Talk:AFL finals system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 AFL finals system is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject AFL.
Assessment comments

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

I agree. This is just free advertising. Xtra 01:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

Contents

[edit] Kim Crawford

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)

[edit] Proposed revisions

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)

[edit] Criticism

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)

  • 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)

[edit] Re rated Class

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)