News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[Lore]

 

[Elixuh]

They said there will be a change to the points curve, but as I predicted it seems like the changes won't be as strong as most on this board want.
Cal said they don't want to ruin trade week by having teams unable to trade their picks away in case they need them for bidding.
I disagree with this, if you have a highly rated academy or father son, you shouldn't be able to much else that trade period ( unless you trade out players to get picks to use on other players).
Brisbane for example shouldn't have been able to get Dunkley and Ashcroft 2 years ago without trading out at least 2 decent fringe players.

Then you'd have to remove future trading. We were able to get Dunkley by trading out of future drafts.

 

[Buget]

Then you'd have to remove future trading. We were able to get Dunkley by trading out of future drafts.

Don’t try to hide the fact that Brisbane also got Fletcher in the same draft at pick 12.

For a top team to pull in an a-grader via trade, pick 2 and pick 12 in the same off-season…. All for a future first and a FA compo pick is a joke.

 

[Elixuh]

Don’t try to hide the fact that Brisbane also got Fletcher in the same draft at pick 12.

For a top team to pull in an a-grader via trade, pick 2 and pick 12 in the same off-season…. All for a future first and a FA compo pick is a joke.

And pretty sure we acquired future picks in the year prior to that draft to do all of this.

So again, you want to get rid of futures trading and/or F/S?

 

[Buget]

And pretty sure we acquired future picks in the year prior to that draft to do all of this.

So again, you want to get rid of futures trading and/or F/S?

I would personally get rid of all F/S and academy picks but that will never happen.

The draft is the only on-field equalisation method available. So how is a top 4 club bringing in a draft haul like that allow for equalisation?

The rules currently allow it. But it needs to change.

Edit: and before you say “we gave up 2 years of first rounders. There is a big difference between a pick 2 and a pick 16.

 

[Elixuh]

I would personally get rid of all F/S and academy picks but that will never happen.

The draft is the only on-field equalisation method available. So how is a top 4 club bringing in a draft haul like that allow for equalisation?

The rules currently allow it. But it needs to change.

It isn't equal when clubs have to pass on players who indicate during pre-draft interviews that they have no interest in moving from their home state. This happens every draft. It is especially problematic for clubs in NSW and Qld as the access to homegrown talent (certainly at the top end) is far less - hence the need for academies. I know that prior to us becoming good, I can't remember which draft, 4 out of the projected top 10 picks told us they didn't want to be drafted out of their state and so we couldn't pick them

The other side to academies is that it builds talent that wouldn't otherwise exist in the AFL system, which is especially important if we are increasing the number of teams. Surely you can't think it reasonable for clubs like Brisbane to fund and operate the academies with no direct benefit?

I personally like the concept of F/S, that is coming from a club that hasn't historically benefited from it. Certainly not like a lot of the Vic clubs. IMO it should be simplified and the players nominate the club as a F/S and the club can take them pre-draft provided they have an available list spot. I can see the downside to it, but it'll remove all these annoying arguments which in essence mean very little.

 

[Buget]

It isn't equal when clubs have to pass on players who indicate during pre-draft interviews that they have no interest in moving from their home state. This happens every draft. It is especially problematic for clubs in NSW and Qld as the access to homegrown talent (certainly at the top end) is far less - hence the need for academies. I know that prior to us becoming good, I can't remember which draft, 4 out of the projected top 10 picks told us they didn't want to be drafted out of their state and so we couldn't pick them

The other side to academies is that it builds talent that wouldn't otherwise exist in the AFL system, which is especially important if we are increasing the number of teams. Surely you can't think it reasonable for clubs like Brisbane to fund and operate the academies with no direct benefit?

I personally like the concept of F/S, that is coming from a club that hasn't historically benefited from it. Certainly not like a lot of the Vic clubs. IMO it should be simplified and the players nominate the club as a F/S and the club can take them pre-draft provided they have an available list spot. I can see the downside to it, but it'll remove all these annoying arguments which in essence mean very little.

