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

[GC2015]

Nice to hear two Victorians recognise that a top 5 draft pick in Dylan Patterson would have been lost to rugby if the northern academies didn't exist. For some reason, there seems to be a lot of footy fans down south that don't think this is a real thing, but it most definitely is a real thing and Dylan Patterson would have been an absolute star in the NRL who likely would've become a Origin/International player (check out his rugby highlights if you don't believe me). That's how talented this guy is and we're so fortunate as a code to have been able to keep him in our sport when he was getting offered professional rugby contracts from multiple clubs at 15, that he turned down because he believed in the AFL academy pathway.

Pick 2 Zeke Uwland has also stated publicly that he likely would've pursued a career in cricket if it hadn't been for the academy pathway. It's just baffling to me that some think that highly talented junior athletes in QLD & NSW wouldn't choose other sports if they didn't have access to the northern academy pathways. You only have to look at some of the footy juniors from the northern states that have been lost to other sports to see that it's finally swinging our way after losing some big ones 5+ years ago - Patty Mills (Swans/Basketball), Josh Green (Giants/Basketball), Kalyn Ponga (Lions/Rugby League), Hamiso Tabuai-Fidow (Suns/Rugby League), Tom Trbojevic (Swans/Rugby League), Will McDowell-White (Lions/Basketball).

Anyway. I think they're right in saying the answer going forward is to pay more for priority access to father-son and academy products. That's a better outcome than removing academy access altogether and losing a lot of these talented juniors to other sports.

 

[Deadly Darcy]

Nice to hear two Victorians recognise that a top 5 draft pick in Dylan Patterson would have been lost to rugby if the northern academies didn't exist. For some reason, there seems to be a lot of footy fans down south that don't think this is a real thing, but it most definitely is a real thing and Dylan Patterson would have been an absolute star in the NRL who likely would've become a Origin/International player (check out his rugby highlights if you don't believe me). That's how talented this guy is and we're so fortunate as a code to have been able to keep him in our sport when he was getting offered professional rugby contracts from multiple clubs at 15, that he turned down because he believed in the AFL academy pathway.

Pick 2 Zeke Uwland has also stated publicly that he likely would've pursued a career in cricket if it hadn't been for the academy pathway. It's just baffling to me that some think that highly talented junior athletes in QLD & NSW wouldn't choose other sports if they didn't have access to the northern academy pathways. You only have to look at some of the footy juniors from the northern states that have been lost to other sports to see that it's finally swinging our way after losing some big ones 5+ years ago - Patty Mills (Swans/Basketball), Josh Green (Giants/Basketball), Kalyn Ponga (Lions/Rugby League), Hamiso Tabuai-Fidow (Suns/Rugby League), Tom Trbojevic (Swans/Rugby League), Will McDowell-White (Lions/Basketball).

Anyway. I think they're right in saying the answer going forward is to pay more for priority access to father-son and academy products. That's a better outcome than removing academy access altogether and losing a lot of these talented juniors to other sports.

That’s easily fixed.

1. AFL fully fund the academies
2. All the kids that come through them go into the open pool to be drafted
3. No Patterson gets left behind to the mercies of cricket or rugby.

 

[GC2015]

That’s easily fixed.

1. AFL fully fund the academies
2. All the kids that come through them go into the open pool to be drafted
3. No Patterson gets left behind to the mercies of cricket or rugby.

So why wasn't the AFL doing that before the northern academies were established around a decade ago? They unsuccessfully tried several times with programs like the NSW scholarship program and didn't have much success outside of Taylor Walker. It just didn't work until they invested in club run academies like we see in other sports like soccer.

Have a listen to this from a man that knows a lot more than both of us about the inner workings of professional sport / develoment pathways - David Beckham firmly believes club run academies are crucial for the growth of soccer in a non-traditional soccer market in the US:



An MLS run program isn't going to cut it. They need club run junior academies that are tied to the professional teams to create a cultural shift in those markets and promote significant change at the grassroots level. It's really no different to the northern academies in the AFL. The AFL run programs aren't going to cut it - we need club run programs to make a significant difference at the grassroots level.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Nice to hear two Victorians recognise that a top 5 draft pick in Dylan Patterson would have been lost to rugby if the northern academies didn't exist. For some reason, there seems to be a lot of footy fans down south that don't think this is a real thing, but it most definitely is a real thing and Dylan Patterson would have been an absolute star in the NRL who likely would've become a Origin/International player (check out his rugby highlights if you don't believe me). That's how talented this guy is and we're so fortunate as a code to have been able to keep him in our sport when he was getting offered professional rugby contracts from multiple clubs at 15, that he turned down because he believed in the AFL academy pathway.

