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

[Choogler]

Everyone’s got it wrong, Pav’s only taken the job for Sydney’s academy so his kids are better developed for their Freo careers.

Then they have the choice to stay in Sydney with their mates and, like Nick Blakey and NM, will decide not to forego their FS club, who will probably still be struggling for their first flag

 

[Purple Suit]

Then they have the choice to stay in Sydney with their mates and, like Nick Blakey and NM, will decide not to forego their FS club, who will probably still be struggling for their first flag

Only 1 team in WA is struggling which is interesting as they are very close in average age. Our window is going to be open for awhile, Pav’s sons might be just in time for the dip.

 

[ray_purchase]

Father and son and Academies should be scrapped forever.

Either you have a draft or you don't.

Brisbane perennial top 4 club and they get gifted both Ashcroft brothers and apparently now have a top 5 prospect coming in from their academy.

It is pathetic.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Quite possibly, without the dollars spent and the work of the northern academies, the player wouldn't have existed and would be playing NRL or maybe basketball.

But in terms of operational fairness of the draft, this literally doesn't make a difference.

Personally, I do not care about whether an individual plays another sport, I'm not a sport supremacist, (even though I do enjoy Aussie Rules more than those sports), especially when it comes at the cost of undermining the operational fairness of the professional competition too.

To just look at the northern academies as benefiting those clubs is somewhat disingenuous.

It's not. It literally gives them a direct draft advantage. If you look at the draft as a econometric problem, the right to match, the 20 (now 10%) discount, and the right to play arbitrage with how there's a fixed value per draft pick gives you a direct

Increasing their profile and hence income by growing their market in those areas thereby increasing the value of sponsorships and, importantly, the broadcast deal, significantly. That benefits all clubs, particularly clubs like NM who'd not survive if the AFL could not afford to prop them up financially. The 2 new clubs should have been relocations but that is a discussion for another time.
To achieve their goal, GWS and GC were granted generous draft concessions because the best and fastest way to raise a profile is success which then attracts supporters, players and sponsorship.

Sure, but it undermines the operational fairness and sense of equality of opportunity to win games among all 18 clubs which it exists, undermining the operational fairness of running what is meant to be a sporting competition where the 18 clubs theoretically run together and the reason that the AFL has as much interest as it does is that the fans of all 18 clubs understand this and invest in their team's success because of that belief in that fairness of opportunity and natural balancing act of equalisation.

For instance, the AFL purports that this is how they intend to run their competition through statements and operational activities like these:

Full statement: equalisation deliberations

Read the AFL's full statement about equalisation measures agreed to by the 18 clubs

www.afl.com.au

We all accept that the AFL, in its dule role as being custodian of the sport (wanting it to grow), but also running a competition that is meant to be balanced and fair, undermines one to achieve the other. Indeed the introduction of the northern teams was unanimously supported by the clubs. But we have to accept that in order to grow the sport in the northern states, we do sacrifice something about the purity of equalisation. We equally embrace the romanaticism of the father-son rule but this also undermines the principles of equalisation. We also don't have to accept the AFL's stance in its balance, and we don't have to agree with the groupthink that the AFL has got it right. I think the St Kilda management and its fans don't explain it very well but that's what they're trying to get at.

So they had talented lists and continued to draft talented players so what went wrong, particularly at GC, the success the AFL was hoping for wasn't coming?

The decision makers at GC, the people that tried to execute football decisions, were just not very good. The decision to make Gary Ablett a captain was not a good one. They didn't draft very good players. Some of it was bad AFL management (being given bad training facilities), some of it was just dumb luck (the multi-year QLD/NT zone access that they had was not as prosperous for them as that zone would have been historically and afterwards)

The major reason was that they had become "revolving door" training camps for, primarily, (the big) Vic-clubs. This is not a criticism of Vic clubs, just reflective of the fact Victoria supplies the largest proportion of draftees.

So they'd lose a some of their most talented kids, and also had a distinct inability to attract quality experienced players, to replace the quality kids lost to the go home factor. They'd have to pay overs to attract (often average) experienced players and then overs to retain young players.

I think you're reading too much into this. It's a a downstream of being a bad team with bad leadership. As I said before Gary Ablett was not a very good captain that did not build a good leadership culture that captains for expansion teams with a blank canvas should build. They probably should not have appointed a first-time coach, too.

