Academy rule changes

[John_Proctor]

^ agree that some sort of limitations or reduced discount if you finish Top 8 would be reasonable.

Perhaps they could limit it to one academy match if you are top 8 or 1 per round of the draft (to avoid a situation where a club happens to have 2 top 10 picks who are academy as GWS did both last year and this year?)

 

[luthor]

What shits me the most about all this. Is Hawthorn.

The Hawks get all this credit for being 'so successful in an era of equalisation' when what has really happened is they had the core group of players in place for success and were successful immediately before the significant dilution of the talent pool and the compromise of the draft by GC and GWS.

They were successful enough to be able to entice the one or two players needed through free agency to top up, and have never been at the bottom end of the ladder when the draft was most heavily effected. Geellong, Sydney, Hawks far from being strong in spite of equalisation have been able to stay strong because of the shoddy implementation of it and expansion.

This draft didn't do them a lot of harm:

.....and golly gee, would you just take a look at those Priority Picks

2004 national draft

Round Pick Player Recruited from Club
Priority 1 Brett Deledio Murray Bushrangers Richmond
Priority 2 Jarryd Roughead Gippsland Power Hawthorn
Priority 3 Ryan Griffen South Adelaide Football Club Western Bulldogs
1 4 Richard Tambling Southern Districts Football Club Richmond
1 5 Lance Franklin Perth Football Club Hawthorn
1 6 Tom Williams Morningside Football Club Western Bulldogs
1 7 Jordan Lewis Geelong Falcons Hawthorn

 

[PTizzle]

This is genuinely amusing:

Why Callum Mills should be at another club

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/why...s/news-story/31eb4e45d992a3061dd5b177e693de91



Wow, what a coincidence! Completely at random, he picked the year and the sport of one of the world's most famous athletes!

Not to mention the NBA drafting/list management (beyond the obvious difference between the sports) is so different that comparing them is ridiculous. Two rounds of drafting for 30 teams, 15 player lists etc. Straw clutching of the highest order

 

[Dalions]

This draft didn't do them a lot of harm:

.....and golly gee, would you just take a look at those Priority Picks

2004 national draft

Round Pick Player Recruited from Club
Priority 1 Brett Deledio Murray Bushrangers Richmond
Priority 2 Jarryd Roughead Gippsland Power Hawthorn
Priority 3 Ryan Griffen South Adelaide Football Club Western Bulldogs
1 4 Richard Tambling Southern Districts Football Club Richmond
1 5 Lance Franklin Perth Football Club Hawthorn
1 6 Tom Williams Morningside Football Club Western Bulldogs
1 7 Jordan Lewis Geelong Falcons Hawthorn

Hawthorne hit the nail on the head didn't they.

 

[braddsey]

^ agree that some sort of limitations or reduced discount if you finish Top 8 would be reasonable.

Perhaps they could limit it to one academy match if you are top 8 or 1 per round of the draft (to avoid a situation where a club happens to have 2 top 10 picks who are academy as GWS did both last year and this year?)

I think reduced discount works. Limiting the number of players that can be taken is unfair on the players. Clubs could still trade in picks to get the points they need, but the players would come at a higher cost.

 

[chopperduck]

I think they should just leave the bloody thing alone. They have already made a massive change in limiting the amount of picks to draft spots, which in itself is stupid if you have to use 2 picks to draft 1 player. Kinda voids any advantage you have in being able to take them when it is so limiting like that.

The club linked to the player should ALWAYS be able to match and take an academy player. It just depends on the cost and if the club is willing to pay it.

 

[troppo]

To have any chance of being sustainable long term the two QLD based clubs must be able to draft the best local talent. There is no point drafting the best talent from interstate if they are going to pack their bags and head home after two seasons. Having the best local talent play in QLD does not give them an advantage, it is their only chance of long term survival. The most important thing the AFL can do is fund & assist the academies, without them Aussie Rules will remain a poor cousin amongst the footy codes in the northern state. Compared to this problem, who sits in which chair at our club is irrelevant.

 

[Gadzorks]

To have any chance of being sustainable long term the two QLD based clubs must be able to draft the best local talent. There is no point drafting the best talent from interstate if they are going to pack their bags and head home after two seasons. Having the best local talent play in QLD does not give them an advantage, it is their only chance of long term survival. The most important thing the AFL can do is fund & assist the academies, without them Aussie Rules will remain a poor cousin amongst the footy codes in the northern state. Compared to this problem, who sits in which chair at our club is irrelevant.

It's not just the academies though. We need a really strong youth competition to ensure our kids get to play at a high enough level to develop.

When the lions/GC win kids get interested and join, but when they are losing kids lose interest and go to different codes.

Also there is a lot of players moving from the smaller clubs to a few larger clubs (mirroring the afl Hawthorne and geelong issue) in the belief that you have to be with one of these clubs to be noticed. This weakens the competition as the stronger clubs are so dominant that lots of games don't push the players to improve.

