New academy bidding system

Remove this Banner Ad

Panthera said:
Point based player ranking is such a flawed system as there are waaaaay too many variables, especially with Academy kids who don't have the same access to quality coaching and opposition in their junior days :thumbsdown:

Same goes for F/S as they may not put in as much effort as other kids as they know their father's club will be picking them up 99% of the time if they even show the slightest hint of football ability.

And imagine if 3000 points are slapped on a player by a panel who don't have the same views as club recruiters; what happens then? Ie. Jack Watts scenario...

There's a reason why no other draft in the world has this (none that I can think of) - b/c it's basically throwing a dart over your left shoulder and hoping it lands on the bullseye :cool:
Click to expand...

Just on this the Panel isn't putting values on players, its putting values on the pick itself and then leaving who goes at that pick up to the recruiters. Thats why they have to do it live as well so that you can judge how you rate who's left over and how you rate them against your academy player.

So really its the recruiting team with the pick that puts the value on that player.
 
Fatcat08 said:
Just on this the Panel isn't putting values on players, its putting values on the pick itself and then leaving who goes at that pick up to the recruiters. Thats why they have to do it live as well so that you can judge how you rate who's left over and how you rate them against your academy player.

So really its the recruiting team with the pick that puts the value on that player.
Click to expand...

Many thanks for that FC :thumbsu:

So, really, we should be OK then with Keays; considering a 20% discount will usually take it to the following round :)
 
Panthera said:
Many thanks for that FC :thumbsu:

So, really, we should be OK then with Keays; considering a 20% discount will usually take it to the following round :)
Click to expand...

Depends on how high up he gets bid on really. The gap between one and two is massive, and reduces from there. Will all be up to where he is bid on and where we pick. If the gap is big you need to make up the points with later picks or even into the next year. Lots of permutations will go on on the actual night, will actually make things quite interesting IMO
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Fatcat08 said:
Depends on how high up he gets bid on really. The gap between one and two is massive, and reduces from there. Will all be up to where he is bid on and where we pick. If the gap is big you need to make up the points with later picks or even into the next year. Lots of permutations will go on on the actual night, will actually make things quite interesting IMO
Click to expand...

So what happens if no one bids on certain Academy players?

Freebies!!!??? :)
 
Panthera said:
So what happens if no one bids on certain Academy players?

Freebies!!!??? :)
Click to expand...

If we nominate them as possible academy picks and no-one bids we can either take them with our last picks if we want or pre-list them in the rookie draft, so yes essentially freebies.
 
Fatcat08 said:
Depends on how high up he gets bid on really. The gap between one and two is massive, and reduces from there. Will all be up to where he is bid on and where we pick. If the gap is big you need to make up the points with later picks or even into the next year. Lots of permutations will go on on the actual night, will actually make things quite interesting IMO
Click to expand...
Yeah makes me much more excited to actually watch the draft night. I wouldn't mind if they did really look at trading of picks on the night too
 
News system endorsed - 20% discount for 1st round picks, then pleasingly there is a fixed discount of 197 points after pick 18, which essentially will help clubs pick up academy kids with later picks as they can still get them at a heavily discounted rate (a bigger discount then 20% for 1st round). Basically, after the 1st round is finished, the discount is much higher and is a good incentive to user later picks of academy kids.

Main discount is on first round picks only.
 
Is there any better minds on here that could work out what would've happened with Dawson and Andrews and where they were bid on and if we were able to get both with this system? Please?
 
WA Lion said:
News system endorsed - 20% discount for 1st round picks, then pleasingly there is a fixed discount of 197 points after pick 18, which essentially will help clubs pick up academy kids with later picks as they can still get them at a heavily discounted rate (a bigger discount then 20% for 1st round). Basically, after the 1st round is finished, the discount is much higher and is a good incentive to user later picks of academy kids.

Main discount is on first round picks only.
Click to expand...
Can live with this if it is true.
 
WA Lion said:
News system endorsed - 20% discount for 1st round picks, then pleasingly there is a fixed discount of 197 points after pick 18, which essentially will help clubs pick up academy kids with later picks as they can still get them at a heavily discounted rate (a bigger discount then 20% for 1st round). Basically, after the 1st round is finished, the discount is much higher and is a good incentive to user later picks of academy kids.

