Opinion The bidding system

[AlibiMonday]

I think the system is generally fine with the 20% discount, but I do think they’ve got the curve value wrong for picks in the 3rd and 4th rounds - they’re probably too high at the moment. If the made the gradient (drop off) a bit steeper, I think we may see some clubs a little reluctant to match and go too deep in debt for the next year.

i think when the AFL came up with the formula, most drafts we’re going quite deep, but these days clubs don’t seem to be taking many players beyond the 3rd round. It’s time for a re-calibration.

 

[RUNVS]

I think the system is generally fine with the 20% discount, but I do think they’ve got the curve value wrong for picks in the 3rd and 4th rounds - they’re probably too high at the moment. If the made the gradient (drop off) a bit steeper, I think we may see some clubs a little reluctant to match and go too deep in debt for the next year.

i think when the AFL came up with the formula, most drafts we’re going quite deep, but these days clubs don’t seem to be taking many players beyond the 3rd round. It’s time for a re-calibration.

Only because the last two drafts have been Covid affected and clubs are less willing to draft players they have not actually seen play.

 

[Jakooli]

Prior to the draft when a player nominates as a father son assign him a round based on all current knowledge of him and that’s that. In the case of this year, Daicos would have been drafted with pick 2 that Collingwood wouldn’t have traded and Darcy with 17 which the dogs probably would have held onto. Slight win for the doggies, pies about spot on. Stop the silly pick swap shenanigans.

 

[Lore]

Prior to the draft when a player nominates as a father son assign him a round based on all current knowledge of him and that’s that. In the case of this year, Daicos would have been drafted with pick 2 that Collingwood wouldn’t have traded and Darcy with 17 which the dogs probably would have held onto. Slight win for the doggies, pies about spot on. Stop the silly pick swap shenanigans.

That's what they used to do. They assigned the round based on other teams bidding in advance of the draft. People didn't like it because a first round bid on a player that would go top 5 in the open draft could be matched with pick 18, so they changed to this points system where you can match a top 5 bid with picks 27, 28 and 29 instead.

 

[loki04]

Think the academy are great... but the way they can add up junk picks is a joke of the system.

Maybe could look to bring in a rule where you need a pick with 5 picks of the bid... Guy guys bid at 1... you need a top 6 pick to match... Bid at 11.. you need a top 17 pick to match.

Means the club still gets a chance to match but has to own their way to get there... not just pile a bunch of sh*t together

Nah i don't mind a small discount on either FS or academies, imo it should just be match in the same round. If you happen to luck out and have a pick 1 bid but have pick 18 grats.

Too many sour grapes in here, I hear Brisbane will be benefiting next year. Swings and round bouts.

I do agree though that the current system of bunched up crap is a bit of a joke.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Nah i don't mind a small discount on either FS or academies, imo it should just be match in the same round. If you happen to luck out and have a pick 1 bid but have pick 18 grats.

Too many sour grapes in here, I hear Brisbane will be benefiting next year. Swings and round bouts.

I do agree though that the current system of bunched up crap is a bit of a joke.

You should have to use multiple firsts if that’s the case. There’s already too much dumb luck allowed

 

[loki04]

You should have to use multiple firsts if that’s the case. There’s already too much dumb luck allowed

Nah, then you could be over paying and teams would start to overlook FS types which is another nail in the coffin of making the game oversanitised and disconnected from supporter bases.

 

[Lore]

Nah i don't mind a small discount on either FS or academies, imo it should just be match in the same round. If you happen to luck out and have a pick 1 bid but have pick 18 grats.

Too many sour grapes in here, I hear Brisbane will be benefiting next year. Swings and round bouts.

I do agree though that the current system of bunched up crap is a bit of a joke.

A pick in the same round, plus points from picks in subsequent rounds to make up the difference. So pick 18 + 1415 points from the subsequent picks.

 

[loki04]

A pick in the same round, plus points from picks in subsequent rounds to make up the difference. So pick 18 + 1415 points from the subsequent picks.

It's just getting too harsh on the club if you did that.
You are wiping out a clubs whole draft board on one player, this for a club in the bottom 10 is like getting sanctioned by the AFL.

You are basically punishing the club.

 

[Lore]

It's just getting too harsh on the club if you did that.
You are wiping out a clubs whole draft board on one player, this for a club in the bottom 10 is like getting sanctioned by the AFL.

You are basically punishing the club.

They don't have to match. They are welcome to pass if they don't think the player is worth it. There's a reason why the premiership team starts with pick 18 and the wooden spooner gets pick 1 – it's not because the premiership team should be able to get a pick 1 quality player and then also have the rest of their picks like nothing happened.

And then what happens if you have two father/son or NGA kids going in the first round? Match the first one with 18 and the second one with 36?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Nah, then you could be over paying and teams would start to overlook FS types which is another nail in the coffin of making the game oversanitised and disconnected from supporter bases.

