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

[Elixuh]

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.

We can't match 5 picks per draft. GC will likely have up to 4 first rounders this year and will likely only be able to match 2. The example you provided is just hysteria about circumstances which will never arise.

 

[kaiserchief13]

Make the team have to use a draft pick within 5 of the selection then make up the points with other trash picks. Cant find a trade partner to give the pick? Can't take the player. E.g academy or f/s player goes pick 1 then must have at least pick 6 in same draft to use to match, otherwise cant take the player. Fairness >>>>> the joke it is currently

 

[threenewpadlocks]

We can't match 5 picks per draft. GC will likely have up to 4 first rounders this year and will likely only be able to match 2. The example you provided is just hysteria about circumstances which will never arise.

I'm more making a facetious point that an academy can be so effective in developing talent if money can be thrown at the academy to make it more effective in developing talent, that you're effectively able to use money to buy talent, undermining why a draft was introduced in the first place.

How about this example: what if the academy is so effective every year that pick 1 in the draft always comes from one team's academy, because millions more is spent on that academy than others.

Even with the updated points system and decreasing from a 20% to 10% discount, and assuming that each pick is worth exactly its points and you're not doing the currency arbitrage through trades, getting that pick 1 at a 10% discount is worth 300 points, or worth pick 36 - you're getting a second rounder worth of points simply by having that player exist.

That is just one player, if it happened to be pick 1, the discount you get is worth a second rounder - obviously not every player is going to be pick 1, but there are years where you get multiple players.

If we all agree that you can throw money at the academy, to make it stronger, how is that not anything but just using money to buy a draft advantage?

West Coast can't use their financial strength to buy draft picks from others in a one-sided trade. That's now how our draft equalisation system is set up.

But if some rich benefactor for a northern academy team just decided that they wanted to pump $10 million a year into the academy above and beyond, and that money spent improved the quality of the draft that it generated northern talent(s) that was worth 3000 draft points (so 300 points discount) that wouldn't have existed if they didn't have the $10 million, how is that any different than West Coast or Collingwood using their riches to decide that they would just spend $10 million and buy a second round draft pick from another club?

It's also why I'm against North selling home games to Perth btw. Not that I don't understand the economic realities of the WA clubs and North, just that you can't have a competition without relegation and with principles of equalisation where the financial disparities are so great where one team can effectively buy a home game from another - it makes the idea of 11 home and 11 away games for a fair fixture also unfair, just because money.

 

[Elixuh]

I'm more making a facetious point that an academy can be so effective in developing talent if money can be thrown at the academy to make it more effective in developing talent, that you're effectively able to use money to buy talent, undermining why a draft was introduced in the first place.

How about this example: what if the academy is so effective every year that pick 1 in the draft always comes from one team's academy, because millions more is spent on that academy than others.

Even with the updated points system and decreasing from a 20% to 10% discount, and assuming that each pick is worth exactly its points and you're not doing the currency arbitrage through trades, getting that pick 1 at a 10% discount is worth 300 points, or worth pick 36 - you're getting a second rounder worth of points simply by having that player exist.

That is just one player, if it happened to be pick 1, the discount you get is worth a second rounder - obviously not every player is going to be pick 1, but there are years where you get multiple players.

If we all agree that you can throw money at the academy, to make it stronger, how is that not anything but just using money to buy a draft advantage?

West Coast can't use their financial strength to buy draft picks from others in a one-sided trade. That's now how our draft equalisation system is set up.

But if some rich benefactor for a northern academy team just decided that they wanted to pump $10 million a year into the academy above and beyond, and that money spent improved the quality of the draft that it generated northern talent(s) that was worth 3000 draft points (so 300 points discount) that wouldn't have existed if they didn't have the $10 million, how is that any different than West Coast or Collingwood using their riches to decide that they would just spend $10 million and buy a second round draft pick from another club?

It's also why I'm against North selling home games to Perth btw. Not that I don't understand the economic realities of the WA clubs and North, just that you can't have a competition without relegation and with principles of equalisation where the financial disparities are so great where one team can effectively buy a home game from another - it makes the idea of 11 home and 11 away games for a fair fixture also unfair, just because money.

So in summary:

You don’t know how matching works and think we can get 5 picks every draft

Your biggest concern is some crazy hypothetical which hasn’t happened and will never happen centred around Jeff Bezos providing millions to the academy and it becoming a super academy. Even then the output will be more talent we can’t match which will be of overall benefit to the league.

Based on your position, honestly, the academies are the least of your troubles.

 

[briztoon]

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.

You're referring to the VFL teams right!?!

 

[briztoon]

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.

Blakey was father son eligible to the Lions as well. It wouldn't have been a 1 horse race for his signature.

 

[briztoon]

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, Ed Richards, James Worpel, Ben Hobbs, Harry Sheezel, George Wardlaw, Elijah Tsatas, Nick Watson) 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.

ftfy

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You're referring to the VFL teams right!?!

Yeah because the Western Bulldogs clearly have such a strong advantage in the league when it comes to player power desirability.

You do realise who you're talking to yeah?

