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

[sr36]

How much of an advantage do the big vic teams get with having extra marquee time slots?

If a club get 10 to 15 marquee time slots are year vs under 5, is that worth an extra 100k-200k in player sponsorship for the top 5 players? e.g. Gold Coast vs Collingwood

This is pretty much additional salary cap space for the big vic teams.

It's a good question. I really don't know. We'd need to get access to player negotations to see if they accept less to play for the teams who play a lot of high profile games. From the outside, it looks to me though that the biggest recruiting and retention stimulus is the quality of the team. Eg, going by media salary rumours, a big game club like the Blues seemed to always be paying way too much when they were shit and recruiting players regardless of their MCG blockbusters. Teams that are good or projected to be good seem to be able to recruit and retain. Struggling teams struggle to.

 

[briztoon]

Change the grand final venues or better still expand the capacity of Docklands so that's big enough and the MCG can become a rotating venue. Force some Vic teams to play games against each other in other states if travel is meausred as a significant issue.

Better yet, every Vic club plays all the non VIC clubs away. So that’s 8 guaranteed genuine away games.

Then on a 2 year rotation, each non Vic clubs plays half the Vic clubs in Victoria. That means, over a 2 year period, each non VIC club will play all 10 Vic clubs in Victoria.

Similarly non VIC clubs play each other in a home and away series every 2 years.

Means only one trip a year to SA, WA and NSW for the QLD teams.

Then the AFL can work out the double ups for the Non VIC teams against Vic teams to balance out the home and away season.

But most of all, don't give teams a significant advantage that will make them a better team. The real risk to an even comp and why most sports comps have the same teams at the top every year is that particular clubs have an advantage that results in them having significantly better players. In other comps it's money.

The AFL thrives on the evenness of the comp. The draft, salary cap and soft cap have done a fantastic job of stopping juggernauts from growing due to money, but they've created the conditions for juggernauts to grow due to location. We know that these teams are already more than competitive without the need of an extra leg up. It's currently like a reverse draft where selected top teams are given advantages in the draft that will make them even better - it's crazy in terms of the AFL's desire for evenness, as the advantage will continue to grow and layer up as more and more academy kids come through.

 

[Elixuh]

Better yet, every Vic club plays all the non VIC clubs away. So that’s 8 guaranteed genuine away games.

Then on a 2 year rotation, each non Vic clubs plays half the Vic clubs in Victoria. That means, over a 2 year period, each non VIC club will play all 10 Vic clubs in Victoria.

Similarly non VIC clubs play each other in a home and away series every 2 years.

Means only one trip a year to SA, WA and NSW for the QLD teams.

Means the Vic clubs play 14 genuine interstate games a year, while the non VIC clubs play 13 genuine interstate games, plus an “away game” against their in-state rival.

Does that mean we’d never play on the mcg?

 

[briztoon]

Any rough ballpark numbers on how many of next years first 25 are NGA's or FS?

Can you give me a list of the top 25 players?

 

[briztoon]

Does that mean we’d never play on the mcg?

I edited my original post.

Well no, it should mean we play every MCG tenant at the MCG over a two year period.

Something like 2 MCG games, 2 Marvel games and GMHBA game one year. Then next year 3 MCG games and 2 Marvel games.

Plus any double ups to then be played in Vic.

 

[sr36]

Better yet, every Vic club plays all the non VIC clubs away. So that’s 8 guaranteed genuine away games.

Then on a 2 year rotation, each non Vic clubs plays half the Vic clubs in Victoria. That means, over a 2 year period, each non VIC club will play all 10 Vic clubs in Victoria.

Similarly non VIC clubs play each other in a home and away series every 2 years.

Means only one trip a year to SA, WA and NSW for the QLD teams.

Means the Vic clubs play 14 genuine interstate games a year, while the non VIC clubs play 13 genuine interstate games, plus an “away game” against their in-state rival.

I'm not sure if I understand it, but a comp where teams only play a touch over a third of their games in their home state doesn't sound great for fans.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I edited my original post.

