Do the equalisation methods need tweaking?

[Chief]

The thing is that in every system there is a winner and a loser.

If one participant manages to get it JUST right, they jag onto a formula that is right for the times.

They accumulate experience. They gain goodwill. They bubble around on top. Then times change, people change, mistakes are made.

 

[melbournemartin]

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.

I was under the impression that it was 10% salary cap increase?

 

[Bayer_]

I was under the impression that it was 10% salary cap increase?

Which is a lot. I guess it's true they till couldn't have had that many elite players. Though don't know anything of the dynamic that as going on.

 

[melbournemartin]

Which is a lot. I guess it's true they till couldn't have had that many elite players. Though don't know anything of the dynamic that as going on.

But when we talk of players leaving to other clubs for more money it's always more than just a 10% increase.

Collingwood was trying for practically a decade to get Brown there. Bradshaw also had many go-home offers yet he was happy to stay at Brisbane for less money and a lesser role (often a third forward or even pinch hit defender)

 

[Bayer_]

But when we talk of players leaving to other clubs for more money it's always more than just a 10% increase.

Collingwood was trying for practically a decade to get Brown there. Bradshaw also had many go-home offers yet he was happy to stay at Brisbane for less money and a lesser role (often a third forward or even pinch hit defender)

True. Though they could also have used the Sydney trick of not helping out the lesser players to hoard the cash for the stars.

 

[TiggerMan22]

FA restrictions to top teams.

 

[El Topo]

Bring back the 2 yr priority pick, maybe with some tweaks from last time. Certainly helped the Hawks rebuild, and who knows what may have happened if other recipients like Carlton and Richmond were were halfway competent with recruiting and list management at the time.

It was only scrapped because of the tanking conjecture and those arguments don't stack up. The 'benefits' of an extra pick do not outweigh a club having it's brand smashed for consecutive years... not to mention the cautionary tale of how well 'not tanking' worked for the club(s) who may have tried it.

 

[Royal Flush]

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.

Slightly incorrect, the vast amounts of land surrounding Waverly were sold of to developers, which the AFL got back as a significant property investment. Sold for up to 80 million. Money used to fund docklands

Sent from my D5833 using Tapatalk

 

[MarkT2]

THE equalisation formula:
Evenly spread match schedule;
Rotating draw;
Even Cap;
Rotating draft order;

 

[Topkent]

Its pretty simple, You need a mechanism to bring teams up faster and slow top teams down

Teams that finish in the top 4 are unable to claim free agents of any kind
Teams that finish outside the finals get 2 picks at the draft before teams in the top 8 get 1

So the bottom team gets 1 and 11, 2nd bottom gets 2 and 12 etc until 8th place gets 21 as their first pick

Top 4 teams cant top up with talent which means they have to trade out depth to get into the first 25 picks therefore weakening them a little

Imagine if Frawley could only have left for a side outside the top 4, Maybe he ends up at North or Geelng which helps them move towards the 4 or he just stays at Melbourne

 

[MarkT2]

Its pretty simple, You need a mechanism to bring teams up faster and slow top teams down

WHY the hell do you need this?
What is wrong with getting your act together and improving rather than dragging the good down?
Why should top teams be nobbled?

 

[Topkent]

WHY the hell do you need this?
What is wrong with getting your act together and improving rather than dragging the good down?
Why should top teams be nobbled?

Because the AFL is aiming for equalisation and this is a thread on the subject?
The AFL wants any team to be able to beat any team, well that doesnt work when it takes 7 odd years to build a list

 

[The Passenger]

I think West Coast have benefitted from yo-yoing from good team to a terrible team every few years, it results them in getting easier draw this year and also helped them to sneak in and pick up Gaff at pick 4, and Darling with a priority pick they didn't deserve during the compromised drafts. They didn't get a whole lot out of the other compromised drafts, but did pick up a fair bit of talent just prior to those compromised drafts.

People really don't understand how priority picks work and who it enabled a club to pick up.

The priority pick in 2010 enabled us to pick up Scott Lycett.

If priority picks didn't exist we would have had pick 27 in the 2010 draft and we would've picked up Darling (Unless North picked up Darling with their FA compensation pick at #26 but that would've been unlikely). We wouldn't have had pick 29 and would not have picked up Lycett.

Just as the 2001 priority pick enabled us to pick up Ashley Sampi. The priority pick didn't enable us to pick up Chris Judd.

If priority picks didn't exist we would still have had pick 3 in the 2001 draft and we would've picked up Judd. We wouldn't have had pick 6 and would not have picked up Sampi.

Just as in 2004 the priority picks enabled Richmond, Hawthorn and the Bulldogs to pick up Tambling (#4), Franklin (#5) and Williams (#6).

It's hilarious how people can't get their heads around this.

 

[Tas]

People really don't understand how priority picks work and who it enabled a club to pick up.

The priority pick in 2010 enabled us to pick up Scott Lycett.

