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

[PortVic]

Port don't need to worry about Rodan....he will be a Bomber. It's also a bumper draft crop for Essendon with Bewick, Darwish and Tevita Rodan.

I’m still not certain Tevita qualifies for Essendon NGA. The few recruiters I spoke to at the u/16s vic metro vs country game couldn’t explain how he qualifies.

 

[Rash]

I’m still not certain Tevita qualifies for Essendon NGA. The few recruiters I spoke to at the u/16s vic metro vs country game couldn’t explain how he qualifies.

Yeah, the rules state he shouldnt

but twomey and fox footy said he does

 

[sydney_gws]

This round shows what a joke the bidding system, free agency compo is. Games uncompetitive, top 9 thrashing bottom 8 clubs.

 

[PortVic]

Yeah, the rules state he shouldnt

but twomey and fox footy said he does

Yep this is in the AFL eligibility guidelines.
“Indigenous and Multicultural: Eligibility is often extended to players who identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, or who are of Asian or African descent, or have parents from non-English speaking backgrounds”
I have loosely known Dave since he was 9, and he spoke pretty good English back then. So the only way I see Tevita qualify is through his mothers heritage, which I have no information on.

 

[GinniAndTonic]

the only thing the Saints have received from the AFL recently has been a shocking draw of games. I HAVENT SEEN Carlton
Collingwood or Essendon playing many SUNDAY Games this year.

Maybe start getting more than 20k to a prime time game then they’ll give you a better fixture

 

[Yoda_]

are people going to be up in arms as much about Collingwood possibly getting 3 x top 50 national draft prospects in this draft?

Doug Kerr has come back like a house on fire, Jai Saxena is doing really well and Zac Harding is firming to be a top 20 pick with every game he plays.

For an established club it's an incredibly big leg up. Is everyone in ruptures about this as well?

 

[tigerwill]

This round shows what a joke the bidding system, free agency compo is. Games uncompetitive, top 9 thrashing bottom 8 clubs.

It also restricts those clubs improving their list through the draft.
I'm not too worried or talking specifically about Richmond, we've had recent success and have had some good draft hands, so we are rejuvenating our list.
Then when Tassie enter the comp, the concessions they will be handed will further dilute the common pool of players.
If you have a late middle to older number of players it will only become harder. More lopsided matches. Ratings dip, those clubs are pushed further into non prime games. The struggle is exacerbated.

It's time to have a pure draft. No f/s...the romance may only last so long, (eg look at Silvagni now looking elsewhere..it's ok when it's good, when it's not the club and player soon part ways)
Stuff FA compo. It's been done to death.
No Academy rorts. State Clubs and Leagues put time, money and resources into their underage players and teams. It's bullshit.
Class B rookies/International players needs looking at.

It should be a pure draft. Equalisation not manipulation. Fixtures! Uneven playing fixtures. What a corrupt, compromised dogs breakfast. No wonder people are turning off in droves.
The current Commission is a Wokefest instead of a professional sporting group overseeing a $multi billion sport.
It's akin to the Girl Guides running the United Nations. Actually the GG would do a better job.

 

[Ashman23]

are people going to be up in arms as much about Collingwood possibly getting 3 x top 50 national draft prospects in this draft?

Doug Kerr has come back like a house on fire, Jai Saxena is doing really well and Zac Harding is firming to be a top 20 pick with every game he plays.

For an established club it's an incredibly big leg up. Is everyone in ruptures about this as well?

Unless you're potentially including another 3 players with their natural picks, (let's say they won the flag) be picking at 18, 36 and 54 anyway?

Wouldn't most clubs be drafting 3 top 50-ish national draft prospects?

Other clubs just need to bid roughly around the Pies pick or not at all to keep them honest.

 

[jdstorm]

It also restricts those clubs improving their list through the draft.
I'm not too worried or talking specifically about Richmond, we've had recent success and have had some good draft hands, so we are rejuvenating our list.
Then when Tassie enter the comp, the concessions they will be handed will further dilute the common pool of players.
If you have a late middle to older number of players it will only become harder. More lopsided matches. Ratings dip, those clubs are pushed further into non prime games. The struggle is exacerbated.

