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

[mpal6]

You and Sydney already have the largest advantages of any clubs when it comes to the draft.

Do what you're suggesting and it amounts to draft tampering.

Mate, other than recent father son luck - we haven't had the so called "advantages" that everyone keeps harping on about. Our academy players were all middle of the road at the time of drafting. This includes Andrews, Hipwood, Payne, Coleman, Reville etc. Our first genuine academy top 10 would be Annable this year - none before.

I don't understand how you can claim "largest advantages" when all we have is moderate results to show for from academy perspective. Please don't trot out Ashcrofts, Fletcher - that's our lick of the father son ice cream after 20 years of nothing when every other club was benefiting from it.

 

[Elixuh]

Daicos and Ashcroft brothers are going to dominate the AFL landscape for the next decade after their teams got them for the equivalent of a bag of chips. On top of many others.

It will be tragic for teams such as Carlton and Essendon if they do introduce a lockout of some sort when other teams are going to reap benefits for an extended period.

Going from a bunch of later picks = pick 1, to completely restricting access is a huge step.

Don't blame us. Blame the clubs - St Kilda, Norf and Freo - who are whining about it. The Lions finally get some FS talent and apparently its the end of the world.

 

[jdstorm]

I’d prefer a pick within 5 of the bid.

That forces clubs to have to trade talented players and immediately removes the freebie aspect of this entire rort.

The worst 2 pick that can match a bid at pick 1 are 6 and 7

It gets easier the worse the pick gets but also I don’t think being 10 picks away matters nearly as much at pick 20

 

[stavro#4]

The worst 2 pick that can match a bid at pick 1 are 6 and 7

It gets easier the worse the pick gets but also I don’t think being 10 picks away matters nearly as much at pick 20

My concern isn’t the players at pick 20+. Every club at this point has had a chance to grab them.

It’s the absolute top end talent that go to finals sides when clubs at the bottom desperately need them.

Imagine North with Naicos or Darcy right now. They would be significantly better.

The cost to acquire a top 5 pick is usually astronomical. The saving grace is that if the player somehow falls to you at 5. You could trade back to 10 for some assets and still get your kid.

 

[Elixuh]

My concern isn’t the players at pick 20+. Every club at this point has had a chance to grab them.

It’s the absolute top end talent that go to finals sides when clubs at the bottom desperately need them.

Imagine North with Naicos or Darcy right now. They would be significantly better.

The cost to acquire a top 5 pick is usually astronomical. The saving grace is that if the player somehow falls to you at 5. You could trade back to 10 for some assets and still get your kid.

Every team gets a pick under 20 every season.

 

[stavro#4]

Every team gets a pick under 20 every season.

How many clubs would have had access to either Ashcroft in a live draft?

They likely go pick 1 or 2.

If you had to stump up for a top 5 pick - it likely robs you of your chance to get Levi if you grabbed will. Or your are trading the likes of Bailey and Rayner to accomplish it.

Clubs at the bottom are compensated by getting elite talent or substantial draft assets to do so.

Marshall and Fletcher back into the open pool aswell

See how it becomes fairer?

 

[Elixuh]

How many clubs would have had access to either Ashcroft in a live draft?

They likely go pick 1 or 2.

If you had to stump up for a top 5 pick - it likely robs you of your chance to get Levi if you grabbed will. Or your are trading the likes of Bailey and Rayner to accomplish it.

Clubs at the bottom are compensated by getting elite talent or substantial draft assets to do so.

Marshall and Fletcher back into the open pool aswell

See how it becomes fairer?

Will was 2 and Levi was 5 in a live draft.

How did Adelaide go from bottom to top without any of these RORTS. Weird huh.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Will was 2 and Levi was 5 in a live draft.

How did Adelaide go from bottom to top without any of these RORTS. Weird huh.

Helps when they screw us for their best player or close to it

 

[stavro#4]

Will was 2 and Levi was 5 in a live draft.

How did Adelaide go from bottom to top without any of these RORTS. Weird huh.

They weren’t live picks. They slid due to clubs not bidding using pick 1s.

If you can’t remove your bias from the conversation, why are you having it?

If you had to pay fair price you likely get 1 not both and not all 4 including Marshall + Fletcher. You also likely lose key pieces to your 2024 flag side.

