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

[Lore]

 

[Bjo187]

I can see why gc and gws get academy players, the rort is established teams that have no trouble in attracting players like Brisbane and more specifically Sydney getting them for cheap as chips.

Look at the swans, arguably 4 of their top 5 players are academy guys they got for barely anything (heeney, mills, blakey, gulden). It's a massive advantage.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Exactly, I've argued this on multiple tangents previously. Hawks having first dibs on all 4 Hodge kids is crazy to be honest. That's a classic case of draft compromise because of a rule which was created for convenience in the first place to get Barrassi to Melbourne.

What if the player turns out to be a philanderer and has nearly 20-25 kids. Just because of this rule is one club going to get first dibs on all those 25 kids? What if all 25 are first rounders, nah nah it's father son rule, holier than thou, we can't touch it, it is what it is. How ridiculous does that sound.

I just wish that philanderer player was from GWS or GC, I can see all the rose blinkered glasses coming off quickly from father son supporters and everyone wanting to discuss about this "ridiculous father son rule".

I didn’t hear the lions complaining when they got there father son selections.

Fletchers, Ashcroft and Brown. All would have been first round picks.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

The Suns and GWS will get there turns with father / sons.

In the mean time to make the system fair let them have there academy players, until there father sons become available based on the age of club, for example reaching 25 years old.

Clubs should pay real value for each F/S and academy. No add the points up with junk picks.

 

[mpal6]

I didn’t hear the lions complaining when they got there father son selections.

Fletchers, Ashcroft and Brown. All would have been first round picks.

If you choose to quote #2965, you should go and read #2963 too.

I've mentioned already that while we benefited from that rule I am specifically arguing against it. It's not a fair rule and the fact that we got Brown in 99 and then wait for 24 years before we get another hit in Ashcroft shows how much of a lottery it is. St.Kilda haven't seen one in ages while at the same time we see Bulldogs and Pies benefiting a whole lot more.

If you're shrugging shoulders and say "that's just the way it is, not all things are equal in AFL" then you should be fine with academies too.

 

[mpal6]

The Suns and GWS will get there turns with father / sons.

In the mean time to make the system fair let them have there academy players, until there father sons become available based on the age of club, for example reaching 25 years old.

Clubs should pay real value for each F/S and academy. No add the points up with junk picks.

Tell us the lottery numbers too while you're at it.

Father Son is a farce, it needs to go as far as first round is concerned just like Academy.

Make first round pure so everyone gets top talent equally before you start plundering the draft with all the inequalities like father son, academy, priority picks etc.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Tell us the lottery numbers too while you're at it.

Father Son is a farce, it needs to go as far as first round is concerned just like Academy.

Make first round pure so everyone gets top talent equally before you start plundering the draft with all the inequalities like father son, academy, priority picks etc.

After you got your share of F/S via the lions, hell no!

Just make clubs pay real value, the bonus is first access to dads club.

 

[mpal6]

After you got your share of F/S via the lions, hell no!

Just make clubs pay real value, the bonus is first access to dads club.

You can introduce a pure first round draft this very year and Levi Ashcroft can go anywhere ! I'm saying I'm fine with it. I don't understand which part of this statement you're not getting so far.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

If you choose to quote #2965, you should go and read #2963 too.

I've mentioned already that while we benefited from that rule I am specifically arguing against it. It's not a fair rule and the fact that we got Brown in 99 and then wait for 24 years before we get another hit in Ashcroft shows how much of a lottery it is. St.Kilda haven't seen one in ages while at the same time we see Bulldogs and Pies benefiting a whole lot more.

If you're shrugging shoulders and say "that's just the way it is, not all things are equal in AFL" then you should be fine with academies too.

I am fine with academies until GWS and The suns have access to father sons. An I still believe they should be paying true value.

The bonus is first access to the academy player.

 

[mpal6]

I am fine with academies until GWS and The suns have access to father sons. An I still believe they should be paying true value.

The bonus is first access to the academy player.

Nope, this whole system is compromised for this very reason. First round is where top talent goes and if things are being kept fair, then everyone gets one pick in that round for starters. No ifs, buts, may be's. All take one good to great talent and move on.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

You can introduce a pure first round draft this very year and Levi Ashcroft can go anywhere ! I'm saying I'm fine with it. I don't understand which part of this statement you're not getting so far.

Keep father son and academy’s, just make clubs pay real value.

The bonus is access….

Also you noted the Hodges family. Crawford has 4 boys and he reckons not one of them will make AFL due to there lack of interest in the game.

Just because one is the child of a AFL player, doesn’t mean the child will play AFL or be any good at it.

 

[CaptainWorpedo]

Nope, this whole system is compromised for this very reason. First round is where top talent goes and if things are being kept fair, then everyone gets one pick in that round for starters. No ifs, buts, may be's. All take one good to great talent and move on.

It’s a good thing the AFL at this stage doesn’t seem to agree with you.

I get your against F/S, I am for F/S at real value. It is what it is … an for now it is here!

