Sydney Swans Academy

[grimlock]

No they are two separate issues. A bidding system is used to determine what constitutes a fair pick (or picks) a player is worth. This should be the same whether it's for F/S or Academy bidding. Whether you believe Academy kids should come under a bidding system is a different matter all together.

If you think the bidding system is unfair, it's unfair regardless. Just because all 18 club have access to F/S doesn't impact upon its fairness.

 

[Mateyman]

No they are two separate issues. A bidding system is used to determine what constitutes a fair pick (or picks) a player is worth. This should be the same whether it's for F/S or Academy bidding. Whether you believe Academy kids should come under a bidding system is a different matter all together.

If you think the bidding system is unfair, it's unfair regardless. Just because all 18 club have access to F/S doesn't impact upon its fairness.

Definition of fair: "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."
If every club gets equal access to F/S (which they will after being in the competition 20 years or so), then yes, the system is fair because it treats every club equally...unlike the academy system.

 

[grimlock]

Again, you are conflating the fairness of the bidding system with the fairness of the Academies being only available to 4 clubs. They are separate issues.

The very first incarnation of the F/S rule allowed the club to put the player on its list without going through the draft. Despite that rule being available to all clubs it wasn't a fair system and it was soon overhauled.

 

[dlanod]

Well no. It's like saying that complaining about the Swans salary cap means that a salary cap is either fair or its not. If everyone gets a chance to utilise the bidding system when their turn comes, that is the definition of "fair". If there are only 4 clubs who can use the system then it is "unfair". Pretty simply I'd have thought.

You're complaining about the existence of academies. If that's your position great, good for you - then it makes sense that you don't associate the father/son system with it. There's been plenty of others on this thread that are fine with the idea of academies, or at least understand why they exist, but don't like the bidding system. That's where father/son comes in - it's the same bidding system. There's no point claiming your position applies to everyone else's claims, and hence father/son being irrelevant.

 

[Yoda_]

If the AFL are so determined to gain entry into NSW/Qld, what was wrong with the 'old' scholarship system? If you could bring in rookies as additions to your list, then surely it would be more attractive than this bidding system the AFL are going with

 

[grimlock]

If the AFL are so determined to gain entry into NSW/Qld, what was wrong with the 'old' scholarship system? If you could bring in rookies as additions to your list, then surely it would be more attractive than this bidding system the AFL are going with

It ended with the most resourceful clubs cherry picking the cream of the crop and did little to raise the overall standard of the playing population.

 

[Groo2]

Definition of fair: "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."
If every club gets equal access to F/S (which they will after being in the competition 20 years or so), then yes, the system is fair because it treats every club equally...unlike the academy system.

There is a difference between what is fair and what is for the good of the game. Is it fair that the AFL signed a long term agreement to play the Grand Final on Collingwood's home ground? No. Is it for the good of the game? Yes. Is the setup of the academies fair? No (up for debate but we will go with no for the sake of the arguement). Is it good for the game? Yes.

 

[Yoda_]

It ended with the most resourceful clubs cherry picking the cream of the crop and did little to raise the overall standard of the playing population.

So instead of diluting and spreading the NSW population across 18 clubs, it is now poured into two clubs?

seems reasonable

 

[Mateyman]

You're complaining about the existence of academies. If that's your position great, good for you - then it makes sense that you don't associate the father/son system with it. There's been plenty of others on this thread that are fine with the idea of academies, or at least understand why they exist, but don't like the bidding system. That's where father/son comes in - it's the same bidding system. There's no point claiming your position applies to everyone else's claims, and hence father/son being irrelevant.

I understand why academies exist. I still don't see how disliking the fact that only 4 clubs get access to the academy bidding system means I must hate the system when all clubs have the opportunity to use it.

 

[Yoda_]

If clubs want to limit these 'exceptions' (Father/Son included) have on list building. Limit it to one player per year.

We'll see who Sydney pick next year (Dunkley or Mills) then

 

[grimlock]

So instead of diluting and spreading the NSW population across 18 clubs, it is now poured into two clubs?

seems reasonable

Around 50-100 players received a NSW scholarship during its time, with the player entitled to fly over and train with their sponsor club 3 times a year (mostly during school holidays). And if the club could afford/provide it, may have received specialist coaching during the school term.

