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

[LukeParkerno1]

I think just a bit of tinkering like those things you said and maybe lifting the points value of top 5 picks. We don't need to turn everything on its head, just a bit of clearing it up.

The big one for me is I don't like seeing father sons of premiership heroes being taken by academies instead. Wouldn't be hard to clear up.

To be fair those F/S's do have the option of nominating for a F/S or the academy does give them a choice either way.

Honestly the big one is the discount, don't take the whole 20% in a year but lets say that goes down to 10%. Take out this top 40 rule for Victorian NGA, just say 1st round. If they are in the first round they are open, after that the Vic club can attain them.

The points value needs a massive overhaul, 3rd and late second rounders are worth far too much, top 5 picks should be worth double.

 

[sr36]

I think just a bit of tinkering like those things you said and maybe lifting the points value of top 5 picks. We don't need to turn everything on its head, just a bit of clearing it up.

The big one for me is I don't like seeing father sons of premiership heroes being taken by academies instead. Wouldn't be hard to clear up.

I just think that first round selections should have to be matched with points from first round picks. Go into deficit and it rolls into the future and you can't match another pick until all points are paid off. The whole trading down to match with junk is the real issue.

 

[tombomb]

Seems like most of these issues could be resolved immediately by removing the discount and increasing the points value of higher picks.

Academies and F+S still exist, just have to pay something resembling fair value.

 

[rye]

Seems like most of these issues could be resolved immediately by removing the discount and increasing the points value of higher picks.

Academies and F+S still exist, just have to pay something resembling fair value.

dont forget fremantle needs some form of 'reach around' as well

 

[sr36]

Seems like most of these issues could be resolved immediately by removing the discount and increasing the points value of higher picks.

Academies and F+S still exist, just have to pay something resembling fair value.

Agree. The issue is the price - not the academies.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I just think that first round selections should have to be matched with points from first round picks. Go into deficit and it rolls into the future and you can't match another pick until all points are paid off. The whole trading down to match with junk is the real issue.

This, and F/S and NGA though, just make a blanket rue. If you want a top tier talent you pay market value not 4 junk picks in the 30's for a top 2 pick! That's the issue. At least one selection has to come from the round a bid is made, so in this GC situation they'd have to hold their first to get Walter, and they'd have to trade their future 1 for a first rounder this year to get Read. They would not be able to match the others unless a bid was in the second round or below.

Yes I realise plenty from my club don't agree on this and frankly don't care, do not see what the big deal with paying fair market value. It would have been the same when you guys had Daicos you'd have to have kept your first to match.

 

[Hook461123]

A team coming off a premiership would only be allowed to match 1 first round pick max under the current system. Still a nice boost for a flag winner if it’s earlier than #18, but not really a big haul. Of course, they could match any number of bids from the second round on I guess. (Which should be allowed for the NGAs too IMO).

The Suns just got lucky that they were sh*t this year (and every year for the last 12), so they didn’t have to worry about limited bid matching. This year was very much a one-off event.

Its not a one off though, its a trend. Your academy guys get to train with the afl team, go to meetings, live like an afl player well before other draft picks. Its a huge advantage on development. 11 of the 22 U16 All Australian team was from one of the 4 Northern Academies. So if the rules dont change it could possibly be an even worse draft in 2025. You could improve and finish 9th and still have access to 5 first rounders that year.

BTW there was 1 WA kid (back pocket). Not associated with any academy.

Not saying do away with the Northen academies but other clubs and states need some help at times too. WA football needs a big kick in the arse.

 

[sr36]

This, and F/S and NGA though, just make a blanket rue. If you want a top tier talent you pay market value not 4 junk picks in the 30's for a top 2 pick! That's the issue. At least one selection has to come from the round a bid is made, so in this GC situation they'd have to hold their first to get Walter, and they'd have to trade their future 1 for a first rounder this year to get Read. They would not be able to match the others unless a bid was in the second round or below.

Yes I realise plenty from my club don't agree on this and frankly don't care, do not see what the big deal with paying fair market value. It would have been the same when you guys had Daicos you'd have to have kept your first to match.

They still would have been able to up their points by trading their pick 4 for multiple first round picks, but under the current system they were able to trade pick 4 for enough points to match pick 3,8,14, AND get two future firsts in as well. It's just absurd.

