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

[Bunk Moreland]

Why would you scrap the points system, rather than keeping it and introducing a rule like the one bolded on top of it?

Allowing a team to match a bid on pick 1 with pick 6 alone is still a massive discount, meaning the other 17 clubs are getting jibbed. Much better to keep the points system but just require the picks used to match include one within X number of the bid pick. That way the club coughs up pick 6 + a number of other picks to make up the difference.

Because the points system serves no practical purpose. It’s opaque and confusing - people don’t understand it unless they have to take the time to dig right into it. You want people to have confidence in the system and the league and simplicity is a big part of that.

Moreover, it’s not required. We have the perfect measure of market value for a draft pick - and that is another similar draft pick.

I’m okay with academies and FS, and even okay with a discount - as long as it’s not ridiculous as it is at the moment. And my system would minimise any discount because the club would be forced to pay a premium to get the matching pick. The higher the pick required, the more scarce it is. It’s left totally up to the market, as it should be.

There’s all these measures in place to try to make the points mirror the draft pick market when we can just use… the actual bloody market itself.

Finally, it lends stability to the draft. Draft picks are constantly moving as picks go on and off the board when they’re used for matching. That further muddies their value.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

No I want an open draft.

Scrap bidding/ngas but keep the f/s rule the chances of getting a Nick Daicos,Ashcroft etc every year are slim where it doesn't compromise the draft.

But GC and GWS won't have Father sons for a while yet. So they have to give up their advantage but the other 16 teams keep one of theirs?

 

[The Tilt]

Because the points system serves no practical purpose. It’s opaque and confusing - people don’t understand it unless they have to take the time to dig right into it. You want people to have confidence in the system and the league and simplicity is a big part of that.

Moreover, it’s not required. We have the perfect measure of market value for a draft pick - and that is another similar draft pick.

I’m okay with academies and FS, and even okay with a discount - as long as it’s not ridiculous as it is at the moment. And my system would minimise any discount because the club would be forced to pay a premium to get the matching pick. The higher the pick required, the more scarce it is. It’s left totally up to the market, as it should be.

There’s all these measures in place to try to make the points mirror the draft pick market when we can just use… the actual bloody market itself.

Finally, it lends stability to the draft. Draft picks are constantly moving as picks go on and off the board when they’re used for matching. That further muddies their value.

Pick 6 is not equal to the market value of pick 1 (in fact, it's miles from it). Pick 6 + additional picks to make up the difference obviously comes closer.

Again, I'm on board with the sort of rule you have in mind (get a pick in the neighbourhood if you want to match a bid). Abolishing the points system altogether is just going to allow clubs to match too cheaply (letting a club match pick 1 with pick 6 is probably a 50% discount).

 

[GC2015]

But GC and GWS won't have Father sons for a while yet. So they have to give up their advantage but the other 16 teams keep one of theirs?

What's worse is Tasmania will get F/S access to sons of Tassie AFL players straight away. So Nick Riewoldt's kids could end up being F/S drafted to the Devils, despite Riewoldt never playing any senior footy at all in Tasmania.

The northern academies are an important offset for Gold Coast and GWS.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

But GC and GWS won't have Father sons for a while yet. So they have to give up their advantage but the other 16 teams keep one of theirs?

Like how Port had to wait 20 years to start accessing father sons? Only had 1 (Brett Ebert) in our first 22 years in the AFL and that was technically an error and he shouldn’t have qualified. We just had to suck it up and be told tough luck.

 

[GinniAndTonic]

But GC and GWS won't have Father sons for a while yet. So they have to give up their advantage but the other 16 teams keep one of theirs?

To get top picks ever single year how often do clubs get a top father and son?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Why would you scrap the points system, rather than keeping it and introducing a rule like the one bolded on top of it?

Allowing a team to match a bid on pick 1 with pick 6 alone is still a massive discount, meaning the other 17 clubs are getting jibbed. Much better to keep the points system but just require the picks used to match include one within X number of the bid pick. That way the club coughs up pick 6 + a number of other picks to make up the difference.

Yeah, plus the idea of forcing a pick to be within x positions makes teams know that they have to trade for one of a few specific picks, which distorts the market and can make teams demand more. Then clubs will just give up and not trade up.

