Opinion Academies and Father - Son draft changes

[1892]

From memory the 'pies where one of the few to embrace and attempt to develop the NSW scholarship scheme into something more, setting up an academy of sorts and partnership with Sydney Uni. While the idea behind the NSW and Queensland academies is sound, all clubs should be able to set up an academy, not only would it be fair, but it would also help develop a greater pool of players than just 4 clubs. With regards to the idea that it enables NSW and Queensland clubs to draft home grown talent, revert to how it was under the scholarship scheme giving the players the choice of which club's academy they sign up to. Even with all clubs having access a bidding system of sorts is fairer.

 

[pinky951]

So what happens at the end of the draft if multiple teams bid and are matched? If all these draft picks get pushed to the back of the draft how do they decide what order they go in at the end? Haven't seen that written anywhere and may be important.

I don't like academy picks for Sydney and Brisbane, they have their own F/S already through South and Fitzroy so the academy is just an unfair advantage to the rest. GWS and Suns should be the only ones as they don't have F/S yet, abolish it in about 30 years when the sons of players are coming through. Not sure what the deal is for Fremantle but if they don't have a comparable F/S system they should get academy too.

I don't understand why the Lions and Sydney need all the help they can get, they can pick the same youngsters out of the draft as the VFL teams and have the same legacy in terms of F/S. Sure there are better pathways in the football states but all teams get the same access to them so what is the difference?

 

[Kirby]

I don't like academy picks for Sydney and Brisbane, they have their own F/S already through South and Fitzroy so the academy is just an unfair advantage to the rest. GWS and Suns should be the only ones as they don't have F/S yet, abolish it in about 30 years when the sons of players are coming through. Not sure what the deal is for Fremantle but if they don't have a comparable F/S system they should get academy too.

I don't understand why the Lions and Sydney need all the help they can get, they can pick the same youngsters out of the draft as the VFL teams and have the same legacy in terms of F/S. Sure there are better pathways in the football states but all teams get the same access to them so what is the difference?

This

 

[PTpie]

I don't understand why the Lions and Sydney need all the help they can get, they can pick the same youngsters out of the draft as the VFL teams and have the same legacy in terms of F/S. Sure there are better pathways in the football states but all teams get the same access to them so what is the difference?

The big difference is that the secondary leagues are only a hop, skip or jump away from the VIC, SA and WA teams. They can start identifying talent and even grooming it for the preseason draft. They can easily and cheaply watch TAC cup and other under age footy when doing the same for the national draft and have access to the coaches etc of any kids they interested in.

Sure the northern clubs can do this as well but not as easily and certainly not as cheaply. Just being able to hold an open training session attracts a crowd can expose young players to better training techniques - I've been to a Lions training session to show my son what they do and there was about 10 people there.

I completely understand the perceived unfairness of the current iteration of the academy programs. However I don't see it costing any Club a premiership or even greatly unbalancing any team lists. Certainly the priority picks and compensation picks are doing this more than academies ever have. Honestly 2 players, only 1 of any real note, is hardly something to derail the AFL.

I would love all clubs to run their own academy and the players then go into the draft as normal with the same weighting as the current F/S system. Otherwise wealthier clubs would begin to dominate, unless of course equalisation measures were brought in to cap academy spending and the same amount of funding was available across all the clubs.

 

[jackcass]

Re read what I wrote.

They (being the AFL) are looking to do the bidding live (at the draft).

I was just highlighting that it happens prior to trade and draft and for very valid reasons. How can clubs match a bid if they've traded their options available.

 

[Lefthanded]

The big difference is that the secondary leagues are only a hop, skip or jump away from the VIC, SA and WA teams. They can start identifying talent and even grooming it for the preseason draft. They can easily and cheaply watch TAC cup and other under age footy when doing the same for the national draft and have access to the coaches etc of any kids they interested in.

Sure the northern clubs can do this as well but not as easily and certainly not as cheaply. Just being able to hold an open training session attracts a crowd can expose young players to better training techniques - I've been to a Lions training session to show my son what they do and there was about 10 people there.

I completely understand the perceived unfairness of the current iteration of the academy programs. However I don't see it costing any Club a premiership or even greatly unbalancing any team lists. Certainly the priority picks and compensation picks are doing this more than academies ever have. Honestly 2 players, only 1 of any real note, is hardly something to derail the AFL.