Right now, the Swans Academy alone has 700 kids training and playing weekly. The Giants academy must have a similar number and therefore from those 2 academies alone we already have 1000+ kids undergoing elite training. It's foolosh to even think about comparing the previous scheme to the current scheme, in terms of player development.

 

[Dangerousfield]

This thread is still full of people who have absolutely no idea about developing the game in Qld & NSW. The old Scholarship scheme was a joke although we got Tex Walker from Broken Hill which is hardly NRL heartland.

I'm all for the academies if they can produce footballers of Heeney's ability. I'd like to see the four northern teams have a much larger % of home grown talent, that helps them negate the go home factor and leaves southern state players to the southern clubs.

I agree the bidding process needs a tinkering but not sure how anyone could contemplate giving up two picks for an untried junior. That's what you give if you are trying to get a Dangerfield, Pendlebury type player, not for an 18yo who may or may not make the grade.

Draft picks are hugely over rated. Look at the very best players in the comp, how many of those were top 5 picks?

So IMO academies are doing a great job and are needed for a generation if we are to make REAL progress in Qld & NSW.

 

[Mateyman]

I understand why academies exist. I still don't see how disliking the fact that only 4 clubs get access to the academy bidding system means I must hate the system when all clubs have the opportunity to use it.

So to clarify, I think they are a good idea, however the bidding system should be fairer so these clubs pay market value for outstanding selections. This is not at all applicable to F/S bidding which every club gets the benefit of at some stage.

 

[melbournehammer]

So to clarify, I think they are a good idea, however the bidding system should be fairer so these clubs pay market value for outstanding selections. This is not at all applicable to F/S bidding which every club gets the benefit of at some stage.

Yes makes perfect sense let's compromise drafts on basis of random chance of Y chromosome being distributed as opposed to market value.

 

[Mateyman]

Yes makes perfect sense let's compromise drafts on basis of random chance of Y chromosome being distributed as opposed to market value.

Yeah it does, and every team gets the benefits. You can make simplistic stupid comments about academies too: "Let's compromise drafts on the chance of where someone was born as opposed to market value"

 

[melbournehammer]

Yeah it does, and every team gets the benefits. You can make simplistic stupid comments about academies too: "Let's compromise drafts on the chance of where someone was born as opposed to market value"

Matey I don't disagree. If it's market vale that's what it must be. And you can't rely on this crap random chance thing. Every club gets the benefit. What a laff.

What does that mean. Club a gets father son dud. Club b gets father son number one pick. Aaahhh but every club gets the benefits. What utter poppycock.

It's either market value or you accept the inevitable compromises in a competition which doesn't have a home and away fixture, and so on and so forth.

Unlike most swans fans I am not particularly fussed about the academy. I do have considerable concerns about the usual self interest clothed in some pretence that random chance makes it justified.

 

[Mateyman]

Matey I don't disagree. If it's market vale that's what it must be. And you can't rely on this crap random chance thing. Every club gets the benefit. What a laff.

What does that mean. Club a gets father son dud. Club b gets father son number one pick. Aaahhh but every club gets the benefits. What utter poppycock.

It's either market value or you accept the inevitable compromises in a competition which doesn't have a home and away fixture, and so on and so forth.

Unlike most swans fans I am not particularly fussed about the academy. I do have considerable concerns about the usual self interest clothed in some pretence that random chance makes it justified.

Every club has an even chance of getting good father sons and in the long run it should even itself out. E.g. Bulldogs had s**t luck and had nobody for 15 years, then they get Libba and Wallis. Every club will benefit at some stage. I don't see why a system which will inevitably benefit everyone over time is being compared with one which only benefits 4 clubs and these are apparently "the same" when discussing fairness . I'm also interested in what you mean in your last sentence?

 

[Colonial]

Definition of fair: "treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination."
If every club gets equal access to F/S (which they will after being in the competition 20 years or so), then yes, the system is fair because it treats every club equally...unlike the academy system.

The fact that the traditional states can cover go home factor as the game Is number 1 in those states?

