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

[juss]

I think it's pretty silly to try to paint F/S and academies as different. One is "romantic", one "grows the game" but both have the same issue, getting elite young talent for dirt cheap. It becomes a much bigger issue when it's contending teams getting that talent because that completely destroys any equalisation from the draft. FA also further ****ed it up where now contending teams get elite young talent and elite established talent for cheap.

Maybe, finally the points process will be fixed next year because we got pretty strong evidence the revised points changes didnt do nearly enough this year. It just so happens to be after a few Northern teams set themselves up for a decade already...

Final point, I think the greatest example of how useless the AFL is was limiting how many picks a team can take in based on list spots but then letting them do whatever they want in live trades. A bunch of monkeys could run that place better

Genuine question, but aren't they different because the Academy players are all training/being developed/coached by the clubs from a very young age? That's not occurring with all father sons in a system is it?

That would be a huge difference.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Genuine question, but aren't they different because the Academy players are all training/being developed/coached by the clubs from a very young age? That's not occurring with all father sons in a system is it?

Could be a point of difference but something tells me the Ashcroft and Daicos boys didnt exactly lack for access to AFL level coaching given their dads...

 

[juss]

Could be a point of difference but something tells me the Ashcroft and Daicos boys didnt exactly lack for access to AFL level coaching given their dads...

There might be a few high end examples of kids who had some legs up with F/S, but I don't think its comparable to the system coaching and development of a structured academy program. The discounts are the discounts, but I think there's a clear difference in the development potential between most father son eligible players compared to most academy eligible players.

 

[Sphynx]

Could be a point of difference but something tells me the Ashcroft and Daicos boys didnt exactly lack for access to AFL level coaching given their dads...

Correct.

Given the % AFL players are of the population and then the % chance of making the AFL in the first place.

We keep getting struck by lightning in terms of odds by the fact this tiny % of the population also then churn out kids who end up being in the top 10 of the country in the sport, almost like it's not coincidence either.


FS should be available to the father/son club, but they should have to outbid someone who actually wants them and is willing to pay, even above market in an auction.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

I can't work it out - the way it was brushed over just made it seem very scam-mish.

GC turned 15, 18, 24, 28, 29, 36, 52 into 2, 5, 17, 18.

AT pick 2 (2481pts) - 10% = GC require 2234pt to match
GC Give #15 - 973, #18 - 836, #24 - 621 = 2430pt (196pt = pick 43).
GC now have 28, 29, 36, 43, 52

AT pick 5 (1795pt) - 10% = 1615pt to match
GC Give 28 - 505, 29 - 479, 36 - 317, 43 - 184, 52 - 42 = 1527pt still 88pts short of matching #5.

Shortfall - 1803 points:
Pick 5 - 88pt
Pick 17 - 879pt
Pick 18 - 836pt

GC seem to have got a top-5 pick for free. If GC win the premiership (18/36/54) - they won't have a single point. If they make finals (picks 10/28/46) - they will just have enough points.

Each pick moves up the order when an earlier one is used.

So when 15 goes, 18 turns into "17". And this compounds as 24 moves up two spots to become 22. And when Brisbanes picks disappear other picks become worth more. And so on.....

I can't be arsed working it out but others did before the draft and it was clear the Suns could match all four. I think the Carmichael bid earlier than expected helped too.

Makes WC's bidding even stranger. They should have done Paterson at 3.

 

[Sphynx]

There might be a few high end examples of kids who had some legs up with F/S, but I don't think its comparable to the system coaching and development of a structured academy program. The discounts are the discounts, but I think there's a clear difference in the development potential between most father son eligible players compared to most academy eligible players.

A few?

There's been 5 father-sons drafted in the top 5 of the draft over the last 5 drafts.

#3 - Dean
#5 - L.Ashcroft
#2 - W.Ashcroft
#2 - S.Darcy
#4 - N.Daicos

3 of them are only generational types and 3 of the best young players in the game currently, who were unavailable to the bottom teams.

