Opinion Draft order based on premiership drought

[Coolangatta]

I read this interesting comment about the draft: the proposal is that the order should be based on the sides with the longest drought to prevent tanking and promote equalisation. So, Melbourne would get the top pick because they've had a 56-year drought, then the Saints next, and so on, down to Richmond at the bottom as they're the reigning premiers.

 

[10571z]

So Melbourne keep getting the 1st pick every year until they win a flag? Yeah not a fan.

 

[Hoops]

I read this interesting comment about the draft: the proposal is that the order should be based on the sides with the longest drought to prevent tanking and promote equalisation. So, Melbourne would get the top pick because they've had a 56-year drought, then the Saints next, and so on, down to Richmond at the bottom as they're the reigning premiers.

Maybe a combination of the two. Melbourne would have a score of 18 + 9 (ladder position) =27. Highest score goes first. Equal score should be longest drought

 

[Coolangatta]

Maybe a combination of the two. Melbourne would have a score of 18 + 9 (ladder position) =27. Highest score goes first. Equal score should be longest drought

Not bad. There could still be a risk of tanking, though, but I'm unsure as to whether it would be as much of an issue that way compared to now.

 

[Slysh]

Not bad. There could still be a risk of tanking, though, but I'm unsure as to whether it would be as much of an issue that way compared to now.

I mean is tanking an issue now?

The Crows were gunning hard for wins late in the season

Sydney has a bottom 3 pick locked in before winning a game or two late in the year

Hawthorn just had to lose in the round of the season to get pick 3 and won the game.

 

[blitzer]

I mean is tanking an issue now?

The Crows were gunning hard for wins late in the season

Sydney has a bottom 3 pick locked in before winning a game or two late in the year

Hawthorn just had to lose in the round of the season to get pick 3 and won the game.

Just wait til a team can finish on the bottom and they are about to lose a free agent with band 1 compensation. The teams you mentioned only had to worry about slipping a spot down the order. Nothing compared to the priority picks of the past (and possibly the present in the right circumstances).

 

[Turnover]

Nah, should be on last win in a final.

 

[Coolangatta]

Nah, should be on last win in a final.

Not bad either.

 

[RudyBlue]

I read this interesting comment about the draft: the proposal is that the order should be based on the sides with the longest drought to prevent tanking and promote equalisation. So, Melbourne would get the top pick because they've had a 56-year drought, then the Saints next, and so on, down to Richmond at the bottom as they're the reigning premiers.

Thanks I hate it

 

[markm106]

You’d probably be best to have a rolling total wins over say 5 years. If teams are equal on wins use a percentage over the same period.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Don't like it. Assist clubs to reach a minimum level of competitiveness, not to win flags. Everyone doesn't have to win a prize.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Don't like it. Assist clubs to reach a minimum level of competitiveness, not to win flags. Everyone doesn't have to win a prize.

Perhaps years since making finals? A nice compromise for the single season vs recent history debate. Not even Carlton/Melbourne are going to tank to avoid making finals. Everyone (except Gold Coast) only goes back to 2013 anyway.

Or my favourite, the "Perfect Ladder" - last home and away game against each opponent (34 games).

 

[RobbieK]

The league already has significantly more equalisation measures than any other professional sporting league I am aware of.

In the last 20 years ten different teams have won the Premiership, and another five clubs have made the Grand Final but lost. Just Carlton, North Melbourne and Gold Coast haven't. Carlton and Gold Coast both had dysfunctional periods in which they got a lot of top end draft talent, which goes to show that there is a lot more that goes in to winning a Premiership than that.

The system is already working as it is supposed to, we don't need to keep changing things.

 

[wal]

Premierships won.
For this Port's SANFL flags will be counted.

 

[Roobs321]

So West Coast bottom out in 2008-10, but are near the draft order bottom because of winning in 2006? Eww!

Also punishes sides that have a dynasty then fall in a heap. Imagine if one club three-peats, then another club three-peats after them. You could go through a full rebuild without getting anywhere near the top 10 of a draft round.