Which goes against making players eligible in the first place. I don't think anyone's against there being a preference, provided fair value, for the players to go to those clubs. You don't want to make the function of it difficult, just the payment of it fair.

 

[Miller1971]

The Saints cannot have the control over players that enter their academy in the same way that Brisbane do though, they're never playing dozens of games in Saints colours or getting weekly training from Saints employed coaches. They're still playing their Coates league, school, Vic Metro/Country controlled footy.

You are massively overstating the impact these academies are having on the player development.

In u14's it is just volunteer club coaches, and they play games over one weekend where no score is kept and each academy has 3-4 teams. The best 20 odd (god know how they identify them out of the games played) then proceed to the u16 squad the following year, but as bottom agers.

By this stage, lots of new players who weren't even part of the u14s are taking over the u16 squad anyway, as club football is graded and the cream is starting to rise. The Suns guys actively talent spot and watch heaps of club football, the Lions guys just grab the names of kids who play in the State Schools carnival or rely on reccomendations from club coaches.

At u16 level, the Lions typically over perform because they always have a bunch of 17 year olds playing for reasons only known to them. Both Lions and Suns do not have any sort of 'elite' coaches at u16 level either, but the main benefit is that the kids are training in a high performance environment with other talented kid.

The only time they genuinely run into any sort of elite coaching or player development is when they get to u18s, but I highly doubt these setups are the equal of a Coates team setup, let alone better. The Lions have ex Bulldog Mitch Hahn, who I would assume is a good coach and the Suns have ex Port player and SANFL Coach Jared Cotter - who appears to be doing a good job. From what I hear from people involved is that the main difference is that the Lions invest in a handful of players only (who they may identify as the top tier talent) and the rest are glorified match sim participants, while the Suns invest equally in every kid in the program. I really have no idea if that is actually accurate though.

Interestingly though, if you go back 2-3 years. The Queensland u15 side nearly won the national carnival and this was always going to be a bumper crop. The QLD team had 6 x kids picked in the AA side.

These were Beau Addinsall (Suns), Dan Annable (Lions), Harrison Bridge (Lions), Oscar Barry (Lions), Jack Harrison (Lions), Jai Murray (Suns) so 4 x Lions and 2 x Suns.


Also in that team were Zeke Uwland, Dylan Patterson, Kalani White and Kobe Coulson.

Fast forward 3 years and the Suns have 4 kids drafted in the first round and a total of 6 drafted from these age group and the Lions only have 1. With 2 of the 3 guys who made the AA side not even mentioned as potential draftees.

There does seem to be something happening at the Suns that the Lions aren't replicating.

Having said that, the Lions also have the last 2 Premierships - I'm sure they don't mind the Suns producing more draft picks than them in the meantime!

Academies should be scraped just compromises the draft too much imo

What is the alternative solution to provide a pathway for QLD based kids to compete with their similarly aged peers in an elite competition?

 

[Stamos]

Yeah, plus the idea of forcing a pick to be within x positions makes teams know that they have to trade for one of a few specific picks, which distorts the market and can make teams demand more. Then clubs will just give up and not trade up.

Which goes against making players eligible in the first place. I don't think anyone's against there being a preference, provided fair value, for the players to go to those clubs. You don't want to make the function of it difficult, just the payment of it fair.

Yes, and the AFL have now made it fair.

This year was just a massive outlier.

 

[Broski]

The growth of rugby states must be priority of the league at all cost. Could you imagine Zeke Uwland not playing for the might Suns? Makes me violently ill thinking about it.

Seriously though... I have seen so many people here trumpet the "this draft was an outlier, it won't happen again", but forget the fact that the 2023 draft had 29 first round selections (seven academy and F/S selections).

I am empathetic with some of the obstacles that these clubs face, but the AFL desperately needs to fix the disaster that the draft has become. No... I am not directing this at just academies. This includes NGAs and Father/Sons.

We need to act like a professional sporting organisation. Ideally, we need to live in a world where club-tied players go to the club they are picked by, and if they crack the sads after one year they can request a trade while under contract.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yes, and the AFL have now made it fair.

This year was just a massive outlier.

It's a fair argument that a 10% discount still make it not fair, especially when you layer that on top of the advantages of fixed point values.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You are massively overstating the impact these academies are having on the player development.

