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

Remove this Banner Ad



 
Last edited:
No discounts for academies but academy bids can be matched for any picks outside of the first round for all academies.
If a team wants a player that is linked to another team's academy at pick 20 then that team whose academy the player belongs to has to pay up the full value of pick 20.

There is no need for a discount if you have to match the bid anyway.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Just want to point out that if Bailey Humphrey was in this draft the Suns would not be able to draft him on account of needing picks/points/list spots to draft several local SE Qld kids that have developed elite aussie rules talents and skills in an area that has historically been thin for AFL draftees.

And b/c of the investment in the AFL pathway in Queensland there are more coming, b/c there really wasn't a pathway or facilities before.

So if you want the Suns to keep drafting Rowells and Kings and Humphreys from Victoria, Will Powell's from WA, Lukosious's and Ballards from SA, change the academy rules to limit how many we can draft. Then we can get in the ear of the GC locals about 'coming home' after 2 or 4 years. That is something that we know all about.

tldr.
Careful what you wish for.
 
IMO

FS should stay, it's a nice, unique, touch and some of the newer clubs are only just starting to get the benefit of it. And the Suns and Giants will in time.

Academies seem less problematic with the newer rules but the AFL never lets things settle down, they just react and meddle and change things without thinking them through. I do like the latest rule changes, academies should be for kids outside traditional pathways, not to get a discount on a top 20 draft player.

If your academy is producing a number of top 20 draft players from your state question whether the academy is required.

In general discounts should go and same for bundling up cheap picks to avoid having to use a good pick on a player you want to draft.

Free agency compo should GTFO, ridiculous idea in the first place.

Longer term I would prefer to go to a points bidding system. Clubs have a set number of points and they can bid on players. If a top club wants to bid for the number 1 draft pick (and then take only fourth or fifth rounders to make up three required players) let them.
 
For me you have to separate the academy system as a developmental pathway from how it is used to secure talent. I think we would all agree having them to identify and develop junior talent is a good thing that the AFL should support. In fact I think the AFL should run and fund them independent from the clubs. The clubs should be mandated to play a role to support them aligned to how they do already. The change I would make is to remove any priority access to players and have an open draft. I am no expert so I am sure I am missing some things that would need to be addressed to do that and make it fair and equitable.
 
Said this a few times but copying from another thread I made a few years ago

The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with picks, picks that won't necessarily match what the player is actually worth.

That is very convoluted.

I will be honest and say I think the best solution is actually going entirely points based for drafting and trading.

Each team has points at the start of the trading process based on their ladder position

18th position - 4647 points
17th position - 4088 points
16th position - 3740 points
15th position - 3478 points
14th position - 3263 points
13th position - 3077 points
12th position - 2913 points
11th position - 2765 points
10th position - 2631 points
9th position - 2504 points
8th position - 2388 points
7th position - 2279 points
6th position - 2174 points
5th position - 2077 points
4th position - 1983 points
3rd position - 1894 points
2nd position - 1809 points
1st position - 1726 points

and lets use the Kelly example from a few years ago where West Coast didn't really have anything Geelong wanted. They could instead under this system simply pay Geelong 1950 points and West Coast would get Kelly (both teams negotiating how many points Kelly is worth).

Then come the draft day pick 1 is announced and every team has 2 minutes to submit who they want with pick 1, and the points they are willing to pay for pick 1.

Then, the team that handed over the most points for pick 1 gets the player they nominated (and it is not shown what the other teams did). We then move onto pick 2, teams placing bids, stating the player they want and the points they are willing to pay and then the team that submitted the highest points total gets the player they want, then moving onto pick 3 etc.

If an academy kid is nominated at some point in the draft then the side the academy kid is attached to has a right to match the bid the rival team placed on said academy player, paying the points the rival team wants to pay.

It also potentially allows a lot more freedom in the draft for individual clubs to do what they think is best. For instance Adelaide could really really want Jason Horne, a local boy and supposedly the best player in the draft. They could use almost all their points on a pick 1 bid and get Jason Horne. It would mean having really crappy later picks but it would get the player they really want. Then we could have North Melbourne who could decide that no, we are not going to go after pick 1, and instead we are going to use our points later in the draft and bid on picks 7, 8 and 9, and suddenly North have 3 top 10 players and are able to turbocharge their rebuild.

