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

[tombomb]

Some entry level employee with a spreadsheet could resolve 95% of the fairness issues in about 45 minutes. Just increase the value of higher picks and remove the discount. Done.

The AFL execs can head out to a long lunch, knowing they just solved an incredibly complex problem.

 

[Obeanie1]

Some entry level employee with a spreadsheet could resolve 95% of the fairness issues in about 45 minutes. Just increase the value of higher picks and remove the discount. Done.

The AFL execs can head out to a long lunch, knowing they just solved an incredibly complex problem.

You are correct.

However if they solved it that quickly how could they justify themselves and their six figure salaries?

They need to draw this out, make it sound as complicated as possible THEN come up with a complicated solution that still allows them to manipulate results to fit whatever the agenda is on any given day in the future.

Thats why the AFL describe this issue as complex. Its not easy making up rules on the run only to find out they dont work as intended and so another review is needed every second year. Its very "complex".

I do like the saying. "If you cant explain something simply you dont understand it well enough".

Using the cop out "Its complicated" at media conferences just shows AFL House either dont understand what they are doing OR they know very well what they are doing but arrogantly refuse to justify it.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I'm not Premiership only, so don't agree with you regarding it's flag or bust. 2002, 2018 and 2022 were wonderful years to be a Pies fan. We had an incredible ride in those years despite the agonising September defeats. Lions, GWS and Carlton had a great ride last year. Port have had so much success in their local comp that their supporters wouldn't know what a good ride is and won't be happy until they eventually come to terms with not expecting the flag.

You don't hear players say my career is not complete with out a making grand final.

You don't hear about supporters watching a winning preliminary final over and over again.

I guess we should just accept that Grand finals victories are just for Victorian teams?

 

[Anzacday]

You don't hear about supporters watching a winning preliminary final over and over again.

1999, 2010 and 2018 would’ve got a fair workout to name a few.

I guess we should just accept that Grand finals victories are just for Victorian teams?

Great, can we have 2002, 2003 and 2018 back please.

 

[go_the_dockers]

1999, 2010 and 2018 would’ve got a fair workout to name a few.

Great, can we have 2002, 2003 and 2018 back please.

The difference is every time a non Vic sides wins, the AFL changes rules to disadvantage us

 

[Obeanie1]

The difference is every time a non Vic sides wins, the AFL changes rules to disadvantage us

Mate don't you understand.

It's very 'complicated!

Just ask the AFL. They will tell you how complicated it all is. No actual specifics though......other than its complicated.

 

[ferrisb]

The swans had access to 3 players that were in Hawthorn's 2014 GF winning side in Luke Breust, Matt Suckling and Isaac Smith. Albeit, Smith being drafted before the swans had a selection in the 2010 draft he went only one or two picks higher than Jed Lamb and if the swans had wanted to pick a player from NSW they could have done a deal to move higher in the draft order.

Hindsight recruiting is BS

Hindsight recruiting for kids not even available at your pick is next level BS

Hindsight recruiting for kids not even available at your pick before live trading even existed is mind-blowing BS

 

[Philhawk]

So when are we actually going to get some common sense from the AFL?

The longer this drags on, the more compromised the entire competition will be.

 

[bluespooner]

Hindsight recruiting is BS

Hindsight recruiting for kids not even available at your pick is next level BS

Hindsight recruiting for kids not even available at your pick before live trading even existed is mind-blowing BS

Thanks ferris.

The point was made with regard to the justification of the swans academy that without it NSW kids would be lost to other sports. In fact, Hawthorn winning the 2014 GF was a victory for NSW football given they had more NSW players in their GF team than the swans.

It does make you think that the swans, an established football club with all the same advantages that Carlton has, but even more as it has a special selection of players that only they can have access to.

 

[ferrisb]

This seems so ******* simple. Or maybe it's just me.

• Getting kids to their fathers' clubs is good.
• Getting kids into academies and into local teams is good.
• Having a system with discounts and that can be manipulated is bad.

The aim of this is should be for clubs to get access to certain kids. Not to get a bargain deal.

1) Get rid of discounts
2) Get rid of paying with a stockpile of crappy picks
3) Don't do the usual AFL knee-jerk reaction and rush in changes for 2024, as clubs have already planned under the incumbent rules.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

An economist would tell you that you have five advantages to the bidding system:

1. There's a right to match. (Live trading strengthens this)
2. The points values per pick do not represent their true worth
3. Those points values per pick can be traded, therefore an 'exchange rate arbitration' can be achieved. (Live trading strengthens this)
4. There is a 20% discount
5. List spots can be manipulated to get points values from late picks, such as the commitment to delist and but re-recruit players already on your list.

