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

[sr36]

No answering questions with questions, please. Would you take the circumstances of the first 25 (27 if you want to take it up to the beginning of the academy) years of the Swans' existence in Sydney? Almost no home city or state recruits, no requests back to Victoria.

Yes South Melbourne did it tough when they relocated. But I don't think we need a draft system in the current AFL to rectify inequalities that existed in the VFL. I don't think we need to give Sydney a draft handicap due to that era. Nor a draft penalty for teams like Hawks and Carlton who had really good zones. If we're going with a draft system, i'd be looking for a system that fairly gives access to talent within the current AFL.

 

[.Shotties.]

Yes South Melbourne did it tough when they relocated. But I don't think we need a draft system in the current AFL to rectify inequalities that existed in the VFL.

This inequality lasted up until the academy started producing. It's the main inequality the academies help. It didn't stop a few years after the Swans moved.

I don't think we need to give Sydney a draft handicap due to that era. Nor a draft penalty for teams like Hawks and Carlton who had really good zones.

Irrelevant, not an argument I'm making.

If we're going with a draft system, i'd be looking for a system that fairly gives access to talent within the current AFL.

This assumes that a completely open draft is equal. The entire history of the draft up until the academies suggests it's not. I know you can pull out "But player X came from NSW or QLD" in reference to a player that came along once in a decade, but it's not really the same quality or quantity as what came from traditional states.

 

[sr36]

This inequality lasted up until the academy started producing. It's the main inequality the academies help. It didn't stop a few years after the Swans moved.

This assumes that a completely open draft is equal. The entire history of the draft up until the academies suggests it's not. I know you can pull out "But player X came from NSW or QLD" in reference to a player that came along once in a decade, but it's not really the same quality or quantity as what came from traditional states.

Sydney had been up for a decade and won two flags in that time, when Heeney - your first academy player - rolled off the press. Yet you're including that time amongst your era of disadvantage?

The city of Sydney not being able to attract cashed up professionals in their 20s is a fairytale. Or are AFL players much more risk averse than accountants?

 

[sr36]

Not to mention two other first rounders. The system is farcical now we aren’t blaming GC.

Just fix the system. 2 picks to match with ONE that has to be in the first round for a first round bid. Get rid of the ridiculous discount I go for Sydney and it’s a joke- matching should be the discount it’s not complicated

The list spots as soon as the draft opens I hate too

Twomey said they're going that way. 2 picks to match, no discount and not allowed to increase picks above the number of list spots.

Personally, I'd also get rid of the fake list spots that are created with delisting and re-drafting

 

[.Shotties.]

Sydney had been up for a decade and won two flags in that time, when Heeney - your first academy player - rolled off the press. Yet you're including that time amongst your era of disadvantage?

Heeney wasn't the first academy player.

The city of Sydney not being able to attract cashed up professionals in their 20s is a fairytale. Or are AFL players much more risk averse than accountants?

This isn't going to be a worthwhile exchange if you just make up arguments to contradict.

Anyway, looping back to the original question, which you seem intent on dodging: Would you accept Collingwood going almost 30 years having to build from 90% interstate players and with extremely limited opportunities to capitalise on trade requests back to Victoria?

 

[WilloTree]

By good list management

Haha. At least you didn't even try. Appreciate the reply though.

Case closed i'd say.

 

[WilloTree]

Except the Vic clubs don’t have similar costs.

They travel half the amount of games. That’s AFL and VFL level. Flights and accommodation. Players & staff.

They play half their games in a VFL owned stadium. Where as we pay $1m+ to the QLD government for each home game.

Costs are irrelivant to Brisbane. They're funded by the AFL.

 

[briztoon]

Costs are irrelivant to Brisbane. They're funded by the AFL.

So is every club. Also pretty sure we made a profit last year.

 

[sr36]

Heeney wasn't the first academy player.

This isn't going to be a worthwhile exchange if you just make up arguments to contradict.