So they'd lose a some of their most talented kids, and also had a distinct inability to attract quality experienced players, to replace the quality kids lost to the go home factor. They'd have to pay overs to attract (often average) experienced players and then overs to retain young players.

This was killing them so the AFL had to do something to stop it.. they needed to introduce a "stay home" factor and academies and the ability to match bids for academy kids was, I believe, a good compromise. I do think what happened , like with GC in 2023 matching 3 in the top 14 and 4 in the top 26, provided too much of an advantage but with the reduction to discounts and removal of points from 4th rounders and reduction of points for all but Pick 1, the 2023 scenario is gone.

This is not the sole reason why academies were built. Obviously the talent retention is an aspect, but it was also introduced because talent development was falling behind in the northern states, and there was a desire of fairness to a talented kid in the northern states to help realise their AFL dream.

Quality of talent development through the TAC Cup in VIC and the SANFL and WAFL teams evolved rapidly in the 2000's, especially after the AFL consolidated how it operated football in the state across the years before (removal of the U19s and VFL reserves, reorganisation of the VFA until the VFL etc. influx of money from the 2002 TV deal) meant that a talented Riverina etc. kid was left behind. Long story short is that there was basically three non-end-of-draft NSW/ACT talents for about 10 years between 2003 and 2012 and those were Dylan Addison and Jason Tutt, both drafted, and Taylor Walker, part of the NSW scholarship program. The reason that NSW and to a lesser extent Qld talent was not considered draftable was because a typical talented 16-17 year old played low-quality division 2 nationals, an occasional Rams TAC cup game and went home and played senior footy. This was not as good as allowing players to become good footballers when compared to the week-in-week out of SANFL, WAFL, TAC Cup, and the Division 1 nationals. The academies' introduction cannot be separated for instance by the decision of the AFL to introduce the Allies into the Div 1 nationals to equalise the fairness of being a talented junior, anywhere in the country, to reach the AFL, for instance.

provided too much of an advantage but with the reduction to discounts and removal of points from 4th rounders and reduction of points for all but Pick 1, the 2023 scenario is gone.

I agree that this reduces the extent of the advantage but the advantage still does exist.

The unseen, or at least unacknowledged benefit of that is that other clubs will have more access to the northern academy kids.

But talent acquisition is a zero-sum game. For every AFL match that is won it is equally lost by another team. For every contribution to a win by a player the is an equal failure to win by the players on the losing team. There is literally zero benefit to non-Northern clubs in a competitive, we will win more games sense, than if those players had never existed. Such a benefit doesn't exist. The fact that a club can choose a player from the North now now that that player is a bit more rounded as an 17 year old. You misunderstand this.

Thought exercise time: Imagine if overnight the AFL decided that only players with last names that begin with A-M were allowed to be drafted into the future. How would this impact equalisation: 1. currently good teams would remain good as older, good players would stay in the league for longer as the relative quality of the talent coming through does not replace the existing talent pool as fast. 2. once a generation passes and everyone who was an existing AFL player at the time of the rule retires, there would be literally no difference to currently at how effective the draft it. 3. what would happen if the AFL then cancelled the rule and allowed kids with last name N-Z to be drafted? nothing. The draft would still be equally as effective even though the talent pool was wider.

The same thing is true if the wider talent pool is now bigger for the fact that more talented northern kids are coming through more often for the southern clubs.

So don't give me this crap that there's a benefit to southern clubs that they have a wider pool to draft from. It's zero sum. There is no benefit to the fact that the northern academy kids exist in an econometric sense for the southern clubs if treating the draft like the econometric activity that it is.

whereby NM receive $2.5 million a year in sponsorship from the WA Gov't

They have to sell off the proven, mathematical home ground advantage that makes it more likely to win games and is more or less even across the competition (on the basis that all teams have 11 home and 11 away games), because I don't believe that the AFL is doing a very good job of its financial equalisation toward North Melbourne.

The purported reasons for it are irrelavent otherwise.

It is no different to their longstanding Tasmanian arrangement and they make a heap more coming here as I believe they receive 50% of the non-membership gate takings. Without the deal and with losing the Tasmanian deal, NM would be relying even more on their annual AFL gifted "prop-up" funding cheque than they already do.

