Roast AFL need to change the draft system next season for bottom four clubs.

[DesertRoo]

Can't or won't run out games?

This has been asked many a time on our board.. even back to the days of Scott, if you can remember back the amount of games we’d lose in the last few minutes cause players stopped to a stand still.

Those same players became senior players driving culture

 

[EBERT THE KING]

My question was not about its inherent fairness but the basis of your claim that "Father/Sons are the most Victorian centric thing of all time" ... which you neglected to cover in your response...

They are! the pool of Father/Sons available to Victorian clubs are far greater than those of most interstate clubs. Especially the newest clubs.

 

[Viceregal]

They are! the pool of Father/Sons available to Victorian clubs are far greater than those of most interstate clubs. Especially the newest clubs.

How does Carlton have more access than West Coast or St Kilda than Brisbane? Each club only has access to their own genetic progeny not the whole State's offspring!

 

[GWT6]

Hodge goes #1.

I'd take Hodge - most would take Ablett or Judd.

Some would argue that Hodge wasn't even the best player that Hawthorne picked in that draft.

Mitchell, Swan, Bartel, Sandilands, De Santo, Kelly, Johnson, LRT, Lake, Montagna, Jamar, Bock.... All guns.

The top three were seen as generation talents. I could see someone argue that in a redraft none of them go top three. (not that I agree with that).
That draft was absolutely stacked.

So my point is - aside from the 2000 draft with Nick Riewoldt, in 42 years there has never been a draft where the number one pick turned out to be the consensus number one pick in hindsight.

So teams jeopardise their culture, revenue, player development and ability to attract quality talent on and off the field, all for some magic beans that have about a about a 2.3% chance of definitely landing them the best player in the draft.

Tank and destroy the club for odds of 42/1. Makes no sense. But clubs just don't learn.

Tanking is just not worth it. There is no need to punish clubs for it, they destroy themselves. Just don't reward them for it.

 

[GWT6]

How does Carlton have more access than West Coast or St Kilda than Brisbane? Each club only has access to their own genetic progeny not the whole State's offspring!

Maybe its the fact that until recently WA and SA clubs were drawing from their local leauges, where the Vic Clubs were drawing from players who played at the elite level.
Statistics would say that sons of Elite athletes are more likely to be elite athletes than sons of players who played local football.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Maybe its the fact that until recently WA and SA clubs were drawing from their local leauges, where the Vic Clubs were drawing from players who played at the elite level.
Statistics would say that sons of Elite athletes are more likely to be elite athletes than sons of players who played local football.

This is part of the reason the AFL needs to abolish the father/son rule. It's especially unfair on recent expansion teams like GWS and Gold Coast.

It's an archaic and antiquated anamoly of our game that needs to go.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

I strongly believe that a points system for the draft and trade periods is what the AFL needs to go to. Give 18th lets say 4000 points, give 17th 3700 points and so on.

Then in the trade period no need to worry about a club not having picks in the right range for a player as points are traded instead.

Then on draft night we go into a blind auction. Pick 1 is announced and all 18 clubs are able to pick a player they want and the points they are willing to pay for said player, and after 2 minutes when everyone has submitted their blind bids it is announced who bid the most and what player they nominated.

Keep doing that for pick 2 and so on.

That way it matters less who finishes 18th in the season, and a team like West Coast can target Western Australians in the draft, rather than only having Vic Metro kids in their draft range and having to really reach to get the player they actually want.

I don't see how this will work. All the good teams would just unload on top end talent especially teams that trade up. Imagine Melbourne using their whole trade package this year on Reid. Forcing the bad teams to use huge chunks of points on top end talent and not having any depth of talent.

 

[SSSSSS]

This is part of the reason the AFL needs to abolish the father/son rule. It's especially unfair on recent expansion teams like GWS and Gold Coast.

It's an archaic and antiquated anamoly of our game that needs to go.

This is why I'm ok with GC and GWS (and Tassie as well) having access to an academy.

It's just becomes a bit sketchy when established clubs like Sydney and Brisbane get the best of both worlds.

