The Academies - 2016

[Pykie]

Hes a Tasmian indigenous kid that will spend a total of 30 weeks training with the club until he is drafted in 2.5 years.

I'm sure Hoppers couple of conversations with GWS counts?

Aren't we all about growing the game in struggling areas? There is 11 players invited to the combine from NSW this year, there isn't a single one from Tasmania.

 

[dlanod]

He referred to Baldock, who I didn't think would have qualified under the southern academies. Admittedly I went on his name and appearance alone so I could be wrong.

Pretty sure you're right. He should've done more work on making his historical claims more accurate, as I'm sure all the research into Riverina examples would qualify by the amount of time players spent in the area prior to being draft.

Interesting that the other 14 clubs can start drafting from their Academies from 2018. Although I'm guessing North are ahead of most clubs.

Sounds like it. They've started holding try outs and talent identification already. I haven't heard much from any others.

 

[dlanod]

Hes a Tasmian indigenous kid that will spend a total of 30 weeks training with the club until he is drafted in 2.5 years.

I'm sure Hoppers couple of conversations with GWS counts?

Aren't we all about growing the game in struggling areas? There is 11 players invited to the combine from NSW this year, there isn't a single one from Tasmania.

So defensive. Come on, you have to have a thicker skin than that if you support an academy club in this thread! It's a good start with the "struggling areas" talking point. What's the line when someone points out that your academy won't grow the game? Or there's no homesickness issues to counteract?

 

[Suma Magic]

Pretty sure you're right. He should've done more work on making his historical claims more accurate, as I'm sure all the research into Riverina examples would qualify by the amount of time players spent in the area prior to being draft.



Sounds like it. They've started holding try outs and talent identification already. I haven't heard much from any others.

I was just talking about Baldock's heritage from a culturural/racial perspective - there have been heaps of great footballers from Tassie but hardly any would be eligible under the Academy.

Although I'm confused about whether you understood this all along. Sorry I don't understand your second sentence.

 

[dlanod]

I was just talking about Baldock's heritage from a culturural/racial perspective - there have been heaps of great footballers from Tassie but hardly any would be eligible under the Academy.

Although I'm confused about whether you understood this all along. Sorry I don't understand your second sentence.

Nah, it was a bit of miscommunication. Your post wasn't clear that you were referring to the player's heritage, so I misunderstood what you were referring to and thought you didn't realise NM wouldn't be getting the standard academy benefits on their players.

Once we cleared that up I condemned the OP for not putting more research into his tongue in cheek comments, while drawing another analogy to the lack of research done in some criticisms of the Riverina area.

 

[Suma Magic]

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-07-27/academy-rules-tweaked-to-give-overlooked-talent-another-chance

This could be huge or inconsequential depending on eligibility.

Hopefully all clubs were informed what they needed to do to guarantee eligibility back when the final clubs were given their zones.

 

[dlanod]

I like it. However it's going to be pretty limited given the players in question need to get through all the drafts - if a team wanted a player on the list, I would've expected them to just take them.

 

[Suma Magic]

I like it. However it's going to be pretty limited given the players in question need to get through all the drafts - if a team wanted a player on the list, I would've expected them to just take them.

The article was a bit confusing. But from my read the players could be bid on this year and taken with a 20% discount.

And given the zones were only decided this year, then this would mean the criteria would be minimal for actually developing players. I found this part confusing.

Doesn't seem to make sense that clubs have priority, discounted access to players in a zone they were only given a few months ago.

 

[dlanod]

The article was a bit confusing. But from my read the players could be bid on this year and taken with a 20% discount.

And given the zones were only decided this year, then this would mean the criteria would be minimal for actually developing players. I found this part confusing.

Doesn't seem to make sense that clubs have priority, discounted access to players in a zone they were only given a few months ago.

I'm not sure where you're getting the bid and discount bit. This is the most relevant part that I could see:

Under the revised rules, clubs will be able to apply for 2016 draft-eligible players to qualify as talent concessions under the next generation academy rules.

If the AFL decides that the player meets the qualifications under the indigenous or multicultural eligibility, the club will be able to list the player as a category B rookie, but only if the player is not selected in the national or rookie drafts.