And those are only those who's fathers played 100 games at 1 club.

With 2 x potential sons of AFL players going top 5 next year, one of which is tied to a club.


It's far more than an outlier.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

There might be a few high end examples of kids who had some legs up with F/S, but I don't think its comparable to the system coaching and development of a structured academy program. The discounts are the discounts, but I think there's a clear difference in the development potential between most father son eligible players compared to most academy eligible players.

Not sure that's correct. A FS kid from Melbourne plays in a much stronger competition growing up that Suns academy players do. Sure they get good coaching, but probably no better than many junior clubs/private schools in Melbourne.

 

[Purple Suit]

There are inequities throughout the AFL system, the Suns are just making the most here of one that (currently) favours them. But there isn't much point starting that conversation again right now as folk want to vent about last nights draft.

Ironically Brisbane's flags have been based on good trading and father son selections, not high academy picks.

For what it's worth (and I've posted this before in this thread) I don't think there should be any matching in the first round of any kind.

What a crock, Brisbane's flags have come off the back of cheap access to academy kids that gave them currency to trade. Pick up a Neale, Dunkley, Cameron etc it usually sets you back a full draft, sometimes two. Not Brisbane due to the academy and f/s. The difference is that extra talent pushing them over the top, it's fine considering the advantages of the teams they have been up against but the AFL have forgotten to turn off the tap and the bath is now overflowing.

Freo had a pick 2 & 5 before in 2017 due to a Lachie Weller trade. Ironically, GC have gone one better this year and got 2, 5, 17, 18 and Petracca.

If we throw the lense over that year it would be like picking up Brayshaw, Cerra, Higgins & Starevich and trading in Gary Ablett all in one draft.

 

[Elixuh]

I think it's pretty silly to try to paint F/S and academies as different. One is "romantic", one "grows the game" but both have the same issue, getting elite young talent for dirt cheap. It becomes a much bigger issue when it's contending teams getting that talent because that completely destroys any equalisation from the draft. FA also further ****ed it up where now contending teams get elite young talent and elite established talent for cheap.

Snuff, my main man, looking at outcome is relevant but completely ignores the purpose and utility of each.

Father/son could go tomorrow. Its purpose is sentimental, not structural and leads to random outcomes. I like it but I see why others don’t.

Academies serve an integral purpose and objective which is of structural importance to the league. It directly impacts the product. Talent pool is at the top of the priorities for the product. They’re changing the matching rules but there needs to be some give to the teams that run this service for the league. Otherwise I’m yet to hear a reasonable alternative. The northern clubs serve the broader AFL community.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I've argued in the past it should be a 10% or 20% tax.

Payment for the fact you get priority access to the player.

The fact you have developed them so well is pay back in itself for the quality of player you are getting with sole access.


Again, no club is allowed to talk to a kid before their draft year, they aren't allowed to train with an AFL club outside of sanctioned programs like the AFL Academy.

Yet, you can apparently pump a 12 year old full of elite training when you get the sole, priority benefit (with a discount) at the other end. LOL

Yeah, at the very least as a middle ground compromise make it 0%.

Even with the updated points curve, the 20 ->10% discount actually made a huge difference this year, that would have made GC's advantage far worse. The 10% discount gave them a free pick 24 to match all the bids. If they maintained the 20% discount, it would have been a free pick 11 (comical).

Makes you realise how much worse the old system was, even if the new system is still bad, it's better.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Snuff, my main man, looking at outcome is relevant but completely ignores the purpose and utility of each.

Father/son could go tomorrow. Its purpose is sentimental, not structural and leads to random outcomes. I like it but I see why others don’t.

Academies serve an integral purpose and objective which is of structural importance to the league. It directly impacts the product. Talent pool is at the top of the priorities for the product. They’re changing the matching rules but there needs to be some give to the teams that run this service for the league. Otherwise I’m yet to hear a reasonable alternative. The northern clubs serve the broader AFL community.

