News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[giantroo]

 

[sr36]

As I said before, some of our derbies aren't neutral, unless you consider playing Geelong in Geelong a neutral game as well.



There has to better option than two Vic teams playing a game interstate. The AFL doesn't want that, as they'd be concerned about ticket sales.

I do know most non Vic teams want either less travel, or equal travel competition wide. And most non Vic teams want more MCG games as well.

As I keep coming back to, the fairest competition is less Vic teams.

Yes your Derby's aren't neutral. Yeah play 11 with an advantage and 11 with a disadvantage plus gather round. That still works out neutral

Vic teams already play each other in Tassie, NT. Collingwood pitched a home game on the Gold Coast to the AFL.

Think through what reducing the number of teams in Vic would do.
If it was a 12 team comp with 4 in Victoria. Non Vic teams would travel the same. Vic teams travel 3 more teams, but still less than non-Vic teams. And those 4 Vic teams would be absolutely enormous.

3 more travels to even that up slightly, but still not even, but on the flip side, the other things that are complained about rise massively - blockbuster games, go home recruiting, media focus, player potential earnings outside of salary, club facilities, etc ...

 

[Elixuh]

Vic teams already play each other in Tassie, NT. Collingwood pitched a home game on the Gold Coast to the AFL.

Can we be upfront about this though. The Tassie and NT games are for significant financial benefit.

Collingwood’s pitch for a home game on the Gold Coast was (1) because they didn’t want to play North at Marvel; (2) only on the proviso that it be the week immediately following their away game against GCS so that no extra travel was required and so their opponent would have to travel.

 

[sr36]

Can we be upfront about this though. The Tassie and NT games are for significant financial benefit.

Collingwood’s pitch for a home game on the Gold Coast was (1) because they didn’t want to play North at Marvel; (2) only on the proviso that it be the week immediately following their away game against GCS so that no extra travel was required and so their opponent would have to travel.

I wasn't suggesting otherwise.

At the moment, some Vic teams sell home games interstate. Those who don't tend to have 2 of their home games shifted away from their home ground to a different Vic venue as part of the ground rationalisation move that occured. If you shifted those two games interstate and made them against other Vic teams - voila, vics are playing 10 interstate games - same travel as Adelaide teams and 1 less than the other Non-Vic teams - and everyone except WA whose distances are greater can move on from the travel carry on.

If the extra travel really is a big deal, it could be fixed by simply having the 2 home games that the AFL shift shifted to a different venue be at an interstate venue with the rest of the Vic clubs doing what Hawthorn and North have done for years with a secondary home ground in a different state.

Unfortunately, it won't stop the whinging though - that's endemic. Apparently, North having squared up travel with the Non-Vic teams results in some of the Non-Vic teams having to play in Tassie rather than Docklands - somehow that's supposedly a massive disadvantage. I'm not really sure how, but I'm assured it is

 

[eaglevision]

Just looking for consensus in regard to future points matching. My understanding is with the current rules:

1. Points deficits are incurred the following year commencing from the round in which the deficit was incurred. E.g. WCE match a bid on Wes Walley at (uncompromised) pick 28, the following year the deficit will apply to our first pick in the second round
2. The pick will revert to the better pick if the points deficit falls between two picks. E.g. a deficit of 1450 will revert to pick 7 rather than pick 8, even though pick 8 is closer in value.

Is this in line with the understanding of other posters?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Just looking for consensus in regard to future points matching. My understanding is with the current rules:

1. Points deficits are incurred the following year commencing from the round in which the deficit was incurred. E.g. WCE match a bid on Wes Walley at (uncompromised) pick 28, the following year the deficit will apply to our first pick in the second round
2. The pick will revert to the better pick if the points deficit falls between two picks. E.g. a deficit of 1450 will revert to pick 7 rather than pick 8, even though pick 8 is closer in value.

Is this in line with the understanding of other posters?

Pretty sure you are spot on remember the discount is applied though. Points accrue 0 points after r3 too. For example pick 20 in the old model was 912 points, with the new model it is 757 points pretty sure I read that somewhere. The top picks are worth a lot more, and teams are less able to stockpile 'mid tier picks' to match bids. What this hopefully does is it means teams pay fairer value (in theory). We all know teams are looking for loopholes though.