They aren’t overpaying they are paying what they are worth. What you suggest makes little sense because clubs don’t know when a bid is coming.

 

[Bestbird]

It's just getting too harsh on the club if you did that.
You are wiping out a clubs whole draft board on one player, this for a club in the bottom 10 is like getting sanctioned by the AFL.

You are basically punishing the club.

It isn't that harsh. The bulldogs getting a top 3 pick in consecutive years using pretty much a bunch of 3rd drafts picks whilst playing of in a grand final is very generous

 

[loki04]

They aren’t overpaying they are paying what they are worth. What you suggest makes little sense because clubs don’t know when a bid is coming.

2 firsts is 100% overpaying, the fact you would need to pay overs to get that 2nd first and add it your own is something I thinknyou are over looking.

No mine makes perfect sense its just match a bid in the round they are picked at or next one after the bid.

In yours a player at pick 10 would cost you 2 firsts and potentially wipe out 2 drafts or having to do an over trade as teams use it as leverage.

 

[loki04]

It isn't that harsh. The bulldogs getting a top 3 pick in consecutive years using pretty much a bunch of 3rd drafts picks whilst playing of in a grand final is very generous

Yes that is why it needs to change from what it stands.

But the alternatives being listed in here are a joke and it is that harsh to lose your draft board for a single player.
Just because you are a touted top 5 or 10 pick is no garauntee to make it, imagine if pies did that for a Scharenbeg wiped out a whole draft and he never got there due to injury/other.
It would set a struggling team or a team in rebuild back years.

 

[loki04]

They don't have to match. They are welcome to pass if they don't think the player is worth it. There's a reason why the premiership team starts with pick 18 and the wooden spooner gets pick 1 – it's not because the premiership team should be able to get a pick 1 quality player and then also have the rest of their picks like nothing happened.

And then what happens if you have two father/son or NGA kids going in the first round? Match the first one with 18 and the second one with 36?

How often do you think a team would luck out like that?

It hasn't happened yet.

Yes the Dogs have been incredibly lucky with JUH academy and Darcy whilst they have a great team and are in contention.

But it is far from common place and all they really need is for teams to start making offers to players to push out some talent to water them down.
They can't pay them all what they are worth AFL has more then draft mechanism for keeping the cycle in place.

 

[Lore]

How often do you think a team would luck out like that?

It hasn't happened yet.

Yes the Dogs have been incredibly lucky with JUH academy and Darcy whilst they have a great team and are in contention.

But it is far from common place and all they really need is for teams to start making offers to players to push out some talent to water them down.
They can't pay them all what they are worth AFL has more then draft mechanism for keeping the cycle in place.

This stuff goes back years, a lot longer than JUH going pick 1 in December 2020. Teams have been leapfrogging bids, trading up ahead of it and taking multiple picks in the open draft top 10 before they match an academy or f/s bid in the first round with whatever trash picks they have left.

A simple 'match pick 1 with pick 18' is fine if you're matching one father/son kid once in a blue moon. But the system of academy, NGA and father/son bidding is now accounting for several players in the top 40 each year.

And if you think that's some kind of bias on my part, my suggestion first and foremost will hurt my own team. We have father/son twins coming through next year.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

2 firsts is 100% overpaying, the fact you would need to pay overs to get that 2nd first and add it your own is something I thinknyou are over looking.

No mine makes perfect sense its just match a bid in the round they are picked at or next one after the bid.

In yours a player at pick 10 would cost you 2 firsts and potentially wipe out 2 drafts or having to do an over trade as teams use it as leverage.

No it doesn’t.

If say Darcy was bid on at pick 10 and Bulldogs kept their pick 17, then after a 20% deduction and presuming Bulldogs finished with pick 17 again next season then that would be pushed back to about pick 19. So Darcy would cost 17 and a 17 to 19 downgrade.

It’s a good deal for the Dogs and the rest of the comp don’t all get pushed down the order as much as they currently do.

 

[LordLucifer]

Maybe the best way to fix the bidding system is that you have to outbid the other club, not match it. In what universe do you get rewarded for under-bidding ??

If you have to offer 20% more to get the player instead of 20% less, things may even out a bit.

 

[loki04]

No it doesn’t.

If say Darcy was bid on at pick 10 and Bulldogs kept their pick 17, then after a 20% deduction and presuming Bulldogs finished with pick 17 again next season then that would be pushed back to about pick 19. So Darcy would cost 17 and a 17 to 19 downgrade.

It’s a good deal for the Dogs and the rest of the comp don’t all get pushed down the order as much as they currently do.

They get the same player regardless as they practically don't have access to the FS anyway. Pushing down a slot actually as it stands benefits every other teams picks from 20s onwards as the pies and dogs dip out of the draft unless they trade back in.

