New draft system idea

[bigburger]

Hello all.

With all the controversy about the current draft system causing tanking I was wondering how it would be possible to get around this and make it fairer. Now in my opinion the lottery system used in the NBA is hardly fair and there is a better way. I propose an auction based system replacing the cash with points depending on where each team finishes that season. The points would be allocated below (and can easily be changed depending on levels of fairness):

16 = 30
15 = 28
14 = 26
13 = 24
12 = 22
11 = 20
10 = 19
9 = 18
8 = 17
7 = 16
6 = 15
5 = 14
4 = 13
3 = 12
2 = 11
1 = 10

Now the team that wins the premiership that year may only decide to replace one player and so they can bid all their 10 allocated points on the first pick (Or the highest pick they can get with that many points). Whether in the long term that be a good thing or a bad is only a lesson that can be learned in time. At a guess i'd say the first pick would be worth maybe 14 or 15 points though the value could only be accurately measured after one or two seasons using this system. What could improve it even further would be making the auction silent. If this system was in place instead of trading for draft picks teams would trade for points.

I think its fair, simple and will gain the results the AFL are trying to achieve with their aim of rotating success and keeping the competition equal. Thoughts?

 

[Donakebab]

What about trades? Can teams trade points for players?

I think the system is fine how it is right now, but I'm always up for hearing more ideas.

 

[Defacto]

i like this idea. in essence the drafting rules need to be improved to stop tanking.

what i would be in favor of is the ability to pass on picks and re-use them the following year, this way you can build up your picks and use them when you want. this would allow good teams to build up picks or points at a lesser rate than teams that are continually finishing last.

 

[nobbyiscool]

the best answer is the simplest, and without the complexities of this system - teams 13-16 have a completely random draw for picks 1-4, teams 9-12 draw for picks 5-8 and so on. order of picks is redrawn before every round.

priority pick remains where it is after round 1 and is also subject to random draw where more that one team qualifies.

the points system is too complex, and i think it'd be too hard to implement. it'll result in carlton like teams that lack depth. and if you look at a team like geelong, who might only lose one or 2 players this season - they might bid all their points for one player... but what happens in 3 years when they lose a lot at once? they crash and burn.

i also wonder if it's more subject to draft tampering than the current system - i wonder if a club would just ask a player to stand out of the national draft and go into the preseason draft.

 

[soupaman]

There was a very vsimiliar idea to this posted not so long ago, and the problem still stands.

It's unfair on the weaker clubs.

Take Geelong and Richmond for example.

At the end of this year Geelong would be turning over about 3 players. They don't necessarily need the high draft picks, as their list is awesome as it is. They can thus afford to go for some of the more specualtive players, the ones with a high upside but questionable current ability. These guys would be the ones who are late first round, early second round.

Richmond on the other hand have to replace approximately 5-8 players, with atleast 2 of them being outstanding. Yes they do get more points than Geelong, but market forces will dictate that the top 2-3 players will be worht a lot more than others, and these are the ones Richmond wants. As a result Richmond would either spend a lot on a couple of the best prospects, and have poo change left for the others, or have a group of solid, not great prospects.

This means that over time Richmond will have more players who don't cut it, as they were forced to buy the cheap ones. This means these players need to be de-listed, and the process for them continues. Geelong however, who only had to buy couple for players and could afford to let them develop further stregnthen their squad, meaning that in future drafts again they only have to de-list a couple of players, and can thus distribute their funds on good players again.

In short, it wouldn't work.

 

[bigburger]

There was a very vsimiliar idea to this posted not so long ago, and the problem still stands.

It's unfair on the weaker clubs.

Take Geelong and Richmond for example.

At the end of this year Geelong would be turning over about 3 players. They don't necessarily need the high draft picks, as their list is awesome as it is. They can thus afford to go for some of the more specualtive players, the ones with a high upside but questionable current ability. These guys would be the ones who are late first round, early second round.