Well no, it should mean we play every MCG tenant at the MCG over a two year period.

Something like 2 MCG games, 2 Marvel games and GMHBA game one year. Then next year 3 MCG games and 2 Marvel games.

Plus any double ups to then be played in Vic.

I like this proposal and it's fair, so watch the AFL not consider it. They seem to sticky tape the issue all the time. How about they fix the whole issue rather than trying to fix one part and hoping clubs don't find loopholes and they will. I mean how many have we had? The fact that clubs can trade out picks when the draft starts for more list spots is a farce. Just no. Then we have the hilarious WCE/Sydney trade match (Blakey match and we drafted Rowbottom). Do the AFL think clubs won't do things to suit their club?

 

[briztoon]

I'm not sure if I understand it, but a comp where teams only play a touch over a third of their games in their home state doesn't sound great for fans.

Ignore the last paragraph, I stuffed the maths there.

For VIC clubs, it would mean 8 interstate games, and 15 games in Victoria.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Any rough ballpark numbers on how many of next years first 25 are NGA's or FS?

9 of the top 25 at the moment. NGA players tend to be rated high early, and drop back later as other players rise.

1. Dyson Sharp 188cm Central Dist - midfielder/forward
2. Fred Rodriguez 183cm South Frem - contested midfielder
3. Riley Onley 194cm Murray - tall midfielder/flanker
4. Oliver Greeves 191cm Eastern - tall midfielder/forward (did play KPF at u16s)
5. Zeke Uwland 178cm GCS A - endurance midfielder/hbf
6. Cody Curtin 197cm Clarem - KPD
7. Cooper Duff-Tytler 199cm Calder - KPD/Ruck
8. Noah Hibbins-Hargreaves 185cm Dand - midfielder/forward
9. Willem Duursma 191cm Gipps - outside mid/flanker
10. Sam Cumming 184cm Sth Adel - midfielder/forward
11. Daniel Annable 183cm Bris A - accumulator mid
12. Blake Kelly 182cm Swan Dist - midfielder/forward
13. Archie Ludowyke 195cm Sand - KPF
14. Louis Emmett 199cm Oakleigh - Ruck
15. Noah Chamberlain 192cm Syd A - tall hbf/mid
16. Lachlan Carmichael 183cm Syd A - hbf/mid
17. Sam Swadling 187cm Wst Perth - midfielder/forward
18. Blake Oudshoorn-Bennier 182cm Nth Adel - midfielder
19. Dylan Patterson 183cm GCS A - forward
20. Jack Dalton 177cm Sand - accumulator mid
21. Thomas McGuane 177cm Western (Coll FS) - quick mid/forw
22. Toby Whan 182cm Sth Frem (Frem NGA) - quick hbf/winger, outside type who loves a running goal
23. Felix Kneipp 177cm Calder - tough midfielder/tagger
24. Wes Walley 181cm Subi (WCE NGA) - clever forward
25. Max King 191cm Syd A - good mark and tackle medium forward/ mid


Thomas Burton, Basil Hart, Lachy Dovaston, Josh Lindsay, Charlie Banfield and a few others were stiff, but i thought id give a top grouping a shot prior to the season kicking off soon.....

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/ultimate-coates-talent-league-guide-every-list-top-draft-prospects-fathersons-academy-guns-to-watch-in-2025/news-story/1415ca8eb72093fc1c188e961972b55a

 

[briztoon]

I'm not sure if I understand it, but a comp where teams only play a touch over a third of their games in their home state doesn't sound great for fans.

To follow my previous answer.

9 of those home games are against the other Vic clubs.

5 are against non VIC clubs.

And the last game can be a “derby” game. So the 10 Vic clubs will have to argue with each other who their in perpetuity rivalry game is.

Collingwood v Carlton
Richmond v Essendon
Hawthorn v Geelong
St Kilda v Footscray
Melbourne v North

The above works for me.

