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

[sr36]

None of the above.

The draft doesn’t work because some teams can’t pick some players because the concentration of talent is in one state and some players refuse to leave.

Sounds very exaggerated to me unless footballers are a breed unto themselves. Nothing cooler in the Year 12 world than to be heading off to study or work interstate straight after high school.

But even if true, Gold Coast have been able to turn 3 years of draft picks, Lukosius, Flanders and Ainsworth, into 10 first round draftees (3 top 5, two other top 10) whilst also trading out 4 first round picks for players. Do you think the system has levelled things or made it ridiculously lop-sided?

 

[Elixuh]

Sounds very exaggerated to me unless footballers are a breed unto themselves. Nothing cooler in the Year 12 world than to be heading off to study or work interstate straight after high school.

But even if true, Gold Coast have been able to turn 3 years of draft picks, Lukosius, Flanders and Ainsworth, into 10 first round draftees (3 top 5, two other top 10) whilst also trading out 4 first round picks for players. Do you think the system has levelled things or made it ridiculously lop-sided?

Well to put it into perspective, I suspect I’m unaware of the majority of these players, but from the rough numbers I’m aware of more players refuse to move interstate than we have taken academy picks.

I’m sure the lions aren’t the only club who hold draft nights and sometimes show their draft list at the end of the night with annotations and highlights, including players we can’t take.

 

[sr36]

Well to put it into perspective, I suspect I’m unaware of the majority of these players, but from the rough numbers I’m aware of more players refuse to move interstate than we have taken academy picks.

I’m sure the lions aren’t the only club who hold draft nights and sometimes show their draft list at the end of the night with annotations and highlights, including players we can’t take.

I suspect that might have been the case when you and GC were shit, but find it hard to believe that a lot of Vic or SA kids would be unwilling to move to a good club in Qld - of all states. Some no doubt.

However, the other half of my post, do you think what GC have been able to do concerning draft picks equalises it or creates a ridiculous advantage? Over three years where they received the average draft picks they've managed to accrue 10 first round players, some at the very pointy end, traded out 4 first rounders for players (3 top 10 picks) and only lost 2 relevant players. It's a crazy haul.

 

[danster168]

It's unbelievable to see how little research (none) people will do on this topic when complaining about the fairness of the draft system. As you pointed out - we, the Suns, accumulated many points over several years by trading out players/picks to make this year's draft scenario possible because we knew that it was very likely that there would be several high end bids on our academy graduates. No club could have pulled this off otherwise and we did it in years that the AFL decided to move the goal posts due to the complaints from clubs in the southern states.

This year alone we lost best 22 players like Ainsworth (pick 4), Fiorini and Budarick to accumulate more points to match bids. Last year we traded away pick 2 Jack Lukosius to accumulate two 2025 future picks that were also used to match bids this year. We also traded away our 2026 first, second and third round picks + a 2027 pick to get more points these 2025 bids.

But people down south will still have you believe that we gave up nothing to land our academy graduates this year. Go figure.

hahaha LOL. Why did you put Pick 4 in brackets for Ainsworth? Surely you're not suggesting that is the current worth of Ainsworth, who was a pick 4 bust. Put pick 29 in the brackets because that is what his current worth is.

Fiorini (Future 3rd) and Budarick (Pick 37). Once again, you use 'pick 2' as a reference for a spud in Lukosius. Where they went in the draft has absolutely no relevance in what they're worth now. Man, why did the Dees delist Jack billings, he was pick 3! Such a foolish argument you're making that almost deserves no response tbh.

So in total you gave up Pick 29, F3, Pick 37 and Lukosius. Spare me the 'we lost a lot' bull dust. Absolute garbage. You lost nothing.

 

[Elixuh]

I suspect that might have been the case when you and GC were shit, but find it hard to believe that a lot of Vic or SA kids would be unwilling to move to a good club in Qld - of all states.

However, the other half of my post, do you think what GC have been able to do concerning draft picks equalises it or creates a ridiculous advantage? Over three years where they received the average draft picks they've managed to accrue 10 first round players, some at the very pointy end, traded out 4 first rounders for players (3 top 10 picks) and only lost 2 relevant players. It's a crazy haul.

That’s not true but even if it were, if our status as a bad team meant top end talent didn’t want to be drafted by us… Can you see the issue based on your previous posts lol?

What does the draft do again? You’re not meant to be making my points for me!

On GC, the draft a few years was (but it’s a meh from me given they’ve historically been a feeder club and never played finals). This year less problematic given they used points across 3 drafts + trading out players.

The real question is what is the best model to draw the most talent out of the northern states going forward.

The obvious answer is no matching and the AFL funds academies. But I think that’ll be less desirable for the AFL as each of the northern clubs will still need to run the academy and the level of funding required so that it wouldn’t disadvantage the club that has to run it would be significantly higher than the amount the 4 clubs currently spend to run them.

