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

[H00t]

How does it not work?

Every team gets a first rounder every year. If your academy player is likely going to go first round and you want to pick another first rounder before or after, you'll need to get another first round pick.

It's not difficult at all and if you think it is we are wasting our time.

It makes it so an early bid is easy to match but a late first round bid almost impossible. The early first rounders are the problem not the later ones.

I’m going to use picks 1-18 as the first round for this example.

Under your idea it’s easy to match a bid for picks 1, 2, 3 etc as you just use your first rounder. It’s next to impossible to match later bids. With a bid at 18 being impossible to match, a pick at 17 being super hard as you can only match with pick 18. Same with 16 needing pick 17 or 18.

Let’s say a team finishes 5th and gets pick 14.

They can match a bid from 13 or onwards but can’t match a bid from 15-18 (unless the trade ahead of time for a bid that might not happen) then easily match a bid that comes in the second round.

 

[Joao]

It makes it so an early bid is easy to match but a late first round bid almost impossible. The early first rounders are the problem not the later ones.

I’m going to use picks 1-18 as the first round for this example.

Under your idea it’s easy to match a bid for picks 1, 2, 3 etc as you just use your first rounder. It’s next to impossible to match later bids. With a bid at 18 being impossible to match, a pick at 17 being super hard as you can only match with pick 18. Same with 16 needing pick 17 or 18.

Let’s say a team finishes 5th and gets pick 14.

They can match a bid from 13 or onwards but can’t match a bid from 15-18 (unless the trade ahead of time for a bid that might not happen) then easily match a bid that comes in the second round.

It's not hard at all, you trade for a late first rounder. You can do that however you like. Futures, splitting an early pick, players, whatever.

They CAN match by literally picking their player at 14. There is no reason they should be entitled to take their first rounder AND then match another first round bid. This is the whole point.

 

[H00t]

It's not hard at all, you trade for a late first rounder. You can do that however you like. Futures, splitting an early pick, players, whatever.

They CAN match by literally picking their player at 14. There is no reason they should be entitled to take their first rounder AND then match another first round bid. This is the whole point.

If the pick is the last one in the first round you can’t trade for a pick and in this case you could have picks 19-22 but because a team bid just in the first round that team has no way to match.

It just doesn’t make sense. It also does nothing to limit picking up linked players who go very early. Which is really what the angst should be about. Rather than punishing a group further down.

 

[Joao]

If the pick is the last one in the first round you can’t trade for a pick and in this case you could have picks 19-22 but because a team bid just in the first round that team has no way to match.

It just doesn’t make sense. It also does nothing to limit picking up linked players who go very early. Which is really what the angst should be about. Rather than punishing a group further down.

This doesn't get sprung upon a club at the last minute. It's not like Brisbane were surprised Ashcroft got a bid at 2 or wherever it was.


It makes perfect sense, you just have some weird assumptions that you either don't realise you have or can't articulate.

I am saying they absolutely should if that player is bid on in the first round. It is their job to be prepared ahead of time IF they rate them highly enough to match in the first round.

 

[H00t]

This doesn't get sprung upon a club at the last minute. It's not like Brisbane were surprised Ashcroft got a bid at 2 or wherever it was.


It makes perfect sense, you just have some weird assumptions that you either don't realise you have or can't articulate.

I am saying they absolutely should if that player is bid on in the first round. It is their job to be prepared ahead of time IF they rate them highly enough to match in the first round.

Your first round pick needed to match a first round bid doesn’t fall apart with someone like Ashcroft or Daicos though. It doesn’t limit lions or pies from picking them up. Which is what people’s main complaints with the system arise. So it doesn’t help compared to the current system.

However it makes it near impossible (or completely impossible) to match bids at the end of each round. Teams will be prepared to match bids but there’s nothing they can do if the bid comes at the end of the round or just off the end of the round if the teams behind that pick don’t want to trade.

I’m not the one with weird assumptions here.

 

[Joao]

Your first round pick needed to match a first round bid doesn’t fall apart with someone like Ashcroft or Daicos though. It doesn’t limit lions or pies from picking them up. Which is what people’s main complaints with the system arise. So it doesn’t help compared to the current system.

However it makes it near impossible (or completely impossible) to match bids at the end of each round. Teams will be prepared to match bids but there’s nothing they can do if the bid comes at the end of the round or just off the end of the round if the teams behind that pick don’t want to trade.

I’m not the one with weird assumptions here.

I can't explain it any better. Let's leave it here.

 

[sr36]

What was wrong with the only having as many picks as free spots solution. Not perfect, but surely worth keeping.