 

[go_the_dockers]

It's a good question. I really don't know. We'd need to get access to player negotations to see if they accept less to play for the teams who play a lot of high profile games. From the outside, it looks to me though that the biggest recruiting and retention stimulus is the quality of the team. Eg, going by media salary rumours, a big game club like the Blues seemed to always be paying way too much when they were shit and recruiting players regardless of their MCG blockbusters. Teams that are good or projected to be good seem to be able to recruit and retain. Struggling teams struggle to.

The string vic clubs are very attractive. I don't think they non vic clubs when they have a promising list, have the same ability to attract talent.

 

[briztoon]

9 of the top 25 at the moment. NGA players tend to be rated high early, and drop back later as other players rise.

1. Dyson Sharp 188cm Central Dist - midfielder/forward
2. Fred Rodriguez 183cm South Frem - contested midfielder
3. Riley Onley 194cm Murray - tall midfielder/flanker
4. Oliver Greeves 191cm Eastern - tall midfielder/forward (did play KPF at u16s)
5. Zeke Uwland 178cm GCS A - endurance midfielder/hbf
6. Cody Curtin 197cm Clarem - KPD
7. Cooper Duff-Tytler 199cm Calder - KPD/Ruck
8. Noah Hibbins-Hargreaves 185cm Dand - midfielder/forward
9. Willem Duursma 191cm Gipps - outside mid/flanker
10. Sam Cumming 184cm Sth Adel - midfielder/forward
11. Daniel Annable 183cm Bris A - accumulator mid
12. Blake Kelly 182cm Swan Dist - midfielder/forward
13. Archie Ludowyke 195cm Sand - KPF
14. Louis Emmett 199cm Oakleigh - Ruck
15. Noah Chamberlain 192cm Syd A - tall hbf/mid
16. Lachlan Carmichael 183cm Syd A - hbf/mid
17. Sam Swadling 187cm Wst Perth - midfielder/forward
18. Blake Oudshoorn-Bennier 182cm Nth Adel - midfielder
19. Dylan Patterson 183cm GCS A - forward
20. Jack Dalton 177cm Sand - accumulator mid
21. Thomas McGuane 177cm Western (Coll FS) - quick mid/forw
22. Toby Whan 182cm Sth Frem (Frem NGA) - quick hbf/winger, outside type who loves a running goal
23. Felix Kneipp 177cm Calder - tough midfielder/tagger
24. Wes Walley 181cm Subi (WCE NGA) - clever forward
25. Max King 191cm Syd A - good mark and tackle medium forward/ mid


Thomas Burton, Basil Hart, Lachy Dovaston, Josh Lindsay, Charlie Banfield and a few others were stiff, but i thought id give a top grouping a shot prior to the season kicking off soon.....

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/ultimate-coates-talent-league-guide-every-list-top-draft-prospects-fathersons-academy-guns-to-watch-in-2025/news-story/1415ca8eb72093fc1c188e961972b55a

He was asking about next year’s draft crop.

 

[go_the_dockers]

He was asking about next year’s draft crop.

Preview - 2026 AFL Draft General Discussion

Is Cochrane shaping up as more KPP or mid at this point?

www.bigfooty.com

Robinson is Freo NGA. 7 of the top 25 based on data from last year.
Garrison Kenh - Eagles NGA


This year is worse, but both are missing at least a 3rd of the players in the top 25.

 

[bzparkes]

Preview - 2026 AFL Draft General Discussion

Is Cochrane shaping up as more KPP or mid at this point?

www.bigfooty.com

Robinson is Freo NGA. 6 of the top 25 based on data from last year.
Garrison Kenh - Eagles NGA maybe?


This year is worse, but both are missing at least a 3rd of the players in the top 25.

Kenh is indeed Eagles NGA.

 

[mpal6]

There's already been a significant benefit and it's not just early picks - it helps at all points in the draft - as shown by Andrews - he's a star who is in a Lions jumper due to being able to jump the order above the team who bid on him. And the benefit will increase as the academies are built to grow and are clearly growing.

If you look at the Pies and Swans - the main reason they've dodged the boom bust design of the draft is having priority access to a few players in the draft. And the number of priority access players heading North is increasing.