Also clubs can bank points, so if a club decides not to use 1000 points they will have those points in next years draft.

To me this is a much fairer system, not just for the academies, but for the trading and drafting system in general.
 
RUNVS said:
Said this a few times but copying from another thread I made a few years ago

The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with picks, picks that won't necessarily match what the player is actually worth.

That is very convoluted.

I will be honest and say I think the best solution is actually going entirely points based for drafting and trading.

Each team has points at the start of the trading process based on their ladder position

18th position - 4647 points
17th position - 4088 points
16th position - 3740 points
15th position - 3478 points
14th position - 3263 points
13th position - 3077 points
12th position - 2913 points
11th position - 2765 points
10th position - 2631 points
9th position - 2504 points
8th position - 2388 points
7th position - 2279 points
6th position - 2174 points
5th position - 2077 points
4th position - 1983 points
3rd position - 1894 points
2nd position - 1809 points
1st position - 1726 points

and lets use the Kelly example from a few years ago where West Coast didn't really have anything Geelong wanted. They could instead under this system simply pay Geelong 1950 points and West Coast would get Kelly (both teams negotiating how many points Kelly is worth).

Then come the draft day pick 1 is announced and every team has 2 minutes to submit who they want with pick 1, and the points they are willing to pay for pick 1.

Then, the team that handed over the most points for pick 1 gets the player they nominated (and it is not shown what the other teams did). We then move onto pick 2, teams placing bids, stating the player they want and the points they are willing to pay and then the team that submitted the highest points total gets the player they want, then moving onto pick 3 etc.

If an academy kid is nominated at some point in the draft then the side the academy kid is attached to has a right to match the bid the rival team placed on said academy player, paying the points the rival team wants to pay.

It also potentially allows a lot more freedom in the draft for individual clubs to do what they think is best. For instance Adelaide could really really want Jason Horne, a local boy and supposedly the best player in the draft. They could use almost all their points on a pick 1 bid and get Jason Horne. It would mean having really crappy later picks but it would get the player they really want. Then we could have North Melbourne who could decide that no, we are not going to go after pick 1, and instead we are going to use our points later in the draft and bid on picks 7, 8 and 9, and suddenly North have 3 top 10 players and are able to turbocharge their rebuild.

Also clubs can bank points, so if a club decides not to use 1000 points they will have those points in next years draft.

To me this is a much fairer system, not just for the academies, but for the trading and drafting system in general.
Click to expand...
It’s a good idea. This ridiculous notion that each pick each year is worth the same is obviously nonsense. The amount of points allocated to each ladder position and the gaps between is the main thing to get right. The trading piece seems straightforward and matching too which I like. There might need to be caps on banking points. Was thinking what happens if you are in the window contending do you take no picks for a few years and bank a lot of points then as the decline comes you have the ability to grab picks 1-2-3 for example. It’s a little contrary to the intent given the need for minimum 3 list changes a year so might need some thought but overall I think it’s a good idea and much better than the current crappy system.
 
I don't care about the rules just make them the same for everyone. None of this bullshit QLD concessions.
Not happy with the FS rules either hugely benefitted the older clubs, but keep it in place until we can start benefitting too.
 
Stroppy said:
Just want to point out that if Bailey Humphrey was in this draft the Suns would not be able to draft him on account of needing picks/points/list spots to draft several local SE Qld kids that have developed elite aussie rules talents and skills in an area that has historically been thin for AFL draftees.

And b/c of the investment in the AFL pathway in Queensland there are more coming, b/c there really wasn't a pathway or facilities before.

So if you want the Suns to keep drafting Rowells and Kings and Humphreys from Victoria, Will Powell's from WA, Lukosious's and Ballards from SA, change the academy rules to limit how many we can draft. Then we can get in the ear of the GC locals about 'coming home' after 2 or 4 years. That is something that we know all about.

tldr.
Careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

No different to what you encounter with any interstate kid.