 

[Purple Suit]

Maybe its the fact that until recently WA and SA clubs were drawing from their local leauges, where the Vic Clubs were drawing from players who played at the elite level.
Statistics would say that sons of Elite athletes are more likely to be elite athletes than sons of players who played local football.

What? The WA/SA leagues were close enough to vic before the AFL. There would be no impact on how good a players child will become in 2020 based on where their Dad played. The main reason is the access rules disadvantaged new teams due to split games across leagues / teams not counting.

Diacos started in 79, 8 years prior to 87. He had kids late but he barely played 100 games post 87 and would have been hard to shake him loose to obtain him even if he was not Victorian.

The 87 clubs are just starting to get into the level playing field F/S zone. Adelaide, Freo ,Port a bit behind. Expansion clubs a long way.

If they got rid of the F/S rule now, It would be massively unfair to the teams who have never benefitted from it just before they come into the zone.

 

[Purple Suit]

This is why I'm ok with GC and GWS (and Tassie as well) having access to an academy.

It's just becomes a bit sketchy when established clubs like Sydney and Brisbane get the best of both worlds.

They had huge concessions already & were protected from free agency for 8 years compared to all other teams. Good F/S players become high profile but there is probably more wasted picks than hits in the league. It really isn’t that big of a loss imo and you basically have to win lotto to get the generational player out of it.

 

[GWT6]

What? The WA/SA leagues were close enough to vic before the AFL. There would be no impact on how good a players child will become in 2020 based on where their Dad played. The main reason is the access rules disadvantaged new teams due to split games across leagues / teams not counting.

Diacos started in 79, 8 years prior to 87. He had kids late but he barely played 100 games post 87 and would have been hard to shake him loose to obtain him even if he was not Victorian.

The 87 clubs are just starting to get into the level playing field F/S zone. Adelaide, Freo ,Port a bit behind. Expansion clubs a long way.

If they got rid of the F/S rule now, It would be massively unfair to the teams who have never benefitted from it just before they come into the zone.

Hahaha - absolutely kidding yourself.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Club gets off bottom of the ladder - Give me a lottery for a shot at pick #1

God I hate sore winners

 

[Purple Suit]

Hahaha - absolutely kidding yourself.

In 1977 WA beat Vic in state of origin so they were close. They slowly started to grab the best players from around point onwards and 10 years later the start of the AFL occurred.

Your theory has some holes that aren’t relevant to the output of kids 40 years later. New clubs were stitched up with 150 state games WA or 200 SA counting or 100 AFL games. They couldn’t be combined for someone who never left their home state and played both. Complete farce.

 

[Caligo]

Oh I can't deny North are tanking. They definitely threw both games against Essendon this season when they were in a strong position to win both games (for example)

But on the other hand, they would have won another game or two (at least) if LDU (their best player) was fit and llayed the entire season and didn't miss so many games.

But if the system is there (ie Free Agency compo) and the NGA selection with Ryley Sanders for North to take advantage of, good luck to em i say !

It's not cheating by any means, more like taking advantage of a loophole !

Pre-listing sanders isn't in any rules at all though.

The real question should be why is NM not being penalised for tanking?

We don't need to change any rules at all. We don't need lotto or anything else. What we need is to properly enforce the rules we have.

 

[GWT6]

So theoretically by your measure Melbourne could win the flag AND get the #1 pick.

I understand that it's an abnormal situation due to the Jackson trade but not really fair for the clubs who genuinely need the assistance.

We need to scrap all F/S, NGS's and PP's and have an uncompromised draft. Crazy that we still use the secret herbs and spices recipe to determine the draft order.

So Melbourne trade a 20 year old budding superstar, and it's not fair that they may get a speculative low pick for him?

West Coast supporters are just bizarre.

 

[Sphynx]

Pre-listing sanders isn't in any rules at all though.

The real question should be why is NM not being penalised for tanking?

We don't need to change any rules at all. We don't need lotto or anything else. What we need is to properly enforce the rules we have.

How are we tanking?

We have won the last 2 spoons and almost won the spoon in 2017?