Pick 2 Zeke Uwland has also stated publicly that he likely would've pursued a career in cricket if it hadn't been for the academy pathway. It's just baffling to me that some think that highly talented junior athletes in QLD & NSW wouldn't choose other sports if they didn't have access to the northern academy pathways. You only have to look at some of the footy juniors from the northern states that have been lost to other sports to see that it's finally swinging our way after losing some big ones 5+ years ago - Patty Mills (Swans/Basketball), Josh Green (Giants/Basketball), Kalyn Ponga (Lions/Rugby League), Hamiso Tabuai-Fidow (Suns/Rugby League), Tom Trbojevic (Swans/Rugby League), Will McDowell-White (Lions/Basketball).

Anyway. I think they're right in saying the answer going forward is to pay more for priority access to father-son and academy products. That's a better outcome than removing academy access altogether and losing a lot of these talented juniors to other sports.

I don't think it's a debate whether it's real or not that these players are lost to other sports, just that I don't think it matters at all.

"Talent pool argument" is ridiculous.

If the idea is that GC and other clubs are at a disadvantage because they have to relocate and have go-home factors that other clubs don't have being able to draft more local players I'm more than fine with giving those northern clubs more resources to equalise that (certain costs outside of the soft cap and giving them more money full stop). Maybe the AFL can fund another welfare officer for each club or whatever.

What I don't like is the purity of the idea of equalisation via the draft to be barstadised though. It is fundamentally unfair that my club the Western Bulldogs, who finished below Gold Coast this year, is not allowed to use the equalisation purposes of the draft to trend toward being equally as likely to win a flag as Gold Coast over the medium and long term. Instead, with these draft advantages. Gold Coast are more likely to win flags over the medium and long term than the Dogs, despite the fact that they were closer to winning the flag in the most immediate past, ie, by qualifying for finals when the Dogs didn't.

 

[mpal6]

I don't think it's a debate whether it's real or not that these players are lost to other sports, just that I don't think it matters at all.

"Talent pool argument" is ridiculous.

If the idea is that GC and other clubs are at a disadvantage because they have to relocate and have go-home factors that other clubs don't have being able to draft more local players I'm more than fine with giving those northern clubs more resources to equalise that (certain costs outside of the soft cap and giving them more money full stop). Maybe the AFL can fund another welfare officer for each club or whatever.

What I don't like is the purity of the idea of equalisation via the draft to be barstadised though. It is fundamentally unfair that my club the Western Bulldogs, who finished below Gold Coast this year, is not allowed to use the equalisation purposes of the draft to trend toward being equally as likely to win a flag as Gold Coast over the medium and long term. Instead, with these draft advantages. Gold Coast are more likely to win flags over the medium and long term than the Dogs, despite the fact that they were closer to winning the flag in the most immediate past, ie, by qualifying for finals when the Dogs didn't.

C'mon mate, your club got the best outcome out of all victorian clubs in the NGA arrangement by getting Jamarra at Pick 1. If any other Victorian club supporter complained I could understand but you've been striking gold in both father son (Darcy, Croft) and NGA (Jamarra) in the recent years. I'm not even sure what you're complaining about.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

C'mon mate, your club got the best outcome out of all victorian clubs in the NGA arrangement by getting Jamarra at Pick 1. If any other Victorian club supporter complained I could understand but you've been striking gold in both father son (Darcy, Croft) and NGA (Jamarra) in the recent years. I'm not even sure what you're complaining about.

Yes, but I've never hid from the fact or the size of the advantage we got (though ironically didn't get anywhere near the value out of it since).

And that doesn't prevent us from striving for fairness in the future and I'm just giving an example of my team.

 

[GC2015]

I don't think it's a debate whether it's real or not that these players are lost to other sports, just that I don't think it matters at all.

Then you're clearly ignoring what the experts are saying about how important it is to have academies to grow the game and attract / retain junior athletes. I even heard the commentators on The Ashes coverage this morning talking about how the removal of local academies has ruined the game at the top level in Australia and that they think they should be brought back. This model works and has been proven many times across many sports, but for some reason footy fans in the southern states can't wrap their head around it.

If the idea is that GC and other clubs are at a disadvantage because they have to relocate and have go-home factors that other clubs don't have being able to draft more local players I'm more than fine with giving those northern clubs more resources to equalise that (certain costs outside of the soft cap and giving them more money full stop). Maybe the AFL can fund another welfare officer for each club or whatever.

We already tried that. Remember COLA? Brisbane also had COLA and it was removed in 2006 after many years of complaining from clubs down south. What seems to be the case time and time again is that footy fans down south are fine with helping the northern clubs overcome their natural disadvantages, until that team becomes successful. The thinking must be that 'oh you're winning? then you don't need help anymore' but that's just not the case. Brisbane dropped off dramatically after 2006 when COLA was removed and were in the depths for around a decade. That's clearly not an indication of a team that had overcome all its natural disadvantages. Basing these decisions purely on ladder positioning at any given time is a foolish way of looking at it and unfortunately this has been the case in the past.