There would be very little fans across the AFL who actually want the father son gone or even academies.

People want fair price to acquire. A pick within 5 is the fairest method. A players draft band is pretty accurate in the first round over a month out from the draft.

 

[Blackas87]

Simple solution.

Matching club must have a pick within 18 picks (1 round worthy) at the start of the draft, not including other matching bids pushing their pick back.

If a club matches a bid in the 1st round and move up the draft 10 spots, they then owe 10 1st round spots in future drafts by moving to the back of the 1st round.

Hypothetically 2024 Brisbane won the flag and had pick 18, they matched Levi Ashcroft at pick 5. They moved up 13 1st round draft positions. They now owe 13 1st round draft positions in 2025 and beyond.

2025 Brisbane currently have pick 16, they would move back to pick 18 giving up 2 spots and they still owe 11 1st round spots in future drafts.

If in 2026 Brisbane drop down to the bottom 4 and have pick 4, that pick would get moved back to pick 15. If they don’t drop then they keep owing picks into 2027.

Brisbane though have another academy player in the 2025 draft Daniel Annable. They have already moved back to pick 18 (still owing 11 picks) they can match the big for Annable and owe more selections into the future, but if they exceed owing 20 selections they lose their 1st round pick completely the following draft 2026.

No trying add a stupid points system up, simply you move up in the draft to match a bid, you then move back in the draft in following years.

 

[stavro#4]

Simple solution.

Matching club must have a pick within 18 picks (1 round worthy) at the start of the draft, not including other matching bids pushing their pick back.

If a club matches a bid in the 1st round and move up the draft 10 spots, they then owe 10 1st round spots in future drafts by moving to the back of the 1st round.

Hypothetically 2024 Brisbane won the flag and had pick 18, they matched Levi Ashcroft at pick 5. They moved up 13 1st round draft positions. They now owe 13 1st round draft positions in 2025 and beyond.

2025 Brisbane currently have pick 16, they would move back to pick 18 giving up 2 spots and they still owe 11 1st round spots in future drafts.

If in 2026 Brisbane drop down to the bottom 4 and have pick 4, that pick would get moved back to pick 15. If they don’t drop then they keep owing picks into 2027.

Brisbane though have another academy player in the 2025 draft Daniel Annable. They have already moved back to pick 18 (still owing 11 picks) they can match the big for Annable and owe more selections into the future, but if they exceed owing 20 selections they lose their 1st round pick completely the following draft 2026.

No trying add a stupid points system up, simply you move up in the draft to match a bid, you then move back in the draft in following years.

And how does this work if a club has multiple firsts?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Simple solution.

Matching club must have a pick within 18 picks (1 round worthy) at the start of the draft, not including other matching bids pushing their pick back.

If a club matches a bid in the 1st round and move up the draft 10 spots, they then owe 10 1st round spots in future drafts by moving to the back of the 1st round.

Hypothetically 2024 Brisbane won the flag and had pick 18, they matched Levi Ashcroft at pick 5. They moved up 13 1st round draft positions. They now owe 13 1st round draft positions in 2025 and beyond.

2025 Brisbane currently have pick 16, they would move back to pick 18 giving up 2 spots and they still owe 11 1st round spots in future drafts.

If in 2026 Brisbane drop down to the bottom 4 and have pick 4, that pick would get moved back to pick 15. If they don’t drop then they keep owing picks into 2027.

Brisbane though have another academy player in the 2025 draft Daniel Annable. They have already moved back to pick 18 (still owing 11 picks) they can match the big for Annable and owe more selections into the future, but if they exceed owing 20 selections they lose their 1st round pick completely the following draft 2026.

No trying add a stupid points system up, simply you move up in the draft to match a bid, you then move back in the draft in following years.

I actually like this idea, bit more outside the box but it's fair. I would make it capping out at owing 15 positions before losing it though so a bit less than the 20 you have stated. This actually does work and it's fair.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

And how does this work if a club has multiple firsts?

First one would move down, second one would stay, it's very easy and it's fairly fair actually

 

[stavro#4]

First one would move down, second one would stay, it's very easy and it's fairly fair actually

Well not really. If you trade out your future first and then bid your punishing another club

 

[giantsully]

Mate, other than recent father son luck - we haven't had the so called "advantages" that everyone keeps harping on about. Our academy players were all middle of the road at the time of drafting. This includes Andrews, Hipwood, Payne, Coleman, Reville etc. Our first genuine academy top 10 would be Annable this year - none before.