 

[sr36]

That’s not true but even if it were, if our status as a bad team meant top end talent didn’t want to be drafted by us… Can you see the issue based on your previous posts lol?

What does the draft do again? You’re not meant to be making my points for me!

On GC, the draft a few years was (but it’s a meh from me given they’ve historically been a feeder club and never played finals). This year less problematic given they used points across 3 drafts + trading out players.

The real question is what is the best model to draw the most talent out of the northern states going forward.

The obvious answer is no matching and the AFL funds academies. But I think that’ll be less desirable for the AFL as each of the northern clubs will still need to run the academy and the level of funding required so that it wouldn’t disadvantage the club that has to run it would be significantly higher than the amount the 4 clubs currently spend to run them.

Agree this year wasn't as bad as 2023 with GC - the new DVI is obviously an improvement. 2023, they basically turned pick 4 into 4 first round picks including pick 3 and 9 as well as 3 future firsts. It was brilliant work but ridiculous that it could be done. They still got a steal in 2025 though. No chance of getting close to trading the picks they had to the ones they got.

To me the obvious answer is no first round matching. I think clubs would still be incentivised to invest in academies to get bargains in later rounds as well as the extra Intel they'll have and loyalty they'll get from the bargains - northern and NGA - particularly if local talent is as important as what you claim. And bump the first round salaries to reduce player hiding.

 

[Elixuh]

To me the obvious answer is no first round matching. I think clubs would still be incentivised to invest in academies to get bargains in later rounds as well as the extra Intel they'll have and loyalty they'll get from the bargains - northern and NGA - particularly if local talent is as important as what you claim. And bump the first round salaries to reduce player hiding.

Definitely not. If we are funding and spending resources running the academy, Resources which other clubs are putting into their premiership program then that would be unreasonable.

As I said, AFL just needs to fund the entire thing and then you can remove matching. Surely that is the easiest approach if the real concern is draft picks being pushed out?

 

[sr36]

Definitely not. If we are funding and spending resources running the academy, Resources which other clubs are putting into their premiership program then that would be unreasonable.

Whilst it might not be directly funded, you do get a significantly bigger amount of the distribution than clubs with similar revenue and costs, which enables you to be running these academies. So it really is funded.

 

[Elixuh]

Whilst it might not be directly funded, you do get a significantly bigger amount of the distribution than clubs with similar revenue and costs, which enables you to be running these academies. So it really is funded.

I don’t know that to be the case

 

[threenewpadlocks]

None of the above.

The draft doesn’t work because some teams can’t pick some players because the concentration of talent is in one state and some players refuse to leave.

This isn't an argument about getting rid of F/S and academies. The people who want to get rid of them also want the draft to be effective and serve its purpose. The fact that there are some kids who don't want to leave their home state, but also want to get paid six figures, is something that they believe should be more heavily enforced, as opposed to your solution of fixing the unfairness with more unfairness.

The AFL draft version of two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Elixuh]

This isn't an argument about getting rid of F/S and academies. The people who want to get rid of them also want the draft to be effective and serve its purpose. The fact that there are some kids who don't want to leave their home state, but also want to get paid six figures, is something that they believe should be more heavily enforced, as opposed to your solution of fixing the unfairness with more unfairness.

The AFL draft version of two wrongs don't make a right.

How do you want to enforce it?

 

[sr36]

I don’t know that to be the case

Think it through. You're receiving a bigger distribution, don't have to sell games, are spending more on your academies, have the same wages caps and like most teams are making a small profit. The bigger distribution is enabling you to spend more on your academies. They're funded.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

How do you want to enforce it?

Practically I get that it's difficult but the point remains that the idealism of getting rid of Academies and F/S is consistent, its an idea that you strive toward, whatever the solution is (I have no idea either).

 

[Elixuh]

Practically I get that it's difficult but the point remains that the idealism of getting rid of Academies and F/S is consistent, its an idea that you strive toward, whatever the solution is (I have no idea either).

The point is, we can’t live in the land of make believe that the afl will enforce something against draftees who refuse to move. They won’t.

I am being realistic. The AFL has shown it is not interested in addressing some advantages/disadvantages and in another sense there are some which can’t be addressed.

Not everything is equal. Not everything can be equal. This crazy notion that it can or that we can work towards it is…

 

[Elixuh]

Think it through. You're receiving a bigger distribution, don't have to sell games, are spending more on your academies, have the same wages caps and like most teams are making a small profit. The bigger distribution is enabling you to spend more on your academies. They're funded.

Except Gold Coast and gws do sell games. And they only get 11 home games. Not 17 like the vfl clubs.

We received approx the same as some vfl clubs once you account for travel, prize money etc

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The point is, we can’t live in the land of make believe that the afl will enforce something against draftees who refuse to move. They won’t.