It's time to have a pure draft. No f/s...the romance may only last so long, (eg look at Silvagni now looking elsewhere..it's ok when it's good, when it's not the club and player soon part ways)
Stuff FA compo. It's been done to death.
No Academy rorts. State Clubs and Leagues put time, money and resources into their underage players and teams. It's bullshit.
Class B rookies/International players needs looking at.

It should be a pure draft. Equalisation not manipulation. Fixtures! Uneven playing fixtures. What a corrupt, compromised dogs breakfast. No wonder people are turning off in droves.
The current Commission is a Wokefest instead of a professional sporting group overseeing a $multi billion sport.
It's akin to the Girl Guides running the United Nations. Actually the GG would do a better job.

Equality and equity are very different things. Right now we have neither as the system is largely broken however going back to a completely open pool doesn’t serve the game as it shrinks the resources put into player development and makes the game weaker (in every state)

 

[briztoon]

100% - I think they have even more chance of it. The clubs quite literally reach out to them. They will be spending time at an AFL club for most of their life, they will have seen more inside a footy club than a number one draft pick before they are even 15. Their father knows how everything works and has the president's phone number in their phone - the coach probably calls them up to talk from time to time. They've had dinner with Alistair Clarkson and talked footy with a dozen AFL players.

Not to mention the memorabilia on the walls and in the drawers etc.

They will have trained at the AFL club when their dad dropped in. I've seen Justin Longmuir's son kicking the ball around with Michael Walters at Marvel stadium before a game.

If your dad played enough football to qualify you for a father son selection, the club knows your name and pours resources into you, they keep in touch with your dad and family, they invite you across the country - especially if your son qualified for more than one club.

Do you think the Eagles aren't looking at Chris Judd's boys? Sending them merch to keep them interested?

Luke Hodge didn't forget how to football when he retired.

Not sure if he's serious or not, but I guess he's trying to argue that Cooper wouldn't have had access to academy training, or access to the U16 and U18 national competitions, as academy membership is a requirement to make the teams.

Luke Hodge and Josh Dunkley coach his school team, which has quite a few academy members in it, but that team wouldn't be close to a Melbourne school team.

Luke would probably do what Jasper Fletcher's dad did. Go and coach one of the QAFL teams, and put his son in the senior team from the age of 16.

 

[Elixuh]

I think there’s a few here who don’t understand the purpose of academies. Academies exist to identify and pathway talent to the AFL in a way which never existed prior to the academies and which does not exist outside of the academies. The sole outcome being production of talent into the AFL system which would never have existed. Its sole purpose isn’t to go out and find people who aren’t playing AFL and who could.

You can raise all kinds of arguments as to whether certain players would have made it to the AFL without academies but the fact is…Prior to the academies Queensland produced something like…avg less than 1 player per year across like 30 years.

People raising the Tiwi Islands clearly have no insight into any of this, let alone the AFL landscape and pathways in Queensland.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think there’s a few here who don’t understand the purpose of academies. Academies exist to identify and pathway talent to the AFL in a way which never existed prior to the academies and which does not exist outside of the academies. The sole outcome being production of talent into the AFL system which would never have existed. Its sole purpose isn’t to go out and find people who aren’t playing AFL and who could.

You can raise all kinds of arguments as to whether certain players would have made it to the AFL without academies but the fact is…Prior to the academies Queensland produced something like…avg less than 1 player per year across like 30 years.

People raising the Tiwi Islands clearly have no insight into any of this, let alone the AFL landscape and pathways in Queensland.

All of that is fine, but it doesn't make any less the argument of undermining the purpose and effectiveness of the draft, such as equalisation, or the idea that richer teams (through spending money to actually make their academy effective in producing talent) can sidestep the draft and make themselves perpetually a better team.

Only a few idiots deny the reasons for or the effectiveness of the academies, just that there is obvious trade-offs in the multiple purposes of health of the code in general as custodian of the sport, as well as running a fair and balanced sporting competition that doesn't inherently provide advantages to certain teams.

 

[Elixuh]

All of that is fine, but it doesn't make any less the argument of undermining the purpose and effectiveness of the draft, such as equalisation, or the idea that richer teams (through spending money to actually make their academy effective in producing talent) can sidestep the draft and make themselves perpetually a better team.

Only a few idiots deny the reasons for or the effectiveness of the academies, just that there is obvious trade-offs in the multiple purposes of health of the code in general as custodian of the sport, as well as running a fair and balanced sporting competition that doesn't inherently provide advantages to certain teams.