If priority picks didn't exist we would have had pick 27 in the 2010 draft and we would've picked up Darling (Unless North picked up Darling with their FA compensation pick at #26 but that would've been unlikely). We wouldn't have had pick 29 and would not have picked up Lycett.

Just as the 2001 priority pick enabled us to pick up Ashley Sampi. The priority pick didn't enable us to pick up Chris Judd.

If priority picks didn't exist we would still have had pick 3 in the 2001 draft and we would've picked up Judd. We wouldn't have had pick 6 and would not have picked up Sampi.

Just as in 2004 the priority picks enabled Richmond, Hawthorn and the Bulldogs to pick up Tambling (#4), Franklin (#5) and Williams (#6).

It's hilarious how people can't get their heads around this.

It doesn't matter who you picked up, your club didn't deserve a priority pick for being largely incompetent on the back of some injuries. Giving clubs priority access to talent for short-term issues is part of the problem when priority access to raw talent is invariably a long-term gain.

 

[The Passenger]

It doesn't matter who you picked up, your club didn't deserve a priority pick for being largely incompetent on the back of some injuries. Giving clubs priority access to talent for short-term issues is part of the problem when priority access to raw talent is invariably a long-term gain.

It does matter who we picked up because people use Darling, just as they used Judd before, to evoke something out of people. If you said it snared us Lycett, no one gives a shit because he's not in our best 22 and is a big chance to be traded in the next few weeks.

FWIW I agree priority picks shouldn't be handed out on the back of one poor season. I also don't think they should ever come at the start of a draft.

I think an idea mentioned earlier is worth exploring where bottom teams get two picks before the top teams get their first pick.

First two rounds could go like this:
1 & 11 - bottom
2 & 13 - 2nd bottom
3 & 15 - 3rd bottom
4 & 17 - 4th bottom
5 & 23 - 14th
6 & 24 - 13th
7 & 25 - 12th
8 & 26 - 11th
9 & 27 - 10th
10 & 28 - 9th
12 & 29 - EF
14 & 30 - EF
16 & 31 - SF
18 & 32 - SF
19 & 33 - PF
20 & 34 - PF
21 & 35 - grand finalists
22 & 36 - premiers

First round ends at pick 22, so end of FA compensation picks and priority picks come between 22 and 23.

Tanking would be well back on the agenda. The difference between 14th and 17th could be your second pick at #13 or #26 which is quite a tempting carrot.

It's worth looking at anyway.

 

[Power Raid]

equalisation needs constant tweaking but not a wholesale change

 

[Collingwoodity]

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.

The salary cap is the single most effective equalisation method.

Other than moving from a fixture to a draw, to alter anything beyond that would be reactionary and would support mediocrity.

 

[Tas]

It does matter who we picked up because people use Darling, just as they used Judd before, to evoke something out of people. If you said it snared us Lycett, no one gives a shit because he's not in our best 22 and is a big chance to be traded in the next few weeks.

FWIW I agree priority picks shouldn't be handed out on the back of one poor season. I also don't think they should ever come at the start of a draft.

I think an idea mentioned earlier is worth exploring where bottom teams get two picks before the top teams get their first pick.

First two rounds could go like this:
1 & 11 - bottom
2 & 13 - 2nd bottom
3 & 15 - 3rd bottom
4 & 17 - 4th bottom
5 & 23 - 14th
6 & 24 - 13th
7 & 25 - 12th
8 & 26 - 11th
9 & 27 - 10th
10 & 28 - 9th
12 & 29 - EF
14 & 30 - EF
16 & 31 - SF
18 & 32 - SF
19 & 33 - PF
20 & 34 - PF
21 & 35 - grand finalists
22 & 36 - premiers

First round ends at pick 22, so end of FA compensation picks and priority picks come between 22 and 23.

Tanking would be well back on the agenda. The difference between 14th and 17th could be your second pick at #13 or #26 which is quite a tempting carrot.

It's worth looking at anyway.

I used Darling because that is who the Eagles picked up with the pick. He wasn't the only PP the eagles had either, had another in 2011, McInnes just not an early bloomer.

I disagree with the system, being competitive is less about getting priority access to talent, filling your squad with kids is probably the best way to make it uncompetitive. Every club needs access to marquee players, denying talent to clubs that get their shit together just means they are unlikely going to challenge. The reason teams tank is so they can get access to the talent that is guaranteed to the lower finishing clubs. Add in a lottery and watch these peanuts get their shit together.

Reward clubs for being shit just creates more problems.

 

[The Passenger]

I used Darling because that is who the Eagles picked up with the pick. He wasn't the only PP the eagles had either, had another in 2011, McInnes just not an early bloomer.

The point is having the PP gave us two picks in that region (#26 and #29). If PP didn't exist we still have pick #26 as that was the first pick of the second round, which an wooden spooners we would've still had. And we still would've used it to pick up Jack Darling. * We then wouldn't have had pick #29 to pick up Lycett.

