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

[#BallMagnet]

So young White commits early to the Dees as F/S (or GC said we're not matching any bids for you) and the club indicates they'll take him come draft night. Ok good. No surprises there.
Therefore, why can't we have a system or process where clubs and draftee have to commit earlier on their club tied NGA, Academy and F/S affiliation. The resultant outcome being this then impacts the clubs draft position, points or picks at the later National Draft and gets these kids out of the way.

Walker to Carlton that's already been agreed to in 2026. Good story. Thanks, no need to be in the National Draft then. Job done.
It will however make an impact to the Blues pick selections and positioning come National Draft time.

Then, for those kids that get knocked back or leftover from their original affiliated clubs, they roll over and into the open pool of kids and are free for any club to draft come National Draft time.
If a club didn't take you or you didn't commit earlier then they lose all ties. Now on the open market and it's known well in advance so clubs can start planning or wheeling & dealing.
The National Draft could then be fully uncompromised and selection order based on clubs finishing position or pick swaps etc.etc.

I think somehow having a draft system that separates out the affiliated and non affiliated draftees should be looked at.

 

[txbyhull]

So young White commits early to the Dees as F/S (or GC said we're not matching any bids for you) and the club indicates they'll take him come draft night. Ok good. No surprises there.
Therefore, why can't we have a system or process where clubs and draftee have to commit earlier on their club tied NGA, Academy and F/S affiliation. The resultant outcome being this then impacts the clubs draft position, points or picks at the later National Draft and gets these kids out of the way.

Walker to Carlton that's already been agreed to in 2026. Good story. Thanks, no need to be in the National Draft then. Job done.
It will however make an impact to the Blues pick selections and positioning come National Draft time.

Then, for those kids that get knocked back or leftover from their original affiliated clubs, they roll over and into the open pool of kids and are free for any club to draft come National Draft time.
If a club didn't take you or you didn't commit earlier then they lose all ties. Now on the open market and it's known well in advance so clubs can start planning or wheeling & dealing.
The National Draft could then be fully uncompromised and selection order based on clubs finishing position or pick swaps etc.etc.

I think somehow having a draft system that separates out the affiliated and non affiliated draftees should be looked at.

Love this idea and have thought about it before. It’s tough without exposing every clubs draft plans prior to the draft. Maybe a consensus nomination of bands?

Band 1 is top 10, Band 2 is first round, band 3 second round etc. just get the other 17 clubs to nominate where the player should go in the open pool and then the tied club needs to come up with certain picks to match it prior to draft night? Band 1 2 first rounders or a top 5, band 2 a first rounder, band 3 a second and a third etc. Open to tampering and handshake agreements but it at least would make draft night itself simpler.

Brisbane would need to have paid 3 top 5 picks or 6 first rounder picks for the Ashcrofts and Annable, GC 4 firsts for Uwland and Patterson. Sydney would likely give up their first rounder for King. Carlton would give up either 1 or 2 picks for Dean etc. incentivises the clubs to keep their own firsts and drives up first rounder value in trades.

 

[Choogler]

Exactly what use to happen in other states. WA and SA got restricted to pick 40, not 1st round and they still did the work. Academies should be elite talent pathways for kids, clubs are funded by the AFL to run them so spread the work load and balance it between 18 clubs.

Unless you can show me evidence to the contrary, I dispute that "Clubs are funded to run them". Clubs receive a distribution of funds from the AFL, and must fund Academies themselves. They do this, usually with assistance from sponsors. Eg: The WCE, who traditionally receive the LEAST funding of all clubs ($1.5 million less than the next lowest in 2024) fund their NGA, the Nic Nat Academy themselves, in partnership with the academy's major sponsor, BHP. No AFL funding at all.

In that respect, the northern academies have additional expenses over (let's say) the Vic clubs because the traditional elite pathway (CTL) is not, to the best of my knowledge, funded directly by contributions from any of the Vic-based AFL Clubs so those clubs don't have that additional expense and only have to fund their FS and NGA kids. The northern academies must cater for ALL kids, and more kids = more costs.

Rules for some and not for others is what is truly ridiculous. Imagine if Northern teams had no 15m short kick rule applied to them on game day, this is what the current system is like.