In terms of home ground advantage and fixture fairness, there is a very large difference in an alternate home ground that is not your usual one and that is also not your direct opponent's home ground (where they have the majority of crowd support, familiarity with the ground, etc.) and directly playing your home game at your opponent's stadium or geographic base of support as was the case with NM and the two WA teams. It should be self-evident for me to explain it this way. Indeed a team with a secondary home ground through majority crowd support and familiarity with conditions/ground can even maintain or develop a home advantage similar to their main ground as it has been with the Dogs in Ballarat and Hawks in Launceston. Dogs playing Adelaide in Ballarat is patently obviously

As for the fixture being fair, in the AFL, there is no such thing.

Just because I agree with you on this on the realities of it, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards and discuss best how to achieve fairness.

If you want a fair fixture, perhaps the "big" Vic clubs going to Geelong and Tasmania would be the very first, and easiest, starting point. There is no reason they shouldn't... if you are really concerned about fair.

I have never disagreed with you on this and I agree that this should happen and that the AFL strives to maximise revenue far too greatly through maximising attendances and TV revenue, undermining both the fairness of the competition but also allowing big Melbourne clubs to remain big through fixturing advantages (ie, compare how many times Essendon, Carlton and Richmond have hosted home games against Collingwood over the lats 15 years to North Melbourne, even though a fair fixture should on a year-by-year basis average out to about a 65% chance of hosting a given team as a home game every year).

 

[sydney_gws]

I think academies stay, but make the clubs only use their own draft picks to match, not any of this trading down for points rubbish.
If northern academies/ father sons are limited to say 3 top 30 picks in 5 years, they will use their own picks more to select a player before another club bids on them. Live trading on draft night will help.
If swans have pick 10 and the 12th rated player in their academy, they can pick a player , then when somebody else picks the academy player at 12, swans trade players and pick up a future 2nd rounder.

 

[briztoon]

Father and son and Academies should be scrapped forever.

Either you have a draft or you don't.

Brisbane perennial top 4 club and they get gifted both Ashcroft brothers and apparently now have a top 5 prospect coming in from their academy.

It is pathetic.

Erm either you have a rather short term memory, or you don’t understand the definition of perennial.

It wasn’t too long ago I remember us finishing 17th, 17th, 18th, with a few bottom 5 finishes either side of those disastrous seasons.

Not to mention losing a heap of interstate draftees back “home” to Victoria and WA.

The Ashcroft’s arriving at the same time as us being competitive is pure coincidence.

And p.s. we didn’t finish top 4 last year in the home and away season.

 

[GoRoos2023]

There is no denying that since the advent of the draft it has never been more challenging for low ranking teams to climb the ladder and never been easier for top teams to stay at the top than it is today.

We can argue all day on whether that should or shouldn’t be the case but the reality of the situation is that it is the case.

Just off the top of my head some players that could/would be NMFC players without the compromised draft Darcy, Daicos, Jed Walters, Ashcrofts there will be heaps more.

When the Saints, Hawks etc rebuilt in the 2000s they didn’t need to deal with that. You got access to the best players and actually got 2 shots at the top with priority picks.

Then there is free agency which favours the top teams, players want success, big crowds, finals more than earning an extra 20% at a struggling club.

It is what it is, without change the league will become more and more compromised but I look at my team, it was bad management that got us to the bottom that’s our fault.

It’s just really quite hard to get off the bottom.

 

[briztoon]

But in terms of operational fairness of the draft, this literally doesn't make a difference.

Personally, I do not care about whether an individual plays another sport, I'm not a sport supremacist, (even though I do enjoy Aussie Rules more than those sports), especially when it comes at the cost of undermining the operational fairness of the professional competition too.


It's not. It literally gives them a direct draft advantage. If you look at the draft as a econometric problem, the right to match, the 20 (now 10%) discount, and the right to play arbitrage with how there's a fixed value per draft pick gives you a direct


Sure, but it undermines the operational fairness and sense of equality of opportunity to win games among all 18 clubs which it exists, undermining the operational fairness of running what is meant to be a sporting competition where the 18 clubs theoretically run together and the reason that the AFL has as much interest as it does is that the fans of all 18 clubs understand this and invest in their team's success because of that belief in that fairness of opportunity and natural balancing act of equalisation.

