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

[Pure_Ownage]

It’s not too far off though.
It’s why the two picks to match than tax the deficit is the best way to go. Sure you may have your natural selection 10 but how are you going to get 11 in? Because picks 23 and 24 aren’t going to get you pick 11 for instance.
Two pick matching makes the value of higher picks more valuable

It's a fair way off. In some drafts you cant even trade picks 5 and 8 for 2 let alone picks outside the top 10. Matching a top 3 bid should essentially wipe every usable pick you have in that year (and maybe more). The points curve doesnt reflect the real world cost of picks in the top 5 vs picks outside 10 and that needs to change.

 

[Mat Mann]

The most simple thing to do is get rid of the 10% discount as that naturally steepens the point curve.

It's a simple step, yes, another blight on the AFL's recent decision-making that they left it in there. Although I think we're all certain that they have achieved their desired aim of strengthening the northern clubs.

I would aim to see the bidding price reflect the real-world trading scenarios for the pick. We need to see 1st round picks used to match and stop the 1st round stretching out as it is

 

[mpal6]

The discount change will help but unless you ban teams (after all if you have 7 picks and only 5 spots you cant carry the last 2 picks to the draft so why should you then be able to trade in and use more than 5 picks to match bids on the night when you cant do the same pre draft its a stupid loophole) from a) trading out their r1 and then matching a bid and b) ban them from trading in picks once the draft opens that they dont have list spots for, then you aren't serious about fixing the problem.

Bolded bit will never go away in my opinion - it enables AFL to sell the draft event over 2 days to media like Kayo, Fox etc and live pick trading is a key element that needs to be kept in the mix to boost viewership.

They should bring back the restriction to only one 1 pick match in first round if the club played finals. It's idiotic they removed it at the end of 2023 (once they saw Suns draft pipeline and to ensure Dimma's parachute move is backstopped with more elite talent adds).

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

It's a simple step, yes, another blight on the AFL's recent decision-making that they left it in there. Although I think we're all certain that they have achieved their desired aim of strengthening the northern clubs.

I would aim to see the bidding price reflect the real-world trading scenarios for the pick. We need to see 1st round picks used to match and stop the 1st round stretching out as it is

Just make it no matching of any kind in the first round.

Then if the Suns want uwland that bad, or Collingwood want Daicos, or Carlton want Walker they can trade for them.

Make it easy to match after the first round to balance it out. I don't think anyone has an issue with matching later in the draft right?

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Just make it no matching of any kind in the first round.

Then if the Suns want uwland that bad, or Collingwood want Daicos, or Carlton want Walker they can trade for them.

Make it easy to match after the first round to balance it out. I don't think anyone has an issue with matching later in the draft right?

If you go down this route then scrap the whole thing.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

It's a fair way off. In some drafts you cant even trade picks 5 and 8 for 2 let alone picks outside the top 10. Matching a top 3 bid should essentially wipe every usable pick you have in that year (and maybe more). The points curve doesnt reflect the real world cost of picks in the top 5 vs picks outside 10 and that needs to change.

In some drafts you can give up second rounders for first rounders to.
if it’s a two pick system than pick 3 would wipe your entire natural draft hand unless you have selections within 4 spots (draft pick 7)

The 10 and 11 example ignores how a side gets that second first rounder. They have to lose a very good player to do that.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Also if you want to really fix the curve than a 10% tax is probably the easiest way.

 

[eastfreo75]

Just make it no matching of any kind in the first round.

Then if the Suns want uwland that bad, or Collingwood want Daicos, or Carlton want Walker they can trade for them.

Make it easy to match after the first round to balance it out. I don't think anyone has an issue with matching later in the draft right?

I think the real issue is top 10 picks and especially 1-5 picks.

Maybe, they need to be within 4 picks of a top 10 bid ie Bid at 1 needs a top 5 pick

 

[eastfreo75]

Also if you want to really fix the curve than a 10% tax is probably the easiest way.

100%.

It's always a discount on a discount.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

10% discount become, first pick used for bid matching has to be within 18 draft selections of where the bid comes, 1st eligible player max use 3 total picks and 2nd and subsequent player, you can only use 2 picks to match.

The problem is that Gold Coast were able to use the value of three and four picks for every trade.