I am being realistic. The AFL has shown it is not interested in addressing some advantages/disadvantages and in another sense there are some which can’t be addressed.

Not everything is equal. Not everything can be equal. This crazy notion that it can or that we can work towards it is…

It's also make believe land that the AFL will get rid of the northern academies and f/s equally so, but they're still calling for it.

I'm just making the point people wanting the draft to be 'pure' and effective are at the very least logically consistent in their idealism, even if it just unrealistic idealism, when you're claiming that they're not logically consistent. They are.

 

[Elixuh]

It's also make believe land that the AFL will get rid of the northern academies and f/s equally so, but they're still calling for it.

I'm just making the point people wanting the draft to be 'pure' and effective are at the very least logically consistent in their idealism, even if it just unrealistic idealism, when you're claiming that they're not logically consistent. They are.

The replies that you interjected into were in response to a misconception that the draft could be pure if you removed academies.

I wasn’t arguing or responding to some notion that if you uploaded the AFL into the Sims 2 and had complete control over everything, that you could create a pure draft. Sure I agree the draft could be pure. Maybe when I die, the draft in heaven will be pure and God will let me make the first selection for the Lions.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The replies that you interjected into were in response to a misconception that the draft could be pure if you removed academies.

I wasn’t arguing or responding to some notion that if you uploaded the AFL into the Sims 2 and had complete control over everything, that you could create a pure draft. Sure I agree the draft could be pure. Maybe when I die, the draft in heaven will be pure and God will let me make the first selection for the Lions.

But you're suggesting "because this is the reality (kids refuse to move interstate), and it leads to bad outcomes (the draft is ineffective in its equalisation intent), we need to or its otherwise fine that we have northern academies".

That isn't the logical conclusion - the argument being it's just layering on more bad outcomes. Like I said before, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[sr36]

Except Gold Coast and gws do sell games. And they only get 11 home games. Not 17 like the vfl clubs.

We received approx the same as some vfl clubs once you account for travel, prize money etc

You receive similar amounts to VFL clubs with significantly smaller revenue. What do you think your extra distribution is for? It's even given as a reason "strategic growth". Do you think the academies might be part of that? The AFL is funding them, your running them because you're incentivised to do it really well, which they didn't. The goal should be to have the incentive as small as possible, whilst still incentivising quality programs. I think no first round matching should be a big enough incentive. You would have still gotten Andrews and Coleman on the cheap, but not Marshall or Annabel or your flaky CHF whose name has escaped me.

 

[Elixuh]

But you're suggesting "because this is the reality (kids refuse to move interstate), and it leads to bad outcomes (the draft is ineffective in its equalisation intent), we need to or its otherwise fine that we have northern academies".

That isn't the logical conclusion - the argument being it's just layering on more bad outcomes. Like I said before, two wrongs don't make a right.

Wot.

My central argument is that AFL should fund academies and remove matching but that academies are required because we desperately need to expand the talent pool for the sport.

If you argue against that then you’re a VFL shill. Or a Freo fan.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

My central argument is that AFL should fund academies and remove matching but that academies are required because we desperately need to expand the talent pool for the sport.

Not sure I agree with this.

In theory the draft is zero-sum. One way or another the worst clubs are still getting the best talent.

Even with a smaller talent pool, the equalisation process would still work the same way.

For the purposes of running a professional competition a bigger or smaller talent pool is pretty irrelvent.

If the AFL came out and said only players with last names that begin from A-M were allowed to enter the AFL and be drafted, a few more players about to retire or be delisted would stick around, the currently good teams would be good for longer and the currently bad teams would be bad for longer, but eventually over the next 10+ years the currently listed players would get older, a smaller talent pool would still lead to a distribution of good and bad teams identical to the current reality, even though you've literally halved the talent pool.

If your argument is that we need northern academies because the four Northern teams are going to relocate draftees from interstate more often generally and that's unfair for the competition, that's a fair enough argument. I would say it's not that big a deal, but again, fair enough argument to make.

If your argument is that we need to use the AFL teams as vehicles to promote the game of Australian football generally in non-traditional areas and that the AFL has the dual mission of running a fair professional sports league but also as the custodian and manager of the game at all levels generally, and it sacrifices the former for the benefit of the latter, fair enough, I wouldn't agree with it but it's a fair argument.

But this idea that "the northern academies are adding to the overall talent pool so be grateful" is meaningless to me. The AFL has an equal number of wins and losses. Talent is zero sum. A smaller talent pool changes nothing in terms of fairness in running a competition. To run a successful and fair competition a bigger talent pool doesn't actually change anything about running a competition. We're not going to run out of blokes who want to play AFL and do so at a high level that makes it entertaining even if you limited future recruitment of players in the AFL to the last name A-M, which is by definition halving the talent pool.

There's nothing morally wrong with more or fewer of the AFL's talent coming from Victoria as opposed to NSW or Queensland.

