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

[sr36]

I don't think we should be getting concessions and I also think that other teams shouldn't be getting concessions that then disadvantage us, in a zero sum game like the draft. I don't think anyone has said Freo should get concessions so weird that you would base your argument around that.

I might have gotten you confused with a different poster, as there's been a fair bit of talk about Freo not getting reach arounds. I thought it was a metaphor for concessions, but maybe it was a literal desire for reach arounds?

 

[The Inbetweener]

So it's got nothing to do with the bidding rules and everything to do with stopping the Suns academy from succeeding? There's nothing stopping a club from doing the same thing using the F/S rule if they happen to have three or four highly rated F/S players come through in the same draft class. Look at Brisbane who secured pick 2 (W.Ashcroft) and pick 11 (Fletcher) through their F/S access last year. No one seemed to care that a team who just made a prelim was getting priority access to picks 2 and 11 when their natural first round pick should have been 15. Add in the fact that Brisbane made the GF this year and are going to get another top 3 F/S pick next year (L.Ashcroft). If the Suns had made a prelim this year then they would have only been able to secure pick 3 (Walter) and we would have seen pick 9 (Read) go to Geelong, pick 14 (Rogers) go to Sydney and pick 26 (Graham) go to Adelaide.

Do you see how inconsistent the outrage is? More than willing to criticise northern academy access but very quiet about F/S access. Is it because your club also stands to benefit from the F/S rule? That's selective outrage and just so it's clear, the Suns won't have any F/S picks for at least another 10 years.

It’s certainly not select outrage directed at the Suns, not from me at least. I’ve posted previously that the Lions and Swans double dip both with father sons and academies which I don’t think is fair, and that the Suns and GWS need some form of an academy to make up for the fact they can’t have father sons.

The breaking point though that highlights that the current system can’t be sustained was the fact you had 4 x 1st this year. No club is ever going to have 4 father sons in one season, never mind having 4 in the first round. So it’s not comparable.

The academies set up are obviously working well and that’s great for the game, no problem with them continuing but they need to be modified.

 

[GC2015]

Reckon the latter more than the former. Fix it and the access issue reduces significantly. Academies are no different to F/S, the idea that you get a discount and can use a bunch of crap picks is too much.

Just hold off on any fixes though, we’ve got an expected 1st round f/s coming up.

It's already been stated that removing the 20% discount wouldn't have prevented what happened because the Suns were just 300 points short of doing what they did without the discount. This is because the Suns prepared for this scenario the year before by trading in a lot of future picks. The ability to trade future picks essentially means this is always going to be possible, even if you increase the weight of earlier picks more than later picks. I've seen some suggestions that the club should require a pick in the round that the player is bid on but the logistics of that seem problematic as well.

It's going to require some out of the box thinking to appease those who have criticised but those people should also keep in mind that they are potentially going to get hurt if two highly rated F/S picks come through in the same year like they did for Brisbane last year with pick 2 Ashcroft and pick 12 Fletcher.

Certain Vic clubs and the AFL in general will never have a negative thing to say about the F/S rule. Particularly the Cats Pies Blues and the Dogs

Yet Collingwood and Geelong were reportedly two of the three teams most outspoken about the Suns academy. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

The breaking point though that highlights that the current system can’t be sustained was the fact you had 4 x 1st this year. No club is ever going to have 4 father sons in one season, never mind having 4 in the first round. So it’s not comparable.

The academies set up are obviously working well and that’s great for the game, no problem with them continuing but they need to be modified.

I'm sure prior to this year no one thought 4x first rounders from a northern academy was possible either but here we are. If you were to apply the same rules to F/S access as those in place for the northern academies then Brisbane wouldn't have been able to draft pick 12 Jasper Fletcher as a F/S because they reached a prelim that year. So we do have a real example of how the F/S rules differ from the northern academy access in terms of what happens when multiple high end picks come through in the same draft class. Did anyone seem to care that Brisbane got access to two picks inside the top 12 after making a prelim? Didn't seem like it at the time. What would you say if three first round F/S players happen to come through for the Bulldogs next year?