Also the McInness pick (#28) was traded from Port Adelaide in the Ebert trade. Not our PP.

We picked up Luke Shuey with a PP (#18) in 2008 draft, but it's the same deal as before. Without PP the draft still goes Melbourne #17 (Sam Blease), WCE #18 (Luke Shuey). It just doesn't then go Melbourne #19, WCE #20. The PP enabled Melbourne to pick up James Strauss (#19) and us to pick up Tom Swift with #20 who is now retired.

*Slight correction: if PP didn't exist we would have had pick #27. North FA compensation pick would've been pick #26 and the first pick of the second round of the draft would have been pick #27.

 

[SizeMatters]

No top 4 side should be able to bring in a FA would be a good start.

 

[Tas]

The point is having the PP gave us two picks in that region (#26 and #29). If PP didn't exist we still have pick #26 as that was the first pick of the second round, which an wooden spooners we would've still had. And we still would've used it to pick up Jack Darling. * We then wouldn't have had pick #29 to pick up Lycett.

Also the McInness pick (#28) was traded from Port Adelaide in the Ebert trade. Not our PP.

We picked up Luke Shuey with a PP (#18) in 2008 draft, but it's the same deal as before. Without PP the draft still goes Melbourne #17 (Sam Blease), WCE #18 (Luke Shuey). It just doesn't then go Melbourne #19, WCE #20. The PP enabled Melbourne to pick up James Strauss (#19) and us to pick up Tom Swift with #20 who is now retired.

*Slight correction: if PP didn't exist we would have had pick #27. North FA compensation pick would've been pick #26 and the first pick of the second round of the draft would have been pick #27.

You still understand the jist of the problem though, correct? You are getting free hits, with extra shots at talent, which you shouldn't have had. It doesn't matter who you took or who you might have taken had you not had the picks, try and get an end of first round pick during the trade period, it would not come cheap.

The AFL dolling out these free extra picks for short-term problems creates different long-term problems.

 

[King Elvis]

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

Poor HBF, you're going to be so disappointed

 

[MarkT2]

Because the AFL is aiming for equalisation and this is a thread on the subject?
The AFL wants any team to be able to beat any team, well that doesnt work when it takes 7 odd years to build a list

Sure it works, just with a bit of time and hard work. The AFL does not and should not want any team to be able to beat any team at any time. Equalisation does not aim for 18 equal teams at all times. That is not possible under any rigged scenario let alone a competition based on any sort of competition between teams.

Equalisation is supposed to relate to clubs having an equal opportunity to compete. If you are at the bottom because you have low member numbers and can't fund a competitive club or compete on salary for players then that's an equalisation issue. If you are at the bottom because your administration are Muppets, you can't draft in spite of plenty of early picks, you have internal instability and keep appointing the wrong staff/coaches, then that is not an equalisation issue. You aren't owed success because you are not successful.

The salary cap and draft are meant to compensate for financial strength influencing the list by virtue of attracting the best talent and paying them more. It's meant to control the arm race.

It's one thing to artificially prop up poor performers by giving them better draft talent access, it is another to actively punish the successful to hold them back just because they do tings better.

Hawthorn deserve all the success they have achieved. They took their club from a small club to a large club over a period of time based on their own endeavours and success borne of that.

 

[MarkT2]

No top 4 side should be able to bring in a FA would be a good start.

Why not?
What if they lose one?
What if they have 3 players retire?
What if they just manage their salary cap well?

 

[Topkent]

Sure it works, just with a bit of time and hard work. The AFL does not and should not want any team to be able to beat any team at any time. Equalisation does not aim for 18 equal teams at all times. That is not possible under any rigged scenario let alone a competition based on any sort of competition between teams.

Equalisation is supposed to relate to clubs having an equal opportunity to compete. If you are at the bottom because you have low member numbers and can't fund a competitive club or compete on salary for players then that's an equalisation issue. If you are at the bottom because your administration are Muppets, you can't draft in spite of plenty of early picks, you have internal instability and keep appointing the wrong staff/coaches, then that is not an equalisation issue. You aren't owed success because you are not successful.

The salary cap and draft are meant to compensate for financial strength influencing the list by virtue of attracting the best talent and paying them more. It's meant to control the arm race.

It's one thing to artificially prop up poor performers by giving them better draft talent access, it is another to actively punish the successful to hold them back just because they do tings better.

Hawthorn deserve all the success they have achieved. They took their club from a small club to a large club over a period of time based on their own endeavours and success borne of that.

1. Gil has been qouted a number of times saying that he wants anyone to be able to beat anyone
2. Maybe their isnt 18 high class afl coaches and administrators..
3. Melbourne is only allowed to pay 5% less than hawthorn in the salary cap, Hawthorn just pay there stars a little unders while lower sides are forced to overpay mediocrity