For instance, the AFL purports that this is how they intend to run their competition through statements and operational activities like these:

Full statement: equalisation deliberations

Read the AFL's full statement about equalisation measures agreed to by the 18 clubs

www.afl.com.au

We all accept that the AFL, in its dule role as being custodian of the sport (wanting it to grow), but also running a competition that is meant to be balanced and fair, undermines one to achieve the other. Indeed the introduction of the northern teams was unanimously supported by the clubs. But we have to accept that in order to grow the sport in the northern states, we do sacrifice something about the purity of equalisation. We equally embrace the romanaticism of the father-son rule but this also undermines the principles of equalisation. We also don't have to accept the AFL's stance in its balance, and we don't have to agree with the groupthink that the AFL has got it right. I think the St Kilda management and its fans don't explain it very well but that's what they're trying to get at.


The decision makers at GC, the people that tried to execute football decisions, were just not very good. The decision to make Gary Ablett a captain was not a good one. They didn't draft very good players. Some of it was bad AFL management (being given bad training facilities), some of it was just dumb luck (the multi-year QLD/NT zone access that they had was not as prosperous for them as that zone would have been historically and afterwards)


I think you're reading too much into this. It's a a downstream of being a bad team with bad leadership. As I said before Gary Ablett was not a very good captain that did not build a good leadership culture that captains for expansion teams with a blank canvas should build. They probably should not have appointed a first-time coach, too.


This is not the sole reason why academies were built. Obviously the talent retention is an aspect, but it was also introduced because talent development was falling behind in the northern states, and there was a desire of fairness to a talented kid in the northern states to help realise their AFL dream.

Quality of talent development through the TAC Cup in VIC and the SANFL and WAFL teams evolved rapidly in the 2000's, especially after the AFL consolidated how it operated football in the state across the years before (removal of the U19s and VFL reserves, reorganisation of the VFA until the VFL etc. influx of money from the 2002 TV deal) meant that a talented Riverina etc. kid was left behind. Long story short is that there was basically three non-end-of-draft NSW/ACT talents for about 10 years between 2003 and 2012 and those were Dylan Addison and Jason Tutt, both drafted, and Taylor Walker, part of the NSW scholarship program. The reason that NSW and to a lesser extent Qld talent was not considered draftable was because a typical talented 16-17 year old played low-quality division 2 nationals, an occasional Rams TAC cup game and went home and played senior footy. This was not as good as allowing players to become good footballers when compared to the week-in-week out of SANFL, WAFL, TAC Cup, and the Division 1 nationals. The academies' introduction cannot be separated for instance by the decision of the AFL to introduce the Allies into the Div 1 nationals to equalise the fairness of being a talented junior, anywhere in the country, to reach the AFL, for instance.


I agree that this reduces the extent of the advantage but the advantage still does exist.


But talent acquisition is a zero-sum game. For every AFL match that is won it is equally lost by another team. For every contribution to a win by a player the is an equal failure to win by the players on the losing team. There is literally zero benefit to non-Northern clubs in a competitive, we will win more games sense, than if those players had never existed. Such a benefit doesn't exist. The fact that a club can choose a player from the North now now that that player is a bit more rounded as an 17 year old. You misunderstand this.

Thought exercise time: Imagine if overnight the AFL decided that only players with last names that begin with A-M were allowed to be drafted into the future. How would this impact equalisation: 1. currently good teams would remain good as older, good players would stay in the league for longer as the relative quality of the talent coming through does not replace the existing talent pool as fast. 2. once a generation passes and everyone who was an existing AFL player at the time of the rule retires, there would be literally no difference to currently at how effective the draft it. 3. what would happen if the AFL then cancelled the rule and allowed kids with last name N-Z to be drafted? nothing. The draft would still be equally as effective even though the talent pool was wider.

The same thing is true if the wider talent pool is now bigger for the fact that more talented northern kids are coming through more often for the southern clubs.

