Don't really see the point of changing the whole system based on a "maybe" TBH.
Fair enough. I think it is good system so curious to hear lots of thoughts of what people think, including reasons why you do not want it.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Don't really see the point of changing the whole system based on a "maybe" TBH.
The AFL emulates the NFL more than the NBA from what I've seen. If it was in the NFL I reckon it'd have been done a while ago.It’s actually amazing they haven’t done this. They had every excuse to with all the tanking shenanigans... and the kicker, they love trying to create an event they can sell for TV revenue. They’ve tried to do it with the draft itself, and the lottery is more exciting and would out-rate it.
Who is actually tanking at the moment?
This is a solution for a problem that isn't really a problem.
I like the concept mathematically but I found the tv coverage on ESPN not that interesting in itself. I found it weird they seem to force the likely top ten draftees to be there when it is not draft day. It is about working out the draft order itself. Was kind of pointless having likely early draftees there that cannot talk about where they going as not drafted yet. Even after they had known whom has pick one, the expected number one draftee getting interviewed was dull as all * as there is nothing really to add by him. It is not like he is certain to go pick one or to that club. So the presentation itself was weird as did not even see the draw at all. All they did was announce which clubs had picks progressively from pick 14 to 1 but you never actually saw the lottery drawn. Not sure how that for tv presentation adds anything. I certainly would not want AFL to copy the tv presentation or the uninteresting way they announce pick order via envelopes.It’s actually amazing they haven’t done this. They had every excuse to with all the tanking shenanigans... and the kicker, they love trying to create an event they can sell for TV revenue. They’ve tried to do it with the draft itself, and the lottery is more exciting and would out-rate it.
Well, that sure aged well...We all know that St Kilda are going to eventually turn into the Brisbane lions...
In round 9 generally nobody is tanking.
Ask again at round 21.
Carlton wont this year.
North might?
Gold Coast might?
St Kilda might?
I'm not going to call you old fashioned. Relatively new in grand scheme of league history. I have never liked the idea. But it is what the system has been for a few decades. I'd been happy if we progressed beyond it.Call me old fashioned but I like the idea of the worst side getting the best pick.
Wrong. you are forgetting our list was gutted so bad in early 2000's from virtually unable to pick any elite youngsters for about two or three drafts that all we were doing in mid to late 2000's was trying to get head above water on a list talent basis.I don't think lack of immediate impact is a reason for or against a draft lottery. Even in the NBA there's not always a consensus #1 pick and the #1 pick can still be a bust. Fultz, Wiggins, Bennett, Bargnani, Oden, Brown all went #1 this century.
If anything multiple bottom 4 finishes can lead to a team being stacked. Bit different now that first round priority picks are basically gone but 2004/5 were examples of teams getting 2 stabs at the pointy end of the draft. Richmond and WB got one star each, Hawthorn got 2 in 2004. Carlton and Collingwood got 2 in 2005, Hawthorn probably got none in the end from their two picks. No one thought much of Roughead/Franklin/Kennedy after just one year because they were 18 year old talls, but Carlton in particular followed up 1 & 4 in 2005 with 1 again in 2006 and then 1 & 3 in 2007. Obviously Carlton bottled it but they could've ended up with a bunch of stars all coming good at once.
Likes are a recent introduction, they didn't exist when he was posting.
Was in the ancient days before the like system was brought in
Let me give you each a LikeLikes are a recent introduction, they didn't exist when he was posting.
It kinda has. Melbourne's tanking was more obvious because of the rule that meant that sides that won 4 or fewer games in back-to-back years got a pre-first round priority pick. Same thing happened to Carlton.Has the incentive to do so been removed since then? Not that I recall.
Who is actually tanking at the moment?
This is a solution for a problem that isn't really a problem.
I do believe a lottery system is the fairest way to go, provided we cap it based on draft position (i.e. Wooded Spooners must end up with a pick in the top 5, premiers can't be in the top 10, and various other restrictions).I don't care about the early 2000s.
Picks 1 & 4 in 2005, 1 in 2006 and 1 & 3 in 2007 could've netted the core of a team.
Murphy (1), Pendlebury (4), Gibbs(1), Judd (trade 1 & 3) would've been handy. Can substitute Pendlebury for Josh Kennedy too. Could've taken Cotchin in 2007 also if you traded Kennedy.
The top ten picks. All the clubs missing finals go into the draft lottery to decide whom gets pick 1 to 10. Do that during the week before the first weekend of finals start., at some future point, the tanking debate will raise its head again. So I am all for the lottery system.
How would it work though? Would it just be for first round picks? Just the top 10 picks? etc.
So in the second round, does the order revert to where teams finished on the ladder?The top ten picks. All the clubs missing finals go into the draft lottery to decide whom gets pick 1 to 10. Do that during the week before the first weekend of finals start.