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

[Jen2310]

Pickers absolutely can be choosers ... only the perceived potential elite can inform clubs they won't leave their home state or, as in this case, go with the better offer.

Just seems a bit.. selfish? Like if your aim is to play footy only.. does it matter where you go?
Lucky for him he is percieved to be a top talent port will find a way to get

 

[Viceregal]

Just seems a bit.. selfish? Like if your aim is to play footy only.. does it matter where you go?
Lucky for him he is percieved to be a top talent port will find a way to get

If I was an elite footballer with options the only reason I go to North, Saints, Eagles, Demons is because I have a knight on a quest with then as my Dulcinea complex or am a masochist or if I was fifth generation supporter of the team and don't want to be shunned by my extended family ... it is not a binary between choosing my preferred equals selfish/evil and choosing a career of pain equals unselfish/altruistic/good.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Exactly right - talented young athletes with options have leverage.

If the AFL undermined the certainty that an academy prospect can be selected then the academy system
is finished.

Pilot walking way to Basketball would be a a bad outcome though he could come back into the system as a category b rookie for Port if Basketball didn’t work out and he was away 3 years.

Never quite understood why it's a loss for the AFL though if some of the talent chooses other sports.

I get Port fighting for it, but in the general sense of the "talent pool" I don't understand why we need to undermine the fairness of the league generally and spending lots of money that could go to other causes (grassroots etc) just so one kid chooses footy over basketball.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

That's interesting. So that means Pilot obviously wants to stay in Adelaide (for now) and has probably already spoken to the 36ers about playing for them in the NBL if things play out that way. The NBL runs a Next Stars program that essentially puts talented junior basketballers in a great position to get drafted into the NBA in their required year off between the end of high school and drafting into the NBA (as per NBA rules). I'm sure the Adelaide 36ers/Basketball Australia are trying their best to convince Pilot to pick basketball and it sounds like not having to move by being tied to Port Adelaide is the clincher for him.

I've noticed a lot of people who are critical of the northern academies tend to mock the idea of talented juniors choosing another sport over footy like it's not a reality, but it sounds like this is that exact situation playing out in South Australia. Don't we want the best juniors graduating into the AFL instead of losing them to other sports? Isn't that what's best for the AFL? We've seen plenty of examples of that in the northern states with talented junior footballers like Patty Mills, Josh Green, Kalyn Ponga and Hamiso Tabuai-Fidow picking other sports instead of footy and I'd hate to think we lose another one in Zemes Pilot just because some footy fans can't see the bigger picture.

Alter the rules to make Port pay fairly for him - sure, but don't do something that will result us losing a ridiculously talented junior to another sport. The same thing almost happened with 2025 pick 5 Dylan Patterson a few years ago when four different NRL clubs tried to sign him as a 15yo. Somehow we managed to retain him and the league will be better off for it.

That's all fair and I agree re the access to players but the counter is if the clubs are working that far out to fend off other codes they know the player is rated and they will need high picks for him. The issue is the current system allows them to rort that knowledge by trading those future 1sts in those years and then using later picks to match the player when in a real world trade for the same player those picks would never get it done.
We must retain priority academy access (for exactly why you said) but close the loophole allowing clubs to trade the r1s. As I mentioned to you gc should never have been able to trade those r1s out and get their players this year-they knew years ago Patterson would be top 10 and they knew early this year most of the others should be first rounders. The points curve should have been steeper-in that scenario they dont trade all the picks because they know they will have to let patterson or one of the others go if they do. The bid match rules and the points table numbers need to change so that its almost impossible for clubs to trade out r1s and still match those bids. like with all things the afl has either been incompetent in skills or deliberately slow to close a loophole that should have been closed years ago (i blame the afl not the clubs).

 

[#BallMagnet]

Are we sure that Zemes can’t be picked up by Tassie?
I don’t think the AFL has yet said that club affiliated kids are off limits to them.

 

[Jen2310]

Are we sure that Zemes can’t be picked up by Tassie?
I don’t think the AFL has yet said that club affiliated kids are off limits to them.

If he wants to, nobody would stop him. Its all a choice after all.
But think the bidding rules will apply to them like anyone else. If they are interested in a player then they place a bid in the draft.
But they'll approach some players to prelist. From the open pool I imagine, or if players are open to it tied prospects - again, its all their decision.

 

[briztoon]

Are we sure that Zemes can’t be picked up by Tassie?
I don’t think the AFL has yet said that club affiliated kids are off limits to them.

Tassie can bid, and the academy club can choose to match or not.

 

[#BallMagnet]

Tassie can bid, and the academy club can choose to match or not.

Hows it work if Tassie pre select him as a 17yo but Port can’t select him as a NGA until his draft year?

Port would have to give him a 100% guarantee 12 months out and then work to get the points. Keep in mind Port are gonna have to work hard to pull enough points together just to get Dougie C, especially if Butters was to stay.