What I don't like is the purity of the idea of equalisation via the draft to be barstadised though. It is fundamentally unfair that my club the Western Bulldogs, who finished below Gold Coast this year, is not allowed to use the equalisation purposes of the draft to trend toward being equally as likely to win a flag as Gold Coast over the medium and long term. Instead, with these draft advantages. Gold Coast are more likely to win flags over the medium and long term than the Dogs, despite the fact that they were closer to winning the flag in the most immediate past, ie, by qualifying for finals when the Dogs didn't.

Yes, but I've never hid from the fact or the size of the advantage we got (though ironically didn't get anywhere near the value out of it since).

And that doesn't prevent us from striving for fairness in the future and I'm just giving an example of my team.

• Bulldogs finish 7th in 2020 and their natural first pick was no.12 - they draft Ugle-Hagan with the no.1 pick.
• Bulldogs make the GF in 2021 and their natural pick was no.17 - they draft Darcy with the no.2 pick.
• Bulldogs finish 9th in 2022 and their natural second pick was no.28 - they draft Croft with the no.15 pick.
• There's potentially more coming with Jaxon Cooney and Levi West both draft eligible this year.

So you're happy to take the advantages that come with a compromised draft, but you also want to complain about other clubs who benefit from the compromised draft? Righto.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Then you're clearly ignoring what the experts are saying about how important it is to have academies to grow the game and attract / retain junior athletes. I even heard the commentators on The Ashes coverage this morning talking about how the removal of local academies has ruined the game at the top level in Australia and that they think they should be brought back. This model works and has been proven many times across many sports, but for some reason footy fans in the southern states can't wrap their head around it.


We already tried that. Remember COLA? Brisbane also had COLA and it was removed in 2006 after many years of complaining from clubs down south. What seems to be the case time and time again is that footy fans down south are fine with helping the northern clubs overcome their natural disadvantages, until that team becomes successful. The thinking must be that 'oh you're winning? then you don't need help anymore' but that's just not the case. Brisbane dropped off dramatically after 2006 when COLA was removed and were in the depths for around a decade. That's clearly not an indication of a team that had overcome all its natural disadvantages. Basing these decisions purely on ladder positioning at any given time is a foolish way of looking at it and unfortunately this has been the case in the past.

• Bulldogs finish 7th in 2020 and their natural first pick was no.12 - they draft Ugle-Hagan with the no.1 pick.
• Bulldogs make the GF in 2021 and their natural pick was no.17 - they draft Darcy with the no.2 pick.
• Bulldogs finish 9th in 2022 and their natural second pick was no.28 - they draft Croft with the no.15 pick.
• There's potentially more coming with Jaxon Cooney and Levi West both draft eligible this year.

So you're happy to take the advantages that come with a compromised draft, but you also want to complain about other clubs who benefit from the compromised draft? Righto.

What has ruined cricket is the advent of the t20 franchise model and what that has done to junior pathways and in particular juniors focusing on short form cricket over long term cricket.
I dont think thats in any way comparable to the afl academy situation.

 

[GC2015]

What has ruined cricket is the advent of the t20 franchise model and what that has done to junior pathways and in particular juniors focusing on short form cricket over long term cricket.
I dont think thats in any way comparable to the afl academy situation.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think I'll take more notice of Ricky Ponting's opnion on this one. No offence.

 

[Colonial]

So you're happy to take the advantages that come with a compromised draft, but you also want to complain about other clubs who benefit from the compromised draft? Righto.

They aren’t advantages when they get them. It’s “tradition”.

 

[Deadly Darcy]

Then you're clearly ignoring what the experts are saying about how important it is to have academies to grow the game and attract / retain junior athletes. I even heard the commentators on The Ashes coverage this morning talking about how the removal of local academies has ruined the game at the top level in Australia and that they think they should be brought back. This model works and has been proven many times across many sports, but for some reason footy fans in the southern states can't wrap their head around it.


We already tried that. Remember COLA? Brisbane also had COLA and it was removed in 2006 after many years of complaining from clubs down south. What seems to be the case time and time again is that footy fans down south are fine with helping the northern clubs overcome their natural disadvantages, until that team becomes successful. The thinking must be that 'oh you're winning? then you don't need help anymore' but that's just not the case. Brisbane dropped off dramatically after 2006 when COLA was removed and were in the depths for around a decade. That's clearly not an indication of a team that had overcome all its natural disadvantages. Basing these decisions purely on ladder positioning at any given time is a foolish way of looking at it and unfortunately this has been the case in the past.

• Bulldogs finish 7th in 2020 and their natural first pick was no.12 - they draft Ugle-Hagan with the no.1 pick.
• Bulldogs make the GF in 2021 and their natural pick was no.17 - they draft Darcy with the no.2 pick.
• Bulldogs finish 9th in 2022 and their natural second pick was no.28 - they draft Croft with the no.15 pick.
• There's potentially more coming with Jaxon Cooney and Levi West both draft eligible this year.

