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

[danster168]

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.

Dude, this isn't the place for a bulldogs supporter. Your club has been given the most handouts of any other club. Hunter, Cordy, Darcy, Liberatore, West, Wallis, Croft and not to mention getting gifted pick Ugle-hagan under an outdated system that got changed because of it.

How many afl calibre players have the dees had? 1 in 25 years.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Dude, this isn't the place for a bulldogs supporter. Your club has been given the most handouts of any other club. Hunter, Cordy, Darcy, Liberatore, West, Wallis, Croft and not to mention getting gifted pick Ugle-hagan under an outdated system that got changed because of it.

How many afl calibre players have the dees had? 1 in 25 years.

Mate I was comparing first round father sons vs first round academy picks.

 

[danster168]

Mate I was comparing first round father sons vs first round academy picks.

Yeah, but what's the difference? Many clubs don't get anything. The dees could've had Mac Andrew from Gold Coast but of course they changed the rules after the bulldogs got gifted JUH. The reality is, the bulldogs have been so gifted from the system that it's ruined the comp for about 10-15 years. It's not the bulldogs' fault, it's just the system. Changing the rules now, doesn't make it fair as the damage has been done.

Melbourne gets 1 father son that's afl standard every 20 years. Meanwhile teams like Dogs, Coll and Brisbane basically build their lists around them.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Yeah, but what's the difference? Many clubs don't get anything. The dees could've had Mac Andrew from Gold Coast but of course they changed the rules after the bulldogs got gifted JUH. The reality is, the bulldogs have been so gifted from the system that it's ruined the comp for about 10-15 years. It's not the bulldogs' fault, it's just the system. Changing the rules now, doesn't make it fair as the damage has been done.

Melbourne gets 1 father son that's afl standard every 20 years. Meanwhile teams like Dogs, Coll and Brisbane basically build their lists around them.

The original poster asked why there wasn’t outrage with Daicos as a father son. I attempted to point out that 1st round father sons are less frequent that 1st round academy picks. Dogs, who people point out have had a lot of luck with it, have had 4 1sts in 13 years, and I was comparing that to the Suns having 4 in one night to demonstrate why people think the rules should change as the academies.

 

[Caligo]

Yeah, but what's the difference? Many clubs don't get anything. The dees could've had Mac Andrew from Gold Coast but of course they changed the rules after the bulldogs got gifted JUH. The reality is, the bulldogs have been so gifted from the system that it's ruined the comp for about 10-15 years. It's not the bulldogs' fault, it's just the system. Changing the rules now, doesn't make it fair as the damage has been done.

Melbourne gets 1 father son that's afl standard every 20 years. Meanwhile teams like Dogs, Coll and Brisbane basically build their lists around them.

Geelong too not so long ago.

None of those clubs get to complain about GC.

 

[mrposhman]

The original poster asked why there wasn’t outrage with Daicos as a father son. I attempted to point out that 1st round father sons are less frequent that 1st round academy picks. Dogs, who people point out have had a lot of luck with it, have had 4 1sts in 13 years, and I was comparing that to the Suns having 4 in one night to demonstrate why people think the rules should change as the academies.

In that same 13 years, the Tigers have recruited Patrick Naish and Derk Eggmelese-Smith.

You've done way better than most clubs out of the F/S / Academy system.

 

[Cleric]

I think there is good news for some here.
The Crows have a potential top 10 Father Son pick next year, so it's pretty set that the AFL are going to change the rules around FS.

 

[ohmygewd]

Revalue the DVI so that there is a decent seperation between picks 1-10 and then the rest of the top 18 with another decent gap between end of 1st round to 2nd round ect ect. This way it should make it near impossible to use a bunch of 3rd round picks to bid players in the the top 10.
Get rid of discounts and recouping points so the amount of picks you've used to match a bid are utilised with no compenation so if pick 1 is 3000pts and you only have picks totalling 3100 points, you don't recover back the excess 100points.

You can still have your F/S and academies even NGA's but each club will need to use the correct amount of picks depending on when th bid is picked.

Restricting Academy/NGA/FS bids in the first round is ridicolous IMO and very knee jerk to a scenario that GC were fortunate to exploit and plan ahead just as teams in the past - what needs to be address is the slide of the pick value but clubs have to share the blame here as they don't always make teams with tied players, pay for market value for example, no use calling out Collingwood for picking up Nick Daicos at pick 4 if the three clubs above didn't pick him.

