AFL Proposes Draft Changes

[Mat Mann]

the AFL as it stands is unequal and clearly favors some teams over others, there has to be a mechanism to equal the balance.

you cant have select teams getting preferential fixture treatment, which combined with TV exposure gives them a massive advantage over others. the advent of FA and academies only further compound the issues with those same team able to spend more monies outside of caps on finding and developing young talent and obtaining them at a discounted price. unchecked, the unbalance will only grow.

 

[Vintage]

So if option 2 is 10-10-8 followed by 18-18-18....

if that's too extreme for people, how about 18-10-18-18-18, so the bottom 10 clubs get their extra pick from pick 19-28, rather than 11-20?

Actually, that's just an end of first round priority pick for the bottom 10. Might even things up a little bit without being too severe.

 

[Tiges1229]

These campaigners have NFI just like the ****wits in Canberra , rabble , sooner Gill is out the better .

 

[Toump Ass]

They really are trying to over complicate a simple process.

Dees missed finals in 2017 by the smallest margin ever; and there's no way we deserved or needed an extra Top 20 (?) draft pick.

If the AFL does introduce this garbage you can guarantee someone is going to tank and build an elite team capable of a dynasty before the AFL reverts to the current system (and it's way too late).

Really struggling to think of any good ideas the current administration has had...

 

[Vintage]

the AFL as it stands is unequal and clearly favors some teams over others, there has to be a mechanism to equal the balance.

you cant have select teams getting preferential fixture treatment, which combined with TV exposure gives them a massive advantage over others. the advent of FA and academies only further compound the issues with those same team able to spend more monies outside of caps on finding and developing young talent and obtaining them at a discounted price. unchecked, the unbalance will only grow.

agreed. A good stats person could probably give us a nice table of how many years teams have spent in and out of the top 8 in the last dozen or so years. What we've got now has resulted in teams like Carlton, Melbourne, Brisbane spending far too many years out of the top 8. Saints probably in that bucket too. Freo saved by 4 years in there reasonably recently. GC will have spent a long time out by the time they finally make it.

Compare that to Sydney (missed 1 in last 14 years), Hawthorn (2 in 11 years), Adelaide (4 in 13 years), Eagles (5 in 17 years), Geelong (missed 1 in 11 years). Between them those 5 teams have made the finals 53/66ths of the time in the last 12 odd years (more than 80% of the time) - those 5 teams have effectively filled more than 4 of the top 8 positions each year on average since 2006. In effect that means the other 13-15 teams are playing for only 4 finals positions.

That's not good equalisation, and won't make for a healthy, long term sustainable AFL.

 

[mehow2g]

Just like prime ministers ceo of the AFL is just a mouth piece/salesman, they have a boss to answer to, people saying saying Gil is a clown or bring Andy d back is pointless.

The beauty of a CEO is when the shit stinks for too long or a scandal, Eg - asada, you can just swapout the puppet to put hope back into the audience.

It's a business and it has been fully corporate for 15+ years, it's not going to reverse.

 

[Farm Boy]

The old system worked. Sides just tanked when they got sh*thouse. Nothing wrong with a bit of tanking when the time calls for it.

 

[dumb]

take a rule, run it through one of gil's committees, and watch it come out the other end all ****ed and complicated in unforeseen ways with unforeseen consequences. there isn't a part of playing the game that has avoided this. umpiring, free agency, draft picks, you name it.

 

[RobbieK]

The major issue of the proposed changes js that teams in the lower part of the 8 get totally shafted. Particularly in the second option.

Here is the points values of picks from the current system and the two alternatives being presented graphed side by side to emphasise this.

It really makes no sense to me at all to have such a dramatic gap between 8th and 9th when realistically this gap is very marginal. This year it will only be a matter of percentage. Will teams tank to 9th or 10th rather than just scrape in to a final series that they aren't going to be realistically competitive in? If they had a father/son or academy player that they were needing to bid on there would be a significant amount of pressure to "fail" in order to almost triple, in the case of the second option, the number of points they had available in the draft.

