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

[Elixuh]

I feel it's going to be hard to have a genuine sensible discussion about this, because it's just going to be seen as sour grapes from opposition supporters about "Brisbane getting too strong".

We’ve gotten strong off the back of FS, not the academy.

Our academy players yesterday were…

Andrews - project player pick 60

Reville - wasn’t even drafted in his draft year (cat b rookie)

Gallop - wasn’t even invited to the combine, pick 41

Marshall - pick 25

Hardly mesmerising is it?

 

[TigerTime88]

Getting another top 5 kid this year as a part of an academy seems a bit rich after dominating with two father sons and winning flags. I don't mind the academy stuff, but feel as though the top 4 should be locked out. Needs to be some balance as on the same token the Lions were losing players years ago and the comp is better having two strong South East Qld teams.

 

[mpal6]

We’ve gotten strong off the back of FS, not the academy.

Our academy players yesterday were…

Andrews - project player pick 60

Reville - wasn’t even drafted in his draft year (cat b rookie)

Gallop - wasn’t even invited to the combine, pick 41

Marshall - pick 25

Hardly mesmerising is it?

But but but you had the "privilege" of drafting Blake Coleman as a first round pick (pick 24) in 2020 ! you had that "privilege" ! the fact that he's useless, delisted and doesn't even get picked up by any other club does not matter at all.

You liars keep lying about no first round picks but there is a delisted Blake Freaking Coleman ! Got ya !!

 

[mpal6]

Getting another top 5 kid this year as a part of an academy seems a bit rich after dominating with two father sons and winning flags. I don't mind the academy stuff, but feel as though the top 4 should be locked out. Needs to be some balance as on the same token the Lions were losing players years ago and the comp is better having two strong South East Qld teams.

I think the rage is being channeled at the wrong target in academy here as far as Lions are concerned. We have been sloppy in terms of talent identification and usually get somewhat mid-tier or project players like KColeman and Reville. The fact that our earliest pick in academy so far is Hipwood speaks for itself - how Hipwood gets rated by other club supporters and media is well known. Annable is an unicorn for us, not the norm in the last 15 years of academy existence.

If you're arguing Lions got super lucky with Ashcrofts x2 and Fletcher - now that'll be the right target to rage at. But I watch in amusement the sudden awakening amongst all supporters about father/son when previously there was no problems when all victorian clubs were getting the benefit. It was considered fair but once we got 3 bites of cherry consecutively, it's considered too much.

I'd even argue if it was Geelong or one of the big clubs in Melbourne getting all these father sons, there'll be less noise and will be buried under "tradition", "romance" and "AFL's unique rule should be kept" etc narrative.

I don't mind the change to be honest, I'd save on the sudden outrage everyone's feeling when one interstate club managed to hit the jackpot at higher frequency.

 

[My_Username]

That time has been and gone, Queensland has had the highest net interstate migration numbers for a good 5 years. Destination state for lifestyle reasons.

Were they all AFL quality players?

Because that's what we're talking about here.

 

[kuhni]

Were they all AFL quality players?

Because that's what we're talking about here.

The AFL player is still at their core a regular Australian and follow the same trends. Neale, Dunkley, Gunston all had lifestyle reasons.

 

[kuhni]

I think the rage is being channeled at the wrong target in academy here as far as Lions are concerned. We have been sloppy in terms of talent identification and usually get somewhat mid-tier or project players like KColeman and Reville. The fact that our earliest pick in academy so far is Hipwood speaks for itself - how Hipwood gets rated by other club supporters and media is well known. Annable is an unicorn for us, not the norm in the last 15 years of academy existence.

If you're arguing Lions got super lucky with Ashcrofts x2 and Fletcher - now that'll be the right target to rage at. But I watch in amusement the sudden awakening amongst all supporters about father/son when previously there was no problems when all victorian clubs were getting the benefit. It was considered fair but once we got 3 bites of cherry consecutively, it's considered too much.

I'd even argue if it was Geelong or one of the big clubs in Melbourne getting all these father sons, there'll be less noise and will be buried under "tradition", "romance" and "AFL's unique rule should be kept" etc narrative.

I don't mind the change to be honest, I'd save on the sudden outrage everyone's feeling when one interstate club managed to hit the jackpot at higher frequency.

Andrews, Hipwood, Marshall, Coleman, Gallop there are some good squad builders in there. Then obviously father sons turns an already great recruitment team (Bailey, Morris, Wilmot, Lohmann all great value picks), into something unstoppable.

