The criticism that followed the announcement was rapid, caustic and white-hot, and drove talkback time for most of the week in which the plan was released.
The consistent refrain was that to reward a team finishing in the bottom half of the competition (we had 15 teams in 1994) was to reward mediocrity.
It struck me instantly that the critics were missing the point. The genius of the system was not about rewarding the teams at the bottom of the eight, but providing a multi-valued scheme that rewarded the total competition: it kept the interest high until the last round of the season (in 1994 four teams fought out positions 7-10); it added value to broadcast rights; it made it crystal clear that the true aim of every team was to get to the top four, as a launching pad for the premiership; it created a system that allowed for two great weeks of footy - two preliminary finals on the same weekend made it a level playing field at the business end; and, in that era, in those early days of the AFL, it allowed finals to be spread across the country, underwriting the concept of the AFL as a truly national League.
I wrote this commentary for The Sunday Age, and the story was splashed across the front of the Sports liftout, with the heading: Final Eight - Positively Great.
There was a key point within the commentary: it was my view that although eight teams were notionally in the finals, teams five, six, seven and eight on the table were really playing for what was the true finals series - the battle between the top six (after week one’s play-offs) as they fought for access to the preliminary finals.
Week one was merely a bridge to the real deal - playing off for access to the finals series that mattered. Only excellence was rewarded; mediocrity was never rewarded with any outcome other than the gaining of experience.
The launching pad for teams at the bottom of the table was not for the season current, but for future years.
Not long after the piece was published, I received a call from Collins, who thanked me for rare positive commentary, and asked how he could get a quality copy of that front-page splash. I put him on the right track.
Much later, I visited Collins in his office at the MCG, and was amazed to see the cover of that sports section framed, and in pride of place outside his office door.
Seventeen summers later, and the debate has been revived as the AFL wonders aloud whether there could be/should be TEN teams in the finals series post-2011, when GWS enters the competition, making for an 18-team League.
The same scathing criticism has flowed in, and last week Collingwood coach Mick Malthouse summarised the spread of negativity towards a final ten.
Malthouse, who has experienced every finals system (from final four, five and six systems to the current final eight, and all versions of these), mentioned the eight was already "reward for mediocrity", reprising similar criticism of 1994.
"It (the finals system) has to be elite," he said, "and you've got to strive for that final six or final four."
With great respect to a man who has been at the forefront of the game for almost 40 years, he is missing the point.
Should a final ten be introduced by the AFL, it is likely to include an extra week of play-offs to get to where we are today - a final eight, with all the advantages remaining with the top four.
Week one, under one scenario under consideration would match teams seven, eight, nine and ten in play-offs for positions seven and eight, with the top six having a week off.
From that point the current eight system would apply.
The benefits as I saw them in 1994 are mirrored with a final ten of this style (the least radical of some suggestions) - the fans would have an interest in the competition until the death; teams at the bottom end of the a final ten would gain experience in the tougher world of do-or-die finals pressure; the only place to be (as it has always been) is in the top four, the gateway to the preliminary finals and the Grand Final; from all that, the benefits to the game would extend across the spectrum with better value for broadcasting rights.
The key outcome would remain as Malthouse requires: 'you’ve got to strive for that final six or final four'.
The AFL also has to strive to provide consistent and intriguing levels of entertainment and involvement through the season: that's what the final eight has done, and that too, is what a final ten of a similar structure would do.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs.