So you're happy to take the advantages that come with a compromised draft, but you also want to complain about other clubs who benefit from the compromised draft? Righto.

The fact that you are posting so much on this shows the desperation to retain the advantage it provides.

Your arguments can still stand up - let the clubs run the academies doing exactly what they are doing (and doing well), but fullyFunded or over funded if you like, by the AFL with the only difference being the players going into the open pool. No financial disadantage being guaranteed and you could still chase the players post draft to get them to come home as the vic clubs do with victorians interstate and the Adelaide and WA clubs do with players from their states.

There is no reason being provided that they can’t go open pool at the end of the process and still get the same results.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think I'll take more notice of Ricky Ponting's opnion on this one. No offence.

Ricky is biased because he has been working for an IPL franchise and this is what allows him to maintain great money and keep his well paid broadcast gigs without having to travel and prepare teams 9 months of the year (which is what he would have to do sans IPL if he was coaching a national team instead). If course he is going to say that.

 

[Colonial]

The fact that you are posting so much on this shows the desperation to retain the advantage it provides.

Says you.

Your arguments can still stand up - let the clubs run the academies doing exactly what they are doing (and doing well), but fullyFunded or over funded if you like, by the AFL with the only difference being the players going into the open pool.

All for it as long as we also axe F/s, rotate the GF so everyone can hold it. Plus a few other issues and you will have my support.

 

[Deadly Darcy]

They aren’t advantages when they get them. It’s “tradition”.

I don’t disagree with this. If Darcy wemt open pool he would be coming back to the dogs this year or next (can’t remember). There is too much history with his dad and granddad for him not to come back. But, GWS would have got Max value for him on the trade and deservedly so as they finished lower and selected him. There is nothing to stop fathersons going home after 3 years - just a risk the clubs would knowingly take on when selecting them. Hate to think what it would have cost to drag him out!

 

[Jirik13]

The fact that you are posting so much on this shows the desperation to retain the advantage it provides.

Your arguments can still stand up - let the clubs run the academies doing exactly what they are doing (and doing well), but fullyFunded or over funded if you like, by the AFL with the only difference being the players going into the open pool. No financial disadantage being guaranteed and you could still chase the players post draft to get them to come home as the vic clubs do with victorians interstate and the Adelaide and WA clubs do with players from their states.

There is no reason being provided that they can’t go open pool at the end of the process and still get the same results.

I don't think that would work. Why would the club run academy with no benefit? Why would e.g. Miller looked after Lombard during pre-season if Lombard would go to open draft?

Suns are pretty unique as they are owned by AFL and have to do what AFL wants. So who knows, haha.

 

[GC2015]

The fact that you are posting so much on this shows the desperation to retain the advantage it provides.

It's mostly just responding to people who are quoting my posts. That's the whole point of a forum, isn't it? For the record, I'm not even in the top 10 in terms of contributors to this thread.

I don’t disagree with this. If Darcy wemt open pool he would be coming back to the dogs this year or next (can’t remember). There is too much history with his dad and granddad for him not to come back. But, GWS would have got Max value for him on the trade and deservedly so as they finished lower and selected him. There is nothing to stop fathersons going home after 3 years - just a risk the clubs would knowingly take on when selecting them. Hate to think what it would have cost to drag him out!

If that's true, then Victorian clubs retain the natural advantage once again. The whole point of an uncompromised draft is supposed to be that the talent would be spread throughout the league, but you've just pointed out how historical links would potentially prevent that from being a reality.

By the way, sons of prominent AFL players don't always go back to their father's club. Your very own Josh Dunkley never went to the Swans, despite nominating for F/S status in the lead up to his draft year. Nick Blakey doesn't seem to have any desire to head to North Melbourne. Noah Anderson doesn't seem interested in joining Hawthorn. History can go out the window pretty quickly under the right circumstances - just look at third generation Blue Jack Silvagni leaving Carlton last year. So I wouldn't be so sure that Darcy would definitely end up back at the Dogs if he had entered the open draft pool in 2021.

We all know it's not going to happen, though. The father-son rule is going to be retained and likewise we're probably going to see academies retained in some form going forward to counter act the natural disadvantages that some clubs face. Drafts that are compromised by the F/S rule and the academies are here to stay, folks.

Ricky is biased because he has been working for an IPL franchise and this is what allows him to maintain great money and keep his well paid broadcast gigs without having to travel and prepare teams 9 months of the year (which is what he would have to do sans IPL if he was coaching a national team instead). If course he is going to say that.

It wasn't just Ponting. Three other former players were saying the same thing and agreeing with him.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Then you're clearly ignoring what the experts are saying about how important it is to have academies to grow the game and attract / retain junior athletes.