 

[The Inbetweener]

It's already been stated that removing the 20% discount wouldn't have prevented what happened because the Suns were just 300 points short of doing what they did without the discount. This is because the Suns prepared for this scenario the year before by trading in a lot of future picks. The ability to trade future picks essentially means this is always going to be possible, even if you increase the weight of earlier picks more than later picks. I've seen some suggestions that the club should require a pick in the round that the player is bid on but the logistics of that seem problematic as well.

It's going to require some out of the box thinking to appease those who have criticised but those people should also keep in mind that they are potentially going to get hurt if two highly rated F/S picks come through in the same year like they did for Brisbane last year with pick 2 Ashcroft and pick 12 Fletcher.


Yet Collingwood and Geelong were reportedly two of the three teams most outspoken about the Suns academy. The hypocrisy is unbelievable.


I'm sure prior to this year no one thought 4x first rounders from a northern academy was possible either but here we are. If you were to apply the same rules to F/S access as those in place for the northern academies then Brisbane wouldn't have been able to draft pick 12 Jasper Fletcher as a F/S because they reached a prelim that year. So we do have a real example of how the F/S rules differ from the northern academy access in terms of what happens when multiple high end picks come through in the same draft class. Did anyone seem to care that Brisbane got access to two picks inside the top 12 after making a prelim? Didn't seem like it at the time. What would you say if three first round F/S players happen to come through for the Bulldogs next year?

People carry on about the Bulldogs father sons but the reality is we’ve had 3 1st round father sons in 13 years. You just had 4 in one night. So I reckon the prospect of us having 3 in one season is very unlikely.

 

[Caligo]

People carry on about the Bulldogs father sons but the reality is we’ve had 3 1st round father sons in 13 years. You just had 4 in one night. So I reckon the prospect of us having 3 in one season is very unlikely.

Did you also include your pick 1 academy player in a year you played finals?

Bulldogs fans complaining about this are pretty funny.

 

[GC2015]

People carry on about the Bulldogs father sons but the reality is we’ve had 3 1st round father sons in 13 years. You just had 4 in one night. So I reckon the prospect of us having 3 in one season is very unlikely.

Did you purposely make it 13 years to exclude first rounder Mitch Wallis from 2010? If you're going to include pick #26 Will Graham for the Suns this year then I'm going to include 2010 pick #22 Mitch Wallis who was also taken in the first round. Oh, your club also had NGA access to the best junior in the land back in 2020 and only gave up a few late second rounders + some third rounders to secure JUH. Let's not forget about that one.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Did you also include your pick 1 academy player in a year you played finals?

Bulldogs fans complaining about this are pretty funny.

We were talking about father sons and specifically comparing them to academy picks

 

[The Inbetweener]

Did you purposely make it 13 years to exclude first rounder Mitch Wallis from 2010? If you're going to include pick #26 Will Graham for the Suns this year then I'm going to include 2010 pick #22 Mitch Wallis who was also taken in the first round. Oh, your club also had NGA access to the best junior in the land back in 2020 and only gave up a few late second rounders + some third rounders to secure JUH. Let's not forget about that one.

I included Wallis hence why i said 13 years.

Yeah we did get access to JUH. Then the AFL changed the rules. Just like people are suggesting should happen now after your haul.

 

[Chiz]

We've just seen one of the most highly anticipated draft picks in Harley Reid fall to West Coast, who knocked back offers from multiple teams to trade pick 1. In other seasons there has been no standout no. 1 pick. Clearly the benefits to finishing bottom this season are higher than in other seasons.

A draft auction would help alleviate this discrepancy, and solve a range of other issues. Here is how it could work:

1. At the end of the season, each club is given an allotment of points based on their ladder finishing position, with lower-placed teams given more points.
   • This could be made to align with the points bidding system for F/S and NGA (How the new points bidding system works) - e.g. the bottom-placed club would get the points value of picks 1+19+37+55+73, though there are other ways this could be done.
2. During the trade period, clubs could trade players for points (instead of picks), and could also trade future points for points this season.
   • This would help free up trades where one club does not have the 'right' assets to trade (e.g. club 1 offers a late first-round plus a future first-round pick for a player, but club 2 demands a top 10 pick), or where a player chooses a club who doesn't have picks to trade.
   • Free agency compensation could be made to fit within the points system as well. My personal preference is that compensation is either done away with or otherwise the destination club is required to pay the compensation (below market value).
3. Before the draft, each club nominates the number of picks they intend to take in the draft.
4. On the first night of the draft, the top 10 picks are auctioned to the highest bidder (in terms of points), one-by-one, with a player selected after each pick before the next pick is auctioned.
   • In a season like 2023 with a once-in-a-generation player available, winning the bid for the top pick is likely to be highly competitive, and therefore cost more points than usual. The bottom-placed side is still likely to be in the best position to win the bid, but may choose to save their points to bid on multiple top 10 picks.
   • Because clubs have to nominate the number of picks they intend to take, there would effectively be a 'cap' on how much they could bid for their first pick (that is, there would be a minimum amount of points they must leave in the 'bank' for their other picks).
   • FS/NGA bids could be accommodated, with the destination club able to 'match' the bid (with/without a discount). This system would prevent clubs 'trading up' to effectively manipulate the current bidding system.
5. On the second night of the draft, the auction would continue, but would switch form. Pick 11 would become the 'benchmark' pick and would be assigned a value based on the total pool of points remaining (for example, it may be worth 7% of the remaining pool of points). This pick would be sold to the club with the highest remaining points tally.
   • Having a benchmark pick would help prevent clubs over-bidding on the top 10.
   • The club receiving pick 11 can choose to use the pick or sell it to the highest bidder.
6. Pick 12 would then be sold to the club with the highest remaining points tally, but for marginally less than pick 11 (with the value calculated to ensure the total value of all remaining picks equals the total pool of points remaining). This process continues until all picks have been sold.

Given the amount of pick trading that already occurs, the draft already effectively works like an auction. But this change would make the system much more transparent, prevent the type of draft manipulation we currently see, and create a market where more trades can occur. And it would mean clubs pay fair value for their players when they happen to finish near the bottom in a strong draft (and vice versa).

 

[tigs2010]

Shifter Sheahan could bang on for hours about each players strengths and the draft finishes in January

I do like the idea though.

 

[GC2015]

I included Wallis hence why i said 13 years.

Yeah we did get access to JUH. Then the AFL changed the rules. Just like people are suggesting should happen now after your haul.

Then you've purposely left out 2008 pick #14 Ayce Cordy.

Perhaps we will see a rule change. I just think it's interesting that those who criticise have no issue with the F/S rule (which the Suns can't access for 20+ years) but have a huge issue with the northern academies.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Then you've purposely left out 2008 pick #14 Ayce Cordy.

Perhaps we will see a rule change. I just think it's interesting that those who criticise have no issue with the F/S rule (which the Suns can't access for 20+ years) but have a huge issue with the northern academies.

I’m not sure saying we’ve had 4 in 15 years compared to you having 4 in one night helps you argument, but ok.

The point I’m trying to make is that first round father sons are rarer compared to first round academy picks. Hence the security on the academies.

 

[Caligo]

I’m not sure saying we’ve had 4 in 15 years compared to you having 4 in one night helps you argument, but ok.

The point I’m trying to make is that first round father sons are rarer compared to first round academy picks. Hence the security on the academies.

Since GC entered the league both GC and WB have received about the same number of first rounders in the form of academy/fs picks. Other clubs have 1 or 0. They are the ones who should complain, if anybody should.

1st rounders is roo broad in my opinion though. Top 5 picks are where the real value is.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Since GC entered the league both GC and WB have received about the same number of first rounders in the form of academy/fs picks. Other clubs have 1 or 0. They are the ones who should complain, if anybody should.

1st rounders is roo broad in my opinion though. Top 5 picks are where the real value is.

Im not complaining about them having an academy. They should have one. Just saying given how well the academy is seemingly going, I’d support modifying them as the number of 1st rounders they produce or will produce is only going to increase. A few of the mentions in this thread about capping a certain number of 1st rounders from academies over a period of a few years are good suggestions, and then do the same with father sons.

 

[bzparkes]

Why should the bottom placed team not get guaranteed access to the best junior?

This makes no sense.

I understand in the case of F/S and academy players however Reid was in the open pool. Just because the Vic media majorly over-hyped him all year, doesn't mean there should be a change to the system.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

You are trying to fix something that doesn’t need to be fixed. The best recruiters will navigate all of those supposed issues year to year. The bottom teams should always have first access to the best kids.

The points system is fine for FS and academy, it just needs to be weighted properly and discount removed.