 

[sr36]

Its not a one off though, its a trend. Your academy guys get to train with the afl team, go to meetings, live like an afl player well before other draft picks. Its a huge advantage on development. 11 of the 22 U16 All Australian team was from one of the 4 Northern Academies. So if the rules dont change it could possibly be an even worse draft in 2025. You could improve and finish 9th and still have access to 5 first rounders that year.

The thing is that if it is a one off, you ay as well scrap the academies. If the academies are worth while, this sort of talent should become increasingly common.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I think it's actually a pretty easy fix, but you need to be clear on the problems you are trying to solve rather than just tossing out the whole system for the heck of it.

Problem No. 1 - Clubs not paying fair value to match bids
The source of this problem is the points scale not being reflective of the true value of higher picks. I know some don't like the discount, but I don't think it's much of an issue if picks are priced appropriately in the 1st place. I've heard suggestions like requiring clubs to have a pick in a certain range of a bid or needing a pick in the same round but that is just a more complicated way of solving the same problem. The system itself is not the issue.
Solution - Change points allocation with a higher weighting on higher picks

Problem No.2 - High volume of bids limiting access to top talent in the 1st Round
Northern Academies are more of a problem here then father-son. In the last 10 years 7 father-sons have attracted 1st round bids compared to 26 academy players (20 Northern, 6 NGA). I think if you cap 1st round bids that would solve this problem. Having 2-3 bids in the first round doesn't really compromise the draft, the issue is when you get 6-8 like this year. That said, the Goldcoast has never actually had any 1st round academy picks before compared to Sydney and GWS who have had loads so I think an annual cap would be unfair. A rolling cap would be better.
Solution - Limit 1st round bid matching (of any kind) to 4 of over a rolling 4-year period

Problem No.3 - Inequality of Northern Academy Access vs NGA System
Here is where you need to use your head. Different clubs have different advantages, and the northern clubs have their own unique challenges. You can’t simplify it and say everyone should be treated the same. Treating everyone the same despite their differences is a good way to guarantee unfairness. Also, for 20 years the Lions and Swans played AFL and 1-2 guys from those states were getting drafted per year. That number has skyrocketed since the introduction of the academy system which is great for the game. The guys these northern academies are developing are probably doing other sports if not for the investment of those clubs. All that needs to be weighed up. NGA is not the same thing. Most guys in the NGA system would be playing AFL anyway, however, I do understand the argument that clubs don’t want to be investing in that program, with next to no access to the players when they come through
Solution - Allow NGA bid matching after the 1st round of the draft

Do those 3 things plus get rid of RFA and stop tying compensation picks to ladder position (should be mid 1st round, end 1st round, end 2nd round, end 3rd round) and the system looks much healthier.

Great post, I like all your solutions, problem 1 is by and away the biggest issue. There's lots of solutions around the place and simply making it theoretically impossible to pay for a top pick without having the points from a top pick solves so many issues. Would anyone really have cared if GC got their 4 guys but had to use pick 4 and a future 1st to get it done? Doubt it

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think it's actually a pretty easy fix, but you need to be clear on the problems you are trying to solve rather than just tossing out the whole system for the heck of it.

Problem No. 1 - Clubs not paying fair value to match bids
The source of this problem is the points scale not being reflective of the true value of higher picks. I know some don't like the discount, but I don't think it's much of an issue if picks are priced appropriately in the 1st place. I've heard suggestions like requiring clubs to have a pick in a certain range of a bid or needing a pick in the same round but that is just a more complicated way of solving the same problem. The system itself is not the issue.
Solution - Change points allocation with a higher weighting on higher picks

Problem No.2 - High volume of bids limiting access to top talent in the 1st Round
Northern Academies are more of a problem here then father-son. In the last 10 years 7 father-sons have attracted 1st round bids compared to 26 academy players (20 Northern, 6 NGA). I think if you cap 1st round bids that would solve this problem. Having 2-3 bids in the first round doesn't really compromise the draft, the issue is when you get 6-8 like this year. That said, the Goldcoast has never actually had any 1st round academy picks before compared to Sydney and GWS who have had loads so I think an annual cap would be unfair. A rolling cap would be better.
Solution - Limit 1st round bid matching (of any kind) to 4 of over a rolling 4-year period