 

[go_the_dockers]

Again, you are conflating the fairness of the bidding system with the fairness of the Academies being only available to 4 clubs. They are separate issues.

The very first incarnation of the F/S rule allowed the club to put the player on its list without going through the draft. Despite that rule being available to all clubs it wasn't a fair system and it was soon overhauled.

The chance of getting two F\S picks in the same year worthy of a first round draft pick happens once every 30 years.

The chance of getting two F\S or academy pick worthy of a first round draft pick happens goes up massively. Next year Sydney will have 3 picks who would more than likely go in the top 2 rounds, this is where it becomes unfair.

This thread is still full of people who have absolutely no idea about developing the game in Qld & NSW. The old Scholarship scheme was a joke although we got Tex Walker from Broken Hill which is hardly NRL heartland.

I'm all for the academies if they can produce footballers of Heeney's ability. I'd like to see the four northern teams have a much larger % of home grown talent, that helps them negate the go home factor and leaves southern state players to the southern clubs.

I agree the bidding process needs a tinkering but not sure how anyone could contemplate giving up two picks for an untried junior. That's what you give if you are trying to get a Dangerfield, Pendlebury type player, not for an 18yo who may or may not make the grade.

Draft picks are hugely over rated. Look at the very best players in the comp, how many of those were top 5 picks?

So IMO academies are doing a great job and are needed for a generation if we are to make REAL progress in Qld & NSW.

Agree, somehow make the bidding process fair and it will be fine but if it allows the NSW\QLD clubs to get top 5 talent at pick 20 and beyond.

I think this table sums it up very well - lets not forget Collingwood happily traded pick 11 and 31 for pick 6, so perhaps two picks is fair if it means you are getting a top 5 or top 10 talent.

The big advantage of the current bidding process is getting 2-3 selection in the one year, what rule changes can we put in to stop that as I expect with the academies this will occur most year.

Reference: http://www.rankingsoftware.com/research/OnTheValueofAFLDraftPicks.pdf

 

[grimlock]

Next year Sydney will have 3 picks who would more than likely go in the top 2 rounds, this is where it becomes unfair.

Name them.

But the point is moot. The fairness of the bidding system should fairly deal with all possibilities no matter how likely or remote that possibility is.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Name them.

But the point is moot. The fairness of the bidding system should fairly deal with all possibilities no matter how likely or remote that possibility is.

Dunkley, Mills and I thought you had 1 more expected to be a 2nd rounder, could be wrong.

Even with just Dunkley and Mills (assuming they are worth pick 4 and 5), you need probably need to give up your first 10 picks to be appropriate compensation but picks in round 6 to 10 aren't worth anything.

You can't force Sydney to trade away players to get more draft picks, so how can you make it fair?

What happens if one club decides to draft 4-5 players from their academy and don't need any draft picks.

 

[Membling]

Let's face what the problem really is. Access to academy system. The simplest way to remedy this would be to open it to the other clubs with cap spending/afl supplement/academy allowance to all clubs. The whole bidding system is fine.

 

[Mateyman]

Also onto the illogical F/S=academies thing. Academies>>>F/S in terms of producing quality players. There has been an average of just over 1 F/S per club over the last 10 years. This academy produces AFL/rookie list standard players every year, with top end talent as well, because instead of being randomly based on your genetics, it is based on elite talent identification albeit at a younger age.

 

[Mateyman]

The fact that the traditional states can cover go home factor as the game Is number 1 in those states?

The western state team lists are 50% interstate, yet they aren't always losing homesick players. The only northern team to actually lose many players has been Brisbane so far. Added to this, through the trade system clubs are by and large reasonably fairly compensated for players that they have lost. NSW team and GC also have extra $$$ for accommodation etc.

 

[Colonial]

The western state team lists are 50% interstate, yet they aren't always losing homesick players. The only northern team to actually lose many players has been Brisbane so far. Added to this, through the trade system clubs are by and large reasonably fairly compensated for players that they have lost. NSW team and GC also have extra $$$ for accommodation etc.

Try 90-100%
I doubt the lions think they were reasonably compensated.
cola is going mate. As our list shrinks so does our cap