Main discount is on first round picks only.
Click to expand...

I'm not as positive about it as you are. I thought the original 25% proposal wasn't good enough, and at best this new one breaks even with that.

I don't think the fixed discount of 197 points makes a significant difference. The most important range for us to look at is probably in the 25-35 bracket; that's typically where the best academy prospects will fall, apart from the odd outliers like Heeney.

Under this system, to match a bid of pick 25 we'll need a bid of pick 33. Under the 25% system, we'd need pick 32.

Under this system, to match a bid of pick 35 we'll need a bid of pick of pick 46. Under the 25% system, we'd need pick 42. Is there really much of a difference between picks 42 and 46?

At the top end, if Keays has a strong finish to the year and attracts a bid inside the top ten, lets say 10th to pick a number at random, then assuming our ladder position holds, we'll have to give up our second round pick and downgrade our third round pick substantially to match it. It's only slightly worse than the 25% rule, but it strikes us out of a large part of the draft. It'd be a big call.

And the AFL hasn't addressed what for me was the biggest problem - the fact that if you want to take multiple mid-range academy picks you'll have to downgrade your first round pick in the following year. Very rarely will clubs accept even a slight drop in order to take a second or third academy selection. This just seems contrary to the point of the academy concessions. At least allow for some flexibility so the club can choose where to take the downgrade.

I haven't done the maths systematically yet but on face value this seems like a barely noticeable improvement on a proposal that slashed our concessions at a time when we are really struggling with the realities of being a northern states club. I don't like the chances of even this modest concession standing up the next time we're successful. Hell, the next time one of our neighbours is successful.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jjami15 said:
Is there any better minds on here that could work out what would've happened with Dawson and Andrews and where they were bid on and if we were able to get both with this system? Please?
Click to expand...

We would have still got both with the fixed 197 point discount - would have pushed the picks we used on McGrath, Watts and McGuinness back further though
 
jjami15 said:
Is there any better minds on here that could work out what would've happened with Dawson and Andrews and where they were bid on and if we were able to get both with this system? Please?
Click to expand...

Dawson - Richmond bid pick 32 - 584 points - 197 = 387 = we had pick 42 worth 395 points, so we downgrade that to pick 73 (9 points).
Andrews - North Melbourne bid pick 35 - 522 points - 197 = 325 = pick 61 is 135, pick 73 is 9, so 325 - 144 = 181 points that need to be taken off our first round pick the following year, or about one spot in the draft.

The latter changes if we picked up and held on to an extra pick at 57 or higher.

Bucking Beads said:
So when Ben Keays is nominated with a clubs round 1 pick we will have to give up our first round pick for him?
Click to expand...

No. Assuming no one with a pick earlier than our's nominates Keays, we can only use our picks in the rest of the draft plus downgrading the following year's first rounder to make up the points. The latter only comes into play if the points total is more than all of our remaining picks above 73.
 
Ironmonger said:
I'm not as positive about it as you are. I thought the original 25% proposal wasn't good enough, and at best this new one breaks even with that.

I don't think the fixed discount of 197 points makes a significant difference. The most important range for us to look at is probably in the 25-35 bracket; that's typically where the best academy prospects will fall, apart from the odd outliers like Heeney.

Under this system, to match a bid of pick 25 we'll need a bid of pick 33. Under the 25% system, we'd need pick 32.

Under this system, to match a bid of pick 35 we'll need a bid of pick of pick 46. Under the 25% system, we'd need pick 42. Is there really much of a difference between picks 42 and 46?

At the top end, if Keays has a strong finish to the year and attracts a bid inside the top ten, lets say 10th to pick a number at random, then assuming our ladder position holds, we'll have to give up our second round pick and downgrade our third round pick substantially to match it. It's only slightly worse than the 25% rule, but it strikes us out of a large part of the draft. It'd be a big call.

And the AFL hasn't addressed what for me was the biggest problem - the fact that if you want to take multiple mid-range academy picks you'll have to downgrade your first round pick in the following year. Very rarely will clubs accept even a slight drop in order to take a second or third academy selection. This just seems contrary to the point of the academy concessions. At least allow for some flexibility so the club can choose where to take the downgrade.