Not just that, F/S aren't being actively developed by the very clubs that draft them. They're not running around in Division 2 nationals or Coates leagues game literally wearing a Western Bulldogs jumper. I get that there's some school holiday academies etc. for these players, but it's hardly an advantage or an insight gained that other clubs don't get, big difference to a 16 year old running around with a 14 year old as part of 'training' and an 'academy' and literally playing several games for the Gold Coast academy U18 team.

In some cases the F/S actually lives in a different state. Dogs had Lukas Eagleton run around in SA this year, while we were able to bid on him we weren't able to give him AFL-quality development resources or gain any additional insight to him as a player that other clubs didn't have. He's a fringe draftable talent, he's going to be a VFL listed senior player for us on merit next year. Who knows if he might have developed into an AFL talent to our benefit if we were able to develop him directly in the same way that Northern clubs are with their academies.

 

[Mat Mann]

There are inequities throughout the AFL system, the Suns are just making the most here of one that (currently) favours them. But there isn't much point starting that conversation again right now as folk want to vent about last nights draft.

Ironically Brisbane's flags have been based on good trading and father son selections, not high academy picks.

For what it's worth (and I've posted this before in this thread) I don't think there should be any matching in the first round of any kind.

This is the 4th draft in succession this crap has been discussed. My club was battered pillar to post for raising it, and here we are again, next year's early picks are set to be F/S and NGA again.

on Brisbane, I agree they did well, then paid cents on the dollar for top 5 picks that will keep them up top for another 10 years, and not once using a 1st round pick, and that's the issue.

cast you mind back to the Priority Pick and it's reasoning for abolishment. Exactly the same thing is happening again now, Academies, F/S, and NGA have become a vehicle to success

-------------------------------------------

Can anyone find what picks clubs used to match bids, I cannot find the info anywhere. Deliberate AFL policy? wouldn't surprise me, can get upset about the info you can't find

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The matching of bids is hard to track down. Each match should be listed or linked to the picks used in the list of players picked on the AFL draft site, which will explain far more and far more quickly what has gone on in the flurry of matches and trades than is currently the case.

It's incredibly, incredibly complex. Which is a big problem and a big reason why it's not documented - it's literally too hard to document in an easy-to-understand manner. It's just all worked out by software.

• The bid is the price
• Then you get a 10% discount
• Then you pay with the picks you have
• Those picks come out of the draft, moving all later picks forward, changing their value
• It never lines up properly so instead of paying with a suite of picks - eg - you don't pay with picks 18, 20 and 49 - you pay with 18, 20 and pick 49 becoming pick 58 (that's just an example). That's more picks going off the board (all subsequent picks move down, increasing their value) but also more picks are added (decreasing the value of picks after that). Pick 18 comes out, Pick 20 moves up, so it's not 49, it's 47, which has a different value etc, etc, etc, etc

It literally all resets multiple times per bid because every time there's a pick used, or partially used, all other picks move and their points change.

It's effectively impossible to say pick numbers that were used because they change numbers constantly - multiple times for each bid.

Part of the problem with this ridiculous system is it's so incredibly complex and layered that it becomes totally opaque, which means people have even less faith in it.

I'll say it til I'm blue in the face. They need to get rid of the points system and totally simplify it. If there is a bid, you need to match with a pick in the next 10 picks. Some people are saying that's too generous for high picks. I don't think it is compared to our current ridiculous system, but fine. If it's a bid in the Top 10, you need match with a pick in the next 5 picks. Any bid after the Top 10 can be the next 10 picks, or whatever.

The AFL system adds countless layers of complexity and doesn't improve the end result.

 

[The_Reaper]

Pissant joke of a competition.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Not sure that's correct. A FS kid from Melbourne plays in a much stronger competition growing up that Suns academy players do. Sure they get good coaching, but probably no better than many junior clubs/private schools in Melbourne.

That might have been true upon Suns' entry in 2011.