So don't give me this crap that there's a benefit to southern clubs that they have a wider pool to draft from. It's zero sum. There is no benefit to the fact that the northern academy kids exist in an econometric sense for the southern clubs if treating the draft like the econometric activity that it is.


They have to sell off the proven, mathematical home ground advantage that makes it more likely to win games and is more or less even across the competition (on the basis that all teams have 11 home and 11 away games), because I don't believe that the AFL is doing a very good job of its financial equalisation toward North Melbourne.

The purported reasons for it are irrelavent otherwise.


In terms of home ground advantage and fixture fairness, there is a very large difference in an alternate home ground that is not your usual one and that is also not your direct opponent's home ground (where they have the majority of crowd support, familiarity with the ground, etc.) and directly playing your home game at your opponent's stadium or geographic base of support as was the case with NM and the two WA teams. It should be self-evident for me to explain it this way. Indeed a team with a secondary home ground through majority crowd support and familiarity with conditions/ground can even maintain or develop a home advantage similar to their main ground as it has been with the Dogs in Ballarat and Hawks in Launceston. Dogs playing Adelaide in Ballarat is patently obviously

Just because I agree with you on this on the realities of it, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive towards and discuss best how to achieve fairness.

I have never disagreed with you on this and I agree that this should happen and that the AFL strives to maximise revenue far too greatly through maximising attendances and TV revenue, undermining both the fairness of the competition but also allowing big Melbourne clubs to remain big through fixturing advantages (ie, compare how many times Essendon, Carlton and Richmond have hosted home games against Collingwood over the lats 15 years to North Melbourne, even though a fair fixture should on a year-by-year basis average out to about a 65% chance of hosting a given team as a home game every year).

This a very good post, and I agree with most of your points in theory.

But the actual application will disadvantage the Northern clubs significantly, and to a lesser extent the other non VIC clubs.

“Fixing” the draft does help equalise the initial talent distribution, but unless further structures are put in place to stop the “I don’t want to move State” and the “go home” issues, then we’ll go back to the talent drain from the northern clubs.

I did have two points I wanted to raise, but I have forgotten one, due continual interruptions at home.

One point, there is a benefit to the existence of northern kids. They increase the numbers of the player pool. The depth of the overall talent in the pool.

 

[Ashman23]

One point, there is a benefit to the existence of northern kids. They increase the numbers of the player pool. The depth of the overall talent in the pool.

Agree but the issue is not everyone has access to them.

 

[Ashman23]

There is no denying that since the advent of the draft it has never been more challenging for low ranking teams to climb the ladder and never been easier for top teams to stay at the top than it is today.

We can argue all day on whether that should or shouldn’t be the case but the reality of the situation is that it is the case.

It is what it is, without change the league will become more and more compromised but I look at my team, it was bad management that got us to the bottom that’s our fault.

It’s just really quite hard to get off the bottom.

No offense intended but the Roos played in two prelims 14/15 and then finals in 16, nearly as close to the Hawks, albeit we were a bit more successful and got back to finals last year.

It can turn quickly when things go right.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

Agree but the issue is not everyone has access to them.

Pretty likely the Suns can only match two of their four likely first round players from the academy this year. And that's is taking 3 firsts into the draft.

Maybe the system isn't so bad now.

 

[RegionalLion]

Even before the Lions have had the good fortune of the Ashcrofts and Fletcher I have been a supporter of the FS rule. I come from a Rugby League watching background and the nostalgia and investment in a family lineage in an AFL team is something that is a wonderful difference to Rugby League and other sports. There is something that seems to have changed in the FS players though - there have never been so many elite FS players coming through. Maybe its more to see what the advantages for these players are rather than penalising clubs who have been loyal to players for 100 games and they happen to pass on good genetics.

Similarly the draft, even though apparently now compromised, is a much fairer system than other sports like Rugby League and the capacity to sign anyone as a junior and then sign players even during the season - the AFL has a lot of things right.

I completely agree that there should be no discount to make the system fairer I hope that if there is no discount in the future and with the adjustment of points the system should be closer to fair. Getting high level talent for traded back draft picks is disproportionate and needs to be stopped. I think the adjustment to the rules should stop a 4 first round players to Gold Coast scenario in the future.