Richmond on the other hand have to replace approximately 5-8 players, with atleast 2 of them being outstanding. Yes they do get more points than Geelong, but market forces will dictate that the top 2-3 players will be worht a lot more than others, and these are the ones Richmond wants. As a result Richmond would either spend a lot on a couple of the best prospects, and have poo change left for the others, or have a group of solid, not great prospects.

This means that over time Richmond will have more players who don't cut it, as they were forced to buy the cheap ones. This means these players need to be de-listed, and the process for them continues. Geelong however, who only had to buy couple for players and could afford to let them develop further stregnthen their squad, meaning that in future drafts again they only have to de-list a couple of players, and can thus distribute their funds on good players again.

In short, it wouldn't work.

I totally disagree with this. If Richmond finish in the bottom three they will easily have enough points to make two bids which will gain them two picks above Geelongs first (assuming they finish first this season) and still have a number of points to make bids for lower picks. Also if you honestly think Geelong can get away this year with only rotating 1 or 2 players then you obviously haven't been following football for long and haven't noticed that their depth is not that great. e.g Ruck department, Shannon Byrnes getting regular games etc. Their list is aging the best policy is a constant turnover of players imo.

 

[potatomasher]

the best answer is the simplest, and without the complexities of this system - teams 13-16 have a completely random draw for picks 1-4, teams 9-12 draw for picks 5-8 and so on. order of picks is redrawn before every round.

priority pick remains where it is after round 1 and is also subject to random draw where more that one team qualifies.

the points system is too complex, and i think it'd be too hard to implement. it'll result in carlton like teams that lack depth. and if you look at a team like geelong, who might only lose one or 2 players this season - they might bid all their points for one player... but what happens in 3 years when they lose a lot at once? they crash and burn.

i also wonder if it's more subject to draft tampering than the current system - i wonder if a club would just ask a player to stand out of the national draft and go into the preseason draft.

I like your idea, but the problem is it encourages teams to finish 13th instead of 12th. This is why I think the only way is for the bottom 8 to be randomly given picks 1-8. No team is going to try to finish 9th instead of 8th, regardless of the fact they might snag a #1 draft pick out of it. A finals berth is far more important. The top 8 wouldn't need to be randomly sorted, as no top 8 team would ever be tanking.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Just get rid of the draft. The NRL do a lot wrong, but they have their draft right - by not having one.
Let the salary cap do the job, those with poor teams should have more room in the cap for better players - young and old. Let the good youngsters get more than the base wage if there are clubs prepared to pay it.

 

[bigburger]

Just get rid of the draft. The NRL do a lot wrong, but they have their draft right - by not having one.
Let the salary cap do the job, those with poor teams should have more room in the cap for better players - young and old. Let the good youngsters get more than the base wage if there are clubs prepared to pay it.

Thats actually a fair enough suggestion. I had never even thought about that.

 

[Pessimistic]

The same points currency can be used in trade week, which would be the main benefit of the system - would be much easier to trade for established players maybe perhaps putting free agency off the agenda.

I'd also abandon father son and zoning replacing it with a discount scheme - ie if a player qualifies under father son, the club , if successful in bidding for him, gets a discount when they come to pay for him. same for limited zoning such as what GC and west sydney will be getting - might make it easier for kids to stay in their own state..

as for uncontracted players perhaps if someone leaves for another club, the club losing him is compensated, possibly in a pre season auction.

Also, to avoid inflation in the system, the AFL takes all the points bid in a particular draft, keeps them and only hands out that number of pooints the following rear, pro rata with finishing ladder position

 

[Ysaye]

Just get rid of the draft. The NRL do a lot wrong, but they have their draft right - by not having one.
Let the salary cap do the job, those with poor teams should have more room in the cap for better players - young and old. Let the good youngsters get more than the base wage if there are clubs prepared to pay it.

