EQUALISATION This is how to do it much better

[crippton09]

No no it isnt...

 

[PunkyHawkster]

There are a few issues here behind the major issues in the competition:

-Teams like Geelong / Hawthorn drafted very well a decade ago and it allowed them to build strong teams capable of winning flags. They did this, and in order to win more, players were willing to cop it in the back pocket in order to keep their list together. Not the clubs/players fault, but it virtually renders the Salary Cap useless when A LOT of their players are being paid unders.

-Minimum 95% has to be paid on the Salary Cap. This is a MAJOR problem, because it means the difference between Melbourne / Brisbane's minimum payments and Geelong / Hawthorn's maximum payments is about $1,000,000. Think about that for a second. Melbourne HAS TO pay roughly the same for it's players as what Hawthorn does. Combine that with Hawthorn players taking unders, and we have major issues right there.


You can't police or abolish players getting paid 'unders'... but you can get rid of minimum cap payments though. It is the only way to really even things up. If Melbourne only had to pay 70% of its cap, then it would have an extra $3,500,000 to top up its list with top end talent.

This will never happen though AFLPA has too much power

Why would you leave a company you hate but a job you love if you are getting overpaid? If you're an average player in a crap team I know what I'd be doing.

 

[PunkyHawkster]

I've got a GREAT idea.

Let'e get Mark Robinson to rank all players in the AFL, giving them a grade from A through to E.

Each club is then only allowed to have a certain number of each letter ranked players, just to make it fair to everyone.

Then at the end of the year, when the rankings are re-done, any surplus you now have in each letter group are delisted and go into the pre season draft and the clubs that finished bottom get first crack at them because it's not their fault they finished bottom, it's the unfair AFL's fault.

Maybe I should start a thread about this idea? Anyone know of any other threads containing great ideas about equalisation like my suggestion?

I was thinking along same track. All players at end of season go back into a pool. The last placed team from the year picks first until all 18 clubs pick a player. This continues until each club has a full team again. Teams can select from the draft prospects at any time. All the leftovers are delisted. Simples.

 

[Pessimistic]

I believe they need to make levels of pay. You can only have so many players on a certain pay bracket. There might be 10 different brackets, and the longer you are in the game, the higher up you go. That way, you can't get sides like Hawks, Swans and Cats just filling their sides with good players, telling the world they are doing it for nothing, and the Sponsors are coming in the back door giving a lend of a house or a car, while weaker clubs get nothing. This would eliminate the choices a bit for players moving to stronger clubs for premierships.

This would go hand in hand with what the media have been talking about, with the idea of full public disclosure with salaries.

So how this works is, that if you trade in a player on say level 3 in pay terms, then someone from that level needs to be either moving up, or moving out.

There could be dispensations given for injury setbacks approved by the AFL. So eg: Daniel Menzel, stays on level 7 while he recovers from injury, and despite his many years, doesn't need to promote to the next level.

Form is not an excuse. If a player has had bad form, and you have say 8 players in Level 5, and a player from Level 6 needs to move up, either one from 5 has to move up or go.

THEN we will have an even competition. I don't buy when players say I am giving away $400,000 a year to play in a winning side, because if this system was in, it wouldn't matter what side you were in they ALL would be in and out of the Finals regularly. No more of this going 50 years without a Flag, and no one has your club as a destination club.

THEN if you win a flag, you win against 17 others. Currently sides are winning premierships against another 6 sides that have any hope of taking it now or in the next five years, there might be another 3 or 4 clubs added to that, who have a chance. Saint and Demons have no hope for up to 10 years the way the equalisation is currently. It is ridiculous! I really don't have the admiration I have had in the past for a good premiership winning side. Especially one that just goes out and raids all these other sides to get strong. That is not hard to do if you look to be headed in the right direction, but the other thing is history. Going on History, Saints and Demons are doomed, because they have a looooong way to go to being a destination club.

How much was eddie offering jono brown in media work so long as he played for collinwood ?

Before making wild accusations why not quote the case we all know about ?

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Less teams would help. The reason the lower clubs are struggling to rise up the ladder is because the AFL's desire to add more sides and offer them outrageous draft concessions and allowances, severely limiting other sides' potential to build competitive lists. My club Hawthorn bottomed out at the perfect time where we could re-build a list without the obstacles lowly clubs encounter today.

One club's supporters continually boast about making the top 8 in 17 of the past 20 seasons. Let's face it, this would not be possible if the AFL didn't keep slipping bonuses into their Christmas stocking each year ... and please Swans fans, don't insult me by arguing this point. ALL teams operating under the same salary cap would be a good start.