The system would be fairer if the clubs paid fair value.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Nope, this whole system is compromised for this very reason. First round is where top talent goes and if things are being kept fair, then everyone gets one pick in that round for starters. No ifs, buts, may be's. All take one good to great talent and move on.

The issue surely isn't that the likes of Darcy or Daicos weren't in a open draft but the fact that the points value of later picks are ludicrously too high as it relates to the top few picks in the draft (especially when combined with a discount). I don't see what's so (at least from an economics point of view) so special about a late first round pick when compared to an early second round pick.

What the points bidding system is trying (emphasis on trying) to do is try and make equivalent actual trades teams would make in an open draft (discount aside). So pick 2 bid, 20% discount make a match to pick 4. But you can match it with picks 24, 25, 26 combined. But no team in the league would realistically trade pick 4 for picks 24, 25, 26. Or pick 17, 36, 37, if there was no such thing as bidding and all picks were open. Whatever combination.

Would you say that the draft is "compromised" if the Dogs were forced to match a pick 2 on Darcy instead of three picks in the 20's and 30's, with an appropriate amount that people would consider roughly equivalent to what pick 2 would go for in an open trade - say something like pick 10, 20 and 25. Or pick 7 and 20. Or whatever.

We know this to be true because there have literally been dozens of trades - over 50 - where teams needing points have seeked more points by trading early picks for a greater amount of later picks. The fact that the trades are only in one direction proves that the points value is just incorrect. The issue isn't the bidding system or the morality of father-sons, it's purely because the numbers are just blatantly incorrect.

 

[Stamos]

If they just fixed the points values/curve, it may not solve all the issues, but it would go one hell of a long way towards fixing most of them.

 

[Bestbird]

If they just fixed the points values/curve, it may not solve all the issues, but it would go one hell of a long way towards fixing most of them.

It was pretty obvious with JUH in the 2020 draft that the points allocation was an issue, yet the AFL chose to ignore it till now

 

[Dockeroo]

The issue surely isn't that the likes of Darcy or Daicos weren't in a open draft but the fact that the points value of later picks are ludicrously too high as it relates to the top few picks in the draft (especially when combined with a discount). I don't see what's so (at least from an economics point of view) so special about a late first round pick when compared to an early second round pick.

What the points bidding system is trying (emphasis on trying) to do is try and make equivalent actual trades teams would make in an open draft (discount aside). So pick 2 bid, 20% discount make a match to pick 4. But you can match it with picks 24, 25, 26 combined. But no team in the league would realistically trade pick 4 for picks 24, 25, 26. Or pick 17, 36, 37, if there was no such thing as bidding and all picks were open. Whatever combination.

Would you say that the draft is "compromised" if the Dogs were forced to match a pick 2 on Darcy instead of three picks in the 20's and 30's, with an appropriate amount that people would consider roughly equivalent to what pick 2 would go for in an open trade - say something like pick 10, 20 and 25. Or pick 7 and 20. Or whatever.

We know this to be true because there have literally been dozens of trades - over 50 - where teams needing points have seeked more points by trading early picks for a greater amount of later picks. The fact that the trades are only in one direction proves that the points value is just incorrect. The issue isn't the bidding system or the morality of father-sons, it's purely because the numbers are just blatantly incorrect.

Great comment. It’s been obvious for years. They are dragging their heels on it for yet another season though.
Another draft ruined later this year because of this issue. Then of course clubs will say “oh you guys can’t change 2025 draft because we have already made pick trades and swaps on the basis of the old points values”
And on and on the problem goes.
Meanwhile GCS add another 4 or 5 from the top 30 picks to their list. Laughable

 

[GC2015]

Great comment. It’s been obvious for years. They are dragging their heels on it for yet another season though.
Another draft ruined later this year because of this issue. Then of course clubs will say “oh you guys can’t change 2025 draft because we have already made pick trades and swaps on the basis of the old points values”
And on and on the problem goes.
Meanwhile GCS add another 4 or 5 from the top 30 picks to their list. Laughable

So you're annoyed at the northern academy access and believe this year's draft is ruined, but the predictive top 20 of this year's draft currently includes four F/S picks (Ashcroft, Welsh, Camporeale x 2) vs one from the northern academies (Lombard). In fact, Lombard is the only Suns academy draft prospect that's currently considered a top 50 pick this year.

If you're annoyed about this year's draft being compromised, then F/S access is what you should be criticising.

 

[mightymouse75]

So you're annoyed at the northern academy access and believe this year's draft is ruined, but the predictive top 20 of this year's draft currently includes four F/S picks (Ashcroft, Welsh, Camporeale x 2) vs one from the northern academies (Lombard). In fact, Lombard is the only Suns academy draft prospect that's currently considered a top 50 pick this year.

If you're annoyed about this year's draft being compromised, then F/S access is what you should be criticising.

Would love some if dem apples at gc or any of the northern academy's.
It is growing the game. Sighh.