 

[Caligo]

Im not complaining about them having an academy. They should have one. Just saying given how well the academy is seemingly going, I’d support modifying them as the number of 1st rounders they produce or will produce is only going to increase. A few of the mentions in this thread about capping a certain number of 1st rounders from academies over a period of a few years are good suggestions, and then do the same with father sons.

They already have caps. If GC actually start making finals those caps will get pretty harsh.

Nobody else is getting a pick 1 NGA academy player though. That is just you. And you didn't even introduce JUH to footy, like my club did with their NGA they weren't allowed to draft.

AFL is a funny thing.

 

[Chiz]

Why should the bottom placed team not get guaranteed access to the best junior?

This makes no sense.

I understand in the case of F/S and academy players however Reid was in the open pool. Just because the Vic media majorly over-hyped him all year, doesn't mean there should be a change to the system.

What about the reverse situation where you could throw a blanket over the top 10? There are no guarantees in any case, but clearly there are weak years and strong years. In a weak year the bottom side could choose to cash in for say picks 4 and 5 instead of pick 1 - this is not something they can easily do in the current system.

Also, I used Reid as an example of something this system would fix. In my post you'll see I referred to a number of other issues that would be resolved.

 

[Chiz]

You are trying to fix something that doesn’t need to be fixed. The best recruiters will navigate all of those supposed issues year to year. The bottom teams should always have first access to the best kids.

The bottom sides would have first access to the best kids as they will have the most points. If top sides want access they will have to trade points in, which means trading players (or future points) out.

Also, I don't buy your argument that the system doesn't need fixing - recruiters navigate around these issues by engaging in 8-club trades with players, picks, future picks etc. Arguably we could navigate our way in a barter economy, but having a currency certainly facilitates trade.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

The bottom sides would have first access to the best kids as they will have the most points. If top sides want access they will have to trade points in, which means trading players (or future points) out.

Also, I don't buy your argument that the system doesn't need fixing - recruiters navigate around these issues by engaging in 8-club trades with players, picks, future picks etc. Arguably we could navigate our way in a barter economy, but having a currency certainly facilitates trade.

So in your system the bottom sides aren’t guaranteed the top kids. There would be nothing stopping Collingwood from trading their way to Harley Reid. Yes it would be costly but they could do it without going through the wooden spooner. Teams would bid more than 3000 points (which is what pick 1 is currently worth), so you’d be forcing rebuilding sides to pay overs for talent they’d otherwise just have access to.

It’s a nice idea but wouldn’t work.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Not a shot at the OP (who has clearly put alot of thought into this) but unsure what problem this solves. An example of coming up with an interesting solution, then trying to match it with a problem, rather then the other way around. Would over complicate things.

Also, while Reid is a good no. 1 pick I think the term once in a generation is overused. Every 2-3 years there is a standout no.1 pick. Eagles don't have some incredible advantage being able to pick him. The difference between him and the next best is much less in reality then the media would have you believe.

 

[The Inbetweener]

They already have caps. If GC actually start making finals those caps will get pretty harsh.

Nobody else is getting a pick 1 NGA academy player though. That is just you. And you didn't even introduce JUH to footy, like my club did with their NGA they weren't allowed to draft.

AFL is a funny thing.

So because we drafted JUH no changes can be made to the northern academies ever? Interesting argument. AFL realised the rules weren’t right and they changed it, just like people are suggesting happen now.

 

[Caligo]

So because we drafted JUH no changes can be made to the northern academies ever? Interesting argument. AFL realised the rules weren’t right and they changed it, just like people are suggesting happen now.

No. That is not my argument. My argument is that a supporter of a club who has benefited incredibly from f/s and nga looks quite hypocritical complaining about the afl trying to build growth in the north.

 

[The Inbetweener]

No. That is not my argument. My argument is that a supporter of a club who has benefited incredibly from f/s and nga looks quite hypocritical complaining about the afl trying to build growth in the north.

So if a fan of another team made the same argument you wouldn’t have a problem?

I’ve stated several times I think there needs to be academies, particularly for GWS and the Suns, but I support others views here that there should be a cap on the amount of 1st rounders taken over a certain time period. Make it the same for father sons too.

 

[Caligo]

So if a fan of another team made the same argument you wouldn’t have a problem?

Pretty much. It is just the hypocrisy I am calling out.