Academy 2020 Father/Son, NGA and Academy Prospects - The Compromised Draft

[PMBangers]

I couldn't quite believe what I was hearing when listening to it, "disadvantages clubs for finishing higher on the ladder", what?

 

[BronCrow]

Most important part in the article “we haven’t got much traction yet”

No sh*t dude, what an insane suggestion

That means Stephen Hocking hasn't heard the suggestion yet.

 

[Jordie_tackles]

I wouldn’t think he is suggesting moving up for nothing, surely it is moving up with the same pick cost but choosing another player than the academy prospect.
Still blatant double dipping, and I can’t see a greater draft advantage than the scenarios he suggests,

 

[Thetrader15]

The best way to stop "dummy bids" is to not match them.

Clubs are then only going to bid when they want the player.

Shame he didn't give any examples of dummy bids, because I think more bids have been later rather than earlier.

 

[Thetrader15]

I couldn't quite believe what I was hearing when listening to it, "disadvantages clubs for finishing higher on the ladder", what?

I must have missed the part where he said the swans got heeney for basically nothing which was unfair so they will forfeit this years luck as a result, or they can use use more picks than they have list spots this year.

 

[Eastcoasteagle]

The NGA’s get peeled back.

Meanwhile can we please have the worlds smallest violin for Kinnear Beatson?

Proposing if a Northern Academy side passes on a prospect, their next pick should move up to the very next pick after the bid as compensation because it’s currently unfair the only option they have is to match if a team puts a bid half a round ahead of them and they have to use later picks and don’t get to double dip

Sorry, where exactly have these dummy bids come from? Green last year that went about 6 picks after where most rated him?

How much does this man want handed to him? Heeney, Mills now Campbell? Anything else Kinnear? How about free reign for the Northern sides on the entire first round?

Why Swans are calling for an overhaul of draft bidding system

List manager Kinnear Beatson is proposing a change to the current system to prevent clubs bidding on players purely to force a rival to select them

www.afl.com.au

Don't forget Blakey! Which thinking about it, was a bit of a joke. His dad was coaching in Sydney so that's the reason he was there, hardly someone that grew up in Sydney and turned a blind eye on rugby. Through his old man, he would've lived and breathed footy.

 

[BronCrow]

Don't forget Blakey! Which thinking about it, was a bit of a joke. His dad was coaching in Sydney so that's the reason he was there, hardly someone that grew up in Sydney and turned a blind eye on rugby. Through his old man, he would've lived and breathed footy.

Have always thought that if you are eligible as a father son at a club you should be disqualified as an NGA. Blakey going to the Swans supports my case.

Likewise with Lachlan Johnson who qualified as an NGA at Essendon and was a father son at Brisbane. Before anyone says anything I am well aware that he was drafted as regular selection in the ND.

 

[Thetrader15]

Have always thought that if you are eligible as a father son at a club you should be disqualified as an NGA. Blakey going to the Swans supports my case.

Likewise with Lachlan Johnson who qualified as an NGA at Essendon and was a father son at Brisbane. Before anyone says anything I am well aware that he was drafted as regular selection in the ND.

I'd like FS to be more equitable first. It's getting there but the different rules for different teams is an issue.

Also remove the 20% discount for NGA. The 'return' clubs get for 'investing' in their academy is the option to match. That's enough advantage.

It should also be a max of 1 pick they can match with and then the balance comes from the next year's pick in the same round.

 

[andleanback]

Can’t believe they published an article talking about it, quite embarrassing really. It’s not fair they made a grand final and then had to use their pick to get the best kid in the draft, give us a spell.

 

[BronCrow]

I'd like FS to be more equitable first. It's getting there but the different rules for different teams is an issue.

Also remove the 20% discount for NGA. The 'return' clubs get for 'investing' in their academy is the option to match. That's enough advantage.

It should also be a max of 1 pick they can match with and then the balance comes from the next year's pick in the same round.

As far as the father son rule goes, when you say more equitable, are you talking about the old rule for WAFL/SANFL games?

If so, that is a rule that is almost obsolete. Outside of that, I don't how it can be more equitable. Both SA and WA teams have the same access to sons of 100 game players as every one else, only we don't have as many as we have not been around for as long. The only thing that fixes that is time. Same with GWS and GCS as well.

Agree with you about the discount. There should not be one. Being able to match for a player is enough of an advantage already, especially if they are the consensus number 1 pick.

Also think your last point is not without merit. Would make clubs think twice about matching. I suspect that idea will be rubbished on here though.

 

[Kwality]

It is utterly shameless and transparently reveals Sydney's central interest in the academy program - guaranteed access to top-end prospects.

If passing is such a poor alternative to matching an early bid, all that suggests is the cost to match is too low.

Pathetic effort from Twomey and Edwards to let that bullshit slide.

Try it evens up the advantages of the heartland States where there is 100+ years of junior infrastructure in place to develop players.

There should be no academies in place in WA,SA or Vic.

 

[eastfreo75]

Very entitled.

Majority of bids come later than the player would have been picked.

Points are over valued for later picks.

Lets get rid of the discount.

The fact the Northern states can have a higher percentage of home grow talent is an enough of advantage to counter being disadvantaged not being a footy state.

 

[Thetrader15]

As far as the father son rule goes, when you say more equitable, are you talking about the old rule for WAFL/SANFL games?

If so, that is a rule that is almost obsolete. Outside of that, I don't how it can be more equitable. Both SA and WA teams have the same access to sons of 100 game players as every one else, only we don't have as many as we have not been around for as long. The only thing that fixes that is time. Same with GWS and GCS as well.

Agree with you about the discount. There should not be one. Being able to match for a player is enough of an advantage already, especially if they are the consensus number 1 pick.