The other thing Hawthorn did well 10 years ago was trade a lot of existing players for draft picks. This also enabled a very quick way of re-building the list. Although it benefited my club admirably, I do not think clubs should be allowed to trade draft picks. The draft is there for a reason, and clubs picking when it is their turn is the way it should be.

When a player is drafted to a club, he should be committed to that club for a period of at least 5 years. Any trades should be enacted via straight player swaps, no draft picks involved.

The AFL talks equality, but every rule they introduce moves further away from it, and allows clubs such as my own to extend our stay near the top of the ladder possibly longer than it should be.

 

[Lemma]

Nah that's ridiculous. You need to be able to trade draft picks.

 

[Gigantor]

Thinking back, it seems to me that over the period 1993-1999 the league seemed a lot more open and even than what we have had the last 15 years.

But even during that period, we had Carlton's record-breaking year in 1995.

Then Essendon had a record-breaking year in 2000.

Then gradually we ended up with a situation where in any given year, the top 2 or 3 teams were trouncing everyone else and where a bottom 4 team couldn't get anywhere near a top 6 team.

Things were not always that bad. There have always been poor teams, but those teams were always capable of upset wins. There was a time when the 3rd bottom teams could get a win over the 3rd top team (in fact, we've had years where the bottom team beat the top team) - it happens less and less these days (if ever).

What has changed?

The introduction of the Suns and Giants is part of the story, but the trend was already well and truly there by 2010 (and if anything, the Suns and Giants becoming competitive are going to be as much a solution as a problem).

I think bottom teams became more comfortable in finishing near the bottom than what was once the case.

Lastly, clearly certain clubs have become more adept at using the system in place recruitment wise and have coupled that with coaching and training facilities which are clearly giving them an edge over the rest of the competition.

 

[jatz14]

Thinking back, it seems to me that over the period 1993-1999 the league seemed a lot more open and even than what we have had the last 15 years.

But even during that period, we had Carlton's record-breaking year in 1995.

Then Essendon had a record-breaking year in 2000.

Then gradually we ended up with a situation where in any given year, the top 2 or 3 teams were trouncing everyone else and where a bottom 4 team couldn't get anywhere near a top 6 team.

Things were not always that bad. There have always been poor teams, but those teams were always capable of upset wins. There was a time when the 3rd bottom teams could get a win over the 3rd top team (in fact, we've had years where the bottom team beat the top team) - it happens less and less these days (if ever).

What has changed?

The introduction of the Suns and Giants is part of the story, but the trend was already well and truly there by 2010 (and if anything, the Suns and Giants becoming competitive are going to be as much a solution as a problem).

I think bottom teams became more comfortable in finishing near the bottom than what was once the case.

Lastly, clearly certain clubs have become more adept at using the system in place recruitment wise and have coupled that with coaching and training facilities which are clearly giving them an edge over the rest of the competition.

Professionalism happened. In a perfectly professional world, where each player and team gets %100 each game, team 1 beats team 2 every time, and team 2 beats team 3 every time. The lower the standard of professionalism, the more variable and unpredictable the result.

 

[Gigantor]

Professionalism happened. In a perfectly professional world, where each player and team gets %100 each game, team 1 beats team 2 every time, and team 2 beats team 3 every time. The lower the standard of professionalism, the more variable and unpredictable the result.

That's also what happens in bush and local comps where better resourced clubs can beat up on smaller clubs.

The AFL's equalisation policies were meant to get rid of that - and it worked right through the 90s - it's been working less the past decade or so.

 

[jatz14]

That's also what happens in bush and local comps where better resourced clubs can beat up on smaller clubs.

The AFL's equalisation policies were meant to get rid of that - and it worked right through the 90s - it's been working less the past decade or so.

That is the point. There being more upsets in the past doesn't necessarily mean they were more even. A comp with a greater difference between teams, but where the teams are more inconsistent might produce a more even ladder than a comp where the teams are more even but always produce closer to their best
So today's comp may be more even, but also more predictable with fewer upsets.

Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I've got a GREAT idea.

Let'e get Mark Robinson to rank all players in the AFL, giving them a grade from A through to E.

Each club is then only allowed to have a certain number of each letter ranked players, just to make it fair to everyone.

Then at the end of the year, when the rankings are re-done, any surplus you now have in each letter group are delisted and go into the pre season draft and the clubs that finished bottom get first crack at them because it's not their fault they finished bottom, it's the unfair AFL's fault.

Maybe I should start a thread about this idea? Anyone know of any other threads containing great ideas about equalisation like my suggestion?

You had me at Robbo, you had me at Robbo