If Darcy and Daicos went at 11 and 12 the top 10 names would still be called out the same as they were with those next 8 teams with them in. Only the number associated changes big deal doesn't effect anything.

 

[Taylor]

I don't think it should be changed at all. There are players still playing that were picked up by their club for 3rd round picks as father sons who have and will still have the benefit of it.

Changing the rules only hurts future clubs and makes existing clubs benefit of it greater.

By the time a club like Freo or GWS have father son picks we won't be able to have bids matched in the top ten at all while the sons of guys who's dads played 60 games to qualify him as a father son are running around.

 

[DragoDelph]

Maybe there should be a concession around foundation players, to help the newer clubs out.
foundation players tend to be towards the end of their career, so a 50 game mark might help.

 

[footyfan1978]

Overall I am fine with it.
Simple fact is despite Dogs and Pies getting some elite F/S types, it a lot better system than in past where you could simply get a type like these at back end of draft and that also was misleading how good those players maybe. (Hawkins, Ablett etc.)
Now at least they taken in draft order around about where they valued in the order of overall talent and those clubs generally then do not get much of a go in the draft for much of the early part of a draft. Dogs and Pies did not have another pick until mid 40's so they got to put all their efforts leading up to draft to trade other picks of first or second round out to be able to make sure they get the elite F/S type but means they not get much other elite talent access in same draft pool.

Yeah, the draft value index probably did not put enough points in premium picks in top three or four picks but we been using this system for about five years now. I think just bed in down and everybody understand the system in clubland and it way fairer than older systems.
It is not perfect but no system is. This is much closer to perfect that what we used to deal with. Players now get taken in right order which is how it should have been.

The Academy is not the same across the league so in time that probably needs addressing but right now, given Suns and GWS not been around long enough to get F/S picks I ok with them getting some type of Academy concessions that older clubs do not have access to.
Maybe in a decade or two that needs to be equal fully.
By then Tassie will be in too.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

They get the same player regardless as they practically don't have access to the FS anyway. Pushing down a slot actually as it stands benefits every other teams picks from 20s onwards as the pies and dogs dip out of the draft unless they trade back in.

If Darcy and Daicos went at 11 and 12 the top 10 names would still be called out the same as they were with those next 8 teams with them in. Only the number associated changes big deal doesn't effect anything.

Come on you can’t be serious. You are comparing mediocre picks with top end ones. That’s the problem.

If Collingwood had to lose a future first rounder for Daicos and Bulldogs most likely this years and next years for Darcy the comp is match fairer and under your belief also benefits Collingwood and Bulldogs because they get to keep a whole heap of later picks.

 

[loki04]

Come on you can’t be serious. You are comparing mediocre picks with top end ones. That’s the problem.

If Collingwood had to lose a future first rounder for Daicos and Bulldogs most likely this years and next years for Darcy the comp is match fairer and under your belief also benefits Collingwood and Bulldogs because they get to keep a whole heap of later picks.

I was addressing you whining about teams being unfairly "pushed down the order".

Teams pick wouldn't change because they don't have access to those 2 is the point so they really aren't being unfairly pushed down the order.

You are taking the piss if u think 2 firsts is fair on the team taking them, what if the dogs wheels fall off due to injury and they finish bot 4 they then have paid a top 4 pick and a late first for a player if in open draft only consumes 1 top 4 pick.

The whole point of fs discounts is to promote clubs to take their father sons and keep a bit of romanticism in the game and fan engagement. The game is already sanitised enough as it is.

I get that currently it is a rort both academy and fs bidding but your suggestion is going too far the other way.

The academy bids imo are a bigger issue given the numbers of players coming from them, father sons however really do need all the stars to align.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I was addressing you whining about teams being unfairly "pushed down the order".

Teams pick wouldn't change because they don't have access to those 2 is the point so they really aren't being unfairly pushed down the order.

You are taking the piss if u think 2 firsts is fair on the team taking them, what if the dogs wheels fall off due to injury and they finish bot 4 they then have paid a top 4 pick and a late first for a player if in open draft only consumes 1 top 4 pick.

The whole point of fs discounts is to promote clubs to take their father sons and keep a bit of romanticism in the game and fan engagement. The game is already sanitised enough as it is.

I get that currently it is a rort both academy and fs bidding but your suggestion is going too far the other way.

The academy bids imo are a bigger issue given the numbers of players coming from them, father sons however really do need all the stars to align.

No the Bulldogs wouldn’t because you still have the point4 would get pushed back to about 14-15.
No issue with a 20% discount it’s the trading of rubbish picks to get top players that’s the problem.

You still get pushed down because other clubs with poor picks who trade leap frog you to the pick the club with the FS previously had. If the Bulldogs first pick was wiped out the Lions would’ve had access to Jacob Van Rooyen and everyone in the 20’s would’ve moved up a pick.