News AFL overhauls Academy and FS bid matching, discussing draft lockout

[4thchicken]

A major overhaul of the DVI has been announced already: details are in the pinned post.

Those DVI points were without considers of Tasmanian draft picks

As an example, would be the value of the premiers first round pick following the changes? - nominal pick 18? Or pushed to mid 20s?

If pushed to mid20s, matching an early bid with 2 picks becomes really really difficult…

 

[sr36]

Those DVI points were without considers of Tasmanian draft picks

As an example, would be the value of the premiers first round pick following the changes? - nominal pick 18? Or pushed to mid 20s?

If pushed to mid20s, matching an early bid with 2 picks becomes really really difficult…

That's the intended outcome, isn't it?

 

[Jirik13]

According to Twomey on Gettable AFL will announce new rules for 2026 in December. They want to see how this year rules play out.

 

[Stamos]

According to Twomey on Gettable AFL will announce new rules for 2026 in December. They want to see how this year rules play out.

Utterly ludicrous that they could change the rules that late.
And to think that “evidence” from a single draft is sufficient.

Have to give at least 13 months notice, but really 25 months given picks are traded 2 years into the future now.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

According to Twomey on Gettable AFL will announce new rules for 2026 in December. They want to see how this year rules play out.

The clown show rolls on

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Once it's all settled down one way I think matching could be handled is..
Any pick used for matching is discounted by a percentage based on how far it is from the bid.
Eg Match bid a 10 with 15 there's a 5% discount to the points of 15. Also use say 25 and there's a 15% discount to that pick (for 15 spots different).
You can use as many picks as you need but the discount gets higher the further back they are. So the points a pick has for matching will depend on how it gets used.

A similar concept would be that each extra pick used after the first one gets a increased discount. Use two picks there's a small discount to the points of the second one. Use three picks, there's a bigger discount applied to the third one, and so on.

The key is that this provides flexibility for picks being moved around and the ability to add other picks if needed. But importantly it becomes increasingly less efficient to add extra later picks.

 

[Stamos]

Once it's all settled down one way I think matching could be handled is..
Any pick used for matching is discounted by a percentage based on how far it is from the bid.
Eg Match bid a 10 with 15 there's a 5% discount to the points of 15. Also use say 25 and there's a 15% discount to that pick (for 15 spots different).
You can use as many picks as you need but the discount gets higher the further back they are. So the points a pick has for matching will depend on how it gets used.

A similar concept would be that each extra pick used after the first one gets a increased discount. Use two picks there's a small discount to the points of the second one. Use three picks, there's a bigger discount applied to the third one, and so on.

The key is that this provides flexibility for picks being moved around and the ability to add other picks if needed. But importantly it becomes increasingly less efficient to add extra later picks.

This is unnecessarily complex.
If the DVI is set correctly, the less "efficiency" in later picks is built in.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

This is unnecessarily complex.
If the DVI is set correctly, the less "efficiency" in later picks is built in.

Yer but later picks used to match early bids isn't the same as if used to match late bids

 

[threenewpadlocks]

This is unnecessarily complex.
If the DVI is set correctly, the less "efficiency" in later picks is built in.

Yeah, people try to make convoluted rules when accurate DVI

Set DVI accurately. The original DVI points were mathematically based on player salaries (why is this the best idea?, as opposed to actual player draft outcomes like Brownlow votes per draft pick or something similar). They were set in 2013, where the draft was far less efficient before 2013 when recruitment staff were still part-time, and the majority of draft-relevant junior games were not filmed. The amount of top 10, top 20 "bust" draft picks post 2013 is far less than it was before 2013, yet, current draft value assumed that those top 20 picks were not as valuable because it baked into the values an assumption you may "miss" with the player, when in reality that didn't happen.