I would love all clubs to run their own academy and the players then go into the draft as normal with the same weighting as the current F/S system. Otherwise wealthier clubs would begin to dominate, unless of course equalisation measures were brought in to cap academy spending and the same amount of funding was available across all the clubs.

Northern clubs can just have a recruiter on staff that lives in Vic, another in SA, another in WA so I don't see any difference there.

(Rest of my comments (below) are just general, not specific to poster I have replied to)
Academies are a reality for the AFL to get their wish of developing the game in NSW & QLD. In a perfect world this would be run by & funded by AFL with all clubs equal access to the talent but I understand that their are benefits to attracting talent by being able to know they are likely to play in their home state. Clubs running the academies essentially with AFL money (I'm not sure if this is the case) is something I'm okay with, within reason ($ amount agreed by all clubs).
I think proposed bidding system is a good idea, clubs just need to agree on the discount levels so that most bids are matched and a reasonably fair price is paid. There can always be extreme examples under current system (imagine if Pies or Bombers had been last on ladder when Moore or Daniher were due for F/S - they would have gotten them with their second round pick). Proposed system removes the extremes that can occur.

I would have thought F/S discount should be at least as much as academy discount and Swans and Lions have smaller zones than GWS & Suns as they can double dip (F/S & academy). WA, Vic & SA having access to small zones for academies (like NSW scholarship) in northern WA, NT and western QLD, western NSW not a bad idea either if it helps with fairness and developing the game nationwide.

 

[Lefthanded]

I was just highlighting that it happens prior to trade and draft and for very valid reasons. How can clubs match a bid if they've traded their options available.

A valid point but loki's point is also valid - AFL are looking at live bidding. They would not be able to match if they'd traded all their options but given they are looking at being able to include next year's picks as well they would have lots available to start with.

Edit: inclusion of next year's picks may only be to get multiple players in the one year.

 

[Apex36]

I believe that the VFL, WAFL, SANFL and TAC Cup provide a much greater springboard for young players than the academies ever could. Thereby balancing out any unfairness. The NEAFL is a vastly inferior league compared to the other state leagues.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that the Vic, SA and WA clubs had first dibs on those players over NSW and Qld teams.

....oh wait. They don't. Dumb argument.

 

[Bay Pie]

I'm increasingly just leaning towards the academies staying, and father son picks staying with father son selections to also apply to those clubs with their academies. The one thing I would for fairness take away from those clubs with the academies is their normal national and rookie draft selections, and instead if they want picks in the normal national and rookie draft pools they can enter the draft after all other clubs have concluded their involvement in the drafts.

Interesting you say that KM. About 3 years ago, the Swans actually went to the AFL and proposed actually this. They'd opt out of the National and rookie drafts and just pick whoever they wanted from their academies. They've obviously got more gun kids coming. Heeney, Mills & Dunkley will be just the start.

 

[Bay Pie]

I was just highlighting that it happens prior to trade and draft and for very valid reasons. How can clubs match a bid if they've traded their options available.

This'd make trading all the more interesting. Trade away to many or the wrong picks and you no longer have the currency to select the player in question.

Live selection of F/S & academy players on draft night would make for a little more theatre, akin to the NFL drafts where trades are happening left, right and centre but with the AFL: draft it'd be, do the clubs match that bid because it'll cost them xxx picks etc. The papers would be full of things like, for example based on Darcy Moore, if GWS use pick 4 on Moore, Collingwood will have to give up pick 5 and drop a spot of too after pick 30. Or if GWS use picks 6 or 7 Collingwood will have to pay pick 9 and drop from 30 to 40.

 

[jackcass]

It is interesting to see the academies draw such ire from fans. As far as I know only Heeney and to a lesser degree Freeman (Brisbane Lions, 2013) are the only 2 taken from them that have been rated as talented and Freeman is a roughie at that.

I believe that the VFL, WAFL, SANFL and TAC Cup provide a much greater springboard for young players than the academies ever could. Thereby balancing out any unfairness. The NEAFL is a vastly inferior league compared to the other state leagues.

Also in the AFL pre-dominate states the junior pathways are established and streamlined. Talent is often identified and developed from U12's and sometimes even before if they are good enough. Neither of the Northern states can compete with VIC, WA or SA at junior or senior level. Development and identification for junior through to senior is also pretty average. Heck Tasmania probably has better pathways than NSW or QLD for AFL.

