Equalisation in the AFL

[Coops93]

This thought occurred to me during Hawthorns previous match. I've heard this said many times before, but it generally goes something like this: "There domination is even more impressive in the day and age. As the league is set up in a way that is supposed to stop 1 team from dominating over a period of time". But in reality, the last 10 years the AFL has basically been dominated by 3 or 4 teams. In grand Finals since 2005 only 5 teams have won it, with 3 winning multiple times: Hawthorn (4) Geelong (3) Sydeny (2) West Coast (1) and Collingwood (1). With Hawthorn appearing in 5, Geelong 4, Sydney 3, West Coast 3 and Collingwood 2.

Of Grand finals in the last 10 years all teams bar Fremantle and Port Adelaide have appeared more than 1 time (with port Adelaide having actually won the grand final in 2004)

Meanwhile, the same teams have struggled to make an impact on the league. Teams like Carlton, Richmond, Melbourne and Brisbane come to mind. Carlton and Richmond made brief finals appearances, but dropped back out of the 8 a short while after, with Carlton even dropping to another wooden spoon.

I understand the AFL has implemented policies and distributed support "packages" to teams to help balance the league, but it has had very little to no impact in actually equalising the league. It clearly isn't working and all this talk of equalisation has been a farce. Heck, at round 10 the top 8 was basically confirmed. All the next 13 rounds are for is to sort out the top 8 order and the draft order.

So what is everyone's view on equalisation in the AFL? Should the AFL be doing more? Less? Is this something the clubs need to work out themselves?

 

[TeeJay Blue]

I believe Carlton have run themselves into the ground. Bad management and poor administration over many years. AFL is little to blame for where we have been in recent times.

 

[Doro]

Geelong, Hawthorn, Sydney, West Coast, Collingwood. Seems to coincide with the best administered clubs in the game. I think the AFL dropped the equalisation ball with the start up teams but the cup hasn't been lifted yet, so I'll save that rant for another day.

 

[Jimmae]

I believe Carlton have run themselves into the ground. Bad management and poor administration over many years. AFL is little to blame for where we have been in recent times.

I think they have a bit to answer for in terms of how they chose to step in when we basically went bankrupt. There's a variety of culture problems involved, both at our club and how other club and the AFL can interact with us, but thankfully that's turning around now.

As to the matter of equalisation, I believe the ideology is sound, but the execution remains flawed, hence the discussions that are on-going regarding in-season trading, live trading of picks, etc.

 

[HBF]

I believe Carlton have run themselves into the ground. Bad management and poor administration over many years. AFL is little to blame for where we have been in recent times.

As much as we hate to say it, but we have been poorly run and our list management even worse.
I finally feel we have turned the corner, but we have a way to go. No-one else to blame but ourselves.

 

[TeeJay Blue]

The AFL has heavily invested in assuring that both NSW teams maintain their success in order to get bums on seats and increase membership sales, since the people of the state show great love and passion for the game of rugby and NRL.
And whether the scrapping of the COLA had occurred would not make much of a difference, given that the aim is to ensure that players don't exit in mass numbers (all because of how expensive it is to live in those areas). All of this can very much lead to the clubs dropping off.
Every team has their group of band-wagoners, but the AFL have a fierce competition with other leagues when it comes to winning the hearts of NSW people, as they fear they can easily lose interest and just stick with supporting their rugby teams.
Even the father-son rule is copping damage in favour of NSW and QLD teams bidding for academy players and winning most of the high draft picks.

Both Sydney teams therefore will rarely drop out of the 8. The AFL wants them up there winning some of the premierships.

It is also believed that Hawthorn get special treatment, because the league think that general footy fans want a team that everybody can tolerate when it comes to winning the flag. That includes many escaping sanctions that would most likely get given to players of other teams. It can also include the umpires showing greater appreciation to them over other clubs. But the AFL should know that as of right now, the hawks are starting to get on the nerves of many fans' nerves and that they will eventually become just as despicable as clubs like ours, Collingwood, Essendon and Richmond.

I too think that Geelong get some kind of special treatment from the AFL. Whether it is simply being the only regional team in Victoria or whether it is something else.

 

[gandaal]

I think the current system is great. I love it that we have to pay a footy tax to prop up poor struggling clubs like North Melbourne and the Dogs. Bless there poor struggling souls.

 

[rampar]

Clubs outside the top 8 should share the first top 20 draft picks.

Having to spend 90 odd percent of the cap is ridiculous.

 

[thylacine60]

I think the current system is great. I love it that we have to pay a footy tax to prop up poor struggling clubs like North Melbourne and the Dogs. Bless there poor struggling souls.

sarcasm
ˈsɑːkaz(ə)m/
noun
noun: sarcasm; plural noun: sarcasms
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
"she didn't like the note of sarcasm in his voice"
synonyms: derision, mockery, ridicule, satire, irony, scorn, sneering, scoffing, gibing, taunting;

 

[Jabba73]

Some clubs are more equal than others. Is the case now and will continue to be the case while the AFL needs to ensure it has enough clubs playing each week to justify the huge TV rights deals.