For example, with pick 10 in the draft from 2001 you had a bunch of busts in a row: Sam Power, Jason Laycock, Ryley Dunn, Chris Egan and Marcus Drum. 5 bad picks in a row were factored into the mathematical formula for how valuable pick 10 was in the draft for the 2024 DVI, even though the fact that Fremantle were drafting Ryley Dunn out of Murray Bushrangers in 2003 with a single part-time Melbourne recruiter who probably was not driving up the country and watching a handful of games without re-watching on video in Melbourne. Clearly, with the resources that club had now, he would have slid.

While there have been some patchy successful pick 10s in the last 10 years - Lochie O'Brien, Nakia Cockatoo, not only is this a more rare 1 in every 5 drafts scenario, these players even had a marginally better career than the worst of the five names I listed above.

Reduce discount to 5%.

Voila.

 

[Sector 7G]

Yeah, people try to make convoluted rules when accurate DVI

Set DVI accurately. The original DVI points were mathematically based on player salaries (why is this the best idea?, as opposed to actual player draft outcomes like Brownlow votes per draft pick or something similar). They were set in 2013, where the draft was far less efficient before 2013 when recruitment staff were still part-time, and the majority of draft-relevant junior games were not filmed. The amount of top 10, top 20 "bust" draft picks post 2013 is far less than it was before 2013, yet, current draft value assumed that those top 20 picks were not as valuable because it baked into the values an assumption you may "miss" with the player, when in reality that didn't happen.

For example, with pick 10 in the draft from 2001 you had a bunch of busts in a row: Sam Power, Jason Laycock, Ryley Dunn, Chris Egan and Marcus Drum. 5 bad picks in a row were factored into the mathematical formula for how valuable pick 10 was in the draft for the 2024 DVI, even though the fact that Fremantle were drafting Ryley Dunn out of Murray Bushrangers in 2003 with a single part-time Melbourne recruiter who probably was not driving up the country and watching a handful of games without re-watching on video in Melbourne. Clearly, with the resources that club had now, he would have slid.

While there have been some patchy successful pick 10s in the last 10 years - Lochie O'Brien, Nakia Cockatoo, not only is this a more rare 1 in every 5 drafts scenario, these players even had a marginally better career than the worst of the five names I listed above.

Reduce discount to 5%.

Voila.

I don't think the previous DVI points took into account how many list spots and player a club can develop at the one time. While 5 pick 50s might be just as likely to result in a 200 gamer you have development constraints

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I don't think the previous DVI points took into account how many list spots and player a club can develop at the one time. While 5 pick 50s might be just as likely to result in a 200 gamer you have development constraints

Exactly. It doesn’t take into account that you can target certain types higher in the draft. For example At pick 5 their could be a really top end CHF that fits your clubs needs perfectly but if you want to find that type than you aren’t going to target 5 CHF’s with picks in the 40’s or whatever.

 

[The Tilt]

Once it's all settled down one way I think matching could be handled is..
Any pick used for matching is discounted by a percentage based on how far it is from the bid.
Eg Match bid a 10 with 15 there's a 5% discount to the points of 15. Also use say 25 and there's a 15% discount to that pick (for 15 spots different).
You can use as many picks as you need but the discount gets higher the further back they are. So the points a pick has for matching will depend on how it gets used.

A similar concept would be that each extra pick used after the first one gets a increased discount. Use two picks there's a small discount to the points of the second one. Use three picks, there's a bigger discount applied to the third one, and so on.

The key is that this provides flexibility for picks being moved around and the ability to add other picks if needed. But importantly it becomes increasingly less efficient to add extra later picks.

I agree with others this is just adding unnecessary complexity.

Also, why would you give a bigger discount to a club that is matching a bid with picks in the lower rounds (as opposed to using picks closer to the bid itself)? The key issue has been clubs getting quality players on the cheap by using a bunch of lower picks. Can't see why you'd want to encourage that by offering a bigger discount.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

I agree with others this is just adding unnecessary complexity.