I don't understand how you can claim "largest advantages" when all we have is moderate results to show for from academy perspective. Please don't trot out Ashcrofts, Fletcher - that's our lick of the father son ice cream after 20 years of nothing when every other club was benefiting from it.

Same with the Suns - all this griping about their Academy harvest, would a single Academy player be in their best 10 players? There are a lot more GC players that have won flags playing for Vic clubs than they have playing for the Suns.

 

[Blackas87]

And how does this work if a club has multiple firsts?

First pick can move up by matching, 2nd pick can move back making up the difference

 

[Blackas87]

Well not really. If you trade out your future first and then bid your punishing another club

If you trade your future 1st you then can’t use it to owe draft spots.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Well not really. If you trade out your future first and then bid your punishing another club

It would come off the next first you have bare in mind you can trade 2 years now. Maybe if you have traded your F1 you lose the next first, that would work too. It's fine, I'd much rather this than the arbitrary 'must have a pick between x and y'

 

[stavro#4]

It would come off the next first you have bare in mind you can trade 2 years now. Maybe if you have traded your F1 you lose the next first, that would work too. It's fine, I'd much rather this than the arbitrary 'must have a pick between x and y'

Why is this better? It doesn’t really do anything about the issue of paying a fair price.

Top 4 clubs still acquire the talent and might lose pick 18 in future.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Why is this better? It doesn’t really do anything about the issue of paying a fair price.

Top 4 clubs still acquire the talent and might lose pick 18 in future.

No club regardless of their system stays up forever, that losing a first could be losing a top 5 pick. Wasn't long ago Brisbane were bottom 5.

 

[Bostonian]

Mate, other than recent father son luck - we haven't had the so called "advantages" that everyone keeps harping on about. Our academy players were all middle of the road at the time of drafting. This includes Andrews, Hipwood, Payne, Coleman, Reville etc. Our first genuine academy top 10 would be Annable this year - none before.

I don't understand how you can claim "largest advantages" when all we have is moderate results to show for from academy perspective. Please don't trot out Ashcrofts, Fletcher - that's our lick of the father son ice cream after 20 years of nothing when every other club was benefiting from it.

It's and easy claim as no other clubs have the advantage of FS, NGA and an academy.

Just because it's not bared much fruit yet doesn't mean it won't. Thus you have the largest advantages compared to everything he else bar Sydney.

 

[Bostonian]

Aren't they? I've heard of it a few times.

Which clubs told non FS/NGA to tell other clubs not to bother to pick them?

I'm not aware of any Vic players who categorically told other Vic clubs not to draft them.

 

[mpal6]

It's and easy claim as no other clubs have the advantage of FS, NGA and an academy.

Just because it's not bared much fruit yet doesn't mean it won't. Thus you have the largest advantages compared to everything he else bar Sydney.

Sorry, we don't have NGAs. We have Father Son and Academy.

NGA is essentially setup for clubs who don't have academy setup. Father Son is equal to all.

We are on par with the rest in terms of benefits, there is no secret squirrel going on here giving us the "largest advantage".

 

[stavro#4]

No club regardless of their system stays up forever, that losing a first could be losing a top 5 pick. Wasn't long ago Brisbane were bottom 5.

It’s not just about a club staying up.

It’s about the bottom clubs not getting access to the adequate talent. Which is the issue with the mentioned pick slide proposal.

It’s fair to all clubs if you have to acquire a pick within 5. Because it ensures a value is paid to acquire the talent and if not possible - then that player is eligible to be drafted by the bottom clubs.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

It’s not just about a club staying up.

It’s about the bottom clubs not getting access to the adequate talent. Which is the issue with the mentioned pick slide proposal.

It’s fair to all clubs if you have to acquire a pick within 5. Because it ensures a value is paid to acquire the talent and if not possible - then that player is eligible to be drafted by the bottom clubs.

It's impractical to have to get a selection within 5, if it's 18 then I'll be more onboard but everyone whinged when that was basically the system the first time round. They are over complicating a very simple thing which is so typical of the AFL.