I just hope then can the ability to open up more list spots the minute the draft begins that's become farcical

 

[eaglevision]

Pretty sure you are spot on remember the discount is applied though. Points accrue 0 points after r3 too. For example pick 20 in the old model was 912 points, with the new model it is 757 points pretty sure I read that somewhere. The top picks are worth a lot more, and teams are less able to stockpile 'mid tier picks' to match bids. What this hopefully does is it means teams pay fairer value (in theory). We all know teams are looking for loopholes though.

I just hope then can the ability to open up more list spots the minute the draft begins that's become farcical

Yep I’m clear on the discounting and values, but there’s conflicting information on how the deficit is applied the following year. Here is the new draft value index for those interested.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yep I’m clear on the discounting and values, but there’s conflicting information on how the deficit is applied the following year. Here is the new draft value index for those interested.

It would make sense for it being your highest nominal pick (not one traded in). Now watch the AFL completely bugger this up though lol

 

[eaglevision]

It would make sense for it being your highest nominal pick (not one traded in). Now watch the AFL completely bugger this up though lol

There’s huge incentive for clubs to carry a points debt into 2027 IMO and expect to see clubs position themselves for this over the next two years.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

There’s huge incentive for clubs to carry a points debt into 2027 IMO and expect to see clubs position themselves for this over the next two years.

Yep 2027 will be a who cares draft, teams will just say well we will carry the max deficit into that draft and who cares.

 

[sydney_gws]

Yep 2027 will be a who cares draft, teams will just say well we will carry the max deficit into that draft and who cares.

I think deficits should affect round 1 picks.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think deficits should affect round 1 picks.

Na I'm happy with them affecting the round the bid is taken on, second round affects the second round, first round affects the first. 2027 a lot of sides will take the deficit, it's highly compromised

 

[Enviable Tradition]

I for one laud any changed that help a young indigenous lad like Dougie Cochrane get into an NGA and exposed to AFL football and have an opportunity to develop at his father's AFL club.

 

[briztoon]

Yes your Derby's aren't neutral. Yeah play 11 with an advantage and 11 with a disadvantage plus gather round. That still works out neutral

Vic teams already play each other in Tassie, NT. Collingwood pitched a home game on the Gold Coast to the AFL.

Think through what reducing the number of teams in Vic would do.
If it was a 12 team comp with 4 in Victoria. Non Vic teams would travel the same. Vic teams travel 3 more teams, but still less than non-Vic teams. And those 4 Vic teams would be absolutely enormous.

3 more travels to even that up slightly, but still not even, but on the flip side, the other things that are complained about rise massively - blockbuster games, go home recruiting, media focus, player potential earnings outside of salary, club facilities, etc ...

I was thinking 14 teams, 5 in Vic, 1 in Tassie.

We would have an uncompromised draft, with longer and stricter player contracts.

The Vic teams shouldn't be any stronger or weaker than any other team.

 

[My_Username]

I was thinking 14 teams, 5 in Vic, 1 in Tassie.

We would have an uncompromised draft, with longer and stricter player contracts.

The Vic teams shouldn't be any stronger or weaker than any other team.

Trouble with that idea is that Vic clubs/fans have made it clear that they care more about playing their traditional (Vic) rivals than being in a national comp.

So any plan to drop 5 Vic clubs would run the risk of a breakaway Vic comp.

and in a battle between VFL and Rest-of-Aus, the VFL would win.

 

[briztoon]

Just looking for consensus in regard to future points matching. My understanding is with the current rules:

2. The pick will revert to the better pick if the points deficit falls between two picks. E.g. a deficit of 1450 will revert to pick 7 rather than pick 8, even though pick 8 is closer in value.
Is this in line with the understanding of other posters?

I'm not totally sure what you are saying here. However in regards to the first round. If you are paying a deficit off a first round pick, and your pick moves further back in the first round, you slot in to the worse spot.

1f you are left with 1450 points, you'll slot in to pick 8.

 

[briztoon]

Trouble with that idea is that Vic clubs/fans have made it clear that they care more about playing their traditional (Vic) rivals than being in a national comp.

So any plan to drop 5 Vic clubs would run the risk of a breakaway Vic comp.

and in a battle between VFL and Rest-of-Aus, the VFL would win.

More likely both die.

The whole point of the VFL going national was stop any more VFL clubs going bankrupt and being booted from the comp.

