News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[Lore]

 

[Slysh]

This implies that there is work done currently to make the competition fair. There is no appetite for that, because the single biggest thing that would make the AFL fairer is to have a random draw - which would mean less 'blockbusters" and less of the BIG FOUR playing each other constantly.

The draft and the salary cap were introduced a long long time ago.

And since then has been made somewhat redundant by each year having the top 10 impacted by father sons and academies.

I am all for the suggestions you made. I want equal opportunity not equal outcome which it seems the AFL is more interested in

 

[The 747]

And since then has been made somewhat redundant by each year having the top 10 impacted by father sons and academies.

I am all for the suggestions you made. I want equal opportunity not equal outcome which it seems the AFL is more interested in

True, although if a club has a potential father son they do invest resources into that player, which helps the player develop, which pushes them up in the draft. I know some don't like the father son rule but I am for it. It's a unique thing about our sport AFAIK.

Top 10 no longer impacted by academies but there is an issue with academies:

1. Clubs invest in an academy out of self interest.
2. Those academies are quite good at developing players, to the extent that there have been quite a lot of high draft picks out of the academies.
3. Most people would agree that having more talent developed is a good thing.
4. If you take the incentive for academies away clubs won't do it, the AFL will have to and the AFL won't do it as well.

 

[rye]

I do honestly like the F/S for it's uniqueness and in terms unfair things in the league, I'd have that pretty low. Maybe the only change I'd make is the top 5 is fully off limits to bids because it can really completely * over the bottom teams when a Darcy, Daicos and Ashcroft is unavailable to them.

Personally, GWS and GC have enough disadvantages and are still decades away from being strong enough to survive on their own that I'm ok with them having the leg up that is academies.

I'm dead against Sydney and Brisbane having the same concessions though. They've been strong enough for long enough with a big enough supporter base that they dont need the leg up. Their bidding rules should be the same as every other club and I think that should be the top 20 being off limits.

brisbane were rubbish for 15 years

in terms of supporter bases, i think the fact that brisbane has consistently had the lowest membership tally excluding the 2 most recent expansion clubs despite having a sizable victorian supporter faction from the merger should tell you that we do not really have a big supporter base at all.

the club still has to draft and recruit in a manner different to other clubs due to particulars of being a queensland team, and it still does not always work (lohmann is going to leave this year for peanuts)

the academy has produced one first round pick in its existence (hipwood)
(e: you could consider fletcher as well, but was technically drafted as a f/s selection)

to take away brisbanes academy access when we have arguably had the second least productive northern academy after a period of modest success seems extremely reactionary

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

brisbane were rubbish for 15 years

in terms of supporter bases, i think the fact that brisbane has consistently had the lowest membership tally excluding the 2 most recent expansion clubs despite having a sizable victorian supporter faction from the merger should tell you that we do not really have a big supporter base at all.

the club still has to draft and recruit in a manner different to other clubs due to particulars of being a queensland team, and it still does not always work (lohmann is going to leave this year for peanuts)

the academy has produced one first round pick in its existence (hipwood)

to take away brisbanes academy access when we have arguably had the second least productive northern academy after a period of modest success seems extremely reactionary

You can recruit as well as anyone as seen by any and all joining Brisbane the last 5 years. Unique combination of being big enough (average home crowd attendance of 25k this year), players still able to live out of the AFL spotlight and still being East Coast (travel not TOO bad, close to Vic).

It's not that your academy is a talent factory like Sydney, is that your a big enough club to hold yourself together like the rest of us and shouldnt need a leg up. It might be unproductive now but that could easily turn around sometime shortly.

I see your being rubbish for 15 years after a damn threepeat and raise you being rubbish for nearly 30 years with not one flag

 

[FB19]

Keep the father son it is unique and a nice tradition and in time all clubs will be on a level playing field.
Although the arbitrary 100 game rule is a bit dumb we should look at other ways to qualify but again ensure they don’t create an unfair advantage.
Keep the academies full stop as developmental pathways. allow priority matching only for expansion sides until a point where it is determined they are established and competitive.

 

[juss]

I do honestly like the F/S for it's uniqueness and in terms unfair things in the league, I'd have that pretty low. Maybe the only change I'd make is the top 5 is fully off limits to bids because it can really completely * over the bottom teams when a Darcy, Daicos and Ashcroft is unavailable to them.

Personally, GWS and GC have enough disadvantages and are still decades away from being strong enough to survive on their own that I'm ok with them having the leg up that is academies.

I'm dead against Sydney and Brisbane having the same concessions though. They've been strong enough for long enough with a big enough supporter base that they dont need the leg up. Their bidding rules should be the same as every other club and I think that should be the top 20 being off limits.

Agree, Father Son is a great touch and no one really cares when a team drafts a FS rated at pick 30 for a discount of pick 40, but when you find yourself getting the number 1 pick for Brisbane, a team that made a PF that year and was always going to be a flag contender in coming years, that's a pot luck lottery win for that club and impacts the comp top much.