A quick look at the number of concessions the AFL have invented to "level the playing field" shows they will compromise the integrity of the competition to cover their own mistakes and mis-judgements.

Having said that, if we had embraced the new reality of the draft and actually had a process for selecting coaches, you could argue the last 20 years should not have posed the heartbreak and angst for the supporters that it did. We ****ed up and paid the price for refusing to accept reality and change.

 

[gbatman]

There is a big problem with equalisation in the AFL, for sure. The teams up the top sustain this through good admin for sure. They also sustain this because player retention is easier and it's easier for them to recruit, they can keep good players on less money and also entice players to come their way and due to already having a geep list they have more talented spill over to trade with. Teams up the top really have it over teams down the bottom.

Problem with AFL is they still try and think like other sports in the world, but it's not. AFL has 18 on the field and 22 in a team which is huge compared to other sports so having access to one or two gun players isn't going to make a huge impact.

Bottom sides need to be given more and perhaps top sides should be given less. You give the bottom sides a bit more and take away from the top sides and it will equal things out.

Firstly you could bring back the priority pick except priority picks should start at the start of the first round. Secondly the draft should run from bottom to 5th then team's 15th to last go again followed by the top 4.

This would have mean that last years draft order would have been.

Round 1
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11,10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 18, 17, 16, 15, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Round 2
Priority - (18, 17, 16)
18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11,10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and so forth

So a side like us would have been looking at starting with picks 1, 15, 23 and 26 which I think is a more than reasonable boost for a side desperate for talent. This is significantly better than getting picks 1, 19, etc which does very little. Obviously you factor in trading, I think this may encourage more aggressive rebuilding and hence more trading from bottom sides which would be a good thing.

This is how you fix the problem with the AFL. The way things are it's easy for sides to remain up the top but really difficult for sides to build from the bottom.

My system is a good because the placement of the priority pic should equal a good player but won't rob from the other sides who are building between 14th-5th. It makes things harder for the established top 4. It should help really poor sides add a bulk of talent which is how you help these sides, not adding a couple of good players per year.

 

[LanceRomance]

The equalisation is a farce.
you cant have equalisation and free agency where the best players can leave to join the best clubs.

Then you can't have the best draftees go to a couple of selected clubs then you cant give selected clubs continued access to talented players seemingly exclusively.

 

[mediumsizered]

No doubt our present situation is mostly of our own doing, but I am totally of the belief that the AFL's original equalisation policies have been so badly watered down that they are having minimal impact.

The salary cap, which once upon a time made it very hard for successful teams to keep their playing list intact, has increased to such a level that it is not all that difficult to keep your best players happy. The year by year increases make it easier & easier for the best teams to retain their players.

As for the draft, its integrity has been minimised by free agency & the academies afforded the clubs north of the Murray River.

As we have seen with Geelong & to a lesser extent with North Melbourne (they obviously haven't enjoyed recent premiership success), a club no longer needs to bottom out to have another run at a premiership/the Top 4 after their previous premiership window has closed.

The AFL no longer has an equalisation policy, they just maintain the components of a once effective equalisation policy.

 

[KnaveyBlue]

The arrival of Free Agency in 2012 didn't just create movement among older players, it created a complete general power shift in the player/club relationship. It was a signal that players, not clubs, were now dictating where they moved. The result?

When Free Agency arrived in 2012, the top 6 teams were Hawks, Crows, Swans, Pies, Eagles, Geelong.
Fast forward four years and the top 6 is almost unchanged, with only the Dogs replacing Collingwood.

The teams that were on top when Free Agency arrived were always destined to stay that way. Players want to go to winning clubs, and the clubs listed above were in the right place at the right time, and will reap the benefits henceforth, as many predicted when FA arrived. It's a 'rich get richer' system when it comes to playing talent, and does absolutely nothing to equalise the game. In fact, it promotes quite the opposite.

 

[footyfan1978]

Analysis of this is pretty poor.
What you are not taking into account is two new clubs with fantastic concessions meant the normal equalisation policies that ensure the cellar dwellers get the early picks was taken away for a few years. GWS and Gold Coast were never going to become a power team in 3 or 4 years so that has helped the teams towards top in timing of them coming in, keep on top longer than what would have happened had those two new clubs not come in. Most of the top end talent went to those new clubs so little chance of any other teams making up ground on the clubs winning premiership. The so called window of opportunity to win flags got increased a few years for the Hawks, Swans and Cats of the world in this era because there was less chance the new crop of teams that want to contend could get enough talent in, to take over. This to me is why Fremantle fell short and St.Kilda types. The introduction of free agency has also added to Hawks extending their period of being a strong contender.
However these buffer temporary effects that have worked in favour of Hawks, Swans and Cats in latest era will not last much longer and normal equalisation policy effects should be seen to start taking effect in coming years.

I will put a condition on that prediction though . GWS concessions have proven to be so good I see them have an extended run as premiership contender for some time. They will still be getting early picks for a few more seasons, that normally, clubs with already very strong talented lists could not get access to, so readily. So once Hawks slide is clear when the Hodge's and Mitchell's retire , I think there is little doubt GWS can do what Brisbane Lions did on back of merger concessions and Hawks did recently and get multiple premierships a lot easier than normally can be expected.

