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

[LukeParkerno1]

Yep and if they tighten this up I think trading down will become rare considering the improvement in the point system

It's like they don't get it, clubs aren't stupid they will get advantages where they can and I don't blame them. It's very easy, if you have 6 free list spots, thats it that's the amount of picks you can use, how many picks did Brisbane use about 12 or something? Again I don't blame Brisbane, I blame the AFL. Cut the ridiculous rule out, and it's fair for everyone. Clubs can match a player but it is relatively value. People will say oh we can't match then, I'll say this and it's even from a club that benefits....who cares! They go in the open pool and the team that bidded gets the player. It will also mean a reduction in 'phantom' bids too

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

It's like they don't get it, clubs aren't stupid they will get advantages where they can and I don't blame them. It's very easy, if you have 6 free list spots, thats it that's the amount of picks you can use, how many picks did Brisbane use about 12 or something? Again I don't blame Brisbane, I blame the AFL. Cut the ridiculous rule out, and it's fair for everyone. Clubs can match a player but it is relatively value. People will say oh we can't match then, I'll say this and it's even from a club that benefits....who cares! They go in the open pool and the team that bidded gets the player. It will also mean a reduction in 'phantom' bids too

It’s a joke, especially when you can go into deficit anyway. Teams will always be able to match as long as they rightly allow teams to go into deficit.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It’s a joke, especially when you can go into deficit anyway. Teams will always be able to match as long as they rightly allow teams to go into deficit.

Deficit is fine, it's the whole lets add 20 picks when we have 5 list spots rubbish, then lets compound the farce by making all picks up to the 4th round valid, it was a joke, it's less next year but they still have the silly list spot business

 

[sr36]

Yep and if they tighten this up I think trading down will become rare considering the improvement in the point system

I doubt it. You won't get as many points for doing so, but teams will still increase their points by trading down.

Under the new system, pick 15 is equal in points to 24+34. There will still be teams willing to offer more than that to move up in the draft.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Deficit is fine, it's the whole lets add 20 picks when we have 5 list spots rubbish, then lets compound the farce by making all picks up to the 4th round valid, it was a joke, it's less next year but they still have the silly list spot business

The deficit is great because it allows teams to always get their FS or academy player if they want them.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I doubt it. You won't get as many points for doing so, but teams will still increase their points by trading down.

Under the new system, pick 15 is equal in points to 24+34. There will still be teams willing to offer more than that to move up in the draft.

It’s pretty much exactly the same which makes it touch and go on whether it’s actually worth it considering 24-34 would come into 23 and 33 if they are forced to match with 15.

What I think we will see is teams trading say 15 for a future first and a current late second.
Then try and match the bid with later picks while having two future firsts and their future second.

 

[sr36]

It’s a joke, especially when you can go into deficit anyway. Teams will always be able to match as long as they rightly allow teams to go into deficit.

How does deficit actually work with future trading?

 

[sr36]

It’s pretty much exactly the same which makes it touch and go on whether it’s actually worth it considering 24-34 would come into 23 and 33 if they are forced to match with 15.

What I think we will see is teams trading say 15 for a future first and a current late second.
Then try and match the bid with later picks while having two future firsts and their future second.

24 and 34 doesn't get you to 15. Teams will pay more than that.

Under the new points system - brisbane's trade with Richmond: 20 for 32,42,43,45 would still be advantageous as it would increase Brisbane's poiints from 757 to 940. But not enough to get Ashroft alone, let alone Ashcroft and Gardiner. so its likely to make the top kids a lot more expensive.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

24 and 34 doesn't get you to 15. Teams will pay more than that.

Under the new points system - brisbane's trade with Richmond: 20 for 32,42,43,45 would still be advantageous as it would increase Brisbane's poiints from 757 to 940. But not enough to get Ashroft alone, let alone Ashcroft and Gardiner. so its likely to make the top kids a lot more expensive.

That’s why they need to clamp down on the number of picks you can hold. Brisbane would be wiped out of the next two drafts under today’s point system.

You might get more then that for 15 but it’s also pretty bloody close to fair value

 

[Elixuh]

24 and 34 doesn't get you to 15. Teams will pay more than that.

Under the new points system - brisbane's trade with Richmond: 20 for 32,42,43,45 would still be advantageous as it would increase Brisbane's poiints from 757 to 940. But not enough to get Ashroft alone, let alone Ashcroft and Gardiner. so it’s likely to make the top kids a lot more expensive.

 

[sr36]

View attachment 2185907

I got confused because I think you should have drafted Jessica Marshall Gardiner.

 

[mpal6]

It will also mean there's less incentive to do what Brisbane/Essendon/GC did this year, sell their first for junk. I get it and both our clubs have done it yours with Daicos, ours with a number of our players.

The one thing that has to go is this ridiculous rule where you can trade in more list spots than you have the minute the draft commences.

AFL will never get rid of that one. It adds to the drama and if you look at draft as a product that AFL is trying to sell to the broadcasting channels out there, these ingredients are needed to make it unpredictable, attractive, sales worthy.

 

[sydney_gws]

AFL will never get rid of that one. It adds to the drama and if you look at draft as a product that AFL is trying to sell to the broadcasting channels out there, these ingredients are needed to make it unpredictable, attractive, sales worthy.

The drama is a bit pathetic, not what is needed to encourage more recent Australians to play.
It Is a bit convoluted, like a Bold and the Beautiful episode ( my wife watches it, not me).

 

[sr36]

AFL will never get rid of that one. It adds to the drama and if you look at draft as a product that AFL is trying to sell to the broadcasting channels out there, these ingredients are needed to make it unpredictable, attractive, sales worthy.