There are rules in place that if we were to spend more money and produce more talent…that we wouldn’t reap any benefit in doing so. We can only take so many. It’s what should be happening. Academies in the northern states should be more heavily funded than they are. Other talent pathways nation wide should also be more heavily funded. The flip side of it all is that if the lions are taking an academy player who would have never existed in the AFL system then there is another player out there available for another team who otherwise wouldn’t have been available.

The idea of the draft as an equalisation measure is a fairytale sold by VFL clubs. The draft is in no way equal for 18 all teams.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

There are rules in place that if we were to spend more money and produce more talent…that we wouldn’t reap any benefit in doing so. We can only take so many. It’s what should be happening. Academies in the northern states should be more heavily funded than they are. Other talent pathways nation wide should also be more heavily funded. The flip side of it all is that if the lions are taking an academy player who would have never existed in the AFL system then there is another player out there available for another team who otherwise wouldn’t have been available.

The idea of the draft as an equalisation measure is a fairytale sold by VFL clubs. The draft is in no way equal for 18 all teams.

But you're missing the point that talent is a zero sum game. Every time a good team gets good talent at a discount 17 other clubs on margins lose out, because there's always the same number of wins as there are losses going around, so the existence of that player makes the other 750 other players a bit worse in a relative sense as they're less likely to contribute to winning games.

If a player never existed that gets absorbed into the draft system and a club takes the next best player, the next club takes the next next best player and so on.

There are reasonable arguments about the difficulty of northern teams developing and maintaining talent in a competitive environment with other teams if they have to relocate a greater number of players, but that's a different argument for improving the quality of the talent pool in general by "injecting" players into it.

Because it's all zero sum. Say that they introduced a rule that from 2027 onward only players with surnames beginning from A-M were allowed to be AFL footballers. A few older players would probably be able to hold onto their careers for longer and the good teams would stay good for longer, but over a longer cycle there would be no difference to the current system in terms of how the draft works as a principle of equalisation, there would just be a smaller talent pool to draft from. The same principle holds for if that player in the northern academy never existed, except that the presence of a northern academy allows teams to effectively draft into higher draft positions than they otherwise would, to recruit that talent.

What if, for arguments sake, that one of the Northern teams had a whizzbang academy that every single athletic looking kid in their zone was monumentally inspired to become an AFL footballer and they had 5 draftable talents every year. But the reason that they had that whizzbang academy was because they were spending lots, and lots, and lots of money to run that academy, hundreds of millions, because they had a billionaire benefactor. They get those 5 talents at a discount every year and effectively money is buying them a higher draft spot than their ladder position ensues on a consistent basis. It's allowing the fact you have money to bypass the principle of the draft that you don't get to select better talent if you're a good team already, undermining why it exists.

Of course the draft is not equal for 18 teams in practical terms, but we still should strive for the draft serving the purpose that it does. Otherwise why have a draft at all?

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

This year the Suns have 4 players that have been spoken about as potential first rounders - Uwland, Patterson, Addinsall, and Coulson.

It seems likely they will only be able to match the first two of these. So there will be probably two first rounders available in the open draft.

Does that mean the new bidding system is working? Or should the Suns still not be able to take any players?

Remembering they have stockpiled picks for this group of players, are those with pitchforks wanting to burn the academies down happy now?

 

[Elixuh]

What if, for arguments sake, that one of the Northern teams had a whizzbang academy that every single athletic looking kid in their zone was monumentally inspired to become an AFL footballer and they had 5 draftable talents every year. But the reason that they had that whizzbang academy was because they were spending lots, and lots, and lots of money to run that academy, hundreds of millions, because they had a billionaire benefactor. They get those 5 talents at a discount every year and effectively money is buying them a higher draft spot than their ladder position ensues on a consistent basis. It's allowing the fact you have money to bypass the principle of the draft that you don't get to select better talent if you're a good team already, undermining why it exists.

Of course the draft is not equal for 18 teams in practical terms, but we still should strive for the draft serving the purpose that it does. Otherwise why have a draft at all?

No they won't. Do you understand the matching rules?

So your argument is that the draft needs to be unencumbered because its purpose is equality, but you also acknowledge it isn't an equal mechanism? Completely nonsensical.

 

[Lore]

The idea of the draft as an equalisation measure is a fairytale sold by VFL clubs. The draft is in no way equal for 18 all teams.