Darcy and Daicos similar examples to the above, but the Ashcroft one probably highlights it best.

 

[Cleric]

Discounts for F/S and academy selections should go. Being able to match a bid is a big enough leg up.

Farcical that supreme talents are being handed over for a bunch of crappy picks. Daicos the best player before the draft slipped down to pick 4 then got discounted!! You want Daicos, you pay full price.

I don't care that Beveridge had a whinge about other clubs bidding on JUH and Darcy, you want them, you pay full price.

I understand the need for northern academies to grow the game and help those sides have a few less players on their list potential go homers (we stole Dawson as a go homer through PSD threat) but the knee jerk reaction to create NGA's for non Northern clubs was bullshit and badly flawed thinking by the AFL.

The whole drafting system needs a thorough look by unbiased eyes. I like the idea of secret bidding from a pool of draft points but carryover points should be strictly controlled and limited.

We literally had Geelong put together one of the greatest eras of football off the back of cheap F/S picks.
The AFL has to stop changing the rules every second Monday. They allow the Bulldogs to get the number 1 pick from their NGA and then change the rules to not allow any club to get an NGA in the top 30 picks. They gave WA clubs FS from 100 games, then the SA clubs had 200 games.

It gives four clubs in two states the ability of get the very best players in their states cheaply, while not allowing the same for other states.
This has to stop.

 

[Membling]

We literally had Geelong put together one of the greatest eras of football off the back of cheap F/S picks.
The AFL has to stop changing the rules every second Monday. They allow the Bulldogs to get the number 1 pick from their NGA and then change the rules to not allow any club to get an NGA in the top 30 picks. They gave WA clubs FS from 100 games, then the SA clubs had 200 games.

It gives four clubs in two states the ability of get the very best players in their states cheaply, while not allowing the same for other states.
This has to stop.

More than happy for it to stop if the AFL picks up the tab and actually has a 10 year plan for developing talent within NSW/QLD.

Because before the academies, NSW and QLD (outside of the Riverina area) were a barren wasteland for draft hopefuls. So, I have no doubt that the AFL would do a fantastic job with grass roots footy in non-tradtional states again

Additionally, I would love for more transparency in specific areas, such as third party deals, with a potential soft cap. Rotating GF, rotating of marquee games and a more equitable fixturing IRT travel, especially for WA sides.

 

[WilloTree]

I take my hat off to the work at Clontarf. It's a terrific example to how unity should and can work.

Can we just pretend the whole father-son thing doesn't exist? That is an embarrassment to cultural and equality identity.

 

[Strahany]

Perhaps any team with an upcoming Father Son should have their draft picks “locked” in some capacity.

For example, Daicos was rated as a consensus first round prospect, if not consensus best player in the draft, from over a year out. In a different system, Collingwood would have been asked if their intention was to select Daicos. If they answer yes, their pick in the round where Daicos was expected to be taken is locked and can’t be traded. In this case it would have been their future 1st locked up in the year prior to his draft, and the 1st remained locked up as he had no drop in consensus draft ranking in his draft year. Had his form slipped, for example, then their 2nd or 3rd would have been locked in the trade period of his draft year.

This wouldn’t solve everything but at least prevent the nonsense bundles of lowly picks equating to elite talent.

Scrap NGA altogether.

 

[Haggas]

Father Son should stay but academies should be for all teams or none

 

[Vindicater]

Father son should stay for sure. Is a unique and wonderful thing.

Academy should disappear and the discount for both should also disappear.

 

[GeTrain]

When matching a bid for a player a pick in that round should be used (then later picks make up the point differential). My main issue with academies and FS is they allow teams to trade a first round pick and not miss out on elite young talent. I'd also change the NGA protection back totop 20.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Said this a few times but copying from another thread I made a few years ago

The problem with the current system is that it is so hard to get proper value for a player, getting exactly what that player is worth rather than trying to find a deal with picks, picks that won't necessarily match what the player is actually worth.

That is very convoluted.

I will be honest and say I think the best solution is actually going entirely points based for drafting and trading.

Each team has points at the start of the trading process based on their ladder position

18th position - 4647 points
17th position - 4088 points
16th position - 3740 points
15th position - 3478 points
14th position - 3263 points
13th position - 3077 points
12th position - 2913 points
11th position - 2765 points
10th position - 2631 points
9th position - 2504 points
8th position - 2388 points
7th position - 2279 points
6th position - 2174 points
5th position - 2077 points
4th position - 1983 points
3rd position - 1894 points
2nd position - 1809 points
1st position - 1726 points

and lets use the Kelly example from a few years ago where West Coast didn't really have anything Geelong wanted. They could instead under this system simply pay Geelong 1950 points and West Coast would get Kelly (both teams negotiating how many points Kelly is worth).

Then come the draft day pick 1 is announced and every team has 2 minutes to submit who they want with pick 1, and the points they are willing to pay for pick 1.