Jonathon Brown says hello.

I like the romance of FS, but do you think those fathers really care what clubs their sons play for? Or is it more important that they get drafted?

FS is for the fans. Not the sons.

 

[Elixuh]

Jonathon Brown says hello.

I like the romance of FS, but do you think those fathers really care what clubs their sons play for? Or is it more important that they get drafted?

FS is for the fans. Not the sons.

My point wasn't that we have never had a FS, it was that we haven't historically had an abundance of them like some Vic clubs. Thank you for making my point by raising Browny who was drafted in 1999!

To your main point, no idea. I presume if both can be satisfied that is optimal.

 

[sydney_gws]

My point wasn't that we have never had a FS, it was that we haven't historically had an abundance of them like some Vic clubs. Thank you for making my point by raising Browny who was drafted in 1999!

To your main point, no idea. I presume if both can be satisfied that is optimal.

You did have one not go ( Marc Murphy, who I think the vic clubs colluded to pick at 1 so he would forego Brisbane's offer as he wanted to be pick 1).
GWS also benefited a bit unfairly in the past I wasn't picking on Brisbane it was just a recent example.
It has all contributed to how bad North is.
West Coast look a bit better but McGovern, Yeo are helping them up now but won't be in Eagles next premiership team.

 

[Elixuh]

You did have one not go ( Marc Murphy, who I think the vic clubs colluded to pick at 1 so he would forego Brisbane's offer as he wanted to be pick 1).
GWS also benefited a bit unfairly in the past I wasn't picking on Brisbane it was just a recent example.
It has all contributed to how bad North is.
West Coast look a bit better but McGovern, Yeo are helping them up now but won't be in Eagles next premiership team.

Lol yeah even the f/s isn’t immune to the vfl

The f/s stuff contributes sure. A big contribution? No. There are about 10,000 other factors that contribute to teams being bad.

I don’t really understand the academy argument because without them many of the draftees aren’t afl draftable and/or have pursued other talent pathways.

 

[Buget]

My point wasn't that we have never had a FS, it was that we haven't historically had an abundance of them like some Vic clubs. Thank you for making my point by raising Browny who was drafted in 1999!

To your main point, no idea. I presume if both can be satisfied that is optimal.

And Thank you for making my point.

The SA, WA and NSW clubs are the exact same when it comes to FS, as they set the state league bar much higher then compared to VIC.

Port Adelaide recently had to watch the son of a club champion, who played 246 games for the club be draft by Adelaide under NGA rules as he was born in Egypt to Australian parents (obviously, after his father had retired). How is that fair compared to the 100 games for a VFL club?

FS is a romantic relic of a semi-professional league. If the AFL wants to be serious, they would abolish it. For draftees and clubs where it really matters, they will find their way home, JHF style (yes, I know he wasn’t a FS, Flash didn’t play enough AFL games)

Did the AFL implode as Daniher plays for Brisbane? No (yes, I understand that was a free agency move)

 

[Elixuh]

And Thank you for making my point.

The SA, WA and NSW clubs are the exact same when it comes to FS, as they set the state league bar much higher then compared to VIC.

Port Adelaide recently had to watch the son of a club champion, who played 246 games for the club be draft by Adelaide under NGA rules as he was born in Egypt to Australian parents (obviously, after his father had retired). How is that fair compared to the 100 games for a VFL club?

FS is a romantic relic of a semi-professional league. If the AFL wants to be serious, they would abolish it. For draftees and clubs where it really matters, they will find their way home, JHF style (yes, I know he wasn’t a FS, Flash didn’t play enough AFL games)

Did the AFL implode as Daniher plays for Brisbane? No (yes, I understand that was a free agency move)

Not arguing f/s is different between states. I agree there should be hierarchical rules so that doesn’t happen.

Raising Daniher is a weird argument to make.

 

[Buget]

Not arguing f/s is different between states. I agree there should be hierarchical rules so that doesn’t happen.

