Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[JohnnyFontane90]

It's officially the off season, so time for an off season thread!

So, in the last 15 years, 7 clubs have won flags. Those same 7 clubs have also been runners up 9 times in the last 7 years. It wouldn't be surprising if one of those 7 clubs won again next year, with Hawthorn, West Coast, Sydney and possibly Geelong aiming for the top 4 again.

Now, based on these figures it's pretty hard to say that the current equalisation methods employed by the AFL (that being the draft and the salary cap) aren't doing a very good job.

I think everyone agrees that a competition which has a healthy rotation of sides competing is much more enjoyable (unless of course your side is at the top). So what changes can be implemented to try and achieve this? Or is everything fine and once we have a few years of uninterrupted drafts we'll be okay?

I think we need to look at the structure of the draft. I don't think the way it works at the moment is ideal for the way Australian Football is played. There's probably no other team sport where the performance of one individual player is so relatively small. And yet the idea of the draft is that you can rebuild by getting to pick one player per round.

I think we should look at a draft that increases the amount of picks per round for the lower ranked side. Something like last place gets picks 1&10, second last gets 2&12, etc. Or something like that. Speed up the process of rebuilding through the draft.

10 if the 16 teams have made the GF in the last 15 years and adelaide and bulldogs have gone pretty close to making it. it's pretty good spread. no matter how good equalistion methods you use you're not gonna have 18 differnt premiers in 18 years. even if the premirs were generated on 100% random basis that wouldn't happen.

 

[Thai Hawk]

If we are going to have a discussion re equalisation, maybe we need to include the level of AFL ambassador payments given to each club as well. If fully disclosed, then all discussions around caps may be irrelevant. I wonder who the biggest beneficiaries would be? Mmmm...

 

[big_e]

Too many clubs? I vote to get rid of Hawthorn. Problem solved!

 

[SSSSSS]

there is nothing hard or risky about accepting that sweet tassie tourism deal set-up within liberal circles

likewise theres nothing risky about buying that waverly land for $1

We took a risk sacrificing games in Melbourne to enter a new market who was a big unknown as to whether they'd be accepting of a Victorian team. It paid off. There weren't 15 other clubs in the land that would have had the balls to do that.

But once again it's the extraneous circumstances rather than the variables that a club can control which determine success.

 

[Defacto]

We took a risk sacrificing games in Melbourne to enter a new market who was a big unknown as to whether they'd be accepting of a Victorian team. It paid off. There weren't 15 other clubs in the land that would have had the balls to do that.

But once again it's the extraneous circumstances rather than the variables that a club can control which determine success.

Mate what a load of crap if that same deal was put in front of norf, us, dees, wb theyd take it

 

[HBF]

Your CEO will just think you're an agitator.

I don't mind Trigg.
He's an upgrade on Swan who I think just took our money and not much more.

 

[WWSD]

How to be a good team.

Step 1. Have a good administration.
Step 2. Draft well. There are gems late in the draft.
Step 3. Identify weaknesses and rectify them through trading.
Step 4. Make use of FA where beneficial.
Step 5. Have an excellent coaching team.
Step 6. Have an excellent game plan. (Usually innovative expanding on previous ideas or ahead of their time)
Step 7. Execute said game plan to ones abilities as consistently as possible.
Step 8. A bit of luck doesn't go a stray.

If all these things were easy we'd have a different team winning a flag each year.

As it currently stands only Geelong, Hawthorn and maybe Sydney have ticked these boxes. The best run clubs on-field and off-field naturally should be the best teams and win.

It all starts from the top. Why are Carlton, Brisbane, Essendon junk? They are run poorly.

Step 9: Have a Spangher on your list

Guaranteed Premiership

 

[SSSSSS]

Step 9: Have a Spangher on your list

Guaranteed Premiership

That's covered in step 8

 

[Tas]

I don't mind Trigg.
He's an upgrade on Swan who I think just took our money and not much more.

Swan improved the club off-field on the commercial side of things.

 

[HBF]

Swan improved the club off-field on the commercial side of things.