Problem No.3 - Inequality of Northern Academy Access vs NGA System
Here is where you need to use your head. Different clubs have different advantages, and the northern clubs have their own unique challenges. You can’t simplify it and say everyone should be treated the same. Treating everyone the same despite their differences is a good way to guarantee unfairness. Also, for 20 years the Lions and Swans played AFL and 1-2 guys from those states were getting drafted per year. That number has skyrocketed since the introduction of the academy system which is great for the game. The guys these northern academies are developing are probably doing other sports if not for the investment of those clubs. All that needs to be weighed up. NGA is not the same thing. Most guys in the NGA system would be playing AFL anyway, however, I do understand the argument that clubs don’t want to be investing in that program, with next to no access to the players when they come through
Solution - Allow NGA bid matching after the 1st round of the draft

Do those 3 things plus get rid of RFA and stop tying compensation picks to ladder position (should be mid 1st round, end 1st round, end 2nd round, end 3rd round) and the system looks much healthier.

Not against it so long as the father son is the same as your Point 3 solution. All for the first 2 solutions though, although i'd have a 5 year cap per team (lets say max 5 in any given period over those 5 years). Don't see how fair it is to handbrake the academies but then have your Daicos ones going high, it's one way or the other take your pick, and boy you'd want this one not to come in before next season just saying.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

They still would have been able to up their points by trading their pick 4 for multiple first round picks, but under the current system they were able to trade pick 4 for enough points to match pick 3,8,14, AND get two future firsts in as well. It's just absurd.

Yep the scale of these picks are what should be changed. Double the value of the top 10 picks and clubs are less able to match with junk picks in the 30's. Personally 1 pick HAS to be in the round. So lets use the GC example

Walter bid at pick 3 (GC can match with pick 4)
Read bid at 8 (GC have to TRADE their future 1 or their future 2 to get back into the first round)

Then they have to wait and see with their Rogers bids where they come. They are still getting 2 of the top 10 talents in the draft.

 

[tombomb]

I just think that first round selections should have to be matched with points from first round picks. Go into deficit and it rolls into the future and you can't match another pick until all points are paid off. The whole trading down to match with junk is the real issue.

I think there has to be a balance between fairness and not making it really difficult for teams to match bids.

Gold Coast were effectively able to turn pick 4 into pick 3 + five more first round picks. I get they had already traded in some second and third round picks last year, but that is effectively what they were able to do.

Anyone who thinks that is a fair system is not even worth discussing the issue with.

If they had had to trade out their first pick next year as well (rather than adding two more) to get the points required, the whole thing would be a non issue.

Removing the discount and increasing the points value of higher picks would resolve most of this immediately. I don't think there needs to be rules around where the picks are that are used to match.

 

[Caligo]

I just think that first round selections should have to be matched with points from first round picks. Go into deficit and it rolls into the future and you can't match another pick until all points are paid off. The whole trading down to match with junk is the real issue.

I would really like to see some version of that. Maybe your top pick needs to be within 20 of the pick you are bidding on or something. And if you don't have it then your appropriate pick from the next year is taken. Some version of that.

It feels like most of us are in general agreement honestly.

 

[Farang83150]

Posted on the WC board a moment ago...

AFL Draft 2023: Clubs considered protest against league’s ‘broken’ academy system
More than half of the AFL’s clubs considered a draft protest as pressure builds on the league to review its controversial academy system.

Clubs discussed not bidding on any of Gold Coast’s four academy stars in Monday night’s national draft as part of a protest against the league’s “broken” academy system.

Recruiting officials from Victorian clubs spoke about letting the Suns’ guns slide through to the late part of the draft as a way to thumb their noses at the academy concessions to northern clubs and rail against the top-40 cap on Victorian clubs.

But the plot fell over as North Melbourne made clear it would bid on powerhouse forward Jed Walter at pick three after receiving a generous concession package from the AFL in September.

Tensions about the academy system – including the four northern academies and 14 next generation academies – has reached fever pitch in recent days as clubs vented their various frustrations.

In particular, West Coast is furious it missed out on next generation academy product Lance Collard due to the cap restricting 14 clubs — outside of Queensland and New South Wales — from taking players inside the first 40 picks.