Then, the team that handed over the most points for pick 1 gets the player they nominated (and it is not shown what the other teams did). We then move onto pick 2, teams placing bids, stating the player they want and the points they are willing to pay and then the team that submitted the highest points total gets the player they want, then moving onto pick 3 etc.

If an academy kid is nominated at some point in the draft then the side the academy kid is attached to has a right to match the bid the rival team placed on said academy player, paying the points the rival team wants to pay.

It also potentially allows a lot more freedom in the draft for individual clubs to do what they think is best. For instance Adelaide could really really want Jason Horne, a local boy and supposedly the best player in the draft. They could use almost all their points on a pick 1 bid and get Jason Horne. It would mean having really crappy later picks but it would get the player they really want. Then we could have North Melbourne who could decide that no, we are not going to go after pick 1, and instead we are going to use our points later in the draft and bid on picks 7, 8 and 9, and suddenly North have 3 top 10 players and are able to turbocharge their rebuild.

Also clubs can bank points, so if a club decides not to use 1000 points they will have those points in next years draft.

To me this is a much fairer system, not just for the academies, but for the trading and drafting system in general.

I've been pushing this idea for years - I still struggle to see a downside. Genuinely builds anticipation between picks and producers don't have to show 4-5 minutes of the club's recruiters sitting around (having already made their decision).

The main argument against was what if the Premier bids 1700 points and gets pick #1, and the "optics" of that.

The difference between pick 1 and 2 is often greater than between say pick 40 and pick 99 so clubs will heavily weight draft points towards the top of the draft.

 

[The 747]

I've been pushing this idea for years - I still struggle to see a downside. Genuinely builds anticipation between picks and producers don't have to show 4-5 minutes of the club's recruiters sitting around (having already made their decision).

The main argument against was what if the Premier bids 1700 points and gets pick #1, and the "optics" of that.

The difference between pick 1 and 2 is often greater than between say pick 40 and pick 99 so clubs will heavily weight draft points towards the top of the draft.

Yes but that would mean 17 other clubs who have more points have not outbid them.

I do see how it would go, my club for example last year wins the flag, list is solid so they bid max for pick 1 (and add Wardlow) and take two >50 picks (or if it was last year two rookie upgrades). So you would have to stop rookie upgrades being counted as draft selections towards the mandatory three.

Premiers taking pick 1 only would be a bit on the nose.

 

[M Malice]

Keep the father son rule.

Don't get rid of the academies but the AFL fully fund them, they could still be based at and staff appointed by clubs and they continue to run them or the AFL could run the whole kit and kaboodle, whatever is easier logistically and then all players enter an open draft.

 

[Saab NLAW]

I agree to keep F/S however clubs like GWS and GCS (and Tassie) need to have an academy because they obviously don't have any F/S picks.

Sydney and Brisbane getting an academy is just a rort, everyone knows it and why they have them. Get rid of them as soon as possible, but it won't happen because the AFL needs to artificially prop them up for more media money. AFL is a business and then decisions are business related, nothing to do with having a valid competition.

 

[Purple Suit]

I've been pushing this idea for years - I still struggle to see a downside. Genuinely builds anticipation between picks and producers don't have to show 4-5 minutes of the club's recruiters sitting around (having already made their decision).

The main argument against was what if the Premier bids 1700 points and gets pick #1, and the "optics" of that.

The difference between pick 1 and 2 is often greater than between say pick 40 and pick 99 so clubs will heavily weight draft points towards the top of the draft.

Simple, the first 5 or so picks are locked to the team who can pay the book points cost of the pick of say 2000 points (guess). If bids are up to 3000 they can opt for the point haul instead.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

Port on the verge of a large number of F/S picks over the next 6 years so I want it to stay.

 

[BloodySwan]

Nothing wrong with the academies. Seeing the Swans go from Grand Finalists to bottom 6 in a season shows the AFL is doing a good job at balance.

Sorry you didn't like seeing Blakey choose the Swans over the team his dad played for, but I bet the same group had no issue in Murphy choosing the Blues over the Lions.

Academies are an equalisation measure and the "Northern clubs" are clearly not dominating the AFL

 

[Saab NLAW]

Nothing wrong with the academies. Seeing the Swans go from Grand Finalists to bottom 6 in a season shows the AFL is doing a good job at balance.

Sorry you didn't like seeing Blakey choose the Swans over the team his dad played for, but I bet the same group had no issue in Murphy choosing the Blues over the Lions.

Academies are an equalisation measure and the "Northern clubs" are clearly not dominating the AFL

The self-entitlement of Swans fans continues to amaze me.

 

[BloodySwan]

The self-entitlement of Swans fans continues to amaze me.

How is anything I said self entitled?

 

[Saab NLAW]

How is anything I said self entitled?

Seriously?

 

[BloodySwan]

Seriously?

Father sons are entitlement. Imagine expecting who a baby can play for based off who his dad played for.

 

[Saab NLAW]

Father sons are entitlement. Imagine expecting who a baby can play for based off who his dad played for.

Now you're just embarrassing yourself.