Suns players receive AFL-employed coaches, giving an insight to the Suns in his draft ability not avaliable to F/S, and the Suns academy players play against Coates League teams, in a Division 2 nationals, and play for the Allies in Division 1.

That the Allies were introduced in 2016 in Division 1 U18 made a huge difference. For an average draftee it's arguable that 50+% of the information you glean is from those handful of nationals games. Even if there was a disadvantage to Northern teams before 2016 (and I don't even think there is), you can argue that the Allies Division 1 team which gave academy players to be developed and viewed by scouts on a level playing field to traditional teams was more than halved.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

I can't work it out - the way it was brushed over just made it seem very scam-mish.

GC turned 15, 18, 24, 28, 29, 36, 52 into 2, 5, 17, 18.

EDIT: Just found an article about draft pick trades. GC actually started drafting with:

#14, 18, 24, 28, 33, 35, 36, 46, 47, 52 and 53 (4345 points)

and selected

#2, 5, 17, 18 (5991 points). Less their 10% discount (600) they are still over 1000 points short.

Each trade matching brought their picks in, but I'm doubtful that would have raised over 1000 points.

Is there anywhere with the official match/trades yet?

You* can't possibly work it out, as the pick order and therefore values are changing multiple times with every bid, totally changing everything thereafter.

With every single bid you need to re-order the entire draft and points values, something multiple times per bid as there's picks coming off and on the order.

* I don't mean you individually, I mean anybody. It's all software-driven and needs to be or else it would literally take somebody all day.

That's why it's not documented.

The AFL has totally put form over substance with this system. They've let maths boffins design a system which might be the fairest possible, but in making it 100% fair it becomes totally opaque and therefore unexplainable, so in effect it is unfair as nobody can possibly understand it totally. They've created a massive paradox.

It reeks of a lack of leadership. A proper in-touch leader would have this system "explained" to them, and throw it straight in the bin because it can't possibly be understood by anybody using or watching it.

 

[Bostonian]

I think it's pretty silly to try to paint F/S and academies as different. One is "romantic", one "grows the game" but both have the same issue, getting elite young talent for dirt cheap. It becomes a much bigger issue when it's contending teams getting that talent because that completely destroys any equalisation from the draft. FA also further ****ed it up where now contending teams get elite young talent and elite established talent for cheap.

Maybe, finally the points process will be fixed next year because we got pretty strong evidence the revised points changes didnt do nearly enough this year. It just so happens to be after a few Northern teams set themselves up for a decade already...

Final point, I think the greatest example of how useless the AFL is was limiting how many picks a team can take in based on list spots but then letting them do whatever they want in live trades. A bunch of monkeys could run that place better

Except the qualifiers for one is a hell of a lot harder than qualifying for the other.

So nothing alike in terms of numerical ability to produce talent.

We didn't get Dean dirt cheap, we paid through the nose for it.

 

[The_Reaper]

A reminder for all those insisting that something must be done.

Something has been done that made it harder this year.
And more somethings are already on the books for next year that will make this year's result a lot harder (if not impossible) next year.

Something was done by incompetent and biased leadership who will probably fail to fix anything.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's incredibly, incredibly complex. Which is a big problem and a big reason why it's not documented - it's literally too hard to document in an easy-to-understand system. It's just all worked out by software.

• The bid is the price
• Then you get a 10% discount
• Then you pay with the picks you have
• Those picks come out of the draft, moving all later picks forward, changing their value
• It never lines up properly so instead of paying with a suite of picks - eg - you don't pay with picks 18, 20 and 49 - you pay with 18, 20 and pick 49 becoming pick 58 (that's just an example). That's more picks going off the board (all subsequent picks move down, increasing their value) but also more picks are added (decreasing the value of picks after that). Pick 18 comes out, Pick 20 moves up, so it's not 49, it's 47, which has a different value etc, etc, etc, etc

It literally all resets multiple times per bid because every time there's a pick used, or partially used, all other picks move and their points change.

