can we possibly...

[Darth_Tiger]

lose all of our remaining games to qualify for the priority pick? after todays game, maybe we can....

 

[Coach_Required]

lose all of our remaining games to qualify for the priority pick? after todays game, maybe we can....

If we win 1 more game, we dont qualify under the new rules.

We play Melbourne next week its so like us to win that and then lose the rest.

 

[jumpinjimmy]

If we win 1 more game, we dont qualify under the new rules.

We play Melbourne next week its so like us to win that and then lose the rest.

Is that right? I thought we would if we won less than 5 games.

 

[maceman]

If we win 1 more game, we dont qualify under the new rules.

We play Melbourne next week its so like us to win that and then lose the rest.

We won't beat Melbourne. They play with heart.

 

[Coach_Required]

Is that right? I thought we would if we won less than 5 games.

Yeah rules changed the begining of 2006.

You have to win 4 or less games two years in a row.

 

[TheCuzEffect]

We loose to Melbourne we loose wallace. by all means lets hope he does what the Tassie devils coach did =).. or get the sack..

 

[itsintheblood]

If we win 1 more game, we dont qualify under the new rules.

We play Melbourne next week its so like us to win that and then lose the rest.

We're ok with one more win. 8 Games or less is the rule.

 

[DeZi]

We're ok with one more win. 8 Games or less is the rule.

Nah mate its actually 4 games or less for 2 seasons in a row as posted earlier...Good luck either way next week guys

 

[Coach_Required]

We're ok with one more win. 8 Games or less is the rule.

Sorry IITB :

Priority pick rules tightened
By Michael Gleeson and Stephen Rielly
November 18, 2005

Under changes to the rules governing priority picks, elite talent such
as highly rated midfiedler Marc Murphy will be much harder for poorly
performed sides to draft.
Photo: Sebastian Costanzo

ONE poor season no longer will be sufficient for a double dip at the
best talent in the country under a radical revamp of the eligibility
criteria for AFL priority picks.

The extravagant reward for failure currently conferred on clubs
enduring one poor year has been all but abolished under the changes
announced by the AFL yesterday.

Clubs winning no more than four games in a season from next year will
be eligible for a priority pick taken after the completion of the
first round of the national draft. If the club has successive poor
years of no more than 16 points in each of those seasons — not
averaged over the course of those seasons — the priority pick will be
taken, as it is now, before the national draft.

The AFL was troubled by a range of factors about the current system,
not the least of them being the widespread perception — even from
within clubs — that some clubs deliberately lost games or "tanked" in
order to secure a priority pick.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said clubs also were concerned
that the existing system, which gives the priority pick to clubs that
win 20 premiership points or fewer in a season, unfairly disadvantaged
middle-ranking clubs, over-compensated poorly performing clubs and
unfairly advantaged clubs who endured only one poor year.

"The rationale behind this decision is a two-year time frame is more
reflective of poor performance," Demetriou said. "Moving to a second
round (priority pick) reduces the over-compensation effect. Thirdly,
(we) will retain the quite significant compensation for two years'
poor performance.

"We think it will provide less impact on access to talent for clubs
finishing mid-table and it reduces the perceived incentive to tank."

The most glaring example of the inadequacy of the existing system was
the awarding of a priority pick to the Brisbane Lions (used on Des
Headland) in 1998 after the club played finals in the three previous
years — including a preliminary final in 1996. The Lions won three
premierships and finished no lower than fifth in the six years after
receiving the pick.

Similarly, Melbourne secured Colin Sylvia with a priority selection in
2003 despite a sixth-place finish in 2002 and a return to the finals
in 2004. West Coast has played finals in 10 of the 12 years
surrounding the priority pick it received in 2001.

Were the new system applied this season, none of Carlton, Collingwood
or Hawthorn would receive a priority selection. Of the 17 priority
picks awarded since 1997, only four of them have gone to clubs winning
fewer than five matches and therefore would have been eligible under
the revised criteria.

The AFL also announced a new scholarship system yesterday under which
all clubs can select two teenagers aged 15 to 17 years from greater
Sydney or overseas, with each club paid $30,000 to cover the costs.

The league also told the clubs at yesterday's meeting it had enjoyed
record revenue for the year of $200 million and a higher than forecast
surplus of about $7 million. That was after distributing $94 million
to clubs and covering the legal costs of the C7 litigation. Thirteen
of the 16 clubs will record a profit this year.

The league's debt had been reduced to less than $30 million.

 

[Coach_Required]

Also this article:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21731080-11088,00.html

Salt in the wound

Article from:

• Font size: Decrease Increase
• Email article: Email
• Print article: Print

Mark Stevens
May 15, 2007 12:00am

ON MY SOAPBOX: What's worse than finishing last? Finishing last and watching your oldest enemy take the prized No. 1 draft pick, Mark Stevens writes.
Yes, that could be you, Richmond fans. If you're close to the brink of despair after seven straight losses, it may be too painful to read on.
The Tigers could claim the wooden spoon -- winning one, two, even zero games -- and still be beaten to the punch on draft day by Carlton.
Under priority-pick rules, the Blues get the No. 1 choice in 2007 if they win four, or fewer, games -- regardless of how bad the Tigers are.
The criteria is simple: if you win four games or fewer in successive years you are entitled to a prized priority pick before the first round.
Carlton won 3 1/2 games last year. That's one box ticked.
If the Blues, now 2-5, win no more than two games in their last 15, the No. 1 pick comes gift-wrapped.
It could be the first time in draft history that the bottom team hasn't been handed the first pick.
Winning a wooden spoon is bad enough. Imagine the pain if the Tigers finish behind Carlton, only to cop it in the backside with a nasty, jagged splinter as well.
Under the nightmare scenario for Richmond, the Blues would get their hands on picks No. 1 and No. 3 if they finished second last.
The Tigers, if they finish last, would get No. 2 and then a priority pick (No. 18) at the end of the first round.
Essendon, too, could get its mitts on a priority pick before the first round if it wins fewer than four.
Remember the Bombers, like Carlton, only won 3 1/2 last year.
But Essendon is not that bad. It won't happen.
The season is only a third of the way through, agreed. Carlton might surge; the Tigers may claw their way out of the depths.
But it is worth thinking about -- and the possible ramifications of the priority rules have been largely forgotten.
If the losing run of the young Blues continues, it will raise unprecedented speculation about the worth of playing kids and tanking.
Imagine if the Blues continue to fight hard, but still find themselves at 3-10 and then, say, 4-13.
The temptation could be huge for the Blues to select development teams and ensure they win no more than four.
Denis Pagan is a win-at-all-costs coach, but it may just be the chance for the Blues to top up with two more prime kids and have a real tilt in 2008.
And it would be an opportunity to make up for the pain of losing those early choices in 2002.
Why win five or six games? Really, it's a waste of time.
If you can't get eight to 10 wins, take the four. It would be much better for Carlton long-term.
The Blues are playing exciting footy and clearly heading in the right direction, but don't have the experience or clout to challenge for the eight -- particularly with Nick Stevens out for the year.
Make no mistake, the cries of "tank it" will come loudly if the Blues still have four or fewer wins in the bank a month out from the end of the season.
That would be horrible for the game. The AFL's rule change, taking away an automatic early priority pick for winning five or fewer matches in a single season, was a step in the right direction.
But they should go further. From 2008, all priorities should be taken only after the first round.
It would be cruel, painfully cruel, if the Tigers cop the spoon and miss pick No. 1.

 

[jumpinjimmy]

So the last beneficiary of the more generous system was Carlscum Who also robbed us of the no 1 pick last year But at least we got Cotchin

 

[itsintheblood]

Sorry IITB :

Priority pick rules tightened
By Michael Gleeson and Stephen Rielly
November 18, 2005

Under changes to the rules governing priority picks, elite talent such
as highly rated midfiedler Marc Murphy will be much harder for poorly
performed sides to draft.
Photo: Sebastian Costanzo

ONE poor season no longer will be sufficient for a double dip at the
best talent in the country under a radical revamp of the eligibility
criteria for AFL priority picks.

The extravagant reward for failure currently conferred on clubs
enduring one poor year has been all but abolished under the changes
announced by the AFL yesterday.

Clubs winning no more than four games in a season from next year will
be eligible for a priority pick taken after the completion of the
first round of the national draft. If the club has successive poor
years of no more than 16 points in each of those seasons — not
averaged over the course of those seasons — the priority pick will be
taken, as it is now, before the national draft.

The AFL was troubled by a range of factors about the current system,
not the least of them being the widespread perception — even from
within clubs — that some clubs deliberately lost games or "tanked" in
order to secure a priority pick.

AFL chief executive Andrew Demetriou said clubs also were concerned
that the existing system, which gives the priority pick to clubs that
win 20 premiership points or fewer in a season, unfairly disadvantaged
middle-ranking clubs, over-compensated poorly performing clubs and
unfairly advantaged clubs who endured only one poor year.

"The rationale behind this decision is a two-year time frame is more
reflective of poor performance," Demetriou said. "Moving to a second
round (priority pick) reduces the over-compensation effect. Thirdly,
(we) will retain the quite significant compensation for two years'
poor performance.

"We think it will provide less impact on access to talent for clubs
finishing mid-table and it reduces the perceived incentive to tank."

The most glaring example of the inadequacy of the existing system was
the awarding of a priority pick to the Brisbane Lions (used on Des
Headland) in 1998 after the club played finals in the three previous
years — including a preliminary final in 1996. The Lions won three
premierships and finished no lower than fifth in the six years after
receiving the pick.

Similarly, Melbourne secured Colin Sylvia with a priority selection in
2003 despite a sixth-place finish in 2002 and a return to the finals
in 2004. West Coast has played finals in 10 of the 12 years
surrounding the priority pick it received in 2001.

Were the new system applied this season, none of Carlton, Collingwood
or Hawthorn would receive a priority selection. Of the 17 priority
picks awarded since 1997, only four of them have gone to clubs winning
fewer than five matches and therefore would have been eligible under
the revised criteria.

The AFL also announced a new scholarship system yesterday under which
all clubs can select two teenagers aged 15 to 17 years from greater
Sydney or overseas, with each club paid $30,000 to cover the costs.

The league also told the clubs at yesterday's meeting it had enjoyed
record revenue for the year of $200 million and a higher than forecast
surplus of about $7 million. That was after distributing $94 million
to clubs and covering the legal costs of the C7 litigation. Thirteen
of the 16 clubs will record a profit this year.

The league's debt had been reduced to less than $30 million.

We're F%^&*d then.

 

[Coach_Required]

We're F%^&*d then.

That we are

AGAIN