So just for clarification, could you run a hypothetical of what would happen at the end of this season? take say Melbourne as a bottom club, Adelaide as a middle of the road club and Geelong as a top of the table club. So each club is doing something like:

Melbourne - would have lots of room under the salary cap to bid on whomever. They offer Scully and Butcher large amounts of money, as well as (say for example) Bartel at the Cats.

Adelaide - roughly have the same space as they had previously. They need a forward so they throw quite a bit at bidding for Butcher.

Geelong - severly hurt by salary cap restrictions, decide that they have to hold onto Ablett and Selwood, but are forced to offer reductions to all other players. They cannot also afford to get into significant bidding wars for draft players, as they just don't have the money.

Father and Son work basically as they did before the draft pick bidding system except that the son might have to accept a less than market price to go to his fathers club.

What other implications are involved?

 

[Ripper]

Just get rid of the draft. The NRL do a lot wrong, but they have their draft right - by not having one.
Let the salary cap do the job, those with poor teams should have more room in the cap for better players - young and old. Let the good youngsters get more than the base wage if there are clubs prepared to pay it.

Yep , Poor teams will rebound faster if they are allowed bigger lists as well.

Mininmum list size should be 40 Maximum 56.

 

[KUNG FU]

First up, this should be a non-issue for at least 3 years with this year's narrowed and weak crop, then GC & WS's concessions.

Tanking really doesn't work very well in the AFL, especially compared to other sports that employ a lottery system or similar. In most cases when it happens it usually just involves re-prioritizing youth and development over senior 2nd/3rd-tier players. I would say in those cases, such priority changes would happen regardless of the available draft picks.

* 22 players on the field, 38 players on a senior list - depth is crucial to Aussie Rules and a few top 5 picks isn't going to cut it, see: Geelong, WCE (with the exception of 2001), Sydney, Hawthorn traded their way up the draft as opposed to Richmond, St Kilda (until this year admittedly but they've traded hard to back up those high picks), Carlton (up and down, not enough depth to carry them over the line in the hard games) - looking at Melbourne's list can you really see them getting much further
* Drafting in the AFL is always hit and miss, and the top end has only a slightly better strike rate than the latter stages
* Most draft lists differ widely, maybe speculation on my behalf, but most players in the top 10 would end up at the same if the draft order was random

Just get rid of the draft. The NRL do a lot wrong, but they have their draft right - by not having one.
Let the salary cap do the job, those with poor teams should have more room in the cap for better players - young and old. Let the good youngsters get more than the base wage if there are clubs prepared to pay it.

Yeah, because the salary cap is so much harder to rort than tanking.

 

[KUNG FU]

Adelaide - roughly have the same space as they had previously. They need a forward so they throw quite a bit at bidding for Butcher.

Taylor Walker. 18 years, 1 month and 5 days old. 5 goals against the reigning premier. 20 goals in 10 games for the year.

 

[Lach72]

Taylor Walker. 18 years, 1 month and 5 days old. 5 goals against the reigning premier. 20 goals in 10 games for the year.

he would go well with Butcher.
Butcher, Walker, Porpoise...you know it makes sense

 

[KUNG FU]

he would go well with Butcher.
Butcher, Walker, Porpoise...you know it makes sense

Let's say I wouldn't complain, but I don't see a huge need to invest in another KPF with Tippett obviously, then depending on which way they go; Davis, McKernan, Lee and Young coming through. And for the optimist, Sellar.

 

[Vader]

he would go well with Butcher.
Butcher, Walker, Porpoise...you know it makes sense

We're developing quite a handy young forward line as it is. Last week we had contributions from Tippett, Walker, Porplyzia & Knights. The oldest of these is Porplyzia, at 24yrs and 6mths.

Waiting in the wings, still developing, we have a host of talls drafted last year - including Davis & McKernan.

If Butcher is still available at our first selection (unlikely) then we may grab him. A tall is likely with our first pick anyway. Beyond that, we'll be going small this time around.