Anyway, looping back to the original question, which you seem intent on dodging: Would you accept Collingwood going almost 30 years having to build from 90% interstate players and with extremely limited opportunities to capitalise on trade requests back to Victoria?

I'm pretty sure Heeney was the first player you drafted under the current academy situation (different matching rules at the time)

I'm not making up an argument. Players move or stay for a variety of reasons:

likelihood of team success
relationships within the club
relationships outside the club (the go home factor)
lifestyle
money

You're just fixated on the one that disadvantages Sydney. Meanwhile look at the location of the clubs who are paying way overs to attract and retain players - they're the battling clubs in Melbourne and previously it was Gold Coast when they were really struggling. It's the battlers who struggle to retain and attract players and thus whose salary cap doesn't go as far.

In terms of your question. No doubt that go home is a disadvantage for Sydney Football Club when it comes to attracting and retaining staff, but no doubt that being in the glamourous part of the most glamourous city in Australia is a recruiting advantage. Or being out of the footy media bubble in the southern states. How does it net out? Didn't seem to be a problem for Sydney before the academy system. Sydney Football Club were flying when you got Heeney. You'd played 9 out of the last 10 finals series and won two flags in that time. But you keep convincing yourself that you needed a further leg up because of the one recruiting factor that was disadvantageous towards Sydney. So to answer your question - if you put Collingwood in a unique desirable location without much competition from other clubs in that unique desirable location - I think we'd be fine, regardless of how many players the location produced - just like Sydney were.

.

 

[briztoon]

I'm pretty sure Heeney was the first player you drafted under the current academy situation (different matching rules at the time)

I'm not making up an argument. Players move or stay for a variety of reasons:

likelihood of team success
relationships within the club
relationships outside the club (the go home factor)
lifestyle
money

You're just fixated on the one that disadvantages Sydney. Meanwhile look at the location of the clubs who are paying way overs to attract and retain players - they're the battling clubs in Melbourne and previously it was Gold Coast when they were really struggling. It's the battlers who struggle to retain and attract players and thus whose salary cap doesn't go as far.

In terms of your question. No doubt that go home is a disadvantage for Sydney Football Club when it comes to attracting and retaining staff, but no doubt that being in the glamourous part of the most glamourous city in Australia is a recruiting advantage. Or being out of the footy media bubble in the southern states. How does it net out? Didn't seem to be a problem for Sydney before the academy system. Sydney Football Club were flying when you got Heeney. You'd played 9 out of the last 10 finals series and won two flags in that time. But you keep convincing yourself that you needed a further leg up because of the one recruiting factor that was disadvantageous towards Sydney. So to answer your question - if you put Collingwood in a unique desirable location without much competition from other clubs in that unique desirable location - I think we'd be fine, regardless of how many players the location produced - just like Sydney were.

.

Because the VFL is an over saturated market.

Ideally you should fold 4 of the Melbourne clubs, and move a 5th to Tasmania.

AFL should have been moving clubs out of Melbourne instead of creating new clubs.

 

[sr36]

Because the VFL is an over saturated market.

Ideally you should fold 4 of the Melbourne clubs, and move a 5th to Tasmania.

AFL should have been moving clubs out of Melbourne instead of creating new clubs.

The argument seems to be that the Southern states produce a heap more players therefore we need an academy system with advantageous matching, but you want to make the go home factor which seems to be the big concern more concentrated by having fewer Vic clubs? The arguments don't work together.

 

[.Shotties.]

I'm pretty sure Heeney was the first player you drafted under the current academy situation (different matching rules at the time)

I don't doubt you're sure of it.

. So to answer your question - if you put Collingwood in a unique desirable location without much competition from other clubs in that unique desirable location - I think we'd be fine, regardless of how many players the location produced - just like Sydney were.

This isn't answering the question though. Would you take the ACTUAL circumstances, which were a lack of draftees from the home state or city, almost no go home trades to fall back on and a list of 90% or more interstate players. This is what the objective situation was, not how you feel about Sydney as a city.

 

[sr36]

I don't doubt you're sure of it.