The Eagles have helped develop Collard but sat back with their hands tied as St Kilda swooped on the skilful forward at pick 28.
Essendon pinched defender Luamon Lual (Western Bulldogs academy), Collingwood took backman Tew Jiath (Hawthorn) and Geelong nabbed ruckman Mitch Edwards (Fremantle), inside the first 40 picks, making “a mockery” of the NGA system, according to one list boss.

But the four northern clubs have free reign on their local talent as Gold Coast swooped on four jets inside the first 25 picks — Walter, ruckman Ethan Read, livewire Jake Rogers and ballwinner Will Graham — leaving rebuilding West Coast in their wake.

West Coast list chief Rohan O’Brien said the AFL had to act.
“It is really frustrating when you have done a lot of work with those (NGA) players (who are drafted elsewhere),” O’Brien said.
“It is time for a real discussion around what it might look like in the future.”

 

[Hook461123]

The thing is that if it is a one off, you ay as well scrap the academies. If the academies are worth while, this sort of talent should become increasingly common.

Which is pretty much what I just said. Its becoming more and more of an advantage as time goes on.

I think there has to be a balance between fairness and not making it really difficult for teams to match bids.

Gold Coast were effectively able to turn pick 4 into pick 3 + five more first round picks. I get they had already traded in some second and third round picks last year, but that is effectively what they were able to do.

Anyone who thinks that is a fair system is not even worth discussing the issue with.

If they had had to trade out their first pick next year as well (rather than adding two more) to get the points required, the whole thing would be a non issue.

Removing the discount and increasing the points value of higher picks would resolve most of this immediately. I don't think there needs to be rules around where the picks are that are used to match.

That will help to some extent. But its also the development of the kids that is a huge advantage as well. Why shouldn't it be the same rules for all? I get its a developing game blah blah blah. But Swans / Lions have been in the league 30 years. How does WC having the same access to their NGA hinder the development of footy in QLD/NSW?

 

[tombomb]

Which is pretty much what I just said. Its becoming more and more of an advantage as time goes on.

That will help to some extent. But its also the development of the kids that is a huge advantage as well. Why shouldn't it be the same rules for all? I get its a developing game blah blah blah. But Swans / Lions have been in the league 30 years. How does WC having the same access to their NGA hinder the development of footy in QLD/NSW?

Because West Coast, if they want to, can specifically target WA talent through trading and drafting.

 

[STPer18]

Posted on the WC board a moment ago...

AFL Draft 2023: Clubs considered protest against league’s ‘broken’ academy system
More than half of the AFL’s clubs considered a draft protest as pressure builds on the league to review its controversial academy system.

Clubs discussed not bidding on any of Gold Coast’s four academy stars in Monday night’s national draft as part of a protest against the league’s “broken” academy system.

Recruiting officials from Victorian clubs spoke about letting the Suns’ guns slide through to the late part of the draft as a way to thumb their noses at the academy concessions to northern clubs and rail against the top-40 cap on Victorian clubs.

But the plot fell over as North Melbourne made clear it would bid on powerhouse forward Jed Walter at pick three after receiving a generous concession package from the AFL in September.

Tensions about the academy system – including the four northern academies and 14 next generation academies – has reached fever pitch in recent days as clubs vented their various frustrations.

In particular, West Coast is furious it missed out on next generation academy product Lance Collard due to the cap restricting 14 clubs — outside of Queensland and New South Wales — from taking players inside the first 40 picks.

The Eagles have helped develop Collard but sat back with their hands tied as St Kilda swooped on the skilful forward at pick 28.
Essendon pinched defender Luamon Lual (Western Bulldogs academy), Collingwood took backman Tew Jiath (Hawthorn) and Geelong nabbed ruckman Mitch Edwards (Fremantle), inside the first 40 picks, making “a mockery” of the NGA system, according to one list boss.

But the four northern clubs have free reign on their local talent as Gold Coast swooped on four jets inside the first 25 picks — Walter, ruckman Ethan Read, livewire Jake Rogers and ballwinner Will Graham — leaving rebuilding West Coast in their wake.

West Coast list chief Rohan O’Brien said the AFL had to act.
“It is really frustrating when you have done a lot of work with those (NGA) players (who are drafted elsewhere),” O’Brien said.
“It is time for a real discussion around what it might look like in the future.”

Would've been kinda funny. Dammit North!