It shouldn't matter that Gold Coast carried nine open list spots or whatever it was into the draft night. The issue is when you effectively force "the market" (representing the 17 other teams) to affectively "accept" a 1-for-4 trade, which Gold Coast get when matching a bid for 4 picks.

But the market doesn't value 4 later picks, because the average team of the other 17 teams aren't carrying 4 open list spots, especially 4 open list spots once the first 16 players have already been added to empty list spots, so late picks are meaningless to them. But the bidding system allows it, because it forces the market to accept the value of having 4 later picks. It's ridiculous.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The points system is an utter failure. What started as perhaps a reasonable idea has been shown to be totally ineffective.

The draft would be far better served if it was ditched entirely. Sometimes you just have to acknowledge that something decent in theory doesn’t work in practice and throw it out.

It’s added endless layers of complexity and still gets it wrong.

The AFL has installed a $1b supercomputer to solve a simple maths problem, and not solved it.

Dead simple and a far better system:

You simply have to match any bid with a single pick within the next x picks.

For picks 1-10 it’s <=5 picks. For picks 10-20 <=7 picks. For picks 20-30 it’s <=10 picks. After that it’s <=20 picks.

Or adjust that however you see fit.

That’s it. You’re still getting a discount but it’s far more reasonable. You know the kids are coming up, if you want them that bad then get the picks to pay for them.

It works fine. Even with Gold Coast’s insane haul this year (four in the first round), they would’ve done it easily. Or perhaps they can’t get Petracca, which is totally reasonable.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Bolded bit will never go away in my opinion - it enables AFL to sell the draft event over 2 days to media like Kayo, Fox etc and live pick trading is a key element that needs to be kept in the mix to boost viewership.

They should bring back the restriction to only one 1 pick match in first round if the club played finals. It's idiotic they removed it at the end of 2023 (once they saw Suns draft pipeline and to ensure Dimma's parachute move is backstopped with more elite talent adds).

It's not justifiable though regardless of ratings. You cannot have one rule before the draft (otherwise they would let teams carry all 7 rounds of picks to the draft even though they don't have the list spots for them) and then another on the night its contradictory. If you want to do this (and I get the issue of list lodgement dates) then clubs wanting to live trade in another 4 picks on the night (in excess of list spots) should be forced to delist 4 players and risk someone taking them as DFAs. That would put some risk in and make clubs think twice at the moment they can simply game the system to match bids cheap.

I agree with you the one match rule is the right call and its a joke they removed it.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

In some drafts you can give up second rounders for first rounders to.
if it’s a two pick system than pick 3 would wipe your entire natural draft hand unless you have selections within 4 spots (draft pick 7)

The 10 and 11 example ignores how a side gets that second first rounder. They have to lose a very good player to do that.

This year was unusual bc the draft pool was so crap.
In most years you can never trade late as for high top 10 picks the data shows the market to be a higher price.

The second para is irrelevant. You either make it so teams have to trade a player for that r1 which is the pain it should be (for eg Brisbane should have had to trade a top end player to get the points for annable, gc should have to trade a key player not fringe dross) or you make it over 2-3 years.for eg if it costs 9 and 10 to match and you cant get 10 you give up your future 1st and if thats not top 10 then you are forced to give up the ffr1. So if you want to match 4 r1s you give up 4 years of round 1s. That will make teams think twice about matching all bids.

 

[Freomaniac]

We’ve produced more talent in our academy than most of the other 13 clubs with NGA’s (Owens, Windhager and Cam McKenzie in particular and now Fincher), but the pool we have to pick from is minute compared to the enormous pools the 4 northern clubs have to pick from, given those 4 clubs have what I imagine is about half a state or more to choose from each, with no restrictions on the nationality or background of those they can add to their academy from those huge zones.

We on the other hand have a vastly smaller zone, and can only pick those who are indigenous, were born overseas, or who’s parent or parents were born overseas- and only from certain countries.

So we and the other 13 NGA clubs have these huge restrictions on who they can choose from their zone, while the 4 northern clubs have huge zones, with no restrictions.

The AFL abolished zones when they brought in the draft, but now 4 clubs effectively have an unrestricted zone like clubs had pre-draft, while also having full access to the draft.

It’s a farce. At least from an equalisation POV.