This isn't answering the question though. Would you take the ACTUAL circumstances, which were a lack of draftees from the home state or city, almost no go home trades to fall back on and a list of 90% or more interstate players. This is what the objective situation was, not how you feel about Sydney as a city.

I don't care what state Collingwood players come from - so if i thought the net recruiting and retnetion factors weren't disadvantageous, I'd have no problem with us taking no one from Victoria. It's about the net factors - not just isolating one of them.

I was answering a much more relevant question, because frankly your question is ridiculous - Collingwood are based in Melbourne where this situation won't occur and of course I don't want Collingwood to leave Melb - just as I assume you don't want Sydney to leave Sydney. Do I think that Sydney were at a significant disadvantage due to this situation? - No I don't - and the pre-QBE academy results pretty clearly support that view - you were already flying as a club.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Twomey said they're going that way. 2 picks to match, no discount and not allowed to increase picks above the number of list spots.

Personally, I'd also get rid of the fake list spots that are created with delisting and re-drafting

About tme. and that is fair for everyone. I do like how they waited till AFTER GC completely pillage a draft to make the changes

 

[sr36]

About tme. and that is fair for everyone. I do like how they waited till AFTER GC completely pillage a draft to make the changes

Yeah, I think it looks good. It was more than 1 draft for GC - 10 first rounders, including 5 in the top 10 over a 3 year period. It was nuts.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yeah, I think it looks good. It was more than 1 draft for GC - 10 first rounders, including 5 in the top 10 over a 3 year period. It was nuts.

Yep I just hope they come down hard with the deficit.

Personally the deficit should not be allowed to be more than your first selection. So lets use Carlton for example (it's just an example for goodness sakes) and if their picks stayed the same at 9 and 11, they should not be allowed a deficit more than pick 9. I really hope we do not allow full first rounds deficits that's just creating an extra first that is not there.

 

[sr36]

Yep I just hope they come down hard with the deficit.

Personally the deficit should not be allowed to be more than your first selection. So lets use Carlton for example (it's just an example for goodness sakes) and if their picks stayed the same at 9 and 11, they should not be allowed a deficit more than pick 9. I really hope we do not allow full first rounds deficits that's just creating an extra first that is not there.

The devil will be in the detail with the deficit. It depends how it's paid - no idea what they do if the future first round pick has already been traded.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

The devil will be in the detail with the deficit. It depends how it's paid - no idea what they do if the future first round pick has already been traded.

Easy you don't get the player if you have traded away your future first

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What I'm suggesting is I'm not convinced that several of these academy players that were bid on with first round picks were actually deserving of a bid at that stage in the draft order.

This is nothing other than a conspiracy theory to make yourself feel bedder.

Other clubs bid on them because they rated them as talented footballers and would have liked to be able to draft them with those picks at that stage. Occam's razor.

Therefore, I won't be surprised if some of them don't end up living up to the hype of first round picks that should find their way into a permanent place in the best 22 and the evidence to date suggests that may be happening.

There is no reason to think this for players who have yet to even complete their first pre-season. You have no evidence to think that the Academy players will be worse than what is typically expected for a pick in the range.

I "won't be surprised if some of them don't end up living to the hype of first round picks" is a meaningless statement because any first round pick not having a good career is not a surprise, in itself. Because not all picks are guaranteed successes. I wouldn't be surprised if Willem Duursma doesn't live up to the hype either, because if he's getting the average amount of 'hype' for a pick 1 in the draft, future outcomes are a bell curve, there's a 50% chance he exceedes the 'hype' and 50% chance he 'doesn't live up to the hype'. What you're saying is meaningless and not a defence of the draft advantage gained.

Walter, Rogers, Graham and Lombard all found themselves in the VFL late last year when the whip was cracking and we were trying to qualify for the finals.

Young players are worse footballers than old players. Colour me shocked.

Those young players playing VFL being replaced by older players are still likely to have better overall careers over the next few years than the old players playing in the final rounds. Again, meaningless that literal second-year players were not as good as they will be as 10th-year players.

inflated due to several clubs that were frustrated by the bidding system.