 

[Vankri]

I think the rage is being channeled at the wrong target in academy here as far as Lions are concerned. We have been sloppy in terms of talent identification and usually get somewhat mid-tier or project players like KColeman and Reville. The fact that our earliest pick in academy so far is Hipwood speaks for itself - how Hipwood gets rated by other club supporters and media is well known. Annable is an unicorn for us, not the norm in the last 15 years of academy existence.

If you're arguing Lions got super lucky with Ashcrofts x2 and Fletcher - now that'll be the right target to rage at. But I watch in amusement the sudden awakening amongst all supporters about father/son when previously there was no problems when all victorian clubs were getting the benefit. It was considered fair but once we got 3 bites of cherry consecutively, it's considered too much.

I'd even argue if it was Geelong or one of the big clubs in Melbourne getting all these father sons, there'll be less noise and will be buried under "tradition", "romance" and "AFL's unique rule should be kept" etc narrative.

I don't mind the change to be honest, I'd save on the sudden outrage everyone's feeling when one interstate club managed to hit the jackpot at higher frequency.

Classic straw man. There has been debate and disgruntlement about father/sons for a lot longer than the Ashcrofts have been on draft radars. Were you not following footy in 2021-2023 with the talk about Nick Daicos? How about the Geelong dynasty debates with GAJ and Hawkins?

Not to mention there has been ongoing debate about whether f/s and academies are comparables (genetic lottery vs blanket regional lock), and in yours and Sydney’s case you essentially have a double dip so the debate is clear cut.

 

[Lore]

Classic straw man. There has been debate and disgruntlement about father/sons for a lot longer than the Ashcrofts have been on draft radars. Were you not following footy in 2021-2023 with the talk about Nick Daicos? How about the Geelong dynasty debates with GAJ and Hawkins?

Not to mention there has been ongoing debate about whether f/s and academies are comparables (genetic lottery vs blanket regional lock), and in yours and Sydney’s case you essentially have a double dip so the debate is clear cut.

Plus all the priority picks of the early naughties that bore fruit during the early years of GC&GWS expansion.

What we have now is child's play compared to that.

 

[My_Username]

The AFL player is still at their core a regular Australian and follow the same trends. Neale, Dunkley, Gunston all had lifestyle reasons.

So when Freo fans discuss Warner 'coming home' to WA, you actually think it's more likely he'll want to move to the lifestyle of the gold coast?

 

[Dogflogger]

I think the rage is being channeled at the wrong target in academy here as far as Lions are concerned. We have been sloppy in terms of talent identification and usually get somewhat mid-tier or project players like KColeman and Reville. The fact that our earliest pick in academy so far is Hipwood speaks for itself - how Hipwood gets rated by other club supporters and media is well known. Annable is an unicorn for us, not the norm in the last 15 years of academy existence.

If you're arguing Lions got super lucky with Ashcrofts x2 and Fletcher - now that'll be the right target to rage at. But I watch in amusement the sudden awakening amongst all supporters about father/son when previously there was no problems when all victorian clubs were getting the benefit. It was considered fair but once we got 3 bites of cherry consecutively, it's considered too much.

I'd even argue if it was Geelong or one of the big clubs in Melbourne getting all these father sons, there'll be less noise and will be buried under "tradition", "romance" and "AFL's unique rule should be kept" etc narrative.

I don't mind the change to be honest, I'd save on the sudden outrage everyone's feeling when one interstate club managed to hit the jackpot at higher frequency.

I think you'll find St kilda fans have been complaining since Hawkins got drafted for nothing, that was like 5 rule tweaks ago.

 

[mpal6]

Classic straw man. There has been debate and disgruntlement about father/sons for a lot longer than the Ashcrofts have been on draft radars. Were you not following footy in 2021-2023 with the talk about Nick Daicos? How about the Geelong dynasty debates with GAJ and Hawkins?

Not to mention there has been ongoing debate about whether f/s and academies are comparables (genetic lottery vs blanket regional lock), and in yours and Sydney’s case you essentially have a double dip so the debate is clear cut.