Question: Are these Northern Academies like junior clubs teams or they like NGA academies whereby the club provides assistences in areas of clinics, S&C facilities, coaching etc etc but don't actually play as a club in junior comps like Colts or Coates league teams?

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

The academy system clearly works as a development pathway. Anyone calling for it to be scrapped is confusing that with how players become eligible to select and paying fair value. the thread was setup to discuss that.
So what are the fundamental problems to solve? If all players were available to all clubs equally depending on initially ladder position and then final draft order, why doesn’t that work? What are the reasons that players leave clubs? Surely identifying and solving for those problems is the way forward. I ignore things like development and success as these are somewhat controllable items. So what are the disadvantages that are embedded and are they permanent or timebound? Really interested to hear people’s views on those items.
On fair value I think that’s much simpler.
1. Revisit the points allocation with updated data for more recent drafts. Also remove points value post round 3.
2. Bid matches - no discount priority access is enough advantage
3. Bid matches - no more than 2 picks to match. Means especially early picks can’t be matched with junk
There are obviously other things that could be added or improvements to my suggestions but i think those are easy and quick wins for 2025

I think these are good ideas to force changes while keeping it simple (which seems a prerogative of the AFL).

Given how picks of each round move so much, I'd go a step further and remove all points values after pick 50 and players bid on after pick 40 can be added without needing to use a pick for them (you need a difference between last bid spot and picks worth points or you wouldnt be able to match a bid at like 35 through 40).

Add in a tweak to the points values of top 10 picks in particular and you start getting to a fair spot for actually paying for these kids

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

No thanks.

This system would be open to manipulation and rigging from the more powerful and resourced clubs (I also am firmly against the idea of clubs trading first round picks for money)

Also the whole draft/academy points system is convoluted enough as it is.

 

[Chiz]

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.

So why shouldn't Collingwood be able to trade their way to Harley Reid? Keep in mind they would probably need to trade in around 4,000 points to be able to compete with the bottom side - for comparison, the Jeremy Cameron trade was worth 1,777 points, so you're talking about trading out 2 Jeremy Cameron's and then some - but if they are willing to do that, then why not?

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

So why shouldn't Collingwood be able to trade their way to Harley Reid? Keep in mind they would probably need to trade in around 4,000 points to be able to compete with the bottom side - for comparison, the Jeremy Cameron trade was worth 1,777 points, so you're talking about trading out 2 Jeremy Cameron's and then some - but if they are willing to do that, then why not?

The top side can trade their way to pick 1 but they need to go through the wooden spooner to do so.

Your idea goes against equalisation. We may as well not have any equalisation policies if it is possible for the premier to throw all of their assets at the best kid in the country and the bottom team either has to mortgage their own future to match or not take him at all.

 

[Chiz]

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.

I would list the following problems that this system solves:
1. Facilitating trades when one team doesn't have the 'right' assets (e.g. player is worth around pick 10, but destination club's first pick is 20).
2. Trading up to higher picks to ensure FS/NGA bidding system is paid with lower picks (essentially draft manipulation).
3. Free agency compensation link to a club's draft position. Not discussed in OP, but take the Ben McKay compo - if he was offered slightly less it would have been pick 19 (948 points) instead of pick 3 (2234 points). If compensation was determined by points it could at least be on a continuous scale.
4. FS/NGA/FA discounts/compensation are essentially socialised between all clubs, but pushes clubs down the draft. E.g. in 2021 Gold Coast's pick 3 become pick 5 due to 2 FS selections in the top 4 - they paid more than other clubs for the FS discounts.
5. The value of trades for future picks are uncertain - e.g. a future first round pick could be pick 1 (3000 points) or pick 18 (985 points).
6. Strong drafts and weak drafts between years - it's a big advantage finishing towards the bottom in a strong draft than in a weak draft. Under the proposed system, pick 1 could be auctioned off to the bottom side for say only 2000 points in a weak draft, allowing the bottom side to bid on another top 10 pick.

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.

Potentially - with points we would at least see what clubs were willing to pay for Reid. I suspect it would be ~4000 points, but I could be completely wrong.

 

[Chiz]

No thanks.

This system would be open to manipulation and rigging from the more powerful and resourced clubs (I also am firmly against the idea of clubs trading first round picks for money)

Also the whole draft/academy points system is convoluted enough as it is.

Care to explain how the system would be open to manipulation from the powerful clubs? There is no money involved in the auction.

The existing convolution in the current system would actually be largely resolved with what I've proposed.