I think it's about the growth or potential growth.

In 2013 we had:
Jonathan Freeman - Bris ND
Lloyd Perris - Sydney RD
Jake Barrett - GWS ND as a NSW zone allowance.

In 2014 we had:
Isaac Heeney - Syd ND
Jack Hiscox - Syd ND
Abe Davis - Syd ND
Jack Steele - GWS ND
Jeremy Finlayson - GWS ND
Liam Dawson - Bris ND
Harris Andrews - Bris ND
Matthew Hammelmann - Bris RD
Jordan Foote - Syd RD

What would it be in 2015 if left unchecked. As these Academies grow and become more attractive then we'll start to get more and more kids opting for them over other sports and the more kids you get through the system the higher likelihood you unearth a few gems.

 

[Knightmare]

Interesting you say that KM. About 3 years ago, the Swans actually went to the AFL and proposed actually this. They'd opt out of the National and rookie drafts and just pick whoever they wanted from their academies. They've obviously got more gun kids coming. Heeney, Mills & Dunkley will be just the start.

I wasn't aware of that piece of information. But good on Sydney for suggesting it. It would still for them be advantageous relative to the rest of the AFL clubs, or over time prove to be but that way it really puts the onus on those clubs with the academies to develop the heck out of the kids in their academies and make the system more fair than the current state.

For general interest as this will be a topic of discussion throughout the season. Not that I've released my power rankings for 2015 yet, but I have Mills at 1 as the most complete midfielder in this draft and Dunkley at 3 (others have Dunkley closer to 10) but his inside game is the best and most advanced of the u18s nationally and he can also take a grab and hit the scoreboard so I don't agree with the evaluation of others who have Dunkley lower.

The system the AFL is going to go with next year will hurt the AFL's club (Sydney) in the sense that with the new bidding system they only would have a shot at one of the two (presumably Mills as the favoured talent). I'd be more than happy to snag Dunkley in an open draft at pick 7 or wherever we end up picking. It's like injecting Sydney's Josh Kennedy into the midfield.

It's just with the system the AFL is proposing, clubs are going to let their academies go and put less resources into it which as a result won't result in the AFL meeting it's expansion objectives in NSW and QLD which given the AFL's commitment to the region is for me not the best solution to their problem.

 

[jackcass]

This'd make trading all the more interesting. Trade away to many or the wrong picks and you no longer have the currency to select the player in question.

Live selection of F/S & academy players on draft night would make for a little more theatre, akin to the NFL drafts where trades are happening left, right and centre but with the AFL: draft it'd be, do the clubs match that bid because it'll cost them xxx picks etc. The papers would be full of things like, for example based on Darcy Moore, if GWS use pick 4 on Moore, Collingwood will have to give up pick 5 and drop a spot of too after pick 30. Or if GWS use picks 6 or 7 Collingwood will have to pay pick 9 and drop from 30 to 40.

Change is inevitable but change for change sake more often than not grates on people. I can understand change to address identified issues, in this instance perceived competitive advantage to the northern clubs via their academy systems. However the telecast of the draft makes for pretty poor television so I can understand the AFL looking to improve the viewing experience. Fail to see how the changing of this aspect does that despite your enthusiasm. It's a bit like the interviews of high draft picks during the actual draft. Might very well be interesting (at a minimum supporters of the club who recruited them would be interested) but why not leave it till the draft is completed.

 

[Collingwood42]

This'd make trading all the more interesting. Trade away to many or the wrong picks and you no longer have the currency to select the player in question.

Live selection of F/S & academy players on draft night would make for a little more theatre, akin to the NFL drafts where trades are happening left, right and centre but with the AFL: draft it'd be, do the clubs match that bid because it'll cost them xxx picks etc. The papers would be full of things like, for example based on Darcy Moore, if GWS use pick 4 on Moore, Collingwood will have to give up pick 5 and drop a spot of too after pick 30. Or if GWS use picks 6 or 7 Collingwood will have to pay pick 9 and drop from 30 to 40.

I think F/S & academy players need to be held before trade week, as it is now, so everyone knows what cards they have to play with... and picks that clubs have traded up for, can't be poached away.