Ludicrous, the AFL had to do something about the revolving doors at, particularly, GC and GWS, and their lack of ability to attract experienced replacements. They also needed to address the lack of FS access, and to create a pathway that attracts and keep kids in the AFL system. There is simply no comparison between the northern clubs and other clubs including WA and SA clubs that operate in traditional AFL environments. If you want to make silly comparisons over what you see as inequities favouring the northern clubs, how about we look at the privileged fixturing some of the Vic clubs enjoy. The advantages the northern clubs receive via their academies are the least of our worries... lets wait and see what transpires in the 2025 draft after the changes that have been made.

 

[longdonkey]

Love this idea and have thought about it before. It’s tough without exposing every clubs draft plans prior to the draft. Maybe a consensus nomination of bands?

Band 1 is top 10, Band 2 is first round, band 3 second round etc. just get the other 17 clubs to nominate where the player should go in the open pool and then the tied club needs to come up with certain picks to match it prior to draft night? Band 1 2 first rounders or a top 5, band 2 a first rounder, band 3 a second and a third etc. Open to tampering and handshake agreements but it at least would make draft night itself simpler.

Brisbane would need to have paid 3 top 5 picks or 6 first rounder picks for the Ashcrofts and Annable, GC 4 firsts for Uwland and Patterson. Sydney would likely give up their first rounder for King. Carlton would give up either 1 or 2 picks for Dean etc. incentivises the clubs to keep their own firsts and drives up first rounder value in trades.

I like the mechanics of this idea however it appears as though the AFL wants the market to decide at what pick a father/son or NGA would have been picked.

 

[txbyhull]

I like the mechanics of this idea however it appears as though the AFL wants the market to decide at what pick a father/son or NGA would have been picked.

Indeed, that’s what makes it so difficult. Finding a way to get clubs to pay fair value that’s not arbitrary but is simple and everyone can agree on is next to impossible.

 

[#BallMagnet]

Indeed, that’s what makes it so difficult. Finding a way to get clubs to pay fair value that’s not arbitrary but is simple and everyone can agree on is next to impossible.

Surely the AFL could pull together an independent draft panel that could adjudge the ranking of affiliated kids and place them into their respective bands etc.

Or................. Just use the AFL's Free Agent Compensation Calculator...................it works a treat!

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Indeed, that’s what makes it so difficult. Finding a way to get clubs to pay fair value that’s not arbitrary but is simple and everyone can agree on is next to impossible.

It's not really that difficult to make teams pay fair value.

Simply make the points curve value per pick worth what they're actually worth in reality (ie what later picks teams actually pay to move up in the draft), and reduce the discount to 0%.

Then if another team bids on a player too early there's no incentive to actually match the bid, because they'd had to pay the real value of the current draft pick with later draft pick, because the club believes that they can get better talent with their existing draft picks.

So instead of matching a bid on pick 12 with pick 30, 40 and 45 or whatever, you would have to match a bid for pick 12 with pick 15 and 25 or whatever, the actual trade you would have to make (bidding aside) if you wanted to move up from pick 15 to pick 12.

Obviously Essendon overpaid to move up from 11 to 10 to draft Caddy but as a line of thinking it's a good starting point. Think of the alternate universe where Caddy was somehow tied to Essendon's academy (and they had never traded out pick 11 for more points, which they would have, but anyway), so they match him when Geelong bid on him with pick 10. Instead of paying 11+31 to "match" pick 10 (as they did at market value), they would have... instead have just their pick 11 and gotten pick 55 for free (and kept 31) with the 20% discount.

 

[ajs071]

Mickey Mouse comp really.

 

[Coach_Required]

Yeah, Geelong sitting there now that they don't benefit and saying FS should go after having benefited the most of any club in the game and winning 4 flags off the back of it is very on brand for Geelong.

I don't understand this argument though? So, because something in the past happened the AFL shouldn't try and fix it going forward? The AFL should be trying to fix this stuff for as long as it takes and no matter how many adjustments are required.

 

[Coach_Required]

You want talk fair, so let’s start why Victorian teams aren’t forced to travel more than 4-5 times for a start? Or why do WA / SA teams get one more home game compared to QLD / NSW teams who also don’t get to play their away derby at their home ground like WA / SA teams or why the VFL can’t manipulate the draw so all Vic teams travel a minimum of eight times to demure fairness.

Or why when you look at players that have sought trades mostly go to footy states in Vic / WA / SA that also have elite junior pathways unlike the Academies.

But no; you’re not interested in that fair are you?

