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

[Lore]

 

[sr36]

From GC point of view Collingwood fan concerns about academy advantages are laughable.

Just compare Collingwood F/S and NGA players with Suns academy players on the lists over the Suns existence and their quality.

Don't forget that if Suns by some miracle finish one day top 4 they would be able to match only 1 bid in 1st round.

Then compare travelling, financial resources, 3rd party deals, TV exposure, MCG crowd. When Collingwood plays at Carrara, min 2/3 of crowd are Collingwood supporters. Suns players are actually booed. Talk about home crowd advantage.

Right now, I would say Suns still need as much assistance as possible. If they don't make finals in next 2 years you could see another cycle of players leaving (not that it would be bad for Victoria big clubs like Collingwood who ultimately benefit from Suns players exodus).

And you worry about Northern clubs could take over AFL Let that happen first.

"You barrack for Collingwood, blah blah blah..."

I'm happy to admit it's ridiculous that Collingwood got Nick Daicos for 4 junk picks?

Do you think it's ridiculous that GC traded Pick 4 and a handful of junk picks for Pick 2, Pick 8 and 4 other first round picks?

 

[Jirik13]

"You barrack for Collingwood, blah blah blah..."

I'm happy to admit it's ridiculous that Collingwood got Nick Daicos for 4 junk picks?

Do you think it's ridiculous that GC traded Pick 4 and a handful of junk picks for Pick 2, Pick 8 and 4 other first round picks?

It does not matter how much bla, bla, bla - the fact is that Collingwood benefited from F/S and NGA way more than Suns from academy. Not even close.

Interestingly, all those big clubs who wanted to boycott bidding on Suns academy kids completely ignored that Suns don't have F/S. Why not to suggest cancelling F/S when GWS and Suns don't have it to make system fairer? Haha.

Maybe you could focus on clubs who were only happy to pay overs in picks trades with Suns. E.g., nobody forced WB to do trade for pick 4 and offer what they did. Suns also did some prep work in previous years and accumulated picks.

IMO, all what is needed is to adjust points table (do some testing what exactly the curve should be - e.g. significant increase for top picks, finish awarding points earlier, reduce points for later picks) and probably remove discount.

NGA is a joke but will stay - I would make sure it's not exploited by clubs as it was in the past, but I would have the same rules as academy including limiting number of matches in 1st round depending on ladder position. IMO, this rule has huge impact and is generally ignored by most fans who complain about academy). I would even make it harder - no match top 4, 1 match top 8. Not making finals - get all help you can get. The same rules for F/S too (will not happen).

Opposition teams not putting bids where they should (Daicos should go pick 1) - not sure what could be done about this stupidity from teams.

I expect AFL to do changes but not huge ones, especially not all those complicated suggestions in this thread.

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

It does not matter how much bla, bla, bla - the fact is that Collingwood benefited from F/S and NGA way more than Suns from academy. Not even close.

Interestingly, all those big clubs who wanted to boycott bidding on Suns academy kids completely ignored that Suns don't have F/S. Why not to suggest cancelling F/S when GWS and Suns don't have it to make system fairer? Haha.

Maybe you could focus on clubs who were only happy to pay overs in picks trades with Suns. E.g., nobody forced WB to do trade for pick 4 and offer what they did. Suns also did some prep work in previous years and accumulated picks.

IMO, all what is needed is to adjust points table (do some testing what exactly the curve should be - e.g. significant increase for top picks, finish awarding points earlier, reduce points for later picks) and probably remove discount.

NGA is a joke but will stay - I would make sure it's not exploited by clubs as it was in the past, but I would have the same rules as academy including limiting number of matches in 1st round depending on ladder position. IMO, this rule has huge impact and is generally ignored by most fans who complain about academy). I would even make it harder - no match top 4, 1 match top 8. Not making finals - get all help you can get. The same rules for F/S too (will not happen).

Opposition teams not putting bids where they should (Daicos should go pick 1) - not sure what could be done about this stupidity from teams.

I expect AFL to do changes but not huge ones, especially not all those complicated suggestions in this thread.

Adjusting the points curve, and limiting to 3 picks to match is my predicted changes.

 

[sr36]

Maybe you could focus on clubs who were only happy to pay overs in picks trades with Suns. E.g., nobody forced WB to do trade for pick 4 and offer what they did. Suns also did some prep work in previous years and accumulated picks.

Dogs probably didn't pay overs. The point that your missing is that there's a massive league wide re-valuation of draft picks since the system was introduced. It wasn't designed to give a massive advantage. It was designed to be a fairer price than the previous one where a team could get pick 2 for pick 18.