All that and it's little more than a chook lotto anyway. Like yes higher picks have a better chance of being good players, but the fact that they're higher picks because someone decided to select them at that pick introduces a level of ineptitude to the mix that can't really be quantified. A club that can't afford to invest heavily in scouting is going to pick players earlier than they are objectively rated. If you only have a couple of picks, then you might take a particular type of player early because they're the only one available at that pick. And then you have a lot of variables around the club they land at, who the coach is, the team around them, whether they're required to play seconds for a long time, or out of position, if the injury management is good or bad. All of that has more to do with them becoming a good player than the pick they were selected with in the end.

A more equitable approach would probably be an auction (whether salary or some sort of points value based on finishing position), but I'm sure that has its own drawbacks and I've no idea how you put academy (or other alt pathway) players into that mix in an equitable fashion.

 

[GinniAndTonic]

This year the Suns have 4 players that have been spoken about as potential first rounders - Uwland, Patterson, Addinsall, and Coulson.

It seems likely they will only be able to match the first two of these. So there will be probably two first rounders available in the open draft.

Does that mean the new bidding system is working? Or should the Suns still not be able to take any players?

Remembering they have stockpiled picks for this group of players, are those with pitchforks wanting to burn the academies down happy now?

Yes we are, I think you’ve had enough first round academy players.

 

[Elixuh]

All that and it's little more than a chook lotto anyway. Like yes higher picks have a better chance of being good players, but the fact that they're higher picks because someone decided to select them at that pick introduces a level of ineptitude to the mix that can't really be quantified. A club that can't afford to invest heavily in scouting is going to pick players earlier than they are objectively rated. If you only have a couple of picks, then you might take a particular type of player early because they're the only one available at that pick. And then you have a lot of variables around the club they land at, who the coach is, the team around them, whether they're required to play seconds for a long time, or out of position, if the injury management is good or bad. All of that has more to do with them becoming a good player than the pick they were selected with in the end.

A more equitable approach would probably be an auction (whether salary or some sort of points value based on finishing position), but I'm sure that has its own drawbacks and I've no idea how you put academy (or other alt pathway) players into that mix in an equitable fashion.

I've been on the block of draft picks are overrated for a long long time.

The most basic and obvious inequality for the northern clubs is the concentration of talent existing interstate primarily in the VFL + some of that talent refuses to move interstate so is undraftable. It means we cannot take best available talent in the draft. There are also other consequences associated with management and retention of players when a very high % of your list is from interstate and we operate within the same budget in terms of player welfare as the other 17 clubs.

The unencumbered draft as a pure equalisation tool is a complete myth.

 

[Taylor]

I'm not sure the solution is multiple bonus first and second round picks for the non Victorian/Non footy state clubs, especially after they've traded first round picks for talent from Victoria.

There can and should be some historical equalisation where any new system that comes in phases in faster if you've benefited from the previous system - so if you've had father son picks landing in the top ten or academy players in the first round then you start losing access to those with the discounts etc.

But other clubs who's only involvement in the system has been to watch other clubs benefit aren't going to be shut out of that same benefit when it's their turn to have a go.

I don't want to deny clubs access to academy players in non football states, I don't want to deny clubs access to father son picks. I just don't want to deny clubs access to them the same way clubs that still benefit from that old system did.

I look at the 2012 AFL draft when the rules were changed to make it "fairer" and Essendon had to burn their top ten pick on Daniher then play Geelong who picked Selwood with the first round pick they didn't have to use to match Hawkins. It made the existing clubs with the advantages even more powerful, it didn't make it fairer.

 

[roos_fanatic08]

I've been on the block of draft picks are overrated for a long long time.

The most basic and obvious inequality for the northern clubs is the concentration of talent existing interstate primarily in the VFL + some of that talent refuses to move interstate so is undraftable. It means we cannot take best available talent in the draft. There are also other consequences associated with management and retention of players when a very high % of your list is from interstate and we operate within the same budget in terms of player welfare as the other 17 clubs.

The unencumbered draft as a pure equalisation tool is a complete myth.

Yeah nah. Even for a side that's finished bottom 2 the last 4 years we haven't had access to the best available talent due to Academies and F/S. While I don't have an issue with F/S, you can't argue that North's list would look a lot different had we of had access to the best available talent since 2020.