It's effectively impossible to say pick numbers that were used because they change numbers constantly - multiple times for each bid.

Part of the problem with this ridiculous system is it's so incredibly complex and layered that it becomes totally opaque, which means people have even less faith in it.

I'll say it til I'm blue in the face. They need to get rid of the points system and totally simplify it. If there is a bid, you need to match with a pick in the next 10 picks. Some people are saying that's too generous for high picks. I don't think it is compared to our current ridiculous system, but fine. If it's a bid in the Top 10, you need match with a pick in the next 5 picks. Any bid after the Top 10 can be the next 10 picks, or whatever.

The AFL system adds countless layers of complexity and doesn't improve the end result.

Funnily enough if the AFL did a blind auction system this would solve a lot of these problems (it creates new ones, but there's a whole academic field of auction theory that can fix it).

Blind second-payment auction system.

Every team has a number of DVI points.

Pick 1 up for grabs. Each club blind bids the number of points that they would be willing to give up for pick 1.

Whoever bids the most points wins, and they pay the price of the amount of the 2nd highest bid. (The reason for making it blind and 2nd highest and not highest is because of the basis that academic research into auction theory makes this the most "fair" way of paying true value for a player, obviously I'm not going to explain why that's the case on this post, just trust me that it is).

They then draft a player.

If they want to draft a player that's F/S academy tied, the bid matching team then can decide to draft the player at the cost of the 10% discount. They then get that player at that pick.

Rinse and repeat.

If teams are left with 0 points and still have open list spots, you simply do a natural draft according to ladder position among these teams once either all teams have no points or no list spots left.

If you don't want to "commoditise" the children by making the appear worth a certain amount (the draft does that anyway, but whatever), you don't actually have to make public how much points was spent on each pick for the public broadcast, just that a club won the bid and have the pick.

 

[Purple Suit]

It's incredibly, incredibly complex. Which is a big problem and a big reason why it's not documented - it's literally too hard to document in an easy-to-understand system. It's just all worked out by software.

• The bid is the price
• Then you get a 10% discount
• Then you pay with the picks you have
• Those picks come out of the draft, moving all later picks forward, changing their value
• It never lines up properly so instead of paying with a suite of picks - eg - you don't pay with picks 18, 20 and 49 - you pay with 18, 20 and pick 49 becoming pick 58 (that's just an example). That's more picks going off the board (all subsequent picks move down, increasing their value) but also more picks are added (decreasing the value of picks after that). Pick 18 comes out, Pick 20 moves up, so it's not 49, it's 47, which has a different value etc, etc, etc, etc

It literally all resets multiple times per bid because every time there's a pick used, or partially used, all other picks move and their points change.

It's effectively impossible to say pick numbers that were used because they change numbers constantly - multiple times for each bid.

Part of the problem with this ridiculous system is it's so incredibly complex and layered that it becomes totally opaque, which means people have even less faith in it.

I'll say it til I'm blue in the face. They need to get rid of the points system and totally simplify it. If there is a bid, you need to match with a pick in the next 10 picks. Some people are saying that's too generous for high picks. I don't think it is compared to our current ridiculous system, but fine. If it's a bid in the Top 10, you need match with a pick in the next 5 picks. Any bid after the Top 10 can be the next 10 picks, or whatever.

The AFL system adds countless layers of complexity and doesn't improve the end result.

Does it really work like that?

No wonder it is so cheap, so if you have picks 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 to match a bid at pick 1 you really have 5 x pick 25? That is a complete crock, at least wait till the points are tallied up and bid paid for before changing the value for the next bid or separate draft pick.

That alone would be like getting an extra pick 38 from my example just for a ludicrous adding system.

 

[Mat Mann]

Except the qualifiers for one is a hell of a lot harder than qualifying for the other.

So nothing alike in terms of numerical ability to produce talent.

We didn't get Dean dirt cheap, we paid through the nose for it.