That still exists but it's too easy to get around it and has got even easier than it used to be with SSP. Eg - Collingwood weren't academy or FS relevant this year. We took two players in the ND - but we actually had 5 available picks that we could have taken, plus could have added another 1 or 2 with delisting and then rookieing if we wanted to. So our 2 actual ND picks could have been 7 picks for academy points pretty easily.

 

[mpal6]

Right. It's on the 17 other clubs to make sure the source club is held accountable in these scenarios. If they choose to not hold them accountable by bidding at their actual worth (nothing to lose if you know the source club will match) then you can't then also complain about the 'two bites of the cherry'. You either want all clubs to pay a fair price for the players they have priority access to by ensuring a bid comes through for them at their actual worth OR you're okay with those players sliding down the draft order and opening the door for the source club to use their natural picks on other players because your/other clubs chose to bid when they should have. You can't have it both ways.

I remember F/S prospect Bailey Scott was rated around pick 30 going into the 2018 draft but slid down to 49 because no one wanted to bid on him earlier. Should North have not been allowed to draft Curtis Taylor with pick 46 in that scenario because they were still waiting for a bid to come through for Bailey Scott? I don't think so. I think what North did was perfectly reasonable consdering no other club wanted to force them to pay a fair price for Scott so they use their natural picks accordingly. Same goes for Nick Blakey when he was bid on with pick 10 but was actually rated around the pick 5 range. If Sydney had have had pick 8 in that situation and drafted a player before matching a bid for Blakey at pick 10, then Port Adelaide (or any other club for that matter) can't complain about Sydney getting two top 10 picks in that situation when they themselves could have held Sydney accountable by bidding on Blakey with pick 5.

Exactly. It also works in scenarios where clubs have a different line of thinking to the perceived value of draft experts. Zavier Maher was widely rated as a late first rounder but went undrafted. A similar example could pan out for a father son or academy player too and you can't expect the club to use the pick what expert group think suggest it needs to be.

The other example I remember is Declan Watson from Lions Academy. North thought Lions would prefer to take him for a second rounder and bid on him. Lions did not rate him that high so they refused to match, North ended up with the player but he never got a good run due to injuries / form issues and got delisted in the end.

 

[mpal6]

This doesn't get sprung upon a club at the last minute. It's not like Brisbane were surprised Ashcroft got a bid at 2 or wherever it was.


It makes perfect sense, you just have some weird assumptions that you either don't realise you have or can't articulate.

I am saying they absolutely should if that player is bid on in the first round. It is their job to be prepared ahead of time IF they rate them highly enough to match in the first round.

No, I think the other argument makes more sense than yours to be honest. If the bid comes in pick 15 and source club held pick 4 which was already used on another player - then asking the source club to "somehow conjure up another first round pick rightaway" at that point sounds implausible. They could've easily planned for him to slip to second rounder, it's so late in the first round already.

The best they can do is use the points they have left as well as any further deficit to be taken off their future first rounder. Whatever happens their draft hand is compromised from that point forward. In the end they will end up with a top end talent who is rated in the first 4-5 players as well as a late first rounder. It'll be like Hawks draft this year where they got Watson at 4 and McCabe at pick 19.

Your view of Hawks needing to downgrade so they can prepare for McCabe as their only pick in the first round isn't fair. If we extrapolate that argument further, let's say Hawks trade 4 away and downgrade it to 15 and a future first - what happens if no one bids at 15 ? What if every club actually rated McCabe between 25 and 30 ? Do Hawks need to overpay and pick him at 15 while the draft market isn't rating the player at that value anyway? your argument is along these lines which does not give anything back to Hawks for their generosity and overpaying for McCabe. I think this is where your position of "everyone should get to pick only once in first round" falls apart.

 

[Joao]

No, I think the other argument makes more sense than yours to be honest. If the bid comes in pick 15 and source club held pick 4 which was already used on another player - then asking the source club to "somehow conjure up another first round pick rightaway" at that point sounds implausible. They could've easily planned for him to slip to second rounder, it's so late in the first round already.

The best they can do is use the points they have left as well as any further deficit to be taken off their future first rounder. Whatever happens their draft hand is compromised from that point forward. In the end they will end up with a top end talent who is rated in the first 4-5 players as well as a late first rounder. It'll be like Hawks draft this year where they got Watson at 4 and McCabe at pick 19.

Your view of Hawks needing to downgrade so they can prepare for McCabe as their only pick in the first round isn't fair. If we extrapolate that argument further, let's say Hawks trade 4 away and downgrade it to 15 and a future first - what happens if no one bids at 15 ? What if every club actually rated McCabe between 25 and 30 ? Do Hawks need to overpay and pick him at 15 while the draft market isn't rating the player at that value anyway? your argument is along these lines which does not give anything back to Hawks for their generosity and overpaying for McCabe. I think this is where your position of "everyone should get to pick only once in first round" falls apart.