They tried to make the matching price even, hence the inclusion of the 20% discount - that was supposed to be the only advantage. But now that there's a lot more data in and club's have gotten way better at analysing data, they've realised that those early picks are worth way more comparatively than they thought.

But hey, let's not question this system that doesn't do what it was designed to do. It's been around for 5 years now - it's sacred.

And if anyone who supports a Vic club mentions it, let's carry on about Vic bias.

 

[Jirik13]

Adjusting the points curve, and limiting to 3 picks to match is my predicted changes.

I would be surprised if AFL sets limit on number of used picks to match. Properly set up curve should handle it by forcing teams to get earlier picks to match. I would like to see some modelling, test cases with different curves.

 

[Jirik13]

Dogs probably didn't pay overs. The point that your missing is that there's a massive league wide re-valuation of draft picks since the system was introduced. It wasn't designed to give a massive advantage. It was designed to be a fairer price than the previous one where a team could get pick 2 for pick 18.

They tried to make the matching price even, hence the inclusion of the 20% discount - that was supposed to be the only advantage. But now that there's a lot more data in and club's have gotten way better at analysing data, they've realised that those early picks are worth way more comparatively than they thought.

But hey, let's not question this system that doesn't do what it was designed to do. It's been around for 5 years now - it's sacred.

And if anyone who supports a Vic club mentions it, let's carry on about Vic bias.

pick 4 for 10, 17, future 10 (based on 2023 ladder) looks to me like overs regardless how you view it.

 

[sr36]

pick 4 for 10, 17, future 10 (based on 2023 ladder) looks to me like overs regardless how you view it.

The point is that the top picks are worth a damn site more than they thought they were when they came up with the system, and thus the system isn't doing what it was intended to do.

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

I would be surprised if AFL sets limit on number of used picks to match. Properly set up curve should handle it by forcing teams to get earlier picks to match. I would like to see some modelling, test cases with different curves.

You have to limit the picks to match, otherwise a team with say picks 6 ,24,42 can trade
6 for 7,25.
7 for 8,26.
8 for 10,28
10 for 12,30

End up with say 12,25,26,28 30, 24,42.
Then trade 12 for a F1, 24 for a F2.
Match a bid at 1 with 25,26 28,30 42.
So turn 6 24 42 into 1,F1,F2.

If only 3 picks to match, they couldn't do that.
Probably if someone has picks 12 and 13, they trade 6,42 for 12,13,F2.
Trade 12 for 14,F2.
Match with 13,14,24.

So turn 6 24 42 into 1,F2,F2.
That's still pretty good for them though.

 

[Jirik13]

Match a bid at 1 with 25,26 28,30 42.

It looks like it's based on current point system. E.g. double points value for pick 1 and you are only half way there. Half value from pick 30 and it would get even more difficult to match. It would force team to come up with earlier picks.

Also not realistic to make so many trades

Also teams can only bring into draft picks number matching available list spots. Correct?

 

[Nugett]

See below.

Then maybe try harder? As your proposal doesn’t add up. If you said that a club has to use their pick within 10 spots, that could be feasible but still difficult to achieve.

 

[Cameron_Jezza]

It looks like it's based on current point system. E.g. double points value for pick 1 and you are only half way there. Half value from pick 30 and it would get even more difficult to match. It would force team to come up with earlier picks.

Also not realistic to make so many trades

Also teams can only bring into draft picks number matching available list spots. Correct?

I am assuming pick 1 is 4000, picks 10 and later stay same for points. Just an example I gave, iy does seem the price yo move up one spot is a 2nd rounder, so I agree it may not be possible to make so many trades.
I think limiting the number of picks to match does a better job than other ways to adjust it.
For picks after about 20 I see no reason why 2 picks shouldn't be the number allowed.
But I assume AFL would not move the system as far as what most posters want it to time will tell.
One hint I got was a question asked on gettable where Cal Twomey seemed reluctant to criticise the current scheme that much, makes me think they won't change it as much as we posters want it to.

 

[tombomb]

You have to limit the picks to match, otherwise a team with say picks 6 ,24,42 can trade
6 for 7,25.
7 for 8,26.
8 for 10,28
10 for 12,30

End up with say 12,25,26,28 30, 24,42.
Then trade 12 for a F1, 24 for a F2.
Match a bid at 1 with 25,26 28,30 42.
So turn 6 24 42 into 1,F1,F2.