Wrong thread dude, this is about drafting.

 

[Coach_Required]

It’s about fairness. People are banging on that academies and father sons, which is essentially a lucky dip is unfair, yet I’m countering many other examples of unfairness, which as I said, should also be taken into account when we’re talking “fair”

This thread is about Drafting read the headline, if you want to bang on about the inconsistencies of the whole league there is a tonne of other threads to voice your complaints.

My point still stands, the AFL need to change this farce that is the F/S & academy system, it's one area that needs an overhaul and this why I posted here, not to hear about fixturing complaints.

 

[Miller1971]

You want talk fair, so let’s start why Victorian teams aren’t forced to travel more than 4-5 times for a start? Or why do WA / SA teams get one more home game compared to QLD / NSW teams who also don’t get to play their away derby at their home ground like WA / SA teams or why the VFL can’t manipulate the draw so all Vic teams travel a minimum of eight times to demure fairness.

Or why when you look at players that have sought trades mostly go to footy states in Vic / WA / SA that also have elite junior pathways unlike the Academies.

But no; you’re not interested in that fair are you?

This doesn't take into account that interstate clubs get a genuine home ground advantage in a minimum of 10 games, while an MCG tenant like Collingwood or Richmond play 8 of their home games at the oppositions home ground and enjoy zero home advantage as a result

 

[txbyhull]

It's not really that difficult to make teams pay fair value.

Simply make the points curve value per pick worth what they're actually worth in reality (ie what later picks teams actually pay to move up in the draft), and reduce the discount to 0%.

Then if another team bids on a player too early there's no incentive to actually match the bid, because they'd had to pay the real value of the current draft pick with later draft pick, because the club believes that they can get better talent with their existing draft picks.

So instead of matching a bid on pick 12 with pick 30, 40 and 45 or whatever, you would have to match a bid for pick 12 with pick 15 and 25 or whatever, the actual trade you would have to make (bidding aside) if you wanted to move up from pick 15 to pick 12.

Obviously Essendon overpaid to move up from 11 to 10 to draft Caddy but as a line of thinking it's a good starting point. Think of the alternate universe where Caddy was somehow tied to Essendon's academy (and they had never traded out pick 11 for more points, which they would have, but anyway), so they match him when Geelong bid on him with pick 10. Instead of paying 11+31 to "match" pick 10 (as they did at market value), they would have... instead have just their pick 11 and gotten pick 55 for free (and kept 31) with the 20% discount.

I do agree, but I think all the discourse comes from the top 5-10 FS and Academy picks rather than the late first round ones. Making them pay fair value is very difficult. I think at minimum a top 5 FS/Academy should be worth a top 10 pick + a second rounder? Something like that.

 

[Yoda_]

The premise is right but the execution really needs to be thought out for the long game here.

You almost need to make these clubs with multiple opportunities pay overs as a way to sway them to not match bids. Make Gold Coast want to match a bid on either Uwland or Patterson but try and get Addinsal later.

I dunno but the theatrics of the whole thing is starting to become farcical. The article today I saw sees Gold Coast have another 8 possible academy kids over the nest 3 drafts (3 in 2025 obviously). When does it stop?

 

[mpal6]

The premise is right but the execution really needs to be thought out for the long game here.

You almost need to make these clubs with multiple opportunities pay overs as a way to sway them to not match bids. Make Gold Coast want to match a bid on either Uwland or Patterson but try and get Addinsal later.

I dunno but the theatrics of the whole thing is starting to become farcical. The article today I saw sees Gold Coast have another 8 possible academy kids over the nest 3 drafts (3 in 2025 obviously). When does it stop?

Easy to stop - just cap the number the clubs can match in first round. This applies to Father/Son, NGA, Academy, anything.

1. If you played finals, you can match only one player in first round.
2. For every year you choose to match, in the next year you lose the rights to match in first round. Please feel free to still use your first round pick and take any player in open draft (including your academy player if he falls to that pick)
3. If you didn't play finals you can match 2 maximum in first round etc
4. Beyond first round its a chook lotto so go for your life in terms of matching as long as you have points available and good luck

I was under the impression the points change is going to work in that direction anyway. But people are having knee jerk without even giving it a chance to be implemented across a draft or two.

 

[longdonkey]

The premise is right but the execution really needs to be thought out for the long game here.