 

[Chiz]

The top side can trade their way to pick 1 but they need to go through the wooden spooner to do so.

Right, so you are essentially saying that the wooden spooner is entitled to pick 1. And it's just bad luck if the top player in the draft happens to be just a 'good' player rather than a 'great' player.

Your idea goes against equalisation. We may as well not have any equalisation policies if it is possible for the premier to throw all of their assets at the best kid in the country and the bottom team either has to mortgage their own future to match or not take him at all.

On the contrary - it actually supports equalisation more than the current system. As noted in the OP, the points would be allocated to sides according to their finishing position - if you use the current points used for FS/NGA bids and the current allocation of picks, the bottom side would have 4647 points compared to 1726 for the premier. The bottom side isn't going to be competing with the premier for the top pick, they'll be competing with other sides in the bottom four.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I think these are good ideas to force changes while keeping it simple (which seems a prerogative of the AFL).

Given how picks of each round move so much, I'd go a step further and remove all points values after pick 50 and players bid on after pick 40 can be added without needing to use a pick for them (you need a difference between last bid spot and picks worth points or you wouldnt be able to match a bid at like 35 through 40).

Add in a tweak to the points values of top 10 picks in particular and you start getting to a fair spot for actually paying for these kids

Sa and wa clubs are left behind again.

They need an advantage.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

Right, so you are essentially saying that the wooden spooner is entitled to pick 1. And it's just bad luck if the top player in the draft happens to be just a 'good' player rather than a 'great' player.

On the contrary - it actually supports equalisation more than the current system. As noted in the OP, the points would be allocated to sides according to their finishing position - if you use the current points used for FS/NGA bids and the current allocation of picks, the bottom side would have 4647 points compared to 1726 for the premier. The bottom side isn't going to be competing with the premier for the top pick, they'll be competing with other sides in the bottom four.

Yes the wooden spooner is entitled to pick 1, unless they choose to trade it. The premier certainly shouldn’t have a free go at pick 1 just because they got crafty with points.

Still not sure what issue you are trying to solve. That some drafts are weaker than others? It would be similarly unfortunate to get 4647 points in a weak year but that is the luck of the draw. List managers have navigated this fine since the draft began.

 

[go_the_dockers]

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

Bulldogs fans complaining about this are pretty funny.

While vic clubs get a home grand final, most of the marquee and national broadcast cast games they can all ne quiet.

Only sa and wa clubs can complain.

 

[Caligo]

While vic clubs get a home grand final, most of the marquee and national broadcast cast games they can all ne quiet.

Only sa and wa clubs can complain.

That new 50 year mcg contract was corrupt as heck. Which is why it was secret.

 

[bungalow_bill]

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.

A chance he doesn't end up the best player of his draft like loads of other #1 picks.

 

[Chiz]

Yes the wooden spooner is entitled to pick 1, unless they choose to trade it. The premier certainly shouldn’t have a free go at pick 1 just because they got crafty with points.

There's no reason why the bottom side should be entitled to pick 1 (it's not like they did anything to earn it), except that the current system works that way.

And I don't see how the premier trading out quality players constitutes a 'free' go at pick 1.

Still not sure what issue you are trying to solve. That some drafts are weaker than others? It would be similarly unfortunate to get 4647 points in a weak year but that is the luck of the draw. List managers have navigated this fine since the draft began.

I've listed plenty of issues that this system solves above.

 

[Dogflogger]

just watch basketball

 

[Dogflogger]

In that same 13 years, the Tigers have recruited Patrick Naish and Derk Eggmelese-Smith.

You've done way better than most clubs out of the F/S / Academy system.

Collingwood have had 6 in the last 13 years. averaging one ever 2 years since the draft came in.

 

[Kreuuuzeurns]

There's no reason why the bottom side should be entitled to pick 1 (it's not like they did anything to earn it), except that the current system works that way.

And I don't see how the premier trading out quality players constitutes a 'free' go at pick 1.

I've listed plenty of issues that this system solves above.

The draft is an equalisation measure. Clearly you don’t believe in it as an equalisation measure, so we will never agree.

 

[Sirlemsip]

The draft is an equalisation measure. Clearly you don’t believe in it as an equalisation measure, so we will never agree.

I'm not sure if you have a problem with reading comprehension, but in numerous posts the OP has explained how this proposed system remains a form of equalisation.

I'm not saying I 100% agree with everything they have said, but I like the idea.