Pick 9 and 30 for pick 6 and 32 is a fair f/s trade for Moore.

 

[PTpie]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that the Vic, SA and WA clubs had first dibs on those players over NSW and Qld teams.

....oh wait. They don't. Dumb argument.

Its not about first dibs it is about actually getting to know the potential draftee. Attitude off the field and personality are becoming more and more important when drafting players. If you have easy access to kids growing up you can influence there behavior and character, making them more suitable for your club culture.

As posted by others all clubs can and should have local recruiters/scouts in every state and they should be conducting interviews and what not to determine suitability. It is much easier if the club and all of its resources are available rather than a bloke scouting. Being introduced to the Club, players and facilities as a junior can go a long way towards garnering a potential recruit.

 

[loki04]

I was just highlighting that it happens prior to trade and draft and for very valid reasons. How can clubs match a bid if they've traded their options available.

I know they currently do.

If you read the article the AFL are proposing to change it so it is done the day of the draft.

It would help prevent clubs making dummy bids imo like the Dogs would not of been able to bid on Darcy due to Boyd deal (which they had no intention of taking Darcy as they knew we would match it).

AFL are looking into making deficit points carry over into the following draft, not sure if this applies to both bidding team or just the side who is matching it.

 

[RUNVS]

Interesting you say that KM. About 3 years ago, the Swans actually went to the AFL and proposed actually this. They'd opt out of the National and rookie drafts and just pick whoever they wanted from their academies. They've obviously got more gun kids coming. Heeney, Mills & Dunkley will be just the start.

Sorry for barging onto your board but I know the Swans suggested this in the 90's. I did not know they suggested it 3 years ago as well but it would not be too surprising to find out that is true.

Right at this moment the NSW/ACT zone can easily sustain 1 AFL team. You look at the AFL players from NSW and ACT and combine them into one team and that is easily a top 8 team, possibly even top 4. It can't sustain 2 teams yet but with the academies the Swans might think it is possible in the near future that they can.

Giving the Swans complete and free access to the Swans academy zone and opting out of the national draft is a good idea in my opinion but there is no way the AFL would ever agree to it.

 

[Apex36]

Its not about first dibs it is about actually getting to know the potential draftee. Attitude off the field and personality are becoming more and more important when drafting players. If you have easy access to kids growing up you can influence there behavior and character, making them more suitable for your club culture.

As posted by others all clubs can and should have local recruiters/scouts in every state and they should be conducting interviews and what not to determine suitability. It is much easier if the club and all of its resources are available rather than a bloke scouting. Being introduced to the Club, players and facilities as a junior can go a long way towards garnering a potential recruit.

That's all well and good, but the current system doesn't allow for all clubs to run academy systems.

That's the reason people are pissed, and why the system is broken. Clubs like Sydney and Brisbane both have access to father/son recruits, as well as the academy recruits handed to them, whilst the old academy system that allowed all teams to scout NSW for talent (coincidentally where Witts came from) has been scrapped.

It's insane that a program that was a) helping to grow the game in NSW and b) allowing equal opportunities for all clubs to try and recruit players who would otherwise be lost to rugby or soccer, was scrapped in favour of the current system in the name of 'equalisation'...

 

[EB&W Pieman]

FWIW, many Swans and Lions players (more than all the other clubs) originally came from elsewhere and moved 'home' after completing their career. Thus the major benefit that a kid might see in accepting a father/son nomination - being able to stay home with mum, dad and mates - is not available to the sons of those players. eg Dunkley, and Marc Murphy. I know this can happen to anyone (eg Ben Cousins), but is much more of an issue to the Northern states.

The current system benefits the Southern clubs more than meets the eye.

 

[PTpie]

That's all well and good, but the current system doesn't allow for all clubs to run academy systems.

That's the reason people are pissed, and why the system is broken. Clubs like Sydney and Brisbane both have access to father/son recruits, as well as the academy recruits handed to them, whilst the old academy system that allowed all teams to scout NSW for talent (coincidentally where Witts came from) has been scrapped.

It's insane that a program that was a) helping to grow the game in NSW and b) allowing equal opportunities for all clubs to try and recruit players who would otherwise be lost to rugby or soccer, was scrapped in favour of the current system in the name of 'equalisation'...