The biggest problem is clubs ability to just bundle up rubbish picks, with a discount incorporated, to match bids on top 10 or first round academy or F/S prospects. They were firm on these rules for a single year, loosened them for the WB and JUH because of Covid and it's been manipulated since.

Clubs never pay fair value for matched bids, it's always well unders. This is the problem.

The perfect test is always, would you want your club to trade Pick 4 for Picks 28,31,34,36,42?

The answer is almost always no and a resounding "no" at that.

The discount needs to end, why do you need a discount when you already have the advantage of priority to access to the player if you want them? Then the pick structure needs to be much harder. I.e you can only match bids with picks from within 10 positions in the draft of when the bid is placed. This will bring more live trading into draft night if clubs don't currently have picks within 10 selections etc.
 
Last edited:
Sphynx said:
No different to what you encounter with any interstate kid.


The biggest problem is clubs ability to just bundle up rubbish picks, with a discount incorporated, to match bids on top 10 or first round academy or F/S prospects. They were firm on these rules for a single year, loosened them for the WB and JUH because of Covid and it's been manipulated since.

Clubs never pay fair value for matched bids, it's always well unders. This is the problem.

The perfect test is always, would you want your club to trade Pick 4 for Picks 28,31,34,36,42?

The answer is almost always no.

The discount needs to end, why do you need a discount when you already have the advantage of priority to access to the player if you want them? Then the pick structure needs to be much harder. I.e you can only match bids with picks from within 10 positions in the draft of when the bid is placed. This will bring more live trading into draft night if clubs don't currently have picks within 10 selections etc.
Click to expand...

If anything you should have to pay a premium. Say +5% picks 20-40, + 10% picks 10-20 and maybe 20% top 10

Since the advantage is the access to a player you wouldn’t have likely been able to draft without the rules.

Brisbane would have never not matched that for Ashcroft and same as Collingwood for Daicos

I like the idea of just replacing the draft with a draft points auction until teams run out of points or list spots.
 
jdstorm said:
If anything you should have to pay a premium. Say +5% picks 20-40, + 10% picks 10-20 and maybe 20% top 10

Since the advantage is the access to a player you wouldn’t have likely been able to draft without the rules.

Brisbane would have never not matched that for Ashcroft and same as Collingwood for Daicos

I like the idea of just replacing the draft with a draft points auction until teams run out of points or list spots.
Click to expand...

I agree.

There should be a penalty for matching between 1-10 (20%), 11-20 (10%), 20-40 (5%), 40+ (no penalty).

You should have to pay for priority access, not get a discount for it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Stroppy said:
Just want to point out that if Bailey Humphrey was in this draft the Suns would not be able to draft him on account of needing picks/points/list spots to draft several local SE Qld kids that have developed elite aussie rules talents and skills in an area that has historically been thin for AFL draftees.

And b/c of the investment in the AFL pathway in Queensland there are more coming, b/c there really wasn't a pathway or facilities before.

So if you want the Suns to keep drafting Rowells and Kings and Humphreys from Victoria, Will Powell's from WA, Lukosious's and Ballards from SA, change the academy rules to limit how many we can draft. Then we can get in the ear of the GC locals about 'coming home' after 2 or 4 years. That is something that we know all about.

tldr.
Careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...

This is why I feel it would be in all club interest to be able to develop talent in NSW and Qld. Perhaps put a limit on how many one can aqure each year but ..what everyone need is more talent developed north of the murray. When we start to see go home to Gold Coast and Greate Western syd as an issue... then maybe we can talk about getting rid of academies. We need more development not less.

Father Sons.... we can almost irradiate discount of early pick players. Its irrelavnt. Pies or Lions take Ashcoft or Dacois ... with or without discount. Access to the premium talent is more than enough. Fringe players... and there are plenty of them ...probably never worries anyone.
 
Cleric said:
The minute Adelaide get a good FS pick up, and the likely hood of some more coming in the next couple of years, and the AFL changes the rules.....
Click to expand...

What changes.. have been forecast? You guess have been dudded a couple of times.