If only 3 picks to match, they couldn't do that.
Probably if someone has picks 12 and 13, they trade 6,42 for 12,13,F2.
Trade 12 for 14,F2.
Match with 13,14,24.

So turn 6 24 42 into 1,F2,F2.
That's still pretty good for them though.

They can only do all that though because the points required to get to pick 1 is too low.

You could achieve everything you want just by increasing the value of the picks at the top end. Without the unnecessary extra complication.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Even if there was just no discount then GC would’ve had to come up with the equivalent of pick 12. That would’ve changed everything.


Also getting rid of the ability to gain extra picks to match bids during the draft is the first thing that should happen and a joke that it was allowed

 

[go_the_dockers]

Dogs probably didn't pay overs. The point that your missing is that there's a massive league wide re-valuation of draft picks since the system was introduced. It wasn't designed to give a massive advantage. It was designed to be a fairer price than the previous one where a team could get pick 2 for pick 18.

They tried to make the matching price even, hence the inclusion of the 20% discount - that was supposed to be the only advantage. But now that there's a lot more data in and club's have gotten way better at analysing data, they've realised that those early picks are worth way more comparatively than they thought.

But hey, let's not question this system that doesn't do what it was designed to do. It's been around for 5 years now - it's sacred.

And if anyone who supports a Vic club mentions it, let's carry on about Vic bias.

It comes off as Vic Bias, when people ignore it while the Vic clubs are benefiting, and then complain when a non vic club benefits.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Even if there was just no discount then GC would’ve had to come up with the equivalent of pick 12. That would’ve changed everything.


Also getting rid of the ability to gain extra picks to match bids during the draft is the first thing that should happen and a joke that it was allowed

Not against this, though I do like the pick swapping in theory.

 

[sr36]

Even if there was just no discount then GC would’ve had to come up with the equivalent of pick 12. That would’ve changed everything.


Also getting rid of the ability to gain extra picks to match bids during the draft is the first thing that should happen and a joke that it was allowed

The GC year with heaps of players is probably going to be an anomaly. The issue of top picks going really cheap is the deeper issue. Get rid of the discount and Collingwood pay 5 cheap easy to acquire junk pinks for Nick Daicos rather than 4. Ditto Brisbane if they only had access to Walters. The pricing of the picks will still be way out of whack.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

The GC year with heaps of players is probably going to be an anomaly. The issue of top picks going really cheap is the deeper issue. Get rid of the discount and Collingwood pay 5 cheap easy to acquire junk pinks for Nick Daicos rather than 4. Ditto Brisbane if they only had access to Walters. The pricing of the picks will still be way out of whack.

Yeh I do think we should have 2 picks to match then tax the left over points very heavily

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Not against this, though I do like the pick swapping in theory.

I love pick swaps but it’s a joke that teams can hold more picks then list spots to match bids during the draft. Defeats the whole purpose

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I love pick swaps but it’s a joke that teams can hold more picks then list spots to match bids during the draft. Defeats the whole purpose

Yep that's the part that needs changing this all occurred when they rushed everything through what did they expect? You give teams a way to rig the system they will. There was the hilarious Sydney and WCE trade where we got Blakely, don't blame Sydney blame the system. This is the same they have not put near enough safeguards to make this process fair for all teams. Watch these changes be "minimal" and we are back to square 1 with every club whinging next year, we all know it will happen. This "oh but teams have traded selections for this year" is the great chestnut.

 

[go_the_dockers]

The GC year with heaps of players is probably going to be an anomaly. The issue of top picks going really cheap is the deeper issue. Get rid of the discount and Collingwood pay 5 cheap easy to acquire junk pinks for Nick Daicos rather than 4. Ditto Brisbane if they only had access to Walters. The pricing of the picks will still be way out of whack.

Increase pick 1 to 5000 points, leave pick 20 as it is and increase all the picks between to form a curve.

Something like this, and then limit the number of picks you can use to two picks.
If you trade your next pick, then you don't get a discount.

	Current points	New points
1​	3,000​	5000​
2​	2,517​	4098.4​
3​	2,234​	3532.4​
4​	2,034​	3132.4​
5​	1,878​	2820.4​
6​	1,751​	2566.4​
7​	1,644​	2352.4​
8​	1,551​	2166.4​
9​	1,469​	2002.4​
10​	1,395​	1854.4​
11​	1,329​	1722.4​
12​	1,268​	1600.4​
13​	1,212​	1488.4​
14​	1,161​	1386.4​
15​	1,112​	1288.4​
16​	1,067​	1198.4​
17​	1,025​	1114.4​
18​	985​	1034.4​
19​	948​	960.4​
20​	912​	912​

 

[H00t]

Increase pick 1 to 5000 points, leave pick 20 as it is and increase all the picks between to form a curve.