In u14's it is just volunteer club coaches, and they play games over one weekend where no score is kept and each academy has 3-4 teams. The best 20 odd (god know how they identify them out of the games played) then proceed to the u16 squad the following year, but as bottom agers.

By this stage, lots of new players who weren't even part of the u14s are taking over the u16 squad anyway, as club football is graded and the cream is starting to rise. The Suns guys actively talent spot and watch heaps of club football, the Lions guys just grab the names of kids who play in the State Schools carnival or rely on reccomendations from club coaches.

At u16 level, the Lions typically over perform because they always have a bunch of 17 year olds playing for reasons only known to them. Both Lions and Suns do not have any sort of 'elite' coaches at u16 level either, but the main benefit is that the kids are training in a high performance environment with other talented kid.

The only time they genuinely run into any sort of elite coaching or player development is when they get to u18s, but I highly doubt these setups are the equal of a Coates team setup, let alone better. The Lions have ex Bulldog Mitch Hahn, who I would assume is a good coach and the Suns have ex Port player and SANFL Coach Jared Cotter - who appears to be doing a good job. From what I hear from people involved is that the main difference is that the Lions invest in a handful of players only (who they may identify as the top tier talent) and the rest are glorified match sim participants, while the Suns invest equally in every kid in the program. I really have no idea if that is actually accurate though.

Interestingly though, if you go back 2-3 years. The Queensland u15 side nearly won the national carnival and this was always going to be a bumper crop. The QLD team had 6 x kids picked in the AA side.

These were Beau Addinsall (Suns), Dan Annable (Lions), Harrison Bridge (Lions), Oscar Barry (Lions), Jack Harrison (Lions), Jai Murray (Suns) so 4 x Lions and 2 x Suns.


Also in that team were Zeke Uwland, Dylan Patterson, Kalani White and Kobe Coulson.

Fast forward 3 years and the Suns have 4 kids drafted in the first round and a total of 6 drafted from these age group and the Lions only have 1. With 2 of the 3 guys who made the AA side not even mentioned as potential draftees.

There does seem to be something happening at the Suns that the Lions aren't replicating.

Having said that, the Lions also have the last 2 Premierships - I'm sure they don't mind the Suns producing more draft picks than them in the meantime!



What is the alternative solution to provide a pathway for QLD based kids to compete with their similarly aged peers in an elite competition?

The major difference in AFL preparedness though comes in your final year or two, where the academy scales up and the literal teams are run by the AFL clubs though. You go on this long spiel but the whole argument I'm making is that the elite coaching and player development in your U17/U18 year - that you yourself concede happens - is club-run, not neutral-run.

 

[Stamos]

It's a fair argument that a 10% discount still make it not fair, especially when you layer that on top of the advantages of fixed point values.

The 'discount' issue is so overblown. It's built into the DVI.

Do people really think you shouldn't be able to match a bid with a pick a couple of picks later? Because you can't without a discount.

The bidding system is meant to make a 'fair' price paid to pick up you player, not to pay through the nose down to the last cent.

 

[Stamos]

The growth of rugby states must be priority of the league at all cost. Could you imagine Zeke Uwland not playing for the might Suns? Makes me violently ill thinking about it.

Seriously though... I have seen so many people here trumpet the "this draft was an outlier, it won't happen again", but forget the fact that the 2023 draft had 29 first round selections (seven academy and F/S selections).

I am empathetic with some of the obstacles that these clubs face, but the AFL desperately needs to fix the disaster that the draft has become. No... I am not directing this at just academies. This includes NGAs and Father/Sons.

We need to act like a professional sporting organisation. Ideally, we need to live in a world where club-tied players go to the club they are picked by, and if they crack the sads after one year they can request a trade while under contract.

2023 was under a completely different points and discount structure. It has been addressed.
It's just that there is a lag from previous years due to the extra currency that the Suns carried into this year.

 

[Miller1971]

The major difference in AFL preparedness though comes in your final year or two, where the academy scales up and the literal teams are run by the AFL clubs though. You go on this long spiel but the whole argument I'm making is that the elite coaching and player development in your U17/U18 year - that you yourself concede happens - is club-run, not neutral-run.

yes, but part of their mandate is to get kids drafted, not just to their academy alignment.