See below.

I can't explain it any better. Let's leave it here.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

No, I think the other argument makes more sense than yours to be honest. If the bid comes in pick 15 and source club held pick 4 which was already used on another player - then asking the source club to "somehow conjure up another first round pick rightaway" at that point sounds implausible. They could've easily planned for him to slip to second rounder, it's so late in the first round already.

The best they can do is use the points they have left as well as any further deficit to be taken off their future first rounder. Whatever happens their draft hand is compromised from that point forward. In the end they will end up with a top end talent who is rated in the first 4-5 players as well as a late first rounder. It'll be like Hawks draft this year where they got Watson at 4 and McCabe at pick 19.

Your view of Hawks needing to downgrade so they can prepare for McCabe as their only pick in the first round isn't fair. If we extrapolate that argument further, let's say Hawks trade 4 away and downgrade it to 15 and a future first - what happens if no one bids at 15 ? What if every club actually rated McCabe between 25 and 30 ? Do Hawks need to overpay and pick him at 15 while the draft market isn't rating the player at that value anyway? your argument is along these lines which does not give anything back to Hawks for their generosity and overpaying for McCabe. I think this is where your position of "everyone should get to pick only once in first round" falls apart.

Exactly. It would make it easier for the top side to match a bid at 8 then it would the 12th side matching a bid at 16.

 

[sydney_gws]

Your first round pick needed to match a first round bid doesn’t fall apart with someone like Ashcroft or Daicos though. It doesn’t limit lions or pies from picking them up. Which is what people’s main complaints with the system arise. So it doesn’t help compared to the current system.

However it makes it near impossible (or completely impossible) to match bids at the end of each round. Teams will be prepared to match bids but there’s nothing they can do if the bid comes at the end of the round or just off the end of the round if the teams behind that pick don’t want to trade.

I’m not the one with weird assumptions here.

I agree, the pick in the same round doesn't make sense.
If a team has 17,35 and a player rated about 14th to 18th, i think they trade 17 for 23,F2.
Match with 23, 35.
The bonus is F2.

 

[Dangerousfield]

The discount needs to go, be able to match is enough bonus.

NGA's are just a farce put in place to placate the bleating Maguire's back when. Northern academies are actually growing the game in strongholds of NRL and soccer, particularly the turf conscious big spending NRL. In all the southern states there is already a strong junior development system in place in code friendly environments.

After that, the points table is the main problem. It needs to reflect what picks are worth in the real world, that is what clubs would really trade them for. The curve needs to be much steeper and picks should have no value past say pick 40.

A better points table would prevent the accumulation of mid/late picks to pay for high draft picks.

Don't allow clubs to hold draft picks at any time in the draft in excess of what main list places they actually have vacant at that point in the draft.

There, fixed the mess for the AFL in one go. AFL will just need to run it past the big Vic clubs first!

 

[FB19]

I agree, the pick in the same round doesn't make sense.
If a team has 17,35 and a player rated about 14th to 18th, i think they trade 17 for 23,F2.
Match with 23, 35.
The bonus is F2.

It really is that simple with a changed points system no discount and 2 picks to match things become much fairer in an instant. But it’s the AFL that would decrease media and interest in the draft by some factor so they won’t do it. Likely it will be some even more convoluted nonsense.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

While I was for it before, I'm now against any kind of positional restriction on the picks used is the solution. I agree the problem is wholely clubs paying a fair price, and putting pick position restrictions (ie limiting to bids in rounds or within 10 etc) doesnt work. I think it;
A) Artificially increases the value of late round picks, which helps clubs at the top of the ladder, something I am against doing as much as humanely possible
B) Effectively makes it more complicated and doesnt make sense in practice.

I dont see any loopholes with a combination of fixing the points at the top of the draft and making it so you cant use more than 2 picks to match a bid. Making it two picks maximum makes it very hard for a top 4 club to match bids on top 5 talent without using at least their current and future 1st.

I've said before but I'd even be for making the top 5 off limits completely but I doubt that happens

 

[Lore]

While I was for it before, I'm now against any kind of positional restriction on the picks used is the solution. I agree the problem is wholely clubs paying a fair price, and putting pick position restrictions (ie limiting to bids in rounds or within 10 etc). I think it
A) Artificially increases the value of late round picks, which helps clubs at the top of the ladder, something I am against doing as much as humanely possible
B) Effectively makes it more complicated and doesnt make sense in practice.