There wouldn't be much money in the draft broadcast would there?

I see that particular rule as typical AFL. They brought in the list spots rule to address ridiculousness, but it was at a time before there was live draft trading. When live trading arrived, the ridiculous returned, but in the draft rather than before it. There hasn't been as much focus on it, so they haven't bothered to address it

 

[sydney_gws]

There wouldn't be much money in the draft broadcast would there?

I see that particular rule as typical AFL. They brought in the list spots rule to address ridiculousness, but it was at a time before there was live draft trading. When live trading arrived, the ridiculous returned, but in the draft rather than before it. There hasn't been as much focus on it, so they haven't bothered to address it

I think when the new curve only improves things about 20% or so they will realise the need to add more rules like limiting the picks to match to 3 picks.
Another potential improvement would be to force the matched picks to only be natural ladder picks or picks within 20 of the bid.

 

[sr36]

I think when the new curve only improves things about 20% or so they will realise the need to add more rules like limiting the picks to match to 3 picks.
Another potential improvement would be to force the matched picks to only be natural ladder picks or picks within 20 of the bid.

I think it'll improve it by more than 20%, but they'll still be bargains - as opposed to virtually free.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I think when the new curve only improves things about 20% or so they will realise the need to add more rules like limiting the picks to match to 3 picks.
Another potential improvement would be to force the matched picks to only be natural ladder picks or picks within 20 of the bid.

Just make it 2 then they go into deficit the next season. IMO it should be that simple.
If they have traded the future pick in that round then it goes into the next season.

 

[jdstorm]

For me I would make it that teams intending to match a bid can’t trade any of their natural picks until after any bid is complete.

So a bit like a few years ago when teams couldn’t trade out their firsts. Main difference being top of the ladder teams would also have to trade out players to get the extra points to trade up to the top

 

[mpal6]

There wouldn't be much money in the draft broadcast would there?

I see that particular rule as typical AFL. They brought in the list spots rule to address ridiculousness, but it was at a time before there was live draft trading. When live trading arrived, the ridiculous returned, but in the draft rather than before it. There hasn't been as much focus on it, so they haven't bothered to address it

There is enough in there for AFL to spread it across 2 days. If not for money, it creates enough media ripple against other codes and generates curiosity. Over two days there is media coverage, ad revenue, draft itself getting looked at from different club's point of view and analyzed over n over by different channels etc.

If AFL removes all these unpredictable nuances, then the draft would look like AFLW draft now, one evening, 2 hours, done. A supporter might prefer that simplicity but the head office won't as there is no cash in it.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

It's like they don't get it, clubs aren't stupid they will get advantages where they can and I don't blame them. It's very easy, if you have 6 free list spots, thats it that's the amount of picks you can use, how many picks did Brisbane use about 12 or something? Again I don't blame Brisbane, I blame the AFL. Cut the ridiculous rule out, and it's fair for everyone. Clubs can match a player but it is relatively value. People will say oh we can't match then, I'll say this and it's even from a club that benefits....who cares! They go in the open pool and the team that bidded gets the player. It will also mean a reduction in 'phantom' bids too

Agreed. The idea that once the draft opens you can trade in picks you don't have the list spots for is madness.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

AFL will never get rid of that one. It adds to the drama and if you look at draft as a product that AFL is trying to sell to the broadcasting channels out there, these ingredients are needed to make it unpredictable, attractive, sales worthy.

That's possibly the dumbest idea I've ever heard. There's 100 ways to make the draft entertaining without doing anything that dumb.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I'll die on this hill until someone at Fox steals it and pushes it through but as more and more kids get assigned to "academies" the only way to fix it is separating the pools into draft and auction nights. It has the benefit of fixing the FA compo as well where teams get points (that can be traded for picks if desired) instead. Fixes EVERYTHInG

 

[Elixuh]

I'll die on this hill until someone at Fox steals it and pushes it through but as more and more kids get assigned to "academies" the only way to fix it is separating the pools into draft and auction nights. It has the benefit of fixing the FA compo as well where teams get points (that can be traded for picks if desired) instead. Fixes EVERYTHInG

There were 9 academy picks this draft.

3 of those NGA.
2-3 more than weren’t matched.

I don’t think it’s at unmanageable levels. It’s just portrayed hysterically by the media and Fred Bassat from St Kilda.

 

[sr36]

There were 9 academy picks this draft.

3 of those NGA.
2-3 more than weren’t matched.

I don’t think it’s at unmanageable levels. It’s just portrayed hysterically by the media and Fred Bassat from St Kilda.

Nothing about it is unmanageable, but priority access to academy and father son does undoubtedly reduce the effectiveness of the draft as an equalisation measure.

Having said that, the draft isn't some sacred perfect instrument that distributes divine justice like some seem to view it. It's a very imperfect equalisation measure that gives a leg up to struggling teams. The question is quite simply do FS and academies (which both have very valid reasons), mess with equality in the competition too much? I think they were beginning to under the old matching scale and they probably still will under the new one. Suspect it'll take a fair bit of tinkering to get it right. Hopefully it gets to the stage where the advantage is access to a player who you have far greater knowledge about and who already has a connection and increased loyalty to the club, rather than a really cheap acquisition price to go on top of that.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Agreed. The idea that once the draft opens you can trade in picks you don't have the list spots for is madness.

Pretty much, it’s like they are saying oh you only have this many list spots but guess what boys when I say go you can have 30 list spots…ridiculous. You have the list spots you have that’s it. No ifs or buts if you have to go into deficit so be it. If you don’t get a player good it shows the system is working