 

[Suma Magic]

I'm not sure where you're getting the bid and discount bit. This is the most relevant part that I could see:

This section is ambiguous:

"If the talent is deemed good enough to be picked by a club in their respective draft season, they will be up for grabs under the points-based academy and father-son bidding system on draft night.

Originally the AFL had planned to fully introduce the next generation academy system for next year's draft, with the category B option for this year's prospects considered likely to be a 'one-off' in 2016."

So is cat b 2016 only with no bidding? Or cat b 2016 only with bidding. It's unclear.

 

[dlanod]

It's only ambiguous when taken out of context IMO.

Given the other parts talking about the Cat B solution and how's it's "likely to be a one off in 2016", it's pretty clear that the academies were originally only going to come into play next year with full bidding but they've changed their mind and implemented this Cat B business for 2016.

They haven't done the best wording but the gist is pretty clear.

 

[Suma Magic]

It's only ambiguous when taken out of context IMO.

Given the other parts talking about the Cat B solution and how's it's "likely to be a one off in 2016", it's pretty clear that the academies were originally only going to come into play next year with full bidding but they've changed their mind and implemented this Cat B business for 2016.

They haven't done the best wording but the gist is pretty clear.

I think you're probably right. Would be crazy otherwise.

Wording is terrible though because they still are planning on fully introducing the next generation academy system at next year's draft.

Assuming that issue is resolved, another remains.

How do they determine eligibility for cat b in 2016? How much development could clubs have possibly done in this short amount of time? Or will this year's eligibility criteria be different?

The AFL do a great job at keeping people who want every last detail (like me) frustrated. I can see why they do it I suppose. Just not sure it would hurt to provide harmless info.

 

[liz]

I'm not sure that the Cat B stuff needs to be over-engineered. At the moment pretty much all Cat B rookies don't really go through a draft. I am reticent to claim none do, because someone will probably point out an exception. But I can't think of any who do. Most are international rookies, or locals who haven't been registered with a club for 3 years (generally those coming from another sport). With their agreement, clubs can recruit them ahead of all the drafts and just place them onto their list. The other category is the NSW and Queensland rookies. Those players do first have to survive the National and PSD drafts without getting selected. But then (again with the player's agreement) they are just nominated by eligible clubs and placed onto the B Cat rookie list. Their names appear as if they've been drafted in the rookie draft, but they haven't really. A similar mechanism applies to FS players not taken in the ND or PSD, though I think those players are classified as Cat A rookies, not Cat B.

This proposed arrangement is one step further removed from the draft in the sense that a player has to have gone through the rookie draft without being selected by a club. At that point, all the AFL is doing is allowing a small group of players (effectively rejected by all clubs) to join as an extra rookie so long as they fulfil certain criteria. It is not entirely clear to me from reading the blurb whether the player has to be linked to a club's zone before they can be added to that club's Cat B list, or if any club can approach a player who qualifies on the basis of their background and invite them to join as a Cat B rookie. I suspect the former, in which case a player can only be eligible to join one club's list. The whole concept of bidding and discounts is irrelevant once clubs are just adding players after the draft process has ended.

 

[Suma Magic]

Yeah I couldn't really care too much about the cat b announcement.

Bidding and eligibility, when it starts next year is the main game.

 

[dlanod]

Yeah I couldn't really care too much about the cat b announcement.

Bidding and eligibility, when it starts next year is the main game.

That's the head scratcher for me though. Reading up about Thomas for NM, with the eligibility requirements based off players' interactions with the academies - none should be eligible next year, as there would be insufficient time between the creation of the academies and next year's draft. Thomas is borderline because he's in the year after.

 

[Suma Magic]

That's the head scratcher for me though. Reading up about Thomas for NM, with the eligibility requirements based off players' interactions with the academies - none should be eligible next year, as there would be insufficient time between the creation of the academies and next year's draft. Thomas is borderline because he's in the year after.

I agree. In an ideal world eligibility would be the same as for the northern academies. AFL isn't really big on process though, more about outcomes.

Another point is to not advantage clubs who had already done academy work prior to 2016. I think a couple of clubs had from memory, not 100% sure though. It shouldn't count until all clubs had their zones and had time to begin work IMO. Not sure if this is possible, but hopefully it's a level playing field.

 

[dlanod]

I agree. In an ideal world eligibility would be the same as for the northern academies. AFL isn't really big on process though, more about outcomes.