Why are the "experts" saying this? Maybe they have an interest in more money being spent on the code?
If the draftable talent pool is 10% smaller or whatever it doesn't make a different. If Dylan Patterson never played AFL it doesn't make a difference to the fairness of running a competition.

We already tried that. Remember COLA? Brisbane also had COLA and it was removed in 2006 after many years of complaining from clubs down south.

Clubs had an interest in removing something so they would be themselves more likely to win? Colour me shocked.

It's the AFL's job to step in and allow the competition to be run fairly. That may mean not bending to the whines of the clubs who want to remove COLA for their benefit. But it also means not allowing teams to recruit top players at a massive discount that smashes through the equalisation principles of the draft, to make them meaningless.

• Bulldogs finish 7th in 2020 and their natural first pick was no.12 - they draft Ugle-Hagan with the no.1 pick.
• Bulldogs make the GF in 2021 and their natural pick was no.17 - they draft Darcy with the no.2 pick.
• Bulldogs finish 9th in 2022 and their natural second pick was no.28 - they draft Croft with the no.15 pick.

Firstly, never said that we didn't benefit - why do you keep bringing this up secondly as a gotcha. Of course the Dogs benefited (in theory) by Jamarra, doesn't mean I'm claiming it as fair. It was an unfair benefit the Dogs got.

Secondly, F/S is a different matter because it is in theory equally balanced over all 18 clubs over the long term and whatever club benefits is just luck. Clubs don't also get to run academies for their F/S players in the same way for Northern Academies - as I've posted in this thread earlier, Annable has run around wearing a Brisbane jumper for numerous games this year. Darcy never did, we didn't have any influence over his pre-draft development.

On the other hand, there's a structural element to the Northern NGA's in that those clubs can expect to get more and more talent at a discount over the long run in a manner that the souther clubs don't. F/S evens out among all clubs in the end. But NGA wil consistently produce more than 1/18th of the best talent per academy on a year by year basis, you re giving an in built structural draft advantage to these clubs to the disadvantage of the fairness of the draft competition.

There's potentially more coming with Jaxon Cooney and Levi West both draft eligible this year.

Neither are likely to be drafted, shows how much you actually know.

So you're happy to take the advantages that come with a compromised draft, but you also want to complain about other clubs who benefit from the compromised draft? Righto.

What do you expect me to do? Resign my membership in protest? I'm entirely fine with saying how the Dogs befitted from Jamarra as an unfair process. The AFL should have never let us get him at that much of a discount, obviously.

 

[Colonial]

Hate to think what it would have cost to drag him out!

As much as we could, that and. North thought Kelly would be an easy get. The culture at the club said otherwise.

 

[The_Reaper]

Id rather have a fair competition even if it means losing the occasional player to other sports

 

[GC2015]

Why are the "experts" saying this? Maybe they have an interest in more money being spent on the code?

It's more about the specific local academy model being used, as opposed to money just generally being tipped into the sport. Beckham was very specific about how crucial it was for every MLS club in the US having their own academy pathway in order to grow the sport in the non-traditional soccer markets of North America. When Beckham joined the MLS in 2007, each club was worth approximately $37 million USD. What are they worth 19 years later in 2026? Approximately $720 million USD.

Clearly a lot of growth has occurred since 2007 and the establishment of the academies allowed the MLS to go from a league that was heavily reliant on imported stars to one that builds its own homegrown stars (yes, I know Messi is the biggest star in the MLS at the moment). Less reliance on imported stars made the MLS more self-sufficient, improving overall competitiveness across the league and made the MLS more relevant within the US sporting landscape. Americans like to watch other Americans play sport. It's relatable to them. They'd rather watch the MLS Cup final (4.6 million US viewers in 2025) as opposed to the FA Cup final, despite the FA Cup final being considered a higher standard of soccer.

You can apply similar logic to the growth of Aussie rules in the northern states. Sydney and Brisbane were undoubtedly reliant on interstate imports to be competitive / relevant in the past with players like Tony Lockett and Warwick Capper being a good examples of that. These days they've got local stars who have come through the local academy pathways like Errol Gulden and Harris Andrews leading the charge and it's a much more sustainable model overall that really helps in maintaining competitiveness and relevancy.

Clubs had an interest in removing something so they would be themselves more likely to win? Colour me shocked.

It's the AFL's job to step in and allow the competition to be run fairly. That may mean not bending to the whines of the clubs who want to remove COLA for their benefit. But it also means not allowing teams to recruit top players at a massive discount that smashes through the equalisation principles of the draft, to make them meaningless.

Sure, but it's also the AFL's job to grow the sport and they've publicly made it clear that they believe most of the future growth will come from the northern states. Sometimes these two goals can be seen as contradicting one another because implementing methods to maintain highly competitive teams in the northern states could be seen as compromising other teams. Personally, I think it's just about striking the right balance between maintaining competitiveness and avoiding a complete collapse in the northern markets.