Also, why would you give a bigger discount to a club that is matching a bid with picks in the lower rounds (as opposed to using picks closer to the bid itself)? The key issue has been clubs getting quality players on the cheap by using a bunch of lower picks. Can't see why you'd want to encourage that by offering a bigger discount.

The discount is to the dvi value not the matching requirement. IE the pick is worth less the further from the bid it is .

Also I don't think these options are particularly complex. They both offer fairly simple granular solutions.

Other suggestions like having to use a pick in the same round might sound simple but the create anomalies with edge cases

 

[Kildonan]

Trades should just be done based on however many points the clubs agree on.

Then after trade period you auction off the draft picks, starting at 1. You'd end up with picks being valued differently from one year to the next, depending on the quality and depth of the draft.

That method I described (have a representative from each club offer a points value for each trade proposed, the highest and lowest values are eliminated to leave the 10 middle values. Add up and divide by 10 to give the final transfer cost.) was devised by me to address the inequity of FREE AGENCY in the recruitment system.

It seems to me that a club (this year - it's my club) can capitalise on taking up free agents without compromising their draft hand. It seems unfair to me that the club losing the free agents are compensated for that loss by a formula that is paid for by all other clubs (by their displacement in the draft sequence) and the benefits only go to the one club whose benefit is the infusion of talent and experience and the cost (in draft capital) is the same as every other club. This is communism, not socialism.

Free agency was designed to allow the player the "agency" to choose to leave the club they are at and join another club usually of their choosing. It is a flawed system because the tide of players leaving clubs is usually from a club out of contention to a more powerful club bringing that club closer to being in contention. Strong powerful clubs remain in contention for extended periods of time while the less powerful clubs remain always rebuilding in the lower portions of the ladder.

Part of the reason that clubs receiving free agents can stay at the top is that they do not pay the fair price for their free agent recruits with draft capital.

St Kilda decided to capitalise on this unfair rule to change the tide (the flow of talent from the smaller clubs to the powerful clubs). They have paid a price. They had to offer up huge sums of money to attract the free agents they did and because the free agents didn't cost any draft capital, they were involved in significant trades as well. This was the culmination of plans over many seasons to pay existing players "front ended" contracts and bring in a large contingent of youth, developing a large "war chest" after four years of focusing mainly on youth.

Recruiting via the draft has been arranged so that the clubs who have performed the worst have access to the first picks in the draft, thus acting as an equalising process (as long as the lower clubs have done their due diligence on underage players).

The father/son rule bypasses that equalisation process, but it is a concession most clubs are in support of, although there is significant inequity on who has benefitted.

The northern academies in particular offer Sydney, GWS, Brisbane and Gold Coast another process to bypass the equalisation via draft sequence process, these clubs have access to players that the other clubs do not, and it results in them not paying as much in draft capital for top end talent despite the exclusivity. This is unfair. It has come about because the clubs are increasing the talent pool for all clubs by recruiting and developing players from non-traditional zones (essentially rugby league and rugby union dominated areas). The other clubs need to determine how much "unfairness" they can tolerate before it becomes a generational unfairness. It might be necessary to limit how many players a club can take each year from these academies. I suspect that the new changes to the points system and concessions to pay for their recruits do no go far enough.

The free agents brought in by St Kilda would have cost a fair amount of draft capital if these were normal trades. We obtained these players cheaply (in draft capital) because all the other clubs have helped to pay for them by dropping further down the draft list. This is also unfair. This is why I proposed that each club have a representative to offer a points value for each free agent trade proposed, the highest and lowest values are eliminated to leave the 10 middle values. Add up and divide by 10 to give the final transfer cost. The club receiving the player/s should then pay the club loising the player/s the draft capital. Its only fair.

 

[pugsville]

Clubs should not be able to match a first round pick if they have traded their first round pick.
If they match a first round pick before their pick it will be used in the pick matching process (unless they have traded in higher 1st round picks)
You free to trade other first round picks you have traded in.