Andrews was a speculative pick at best during draft. He wasn't what he is today. North Melbourne bid a fourth rounder on him which we matched with our pick 61, which was well after our other academy player (Liam Dawson - delisted now) was bid for.

This is what I'm pointing out - our talent pool isn't top notch at draft time and they've grown/evolved post-draft. Kiddy Coleman went undrafted for the entire 2018 AFL draft and after another year as mature ager in academy, he got drafted in 2019 second round. Bruce Reville was in academy, VFL - kept at it until getting drafted as a 22 year old. Payne was a draft pick in 50s somewhere etc.

We benefited from father-son more in the recent years for sure, but academy - not that rolled gold quality year after year that's being perceived by the rest of the competition. At least, not yet.

 

[Scotland]

Every club has diamonds in the rough. We had a key forward (named forward pocket) and key defender (named CHB) in last year's AA side. Jake Waterman was pick 77, Jeremy McGovern was pick 44 in the rookie draft.

Personally I don't really care if Errol Gulden or Harris Andrews are superstar academy players. They were in theory available to all teams. Chad Warner was pick 39, Errol Gulden was pick 32. That one is an academy player and one isn't is secondary to how good they are relative to their draft position. The only issue with Gulden is that if he's rated outside the top 30 then there is no point trying to select him at pick 32 as he will just go for later picks on points value. To get him you would probably need to pick inside 20 or 25 and hope that is enough to scare Sydney off.

The contentious issue is ongoing access to top end junior talent irrespective of ladder position. To turn it around 180, imagine if the AFL said that the four Northern clubs could only pick in the draft after everyone else has a go. So instead of coming last and getting pick 1 you get pick 15. You can pick the 15th best kid in the draft or if you have an academy prospect that goes at pick 5 then your first and second will cover the points value. Do you reckon they would go for it? No, didn't think so. No Rowell, Anderson, Logan McDonald, Finn Callaghan, Lachie Ash etc. but you still have Blakey, Heeney, Tom Green...

My club literally started the second round of the draft at pick 30. 5 academy selections, 2 father son selections, 3 free agency compo picks and a North Melbourne compo pick in the first round. And for added fun pick 28 was Lance Collard who was part of the WC NGA but off limits because getting a player inside pick 40 is too much of an advantage. What a mockery they have made of the draft.

 

[sr36]

Andrews was a speculative pick at best during draft. He wasn't what he is today. North Melbourne bid a fourth rounder on him which we matched with our pick 61, which was well after our other academy player (Liam Dawson - delisted now) was bid for.

This is what I'm pointing out - our talent pool isn't top notch at draft time and they've grown/evolved post-draft. Kiddy Coleman went undrafted for the entire 2018 AFL draft and after another year as mature ager in academy, he got drafted in 2019 second round. Bruce Reville was in academy, VFL - kept at it until getting drafted as a 22 year old. Payne was a draft pick in 50s somewhere etc.

We benefited from father-son more in the recent years for sure, but academy - not that rolled gold quality year after year that's being perceived by the rest of the competition. At least, not yet.

Yeah I imagine the zones aren't equal. Not surprising that GC seems to be beginning to clean up, as the area has a heap more Southern state refugees.

But you're wrong about Andrews. It was the previous system where the bidding was done before the draft and the pick they are recorded as going with is what was paid to match. North bid their second rounder on him. They must have rated him pretty highly as with different club ratings someone you rate first round would regularly fall to your second round pick, so if you're willing to match pre-draft with a 30s pick, you certainly rate them higher than that. We'll never know where he would have been picked, but he wasn't an unrated off the radar pick. You paid pick 61 for someone who would have gone second round at the latest.

 

[mpal6]

Yeah I imagine the zones aren't equal. Not surprising that GC seems to be beginning to clean up, as the area has a heap more Southern state refugees.

But you're wrong about Andrews. It was the previous system where the bidding was done before the draft and the pick they are recorded as going with is what was paid to match. North bid their second rounder on him. They must have rated him pretty highly as with different club ratings someone you rate first round would regularly fall to your second round pick, so if you're willing to match pre-draft with a 30s pick, you certainly rate them higher than that. We'll never know where he would have been picked, but he wasn't an unrated off the radar pick. You paid pick 61 for someone who would have gone second round at the latest.