Maybe there can be some loading of draft picks for the very lowest ranked teams, but it should really look a whole lot less drastic than this. In some ways these proposals look more like the seek to hurt the best performing teams than help the lower performing teams - the worst teams are getting a 20% bump in their points, equivalent to the most part to a second round pick (a high one for the worst teams, a low one for teams just missing the finals), while the best teams are losing 50% of theirs and are totally hamstrung from playing much if any role in the draft.

Ultimately this doesn't address the reason why teams get stuck at the bottom of the table. It isn't because they don't have access to good enough talent or they don't have enough picks at the higher end of the draft. No amount of picks has dragged Carlton up the table over he last few years, and it isn't going to help Gold Coast either. Melbourne has languished but now looks on the rise. Why? Because eventually they did something about the shit culture at the club.

If you just keep throwing draft picks at clubs without requiring them make changes to their off-field staff, from coaching and the football department to the broader organisation and administration, then you can't expect to see improvement.

There is already a lot happening in the league to equalise - the fixture, the draft, the salary cap, caps to football department spending... At some point the AFL needs to realise that you can't keep trying to rig the system to get even performance across all teams, that we are already doing enough to help teams rise up again, and that if that still isn't working the correct route is not to punish clubs who run themselves well but hold to account the people who are holding the weakest clubs back.

 

[quotemokc]

Someone should organise something like this for grand final day with the message akin to " Gillon, stop ruining football" or whatever.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...ed-fans-arrange-plane-banner-protest-against/

I am sure they could get enough funds from BF members.

 

[Requiem]

The major issue of the proposed changes js that teams in the lower part of the 8 get totally shafted. Particularly in the second option.

Here is the points values of picks from the current system and the two alternatives being presented graphed side by side to emphasise this.

It really makes no sense to me at all to have such a dramatic gap between 8th and 9th when realistically this gap is very marginal. This year it will only be a matter of percentage. Will teams tank to 9th or 10th rather than just scrape in to a final series that they aren't going to be realistically competitive in? If they had a father/son or academy player that they were needing to bid on there would be a significant amount of pressure to "fail" in order to almost triple, in the case of the second option, the number of points they had available in the draft.

Maybe there can be some loading of draft picks for the very lowest ranked teams, but it should really look a whole lot less drastic than this. In some ways these proposals look more like the seek to hurt the best performing teams than help the lower performing teams - the worst teams are getting a 20% bump in their points, equivalent to the most part to a second round pick (a high one for the worst teams, a low one for teams just missing the finals), while the best teams are losing 50% of theirs and are totally hamstrung from playing much if any role in the draft.

Ultimately this doesn't address the reason why teams get stuck at the bottom of the table. It isn't because they don't have access to good enough talent or they don't have enough picks at the higher end of the draft. No amount of picks has dragged Carlton up the table over he last few years, and it isn't going to help Gold Coast either. Melbourne has languished but now looks on the rise. Why? Because eventually they did something about the shit culture at the club.

If you just keep throwing draft picks at clubs without requiring them make changes to their off-field staff, from coaching and the football department to the broader organisation and administration, then you can't expect to see improvement.

There is already a lot happening in the league to equalise - the fixture, the draft, the salary cap, caps to football department spending... At some point the AFL needs to realise that you can't keep trying to rig the system to get even performance across all teams, that we are already doing enough to help teams rise up again, and that if that still isn't working the correct route is not to punish clubs who run themselves well but hold to account the people who are holding the weakest clubs back.

Agreed, well summed up post.

I have yet to see a well run club languish at the bottom of the ladder, usually they end up there through their own self-infliction.

 

[Luv_our_club]

Gill is head****ed by St Kilda. When he became CEO i had a feeling his support for St Kilda would end up being a problem.

 

[Dustin Credible]

What a cluster**** of an idea...