It just o stop trading 1st round pick and matching with later picks so easily,

 

[SC_Power]

According to Twomey on Gettable AFL will announce new rules for 2026 in December. They want to see how this year rules play out.

Need to see if there’s a Collingwood FS or NGA player emerging first

 

[GC2015]

Need to see if there’s a Collingwood FS or NGA player emerging first

We already know the predicted number 1 pick next year is Carlton F/S (Cody Walker). Your club has also campaigned hard for NGA access to the predicted number 2 pick (Dougie Cochrane).

 

[SC_Power]

We already know the predicted number 1 pick next year is Carlton F/S (Cody Walker). Your club has also campaigned hard for NGA access to the predicted number 2 pick (Dougie Cochrane).

Well, the changes to make it harder (deservedly so in some manner) is for 2026.
If there’s a potential Collingwood FS/NGA top pick for 2027, im suggesting the rules would be subsequently relaxed somewhat “to find some balance”.

 

[bluebaggerjuls]

Well, the changes to make it harder (deservedly so in some manner) is for 2026.
If there’s a potential Collingwood FS/NGA top pick for 2027, im suggesting the rules would be subsequently relaxed somewhat “to find some balance”.

Take off your tinfoil hat

 

[SC_Power]

Take off your tinfoil hat

Why, it goes well with my Cloak of Inequality?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The completely ludicrous situation continues.

Clubs are actively exploiting loopholes and the AFL just sits there with the fingers in their ears yelling LALALALALA

It’s simple. If there’s a bid, you match with a pick within the next 10 picks.

It’s still a 10 pick discount so you’re getting a bargain.

If you don’t have one, get one.

If you can’t get one, tough shit.

The points system is completely absurd.

Gold Coast bring in Christian Petracca

5

Christian Petracca

Age

29

Ht

187cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.4

5star

K

9.5

4star

HB

9.8

5star

M

3.5

4star

T

3.0

5star

CL

2.5

4star

D

24.4

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

14.0

5star

M

3.5

3star

T

3.6

4star

CL

3.4

4star

D

19.0

5star

K

7.8

3star

HB

11.2

5star

M

3.0

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.0

4star

and also have four first round picks? Yeah… that adds up.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The only upside is that it would have been 5 times worse had they not changed the discount and points curve for this season. Picks in the teens needing to be used for top 10 picks rather than 5 picks in the 30s or whatever. Clubs' second round picks actually increasing in value in the 20's rather than getting pushed back into the 30's.

 

[Dockeroo]

Utterly farcical.

Why did the afl quietly remove the rule that existed up till 2023 that a finals side could only match a max of 2 bids in the first round for NGA or Northern academy players?

Coincidentally just as their nepo babies stated to move towards finals contention.

 

[Sphynx]

What was worse is their obvious manipulation of the narrative with the broadcaster to try and prevent any criticism to their own ridiculous system.

Is Fox the Chinese State Media now?

- Broadcaster no longer showing what picks clubs are using to match academy and father son bids. To prevent the average fan criticizing teams using junk picks like Ashcroft and have screenshots forever.

- Clearly advising the broadcaster to ram down viewers throats the fact the points system has changed. They even gave the hosts words and sentences to use. They were all using the same language. Like “indicative draft order”, “fair price” etc

Mick Ablett and Sarah Jones were complete embarrassments last night.

Ablett particularly making out like clubs were getting “put to the sword” and it’s the first time we’ve ever had a “real indicative draft order” and that having 2 QLDers in the top 5 is what the academy system is all about and such a massive win for the AFL - What a complete shameless w***er missing the point.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Utterly farcical.

Why did the afl quietly remove the rule that existed up till 2023 that a finals side could only match a max of 2 bids in the first round for NGA or Northern academy players?

Coincidentally just as their nepo babies stated to move towards finals contention.

Don’t stress they’ll bring it back for next year when the Suns don’t have any 1st round academy prospects.