You almost need to make these clubs with multiple opportunities pay overs as a way to sway them to not match bids. Make Gold Coast want to match a bid on either Uwland or Patterson but try and get Addinsal later.

I dunno but the theatrics of the whole thing is starting to become farcical. The article today I saw sees Gold Coast have another 8 possible academy kids over the nest 3 drafts (3 in 2025 obviously). When does it stop?

Funnily enough, I don't have an issue with that. What I do have an issue with is that they are able to trade players in while doing that.

 

[txbyhull]

I think a good start would be to start using points rather than picks.

I think the points mechanic works perfectly fine, but it also allows clubs to use a billion picks in the non-first rounds to get a top 5 player. Hopefully the changes this year fix it, previous points allocations were insane.

Right now the entire third round would match a discounted pick 1 bid. Obviously that would never happen, but in principle and at face value it would be possible. A different system that combines the two of pick bands or brackets and points would be better and seen as more fair value as you would have to give up a much closer pick.

In the new DVI, 5 and 16 currently matches a pick 1 bid. I think that is significantly fairer value than 19, 20, 21, and 30 (which also hits a discounted pick 1 bid under new DVI), for both the clubs that are bidding and the clubs that are missing out on the player. It will drive up the value of first round picks. Think if this was the case we wouldn't even have to remove the discount, though i still think we should.

 

[Choogler]

Makes sense doesn't it, this isn't a sour grapes thing either we have F/S & Academy players coming through over the next few years, one is even touted a top 10 chance. I'm sure Freo is the same with your own F/S academy.

Those that want it to stay it's only because they think they will get someone for unders, that's the whole point why it needs to be overhauled.

Not true.. it's interesting how some people want to get rid of some of the traditions of the past in the interest of equalisation but are happy for other traditions that in turn create competitive inequalities to stay.

WCE, like many others, have never benefited like other clubs. Jake Waterman, clearly the best of our FS's was a natural late selection, overlooked by all the other clubs. Same could be said of Josh Daicos, but those opposing FS will still point them out as being drafted as FS selections despite Pies and WC not matching bids for them.

WC have Bailey Banfield coming through in 2025 but he isn't ranked in the top echelon, and I haven't heard of any others coming through in the next couple of years. Despite that, I'm completely in favour of FS, with just two changes.

1. No discounts for FS (or Academy & NGA players). The discount is having first access to the player, and..

2. Bid matching can only occur if a club uses a pick from the round in which the bid comes. To match a bid at 5 would require a pick between 6 & 18.

We need to get to the point that the best 18 kids take the first 18 picks in the draft even if they aren't used in the natural order. This won't happen without a couple of other changes.. abolishing FA compo picks earlier than end of round 2, and no priority/assistance picks to any club ever, unless a team is decimated by a disaster.

If all of those changes occurred, every pick of the draft will be used on the player perceived to be the best available at that pick. eg: natural pick 28 will be used on the player the club perceives is the 28th best player in the draft or may even be used earlier if an earlier 2nd rounder has been used in matching a first round bid. You would no longer see Pick 19 blowing out to around 30 as has happened in the last 2 drafts.
Another unseen or perhaps natural consequences of my suggested changes is that most 3rd rounders, and ALL 4th rounders will, after bid matching, be used earlier than than their natural positions. Clubs without FS or academy selections will actually be better off than under the old system.

So, keep FS, Next Gen Academies, and Northern Academies (for now), get rid of FA Compo in the first 2 rounds, and just tell clubs that list management incompetence will no longer be rewarded with assistance picks, and that full value must be paid when bid matching...

Bingo, fixed

 

[Choogler]

Funnily enough, I don't have an issue with that. What I do have an issue with is that they are able to trade players in while doing that.

even more bizarre is they still have a knack of ending up with multiple first rounders in the next draft... they had 3 first rounders in 24, gave up Pick 6 for Rioli, traded out 2 other first rounders in the Noble/Houston/Lukosius trade and yet end up with 3 first rounders this coming draft, their own plus Port's and Pies. I wish WC had their LM Team.

 

[Purple Suit]

Unless you can show me evidence to the contrary, I dispute that "Clubs are funded to run them". Clubs receive a distribution of funds from the AFL, and must fund Academies themselves. They do this, usually with assistance from sponsors. Eg: The WCE, who traditionally receive the LEAST funding of all clubs ($1.5 million less than the next lowest in 2024) fund their NGA, the Nic Nat Academy themselves, in partnership with the academy's major sponsor, BHP. No AFL funding at all.