I have been told by the parent of a sherwood player that they have almost 40 kids in their u15 team and they only field one team from that group each week. The extras get to play when the stars are off at rep games, but mostly are just not getting games time.

 

[winged1]

It's not just the academies though. We need a really strong youth competition to ensure our kids get to play at a high enough level to develop.

When the lions/GC win kids get interested and join, but when they are losing kids lose interest and go to different codes.

Also there is a lot of players moving from the smaller clubs to a few larger clubs (mirroring the afl Hawthorne and geelong issue) in the belief that you have to be with one of these clubs to be noticed. This weakens the competition as the stronger clubs are so dominant that lots of games don't push the players to improve.

I have been told by the parent of a sherwood player that they have almost 40 kids in their u15 team and they only field one team from that group each week. The extras get to play when the stars are off at rep games, but mostly are just not getting games time.

There are some pretty big score discrepancies in jnr footy, but I think that would be common across a lot of states with stronger vs smaller clubs.

Why wouldnt Sherwood (as the example given) field a div 1 and a div 2 team and share a few players across each especially with 40 players they only need to find a couple of 14s to fill div 2. At lower levels they (Sherwood) have more than one team in a comp and share players.

But Aspley have three teams in some comps for one age group, Coorparoo have a couple, but smaller clubs can still improve Jimboomba through the year improved heaps in the comp we were in. However their numbers were pretty good so they had a few to choose from, but it comes down to the coach. That guy did pretty well, were other clubs started with 27 or so and ended the year struggling to field a side, because kids dropped off.

 

[Leemas]

There are some pretty big score discrepancies in jnr footy, but I think that would be common across a lot of states with stronger vs smaller clubs.

Why wouldnt Sherwood (as the example given) field a div 1 and a div 2 team and share a few players across each especially with 40 players they only need to find a couple of 14s to fill div 2. At lower levels they (Sherwood) have more than one team in a comp and share players.

But Aspley have three teams in some comps for one age group, Coorparoo have a couple, but smaller clubs can still improve Jimboomba through the year improved heaps in the comp we were in. However their numbers were pretty good so they had a few to choose from, but it comes down to the coach. That guy did pretty well, were other clubs started with 27 or so and ended the year struggling to field a side, because kids dropped off.

I wouldn't be using sherwood as an example of a big club either. They obviously don't have enough kids to field two teams.

 

[SizeMatters]

It's not just the academies though. We need a really strong youth competition to ensure our kids get to play at a high enough level to develop.

When the lions/GC win kids get interested and join, but when they are losing kids lose interest and go to different codes.

Also there is a lot of players moving from the smaller clubs to a few larger clubs (mirroring the afl Hawthorne and geelong issue) in the belief that you have to be with one of these clubs to be noticed. This weakens the competition as the stronger clubs are so dominant that lots of games don't push the players to improve.

I have been told by the parent of a sherwood player that they have almost 40 kids in their u15 team and they only field one team from that group each week. The extras get to play when the stars are off at rep games, but mostly are just not getting games time.

Moving from a small club to a larger one has been happening for years. My junior club had decent prospects and the ones who were serious about their foot all moved to Aspley and Sand gate as they played at the higher level and had better coaching and facilities that the Tigers could have ever dreamed of.

 

[pulpdriver]

"We've got our own academy that we'll really make sure we're gonna maximise going forward."

Dave Noble suggesting to the AFL to leave it alone for now and perhaps help us out with some investment directly towards the Academy and youth development in Queensland?

 

[BRAB]

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-02-17/lions-hit-out-at-proposed-academy-bidding-changes

Lions hit out at proposed academy bidding changes

February 17, 2017 2:40 PM

THE BRISBANE Lions will encourage the AFL to avoid placing any restrictions on recruiting academy prospects as the League considers another overhaul of the bidding system.

The AFL wrote to clubs recently asking for feedback on proposed changes to the academy bidding structure, with clubs having to submit their suggestions by Friday this week.

The possible rewriting of the academy rules include a system where top-four clubs would access just one academy player in the first 20 draft picks if a bid falls in that range.

Teams that finish in the second half of the top eight would be able to select two in the same bracket of picks, while clubs that finish outside the finals would not be subject to any restrictions (as is the case currently).

A watering down of the 20 per cent discount afforded to academy clubs (and those with father-son prospects) has also been mooted.

Brisbane Lions football manager David Noble said the club, which had two top-25 academy picks in 2015 (Eric Hipwood and Ben Keays), is reluctant to see the system changed.

"We're a growing economy here and we're an aspiring football academy, and I think any restrictions that get placed on us is really tough," Noble told AFL.com.au.