 

[Ashman23]

Blakey was father son eligible to the Lions as well. It wouldn't have been a 1 horse race for his signature.

So? It doesn't still mean Sydney should've had any advantage to drafting him.

I'm just waiting for the wonderful day when Cooper Hodge say's 'Make me a Lion' and then his brothers follow.

 

[briztoon]

So? It doesn't still mean Sydney should've had any advantage to drafting him.

I'm just waiting for the wonderful day when Cooper Hodge say's 'Make me a Lion' and then his brothers follow.

Hodge is, at best, the the third best of our academy kids next year, and the top two are clearly a step above, and the best kid plays the same position as Hodge.

 

[Ashman23]

Hodge is, at best, the the third best of our academy kids next year, and the top two are clearly a step above, and the best kid plays the same position as Hodge.

Regardless, the Lions should not have any access to him whatsoever. It's not like he's going off to play rugby league.

 

[briztoon]

Regardless, the Lions should not have any access to him whatsoever. It's not like he's going off to play rugby league.

I don’t know about that. Our academy has been doing a bit to get AFL in to the private school competition up here.

He does go to one of the traditional rugby union powerhouse private schools.

Without the work of the academy, he’d be playing rugby at school.

 

[sydney_gws]

I don’t know about that. Our academy has been doing a bit to get AFL in to the private school competition up here.

He does go to one of the traditional rugby union powerhouse private schools.

Without the work of the academy, he’d be playing rugby at school.

Isn't the QAFL good. That's what Reiwoldt and Dayne Beams played when 17.
I am not knocking academies,
St Kilda complains but they must not act as a victim.
There argument should be make academies use their own draft picks and nothing else to match, and/or limit academy/ father-sons to say 3 top 40 matches over a five year period.
Let gold coast and GWS have 4 top 40 matches as they don't have many father sons for at least 20 years.

 

[Elixuh]

Isn't the QAFL good. That's what Reiwoldt and Dayne Beams played when 17.

No. It’s a huge step down compared to equivalent fixtures.

 

[Duckimus Prime]

Isn't the QAFL good. That's what Reiwoldt and Dayne Beams played when 17.

The QAFL is so rubbish that the AFL decided the VFL should consist of the whole east coast.

 

[sydney_gws]

The QAFL is so rubbish that the AFL decided the VFL should consist of the whole east coast.

I meant for 16, 17 year olds to play in during their last 2 years of school before joining an AFL club.
I think the QAFL is supposed to be higher than Sydney's competiton, which Errol Gulden wasn't too good for as 17 year old ( that was the only football he played in 2020 before being drafted in Nov 2020 to debut in March 2021.

 

[3rd Grade Maggy]

Sydney taking it to the next level. You have to admire it.

 

[Elixuh]

Sydney taking it to the next level. You have to admire it.

Don't worry, by the time Pav's kids are of draft age, Freo and St Kilda will have successfully lobbied for the FS rule to be abandoned and the only pathway for his kids will be through their academy. They'll all play 250 games for the Swans.

 

[Purple Suit]

Everyone’s got it wrong, Pav’s only taken the job for Sydney’s academy so his kids are better developed for their Freo careers.

 

[Vindicater]

I like the idea of a priority pick being a set draft rule.

Something like
Miss finals for five years straight get pick 11 (pick before previous finalists)

 

[Ashman23]

I like the idea of a priority pick being a set draft rule.

Something like
Miss finals for five years straight get pick 11 (pick before previous finalists)

Not that I agree with a priority pick, if a team was to be presented with one they should have to use it to trade for a player, so they'll arguably get better quicker with a player who's established, not just another kid who's career will be spent mostly in a poor side.

 

[Scotland]

Not that I agree with a priority pick, if a team was to be presented with one they should have to use it to trade for a player, so they'll arguably get better quicker with a player who's established, not just another kid who's career will be spent mostly in a poor side.

If you give a team a pick it has to trade it devalues the pick.

In round terms we'll have something like picks 1, 15, 30 this year. You never know who will be available year to year but you should have some idea whether you are starting a conversation with 1, 15 or 30.

I would say if you wanted to give say pick 20 of equivalent value as compo then if it has to be traded then it would actually need to be more like 10. I know if we had a player worth around pick 20 and another club had pick 10 which was use it or lose it I would be wanting that pick. It's never black and white in terms of player value and it can end up in a win win (like Sydney's first rounder this year, someone could trade for that and get a good deal as they will use it on a bid anyway).

Personally I'd rather see uncontracted player selections. So a player with anywhere from 3-8 years in the system effectively becomes a UFA and their club gets compo. If we're serious about equalisation it can't just be teams at the bottom getting 18 year olds.

 

[Dogflogger]

Don't worry, by the time Pav's kids are of draft age, Freo and St Kilda will have successfully lobbied for the FS rule to be abandoned and the only pathway for his kids will be through their academy. They'll all play 250 games for the Swans.

I think a lot of fans from both those clubs would give up the very unlikely chance they ever get a decent father son for a fairer draft.

 

[Elixuh]

I think a lot of fans from both those clubs would give up the very unlikely chance they ever get a decent father son for a fairer draft.