It's not as if the AFL doesn't understand this. They already changed the rule after the early years after Brisbane simply took more draft picks worth points than their list spots open to get Keays and Hipwood, matching both with 7 picks from the mid 30's or whatever. The rule was immediately changed, which meant that they could only claim the points from picks equivalent to list spots open. The dogs took this to the extreme in 2020, where the AFL and the players had not yet negotiated the extent of total list size cuts post-COVID pay cuts, so the AFL had no option but to allow all picks be worth points.

The five dot points explained in more detail.

1. This advantages a club because it removes all uncertainty over other clubs' actions. Take the extreme hypothetical example that a club's tied player is rated by that club as #1 on their draft board, but the consensus (and maybe other clubs') ratings is that he's going to go in the rookie draft. When exactly do you draft him? Do you draft him with your first round? Second? Eventually someone might take him earlier than the rookie draft. Bid matching avoids a situation like this - you can wait until someone else commits to the player, then figure out if you rate them highly enough to part with your picks. Another advantage to this is that having a pick "ahead" of the bid pushes past that pick. If you have pick 1 in the draft and a the best player tied to you, the bid will come at pick 2, and you only have to pay the points of pick 2, and not pick 1.
2. This has been discussed a lot here but it's just bad mathematics. The AFL initially set the draft points value on the basis of the salaries (and therefore implied value) of players in each draft slot. It hasn't updated with the times. Later draft picks by rule definition are worth less now than they were in 2012, just to give one example, you can recruit players in the SSP period in pre-season in a way you couldn't in 2012.
3. Point 2 causes point 3, but it just highlights how the impact of not ascribing correct points to the true value of the pick actually has a doubly worse effect
4. If the AFL is happy to somewhat barstadise the draft to get players to where they "should" get to, and to "reward" clubs for investing in academies, this just seems too great a discount.
5. This would also be solved somewhat if the last draft pick a team has isn't worth too many points?

Solutions?

1. An auction-based system than a bid-matching one would solve this.
2. Just update the mathematical formula. You don't even have to imply the value of draft picks from salaries. You can determine the value of draft picks by literally looking at the pick-for-pick swaps that have been done.
3. See 2. Also, you can't remove this advantage entirely because points will be a fixed value and the draft pool itself will also vary in value around that value. One year might have a stronger pick 10 but weaker pick 30 than the "average" value of the draft pick. An auction-based system also solves these issues because the only time points would get traded is when a player gets traded.
4. Reduce the discount to 5 to 10%.
5. Ban teams from re-drafting a player in the same year that you match a bid. You can do one or the other. But if you delist a player, then match a bid, they are ineligible to play for your club the following year.

The understanding and solutions are pretty simple. Which is where I get annoyed by more convoluted rules such as "Melbourne aren't allowed to have Mac Andrew" "You are ony allowed to use one pick to match a bid and it has to be in the next 17.6428 picks after the bid. We don't want peverse outcomes like teams hiding players to get them out of the first round. We don't want unnecessary complications. Any way of "gaming" the system is simply by taking advantages of the first five points above. In the interests of fairness I don't see how any team deserves to get the economic discount on a second-roudn player but not a first. Melbourne should have been allowed to draft Mac Andrew, they just shouldn't have been allowed to game the system like we did with Jamarra. They should have waited for a bid, point 1 and point 3 gives them an advantage anyway, and then matched the bid on the merits of him as a player, with a slight-but-nowhere-near-as-much as it is economic advantage.

 

[.Shotties.]

Thanks ferris.

The point was made with regard to the justification of the swans academy that without it NSW kids would be lost to other sports.

A. That wasn't the point you were responding to at all and
B. Your argument doesn't address or refute that point at all, even if it wasn't something you just made up.

 

[BloodySwan]

There is no discount in points. You only ever use points when you are matching

 

[SplintWhisky]

80% of the comp is on the Eastern side of Australia, it makes a lot of things easier and more desireable, do you agree on this? WA clubs have a lot of disadvantages, you are so stubborn on accepting the idea we are disadvantaged by a lot of things. I still find it so strange that the idea we get complete access to indigenous talent while you keep everything as it is was such a non-starter for you.

I will continue to be fine so long as all bidding is fixed to make clubs actually pay a price for their linked players. Somehow, the system is arguably worse than when you could just match Heeney with pick 18

I don't think you should have access to all indigenous players as there would be a circumstance where the club has never actually outlaid any capital that needs to be returned. WA teams should 100% be allowed to set up academies and both have full access to all of WA and then have the same drafting rules as other academies.