I completely agree with what you are saying regarding the old Interstate academy program that delivered J Witts to us. Absolute disgrace that it was axed, but the reasoning behind the axing was that poor clubs couldn't afford to fund one so the advantage was fairly and squarely with the bigger, wealthier clubs.

I found this article about 3 players from Port Adelaides Academy making it to the AFL. I'm not entirely sure what their "academy" is about, I think it may just be their SANFL reserves team, but it highlights the fact that AFL strong states have a significant advantage over non AFL states because of the depth of talent they are able to attract and nurture. I know they have to go through the draft, but as Chad Wingard proved why would you take a player who categorically states that after the mandatory 2 year contract he will walk? Are you going to risk an investment like that?

Just to throw another spanner in the works they are even considering reducing the amount of interstate games WA teams have to play each season from 10 to 9 to reduce air travel. I think this is good move myself. Travel takes its toll on the players and staff. That said, Subiaco Oval is very intimidating when the WA teams are running hot and both have a true "home ground" advantage unlike the Pies who share the ground with Hawthorn, Melbourne and Richmond. Huge clubs like Carlton and Essendon have massive supporter bases attending "away" games at our "home" games diminishing our supposed advantage considerably.

Anyways, on topic - I think the academies are a good idea, but the AFL should consult on a draftee's worth and the academy that produced the draftee should have first option but other clubs can match it like the current F/S rule. That keeps it fairly well in check while still giving the academy teams priority.

 

[Apex36]

I completely agree with what you are saying regarding the old Interstate academy program that delivered J Witts to us. Absolute disgrace that it was axed, but the reasoning behind the axing was that poor clubs couldn't afford to fund one so the advantage was fairly and squarely with the bigger, wealthier clubs.

I found this article about 3 players from Port Adelaides Academy making it to the AFL. I'm not entirely sure what their "academy" is about, I think it may just be their SANFL reserves team, but it highlights the fact that AFL strong states have a significant advantage over non AFL states because of the depth of talent they are able to attract and nurture. I know they have to go through the draft, but as Chad Wingard proved why would you take a player who categorically states that after the mandatory 2 year contract he will walk? Are you going to risk an investment like that?

Just to throw another spanner in the works they are even considering reducing the amount of interstate games WA teams have to play each season from 10 to 9 to reduce air travel. I think this is good move myself. Travel takes its toll on the players and staff. That said, Subiaco Oval is very intimidating when the WA teams are running hot and both have a true "home ground" advantage unlike the Pies who share the ground with Hawthorn, Melbourne and Richmond. Huge clubs like Carlton and Essendon have massive supporter bases attending "away" games at our "home" games diminishing our supposed advantage considerably.

Anyways, on topic - I think the academies are a good idea, but the AFL should consult on a draftee's worth and the academy that produced the draftee should have first option but other clubs can match it like the current F/S rule. That keeps it fairly well in check while still giving the academy teams priority.

In response to the bolded, pretty sure that if academy players suddenly started pulling the s**t that Wingard did the AFL would be all over it. They would regard that as pretty blatant draft tampering and the players would run the risk of being excluded from the draft.

It's a weak argument to justify the advantage that the current system provides the northern clubs. The main point of the academy system after all, is to grow the game in the northern states, not to make already strong teams (ie. Sydney, and in the next few years add GWS and GC) even stronger.

It's a pretty simple theory. If you want real equalisation in the league, give every club the opportunity to have a northern state scouting and academy system, not just the clubs who happen to be the AFL's darlings at the time.

 

[PTpie]

In response to the bolded, pretty sure that if academy players suddenly started pulling the s**t that Wingard did the AFL would be all over it. They would regard that as pretty blatant draft tampering and the players would run the risk of being excluded from the draft.

It's a weak argument to justify the advantage that the current system provides the northern clubs. The main point of the academy system after all, is to grow the game in the northern states, not to make already strong teams (ie. Sydney, and in the next few years add GWS and GC) even stronger.

It's a pretty simple theory. If you want real equalisation in the league, give every club the opportunity to have a northern state scouting and academy system, not just the clubs who happen to be the AFL's darlings at the time.

If they regarded it as draft tampering why didn't they exclude Wingard? This was a top, if not the top, pick in the 2011 draft (taken @ 6, GWS had the first 5) who in his interview with GWS made it clear he wanted to play with Port Adelaide and would leave them immediately after the initial contract. The AFL didn't do s**t. In fact he was praised for his honesty and consideration. If he had of said that to Collingwood we would be seeing red for 25 years after he retires.