I dont see any loopholes with a combination of fixing the points at the top of the draft and making it so you cant use more than 2 picks to match a bid. Making it two picks maximum makes it very hard for a top 4 club to match bids on top 5 talent without using at least their current and future 1st.

I've said before but I'd even be for making the top 5 off limits completely but I doubt that happens

The idea is generally based on what currently works in the AFLW, but what you say are all valid points that will likely affect the AFLW with more time and thought put into gaming the systems available. So far only Sydney and to some extent Gold Coast really seem to be pushing the envelope in that regard but as more clubs take a real interest in their women's teams it will come, which naturally makes it a tricky example to follow for the bigger men's league.


I think part of the issue though is that we hold the national draft up as a gold standard of fairness that ensures all clubs are paying fair value and the bad clubs get first access to the best players, with trading of those picks also setting a comparable value on traded players... but then we've had a few bouts of expansion that have messed that up at different times, and then priority picks and compensation picks mess it up at different times, and we have players that don't want to go interstate, and clubs who are deliberately picking players from particular states or regional areas to thwart the go home factor instead of just taking the best available fit for their list.

And then there's hardly any players left in the national draft with all the different pathways available for mature age players, so while we're adding northern academy kids that wouldn't have otherwise been drafted, and NGA kids that may or may not have been drafted before, we're also removing a whole heap of 'open draft' eligible players from that pool by providing alternative pathways for them to join clubs throughout the year, when previously they'd have to wait for the following draft.


So I guess my question is, do the academy and father-son players need to go into the national draft? Does a national draft even mean anything anymore? Does it have to be one pathway to make it fair, when quite clearly some clubs benefit more from being able to choose from a national pool than others that struggle with retention? Would it be better to have a bidding process, perhaps based on points rather than picks, for those players who are attached to a club in some way, and then the picks are just removed or adjusted from the draft in advance? And could the Irish/alt-pathways players also go into that system?

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

The idea is generally based on what currently works in the AFLW, but what you say are all valid points that will likely affect the AFLW with more time and thought put into gaming the systems available. So far only Sydney and to some extent Gold Coast really seem to be pushing the envelope in that regard but as more clubs take a real interest in their women's teams it will come, which naturally makes it a tricky example to follow for the bigger men's league.


I think part of the issue though is that we hold the national draft up as a gold standard of fairness that ensures all clubs are paying fair value and the bad clubs get first access to the best players, with trading of those picks also setting a comparable value on traded players... but then we've had a few bouts of expansion that have messed that up at different times, and then priority picks and compensation picks mess it up at different times, and we have players that don't want to go interstate, and clubs who are deliberately picking players from particular states or regional areas to thwart the go home factor instead of just taking the best available fit for their list.

And then there's hardly any players left in the national draft with all the different pathways available for mature age players, so while we're adding northern academy kids that wouldn't have otherwise been drafted, and NGA kids that may or may not have been drafted before, we're also removing a whole heap of 'open draft' eligible players from that pool by providing alternative pathways for them to join clubs throughout the year, when previously they'd have to wait for the following draft.


So I guess my question is, do the academy and father-son players need to go into the national draft? Does a national draft even mean anything anymore? Does it have to be one pathway to make it fair, when quite clearly some clubs benefit more from being able to choose from a national pool than others that struggle with retention? Would it be better to have a bidding process, perhaps based on points rather than picks, for those players who are attached to a club in some way, and then the picks are just removed or adjusted from the draft in advance? And could the Irish/alt-pathways players also go into that system?

Personally, I like the purpose of the northern academies and I like the romance of the F/S. I like NGAs if they were actually used for the supposed purpose they were supposed to be used for - giving kids from a rural area or non AFL background a chance to be successful. If Liam Jurrah had been in an academy system earlier would there have been a better chance he could make it and really put together a proper life for himself? I think so.

I don’t think it needs complete overhauling, I just want the system to try to be as fair as possible so irrelevant clubs like my own don’t continued to be met with further disadvantages to succeed. I think that should continue to be the main purpose of the draft as fair an access to talent as possible and I think paying the appropriate price for priority access to the elite talent you have a part in developing is fair - it should just mean that’s the player you pick, not them and someone else.

If we overhauled the draft system completely it’s just reskinning the same thing if they continue with F/S and academies (which they will). It mostly works how it is, just needs a tweak.

I agree with you 100% on the women’s side and lesser exposure will keep any issues out of the media for a decent time yet as they prioritise just growing teams and talent overall. They’ll need to match the men’s system eventually though I’d think.

 

[ScrappyDo]

The discount needs to go, be able to match is enough bonus.

