Bring Back The McIntyre System

[Headless Chook]

Would much rather be playing the Dragsters for a place in the qualifying final than the Sharks or Storm. Can somebody explain why this new system is better again?

[ROC181]

Because if teams 5,6,7,8 won their matches, it meant that 3 & 4 would be out in the first week therefore it was rewarding mediocre teams. It also meant that 5&6 would have the break while 1&2 wouldn't have the week off...I think that's what it was...I didn't mind it then but now I see the reason.

[ism22]

Would much rather be playing the Dragsters for a place in the qualifying final than the Sharks or Storm. Can somebody explain why this new system is better again?

Yeah I couldn't see the reason when we changed it (or now)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McInty...l_Eight_System

I think the Dragons had a whinge because they came 1st and got knocked out by the Broncos (who were 6th and yet still got awarded the home game in week 2 because the Dragons lost to Parra). They whinged that it was unfair. IMO Looking at it they got a decent run though, just they failed miserably against 2 teams who they shoulda beaten (kinda like we did last year under the new system)...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_NRL_season

Week 1, the 8th placed Eels. Week 2 was the 6th placed Broncos.

I think their biggest complaint was that the Broncos game was in Brisbane (despite the fact they were the minor premiers and Brisbane came 6th). The Eels got a home game against the Titans which I guess Dragons fans felt was unfair because it was easier. HOWEVER... they did beat the Dragons (1st... away), the Titans (3rd... home in Parra) and the Doggies (2nd... away) in order to make the GF. I don't feel this was such a great 'advantage'... they just played freakishly well during the finals because it was Hayne's breakout season.

Whereas, for example, last year after losing to Penrith we got to play the Cowboys in Sydney. Souths then beat us in a home game after having a week off.

Did the whole system need to change or did they just need to say 'if the top 4 lose in the first week then they get a home game in the second week'? IMO the whole system probably didn't have to change and St Choke's complaint wasn't all that legit given that Parra had to beat the 1st, 2nd and 3rd ranked teams in order to make the GF (which they then lost). Doing so is virtually impossible and I doubt we'll see an 8th ranked team win the premiership under either system.

FWIW I'm actually more a fan of having a system that's like tennis grand slams. If some random, unseeded wildcard player beats the world #1 in the first round then they steal their seeding essentially (which inevitably puts them against difficult players towards the end of the comp but gives them an easier run towards the round of 16). However, tennis doesn't have 'home games'. IMO the Dagron's main issue was that playing Brisbane in Brisbane (when you're the minor premiers) really s*x. I would imagine that the Cowboys possibly would have beaten us last year if we had to play them in Townsville rather than Sydney. That said... I think we probably would have beaten Brisbane (and been able to sit out round 2) if we'd played #8 at home rather than #4. Just my thought. Either way, I think teams get punished for losing and rewarded for winning. It's our own stupid fault that we lost to Penrith after being up by so much. Can't really blame the system (like St Choke did because they were a rigged team that won almost every game and kept failing in the finals because they s*ck).

[The ticket]

They got rid of the McIntyre system because nobody understood it

[Hawkeye]

they got rid of it because the AFL did ?
mind you, if we'd have finished 3 or 4th, you'd be loving the current system over the McIntyre !

[Game Fowl]

Either way , if you win - No problem.

This is the one time of the year that to be the Best you have to beat the rest.

[elo]

Would much rather be playing the Dragsters for a place in the qualifying final than the Sharks or Storm. Can somebody explain why this new system is better again?

It's better because it splits the 8 teams into 2 pools for the 1st round of the finals, the top 4 are rewarded with a shot at a week off, the top 2 are rewarded with a minimum 2 home finals. 5,6,7 and 8 are in elimination mode from week 1. The McIntyre system was simply rubbish, the top 2 did not receive enough of a reward, especially if 7th or 8th were teams running hot at the time (eg Warriors 2008, Eels 2009) and lost their opening final. Team 3,4,5 and 6 were potentially playing dead rubbers (especially if they were all Sydney teams) if 1 and 2 won, it was such a terrible system.

[TheBigFella]

Because it's a fairer system than the original McIntyre system

[John Corey]

Bring back the Top 5. The biggest farce with the McIntyre and current systems is there is such little reward for minor premiership. The Top 5 was great as they get a week off, which is perfect reward.

Let's be honest, the reason we have the top 8 comes down to revenue.

[ChookyG]

Bring back the Top 5. The biggest farce with the McIntyre and current systems is there is such little reward for minor premiership. The Top 5 was great as they get a week off, which is perfect reward.

Let's be honest, the reason we have the top 8 comes down to revenue.

I think Top 6 is the best system, like they do in the QLD Cup. The first week of the finals sees 3v6 and 4v5 in elimination finals. Then in the second week the matches are 1v2 (Where the winner goes straight through to the GF) and the winners of the two elimination finals play each other. In the third week the loser of 1v2 plays the winner out of the 3-6 pool for a spot in the gf. Then in the 4th week is the gf. That means there is only 3 less games each finals series which is much less of a sacrifice then a top 5 or 4. Plus it means that both the top 2 get two chances to qualify for the gf and 1st is rewarded with a home final for the first bite at the cherry. Perfect system I think. 4 finals teams is too little in a 16 team comp, 8 is too much. 6 is perfect.

[John Corey]

I think Top 6 is the best system, like they do in the QLD Cup. The first week of the finals sees 3v6 and 4v5 in elimination finals. Then in the second week the matches are 1v2 (Where the winner goes straight through to the GF) and the winners of the two elimination finals play each other. In the third week the loser of 1v2 plays the winner out of the 3-6 pool for a spot in the gf. Then in the 4th week is the gf. That means there is only 3 less games each finals series which is much less of a sacrifice then a top 5 or 4. Plus it means that both the top 2 get two chances to qualify for the gf and 1st is rewarded with a home final for the first bite at the cherry. Perfect system I think. 4 finals teams is too little in a 16 team comp, 8 is too much. 6 is perfect.

Yep that would do. As long as the reward for MP is a week off.

[Guest]

Were we not the first team eliminated in week one of the finals series when finishing in 5th position under the previous McIntyre system?

[easts4eva]

Like JC said top 6, it's goofy to think you can lose as many games as you win and still qualify. Promoting mediocrity at it's best.

[eddie]

I'd like to see a return to the top 5 as well. Or even the top 6 idea.
Teams like St Merge or souths don't deserve to have a shot this year.