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

[Lore]

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

I'm not sure if you have a problem with reading comprehension, but in numerous posts the OP has explained how this proposed system remains a form of equalisation.

I'm not saying I 100% agree with everything they have said, but I like the idea.

It does a worse job at equalisation than the existing system.

The bottom teams having first access to the best talents, better FA compo, the threat of the draft when a club cannot find perfect value, is all apart of that. Something OP wants to remove.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

No thanks, would however support a draft lottery for the top 6 picks though

 

[Sirlemsip]

It does a worse job at equalisation than the existing system.

The bottom teams having first access to the best talents, better FA compo, the threat of the draft when a club cannot find perfect value, is all apart of that. Something OP wants to remove.

I agree that it isn't perfect, but OP's system can be tweaked to ensure that it is almost impossible for a club to obtain enough points to outbid the wooden spooner for pick 1.

Alternatively, a 'cap' can be placed on the maximum amount of points that can be bid for pick 1 - and that if the max points are bid, then the lowest ranked club on the ladder 'wins' the auction.

e.g. if the max bid for Pick 1 is 4000 points, then the spooner would always have the chance to win that auction.
However, in a year like this one, WC could have sat back and let NM, Hawthorn, Melbourne etc fight it out over pick one and then save their points for Curtin and whoever else they wanted.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I agree that it isn't perfect, but OP's system can be tweaked to ensure that it is almost impossible for a club to obtain enough points to outbid the wooden spooner for pick 1.

Alternatively, a 'cap' can be placed on the maximum amount of points that can be bid for pick 1 - and that if the max points are bid, then the lowest ranked club on the ladder 'wins' the auction.

e.g. if the max bid for Pick 1 is 4000 points, then the spooner would always have the chance to win that auction.
However, in a year like this one, WC could have sat back and let NM, Hawthorn, Melbourne etc fight it out over pick one and then save their points for Curtin and whoever else they wanted.

No issue with a lottery or auction but keep it to the bottom 4-6 sides (at most). No system where a team coming 9th gets the best kid in the land is a good one.

 

[Sirlemsip]

No issue with a lottery or auction but keep it to the bottom 4-6 sides (at most). No system where a team coming 9th gets the best kid in the land is a good one.

If the auction is based on points, tell me how anybody other than NW and WC would have had any chance of getting Reid:

 

[Sirlemsip]

No issue with a lottery or auction but keep it to the bottom 4-6 sides (at most). No system where a team coming 9th gets the best kid in the land is a good one.

Additionally, the current system with future pick trading already allows anybody to potentially get the 'best kid' if they manage to bring in the right future 1st pick.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If the auction is based on points, tell me how anybody other than NW and WC would have had any chance of getting Reid:

Why even have that chance, and they could easily add their future pick in anyway. No issue with a lottery or auction, the NBA have a good system there, have it a lottery for the bottom 4 to 6 sides, with the bottom side having the most changes of it. Last thing you want to do it is complicate the system even more and make it utterly impossible to follow for fans, in majority most aren't mathematicians. The two options are the way we have it OR a lottery system which is similar to the NBA.

 

[Sirlemsip]

Why even have that chance, and they could easily add their future pick in anyway. No issue with a lottery or auction, the NBA have a good system there, have it a lottery for the bottom 4 to 6 sides, with the bottom side having the most changes of it. Last thing you want to do it is complicate the system even more and make it utterly impossible to follow for fans, in majority most aren't mathematicians. The two options are the way we have it OR a lottery system which is similar to the NBA.

Lottery system still has problems because of randomness.

Say there is a season where the bottom 6 sides finish with the following win-loss ratios:
18th - 0 wins, 23 losses
17th - 1 win, 22 losses
16th - 3 wins, 20 losses
15th - 4 wins, 19 losses
14th - 7 wins, 16 losses
13th - 9 wins, 14 losses

You would be happy in that year for the team who finishes 13th (or even 14th) to get the number 1 pick?

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Additionally, the current system with future pick trading already allows anybody to potentially get the 'best kid' if they manage to bring in the right future 1st pick.

Or more pertinently in the last few years, Father Son (with Nick Daicos and Will Ashcroft etc)

The OP's suggestion makes equalisation less and less, West Coast would most likely not have been able to get any of the top 5 selections based on the points and picks they had already, how bloody unfair is that (if the Eagles were not stiffed already in this year's draft)

It's not viable to help the bottom clubs at all.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Lottery system still has problems because of randomness.

Say there is a season where the bottom 6 sides finish with the following win-loss ratios:
18th - 0 wins, 23 losses
17th - 1 win, 22 losses
16th - 3 wins, 20 losses
15th - 4 wins, 19 losses
14th - 7 wins, 16 losses
13th - 9 wins, 14 losses

You would be happy in that year for the team who finishes 13th (or even 14th) to get the number 1 pick?

Personally I'd only have it in the bottom 4 as the lottery, and yes I'd be happy if 15th got the number 1 pick. You have a greater chance of getting the number 1 pick where your ladder position ends.