Northern state teams shouldn't be winning the premiership every year, but the AFL would ideally like most of them to finish inside the top 10 and compete in the finals more often than not because they know it's going to help enormously in their pursuit to grow the game up here. One thing we definitely can't have is going another decade (or more) where a team like the Lions or Suns don't play finals at all. That's extremely detrimental for the growth of the game up here and would ideally never happen again.

Firstly, never said that we didn't benefit - why do you keep bringing this up secondly as a gotcha. Of course the Dogs benefited (in theory) by Jamarra, doesn't mean I'm claiming it as fair. It was an unfair benefit the Dogs got.

Secondly, F/S is a different matter because it is in theory equally balanced over all 18 clubs over the long term and whatever club benefits is just luck. Clubs don't also get to run academies for their F/S players in the same way for Northern Academies - as I've posted in this thread earlier, Annable has run around wearing a Brisbane jumper for numerous games this year. Darcy never did, we didn't have any influence over his pre-draft development.

Firstly, the Suns + Giants can't and won't have an F/S pick for probably at least another 10 years so there's no way you could possibly argue that part of it is fair. Secondly, even if every team did have the same realistic shot at F/S picks coming through, it still compromises the draft. How could you possibly think pick 2 Sam Darcy going to the team that just made the GF is a fair outcome just because other teams might have the same benefit later on? History suggests there will be teams that will never have a top 2 F/S pick come through. It's the haves and the have nots at the moment. Pick 1 (Carlton F/S) and pick 2 (Port Adelaide Academy) this year are both going to head to teams that will almost definitely not finish bottom 2 on the ladder. There's draft compromises everywhere, but you only seem to focus mostly on the northern academies. Why?

F/S evens out among all clubs in the end.

It really doesn't. St Kilda is a great example of a club that's virtually had zero help from the existence of the father-son rule. Meanwhile, Collingwood and Geelong have had mutltiple stars who have won premierships drafted to their club as a result of the F/S rule like Nick Daicos, Darcy Moore, Travis Cloke, Heath Shaw, Tom Hawkins, Gary Ablett Jr, Matthew Scarlett etc. Your club has certainly benefitted from the F/S rule as well - Libba, Hunter and Cordy all played in that 2016 flag. Rhylee West looks like he's going to have a solid career and Sam Darcy is obviously a generational talent that is well on his way to becoming one of the best players in the game.

The reality is the F/S rule is not producing equal outcomes across the league and it continues to compromise the draft. It won't change, though. Clubs will just invest more into their F/S academies because they stand to benefit greatly from the rule.

What do you expect me to do? Resign my membership in protest? I'm entirely fine with saying how the Dogs befitted from Jamarra as an unfair process. The AFL should have never let us get him at that much of a discount, obviously.

So the NGAs compromise the draft in an unfair way... but the F/S rule doesn't. Righto.

 

[The_Reaper]

It’s the AFL’s primary job to run a top level football competition.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You can apply similar logic to the growth of Aussie rules in the northern states.

MLS is a soccer league of which interest levels are related to a direct comparison of it spercieved quality to the other soccer that Americans can and do watch.

AFL has no such comparison - it's the only nation in which it is played - so you cannot apply similar logic.

Sure, but it's also the AFL's job to grow the sport and they've publicly made it clear that they believe most of the future growth will come from the northern states.

I'm of the view that they've sacrificed their more important goal of running a competition fairly and in the interests of the existing clubs and fans to achieve growth.

Most AFL clubs and fans do not care for growth, they care for fairness. The AFL isn't a capitalistic institution, thankfully, the only motivation for growth should be to the extent that it benefits the health of the code generally for its existing members, fans and clubs to participate in a fair competition.

but the AFL would ideally like most of them to finish inside the top 10 and compete in the finals more often than not because they know it's going to help enormously in their pursuit to grow the game up here.

You're basically admitting then that the AFL is failing in its obligation to run a fair competition, because the AFL should want all teams to have a long term equal chance at success, because that would be the AFL being successful in its main operation of running a competition well and fairly.

Firstly, the Suns + Giants can't and won't have an F/S pick for probably at least another 10 years so there's no way you could possibly argue that part of it is fair

Tough luck. Part of the entry conditions, and not aong term thing.

Meanwhile, Collingwood and Geelong

And they're the clubs by luck and variance that have had F/S luck. But I'm making the point that there's nothing inherent about the sperm of a player at Collingwood or Geelong that makes their offspring more likely to be a talented footballer - it's just the variance that could have befitted any club, unlike the explicit lack of variance of northern academies structurally producing talent every year.

It really doesn't. St Kilda is a great example of a club that's virtually had zero help from the existence of the father-son rule.