Are we playing an incredibly long game are we?


People are losing their minds because the Eagles won a game and North now land the most highly rated Victorian kid in years.

It's just a major copium reaction.

 

[Caligo]

How are we tanking?

We have won the last 2 spoons and almost won the spoon in 2017?


Are we playing an incredibly long game are we?


People are losing their minds because the Eagles won a game and North now land the most highly rated Victorian kid in years.

It's just a major copium reaction.

Engineered losing over a long period. North have had a plan for quite some time. This isn't about a single pick 1, which the recent history of the AFL has shown isn't worth it. The idea is a giant bounty.

 

[Full Chooks]

So, let me get this straight, Kangas and Eagles are legitimately $#!T right now. For different reasons, but both doing it super tough. You are saying that you want a system in place that potentially gifts the best player in the draft to a team in 15th place, that, by the end of the weekend will have 8 more wins than the last place team?

Ripping idea..

 

[TwiggleyFanClub]

Pre-listing sanders isn't in any rules at all though.

The real question should be why is NM not being penalised for tanking?

We don't need to change any rules at all. We don't need lotto or anything else. What we need is to properly enforce the rules we have.

How do you penalise a club that's pretty much a basket case on and off the field?

 

[Caligo]

How do you penalise a club that's pretty much a basket case on and off the field?

AFL takeover GC style.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

AFL takeover GC style.

They did that with Melbourne too with Peter Jackson and Paul Roos steering that ship for a while.

 

[Caligo]

They did that with Melbourne too with Peter Jackson and Paul Roos steering that ship for a while.

I am a big believer in it.

 

[Blackhawk42]

North going to be massive improvers next season, definitely going to leap frog the likes of the Hawthorn, Richmond, Essendon, possibly Freo etc with Harley Reid, Sanders and the other young players and talent they will be bringing in.

Do you genuinely believe this?

The reasoning you've offered is incredibly flimsy as well. Sheezel and Wardlaw did nothing to improve North this season because they're still just kids.

 

[ferrisb]

I strongly believe that a points system for the draft and trade periods is what the AFL needs to go to. Give 18th lets say 4000 points, give 17th 3700 points and so on.

Then in the trade period no need to worry about a club not having picks in the right range for a player as points are traded instead.

Then on draft night we go into a blind auction. Pick 1 is announced and all 18 clubs are able to pick a player they want and the points they are willing to pay for said player, and after 2 minutes when everyone has submitted their blind bids it is announced who bid the most and what player they nominated.

Keep doing that for pick 2 and so on.

That way it matters less who finishes 18th in the season, and a team like West Coast can target Western Australians in the draft, rather than only having Vic Metro kids in their draft range and having to really reach to get the player they actually want.

I love this idea, although it would never happen.

Clubs would need to be as good at game theory as they are at talent spotting...

 

[Sphynx]

I'd take Hodge - most would take Ablett or Judd.

Some would argue that Hodge wasn't even the best player that Hawthorne picked in that draft.

Mitchell, Swan, Bartel, Sandilands, De Santo, Kelly, Johnson, LRT, Lake, Montagna, Jamar, Bock.... All guns.

The top three were seen as generation talents. I could see someone argue that in a redraft none of them go top three. (not that I agree with that).
That draft was absolutely stacked.

So my point is - aside from the 2000 draft with Nick Riewoldt, in 42 years there has never been a draft where the number one pick turned out to be the consensus number one pick in hindsight.

So teams jeopardise their culture, revenue, player development and ability to attract quality talent on and off the field, all for some magic beans that have about a about a 2.3% chance of definitely landing them the best player in the draft.

Tank and destroy the club for odds of 42/1. Makes no sense. But clubs just don't learn.

Tanking is just not worth it. There is no need to punish clubs for it, they destroy themselves. Just don't reward them for it.

42 years is largely irrelevant to the last 5 years.

Whilst the #1 pick might not be the best player of even the last 5 drafts, the top 10's are infinitely better than even 10 years ago.

Last year being the best example, last year looks to have been absolutely nailed by recruiters.