 

[mpal6]

Hows it work if Tassie pre select him as a 17yo but Port can’t select him as a NGA until his draft year?

Port would have to give him a 100% guarantee 12 months out and then work to get the points. Keep in mind Port are gonna have to work hard to pull enough points together just to get Dougie C, especially if Butters was to stay.

Tassie will have their hands full in terms of picking the cream of the crop out there. If Zemes says no, they'll shrug and move on - they'll have bigger priorities than wail over an 18 year old.

Port finding points is an interesting challenge, they may be preparing for Butters departure to get the rest of the pieces in place.

 

[briztoon]

Hows it work if Tassie pre select him as a 17yo but Port can’t select him as a NGA until his draft year?

Port would have to give him a 100% guarantee 12 months out and then work to get the points. Keep in mind Port are gonna have to work hard to pull enough points together just to get Dougie C, especially if Butters was to stay.

Pilot is a year after Cochrane, so Port has two drafts to find the points.

If Butters does go, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Port drop to bottom 3.

 

[GC2015]

Pilot is a year after Cochrane, so Port has two drafts to find the points.

If Butters does go, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Port drop to bottom 3.

There's no way Port will let Pilot take off to another sport/club. An Indigenous key forward / midfielder that's 194cm and growing with speed + vertical leap that matches up against the best. He regularly kicks bags as well. This kid may well be the second coming of Buddy Franklin! There's absolutely no chance he ends up anywhere but Port Adelaide. He already looks like an AFL player and so far ahead of others his age (see below). Port are going to have some ridiculously talented Indigenous players in the near future with the likes of Horne-Francis, Cochrane and Pilot all being top 2 picks! The Port Academy is doing its job of delivering high quality Indigenous players into the league. Reap the rewards if you put the effort in.

 

[#BallMagnet]

There's no way Port will let Pilot take off to another sport/club. An Indigenous key forward / midfielder that's 194cm and growing with speed + vertical leap that matches up against the best. He regularly kicks bags as well. This kid may well be the second coming of Buddy Franklin! There's absolutely no chance he ends up anywhere but Port Adelaide. He already looks like an AFL player and so far ahead of others his age (see below). Port are going to have some ridiculously talented Indigenous players in the near future with the likes of Horne-Francis, Cochrane and Pilot all being top 2 picks! The Port Academy is doing its job of delivering high quality Indigenous players into the league. Reap the rewards if you put the effort in.

I expect him to get a few games as a bottom ager in next year’s Championships as well.
Likely him and Cochrane to hold down the key forward positions.

SA look to be super competitive again next year and have some real talented lads coming through behind the more known likes of Cochrane, Edwards, Van Dyk & Patterson that don’t get the same exposure.

 

[GC2015]

I expect him to get a few games as a bottom ager in next year’s Championships as well.
Likely him and Cochrane to hold down the key forward positions.

SA look to be super competitive again next year and have some real talented lads coming through behind the more known likes of Cochrane, Edwards, Van Dyk & Patterson that don’t get the same exposure.

Works out well at the AFL level considering they are re-introducing State of Origin next year and SA will likely participate in 2027. It'd be pretty cool to see Dougie Cochrane play his first ever game at the AFL level in the state colours for SA at Adelaide Oval in Feb 2027. A bit like Anthony Davis playing for team USA in 2012 Olympics after he was selected number 1 in the draft but before making his NBA debut for New Orleans. I'm sure Pilot will be looking on with jealousy and a strong desire to play for SA in the future.

Wanganeen-Milera, Rankine, Dawson, Neale, Thilthorpe etc. SA is stacked and has a pretty good chance to take down the Vics over the next few years with all these talented youngsters in the league or about to enter.

 

[Old navy]

What happened to the AFL giving clubs new bidding rules in December ?

Have they just shit the bed on that again as usual.

 

[QPower]

Looks like the AFL can’t work out how to significantly increase the cost of the draft capital needed to bid without removing the certainty AFL clubs need to be able to sell to talented young athletes they can draft them to entice those players to join the academies in the first place.

 

[mpal6]

Looks like the AFL can’t work out how to significantly increase the cost of the draft capital needed to bid without removing the certainty AFL clubs need to be able to sell to talented young athletes they can draft them to entice those players to join the academies in the first place.

There'll never be a fair system. Even if they bring multiple firsts etc, it leaves the door open for some club to trade players and re-load if their draft crop looks favorable to invest long term. There'll still be whining about how one club got multiple firsts and it's bad for the system etc. For starters they're better off committing to limit only one player can be bid matched by a club every round (or at least in the first round at the bare minimum). Matching criteria / points / permutations - all of that stuff comes later.

So a club like Gold Coast will be made to choose which of Uwland, Patterson, Murray or Addinsall they want to take - if all got bid on first round. Similarly Brisbane would've been forced to choose between Will Ashcroft and Jaspa Fletcher in the first round.