My point about it evening out is that the Saints are equally as likely to benefit in the future from the F/S rule as any of the 17 other clubs, irrespective of the past.

That is not true about the Northern academies, the Northern clubs will certain get a draft discount advantage greater than 14 other clubs.

The reality is the F/S rule is not producing equal outcomes across the league and it continues to compromise the draft. It won't change, though.

You consistently miss the point though that F/S benefiting at a structural level is of equal benefit over the long term of all 18 clubs. Just because Geelong have gotten more out of it than the Saints is nothing more than dumb luck. It's like if you got 18 clubs to roll 2 dice each (representing father son), Saints have landed on 2 and Geelong on 12. But that fact doesn't make the structure of the dice roll unfair. The Northern Academies, however, get to roll 3 or 4 dice each, not 2. That's the point here. The fact they roll more dice is a structural advantage even if the outcomes always aren't.

It won't change, though. Clubs will just invest more into their F/S academies because they stand to benefit greatly from the rule

So the NGAs compromise the draft in an unfair way... but the F/S rule doesn't. Righto.

As has been explained to you before, clubs outside the Northern Academies don't control these players or fund or employ the coaches and teams they play for, so they don't get the advantage of starting their development geared toward the benefit of the team before being on an AFL list, hiding their talent so other clubs don't realise that they are talented and delaying their bid. And in any case NGA's are far less frequent in developing talent. Just to give you an example, the Bulldogs have not had a top 35 draft prospect come out of their NGA in almost 10 years of it existing other than Jamarra (and even then, it's only one player beyond Cat B levels, it's Lual who went to Essendon with pick 39), it's hardly a zone that produces multiple players at a draft discount that accumulates over time, accepting that Jamarra as one player was a massive rort.

You can point to other similar examples of NGA's as most clubs only producing 1-4 top 40ish worth players over a 10 year window.

The scale of it marginally offsets the nortner academies.

FWIW I also disagree with NGA academies giving teams a discount for structural reasons (some zones can be stronger than others) for the same reasons. If the AFL wants to strengthen multiculturalism, there are ways to do this outside of draft discounts leading to competition unfairness (ie, keep the dedicated Cat B rookie list for these players but only after every club passes them over with a real list spot in the actual draft - we can do the same thing for Northern clubs drafting local players).

It’s the AFL’s primary job to run a top level football competition.

This is the main point.

The "health" and "strength" and "growth" of the code is all a bit pointless if it's all funnelling toward an unfair competition, because what's the point of supporting and having an interest as fans in an unfair competition? The thing that keeps my interest as a Western Bulldogs and wider AFL fan is the general idea that teams do well and poorly because they are well or poorly run clubs relative to the other sna make good or bad football decisions, not that they have wild structural advantages written into the rules, or that they have more money and use it to pay off other clubs. It's the same reason I don't like two WA clubs buying a home-ground advantage from North, it's the same reason I don't like Bailey Smith not entering the draft or being forced to play for another club other than Geelong after not giving 8 years of service to Dogs as a FA (and the Dogs getting less in a trade th a the compensation they would have gotten if he was a FA and played 2 more years for the Dogs) - all of this goes against the ideal of a fair competiton where teams play in a fair fixture with fair list management rules and an equal amount of money spent on players and staff, which leads to the good clubs proving their decisions and executions are actually better.

If Gold Coast win a premiership on the back of the fact that their advantages have actually been written into the rules of the competition (unlike F/S which is just some club's lucky variance via procreation), it is highly distasteful for the investment of fans being fans because they like the idea of the AFL running a football competition in a good and effective manner.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

I don’t disagree with this. If Darcy wemt open pool he would be coming back to the dogs this year or next (can’t remember). There is too much history with his dad and granddad for him not to come back. But, GWS would have got Max value for him on the trade and deservedly so as they finished lower and selected him. There is nothing to stop fathersons going home after 3 years - just a risk the clubs would knowingly take on when selecting them. Hate to think what it would have cost to drag him out!

This is the obvious solution for FS picks. Their dad's club can trade for them at the end of their first contract, paying a "fair" value.

 

[mpal6]

Id rather have a fair competition even if it means losing the occasional player to other sports

Competition is never going to be fair. Travel arrangements, heavy concentration of clubs and players in one state, grand final locked away in one state under the guise of tradition, Victoria draftees (the state which usually has a higher share of players in draft every year) wanting to stay home and being praised for "speaking their mind" to clubs and "being brave" - it's a mix bag of inequalities depending on how you look at it.

The only reason father son is suddenly not wrapped in the "tradition" argument is it has created a disproportionate outcome for an interstate club on top. Let's say it was a Vic club on top who got multiple top father sons it would've got swept under the carpet like they did for Dogs all these years.

But it's an interstate club now so the father son inequality noise is loud at the mothership state. That's my biased view btw, as it's pretty unique how fast these changes are being pushed through all of a sudden - while not even giving a window for the revised changes to work and see what impact it has had so far.