 

[sydney_gws]

Surely West Coast being as bad as they are this year highlights the importance of fixing this up.
I don't think it matters if clubs made trades for this year, announce the 2025 position and for 2024 move at least half-way there.
At least limit 2024 to 3 picks to match,
I don't think anybody can complain about that.

 

[Deepthroat]

Surely West Coast being as bad as they are this year highlights the importance of fixing this up.
I don't think it matters if clubs made trades for this year, announce the 2025 position and for 2024 move at least half-way there.
At least limit 2024 to 3 picks to match,
I don't think anybody can complain about that.

I would think a simple fix could be the following:

Qualifier - Any side wins less than 5 games in a season.

Fix - Position of Picks is held.

Example - West Coast 2023.

Held picks 1, 19, 37, 55.

Mackay goes to Essendon and North get Pick 3.

Eagles don't go back to 20, they hold 19.

Collingwood's Pick 18 goes to 20.

Then Gresham goes to Essendon and St Kilda get end of first rounder.

Again, Eagles don't go back to 20, they hold 19.

Brisbane's Pick (now 18) goes to 20 and Pies Pick 20 goes to 21....

Etc etc, same happens on draft night when Academy and Father Sons are selected.

 

[.Shotties.]

. WA teams should 100% be allowed to set up academies and both have full access to all of WA and then have the same drafting rules as other academies.

I keep missing this, what's the rational for both teams getting full access to already running talent pathway systems that pre-date both clubs and that are already producing enough high quality talent that both clubs can take WA players within a reasonable range in most rounds in most drafts?

GWS had the Riverina taken off them, and that isn't anywhere near as productive as most of WA.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I keep missing this, what's the rational for both teams getting full access to already running talent pathway systems that pre-date both clubs and that are already producing enough high quality talent that both clubs can take WA players within a reasonable range in most rounds in most drafts?

GWS had the Riverina taken off them, and that isn't anywhere near as productive as most of WA.

Because sa and wa clubs continue to get screwed over.

Very hard to bring in talent from outside state, continue to loose players they draft. Small percentage of local talent.

Vic clubs dominating.

NSW and Qld clubs have had better luck getting non local players to join them, than sa or wa.

 

[.Shotties.]

Because sa and wa clubs continue to get screwed over.

So you get priority access to a whole state which already has long-standing development pathways and produces at least 3 first round picks a year and usually a couple in the top ten? What's the logic?

Like, people whine about Sydney's acacdemy being non-stop, but our academy was inner-north and east Sydney, Shoalhaven, the lower part of the Tweed and the Hunter. How many top picks came from those areas at the point we got them?

NSW and Qld clubs have had better luck getting non local players to join them, than sa or wa.

That's out of requirement more than anything else, and the lack of QLD and NSW players around the league before the academies. We had 1 NSW player request a trade home in 30 years before the academy. Freo had more former-first rounders request trades back to them in two years than Sydney had in their entire history.

 

[go_the_dockers]

So you get priority access to a whole state which already has long-standing development pathways and produces at least 3 first round picks a year and usually a couple in the top ten? What's the logic?

Like, people whine about Sydney's acacdemy being non-stop, but our academy was inner-north and east Sydney, Shoalhaven, the lower part of the Tweed and the Hunter. How many top picks came from those areas at the point we got them?

Not all players, but something would be nice e.g. indigenous players.

 

[.Shotties.]

Not all players, but something would be nice e.g. indigenous players.

I wouldn't be opposed to this if it was soley in regions equivalent to what Sydney or Brisbane had to work with when they started.

 

[SplintWhisky]

I keep missing this, what's the rational for both teams getting full access to already running talent pathway systems that pre-date both clubs and that are already producing enough high quality talent that both clubs can take WA players within a reasonable range in most rounds in most drafts?

GWS had the Riverina taken off them, and that isn't anywhere near as productive as most of WA.

But I also think that all clubs should be given academy zones in their states. If a club puts up capital through development of talent then they should have some access to that talent. If clubs have no motivation to put up the cash and time then they won't do anything. I know it is anecdotal but on the way to work there is a tram station that is near a school and when you see the kids in the morning, they are all playing soccer. I don't think I have seen 1 AFL footy being kicked around.

The Academies should all have the same rules. Sometimes you get lucky like a Bulldogs or Gold Coast (2023 draft) sometimes you wont be lucky. Just because luck all comes together doesn't mean the system should be scrapped all together.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I wouldn't be opposed to this if it was soley in regions equivalent to what Sydney or Brisbane had to work with when they started.

And 5 million population. Done

 

[.Shotties.]

And 5 million population. Done

Which of Sydney's zones had this?

 

[go_the_dockers]

Which of Sydney's zones had this?

Sydney has half of nsw