Why is it so "desperate" that we need to increase the talent pool?

 

[Elixuh]

You receive similar amounts to VFL clubs with significantly smaller revenue. What do you think your extra distribution is for? It's even given as a reason "strategic growth". Do you think the academies might be part of that? The AFL is funding them, your running them because you're incentivised to do it really well, which they didn't. The goal should be to have the incentive as small as possible, whilst still incentivising quality programs. I think no first round matching should be a big enough incentive. You would have still gotten Andrews and Coleman on the cheap, but not Marshall or Annabel or your flaky CHF whose name has escaped me.

The lions are certainly unaware that the afl is funding them, you should let them know

 

[sr36]

Not sure I agree with this.

In theory the draft is zero-sum. One way or another the worst clubs are still getting the best talent.

Even with a smaller talent pool, the equalisation process would still work the same way.

For the purposes of running a professional competition a bigger or smaller talent pool is pretty irrelvent.

If the AFL came out and said only players with last names that begin from A-M were allowed to enter the AFL and be drafted, a few more players about to retire or be delisted would stick around, the currently good teams would be good for longer and the currently bad teams would be bad for longer, but eventually over the next 10+ years the currently listed players would get older, a smaller talent pool would still lead to a distribution of good and bad teams identical to the current reality, even though you've literally halved the talent pool.

If your argument is that we need northern academies because the four Northern teams are going to relocate draftees from interstate more often generally and that's unfair for the competition, that's a fair enough argument. I would say it's not that big a deal, but again, fair enough argument to make.

If your argument is that we need to use the AFL teams as vehicles to promote the game of Australian football generally in non-traditional areas and that the AFL has the dual mission of running a fair professional sports league but also as the custodian and manager of the game at all levels generally, and it sacrifices the former for the benefit of the latter, fair enough, I wouldn't agree with it but it's a fair argument.

But this idea that "the northern academies are adding to the overall talent pool so be grateful" is meaningless to me. The AFL has an equal number of wins and losses. Talent is zero sum. A smaller talent pool changes nothing in terms of fairness in running a competition. To run a successful and fair competition a bigger talent pool doesn't actually change anything about running a competition. We're not going to run out of blokes who want to play AFL and do so at a high level that makes it entertaining even if you limited future recruitment of players in the AFL to the last name A-M, which is by definition halving the talent pool.

There's nothing morally wrong with more or fewer of the AFL's talent coming from Victoria as opposed to NSW or Queensland.

Why is it so "desperate" that we need to increase the talent pool?

Yeah the academies aren't about growing the talent pool, they're about growing the supporter base.

 

[Elixuh]

Not sure I agree with this.

In theory the draft is zero-sum. One way or another the worst clubs are still getting the best talent.

Even with a smaller talent pool, the equalisation process would still work the same way.

For the purposes of running a professional competition a bigger or smaller talent pool is pretty irrelvent.

If the AFL came out and said only players with last names that begin from A-M were allowed to enter the AFL and be drafted, a few more players about to retire or be delisted would stick around, the currently good teams would be good for longer and the currently bad teams would be bad for longer, but eventually over the next 10+ years the currently listed players would get older, a smaller talent pool would still lead to a distribution of good and bad teams identical to the current reality, even though you've literally halved the talent pool.

If your argument is that we need northern academies because the four Northern teams are going to relocate draftees from interstate more often generally and that's unfair for the competition, that's a fair enough argument. I would say it's not that big a deal, but again, fair enough argument to make.

If your argument is that we need to use the AFL teams as vehicles to promote the game of Australian football generally in non-traditional areas and that the AFL has the dual mission of running a fair professional sports league but also as the custodian and manager of the game at all levels generally, and it sacrifices the former for the benefit of the latter, fair enough, I wouldn't agree with it but it's a fair argument.

But this idea that "the northern academies are adding to the overall talent pool so be grateful" is meaningless to me. The AFL has an equal number of wins and losses. Talent is zero sum. A smaller talent pool changes nothing in terms of fairness in running a competition. To run a successful and fair competition a bigger talent pool doesn't actually change anything about running a competition. We're not going to run out of blokes who want to play AFL and do so at a high level that makes it entertaining even if you limited future recruitment of players in the AFL to the last name A-M, which is by definition halving the talent pool.

There's nothing morally wrong with more or fewer of the AFL's talent coming from Victoria as opposed to NSW or Queensland.

Why is it so "desperate" that we need to increase the talent pool?

I didn’t read your post but got the jist of it. I’m not going to try and convince you if you think things are good the way they are re talent and that there is nothing to be gained by increasing the talent pool, especially in the non-traditional afl states.

 

[sr36]

The lions are certainly unaware that the afl is funding them, you should let them know

What makes you think that? Because they talk about the cost when arguing persuasively for academy advantages?