We were rock bottom when Swan started, so the only way was up.
I just think he got lazy there and went through the motions.

 

[DERIBERATE]

Think the draft is fine, think development is key here, would Mitchell at 36 in the draft have been such a success at Melbourne instead of Hawthorn? Every team had several shots at Dane Swan too before he hit pick 58.Does not matter how many top 10 picks a team gets if they are not developed properly bar the few superstars who I think would be talented any place like Chris Judd, Nick Riewoldt and Luke Hodge

Good point. And alternatively, a high draft pick to Melbourne is different. Doesn't matter what mechanisms you have in place. Some clubs are just better.

 

[NathanMX]

Good point. And alternatively, a high draft pick to Melbourne is different. Doesn't matter what mechanisms you have in place. Some clubs are just better.

Yep Jack Watts at the Cats or Hawks could have been an entirely different player, conversely Mitchell may have been out of the league a long time ago had he gone to Melbourne.

 

[yedfo]

Sorry typed typed this on my phone so maynot get across what i am trying to get across.

Tl;dr summary - culture plus success extends window of premiership potential stopping other teams from winning.

- success builds success
A 3 year window potentially becomes a 7 year window if a team has a taste of success. Lets say a premiership gives and extra 4 years of punching above their weight. A top 4 position gives an extra 2 years. Does not mean they will be top 4 but could mean they make the 8 when they probably shouldnt ala geelong.

An up and coming team just entering the window are now potentially faced with 2-6 teams that are punching above their weight. It means getting in the top 4 and then getting a premiership becomes even harder.

If your team is not mentally ready due to off field ffactors such as bad culture, poor coaches or poor facilities you are likely to miss out on your oppurtunity because those teams who have been winning arent going to just drop out of contention.

Of these culture plays a huge role and is why we will always have teams that just dont perform as well as they could/should.
Richmond seems to have improved its culture. If success did not breed success they probably would have won the premiership this year. They still have 2 years if any of the teams above them falter we may see them win a premiership or 2 in the next 4 years

 

[melbournemartin]

OP pointed out that we've only had 7 different premiers in the last 15 years, so it's hardly a knee-jerk reaction just to today's result.

Doesn't seem too bad.

The EPL has had four.
Bundesliga has had five.

The most hilarious is the Portuguese league which has hilariously had only five winning teams in its history, two of which have just one championship.

I agree you need to find a balance, but it's also nice having occasional dynasties of teams.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

3-7 are horrible

I think compo picks should be in the first round but not inside first 10. Also no compo for a team thats won a flag inside 5 years

Why are they horrible? On their own I think they would be poor moves but as parts of overall reform to the salary cap/player movement rules I think they would be ideal.

3) free agency qualification period reduced to 6 years in the AFL

This would allow for more FA's on the market meaning clubs have greater flexibility in recruiting players. At the moment a club who loses a FA is meant to benefit from the free cap space to lure another FA - however the FA pool is so shallow that this is redundant. Lowering the FA qualification period would open up more players to FA and facilitate greater movement of players around all clubs, not just a handful going from bottom 10 to top 8 clubs chasing success.

4) clubs have the option to franchise tag 2 or 3 players

Franchise tags are something that should have been part of the initial FA rules. Clubs need some ability to sure up their future by hanging on to 1-3 key players to build their team around. For instance Melbourne franchise tagging Hogan, Brayshaw and Salem means they have some confidence in the stability of the team going forward and if those players do decide to leave it would have to he under the auspices of a trade rather than losing them for a compo pick.

5) free agency compensation only from second round onwards

This is to try and get back to some form of pure draft, at least in the first round. Not married to this one but I would have no top 10 compo picks at the very minimum. With the other reforms initiated this shouldnt be as much of an issue anyway as clubs will be able to compensate for the loss of FA in other ways.

6) clubs own a players contract and can trade them without consent

This is a no brainer for me, you sign a contract with a club the club owns the rights to your services which includes the rights to sell/trade those services elsewhere. This shouldnt work against the players FA qualification though.