Brisbane knew they didn't want to take Prindable, they also left Waller and Bridge on the shelf.

Despite this, Prindable and Waller got extensive exposure to try and get them picked up and Bridge likely would have had he not been injured

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The 'discount' issue is so overblown. It's built into the DVI.

Do people really think you shouldn't be able to match a bid with a pick a couple of picks later? Because you can't without a discount.

The bidding system is meant to make a 'fair' price paid to pick up you player, not to pay through the nose down to the last cent.

The build-in nature of the DVI and the fact that it's a fixed points per pick, whereas in reality the value of a given pick changes from year-to-year, provides arbitrage value to the team with the points, because they're allowed to operate in a different currency.

I've made this point before, but pick 4 is worth 65% of pick 1 per DVI.

There are some years where pick 1 is weak and pick 4 is strong (ie a pick 1 in this draft is as good as a typical pick 2, and the pick 4 is as good as a typical pick 3, there just happens to be two pick 2 quality players and two pick 3 quality players at the top of the draft).

Therefore you can trade down the points value of pick 1 for the draft pick value of pick 4, but you get the arbitrage points discount of trading down pick 1 to 4 for the reality-discount of trading down merely from an average pick 2 to 3.

The opposite can be true if you have a generational pick 1 (ie worth more than an average pick 1) and a weak pick 4 (ie worth pick 7 on average). A team holding pick 1 can auction it off for more points, taking high draft picks that are weak picks in reality - ie trade the gun pick 1 for 4+5.

Obviously the scale is bigger at the top end, but these are also literally just one or two trades. The scale is smaller in 2nd-4th round picks, but multiplied over literally dozens of trades, you get a lot of small value added up over dozens of trades so you do not get anywhere near paying a 'fair' price because you are able to manipulate the fact that two different currencies - one fixed, one variable - are used to acquire talent.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

yes, but part of their mandate is to get kids drafted, not just to their academy alignment.

Brisbane knew they didn't want to take Prindable, they also left Waller and Bridge on the shelf.

Despite this, Prindable and Waller got extensive exposure to try and get them picked up and Bridge likely would have had he not been injured

It's not a matter of mandate though. It's about the tools and resources. This goes back to my point that southern clubs NGA academies aren't literally playing games for the AFL team name in their U17 and U18 year. It means that the argument put forward by northern clubs "that southern clubs have academies too" is a bit of a false equivalence. Northern academy does not equal southern academy in terms of club control over player development. Full stop.

Southern club NGA's also have the mandate to produce draftable talent, but fat use is that mandate when there's not a competitive NGA team running around playing U18 games against other top, non-aligned draft picks as is the case in Northern clubs putting together Coates league teams. St Kilda's draft and development coaches cannot dictate to the Oakleigh Chargers what position where they want their NGA eligible player to play in a game, for the purposes of getting a head start of AFL listed development. You don't think that Brisbane Lions' development coach can't get on the phone for a quick word to the Brisbane Lions Coates League Academy coach - who has the same employer, the same person signs their paycheck - and say, "maybe we want to see how Annable goes playing this slightly different role"?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Think there is merit to the idea to require two first round picks to match a top 5 bid at least. Get rid of the discount, I've said it over and over and every one of my fellow supporters hate me for it- the ability to match is your discount there's no need for icing on the top with a discount.

 

[Jirik13]

The growth of rugby states must be priority of the league at all cost. Could you imagine Zeke Uwland not playing for the might Suns? Makes me violently ill thinking about it.

Seriously though... I have seen so many people here trumpet the "this draft was an outlier, it won't happen again", but forget the fact that the 2023 draft had 29 first round selections (seven academy and F/S selections).

I am empathetic with some of the obstacles that these clubs face, but the AFL desperately needs to fix the disaster that the draft has become. No... I am not directing this at just academies. This includes NGAs and Father/Sons.

We need to act like a professional sporting organisation. Ideally, we need to live in a world where club-tied players go to the club they are picked by, and if they crack the sads after one year they can request a trade while under contract.

AFL did make some decent changes this year. More is coming apparently. Let's see what they come up with in Dec. I bet some Vic teams will not like the coming changes and probably lobby against further changes. It will be tough to match NGA, F/S too. Wondering how Port and Blues would match top 1-2 picks bids with no discount and DVI increased for top picks and only max 2 picks used to match. Good luck.