"We're in an area that we need to grow pathways and aspiration, and we'll put a submission in and we'd be concerned about that aspiration not having the full light of day with restrictions."

The Lions look set to land one of the leading players in this year's NAB AFL Draft pool, with No.1 contender Connor Ballenden tied to the club's academy. The 200cm key forward is a powerful mark and straight kick for goal and has already played for the Lions' NEAFL team.

The possible redesign of the academy rules comes just two years after it was totally reshaped and became a live element of draft night.

Each of the northern clubs have been given a 20 per cent points discount when matching bids for prospects, and Noble said it was vital that remained if the system is changed.

"We commit and invest a lot of time. I think it's now well justified that there is a discount and to remove it would be detrimental to your return on investment. It really diminishes as a result of that," he said.

"It's to just take the discount in isolation and say we'll remove it because of where you potentially finish on the ladder. There's a lot of backend areas that need to be considered in that: whether it's a non-footy state, if the player has been in the academy for four or five years, the number of hours invested.

"There's a whole scope of variations that go into the mix of what should be considered for that discount."

Noble, who joined the Lions at the end of last year after being football manager at Adelaide, is a part of the AFL's player movement advisory group.

He said the Lions understand "the essence" of why the AFL is looking to reshape the academy rules, but that it should be given time to mature, like has been given to free agency since it was introduced in 2012.

"We do need a little bit of time to see how the bidding system comes through," he said.

"You really need to be careful that the results that you've captured in the first couple of years are not outliers in data. That's something we're a bit conscious of as well."

 

[jackess]

It's probably not the best idea to constantly be making changes before seeing what effect the previous changes have.

 

[Kevvo]

This is a real 'welcome to Queensland' moment for Noble, I'd imagine.

 

[WA Lion]

It's probably not the best idea to constantly be making changes before seeing what effect the previous changes have.

Yep, my thoughts exactly. This constant changing of the rules must make it a nightmare to plan anything further than 12 months in to the future. How would you know whether to go ahead with the trading of a future pick if you have no idea what the rules might when that pick can actually be used?

Unless there is a glaring problem, they really need to leave the system alone for a few years just to let the dust settle and see how it actually functions over a reasonable period, instead of constant tinkering

 

[ZoBlitz]

It's probably not the best idea to constantly be making changes before seeing what effect the previous changes have.

If there's one thing that the AFL is good at, it's knee-jerk decision making with no real thought as to the consequences.

 

[Viceregal]

I suppose the chances of them making a set of rules and sticking with them for say 10 years *then* evaluating them is somewhere around a Collingwood coach?

 

[BuntonRules]

This is a real 'welcome to Queensland' moment for Noble, I'd imagine.

So good to see him on the front foot.

 

[Zhesty]

So good to see him on the front foot.

Yeah I think Noble was our best offseason get.

 

[pulpdriver]

Has there been one year since the Academies were introduced in which the AFL haven't instituted more changes?

What does that say about their initial and subsequent planning.

For ****'s sake, leave it alone, let it evolve to the current stipulations and once (if) an inequity actually develops then address it. So ****ing frustrating.

 

[Gibbo_88]

...Waits for a comment by Zorko "We don't need the Academy discount, we've got the young talent coming through on our list"

 

[briztoon]

Has there been one year since the Academies were introduced in which the AFL haven't instituted more changes?

What does that say about their initial and subsequent planning.

For ****'s sake, leave it alone, let it evolve to the current stipulations and once (if) an inequity actually develops then address it. So ******* frustrating.

The thing that p!sses me off, is that this is all a knee jerk reaction to GWS and the Riverina area.

The Riverina is now producing much more talent than it has in the past, that it's a credit to the work GWS does in the area. But it has always been considered an AFL area. Doesn't help that many of these kids go to school in Victoria on scholarships now. So it's catch 22 for the AFL.

However, instead of dealing with this one concern, their solution impacts all Academy clubs. Instead of dealing directly with the area of concern that has the Victorian clubs panties all in knots.

 

[pulpdriver]

The thing that p!sses me off, is that this is all a knee jerk reaction to GWS and the Riverina area.

The Riverina is now producing much more talent than it has in the past, that it's a credit to the work GWS does in the area. But it has always been considered an AFL area. Doesn't help that many of these kids go to school in Victoria on scholarships now. So it's catch 22 for the AFL.

However, instead of dealing with this one concern, their solution impacts all Academy clubs. Instead of dealing directly with the area of concern that has the Victorian clubs panties all in knots.

Indicative of a reactionary admission that cares nothing other than the whims and opinions of ten clubs and the money generated by the rest.

 

[SizeMatters]

I actually like some of the changes. If you are a top 4 club and getting 2-3 kids in the academy as top 10 picks then I think it needs to be limited. I think the discount should still stay and actually be increased to 25% instead of the 20%. I guess i'm the only one who would think this is a good idea here though.