It's not a classic strawman when you see 3 changes in one go trying to find a solution for a problem that's lasted for years now. Usually when things don't look even or fair, there'll be a tweak from AFL and see how it plays out in the following year. This is the first year where they went
1. DVI tweak
2. First round lockout
3. Top 5 lockout maybe
4. No lockout but you'll be told how we are going to make it super hard to match a top 5 bid

Daicos went 4, Darcy went 2 - didn't see any kneejerk "we need to fix it asap". Jamarra went 1 and they banned NGA out of top 20, poor melbourne got robbed off Mac Andrew in that 2 years and they flipped it back all the way to the other end when Essendon had Kako incoming.

So save me the strawman narrative when clearly it's been kneejerk from AFLHQ one way or another.

 

[danster168]

to be fair, the damage has been done. it's got nothing to do with Brisbane specifically. it's Brisbane, Pies and Dogs. 3 teams that would be just average teams without the f/s rule. Not their fault but the damage has been done, unless other teams are going to be given multiple top 5 picks in the next 10 years of drafts to make up for the inequality then the competition will continue to be unfair until the likes of Ashcroft x 2, Daicos x 2, Sam Darcy and Croft etc. retire.

 

[sydney_gws]

The afl just needs to crack down harder on that including fining agents and de registering them so that doesnt keep happening.

Also need interviews with draftees between clubs, players to include a HR person from the AFL. If they mention not wanting to leave home, have to sit out the draft until they are ready (allow some with sad family problems like a sick parent to be treated differently).

 

[Vankri]

It's not a classic strawman when you see 3 changes in one go trying to find a solution for a problem that's lasted for years now. Usually when things don't look even or fair, there'll be a tweak from AFL and see how it plays out in the following year. This is the first year where they went
1. DVI tweak
2. First round lockout
3. Top 5 lockout maybe
4. No lockout but you'll be told how we are going to make it super hard to match a top 5 bid

Daicos went 4, Darcy went 2 - didn't see any kneejerk "we need to fix it asap". Jamarra went 1 and they banned NGA out of top 20, poor melbourne got robbed off Mac Andrew in that 2 years and they flipped it back all the way to the other end when Essendon had Kako incoming.

So save me the strawman narrative when clearly it's been kneejerk from AFLHQ one way or another.

You are making arguments against yourself. It clearly isn’t the first year they’re trying tweaks because exactly as you said that happened already with the JUH / Andrew debacle.

NGAa were in fact already AFL’s answer to the academies being overpowered in one direction. So this latest tweaking come in a long line of AFL history trying to make up rules on top of other rules on top of other rules to fix the mess they created themselves in the first place.

I still laugh at the disingenuous takes of people saying f/s = academies. They may both be unfair and result in skewing the comp but one of them is random and not assigned to specific clubs and the other one isn’t. It’s akin to one rolling the dice and seeing which club gets the lucky dip, versus rigging the dice so it’s always the same four clubs getting them. Get rid of both if you want, but don’t pretend they’re the same.

Regardless, I and others here in this very forum have been saying for years that the academies will be a huge problem if left unchecked. The AFL didn’t care and now they’re scrambling because the intake from QLD academies in the last few and the next few years is so strong that it’s going to make them look silly, at a time where Brisbane has gone b2b in flags and b2b2b in GFs, have benefited from star f/s, and GC are on the up and both have zero issues with player retention and in fact are taking in so many great players.

Ultimately it’s what the AFL wanted so they’ll see it as a tick, but they’ve got to make changes so it doesn’t end up with egg on their faces with a disgruntled rest of the comp.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Watch them complicate what is a very very easy solution and in true AFL fashion we know they will butcher it.

Honestly it's not hard you have 3 inequalities in the NGA, academy and father son. All you need to do is FIX the index and make clubs pay what is 'market value'. That is it, none of this 4 picks equal 1 top 5 rubbish. The idea of the maximum 2 picks for a first round talent is good. It means on basic terms you need a similar deal to what Carlton gave WCE for a top 3 pick last season.

For goodness sakes just streamline it, it's not hard. Everyone goes home annoyed, that means it's pretty fair. So for instance next year Carlton will require two top 12 picks to match a bid for their likely no1 pick F/S.

Now I'm absolutely certain they will butcher this up

 

[Stamos]

Watch them complicate what is a very very easy solution and in true AFL fashion we know they will butcher it.

Honestly it's not hard you have 3 inequalities in the NGA, academy and father son. All you need to do is FIX the index and make clubs pay what is 'market value'. That is it, none of this 4 picks equal 1 top 5 rubbish. The idea of the maximum 2 picks for a first round talent is good. It means on basic terms you need a similar deal to what Carlton gave WCE for a top 3 pick last season.