Also think your last point is not without merit. Would make clubs think twice about matching. I suspect that idea will be rubbished on here though.

Re FS, not all teams are on a level playing field.

If the rule is 100, only games after GWS joined should count. Otherwise, they should get Tas as a region, so any players who played 100 there should be allowed to FS to GWS (or GC).

Eg. Craig Kelly 120 games since 1989, whereas GWS don't have the opportunity to have 100 ganes kids.

 

[Lore]

Re FS, not all teams are on a level playing field.

If the rule is 100, only games after GWS joined should count. Otherwise, they should get Tas as a region, so any players who played 100 there should be allowed to FS to GWS (or GC).

Eg. Craig Kelly 120 games since 1989, whereas GWS don't have the opportunity to have 100 ganes kids.

GWS and GC have had academies and zone selections somewhat in lieu of father/sons that everyone else has, although Brisbane and Sydney have also benefited from the introduction of Northern Academies (partially because their own limited fields of local prospects were diluted by having to share them with the new teams I suppose).

SA and WA clubs have all been in the AFL for over 20 years now so should have the sons of 100 AFL game players coming through.

 

[Chaisa]

This feels like 100% baiting/stirring the pot tbh (referring to Beatson's statements, not the thread itself)

There's very little evidence that dummy bids exist. The closest I guess was Mills and his consensus position was probably #3 anyway....

 

[Heaps of fun]

Probably the most coddled sporting organisation in the world. Truly pathetic.

 

[master bate]

The best way to stop "dummy bids" is to not match them.

Clubs are then only going to bid when they want the player.

Shame he didn't give any examples of dummy bids, because I think more bids have been later rather than earlier.

I get the feeling Sos bidding on Henry and Green before trading out of the pick altogether was a little bit of dummy bidding. Although Carlton had been linked to Henry pretty heavily and is it a dummy bid on Green when everyone thinks it's a steal?

The Swans actually did the Giants a huge favour because the Swans bidding on Green at pick 5 was thought to be highly likely and instead he lasted all the way to pick 10.

I can't remember a single bid that has seemed like a gamble just to get a team to match. That the Crows are apparently not bidding pick 1 on JUH this year seems very odd to me. I'd do it every day of the week.

 

[Lore]

I get the feeling Sos bidding on Henry and Green before trading out of the pick altogether was a little bit of dummy bidding. Although Carlton had been linked to Henry pretty heavily and is it a dummy bid on Green when everyone thinks it's a steal?

The Swans actually did the Giants a huge favour because the Swans bidding on Green at pick 5 was thought to be highly likely and instead he lasted all the way to pick 10.

I can't remember a single bid that has seemed like a gamble just to get a team to match. That the Crows are apparently not bidding pick 1 on JUH this year seems very odd to me. I'd do it every day of the week.

Essendon bidding on JSOS is probably the closest thing to a dummy bid that I can think of. But it wasn't significant overs or anything and I would've been happy enough to have Jack on our list (and still would. )

 

[theyellowsash]

Sydney looking for another way to game the trading/drafting system.

Good to hear him say it's gotten little Interest at the AFL.

 

[master bate]

Essendon bidding on JSOS is probably the closest thing to a dummy bid that I can think of. But it wasn't significant overs or anything and I would've been happy enough to have Jack on our list (and still would. )

That was more Dodoro doing Sos a favour and getting his son a bit of an earlier pick and allowing them to match, all seemed nicely arranged and certainly no harm.

 

[Chaisa]

I can't remember a single bid that has seemed like a gamble just to get a team to match

North bidding on Watson/Williams back in 2016 sort of counts, perhaps?

 

[Lore]

That was more Dodoro doing Sos a favour and getting his son a bit of an earlier pick and allowing them to match, all seemed nicely arranged and certainly no harm.

Yeah exactly haha

 

[eastfreo75]

I get the feeling Sos bidding on Henry and Green before trading out of the pick altogether was a little bit of dummy bidding. Although Carlton had been linked to Henry pretty heavily and is it a dummy bid on Green when everyone thinks it's a steal?

The Swans actually did the Giants a huge favour because the Swans bidding on Green at pick 5 was thought to be highly likely and instead he lasted all the way to pick 10.

I can't remember a single bid that has seemed like a gamble just to get a team to match. That the Crows are apparently not bidding pick 1 on JUH this year seems very odd to me. I'd do it every day of the week.

Adelaide past has always picked the next player on their list regardless if they are a Bid player or not.

By Bidding on Ugle-Hagan, it will improve the draft hand of the Crows.

Pick 40 will turn into 39, pick 56 will turn into 52.

 

[Thetrader15]

GWS and GC have had academies and zone selections somewhat in lieu of father/sons that everyone else has, although Brisbane and Sydney have also benefited from the introduction of Northern Academies (partially because their own limited fields of local prospects were diluted by having to share them with the new teams I suppose).

SA and WA clubs have all been in the AFL for over 20 years now so should have the sons of 100 AFL game players coming through.

In that case, we should make all Vic, Sa, Wa clubs FS rule be if a player has played 100 games since Freo came in (i.e. 1995) as Freo games don't count since then.

Then it's an even playing field. This means Craig Kelly's sons aren't eligible.

Can't see that rubbing with Vic fans. I'm sure to hear the "you joined our comp" argument.

 

[Elmer_Judd]

Aww Diddums. Swans rebuild is not going as swimmingly as Sydney's Grand Poo Bahs hoped, so they are having another whinge to try get another unfair advantage.

Wasn't so long ago that Tom Harley begged for the Swans to get back their COLA.

So much for the Bloods 'culture'. It's been diluted to watered down Red Cordial.