Something like this, and then limit the number of picks you can use to two picks.
If you trade your next pick, then you don't get a discount.

	Current points	New points
1​	3,000​	5000​
2​	2,517​	4098.4​
3​	2,234​	3532.4​
4​	2,034​	3132.4​
5​	1,878​	2820.4​
6​	1,751​	2566.4​
7​	1,644​	2352.4​
8​	1,551​	2166.4​
9​	1,469​	2002.4​
10​	1,395​	1854.4​
11​	1,329​	1722.4​
12​	1,268​	1600.4​
13​	1,212​	1488.4​
14​	1,161​	1386.4​
15​	1,112​	1288.4​
16​	1,067​	1198.4​
17​	1,025​	1114.4​
18​	985​	1034.4​
19​	948​	960.4​
20​	912​	912​

I like this except limiting the number of matching picks to 2. Would be impossible to match early bids this way.

You wouldn’t need it with the points system this way as to match an early bid you’d have to wipe all your picks anyway.

Plus with the steeper curve you can’t gain those points through trading back as easily as you do now. Which is the worst part of the system in my view.

 

[sr36]

Increase pick 1 to 5000 points, leave pick 20 as it is and increase all the picks between to form a curve.

Something like this, and then limit the number of picks you can use to two picks.
If you trade your next pick, then you don't get a discount.

	Current points	New points
1​	3,000​	5000​
2​	2,517​	4098.4​
3​	2,234​	3532.4​
4​	2,034​	3132.4​
5​	1,878​	2820.4​
6​	1,751​	2566.4​
7​	1,644​	2352.4​
8​	1,551​	2166.4​
9​	1,469​	2002.4​
10​	1,395​	1854.4​
11​	1,329​	1722.4​
12​	1,268​	1600.4​
13​	1,212​	1488.4​
14​	1,161​	1386.4​
15​	1,112​	1288.4​
16​	1,067​	1198.4​
17​	1,025​	1114.4​
18​	985​	1034.4​
19​	948​	960.4​
20​	912​	912​

Yeah something like that that re-rates the picks to a more realistic trade value.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I like this except limiting the number of matching picks to 2. Would be impossible to match early bids this way.

You wouldn’t need it with the points system this way as to match an early bid you’d have to wipe all your picks anyway.

Plus with the steeper curve you can’t gain those points through trading back as easily as you do now. Which is the worst part of the system in my view.

10 3rd picks will never equal pick 1, so a max of 2 picks is key. Could maybe except 2 picks plus a future 1st.


It should be near impossible to match a Pick 1, especially for a top team.

If they don't trade their next pick, they get a 20% discount which means that only need two top 10 picks.

Most clubs could do it if they traded a future first and maybe a player, but it would make them think twice.

 

[H00t]

10 3rd picks will never equal pick 1, so a max of 2 picks is key. Could maybe except 2 picks plus a future 1st.


It should be near impossible to match a Pick 1, especially for a top team.

If they don't trade their next pick, they get a 20% discount which means that only need two top 10 picks.

Most clubs could do it if they traded a future first and maybe a player, but it would make them think twice.

I have to say I disagree with this. Matching with 10 3rd round picks was never the issue for me it’s that to get that many picks you had to only give up a first and maybe a second. By changing the point curve it makes it significantly harder to gain points so therefore teams have to pay a bigger price to match.

I definitely disagree about it being impossible to match a 1st pick as a top team or needing to trade out players to do it. Especially when the deficit exists to cover this scenario. Keep needing as many picks as possible and instead they lose all their picks in that draft year and the next once the deficit is taken out if they remain a top team is a fair price to pay.

I only want to increase the price a team needs to pay not restrict access to players already aligned with that team.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I have to say I disagree with this. Matching with 10 3rd round picks was never the issue for me it’s that to get that many picks you had to only give up a first and maybe a second. By changing the point curve it makes it significantly harder to gain points so therefore teams have to pay a bigger price to match.

I definitely disagree about it being impossible to match a 1st pick as a top team or needing to trade out players to do it. Especially when the deficit exists to cover this scenario. Keep needing as many picks as possible and instead they lose all their picks in that draft year and the next once the deficit is taken out if they remain a top team is a fair price to pay.

I only want to increase the price a team needs to pay not restrict access to players already aligned with that team.

For me this was the issue.

Agree to disagree