A bonanza if you barrack for one of the 4 northern state teams though.

See this cuts both ways to be fair.

If I recall correctly, Around the time of the 1971 grand final between the hawks and Saints, wasn't a certain part of the south or south east was fought between both saints and hawks?

The hawks got that South East zone. It was bad at the time then that zone became good because of a rapid population growth.

I mean you think the NSW and Queensland clubs have a Bonanza in those areas.

No one complained about the local Queensland zones back in 1987.

 

[Freomaniac]

Editing posts is a crime on this website. Sad!

Always respected your posts.

One of my favourite female singers of all time is Gloria Estefan. One of my favourite songs is cuts both ways.

People are moaning about the NSW and Queensland academy system.

West coast eagles and Brisbane entered this league back in 1987.

West Coast is based in WA, a massive Aussie rules state. The WAFL was a good local league for west coast eagles to develop 19 to 21 year olds in 1987 that eventually became 25 to 27 year Olds in that 1992 flag 6 years later.

Brisbane is based in Queensland. So Rugby league and rugby union was the main sport.

The QAFL or the local state league wast great back in 1987. It was basically young Queensland locals and ex Victorians that were in that league .

 

[threenewpadlocks]

See this cuts both ways to be fair.

If I recall correctly, Around the time of the 1971 grand final between the hawks and Saints, wasn't a certain part of the south or south east was fought between both saints and hawks?

The hawks got that South East zone. It was bad at the time then that zone became good because of a rapid population growth.

I mean you think the NSW and Queensland clubs have a Bonanza in those areas.

No one complained about the local Queensland zones back in 1987.

Generally speaking throughout the process of the country zones the Mornington Peninsula was considered a country zone, not a metro one, even though it was urbanising rapidly - by the 60s/70s it was very much suburban with local footy leagues considered a suburban league and not a country one. Obviously, suburban zones were different to country ones (ie country zones were only a post-WWII phenomenon and suburban recruiting around the 'natural' Melbourne suburbs that the name of your team represents went back to VFA days). Therefore, there's a view that the Mornington Peninsula is a natural part of the Saints' natural Bayside suburban zone, where the likes of Leigh Matthews (Chelsea) developed his footy in the 60s when by the 60s Chelsea was very much a suburb of Melbourne and not a country town.

The irritant of it though was that zones were always rubbery. While technically a player was 'zoned' to only one club, you could take any of the club (or clubs) they played for, the league they played in, the house that they lived in, or the school that they went to, and you'd have four different geographies, so you could pretend that one applied and the other didn't when you were intent of recruiting your players. Hawks nipped at the heels of Footscray's Gippsland zone at its western border for ages, for instance, which makes the idea that they were simultaneously eligible to recruit the Leigh Matthews of the world on Bayside suburban area a bit rich for the other teams.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

I'm all for growing the game in Queensland etc but at the same time it's denying teams at the bottom of the ladder access to the best talent.

How are the bottom teams ever meant to climb up the ladder if the b2b premiers get access to a top 5 talent every year? Or Gold Coast who won a final and played in a semi final get about 5 players ranked in the top 15?

It's a joke and needs to change

 

[Elixuh]

I'm all for growing the game in Queensland etc but at the same time it's denying teams at the bottom of the ladder access to the best talent.

How are the bottom teams ever meant to climb up the ladder if the b2b premiers get access to a top 5 talent every year? Or Gold Coast who won a final and played in a semi final get about 5 players ranked in the top 15?

It's a joke and needs to change

Except Brisbane has never had a top 5 academy player. We’ve had Annable (pick 6, 2025) and Hipwood (pick 14, 2015). Every other academy pick has been 25+, most in the late 30s to 60s.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

This year was unusual bc the draft pool was so crap.
In most years you can never trade late as for high top 10 picks the data shows the market to be a higher price.

The second para is irrelevant. You either make it so teams have to trade a player for that r1 which is the pain it should be (for eg Brisbane should have had to trade a top end player to get the points for annable, gc should have to trade a key player not fringe dross) or you make it over 2-3 years.for eg if it costs 9 and 10 to match and you cant get 10 you give up your future 1st and if thats not top 10 then you are forced to give up the ffr1. So if you want to match 4 r1s you give up 4 years of round 1s. That will make teams think twice about matching all bids.

