Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
I kinda get people saying getting the kid you want (who has trained with you) is the advantage. But really just avoid the extra complications. Adjust the points and get rid of any % issues. It doesn't do anything but make it more complex.
I’m really frustrated by this ‘next 2 picks’ change.
Might have been better to say that you need atleast 1 pick within 10 picks in the draft and then the rest made up by points to match.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
I think the Vic Media and other non-academy states have decided that northern states have no right to a top 5 talent if they have played finals - which is as you say is effectively what this change does. If you finish in the top 4 even if you have been the difference to a draft prospect through the academy process the player is still only available for the bottom teams without huge sacrifices from the high finishing team. It is a hard pill to swallow with long term planning but I think it is 'fairer' than a blanket no access in the top 10 rule as it is still possible just very difficult to achieve.
We've seen how much of an affect injuries (even minor) or inconsistent form has had on the draft. You had players ranked in the top 20 earlier this season sliding massively due to this. Let's say we had a top 10 academy pick, and he somehow had a poor end of year performance, that alone would be enough to push him down far enough for us to easily nab him. Of course i don't think the club would go that route, but I do think the club should start looking at this proactively and seeing if they're ways to make our top players less draftable by interstate clubs. Even a minor pick slide (i.e;, someone who is a major flight risk) would help us immensely.
I only said it had quantity of talent, not that they were all high quality, or even draftable.
Then what gives us the right to pour millions into an academy if we can't even draft these players anymore? The academy is meant to benefit this club, and if we're losing those benefits, then why pour all the resources in it in the first place?
We're not drafting Dan Annable had those rules been in place this season. I don't mind capping in the players we can bring in, but if we can't bring in the top ones, then I hope the club tells the AFL they're closing it. Knowing how spineless the league is, they will probably change the rules against upon hearing that threat.
It's debatable how much our academy has changed things for young players so far, honestly. Perhaps those players would have gone on to be good anyway, but we don't know. And unlike Gold Coast and Sydney, I don't think any of our drafted academy prospects for a while now have had promising rugby league or union careers they would have gone onto instead. The academy couldn't quite swing Kalyn Ponga to us.
That was the old rule, but of course that changed this year with Gold Coast expected to improve and make finals
I think it depends. The new bidding system for someone who is pick 6 would be pick 7+ 48 or two picks like 16+17. Essentially, anything in the first round, especially in the top 10 requires two first rounders to match, or one first rounder that's basically equal coupled with a later pick
Going down the road of tanking is fraught with danger. Encouraging players to fake injuries or deliberately underperform doesn’t set the right example and risks undermining the integrity of both the team and the club. More importantly, it erodes the culture of accountability, resilience, and continuous improvement that successful clubs strive to build.