 

[sr36]

I was thinking 14 teams, 5 in Vic, 1 in Tassie.

We would have an uncompromised draft, with longer and stricter player contracts.

The Vic teams shouldn't be any stronger or weaker than any other team.

I keep reading that the academies are necessary to counter the go home factor of recruiting from Victoria - you've doubled that factor by halving the clubs.

Apparently blockbuster games are a big advantage - we'll you've doubled the supporter base of the surviving Vic clubs - every Vic Vic game is now a blockbuster

Supposedly the greater media exposure of Vic teams leads to greater earning potential for players - you've just doubled the media exposure for the surviving Vic teams

All of that so that you get Vic teams to travel 2 or 3 more times in a season - or in other words travel less than Hawthorn currently do ...

I think you're nuts

 

[eaglevision]

I'm not totally sure what you are saying here. However in regards to the first round. If you are paying a deficit off a first round pick, and your pick moves further back in the first round, you slot in to the worse spot.

1f you are left with 1450 points, you'll slot in to pick 8.

Has that specific determination changed from 2020, only real reference I could find and Twomey at least then confirmed the club gets the better pick.

 

[briztoon]

Has that specific determination changed from 2020, only real reference I could find and Twomey at least then confirmed the club gets the better pick.

Ok, I remember when Twomey first explained what would happen on Road to the Draft, he explained that a pick needed the full value of a pick, to move in to that spot. Hence why his first tweet had Freo at pick 11.

I understand it, in terms that Geelong originally had pick 11 on ladder position, so their original pick had less points.

 

[eaglevision]

Ok, I remember when Twomey first explained what would happen on Road to the Draft, he explained that a pick needed the full value of a pick, to move in to that spot. Hence why his first tweet had Freo at pick 11.

I understand it, in terms that Geelong originally had pick 11 on ladder position, so their original pick had less points.

Yes, that is how I understand the system to still work, so based on that are you in agreement with:

2. The pick will revert to the better pick if the points deficit falls between two picks. E.g. a deficit of 1450 will revert to pick 7 rather than pick 8, even though pick 8 is closer in value.

 

[briztoon]

I keep reading that the academies are necessary to counter the go home factor of recruiting from Victoria - you've doubled that factor by halving the clubs.

Apparently blockbuster games are a big advantage - we'll you've doubled the supporter base of the surviving Vic clubs - every Vic Vic game is now a blockbuster

Supposedly the greater media exposure of Vic teams leads to greater earning potential for players - you've just doubled the media exposure for the surviving Vic teams

All of that so that you get Vic teams to travel 2 or 3 more times in a season - or in other words travel less than Hawthorn currently do ...

I think you're nuts

That's pretty much how national sporting competitions operate around the world.

London has more EPL teams than any other city/town in England, but they don't have more teams than the rest of the competition combined. Same with the NFL and NBA. The largest cities have more than one team, but not more than the rest of the competition.

 

[briztoon]

Yes, that is how I understand the system to still work, so based on that are you in agreement with:

2. The pick will revert to the better pick if the points deficit falls between two picks. E.g. a deficit of 1450 will revert to pick 7 rather than pick 8, even though pick 8 is closer in value.

Twomey clarified that in his tweet, so that's how it is. So yes I agree.

 

[briztoon]

Has that specific determination changed from 2020, only real reference I could find and Twomey at least then confirmed the club gets the better pick.

Why the interest, what are you looking at or considering?

 

[My_Username]

More likely both die.

The whole point of the VFL going national was stop any more VFL clubs going bankrupt and being booted from the comp.

Not exactly, but regardless, the point was that killing off Vic clubs would kill the comp, and most particularly the non Vic parts of it.

The Northern states clubs would be lucky to last a few years....indeed, WA/SA might just kick them out almost immediately rather than send money their way.

 

[briztoon]

Not exactly, but regardless, the point was that killing off Vic clubs would kill the comp, and most particularly the non Vic parts of it.

The Northern states clubs would be lucky to last a few years....indeed, WA/SA might just kick them out almost immediately rather than send money their way.

Are you talking if a split occurred and there were two rival competitions?

Or if the competition remained, but 5 Vic clubs were folded (and Tassie added).

Why would the Northern clubs fold after a few years?

Would the media deals collapse (because they are what keep the competition alive).