Last year was a great draft and look what we gave up for pick 3.

I think you are missing the point. That’s what does happen under a two pick matching system. It’s makes teams trade up to be able to match bids.
To get that second first rounder you have to lose a top end player so losing say pick 10 and a top end player to match a bid at 3 is as fair as you’ll get.
Under a two pick matching system we would’ve burned 9 and 11 this year which we got for losing Curnow and TDK.

Edit. To add to the first part. Two picks is the best system to determine the strength of the draft. If you need to get 11 in a strong draft to match it costs a lot, if it’s a weak draft it will be cheaper.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Except Brisbane has never had a top 5 academy player. We’ve had Annable (pick 6, 2025) and Hipwood (pick 14, 2015). Every other academy pick has been 25+, most in the late 30s to 60s.

Academies should be scraped just compromises the draft too much imo

 

[mpal6]

It's not justifiable though regardless of ratings. You cannot have one rule before the draft (otherwise they would let teams carry all 7 rounds of picks to the draft even though they don't have the list spots for them) and then another on the night its contradictory. If you want to do this (and I get the issue of list lodgement dates) then clubs wanting to live trade in another 4 picks on the night (in excess of list spots) should be forced to delist 4 players and risk someone taking them as DFAs. That would put some risk in and make clubs think twice at the moment they can simply game the system to match bids cheap.

I agree with you the one match rule is the right call and its a joke they removed it.

Now AFLPA will have a problem with it. If the clubs have the power to trade players against their will, may be that's a good starting point to restore some parity on what's possible on these discussions.

 

[Mat Mann]

Generally speaking throughout the process of the country zones the Mornington Peninsula was considered a country zone, not a metro one, even though it was urbanising rapidly - by the 60s/70s it was very much suburban with local footy leagues considered a suburban league and not a country one. Obviously, suburban zones were different to country ones (ie country zones were only a post-WWII phenomenon and suburban recruiting around the 'natural' Melbourne suburbs that the name of your team represents went back to VFA days). Therefore, there's a view that the Mornington Peninsula is a natural part of the Saints' natural Bayside suburban zone, where the likes of Leigh Matthews (Chelsea) developed his footy in the 60s when by the 60s Chelsea was very much a suburb of Melbourne and not a country town.

The irritant of it though was that zones were always rubbery. While technically a player was 'zoned' to only one club, you could take any of the club (or clubs) they played for, the league they played in, the house that they lived in, or the school that they went to, and you'd have four different geographies, so you could pretend that one applied and the other didn't when you were intent of recruiting your players. Hawks nipped at the heels of Footscray's Gippsland zone at its western border for ages, for instance, which makes the idea that they were simultaneously eligible to recruit the Leigh Matthews of the world on Bayside suburban area a bit rich for the other teams.

That zone was considered by many to be St Kilda's, so much so that they had players signed that then had to be torn up when the VFL ripped it out of our hands at the last minute

 

[Elixuh]

Academies should be scraped just compromises the draft too much imo

You pine for a return to the good old days, don’t you

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

You pine for a return to the good old days, don’t you

No I want an open draft.

Scrap bidding/ngas but keep the f/s rule the chances of getting a Nick Daicos,Ashcroft etc every year are slim where it doesn't compromise the draft.

 

[The Tilt]

The points system is an utter failure. What started as perhaps a reasonable idea has been shown to be totally ineffective.

The draft would be far better served if it was ditched entirely. Sometimes you just have to acknowledge that something decent in theory doesn’t work in practice and throw it out.

It’s added endless layers of complexity and still gets it wrong.

The AFL has installed a $1b supercomputer to solve a simple maths problem, and not solved it.

Dead simple and a far better system:

You simply have to match any bid with a single pick within the next x picks.

For picks 1-10 it’s <=5 picks. For picks 10-20 <=7 picks. For picks 20-30 it’s <=10 picks. After that it’s <=20 picks.

Why would you scrap the points system, rather than keeping it and introducing a rule like the one bolded on top of it?

Allowing a team to match a bid on pick 1 with pick 6 alone is still a massive discount, meaning the other 17 clubs are getting jibbed. Much better to keep the points system but just require the picks used to match include one within X number of the bid pick. That way the club coughs up pick 6 + a number of other picks to make up the difference.