I haven't done the maths systematically yet but on face value this seems like a barely noticeable improvement on a proposal that slashed our concessions at a time when we are really struggling with the realities of being a northern states club. I don't like the chances of even this modest concession standing up the next time we're successful. Hell, the next time one of our neighbours is successful.
Click to expand...
No doubt it is not as favourable to us as current system, but it is better than the 20% rule being applied to entire draft as was originally proposed. It is not ideal I agree in the example you use for the range 20-30, but it is still better than just a 20% discount
 
jjami15 said:
Is there any better minds on here that could work out what would've happened with Dawson and Andrews and where they were bid on and if we were able to get both with this system? Please?
Click to expand...

I believe the answer is no.

Dawson and Andrews attracted bids worth 563 and 502 points respectively. Under the new system, these are downgraded to 366 and 305, or a total of 671.

Assuming all the trades happened as they did, our remaining picks were worth 362, 135, 90 and 9 points, or a total of 596.

Therefore we'd have had to accept a downgrade of one place on our first round pick for the following year.

I'm assuming everything I posted earlier in this thread is accurate.

However, we only have to make up 75 points, whereas the 25% system we'd have had to make up 200. So at least we can conclude there'd be fewer times when we'd have to drop down the order.

In reality though I doubt we'd ever agree to a trade that'd drop us down the following year, even by one pick. Hell, what if we bombed out and it cost us the number one pick?
 
I like the changes. Much more fair. Now people can stop whinging but I'm not gonna be surprised if they do.
 
Bucking Beads said:
I like the changes for the academy. A shame we couldn't get some real guns for free before the change though. Who knows Freeman, Andrews and Dawson could still be guns. I'd prefer Father-son kids to be free though.
Click to expand...
Early days, but if Andrews continues to develop along the current curve he will be a gun, I have no doubt. KP guns are harder to come by then midfield guns aswell i.e. Heeney so are worth more IMO
 
It seems like a pretty fair system. End of the day, we don't get the awesome free players we would have been getting, which is fair enough. The big advantage is that we still get first dibs on these guys by having an academy. Say we are around the 8 and for a couple of years our first pick is pick 10-12 mark. If you have talent in the academy that is worthy of a top 5 pick, we still get the chance to take that player, even if we do have to give up more picks for them. Without an academy, you don't get that shot at that player. If your academy produces top end talent, you are still going to benefit, even if we have to pay more on draft night.

There doesn't seem to be a huge impact on talent taken around the 3rd round or later which seems fair. The main areas the changes will impact is if you have a high high quality prospect, first round or top 10 type player, or if you have multiple prospects. I have no problem with these 2 areas being more fair. Really, we paid around market value for Dawson, but we did get a steal with Andrews, and we only got that steal because we had 2 in the same draft. This will also help in creating a bit of overflow of talent to other clubs. At the same time, if we really really wanted both players, the facility is there for us to still take them, even if you can't afford the points, by using the next years picks.

At first i thought it was over kill to have to give up multiple picks for 1 player, but taking the Heeney example, you are essentially trading those picks for pick 2 to take that player. And i think if you were given that deal at trade time you'd take it. So why should it be treated any different now. If your academy turns over good quality players, you might only draft 1 or 2 players a year instead of 3 or 4, but those 1 or 2 are probably going to stay on the list. your 3rd and 4th players you'd normally take in a draft are usually low odds at making it.
 
Lionheart182 said:
Can live with this if it is true.
Click to expand...
I can't. This is absolutely disastrous. Do people not remember how many 1st and 2nd round picks that we've lost the last 15 years for cents in the dollar because kids want to go back home and all we get is a 20% discount? Maybe if we didn't lose dozens of players because we're drafting children fresh outta high school and not grown men who has lived out of home for years then I'd be ok with this but with the amount of talent we've lost this is just ******* outrageous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ZoBlitz
News 2023 Trade News Compendium
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
Mr Ripper
Mr Ripper
Nickimus Rex
News New Era player-designed caps
Replies
6
Views
762
WhiteLionFeva
WhiteLionFeva
ZoBlitz
News 2022 Trade News Compendium
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
9K
ZoBlitz
ZoBlitz

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top