By only getting access to much later picks it will make top teams go down the free agency route even more especially if they still have to make the minimum number of list changes.

On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Luv_our_club]

Tanking would be a legit strategy.

But again we are being trolled by the AFL who release every half-baked idea to test it for popularity.

 

[Ticky009]

Doesn’t address the poaching of young contracted players in bottom teams at all.

 

[Pessimistic]

So with a recent example of Gold Coast (who are a basket case) and Giants (who tanked but are strong now) getting very close to the proposed model. Showing mixed results they are persisting with this

It’s like the rotation cap “it’s not working so let’s have a more extreme version of it”

Maybe the draft as it stands is philosophically wrong

 

[ghostbat12]

I am convinced us that afl released this to troll us and then condition us to be more comfortable with priority picks given at end of rd1 to bottom 4 teams.

I think ASADA needs to go down to afl house to find out what they are smoking over there.

 

[jacksgh]

agreed. A good stats person could probably give us a nice table of how many years teams have spent in and out of the top 8 in the last dozen or so years. What we've got now has resulted in teams like Carlton, Melbourne, Brisbane spending far too many years out of the top 8. Saints probably in that bucket too. Freo saved by 4 years in there reasonably recently. GC will have spent a long time out by the time they finally make it.

Compare that to Sydney (missed 1 in last 14 years), Hawthorn (2 in 11 years), Adelaide (4 in 13 years), Eagles (5 in 17 years), Geelong (missed 1 in 11 years). Between them those 5 teams have made the finals 53/66ths of the time in the last 12 odd years (more than 80% of the time) - those 5 teams have effectively filled more than 4 of the top 8 positions each year on average since 2006. In effect that means the other 13-15 teams are playing for only 4 finals positions.

That's not good equalisation, and won't make for a healthy, long term sustainable AFL.

was it equal when richmond made the finals twice in 31 years?

 

[LordLucifer]

Petrified of Richmond staying on top.

Open your eyes ..……….

You are focussed on the minute details and conveniently overlook the bigger picture.

No compo for Free Agents leaving
Players can be traded where & when they like
All non-finalists get a pre-draft pick in reverse ladder order
No individual 'priority picks' ever again

If you want to equalise the competition, this is the formula to do it.

 

[LordLucifer]

They really are trying to over complicate a simple process.

Dees missed finals in 2017 by the smallest margin ever; and there's no way we deserved or needed an extra Top 20 (?) draft pick.

If the AFL does introduce this garbage you can guarantee someone is going to tank and build an elite team capable of a dynasty before the AFL reverts to the current system (and it's way too late).

Really struggling to think of any good ideas the current administration has had...

They can tank all they like but once they start playing finals, they would only get the one pick inside the Top 28 which would bring them back to the field pretty quickly.

The other aspect to this is that if the finalists want to get further up the pointy end of the draft, they can always trade a quality player out to get there. Once again, it helps with the equalisation aspect.

 

[javaguice]

Gil won't stop until all teams finish in the top 8.

I don't think he understands the nature of competition.

 

[dazbroncos]

If you have 100 picks in a row and your list manager picks 100 shit players, you still have a shit list of 100 players.

When oh when will they figure out that giving picks is only 1/2 the battle. Making them count is just as important.

So in the meantime, they want to gut and handicap the game even further.

But im sure Gil still gets his ripper cheque every 2 weeks

GO Catters

 

[CrowMan90]

I am convinced us that afl released this to troll us and then condition us to be more comfortable with priority picks given at end of rd1 to bottom 4 teams.

I think ASADA needs to go down to afl house to find out what they are smoking over there.

These are their ideas without drugs.

 

[00Stinger]

wow this administration are hell bent on ****ing this game

 

[Luv_our_club]

"GM has mentioned the EPL had lost television rights revenue in the last deal, in making the argument to CEOs that the poor teams could drag down the financial health of the competition."

Is Gill stupid or does he think other people are stupid?