This "allowed to match only one player in first round" is a fairly simple fix and it also keeps other clubs feel like there's a way to get some of the talents rated first round by them on their list if bids were placed strategically. West Coast would've got Murray under this rule last year. Richmond would've got Patterson.

 

[Jirik13]

There'll never be a fair system. Even if they bring multiple firsts etc, it leaves the door open for some club to trade players and re-load if their draft crop looks favorable to invest long term. There'll still be whining about how one club got multiple firsts and it's bad for the system etc. For starters they're better off committing to limit only one player can be bid matched by a club every round (or at least in the first round at the bare minimum). Matching criteria / points / permutations - all of that stuff comes later.

So a club like Gold Coast will be made to choose which of Uwland, Patterson, Murray or Addinsall they want to take - if all got bid on first round. Similarly Brisbane would've been forced to choose between Will Ashcroft and Jaspa Fletcher in the first round.

This "allowed to match only one player in first round" is a fairly simple fix and it also keeps other clubs feel like there's a way to get some of the talents rated first round by them on their list if bids were placed strategically. West Coast would've got Murray under this rule last year. Richmond would've got Patterson.

There were limits on Northern academy bids in the first round depending on ladder position but AFL removed them when they unified rules for F/S, NGA, Northern academies.

IMO, in the first round top 4 no match, 5-8 1 match, 9-18 no limit. Too easy

 

[mpal6]

There were limits on Northern academy bids in the first round depending on ladder position but AFL removed them when they unified rules for F/S, NGA, Northern academies.

IMO, in the first round top 4 no match, 5-8 1 match, 9-18 no limit. Too easy

As all the angst is about the top end talent - I'd go a step further and make first round as only a single bid match allowed regardless of where the club finished in the ladder. This is for father son, NGA, Academy - altogether. This way every club will have one player at least in the first 18 picks, so there is no talent hoarding discussion in future.

After first round it's pretty much free for all, if you have ways to match it then go for your life.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Looks like the AFL can’t work out how to significantly increase the cost of the draft capital needed to bid without removing the certainty AFL clubs need to be able to sell to talented young athletes they can draft them to entice those players to join the academies in the first place.

Of course they can. They just allow clubs to use first rounders over multiple years to match. But they must fix the points curve.

 

[briztoon]

As all the angst is about the top end talent - I'd go a step further and make first round as only a single bid match allowed regardless of where the club finished in the ladder. This is for father son, NGA, Academy - altogether. This way every club will have one player at least in the first 18 picks, so there is no talent hoarding discussion in future.

After first round it's pretty much free for all, if you have ways to match it then go for your life.

Can we wait until after the 2028 draft, please.

 

[QPower]

Of course they can. They just allow clubs to use first rounders over multiple years to match. But they must fix the points curve.

Then why are they in the position of failing to provide regulatory certainty at this late stage when changes were flagged months ago it was required to inform clubs’ draft/trade strategy in 2025 and beyond.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Then why are they in the position of failing to provide regulatory certainty at this late stage when changes were flagged months ago it was required to inform clubs’ draft/trade strategy in 2025 and beyond.

Because this is the afl and they have a history of bone headed decisions and lack competence.

 

[Choogler]

100%.

The AFL keep changing the rules and each time it favours the Northern teams.

Is it deliberate or accidental

I fail to understand how reducing the points value, reducing the discount and allowing ALL clubs to match bids on NGA academy players "favoured" the northern clubs. It actually made it harder for them to match bids.
In the last draft WCE particularly and Richmond tried hard to make teams pay up for academy players but unfortunately the crux of the problem is that clubs just keep doing trades and giving up the points that allowed GC to accumulate the required points.

Clubs need to toughen up and force the issue. NM could have bid on Jai Murray or Adinsall at 16 forcing GC to spend a few more points

Ideally, the AFL needs to remove the discount completely and require a pick in the bid round as the starting point in matching. Guess what that would do? It would still mean a little shuffling of the draft order, but the first round (without FA compo picks) would be 18 picks used on the best 18 kids. GC would have needed 4 first rounders if they wanted all of their kids.

 

[Jen2310]

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Dumb "size of the talent pool" arguments that are just basically rehashed talking points from the media without coming up with an independent thought.

Provided that the loss of talent level is even among all clubs (in that, games are just as competitive as they were before), would anyone even notice with a reduced talent level?

People obviously still watched AFL in the late 90s when we had nearly as many teams but far less "talent" via lower participation numbers, far less Queensland and NSW kids making the grade, no recruits from Ireland, etc.

I've made this stupid point before but imagine if the AFL made a rule where only players with last names beginning with A to M were allowed to be future AFL players. Other than a few players delaying their retirement over the next few years, and therefore maybe their teams being good for a little longer, it would actually make very little difference to the AFL. The top draft pick would still be a gun (even if they may have been pick 2 with pick 1 an N-Z player), teams would still find dregs to fill out the last 5 list spots, and the games would still be entertaining. Despite literally halving the talent pool.