In 2020 if JUH was in the open draft we would have likely had Thilthorpe over Phillips.

In 2021 if Daicos was in the open draft he would've went number 1 over JHF.

In 2022 if W.Ashcroft was in the open draft it's likely he would've been a north player.

In 2023 we likely take Walter over Duursma.

That is a huge amount of missed talent.

 

[Taylor]

Yeah nah. Even for a side that's finished bottom 2 the last 4 years we haven't had access to the best available talent due to Academies and F/S. While I don't have an issue with F/S, you can't argue that North's list would look a lot different had we of had access to the best available talent since 2020.

In 2020 if JUH was in the open draft we would have likely had Thilthorpe over Phillips.

In 2021 if Daicos was in the open draft he would've went number 1 over JHF.

In 2022 if W.Ashcroft was in the open draft it's likely he would've been a north player.

In 2023 we likely take Walter over Duursma.

That is a huge amount of missed talent.

North should also have Nick Blakey on their list, not Sydney since Blakey was never going to miss out on access to AFL given his father's history and literally working at an AFL club.

 

[Elixuh]

Yeah nah. Even for a side that's finished bottom 2 the last 4 years we haven't had access to the best available talent due to Academies and F/S. While I don't have an issue with F/S, you can't argue that North's list would look a lot different had we of had access to the best available talent since 2020.

In 2020 if JUH was in the open draft we would have likely had Thilthorpe over Phillips.

In 2021 if Daicos was in the open draft he would've went number 1 over JHF.

In 2022 if W.Ashcroft was in the open draft it's likely he would've been a north player.

In 2023 we likely take Walter over Duursma.

That is a huge amount of missed talent.

If you want an entirely unencumbered draft then you don't have the compensation pick in 2023, so thats irrelevant. Sheezel in 2022 is as good a player as Will and is not holding your list back. In 2021 there were plenty of other high quality players North could have chosen. JHF is a great player but wanted to return home, he is otherwise a legitimate number 1 pick. In 2020, you don't know that Adelaide still don't take Thirlthorpe (an SA product, so very likely they do) and you're left with JUH, who would be making a really solid contribution to checks notes North's problems. There are also plenty of other players in the league who are not tied to academies, FS or NGAs and which North have passed over picking busts instead. Retrospective draft analysis is fun isn't it?

If you want an entirely unencumbered draft then you get rid of academy, FS and NGA matching. Get rid of FA compensation. The AFL would also need to entirely fund the academies so that the Lions can re-direct their sponsorship dollars towards their premiership program as other clubs do instead of towards running the academy. If our academy was entirely funded by the AFL then i'd happily give up the ability to match.

 

[Scotland]

Dunstall, Akermanis, Voss, Reiwoldt, Tippett.

The biggest change since the system was changed has been the % of Qld (and NSW) players staying where they are. Which is 100% the point of the system. Everything else is secondary.

Mal Michael, Clint Bizzell, the Cockatoo-Collins brothers, Gavin Crosisca, Max Hudghton, Brad Scott, Mitch Hahn, David Hale, Sam Gilbert, David Armitage, Jarrod Harbrow... Plenty of players were drafted out of Queensland, they just didn't always end up at the Bears/Lions or Suns.

For all the advantages of being in a football state, 8 players were drafted out of WA last year and two of them were rated in the top 30. Year before there were four: 8, 13, 23 and 28. 2022 there were 5: 9, 13, 14, 19, 21. So that's 11 top 30 players in 3 years and only 3 of them stayed in WA. And we had to split pick 3 into 9 and 14 to get two of them. Meanwhile teams in Qld/NSW get top 5 selections for later picks. But hey, we didn't develop the WA players. We only funded their development via the WAFC...

 

[threenewpadlocks]

No they won't. Do you understand the matching rules?

So your argument is that the draft needs to be unencumbered because its purpose is equality, but you also acknowledge it isn't an equal mechanism? Completely nonsensical.

I understand you get a discount when you match, both in the literal fact you don't have to match 100% of the points, in that the points don't represent the true value of the draft picks, and that you can exaggerate this effect by doing trades.

It's not nonsensical. You can acknowledge its flaws as being disequal (players telling clubs they won't play for them a la Archie Perkins) but still desire and strive for it to being effective as possible, and make efforts towards that goal to solve the problems I'm highlighting.