 

[Sirlemsip]

Or more pertinently in the last few years, Father Son (with Nick Daicos and Will Ashcroft etc)

The OP's suggestion makes equalisation less and less, West Coast would most likely not have been able to get any of the top 5 selections based on the points and picks they had already, how bloody unfair is that (if the Eagles were not stiffed already in this year's draft)

It's not viable to help the bottom clubs at all.

The same thing is going to happen in 2024, with Levi Ashcroft likely to be a top 3 pick.

Brisbane will be a chance to win the flag and come away with the number 1 pick.

The system is already broken. I'm not suggesting that the OP has the answer, but some of the elements are worth considering.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

The same thing is going to happen in 2024, with Levi Ashcroft likely to be a top 3 pick.

Brisbane will be a chance to win the flag and come away with the number 1 pick.

The system is already broken. I'm not suggesting that the OP has the answer, but some of the elements are worth considering.

As others have said here, make clubs like Collingwood and Brisbane pay a higher price for their gun and highly rated Father/Son selections. Ditto the academy kids.

 

[bzparkes]

If the auction is based on points, tell me how anybody other than NW and WC would have had any chance of getting Reid:

So in that example, not only is North gifted 3 first-rounders, but the means to acquire the number #1 pick also, despite being far better than the worst team of the year?

Doesn't sound very fair now, does it?

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

If the auction is based on points, tell me how anybody other than NW and WC would have had any chance of getting Reid:

A club like Melbourne would bid all 3500 points forcing WCE to either pay heavy overs or not have the best kid in the country.

 

[Sirlemsip]

So in that example, not only is North gifted 3 first-rounders, but the means to acquire the number #1 pick also, despite being far better than the worst team of the year?

Doesn't sound very fair now, does it?

I think the majority of AFL supporters agree that:
1. North didn't deserve the two 2024 1st round picks they were gifted
2. The McKay compo was way higher than it should have been

I think there is a decent amount that agree (me included) that clubs shouldn't be given any compensation for a Free Agent leaving at all.

One of the OP's suggestions is that a number of points can be given to the team losing a Free Agent that better matches their actual value/contract (however you want to calculate it) rather than basing it purely on the team's finishing position.

 

[bzparkes]

I think the majority of AFL supporters agree that:
1. North didn't deserve the two 2024 1st round picks they were gifted
2. The McKay compo was way higher than it should have been

I think there is a decent amount that agree (me included) that clubs shouldn't be given any compensation for a Free Agent leaving at all.

One of the OP's suggestions is that a number of points can be given to the team losing a Free Agent that better matches their actual value/contract (however you want to calculate it) rather than basing it purely on the team's finishing position.

Yes but in the OP's scenario, North get their compo + Reid for not even finishing last.

It's a ridiculous proposition, nor should the top clubs have any chance of getting the number 1 pick without heavily compensating the spooner. In his scenario, this year WCE would've had to blow pretty much their entire hand just to match Melbourne's bid and take Reid, whereas Melbourne for instance take Reid and some other kid in the 2nd/3rd round and are massively advantaged.

I appreciate OP put a lot of time into it, but it appears not much thought was given to how badly it'd affect teams at the bottom of the ladder, whilst giving the top clubs every opportunity to pick up the best kids year on year.

 

[Sirlemsip]

Yes but in the OP's scenario, North get their compo + Reid for not even finishing last.

It's a ridiculous proposition, nor should the top clubs have any chance of getting the number 1 pick without heavily compensating the spooner. In his scenario, this year WCE would've had to blow pretty much their entire hand just to match Melbourne's bid and take Reid, whereas Melbourne for instance take Reid and some other kid in the 2nd/3rd round and are massively advantaged.

I appreciate OP put a lot of time into it, but it appears not much thought was given to how badly it'd affect teams at the bottom of the ladder, whilst giving the top clubs every opportunity to pick up the best kids year on year.

I wouldn't call it a 'ridiculous' proposition, but i do agree that it is flawed in some aspects.

Lets take your example though and assume that Melbourne bids all of their points on Reid (3475) and WC match the bid. (Lets also assume that NM wouldn't come over the top in this example.)

WC would still have almost 1000 points left over. Based on current pick values, that is still enough for pick 18 - pretty far from 'blowing their entire hand'.

 

[FlyHigh18]

We've just seen one of the most highly anticipated draft picks in Harley Reid fall to West Coast, who knocked back offers from multiple teams to trade pick 1. In other seasons there has been no standout no. 1 pick. Clearly the benefits to finishing bottom this season are higher than in other seasons.