I don't expect eligibility to be the same as most of these kids will have played AFL to some degree from early days but don't have the opportunity for exposure or development whereas the northern ones are open to attracting alternate code talent.

From what's been announced there's a three year interaction requirement on the new academies versus a five year residency requirement plus a one year interaction requirement for the northern academies, which seems an adequate balance.

However given these academies were only set up this year, 2016-2018 is technically three years depending on how they choose to count (from date to date, or just tick a year). 2017 is definitely not.

 

[Suma Magic]

I don't expect eligibility to be the same as most of these kids will have played AFL to some degree from early days but don't have the opportunity for exposure or development whereas the northern ones are open to attracting alternate code talent.

From what's been announced there's a three year interaction requirement on the new academies versus a five year residency requirement plus a one year interaction requirement for the northern academies, which seems an adequate balance.

However given these academies were only set up this year, 2016-2018 is technically three years depending on how they choose to count (from date to date, or just tick a year). 2017 is definitely not.

Not sure one v three seems like an appropriate balance, but that's at first glance. Doesn't matter too much though I don't think.

A lot of clubs Im guessing would only be doing their first clinics now. Gives them less than a year and a half until 2017. Afl seems really keen to get the ball rolling though, I guess it's being used by the AFL as a bargaining tool in response to clubs unhappy with the northern academies.

Interesting that clubs have all worked out the good players in their zones (or will have to in the next couple of weeks to inform the AFL of their cat b list). That list should be a useful guide to other recruiters (unless it's kept confidential).

 

[dlanod]

Not sure one v three seems like an appropriate balance, but that's at first glance. Doesn't matter too much though I don't think.

It's the five year residency limit that's the real limit on the northern academies, which is longer than the three years on the new academies. We've seen kids like Weller and this year Himmelberg go through the academies without being able to be picked up because they moved across.

 

[Suma Magic]

Thoughts dlanod ?

"The AFL has made one change to its bidding system that will come into immediate effect this year, with clubs no longer able to access 'hidden picks' during the draft."
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-22/draft-loophole-to-remain-despite-some-clubs-concern

 

[dlanod]

Thoughts dlanod ?

"The AFL has made one change to its bidding system that will come into immediate effect this year, with clubs no longer able to access 'hidden picks' during the draft."
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-22/draft-loophole-to-remain-despite-some-clubs-concern

I don't see this as a huge deal. It stops some of the most egregious trading back but doesn't fundamentally change anything. Might see some teams delist and re-list players to play the loophole as suggested in the article.

 

[borrat]

cop that eddie

 

[Suma Magic]

I don't see this as a huge deal. It stops some of the most egregious trading back but doesn't fundamentally change anything. Might see some teams delist and re-list players to play the loophole as suggested in the article.

Interesting trade-off:
- risk having to pick up players with picks at the end of the draft (academy or otherwise) if you have to use a couple of picks to pay for a single player. Could mean you miss out or have a points deficit.
or
- risk the players you are delisting getting picked up late in the ND or early in the PSD.

Think is will be worth delisting 1/2 players to get a bit of a buffer.

 

[LeverPuller]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-08-22/draft-loophole-to-remain-despite-some-clubs-concern

So some clubs are pissy about the Academy teams trading back repeatedly to acquire points in the later rounds.

I understand the 'why' from the perspective of a Hawthorn, who theoretically lose draft positioning based on these trade backs. However, such a theory relies on the clubs ahead of Hawthorn bidding on the players involved.

What I don't understand is why it would be considered from a general equalisation perspective. These trade backs allow clubs to acquire multiple high first round picks in exchange for lesser picks. It means that the Melbournes, Carltons and Brisbanes of the world can help to build that fabled glut of top-end picks. Melbourne did it superbly in 2015, using their positioning to flip points to get two picks in the top 10 - and although they gave up their 2016 first rounder, it appears to be a tactical win with the Dees nabbing a KPF, something that isn't available in the 2016 draft. There is a suspicion that Essendon may look to try something similar, using the Hibberd proceeds and their second rounder to get into the top ten again, after already doing something similar to get the Carlisle trade over the line.

The downgrades make it far more exciting. Should they be kept?

 

[TradeDraft]

Other Teams can use it to Upgrade there Picks