 

[tigs2010]

Would've been kinda funny. Dammit North!

North are not in a position to embarrass the AFL.

 

[RonnieRaven]

What? You are saying West Coast size and off field commercial opportunities is why Freo hasn't drafted WA guns? Like Fyfe.

Jeez. Every year it seems Freo has better picks but it's NOT Freo mismanagement that fails to land gun WA kids? It's because the Eagles are bigger?

Really? That is total dribble.
Freo could have drafted Jack Darling. Didn't. Is that the Eagles fault?

Elliot Yeo wanted a trade to Freo. Freo weren't interested. Lol. And that was the Eagles fault not Freo mismanagement?

On the trade front Freo don't seem to have any difficulty attracting players. They trade in more returning WA players than the Eagles have. L Jackson being the best by far.

You have a strange take on history.

Calm the farm purely talking about retaining talent.
Unless your top 3 player for freo outside opportunities are limited
We can look at wa talent to leave each club to back up my statement if you want

 

[bzparkes]

Because West Coast, if they want to, can specifically target WA talent through trading and drafting.

Are other clubs not allowed to target players via trading and drafting, or something?

What does your post even mean?

 

[marcmurphy3]

Not against it so long as the father son is the same as your Point 3 solution. All for the first 2 solutions though, although i'd have a 5 year cap per team (lets say max 5 in any given period over those 5 years). Don't see how fair it is to handbrake the academies but then have your Daicos ones going high, it's one way or the other take your pick, and boy you'd want this one not to come in before next season just saying.

I'd have the father sons on the same level as the Northern Academies so bids can be matched in round 1. The limit of 4 first rounders over 4 years would apply to them too though unlikely to be relevant as nobody gets that many father sons. Might impact Brisbane and Sydney who get fathersons and academies if you combine the number.

So long as clubs are forced to pay appropriately (as per solution one) FS is not really a problem. Its not comprising the draft to the same level as the academies because the volume isn't there (7 1st round bids in 10 years so less then 1 per year) hence the proposed solution on academy volumes.

Also, father son is really just a pot luck and doesn't favour anyone over anyone else going forward since sons now will come from dads playing late 90s onwards when all teams existed. With the exception of GWS and Goldcoast (who have academies).

Only NGA from round 2 onwards as per point 3.

No issue with the 5 year cap. I just picked the 4 in 4 years as an arbitrary number.

And yes definately hope they wait till 2025. They probably should as picks can be traded a year in advance but no guarantees with the AFL. Haven't had a father son worthy of a pick in the 1st 2 rounds ever until now so could be awful timing depending on what happens.

 

[bzparkes]

Calm the farm purely talking about retaining talent.
Unless your top 3 player for freo outside opportunities are limited
We can look at wa talent to leave each club to back up my statement if you want

It's not just WA talent, it's any talent.

Players don't generally leave WCE unless de-listed.

But that has nothing to do with Freo, other than them needing to lift their game in regards to player retention.

It's the same salary cap and they play at the same ground.

WCE has no 'special' advantages over Freo, despite what you may believe.

In fact, one could argue that Freo have been far better at trading in players, or at least more active in doing so.

 

[sr36]

Calm the farm purely talking about retaining talent.
Unless your top 3 player for freo outside opportunities are limited
We can look at wa talent to leave each club to back up my statement if you want

Good clubs retain talent - regardless of which state the club is in. Freo just haven't got their shit sorted at the moment. Should change from purple to beige as at the moment it's a boring beige club where players don't feel the pull to stay.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Great post, I like all your solutions, problem 1 is by and away the biggest issue. There's lots of solutions around the place and simply making it theoretically impossible to pay for a top pick without having the points from a top pick solves so many issues. Would anyone really have cared if GC got their 4 guys but had to use pick 4 and a future 1st to get it done? Doubt it

You're right. I think if GC wiped themself from the 1st round of the next 2 drafts it would have been more acceptable while still a good deal for them (4 top picks for 2 top picks). You want bid matching to be attainable and appealing so no issue with clubs doing well out of it. You just need to get the balance right so it's 60/40 in their favour not 100.

Same as Brisbane last year. No issue that a top team could get FS Ashcroft at pick 2 but to be able to grab Fletcher and especially Dunkley as well tells you the balance is off.