For goodness sakes just streamline it, it's not hard. Everyone goes home annoyed, that means it's pretty fair. So for instance next year Carlton will require two top 12 picks to match a bid for their likely no1 pick F/S.

Now I'm absolutely certain they will butcher this up

You don't need any other restrictions.
If the DVI is set correctly, that fixes everything.

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Watch them complicate what is a very very easy solution and in true AFL fashion we know they will butcher it.

Honestly it's not hard you have 3 inequalities in the NGA, academy and father son. All you need to do is FIX the index and make clubs pay what is 'market value'. That is it, none of this 4 picks equal 1 top 5 rubbish. The idea of the maximum 2 picks for a first round talent is good. It means on basic terms you need a similar deal to what Carlton gave WCE for a top 3 pick last season.

For goodness sakes just streamline it, it's not hard. Everyone goes home annoyed, that means it's pretty fair. So for instance next year Carlton will require two top 12 picks to match a bid for their likely no1 pick F/S.

Now I'm absolutely certain they will butcher this up

Even the most basic rule should be. You can only take to the draft picks for the list spots you have. If you have 3 list spots free you can only bring 3 draft picks with you. The rest get forfeited before draft day. It will kill the plan Brisbane have of using 5 draft picks to pick up Annable for example pretty quickly

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You don't need any other restrictions.
If the DVI is set correctly, that fixes everything.

That's the problem the AFL have butchered the DVI already. It hasn't gone nearly far enough. It should have been set based on last years trade. That's what it should cost to get a top 3 pick. That's the minimum, work from there. Again this isn't hard, but watch the AFL screw it up nothing is surer

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Even the most basic rule should be. You can only take to the draft picks for the list spots you have. If you have 3 list spots free you can only bring 3 draft picks with you. The rest get forfeited before draft day. It will kill the plan Brisbane have of using 5 draft picks to pick up Annable for example pretty quickly

Plus you cannot 'live trade' more list selections, I mean of all the rorts this has been the laughable worst one. So we have 3 list spots but somehow at 7.01pm on draft night we have 8 list spots? How in the blue moon is that allowed. Jus no, you have 3, that's it!

 

[Lach72]

They’ve made such a hash of it with exceptions everywhere, WA clubs paying the WAFC to support and developers players in WA and getting no benefit.

I actually wonder whether an actual zone for each club based on participation and population that can then be developed by each club would be better.

The AFL can adjust it as population etc changes

1 pre-listed pick per year coming from academy and father sons, and it can be rolled over if you don’t have anyone suitable.

 

[Stamos]

That's the problem the AFL have butchered the DVI already. It hasn't gone nearly far enough. It should have been set based on last years trade. That's what it should cost to get a top 3 pick. That's the minimum, work from there. Again this isn't hard, but watch the AFL screw it up nothing is surer

You can't base a system from a single trade.
What Carlton paid to get Jagga Smith is not necessarily the price to get any pick 3.

The change to the DVI for this year is massive.
It may well not be perfect, but it's a huge improvement, and should be played out for a few years before it's determined if it should be further tweaked.

 

[Stamos]

Plus you cannot 'live trade' more list selections, I mean of all the rorts this has been the laughable worst one. So we have 3 list spots but somehow at 7.01pm on draft night we have 8 list spots? How in the blue moon is that allowed. Jus no, you have 3, that's it!

Given that you can trade for future picks, putting those sorts of restrictions on live trading goes against the liquidity that everyone wants.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

You can't base a system from a single trade.
What Carlton paid to get Jagga Smith is not necessarily the price to get any pick 3.

The change to the DVI for this year is massive.
It may well not be perfect, but it's a huge improvement, and should be played out for a few years before it's determined if it should be further tweaked.

You can because that's what the market sets as fair, and frankly it was unders from WCE so we are giving the matching clubs a benefit there.

This is not hard

1. DVI to increase 50% for top 10 picks
2. You can only use list positions for matching, that's it none of this rorting of opening 10 list spots when you have 3 spare spots. You want 5 picks, you get rid of two more players.

By doing no1 you force clubs to pay close to market value anyway. It's fair

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Given that you can trade for future picks, putting those sorts of restrictions on live trading goes against the liquidity that everyone wants.

No one is putting restrictions on future picks, but in the current draft you can ONLY play with the list positions you have free. That is it. So if you have 5, you can play with 5 picks, the other picks become void