The Northern academies are a complex situation and the impact of them is very hard to quantify against their non-existence. I think the argument for the players in the academy not pursuing AFL in favour of the local more popular sports is real. So if an academy player does not pursue AFL then a northern team has to take a player out of the available talent which would likely mean from Vic, SA or WA - I believe this is what people are trying to say with academy picks not 'taking away' from available players for traditional AFL states. I do think that academy or NGA access should only be given for players that have actually been developed by clubs. That is having been a part of pathways programs from 15 or something similar. It is also a question mark with the Lions then with a player like Sam Marshall who was really more developed through the Vic private school system - but if he hadn't had some involvement with the lions would he have been given the opportunities he got?

In terms of true fairness in the competition it just doesn't exist.

The WA and SA clubs each have the strength of being a traditional sport in their state and only being 2 clubs in decent sized cities thus having a bigger potential fan base. WA clubs have the massive disadvantage of having to make huge travel trips often which is a huge disadvantage but then when others have to travel to WA it is a huge advantage to the local team.

Brisbane and Sydney are up against being a non-traditional sport but have a bigger potential fanbase if they can convert them. They also have the disadvantage of travel every other week. GWS and GC have similar opportunities but also have the travel issue and a less developed fanbase / no links to Victoria at all given the Fitzroy and South Melbourne links for Bris and Sydney. There is also some advantage when other teams have to travel to these locations for their home games.

The Victorian teams have a huge advantage staying in their homes for large percentages of the year as even their away games are often within the same city (i know Gellong isn't the same city but it isn't that far away). The Vic teams also have systems in place to have the most available local talent and there is always a pull to move back to your home. The disadvantage is the sharing of the market but there are a lot of advantages for Vic based clubs. Players have often been reported that they will only go to a Vic team - this has lessened in the last few years but was a major limitation for northern teams in the not too distant past.

 

[GoRoos2023]

No offense intended but the Roos played in two prelims 14/15 and then finals in 16, nearly as close to the Hawks, albeit we were a bit more successful and got back to finals last year.

It can turn quickly when things go right.

No offence taken, I think North are an exceptional circumstance. I think statistically we are the worst performed team over a 5 year period since Fitzroy in the 1930s.

But getting access to the best players in the draft when we are down would help a lot

 

[GC2015]

Even before the Lions have had the good fortune of the Ashcrofts and Fletcher I have been a supporter of the FS rule. I come from a Rugby League watching background and the nostalgia and investment in a family lineage in an AFL team is something that is a wonderful difference to Rugby League and other sports.

I can appreciate that. I was a big fan of Preston Campbell when he was playing for the Titans and I do genuinely get a thrill out of watching his son Jayden Campbell running out in the same jersey 8-10 years after the old man hung up the boots. It's certainly an area that the NRL lacks in. Interestingly, they do have a father-son rule in State of Origin so they do have some appreciation for it, just not at the club level.

 

[Jootube]

I will be gutted if they remove or fundamentally change the Father-Son rule. One of the best and most romantic parts of our game.

Needs to be protected and separated from the Academy discussion IMO.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

“Fixing” the draft does help equalise the initial talent distribution, but unless further structures are put in place to stop the “I don’t want to move State” and the “go home” issues, then we’ll go back to the talent drain from the northern clubs.

Sure, though I would argue the difficulty of developing talent is more the issue here (having to relocate newly drafted players). I think the go-home factor is a bit overstated, look at how Brisbane complained with the go-home five but they have since had better players wanting to go there with Neale, Daniher, now Draper etc.

One point, there is a benefit to the existence of northern kids. They increase the numbers of the player pool. The depth of the overall talent in the pool.

I will explain this in very simple terms because you continue to misunderstand this:

There is literally no benefit in a econometric, draft equalisation strength to the changing strength of the talent pool.

Think of it this way.

Team A with Pick 10 takes Player E worth 1000.
Team B with Pick 11 takes Player F worth 950
Team C with Pick 12 takes Player G worth 900.
Team D with Pick 13 takes Player H player worth 850.

These numbers mean their representation to contribute to future wins, they're just made up numbers but obviously a higher draft pick is more likely to contribute to a greater number of future wins in a proabalistic sense.