7) third party deals are either abolished or included in the cap - this includes deals to hire family members etc or other non-pecuniary benefits

Another no brainer - without a properly enforced salary cap and a hard cap without additional payments all the other reforms are pointless. If Collingwood can keep Cloke because Eddie can get him a job reading the news on Channel 9 something is broken.

 

[Bayer_]

A team drafted, traded and developed well. They are now reaping the benefits.

Knee-jerk reactions, here we come.

The other thing that can't be easily done away with equalisation is the stay-together-for-flags factor. Geelong are credited for having brought it into place, and the Hawks list has well and truly run with it.

When the best players are happy to get unders to get flags, and lesser clubs are throwing money at big name players - at the expense of their own established players/up and comers - it is hard to stop. Of course, as Geelong has now proven, you can't just constantly refresh a gun team, and the decline will always set in eventually.

 

[melbournemartin]

The other thing that can't be easily done away with equalisation is the stay-together-for-flags factor. Geelong are credited for having brought it into place, and the Hawks list has well and truly run with it.

When the best players are happy to get unders to get flags, and lesser clubs are throwing money at big name players - at the expense of their own established players/up and comers - it is hard to stop. Of course, as Geelong has now proven, you can't just constantly refresh a gun team, and the decline will always set in eventually.

I think Brisbane, even with their bonus cap space, had a strong element of that. So many superstars that could have earned a lot more elsewhere.

 

[Long Live HFC]

there is nothing hard or risky about accepting that sweet tassie tourism deal set-up within liberal circles

hahahaha!!! you know it was the ALP that got that deal done, right?

unlike the myopic saints, the hawks saw tassie as a long-term option and invested plenty of time and effort growing roots there. but yeah, that was just luck!

 

[Bayer_]

I think Brisbane, even with their bonus cap space, had a strong element of that. So many superstars that could have earned a lot more elsewhere.

But they still had a lot more money. Certainly though, they played a part in saving footy from the abyss it was leading to late 90s/early 2000s, where trading was so common, and players just didn't seem to have the same feelings for the jumper they used to.

 

[RUNVS]

The fact that since 2001 Brisbane, Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn have won a total of 12 of the 15 premierships does tend to indicate that equalisation is not working.

 

[Mick39]

The fact that since 2001 Brisbane, Sydney, Geelong and Hawthorn have won a total of 12 of the 15 premierships does tend to indicate that equalisation is not working.

Sociasm never works in sport. Look at the NRL, 7 different premiers since 2007 (4 in the AFL) & possibly the greatest Grand Final just played of any sport.

 

[RUNVS]

Sociasm never works in sport. Look at the NRL, 7 different premiers since 2007 (4 in the AFL) & possibly the greatest Grand Final just played of any sport.

THe NFL makes it work. It does not work in the AFL though as the AFL's brand of socialism is terrible and actually benefits the successful clubs way more than the unsuccessful. It is easy for a top club in the AFL to remain a top club for a long time.

 

[bluespooner]

Mate what a load of crap if that same deal was put in front of norf, us, dees, wb theyd take it

The only crap here is coming from you.

St Kilda walked away from Tasmania and walked away from Waverley. FACT.

The fact that St Kilda got compensation for walking away from a legally binding agreement with the AFL to play home games at Waverley was down to the fact that Hawthorn chose to hold the AFL to the contract.

Your club is not only a bunch of surrender monkeys on the field but also off the field.

 

[Chief]

The only crap here is coming from you.

St Kilda walked away from Tasmania and walked away from Waverley. FACT.

The fact that St Kilda got compensation for walking away from a legally binding agreement with the AFL to play home games at Waverley was down to the fact that Hawthorn chose to hold the AFL to the contract.

Your club is not only a bunch of surrender monkeys on the field but also off the field.

Yeah OK chill out.

 

[Mick39]

Just on Waverley & VFL Park, when it was built, all 12 teams helped fund it. When they sold it, only 2 clubs got that money back from the AFL.