 

[briztoon]

MLS is a soccer league of which interest levels are related to a direct comparison of it spercieved quality to the other soccer that Americans can and do watch.

AFL has no such comparison - it's the only nation in which it is played - so you cannot apply similar logic.


I'm of the view that they've sacrificed their more important goal of running a competition fairly and in the interests of the existing clubs and fans to achieve growth.

Most AFL clubs and fans do not care for growth, they care for fairness. The AFL isn't a capitalistic institution, thankfully, the only motivation for growth should be to the extent that it benefits the health of the code generally for its existing members, fans and clubs to participate in a fair competition.


You're basically admitting then that the AFL is failing in its obligation to run a fair competition, because the AFL should want all teams to have a long term equal chance at success, because that would be the AFL being successful in its main operation of running a competition well and fairly.
Tough luck. Part of the entry conditions, and not aong term thing.
And they're the clubs by luck and variance that have had F/S luck. But I'm making the point that there's nothing inherent about the sperm of a player at Collingwood or Geelong that makes their offspring more likely to be a talented footballer - it's just the variance that could have befitted any club, unlike the explicit lack of variance of northern academies structurally producing talent every year.


My point about it evening out is that the Saints are equally as likely to benefit in the future from the F/S rule as any of the 17 other clubs, irrespective of the past.

That is not true about the Northern academies, the Northern clubs will certain get a draft discount advantage greater than 14 other clubs.


You consistently miss the point though that F/S benefiting at a structural level is of equal benefit over the long term of all 18 clubs. Just because Geelong have gotten more out of it than the Saints is nothing more than dumb luck. It's like if you got 18 clubs to roll 2 dice each (representing father son), Saints have landed on 2 and Geelong on 12. But that fact doesn't make the structure of the dice roll unfair. The Northern Academies, however, get to roll 3 or 4 dice each, not 2. That's the point here. The fact they roll more dice is a structural advantage even if the outcomes always aren't.



As has been explained to you before, clubs outside the Northern Academies don't control these players or fund or employ the coaches and teams they play for, so they don't get the advantage of starting their development geared toward the benefit of the team before being on an AFL list, hiding their talent so other clubs don't realise that they are talented and delaying their bid. And in any case NGA's are far less frequent in developing talent. Just to give you an example, the Bulldogs have not had a top 35 draft prospect come out of their NGA in almost 10 years of it existing other than Jamarra (and even then, it's only one player beyond Cat B levels, it's Lual who went to Essendon with pick 39), it's hardly a zone that produces multiple players at a draft discount that accumulates over time, accepting that Jamarra as one player was a massive rort.

You can point to other similar examples of NGA's as most clubs only producing 1-4 top 40ish worth players over a 10 year window.

The scale of it marginally offsets the nortner academies.

FWIW I also disagree with NGA academies giving teams a discount for structural reasons (some zones can be stronger than others) for the same reasons. If the AFL wants to strengthen multiculturalism, there are ways to do this outside of draft discounts leading to competition unfairness (ie, keep the dedicated Cat B rookie list for these players but only after every club passes them over with a real list spot in the actual draft - we can do the same thing for Northern clubs drafting local players).


This is the main point.

The "health" and "strength" and "growth" of the code is all a bit pointless if it's all funnelling toward an unfair competition, because what's the point of supporting and having an interest as fans in an unfair competition? The thing that keeps my interest as a Western Bulldogs and wider AFL fan is the general idea that teams do well and poorly because they are well or poorly run clubs relative to the other sna make good or bad football decisions, not that they have wild structural advantages written into the rules, or that they have more money and use it to pay off other clubs. It's the same reason I don't like two WA clubs buying a home-ground advantage from North, it's the same reason I don't like Bailey Smith not entering the draft or being forced to play for another club other than Geelong after not giving 8 years of service to Dogs as a FA (and the Dogs getting less in a trade th a the compensation they would have gotten if he was a FA and played 2 more years for the Dogs) - all of this goes against the ideal of a fair competiton where teams play in a fair fixture with fair list management rules and an equal amount of money spent on players and staff, which leads to the good clubs proving their decisions and executions are actually better.

If Gold Coast win a premiership on the back of the fact that their advantages have actually been written into the rules of the competition (unlike F/S which is just some club's lucky variance via procreation), it is highly distasteful for the investment of fans being fans because they like the idea of the AFL running a football competition in a good and effective manner.

Not going to go in to everything here, just the notion of fairness.

I believe you will find many not Victorian fans have a different idea of what fairness looks like.

For me personally, it would be the binning of 5 Victorian clubs, playing a true home and away schedule, and much tighter free agency rules, similar to those seen in the nba. And rotating where the AFL grand final is played each year. And the removal of all academies, and compensation picks.