This is just a conspiracy with no evidence. If anything, the opposite actually happens, teams delay bids that they know will be matched because they don't want to upset teams in negotiating future trades.

 

[sr36]

This is nothing other than a conspiracy theory to make yourself feel bedder.

Other clubs bid on them because they rated them as talented footballers and would have liked to be able to draft them with those picks at that stage. Occam's razor.

Yep. However, I do think there is an interesting element to it all. Are these kids more talented or are they simply tracking higher at this stage because they've had more AFL standard development? Will they come back to the pack once the other draftees get into AFL programs?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yep. However, I do think there is an interesting element to it all. Are these kids more talented or are they simply tracking higher at this stage because they've had more AFL standard development? Will they come back to the pack once the other draftees get into AFL programs?

I think it's irrelevant. Footballing talent is always a product of development environments. We'll never know a player's 'football talent' in a metaphysical sense absent of the environments they're in, so there's no point worrying about it. I don't think they'll come back to the pack, because you can't 'recover' the lack of AFL-readiness as teenagers in non-Academy players. I think.

In any case it's baked into the draft. Teams draft for raw potential, not exposed form, so it's baked into where teams rate draft picks.

The best example of this is Jack Higgins who for the 2017 draft was absolutely dominant at U18 level in 2017 but slipped to pick 17 in the draft. Why? Because he was more "AFL-ready" than the draft pool because he dropped out of school after Year 11 and effectively committed himself to a full-time AFL program. He won the Morrish Medal U18 national championships B&F but clubs correctly assessed that he would have a poorer AFL career than e.g. Zac Bailey and Ed Richards, the two players drafted immediately before him who were far worse U18 players.

So if Northern Academies "AFL-ready" their players that gets baked into the draft and clubs don't bid for players, just like how they elected not to draft Jack Higgins.

It is fair to say though that the Northern Academies are probably better quality in preparing AFL-quality talent generally than Southern States. But that should be uncontroversial and logical, it literally exists for AFL development high-performance. In SA and WA, junior development is always with one eye to the existing SANFL and WAFL clubs, not to the AFL. In Victoria, player development is a bit more spread out over different voices with how much gets played through both Coates League and school footy these days, and is probably a bit inefficient. One the other hand once you're in the academy as a U16-18 system up North, it's an efficient development system with the sole intention of creating AFL talent, as opposed to the conflicting motivations/inputs as in the south.

 

[briztoon]

The argument seems to be that the Southern states produce a heap more players therefore we need an academy system with advantageous matching, but you want to make the go home factor which seems to be the big concern more concentrated by having fewer Vic clubs? The arguments don't work together.

Fewer SA & WA players go home, because they know from a young age, the reality is they are far less likely to be drafted by a home state team, and they are told, repeatedly, from their U16 squad camps to get used to the idea of moving, if they want an AFL career.

I’d much prefer a full home and away schedule and an even competition, but the vast majority of Vic fans aren’t interested in such discussions, and neither is the AFL.

 

[sr36]

Fewer SA & WA players go home, because they know from a young age, the reality is they are far less likely to be drafted by a home state team, and they are told, repeatedly, from their U16 squad camps to get used to the idea of moving, if they want an AFL career.

Have you got any stats on this? Freo seem to add a go home recruit every year.

But why is the go home distinction of recruit so significant - Neale, Dunkley, Cameron, Daniher, Allen, Draper, Doedee, McCarthy, Ah Chee, Fort - are they somehow less valuable because they moved for a different reason?

 

[WilloTree]

So is every club. Also pretty sure we made a profit last year.

Not sure. I thought Financial Statements came out Jan 1?

Good info. Can you share that please? Would be interested.

 

[danster168]

brisbane, dogs and pies fans should in no way be commenting in this thread because they have no concept of just how unfair the system has been because they're 3 clubs that have been advantaged significantly and havent felt any disadvantage.