Just for the record. Father Sons has change multiple times. ... For eg.. Johnathon Brown was FS to Brisbane when his father played on 50 games. What has been paid for players has changed over and over. and. I suspect the evolution of the game , especially AFLW will see genetic alliance drafting being stopped.
 
Turbocat said:
What changes.. have been forecast? You guess have been dudded a couple of times.

Just for the record. Father Sons has change multiple times. ... For eg.. Johnathon Brown was FS to Brisbane when his father played on 50 games. What has been paid for players has changed over and over. and. I suspect the evolution of the game , especially AFLW will see genetic alliance drafting being stopped.
Click to expand...

If anything they’d just add Father Daughter and Mother Son to the mix.
 
Harris 10 said:
Scrap the lot (including FS picks) and have a clean draft.
Click to expand...
Been saying this for years, it’s a professional sports league. ‘Good stories’ shouldn’t come before fairness.

Academies and FS can get in the bin
 
Slysh said:
Been saying this for years, it’s a professional sports league. ‘Good stories’ shouldn’t come before fairness.

Academies and FS can get in the bin
Click to expand...
There are too many things that aren't fair in this league including the fixture. Would basically have to change the entire sport haha
 
I do honestly like the F/S for it's uniqueness and in terms of unfair things in the league, I'd have that pretty low. Maybe the only change I'd make is the top 5 is fully off limits to bids because it can really completely * over the bottom teams when a Darcy, Daicos and Ashcroft is unavailable to them.

Personally, GWS and GC have enough disadvantages and are still decades away from being strong enough to survive on their own that I'm ok with them having the leg up that is academies.

I'm dead against Sydney and Brisbane having the same concessions though. They've been strong enough for long enough with a big enough supporter base that they dont need the leg up. Their bidding rules should be the same as every other club and I think that should be the top 20 being off limits.
 
Last edited:
PenAndPaper said:
There are too many things that aren't fair in this league including the fixture. Would basically have to change the entire sport haha
Click to expand...
Sure but doesn’t mean we can’t keep working towards making it as fair as possible.

No father son, academies or priority picks is a good start
 
Slysh said:
Sure but doesn’t mean we can’t keep working towards making it as fair as possible.

No father son, academies or priority picks is a good start
Click to expand...

This implies that there is work done currently to make the competition fair. There is no appetite for that, because the single biggest thing that would make the AFL fairer is to have a random draw - which would mean less 'blockbusters" and less of the BIG FOUR playing each other constantly.

The draft and the salary cap were introduced a long long time ago.
 
Discounts for F/S and academy selections should go. Being able to match a bid is a big enough leg up.

Farcical that supreme talents are being handed over for a bunch of crappy picks. Daicos the best player before the draft slipped down to pick 4 then got discounted!! You want Daicos, you pay full price.

I don't care that Beveridge had a whinge about other clubs bidding on JUH and Darcy, you want them, you pay full price.

I understand the need for northern academies to grow the game and help those sides have a few less players on their list potential go homers (we stole Dawson as a go homer through PSD threat) but the knee jerk reaction to create NGA's for non Northern clubs was bullshit and badly flawed thinking by the AFL.

The whole drafting system needs a thorough look by unbiased eyes. I like the idea of secret bidding from a pool of draft points but carryover points should be strictly controlled and limited.
 
Dangerousfield said:
Discounts for F/S and academy selections should go. Being able to match a bid is a big enough leg up.

Farcical that supreme talents are being handed over for a bunch of crappy picks. Daicos the best player before the draft slipped down to pick 4 then got discounted!! You want Daicos, you pay full price.

I don't care that Beveridge had a whinge about other clubs bidding on JUH and Darcy, you want them, you pay full price.

I understand the need for northern academies to grow the game and help those sides have a few less players on their list potential go homers (we stole Dawson as a go homer through PSD threat) but the knee jerk reaction to create NGA's for non Northern clubs was bullshit and badly flawed thinking by the AFL.

The whole drafting system needs a thorough look by unbiased eyes. I like the idea of secret bidding from a pool of draft points but carryover points should be strictly controlled and limited.
Click to expand...

There should be no carryover (just like teams shouldn’t be able to bank unspent sallary cap)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top