I see no reason why this should be included as a criticism. Aspirex 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re rated Class[edit]

Reduced to start as there isnt coverage of how it came about only how it works IMHO that means half of the information is missing. Gnangarra 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

I think this is a really great article. Excellent info, very readable, great resource. Well done all contributors!! ROxBo (talk) 12:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi final?[edit]

Can someone please explain why the week two games are called semi finals? In every other tournament, the winners of the semi finals play in the grand final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.29.249 (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason is that the Page-McIntyre final four system (and then the final five and final six that followed it) had only one preliminary final, and in the week before it there were two semi-finals. Even under that system, the semi-finals weren't the traditional "semi-finals" where the two winners meet each other next week - rather, the Grand Final was played between the preliminary final winner and the winner of the so-called "major semi final". Most sports who used that system use the terms Minor Semi and the Major Semi to distinguish the two from each other; our sport called them the First Semi Final and Second Semi Final respectively by convention. Anyhow, by the time the finals extended to a top eight in 1994, fans had been watching more than sixty years of finals series with the Grand Final in the last week of the finals, a Preliminary Final the previous week, Semi-Finals the week before that, and Qualifying/Elimination Finals the week before that. I suppose the league just made an arbitrary choice to preserve those existing names, even though the current "preliminary finals" match the more widely conventional semi-finals. There's really no more sensible explanation that this.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a useful enough clarification to put in a footnote to the article.Aspirex (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, but it should be sourced. I moved the comment to #Notes for formatting purposes - see WP:REFGROUP. If this is expanded into a History section or similar, the new section can of course be deleted. - 2/0 (cont.) 12:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this interesting/useful 123.243.120.100 (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AFL finals system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on AFL final eight system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naming of Semi and Preliminary finals[edit]

Is it worth mentioning the slightly anomalous naming of the finals? I was thinking along the lines of... The "preliminary finals" are effectively what would be called semi-finals in other settings, [ while the "semi-finals" are effectively something like quarter-finals ]. The naming is a carry-over from older finals system (insert link to final 5 description). 124.149.241.238 (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We included that once but never had a reference which properly met the WP:VERIFY requirements, so it was challenged and removed. I'm in favour of including it (I think it's common knowledge) but if we had a ref it would be easier. Aspirex (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now noticed that it is currently explained in a footnote, more or less exactly along the lines I suggested. That seems adequate. 124.149.241.238 (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AFL_final_eight_system&oldid=1197144914"