Not sure why AFL cancelled max 1 bid for top 4 teams and max 2 bids for 5-8 teams in the first round. It was in place for Northern academies. AFL removed it when they unified rules for Nothern academies, F/S, NGA.

Personally I would not allow any match for top 4 teams in the first round, 5-8 only 1 match.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It does seem extremely asinine that you had a certain discount and points curve operating for 10 years, despite the fact that plenty of clubs got ridiculous discounts on talent, but it's not until that a lot of the discounts were bundled up in one year for one club that they're rushing to fix it. But what Gold Coast did is not hugely different to what other clubs did on a different scale. Look at the draft picks the Dogs used to match Jamarra. Comical.

I feel like the fan anger would have been a lot less if they had simply been far more responsive in how clear the advantage teams were getting 2-3 years into the new system, which I need to remind was introduced in 2014.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

AFL did make some decent changes this year. More is coming apparently. Let's see what they come up with in Dec. I bet some Vic teams will not like the coming changes and probably lobby against further changes. It will be tough to match NGA, F/S too.

Not sure why AFL cancelled max 1 bid for top 4 teams and max 2 bids for 5-8 teams in the first round. It was in place for Northern academies. AFL removed it when they unified rules for Nothern academies, F/S, NGA.

Personally I would not allow any match for top 4 teams in the first round, 5-8 only 1 match.

I'm fine with the matching but it HAS to be fairer value. It's not a pile on to GC, but it's not the first kid that's the issue, look at what you paid for the 2nd one onwards. No club would take that deal for a top 5 pick.

It's why I think they have to go to the 2 first round selections to match a bid, especially in the top 5.

No discount, and a tax inside the top 10 would be my preference.

What this will mean is cubs will have to choose between players unless they sell a very good one in trade week to attain more selections.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

If AFL replaced "picks" - with discrete, variable and chunky values - and instead clubs used "points" - a much more granular value system that allows for accurate player ratings - the whole player movement process gets SOO much simpler.

No Zone/Academy/FS/NGA discount required. "Access" to the player is the benefit. Simply match the players top bid and you can keep that player.

No FA Compensation required. No complicated 3-way trades required (as the involved teams existing picks don't "fit"). In fact, trading becomes almost irrelevant (all players go back into the draft/auction system upon completion of their contract - For contracted players, points go from the new team to their old, for FA they go back to AFL to be distributed the following year. It puts the onus on Clubs to ensure fair value is paid, rather than the AFL's rubbery (and hidden) decision making.

All teams have a balance of points to spread over their current list vacancies, or to carry into future years as they see fit. They get new points each year (reverse ladder order). The AFL's only involvement is allocating a % of points to each ladder position.

It solves the problem of draft variance - good/bad draft classes (teams will spend less in the bad draft years, but bid up on the next "Harley Reid"); and even within drafts (valuing pick 1 v pick 4).

 

[Stamos]

Think there is merit to the idea to require two first round picks to match a top 5 bid at least. Get rid of the discount, I've said it over and over and every one of my fellow supporters hate me for it- the ability to match is your discount there's no need for icing on the top with a discount.

Do you genuinely think it's unfair to match a bid at say 7 with pick 9?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Do you genuinely think it's unfair to match a bid at say 7 with pick 9?

If it was pick 9, it wasn't.

I don't blame you guys- I would do the same thing.

The system needs tightening that's all

No discounts, period just cut it out it's farcical. The ability to match is the discount.

Think they move to the 2 pick match for top 5 selections at least, I can see that being a smart compromise. What this means in practicality is that lets assume walker is bid at 1, two picks 5 and 13 or so would suffice. Many would say it's unders but it's not too far off 'fair'. It's the top echelon that people are getting annoyed about so make it harder, not impossible but harder clear difference.

What this would mean is lets say GC, they would have to make a call with taking Petrracca OR using the picks to match, they wouldn't be able to do both

 

[Jirik13]

What this means in practicality is that lets assume walker is bid at 1, two picks 5 and 13 or so would suffice.

It would not enough if DVI is increased for top picks and discount is removed.

Even now if 10% discount is removed, 5 + 13 is not enough points for pick 1.