Longest drought clubs might also not be those struggling the most off-field. For instance, North and Bears faced off in a prelim in '96 and were the sides vulnerable enough to consider merging with the Roys. Just because a club took 50 years to win their next flag doesn't inherently make it more special or just.

There is also a latent Vic bias in this idea, given that the longest interstate drought is Freo's flagless 26 seasons

To end, poor timing for a thread like this as I feel we're past the tanking debates era. There will probably always be a club or two that stagnate badly and struggle to make finals for a decade. Adelaide crunching this year saw a side hit rock bottom for the first time in three decades. But the comp overall is much more competitive than it was for a lot of the 2000s and first half of the 10s.

 

[RUNVS]

You’d probably be best to have a rolling total wins over say 5 years. If teams are equal on wins use a percentage over the same period.

I personally like this idea. Would stop any form of tanking as well.

 

[LionsOrDieTrion]

Draft order should be 9th placed gets first pick all the way to 18th place gets 10th pick then normal order 8th placed to first placed. This promotes winning games and if you just miss the finals you get the first pick.

 

[RUNVS]

Draft order should be 9th placed gets first pick all the way to 18th place gets 10th pick then normal order 8th placed to first placed. This promotes winning games and if you just miss the finals you get the first pick.

No as it makes it so much harder for the bad teams to get better. Where would Gold Coast be right now if instead of getting picks 1 and 2 last year they got picks 10 and 11? There would be a lot less hope in that team without Rowell and Anderson.

 

[PoppedCorn]

Should go on number of spoons...
27 first round picks coming up

 

[Schauermann]

The league already has significantly more equalisation measures than any other professional sporting league I am aware of.

In the last 20 years ten different teams have won the Premiership, and another five clubs have made the Grand Final but lost. Just Carlton, North Melbourne and Gold Coast haven't. Carlton and Gold Coast both had dysfunctional periods in which they got a lot of top end draft talent, which goes to show that there is a lot more that goes in to winning a Premiership than that.

The system is already working as it is supposed to, we don't need to keep changing things.

Actually would agree on this. Even when my club has won nothing it generally works.

PS Since I live in Germany: German premier league just had an eightpeat. And 14 out of the last 20.

 

[RobbieK]

Actually would agree on this. Even when my club has won nothing it generally works.

PS Since I live in Germany: German premier league just had an eightpeat. And 14 out of the last 20.

Most European leagues are similar. No salary caps, no drafts, short of being bought by a billionaire, or that billionaire pulling their support, teams are either wealthy and good or poor and not and there isn't anything that can be done to change it.

Even in the American sports with salary caps and drafts you get massive dynasties and success focused on a small group of teams. I really don't think there is any other sport in the world that has been as succesful at implementing equalisation measures which give all clubs a realistic chance of success each decade as the AFL. It ain't broke, no need to fix it.

 

[JayJ20]

I think draft order should be 18th to get 1st pick all the way to 1st getting 18th pick.

 

[Breretonisahood]

I read this interesting comment about the draft: the proposal is that the order should be based on the sides with the longest drought to prevent tanking and promote equalisation. So, Melbourne would get the top pick because they've had a 56-year drought, then the Saints next, and so on, down to Richmond at the bottom as they're the reigning premiers.

But Melbournes drought followed 6 flags in 10 years at a time there were no equalisation measures. It’s a bit rich to then suggest Melbourne deserve an extra helping hand using equalisation measures. An argument could be made for Bullies and Saints, but I think there are too many equalization measures compromising the competition.

 

[mightymouse75]

Back in the USSR.

 

[Coolangatta]

Thanks for the replies. I agree with the point that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It seems to be going well so far. The fixturing, on the other hand, could always use more work, but even that's quite good with, I think, every side in the 1-6, 7-12, and 13-18 categories playing at least three teams within that grouping twice, plus a derby. I think perhaps the fixture should be extended to 23 rounds where everyone from those three groupings plays each other twice, plus a rival club.