A draft auction would help alleviate this discrepancy, and solve a range of other issues. Here is how it could work:

1. At the end of the season, each club is given an allotment of points based on their ladder finishing position, with lower-placed teams given more points.
   • This could be made to align with the points bidding system for F/S and NGA (How the new points bidding system works) - e.g. the bottom-placed club would get the points value of picks 1+19+37+55+73, though there are other ways this could be done.
2. During the trade period, clubs could trade players for points (instead of picks), and could also trade future points for points this season.
   • This would help free up trades where one club does not have the 'right' assets to trade (e.g. club 1 offers a late first-round plus a future first-round pick for a player, but club 2 demands a top 10 pick), or where a player chooses a club who doesn't have picks to trade.
   • Free agency compensation could be made to fit within the points system as well. My personal preference is that compensation is either done away with or otherwise the destination club is required to pay the compensation (below market value).
3. Before the draft, each club nominates the number of picks they intend to take in the draft.
4. On the first night of the draft, the top 10 picks are auctioned to the highest bidder (in terms of points), one-by-one, with a player selected after each pick before the next pick is auctioned.
   • In a season like 2023 with a once-in-a-generation player available, winning the bid for the top pick is likely to be highly competitive, and therefore cost more points than usual. The bottom-placed side is still likely to be in the best position to win the bid, but may choose to save their points to bid on multiple top 10 picks.
   • Because clubs have to nominate the number of picks they intend to take, there would effectively be a 'cap' on how much they could bid for their first pick (that is, there would be a minimum amount of points they must leave in the 'bank' for their other picks).
   • FS/NGA bids could be accommodated, with the destination club able to 'match' the bid (with/without a discount). This system would prevent clubs 'trading up' to effectively manipulate the current bidding system.
5. On the second night of the draft, the auction would continue, but would switch form. Pick 11 would become the 'benchmark' pick and would be assigned a value based on the total pool of points remaining (for example, it may be worth 7% of the remaining pool of points). This pick would be sold to the club with the highest remaining points tally.
   • Having a benchmark pick would help prevent clubs over-bidding on the top 10.
   • The club receiving pick 11 can choose to use the pick or sell it to the highest bidder.
6. Pick 12 would then be sold to the club with the highest remaining points tally, but for marginally less than pick 11 (with the value calculated to ensure the total value of all remaining picks equals the total pool of points remaining). This process continues until all picks have been sold.

Given the amount of pick trading that already occurs, the draft already effectively works like an auction. But this change would make the system much more transparent, prevent the type of draft manipulation we currently see, and create a market where more trades can occur. And it would mean clubs pay fair value for their players when they happen to finish near the bottom in a strong draft (and vice versa).

we already have an auction of sorts mate. In the example of pick 1 / Reid, clubs make their offers and WCE decides if they want to take take highest one.

Why would you then go and take away west coasts ability / right to say no thanks?

 

[bzparkes]

I wouldn't call it a 'ridiculous' proposition, but i do agree that it is flawed in some aspects.

Lets take your example though and assume that Melbourne bids all of their points on Reid (3475) and WC match the bid. (Lets also assume that NM wouldn't come over the top in this example.)

WC would still have almost 1000 points left over. Based on current pick values, that is still enough for pick 18 - pretty far from 'blowing their entire hand'.

How would they get pick 18 with 1k points, when every other team could easily outbid them?

 

[Sirlemsip]

How would they get pick 18 with 1k points, when every other team could easily outbid them?

What are you talking about?

Is nobody making any bids at all for picks 2 through 17?

 

[bzparkes]

What are you talking about?

Is nobody making any bids at all for picks 2 through 17?

Depends but if WCE don't have many points left over, because they used them to match pick 1, then they're not going to be left with much to play with.

Just seems weird to propose to fix the one aspect of the draft that actually isn't broken.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

I think the majority of AFL supporters agree that:
1. North didn't deserve the two 2024 1st round picks they were gifted
2. The McKay compo was way higher than it should have been

I think there is a decent amount that agree (me included) that clubs shouldn't be given any compensation for a Free Agent leaving at all.

One of the OP's suggestions is that a number of points can be given to the team losing a Free Agent that better matches their actual value/contract (however you want to calculate it) rather than basing it purely on the team's finishing position.

The McKay compo is fine, given the James Frawley precedent.

Hawthorn fans need to build a bridge and get over it.

 

[Chiz]

It does a worse job at equalisation than the existing system.

The bottom teams having first access to the best talents, better FA compo, the threat of the draft when a club cannot find perfect value, is all apart of that. Something OP wants to remove.

Simple question for you - which of the following options do you think most sides would prefer?
a. Pick 1
b. Pick 2 and pick 3

 

[Chiz]

No thanks, would however support a draft lottery for the top 6 picks though

What issue would you be solving with a draft lottery?

 

[Chiz]

Or more pertinently in the last few years, Father Son (with Nick Daicos and Will Ashcroft etc)

The OP's suggestion makes equalisation less and less, West Coast would most likely not have been able to get any of the top 5 selections based on the points and picks they had already, how bloody unfair is that (if the Eagles were not stiffed already in this year's draft)

It's not viable to help the bottom clubs at all.

Sorry, why would West Coast most likely not have been able to get any of the top 5 selection? This is just an assertion not backed by evidence