Raising Daniher is a weird argument to make.

The Daniher argument goes to father-son doesn’t really matter. If it really did matter to Daniher, why would he leave Essendon?

I know a few Essendon supporters who hate Daniher for leaving. But it’s clearly not affecting him. He is fit and playing some decent football.

If you want a better argument, Marc Murphy was a F/S prospect who turned his back on it. So was Luke Edwards and Nick Blakey. The AFL world didn’t collapse.

 

[Elixuh]

The Daniher argument goes to father-son doesn’t really matter. If it really did matter to Daniher, why would he leave Essendon?

I know a few Essendon supporters who hate Daniher for leaving. But it’s clearly not affecting him. He is fit and playing some decent football.

If you want a better argument, Marc Murphy was a F/S prospect who turned his back on it. So was Luke Edwards and Nick Blakey. The AFL world didn’t collapse.

No one is arguing the afl would collapse lol.

Joe was chronically injured, harassed by the vic media and wanted to leave Melbourne.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The draft is the only on-field equalisation method available.

Uh, the salary cap exists?

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

And Thank you for making my point.

The SA, WA and NSW clubs are the exact same when it comes to FS, as they set the state league bar much higher then compared to VIC.

Port Adelaide recently had to watch the son of a club champion, who played 246 games for the club be draft by Adelaide under NGA rules as he was born in Egypt to Australian parents (obviously, after his father had retired). How is that fair compared to the 100 games for a VFL club?

FS is a romantic relic of a semi-professional league. If the AFL wants to be serious, they would abolish it. For draftees and clubs where it really matters, they will find their way home, JHF style (yes, I know he wasn’t a FS, Flash didn’t play enough AFL games)

Did the AFL implode as Daniher plays for Brisbane? No (yes, I understand that was a free agency move)

You don’t need abolish F/S to make the AFL Professional.

The bonus of F/S should be first access to the player. Then paying true value. A round one pick, is your round one pick. Not a heap of junk picks.

 

[mpal6]

You don’t need abolish F/S to make the AFL Professional.

The bonus of F/S should be first access to the player. Then paying true value. A round one pick, is your round one pick. Not a heap of junk picks.

This goes back to the discussion we were having earlier. Let's use last year's draft as an example where Hawks got Nick Watson at 5 and then Will McCabe at 19.

In the future if a club has a really high first round pick, they choose to take a more talented player and in the process forego taking the father son who might go as a late first round to a different club. If this is ok with everyone then it'll be fine.

I believe this is a fair system where Hawks are not forced to overpay pick 5 for Will McCabe as well as they have the flexibility to get a top shelf player who is rated in that top 5-10 picks. In the same way, father son becomes free for anyone who wants to subsequently bid in the first round as Hawks have made their choice to go with a more highly rated player instead of father son.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

This goes back to the discussion we were having earlier. Let's use last year's draft as an example where Hawks got Nick Watson at 5 and then Will McCabe at 19.

In the future if a club has a really high first round pick, they choose to take a more talented player and in the process forego taking the father son who might go as a late first round to a different club. If this is ok with everyone then it'll be fine.

I believe this is a fair system where Hawks are not forced to overpay pick 5 for Will McCabe as well as they have the flexibility to get a top shelf player who is rated in that top 5-10 picks. In the same way, father son becomes free for anyone who wants to subsequently bid in the first round as Hawks have made their choice to go with a more highly rated player instead of father son.

I tend to agree I think!

If a MCabe bid come in at pick three, then the Hawks have to use 5 to get him.

If a bid comes in at 19 then the Hawks second round pick is required.

 

[mpal6]

I tend to agree I think!

If a MCabe bid come in at pick three, then the Hawks have to use 5 to get him.

If a bid comes in at 19 then the Hawks second round pick is required.

Last year first round ran till pick 27 so McCabe in theory got bid on somewhere like pick 14-15 (which got pushed out to 19).