Also it's not a weak argument. Your view of it is "its a weak argument" because that is how you feel. If you have ever had to start from scratch you would empathise with just how hard it is to compete against already established competitors.

The Lions have had their salary cap concessions removed and the Swans are in the process of having CoLA removed. GCS and GWS no longer have draft concessions. What those 4 teams do not have are strong junior leagues in their zones producing highly talented young players consistently yet. In my opinion they need time to set these academies up and when they have consistent, reliable results then the concessions are again removed. Equalisation works both ways. You have to bring the lowest up and the highest down, which the AFL are attempting to do.

 

[Laurie Holden]

Unsure about the FS bidding and best ways to make it work. It needs to stay and is important. Think the SA and WA clubs have had the rough end of the stick mostly in this regard but.

As for developing players, the AFL create and fund academies in the northern states and therefore the poorer clubs wouldn't wear the cost. All players from northern states academies just go into the normal draft. If swans are on top they don't access to the player, if they are struggling they do. I can't see a problem with this system.

Will add since the turn of the century 1\3 of the premierships have been won by two teams in the Northern states, so don't see how they have been disadvantaged.

 

[Markfs]

i read about the new system and got bored in 2 seconds. I dont know why they need to change it. The original system needed changing and the result - the current system - looks pretty good. I'm talking about father and son.

As for the academy pick, it probably needed changing.

I'm surprised that the AFL is changing the system to be more fair..... but they give GWS and Gold Coast 456 first round draft picks. Explain that one to me. They deliberately try to deliver a premiership to those two teams and then they want to make changes to a new "fairer" system?????

I have no understanding of it all..

 

[Apex36]

If they regarded it as draft tampering why didn't they exclude Wingard? This was a top, if not the top, pick in the 2011 draft (taken @ 6, GWS had the first 5) who in his interview with GWS made it clear he wanted to play with Port Adelaide and would leave them immediately after the initial contract. The AFL didn't do s**t. In fact he was praised for his honesty and consideration. If he had of said that to Collingwood we would be seeing red for 25 years after he retires.

Also it's not a weak argument. Your view of it is "its a weak argument" because that is how you feel. If you have ever had to start from scratch you would empathise with just how hard it is to compete against already established competitors.

The Lions have had their salary cap concessions removed and the Swans are in the process of having CoLA removed. GCS and GWS no longer have draft concessions. What those 4 teams do not have are strong junior leagues in their zones producing highly talented young players consistently yet. In my opinion they need time to set these academies up and when they have consistent, reliable results then the concessions are again removed. Equalisation works both ways. You have to bring the lowest up and the highest down, which the AFL are attempting to do.

Wingard was an isolated incident and had nothing to do with any academies. If you think that alarm bells wouldn't be going off at AFL house if all of a sudden a bunch of the Port academy playeers started pulling the same stunt you're delusional.

As for the argument of starting from scratch, blah blah blah, spare me. The Swans and Lions are both well established teams who have won premierships and have had significant concessions from the AFL over the years to help with that. The academy concessions are the icing on the already enormous cake they have been fed over the last 20 years. As for GC and GWS, their draft concessions over the past 4-5 years have put them in a position that is the envy of the competition. CG are on the verge of becoming a powerhouse, and GWS aren't far behind them. They will be the teams to beat for the next decade, yet apparently they need more help? You can tell yourself all you like that your arguments are strong, but the fact is that these teams are all going to be competitive over the next decade (longer if they draft well, regardless of academies). They don't need the extra help on top of the already vast concessions the AFL has given them.

The whole point of the Academy system is meant to be to grow the game in the northern states. If that's the case, then let all clubs make academies, not just 4 clubs which are able to cultivate and then take their states best talent ahead of everyone else in what's supposed to be an uncompromised draft system. Just because there are no strong leagues there yet doesn't mean squat. They have the same access to all the highly rated youngsters from around the country as everyone else, and have shown they will not hesitate to recruit from interstate if that's the best option available. There is no good reason for them to have first pick from their own states when no teams from Vic/SA/WA who may be struggling (see Melbourne, StK, WB currently) do not have the same advantage.