Lions commit to Academy pair | AFL Queensland

www.aflq.com.au

pick 40 for Andrews and pick 31 for Dawson. These were the bids. We paid 41 for Dawson and the next available 60 for Andrews. Yes we could've been made to pay an earlier pick but we're talking variance of a late second round vs third/fourth at this point.

 

[sr36]

Lions commit to Academy pair | AFL Queensland

www.aflq.com.au

pick 40 for Andrews and pick 31 for Dawson. These were the bids. We paid 41 for Dawson and the next available 60 for Andrews. Yes we could've been made to pay an earlier pick but we're talking variance of a late second round vs third/fourth at this point.

It was pre-draft. If you're holding pick 40, what number on your draft board is likely to get to 40? It's a much smaller number than 40. You wouldn't offer pick 40 for someone you rate at 40. We don't know where Andrews would have gone, but he wasn't extremely speculative and he wasn't going to last anywhere near pick 61. For a 4th round junk pick you got a bloke who was a second rounder at worst.

 

[mpal6]

It was pre-draft. If you're holding pick 40, what number on your draft board is likely to get to 40? It's a much smaller number than 40. You wouldn't offer pick 40 for someone you rate at 40. We don't know where Andrews would have gone, but he wasn't extremely speculative and he wasn't going to last anywhere near pick 61. For a 4th round junk pick you got a bloke who was a second rounder at worst.

Since we're choosing to die on this hill, let's go again. Pick 40 was the last pick of second round. 61 is the third pick of the 4th round.



To be fair, between 40 and 61 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_AFL_draft there are 3 premiership players, 2 All Australians, 8 players who are still currently playing across various teams. Harris going late indicates the quality available rather than us lucking out in the middle of a pile of garbage.

If he was a decent tall, he would've been bid on 20s or even higher like Hipwood, he was at best speculative and we took him knowing what he produced in local leagues.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Since we're choosing to die on this hill, let's go again. Pick 40 was the last pick of second round. 61 is the third pick of the 4th round.

View attachment 2275894

To be fair, between 40 and 61 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_AFL_draft there are 3 premiership players, 2 All Australians, 8 players who are still currently playing across various teams. Harris going late indicates the quality available rather than us lucking out in the middle of a pile of garbage.

If he was a decent tall, he would've been bid on 20s or even higher like Hipwood, he was at best speculative and we took him knowing what he produced in local leagues.

It's a dumb hill to die on because being able to jump from pick 60 to 40 is far less of a draft advantage than Collingwood (for example) jumping from pick 9 to be able to get (in an open draft) top-5 draft prospect Darcy Moore under the same Father/Son rules that this Collingwood fan doesn't seem to be bringing up.

 

[sr36]

It's a dumb hill to die on because being able to jump from pick 60 to 40 is far less of a draft advantage than Collingwood (for example) jumping from pick 9 to be able to get (in an open draft) top-5 draft prospect Darcy Moore under the same Father/Son rules that this Collingwood fan doesn't seem to be bringing up.

I've brought it up. Collingwood like Sydney and Brisbane are contenders for a variety of reasons but they probably wouldn't be without draft advantages given by the rules. Collingwood benefitted from a rule where 14 teams were equally likely to benefit.. Sydney and Brisbane because the system is designed so they're more likely to get lucky than other clubs and as the academies grow even more likely again.

And we don't know what the jump was for Andrews. Probably a fair bit less than 40.

 

[briztoon]

The contentious issue is ongoing access to top end junior talent irrespective of ladder position. To turn it around 180, imagine if the AFL said that the four Northern clubs could only pick in the draft after everyone else has a go. So instead of coming last and getting pick 1 you get pick 15. You can pick the 15th best kid in the draft or if you have an academy prospect that goes at pick 5 then your first and second will cover the points value. Do you reckon they would go for it? No, didn't think so. No Rowell, Anderson, Logan McDonald, Finn Callaghan, Lachie Ash etc. but you still have Blakey, Heeney, Tom Green...