We discover that player pick 10 has an identical twin on the eve of the draft. The overall draft pool is strengthened. Lets call this player E2

There are only 207 wins to go around in an AFL season. Lets say for the sake of argument that a given win has 2000 points (so there are 414000 points to give around to the league as a whole per season). Among winning players and over the career Player E's 1000 point added value is essentially his value above replacement level (say he retires in his first pre-season and the club is forced to fill his list spot with an SSP player, they would subsequently have 0.5 fewer expected wins over the expected length of player E's career).

Going back to player E2, the identical twin that was discovered, his existance makes it marginally less likely that every other player in the league contributes to a win in their careers

Now:
Team A with Pick 10 takes Player E worth 999
Team B with Pick 11 takes Player E2 worth 999
Team C with Pick 12 takes player F worth 949
Team D with pick 13 takes player G worth 899

In these two examples (shallow talent pool without the identical twin, expanded talent pool with the identical twin)

How much more likely is it that Team B wins the flag relative to Team C now that they had the opportunity to draft the new player?

It's literally the same. They are 50 value-added points greater than Team C in both examples.

But notice how it goes down by 1 point per player? That matters, that evens out

Team B is more likely than Team A to win the future premiership with the expaneded talent pool. But the following year, Team A could be in Team B's position, so it all evens out.

I'm making the very long but what should be simple econometric point that an expanded draft pool changes absolutely nothing in terms of helping southern teams compared to each other.

 

[briztoon]

Even before the Lions have had the good fortune of the Ashcrofts and Fletcher I have been a supporter of the FS rule. I come from a Rugby League watching background and the nostalgia and investment in a family lineage in an AFL team is something that is a wonderful difference to Rugby League and other sports. There is something that seems to have changed in the FS players though - there have never been so many elite FS players coming through. Maybe its more to see what the advantages for these players are rather than penalising clubs who have been loyal to players for 100 games and they happen to pass on good genetics.

Similarly the draft, even though apparently now compromised, is a much fairer system than other sports like Rugby League and the capacity to sign anyone as a junior and then sign players even during the season - the AFL has a lot of things right.

I completely agree that there should be no discount to make the system fairer I hope that if there is no discount in the future and with the adjustment of points the system should be closer to fair. Getting high level talent for traded back draft picks is disproportionate and needs to be stopped. I think the adjustment to the rules should stop a 4 first round players to Gold Coast scenario in the future.

The Northern academies are a complex situation and the impact of them is very hard to quantify against their non-existence. I think the argument for the players in the academy not pursuing AFL in favour of the local more popular sports is real. So if an academy player does not pursue AFL then a northern team has to take a player out of the available talent which would likely mean from Vic, SA or WA - I believe this is what people are trying to say with academy picks not 'taking away' from available players for traditional AFL states. I do think that academy or NGA access should only be given for players that have actually been developed by clubs. That is having been a part of pathways programs from 15 or something similar. It is also a question mark with the Lions then with a player like Sam Marshall who was really more developed through the Vic private school system - but if he hadn't had some involvement with the lions would he have been given the opportunities he got?

In terms of true fairness in the competition it just doesn't exist.

The WA and SA clubs each have the strength of being a traditional sport in their state and only being 2 clubs in decent sized cities thus having a bigger potential fan base. WA clubs have the massive disadvantage of having to make huge travel trips often which is a huge disadvantage but then when others have to travel to WA it is a huge advantage to the local team.

Brisbane and Sydney are up against being a non-traditional sport but have a bigger potential fanbase if they can convert them. They also have the disadvantage of travel every other week. GWS and GC have similar opportunities but also have the travel issue and a less developed fanbase / no links to Victoria at all given the Fitzroy and South Melbourne links for Bris and Sydney. There is also some advantage when other teams have to travel to these locations for their home games.

The Victorian teams have a huge advantage staying in their homes for large percentages of the year as even their away games are often within the same city (i know Gellong isn't the same city but it isn't that far away). The Vic teams also have systems in place to have the most available local talent and there is always a pull to move back to your home. The disadvantage is the sharing of the market but there are a lot of advantages for Vic based clubs. Players have often been reported that they will only go to a Vic team - this has lessened in the last few years but was a major limitation for northern teams in the not too distant past.