In that respect, the northern academies have additional expenses over (let's say) the Vic clubs because the traditional elite pathway (CTL) is not, to the best of my knowledge, funded directly by contributions from any of the Vic-based AFL Clubs so those clubs don't have that additional expense and only have to fund their FS and NGA kids. The northern academies must cater for ALL kids, and more kids = more costs.

Ludicrous, the AFL had to do something about the revolving doors at, particularly, GC and GWS, and their lack of ability to attract experienced replacements. They also needed to address the lack of FS access, and to create a pathway that attracts and keep kids in the AFL system. There is simply no comparison between the northern clubs and other clubs including WA and SA clubs that operate in traditional AFL environments. If you want to make silly comparisons over what you see as inequities favouring the northern clubs, how about we look at the privileged fixturing some of the Vic clubs enjoy. The advantages the northern clubs receive via their academies are the least of our worries... lets wait and see what transpires in the 2025 draft after the changes that have been made.

Is this a joke?

The Northern clubs get up to triple the allocation of the richest clubs. Freo get about 1-2m less than WC most of the time, they get an extra 20-25m depending on the year.

Saying they fund it is like saying my Dad gives me an allowance but I have to pay my own rent (allowance is 10 times the rent amount).

The revolving door is an issue over here too and with all clubs in the bottom 4. The AFL doesn’t address this except for North of the border. Its own compo system encourages bad teams to let experience leave.

Freo had no F/S for decades due to the rules and only just starting to come into the window. GC & GWS avoided free agency for 8 years when it came in, we’re not even at par yet in terms of disadvantage with those two things.

 

[Purple Suit]

The equality argument is hilarious with how compromised our sport is in all different facets. I mean we allowed North to sell home games to Freo in a season where percentage could be the difference between fourth and eighth. People want equality so long as that equality doesn't impact any advantages they may have.

North selling games to us just fixed up the new compromises WA teams had been dealing with for 3 seasons.

Vic teams = Too many to name
SA teams = Gather round
Northern Teams = Opening round

Therefore North selling a game just reset where we were about 3 seasons ago and doesn’t address other huge holes in the system.

Your team is massively spoiled atm.

 

[Elixuh]

North selling games to us just fixed up the new compromises WA teams had been dealing with for 3 seasons.

Vic teams = Too many to name
SA teams = Gather round
Northern Teams = Opening round

Therefore North selling a game just reset where we were about 3 seasons ago and doesn’t address other huge holes in the system.

Your team is massively spoiled atm.

You realise opening round isn’t an extra home game for the lions, it’s one of the 11 we get every year. Unlike the 13 games Freo now gets at Optus.

2 extra games at Optus is a pretty big leg up in a season which is being decided by percentage.

 

[mpal6]

North selling games to us just fixed up the new compromises WA teams had been dealing with for 3 seasons.

Vic teams = Too many to name
SA teams = Gather round
Northern Teams = Opening round

Therefore North selling a game just reset where we were about 3 seasons ago and doesn’t address other huge holes in the system.

Your team is massively spoiled atm.

Just because our father sons coincided with a successful period? Seems you'd rather us stay at feeder level without any real prospect whatsoever and if we manage to get out of this cycle in a meaningful way, the teeth gnashing won't stop.

 

[Purple Suit]

You realise opening round isn’t an extra home game for the lions, it’s one of the 11 we get every year. Unlike the 13 games Freo now gets at Optus.

2 extra games at Optus is a pretty big leg up in a season which is being decided by percentage.

It’s an extra bye and sometimes a free hit at a team who hasn’t played yet. Still an advantage.

We have 13 games at Optus but only 11 home games. Melbourne teams get around 15-16 games in their own State. We travel more than anyone so that doesn’t even go close to evening up especially when you consider what shit timeslots do to prolong turn arounds.

 

[Elixuh]

It’s an extra bye and sometimes a free hit at a team who hasn’t played yet. Still an advantage.

We have 13 games at Optus but only 11 home games. Melbourne teams get around 15-16 games in their own State. We travel more than anyone so that doesn’t even go close to evening up especially when you consider what shit timeslots do to prolong turn arounds.

Oh yeah you’re counting a game against north at your home ground as an away game? Seems good faith!

Just admit your privilege purple person.