Hello Mr Dogflogger. Even then, I don't think it'll matter much for the mighty sainters

This Lions gun slid to pick No.31 in the draft. This is why

Michael Whiting finds out how and why Lions gun Logan Morris slid all the way to pick No.31 in the 2023 draft

www.afl.com.au

Over his final two years as a junior, Morris spoke to 17 of the 18 AFL clubs.

The only club he didn't speak to was St Kilda, which ironically have been the most vocal about the advantages Brisbane and other northern state clubs get with their academies.

 

[Choogler]

I'm more making a facetious point that an academy can be so effective in developing talent if money can be thrown at the academy to make it more effective in developing talent, that you're effectively able to use money to buy talent, undermining why a draft was introduced in the first place.

How about this example: what if the academy is so effective every year that pick 1 in the draft always comes from one team's academy, because millions more is spent on that academy than others.

Even with the updated points system and decreasing from a 20% to 10% discount, and assuming that each pick is worth exactly its points and you're not doing the currency arbitrage through trades, getting that pick 1 at a 10% discount is worth 300 points, or worth pick 36 - you're getting a second rounder worth of points simply by having that player exist.

That is just one player, if it happened to be pick 1, the discount you get is worth a second rounder - obviously not every player is going to be pick 1, but there are years where you get multiple players.

If we all agree that you can throw money at the academy, to make it stronger, how is that not anything but just using money to buy a draft advantage?

West Coast can't use their financial strength to buy draft picks from others in a one-sided trade. That's now how our draft equalisation system is set up.

But if some rich benefactor for a northern academy team just decided that they wanted to pump $10 million a year into the academy above and beyond, and that money spent improved the quality of the draft that it generated northern talent(s) that was worth 3000 draft points (so 300 points discount) that wouldn't have existed

Quite possibly, without the dollars spent and the work of the northern academies, the player wouldn't have existed and would be playing NRL or maybe basketball. To just look at the northern academies as benefiting those clubs is somewhat disingenuous.
The AFL expanded into GC and GWS to make inroads into the NRL supporter, sponsorship, and player bases, in order to grow the game and the AFL brand. Essentially it was money.
Increasing their profile and hence income by growing their market in those areas thereby increasing the value of sponsorships and, importantly, the broadcast deal, significantly. That benefits all clubs, particularly clubs like NM who'd not survive if the AFL could not afford to prop them up financially. The 2 new clubs should have been relocations but that is a discussion for another time.
To achieve their goal, GWS and GC were granted generous draft concessions because the best and fastest way to raise a profile is success which then attracts supporters, players and sponsorship.

So they had talented lists and continued to draft talented players so what went wrong, particularly at GC, the success the AFL was hoping for wasn't coming?

The major reason was that they had become "revolving door" training camps for, primarily, (the big) Vic-clubs. This is not a criticism of Vic clubs, just reflective of the fact Victoria supplies the largest proportion of draftees.

So they'd lose a some of their most talented kids, and also had a distinct inability to attract quality experienced players, to replace the quality kids lost to the go home factor. They'd have to pay overs to attract (often average) experienced players and then overs to retain young players.

This was killing them so the AFL had to do something to stop it.. they needed to introduce a "stay home" factor and academies and the ability to match bids for academy kids was, I believe, a good compromise. I do think what happened , like with GC in 2023 matching 3 in the top 14 and 4 in the top 26, provided too much of an advantage but with the reduction to discounts and removal of points from 4th rounders and reduction of points for all but Pick 1, the 2023 scenario is gone.

The unseen, or at least unacknowledged benefit of that is that other clubs will have more access to the northern academy kids.

It's fine to criticise the northern academies, and I'd probably join you with Sydney and Brisbane as they are long established and also have access to FS picks, something GC & GWS don't yet have.

if they didn't have the $10 million, how is that any different than West Coast or Collingwood using their riches to decide that they would just spend $10 million and buy a second round draft pick from another club?

It's also why I'm against North selling home games to Perth btw. Not that I don't understand the economic realities of the WA clubs and North, just that you can't have a competition without relegation and with principles of equalisation where the financial disparities are so great where one team can effectively buy a home game from another - it makes the idea of 11 home and 11 away games for a fair fixture also unfair, just because money.

As for you being against NM "selling" home games to Perth, it should be pointed out that it is just another sponsorship arrangement whereby NM receive $2.5 million a year in sponsorship from the WA Gov't who considers it worthwhile and recoups the funds through increased tourism and increase patronage at Optus Stadium. It is no different to their longstanding Tasmanian arrangement and they make a heap more coming here as I believe they receive 50% of the non-membership gate takings. Without the deal and with losing the Tasmanian deal, NM would be relying even more on their annual AFL gifted "prop-up" funding cheque than they already do.

As for the fixture being fair, in the AFL, there is no such thing. It is, and will always be, heavily weighted in favour of the big Vic clubs. If you want a fair fixture, perhaps the "big" Vic clubs going to Geelong and Tasmania would be the very first, and easiest, starting point. There is no reason they shouldn't... if you are really concerned about fair.