Actually it has increased in the last few years, it's just not reported on as much by the Vic footy media, as they protect their own.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

I’d happily keep the system as it is with only one change… Simply make access to the player the bonus.

Make each club pay true value, none of this points crap! A first round pick for a first round bid!

A second round pick for a second round bid.

It means a few players will fall through the system and clubs can’t load up with 3-5 first round picks!

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I’d happily keep the system as it is with only one change… Simply make access to the player the bonus.

Make each club pay true value, none of this points crap! A first round pick for a first round bid!

A second round pick for a second round bid.

It means a few players will fall through the system and clubs can’t load up with 3-5 first round picks!

So you're okay with Sydney getting Isaac Heeney with pick 18 after winning the flag after being a top 3 prospect?

It was literally this as a problem that led to the points system in the first place

 

[Stamos]

I’d happily keep the system as it is with only one change… Simply make access to the player the bonus.

Make each club pay true value, none of this points crap! A first round pick for a first round bid!

A second round pick for a second round bid.

It means a few players will fall through the system and clubs can’t load up with 3-5 first round picks!

I don't think you've thought this through.
Pick 1 and Pick 18 are both 1st round picks. They are not close to equal value.

Again, people seem to be massively underestimating the changes to the discount and DVI that have come in for this year. The system is going to be much fairer.
Let it play out for a few years to see if it needs to be tweaked again or not.

 

[Bestbird]

I will be gutted if they remove or fundamentally change the Father-Son rule. One of the best and most romantic parts of our game.

Needs to be protected and separated from the Academy discussion IMO.

Not sure why the team gets a 25% bonus for having sole access though

Aside from that it is definitely better now that the AFL has finally addressed the DVI valuation to stop teams trading for 40ish picks to obtain a highly rated player. Why it took so long for the AFL to address that issue is bordering on incompetence.

 

[Purple Suit]

I’d happily keep the system as it is with only one change… Simply make access to the player the bonus.

Make each club pay true value, none of this points crap! A first round pick for a first round bid!

A second round pick for a second round bid.

It means a few players will fall through the system and clubs can’t load up with 3-5 first round picks!

Keep the academies as is but the whole league can only match 2nd rounders onwards. Rules the same for all (Northern academies still get a bonus due to having all kids, not just indigenous and 1 parent not born here).

This will provide all the benefits but not compromise the draft so much. If you want a high pick, trade for them or get in their ear about getting them back in the future.

The talent drain argument is a mirage. All bottom teams have talent drain issues & struggle to recruit. It even happens to big clubs like WC and I recon it would happen to Geelong or the Pies if they are bottom 4 for a few seasons.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Keep the academies as is but the whole league can only match 2nd rounders onwards. Rules the same for all (Northern academies still get a bonus due to having all kids, not just indigenous and 1 parent not born here).

This will provide all the benefits but not compromise the draft so much. If you want a high pick, trade for them or get in their ear about getting them back in the future.

The talent drain argument is a mirage. All bottom teams have talent drain issues & struggle to recruit. It even happens to big clubs like WC and I recon it would happen to Geelong or the Pies if they are bottom 4 for a few seasons.

Glad that will never happen, what a ridiculous idea, so the academies do all the work and the club can't benefit?

How about we wait for this new system and then lets see. Good thing about Swann being in charge he actually won't be like Laura and he has somewhat of a backbome.

If you want to make it no discount, fine but that's it that's where it should end. Not as if other clubs don't have advantages that by the way they are not giving up...I mean Adelaide get a free home game each year for goodness sakes!

 

[Stamos]

Keep the academies as is but the whole league can only match 2nd rounders onwards. Rules the same for all (Northern academies still get a bonus due to having all kids, not just indigenous and 1 parent not born here).

This will provide all the benefits but not compromise the draft so much. If you want a high pick, trade for them or get in their ear about getting them back in the future.

The talent drain argument is a mirage. All bottom teams have talent drain issues & struggle to recruit. It even happens to big clubs like WC and I recon it would happen to Geelong or the Pies if they are bottom 4 for a few seasons.

Just means clubs will start mucking around with kids in their draft year to get them to slide, and it will make the draft more compromised.

 

[THE_GUN]

Bit late to this topic

Surely they dont get rid of father sons will they ?
will it happen this year or 2026 if it happens