 

[sydney_gws]

Great comment. It’s been obvious for years. They are dragging their heels on it for yet another season though.
Another draft ruined later this year because of this issue. Then of course clubs will say “oh you guys can’t change 2025 draft because we have already made pick trades and swaps on the basis of the old points values”
And on and on the problem goes.
Meanwhile GCS add another 4 or 5 from the top 30 picks to their list. Laughable

They could at least introduce one year interim measure to stop ridiculous trading down multiple times to turn 800 points into 2400.
Limit to 3 selections to match for 2024.

 

[Dockeroo]

So you're annoyed at the northern academy access and believe this year's draft is ruined, but the predictive top 20 of this year's draft currently includes four F/S picks (Ashcroft, Welsh, Camporeale x 2) vs one from the northern academies (Lombard). In fact, Lombard is the only Suns academy draft prospect that's currently considered a top 50 pick this year.

If you're annoyed about this year's draft being compromised, then F/S access is what you should be criticising.

Don’t get me wrong. F/S bid matching is just as bad.
Why is there still a 20% discount for example?

 

[Cleric]

The annual feeding frenzy on the GWS and Gold Coast lists by Victorian clubs isn't good for the game either, everyone knows it.

The GC and GWS had cap issues after their kids all became good players. No different to any other club.
Now, why is it that Sydney don't tend to bleed talent back to other states, but GWS does? Why is it that Brisbane no longer has an issue, and in fact has attracted a number of high quality players to go there, while GC still has an issue?
Why should the competition suffer because GC is a shit show?

 

[Buget]

The GC and GWS had cap issues after their kids all became good players. No different to any other club.
Now, why is it that Sydney don't tend to bleed talent back to other states, but GWS does? Why is it that Brisbane no longer has an issue, and in fact has attracted a number of high quality players to go there, while GC still has an issue?
Why should the competition suffer because GC is a s**t show?

Hey…. GC attracted Atkins….

 

[Cleric]

So you're annoyed at the northern academy access and believe this year's draft is ruined, but the predictive top 20 of this year's draft currently includes four F/S picks (Ashcroft, Welsh, Camporeale x 2) vs one from the northern academies (Lombard). In fact, Lombard is the only Suns academy draft prospect that's currently considered a top 50 pick this year.

If you're annoyed about this year's draft being compromised, then F/S access is what you should be criticising.

The issue is more this.
When the talent is good in the Academies then you get them all at a discount, but when your talent isn't there then you get to take from the rest of Australia. It's called having your cake and eat it.
I think if you want to prosper when the talent is good, then you can suffer when it's not. Maybe you should have to use your first two round picks from your Academy lists every year.

 

[Cleric]

Hey…. GC attracted Atkins….

Thank God.

 

[Buget]

The issue is more this.
When the talent is good in the Academies then you get them all at a discount, but when your talent isn't there then you get to take from the rest of Australia. It's called having your cake and eat it.
I think if you want to prosper when the talent is good, then you can suffer when it's not. Maybe you should have to use your first two round picks from your Academy lists every year.

This is an interesting perspective. Most people just say “ban the academies”.

Should other clubs still be able to bid on academy players then?

 

[GC2015]

Would love some if dem apples at gc or any of the northern academy's.
It is growing the game. Sighh.

I get the point you're trying to make, but you have to remember that southern clubs like Fremantle are based in footy states and have an inherent benefit that comes with high level local footy talent that can be recruited home. Luke Jackson (East Fremantle), Jaeger O'Meara (Perth), Brad Hill (West Perth), Rory Lobb (Swan Districts), Jesse Hogan (Claremont), Jordan Clark (Claremont), Jeremy Sharp (East Fremantle) etc are examples solid/really good players from WA who have gone home to play for the Dockers over the last decade. You also have the benefit of being able to draft a plethora of WA players every year that are more likely to stay.

I understand you've lost your fair share of players to other clubs (just like the northern clubs do regularly) but being able to counter that with recruiting WA players puts Freo in a different boat to the northern clubs. This simply isn't an option for the northern clubs and the academies are partially designed to counter balance that inequality that we see between southern and northern AFL teams. I would agree with anyone that says last year was a bit excessive, but I think we'll see that 2023 was very much an outlier in terms of the amount of first round picks a northern academy will produce in a single draft class. As of right now there's one Suns academy player rated inside the top 50 picks for this year's draft.

Don’t get me wrong. F/S bid matching is just as bad.
Why is there still a 20% discount for example?

Good question. The northern academies can at least argue that they've put a fair amount of money towards developing those players into draftable prospects and therefore potentially deserve some kind of discount. The F/S development programs are far less involved when compared to the northern academies.

The issue is more this.
When the talent is good in the Academies then you get them all at a discount, but when your talent isn't there then you get to take from the rest of Australia. It's called having your cake and eat it.
I think if you want to prosper when the talent is good, then you can suffer when it's not. Maybe you should have to use your first two round picks from your Academy lists every year.

The Swans actually suggested to the AFL that they be excluded from the national draft in return for exclusive access to all their academy players, regardless of the strength of players coming through in any given year. The AFL blocked the Swans from doing that so what you're trying to suggest isn't even an option. The northern clubs are being forced to partake in the national draft.