NGA's are just a farce put in place to placate the bleating Maguire's back when. Northern academies are actually growing the game in strongholds of NRL and soccer, particularly the turf conscious big spending NRL. In all the southern states there is already a strong junior development system in place in code friendly environments.

After that, the points table is the main problem. It needs to reflect what picks are worth in the real world, that is what clubs would really trade them for. The curve needs to be much steeper and picks should have no value past say pick 40.

A better points table would prevent the accumulation of mid/late picks to pay for high draft picks.

Don't allow clubs to hold draft picks at any time in the draft in excess of what main list places they actually have vacant at that point in the draft.

There, fixed the mess for the AFL in one go. AFL will just need to run it past the big Vic clubs first!

Some good ideas here.
I'd probably have the points table terminate exactly at p38 as we're seeing clubs now live trade a 2ndRDP for a single 1st round position.

That on it's own still isn't enough because you need to catch the scenario where the premiership club has access touted top 5 player. If you hold 2x P18 across 2 years that top 5 pick should cost you both and more.

Perhaps a rule that acces to FS/NGA commences after your 1st pick would be enough.
Force the club to gut their stocks moving ahead of the expected bid.
That would benefit the low ranking teams and hamper the high ranking ones, ensuring better market value is paid somewhere in the whole process.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Most of the angst is about top end talent going to father/son or academy clubs while the bottom of the ladder clubs are missing out. If this gets fixed all the noise will die off.

Make it very simple and make the first round pure draft. Remove Father/Son, Academy, NGA and every other concession from first round so all clubs have access to the entire available talent pool.

First round could be top 30.

Just go top 10. The gulf in talent between 11 and 30 is massive.

 

[go_the_dockers]

This highlights how much of advantage the clubs get, with father son and academy picks.

Good to see the Vic's complaining, once the advantage is not 100% there way.

How Suns turned unneeded draft pick into six first rounders

Riley Beveridge assesses how the Suns turned pick No.4 into six first rounders

www.afl.com.au

At the end of the wheeling and dealing, Gold Coast had essentially turned pick No.4 – a selection that wasn't even going to be used if a bid for Walter came earlier – into a whopping 4,131 points on the AFL's Draft Value Index for this year.

 

[mpal6]

First round could be top 30.

Just go top 10. The gulf in talent between 11 and 30 is massive.

If its pure draft with no other interference, first round will stay at 18 picks. Some club may get 2 firsts depending on future trades but still, it'll be a standard 18 picks as every club will get one pick without the fear of father son, academy or NGA coming in and swiping the selected player.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

If its pure draft with no other interference, first round will stay at 18 picks. Some club may get 2 firsts depending on future trades but still, it'll be a standard 18 picks as every club will get one pick without the fear of father son, academy or NGA coming in and swiping the selected player.

Even then, Pick 18 is a lot closer in talent to pick 30 than pick 10. Just go top 10

 

[sr36]

It's all situational. If we had finished top 4 last year then we would only be permitted to match one first round bid (Walter) and Read, Rogers + Graham would have ended up elsewhere. So finishing in the bottom 10 not only removes those restrictions, but also give you a top 10 pick to auction off to the highest bidder like we saw this year when the Dogs sent picks 10, 17 & a future first rounder for the Suns' pick 3. You're saying we would have needed 15, 16, 17 & 18 to keep all those four players but we already had 10, 17 & a future first round that surely would have been easily traded for a 2023 late first rounder.

So let's go conservative and say we traded that future first rounder for pick 18 in 2023. That means with picks 10, 17 & 18 we had 3405 points to play with. Picks 15, 16, 17 & 18 equates to 4189 points. Keep in mind the Suns also had several second rounders to play with so it shouldn't have been hard to trade up for the required position/points. I think no matter how you want to slice it, the Suns were always in a fantastic position to keep all four academy players regardless of how difficult you want to make it.

You also added two future firsts. Good luck to you, but the system needs an overhaul. You shouldn't be able to magic pick 4 and a lot of later picks into pick 2, 8, a couple more first rounders and two future firsts.

 

[Colonial]

Even then, Pick 18 is a lot closer in talent to pick 30 than pick 10. Just go top 10

Will agree, only if there’s a national under 18s comp and all states have the same spending on grassroots/development with the AFL to pay the difference.

Otherwise nope.

 

[Colonial]

You also added two future firsts. Good luck to you, but the system needs an overhaul. You shouldn't be able to magic pick 4 and a lot of later picks into pick 2, 8, a couple more first rounders and two future firsts.

You shouldn’t get an automatic home ground advantage for an GF and leave your home 4 times through the year but here we are.