What was the price you paid for Smith vs what did you pay for Dean?

 

[Tom14]

Snuff, my main man, looking at outcome is relevant but completely ignores the purpose and utility of each.

Father/son could go tomorrow. Its purpose is sentimental, not structural and leads to random outcomes. I like it but I see why others don’t.

Academies serve an integral purpose and objective which is of structural importance to the league. It directly impacts the product. Talent pool is at the top of the priorities for the product. They’re changing the matching rules but there needs to be some give to the teams that run this service for the league. Otherwise I’m yet to hear a reasonable alternative. The northern clubs serve the broader AFL community.

I think it would be fair to dock points from any team that has benefited from a say top 10 academy pick historically. Gold Coast cumulatively would start next season on -40 points, the Dogs on -5 (JUH), Sydney on -15ish (Heeney, Campbell, Mills).

Going forward we could also apply that to top 5 academy picks - if you want one, you must give up a win's worth of ladder points the next 10 seasons. That'd really create a disincentive to take em. Father sons are random so are different.

Anyway Lions wouldn't be docked any wins because we've never had a top 5 academy pick

 

[Tom14]

Does it really work like that?

No wonder it is so cheap, so if you have picks 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 to match a bid at pick 1 you really have 5 x pick 25? That is a complete crock, at least wait till the points are tallied up and bid paid for before changing the value for the next bid or separate draft pick.

That alone would be like getting an extra pick 38 from my example just for a ludicrous adding system.

It gets better, once the draft starts they let you do all these trades to acquire extra bid matching picks above the number of list spots you have.

Also, for no good reason*** they got rid of the rules that prevented teams that made finals from matching multiple top 20 academy picks. Previously GC wouldn't have been allowed to match Murray and Addinsall because they finished in the top 8.

***the reason is that they saw this GC academy class coming and changed the rules because of it.

 

[juss]

A few?

There's been 5 father-sons drafted in the top 5 of the draft over the last 5 drafts.

#3 - Dean
#5 - L.Ashcroft
#2 - W.Ashcroft
#2 - S.Darcy
#4 - N.Daicos

3 of them are only generational types and 3 of the best young players in the game currently, who were unavailable to the bottom teams.

And those are only those who's fathers played 100 games at 1 club.

With 2 x potential sons of AFL players going top 5 next year, one of which is tied to a club.


It's far more than an outlier.

Did they all have a development and formal coaching structure run by an AFL club in place since they were teenagers?

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Funnily enough if the AFL did a blind auction system this would solve a lot of these problems (it creates new ones, but there's a whole academic field of auction theory that can fix it).

Blind second-payment auction system.

Every team has a number of DVI points.

Pick 1 up for grabs. Each club blind bids the number of points that they would be willing to give up for pick 1.

Whoever bids the most points wins, and they pay the price of the amount of the 2nd highest bid. (The reason for making it blind and 2nd highest and not highest is because of the basis that academic research into auction theory makes this the most "fair" way of paying true value for a player, obviously I'm not going to explain why that's the case on this post, just trust me that it is).

They then draft a player.

If they want to draft a player that's F/S academy tied, the bid matching team then can decide to draft the player at the cost of the 10% discount. They then get that player at that pick.

Rinse and repeat.

If teams are left with 0 points and still have open list spots, you simply do a natural draft according to ladder position among these teams once either all teams have no points or no list spots left.

I hear you, but I think even that is too complicated.

You have to be really, really careful of putting form over substance.

Would it lead to a markedly fairer system than simply forcing clubs to pay a simple price based on where the player is bid at?

I doubt it.

Really make it simple. Bid at Pick 2 like last night? Easy. +5 picks. Match with Pick 7 or higher. Done.

After pick 10, match with +10 picks or higher.

Simple and fair with a discount. Everybody gets it.

Is it perfect? No, but fairness is gained in it's simplicity, because the clarity means that the currency (draft picks) become a lot more accurately valued at the trade table.