My club literally started the second round of the draft at pick 30. 5 academy selections, 2 father son selections, 3 free agency compo picks and a North Melbourne compo pick in the first round. And for added fun pick 28 was Lance Collard who was part of the WC NGA but off limits because getting a player inside pick 40 is too much of an advantage. What a mockery they have made of the draft.

If you've read the last two pages, you'll know I'm not a supporter of a compromised draft, academies or player movement power. But they are part of the AFL, which is full of inequities throughout the competition.

However I do like discussions to be based on facts, or as close to.

Blakey, Heeney, Tom Green.. didn't all go to the same team.

There isn't an endless stream of top end talent going to each of the Northern teams.

In 13 years, we (the Lions) have had 2 first round academy selections. One in 2015, the other in 2024. Neither in the top 10. Hardly top end talent there.

Suns had 1 kid in 2016 (who now plays for Geelong), before getting 4 in 2023, which was an outlier year amongst all 4 clubs. And another in 2024.

Swans have had 4 in 15 years.

GWS have had 1 top end kid since the Riverina was taken away from them after 2015. Of those Riverina kids drafted in 2015, only 1 was a top 10 pick and he now plays for Richmond. Another plays for Footscray, his third club. Only one is still at GWS, and he was the last of the Riverina kids drafted.

QLD and NSW account for just over 51% of the nations population. By rights, we should be producing more draftable talent per year, than Victoria.

Except most talented kids play Rugby League or Rugby Union.

The whole point of the Northern Academies were/are to grow the game in non football States, and to counter balance the pillaging that occurred during the teens of this century, which your team was apart of.

Every AFL premier from 2016 to 2023, except for Geelong in 2022, contained players pulled out the Northern clubs before those players reached free agency after their 8th season. Including your team.


How many nga kids do West Coast currently have on your list? Following the discussion on your board, in your nga/draft thread, it look likes it's going to take you only two or three drafts to have about the same number of nga academy kids on your list as the Lions have academy kids on our list.

If the Northern club academies had to comply by the same NGA rules as the other clubs, there would have been 5 players drafted in the last 14 years under nga rules; Keidean Coleman, Blake Coleman, Alex Davies, Jake Rogers and Leo Lombard. No kids out of NSW. And Rogers was in a draft when top 40 draftees couldn't be matched, so really it's 4 kids.


Almost every fan only looks out for the best interests of their own team.

We the Lions were heading down to the bottom of the draft during the last expansion drafts, then had the go home 5 right after, and other young early draftees raided from us. No other teams had any sympathy for our predicament. Your team was one of the beneficiaries of the player exodus from my team.

We waited 21 years between flags. Didn't read any West Coast fans advocating about the unfairness of our plight from 2011 to 2018. Or Gold Coasts plight when they were raided year after year by the Vic and SA clubs. Same for GWS.

 

[sr36]

Since we're choosing to die on this hill, let's go again. Pick 40 was the last pick of second round. 61 is the third pick of the 4th round.

View attachment 2275894

To be fair, between 40 and 61 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_AFL_draft there are 3 premiership players, 2 All Australians, 8 players who are still currently playing across various teams. Harris going late indicates the quality available rather than us lucking out in the middle of a pile of garbage.

If he was a decent tall, he would've been bid on 20s or even higher like Hipwood, he was at best speculative and we took him knowing what he produced in local leagues.

You might want to verify your hill. How did North have the last pick in the second round in 2014, before trade week kicked off, during a time there was no future trading? That's when they offered their second round pick. Your hill doesn't make sense

 

[mpal6]

You might want to verify your hill. How did North have the last pick in the second round in 2014, before trade week kicked off, during a time there was no future trading? That's when they offered their second round pick. Your hill doesn't make sense

Not my words mate, I've quoted you two articles on where the bid came and how the draft went. If all you got is it doesn't make sense - can't help you. Happy for you to research and let me know.