However the general salary cap and draft equalisation policies for mine have proven to do over the long run what they were brought in for.
No more clear example of this than the fact from 1967 to 1989 era of a time before equalisation policies could see any effects we saw Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn , North and Essendon be the only clubs in league over 23 seasons win a flag.
Once the equalisation policies were into the system a few years we saw from 1990 to 1997,
SEVEN different clubs win the premierships from 1990 to 1997. That is massive change.

Further more if you look at the final ladder in 2006 you will find Brisbane, North Melbourne, Essendon and Carlton the bottom 4 on ladder.
Only seven years previously Essendon, North Melbourne and Brisbane were top three and guess whom played off in the grand final that year ?
You guessed it Carlton. So the general equalisation policies of AFL can see over the seven year period sides from top be right at the bottom. The system has not changed too much in that time. Things have been tinkered with such as priority picks no longer handed out willy nilly but the rest of it is pretty much the same. The bottom team gets pick 1 and premiers last pick of each round. That is the same essential policy that got brought in during late 1980's to stop the situation of 3 or 4 clubs totally dominating. Essendon, Carlton and Hawthorn collectively had most of the other clubs close to bankrupt trying to keep up with the power lists those clubs had in early to mid 1980's.

It has taken my club well over two decades to buy into the new system that got brought in during late 1980's.
Last thing I want to see is system change again as soon as we actually embrace what has been in place for long time now.

 

[jj1978]

Successful clubs can get the FA for cheap, less successful clubs have to pay above rate to lure a FA harming their ability to pay for more players or increase pay of up and comers.

Or you have clubs doing stupid things like luring a kid not worth it on a big pay cheque (Boyd, potentially O'meara, even Trealor)...

Unfortunately a combination of our mistakes and being utter shyyyyyt at the wrong time has compounded on the 10 years of pain we received for salary cap cheating.

 

[Azul]

Culture: We've had 4 coaches, 4 spoons, 4 number 1 picks in the same time Hawthorn have had 4 premierships.

When Bolton talked about resetting the club it was to adopt the Clarko model.

 

[BluesRule]

Successful clubs can get the FA for cheap, less successful clubs have to pay above rate to lure a FA harming their ability to pay for more players or increase pay of up and comers.

Or you have clubs doing stupid things like luring a kid not worth it on a big pay cheque (Boyd, potentially O'meara, even Trealor)...

Unfortunately a combination of our mistakes and being utter shyyyyyt at the wrong time has compounded on the 10 years of pain we received for salary cap cheating.

I wonder if clubs getting a free agent should lose their next pick, rather than every club effectively paying for a FA by dropping backwards in the draft.

 

[Keyza]

I think the current system is great. I love it that we have to pay a footy tax to prop up poor struggling clubs like North Melbourne and the Dogs. Bless there poor struggling souls.

This really irks me too.
We are effectively propping up clubs that are in a better position both on and off the field than us.
The AFL just seem to chose who they will help, if they are north of the
Victorian border you will get looked after.
It is also unfair that the AFL have paid for Paul Roos to coach Melbourne for the last 3 years when they have debt much less than we do and only had themselves to blame for the position they were in. I wonder if Roos' salary was included in Melbourne's footy department spending. Probably not.
We have a terrible Etihad deal and according to Greg Swann it was worse than most of the other clubs yet we get nothing from the AFL.
Melbourne also got pick 3 as compo for losing Frawley using some "formula" than no one understood. They also get compensation from the MCC because they have the highest number of MCC members who nominate Melbourne as their club, yet other clubs get nothing even though they also have many MCC members too.
It is a joke and so unfair.
We get shafted at every opportunity and just sit back and take it.

 

[BluesRule]

Watching last nights game, I wonder if the AFL have decided that the Hawks are their "Harlem Globetrotters" and the rest of the league are the Washington Generals.

Whenever it seems like they are going to lose, they are always kept in the game and ultimately win as the other team looks like a stooge.

Nice predictable results = good family entertainment

 

[thylacine60]

Let's not get sucked into silly umpiring conspiracy theories. Winning, successful teams do seem to get the rub of the green though. Shouldn't be that way but it always has.

 

[Quazza]

It is also believed that Hawthorn get special treatment, because the league think that general footy fans want a team that everybody can tolerate when it comes to winning the flag. That includes many escaping sanctions that would most likely get given to players of other teams. It can also include the umpires showing greater appreciation to them over other clubs. .

Please......

 

[BluesRule]

Maybe we need a case study on how Hawks are able to defy gravity.

Clearly they have picked up some very good players over the journey. They have developed both traded in players and draft picks well.
They have a very astute coach and a great team of assistants (who have proved to be great coach's when they leave Hawks). Therefore Good Coach selection and development.
They have a large supporter base, revenues and profits, including a very generous Tasmanian deal and a better Stadium deal than we have in Melbourne.
They have won the free agent trade lottery.
All their key players are defying age, injuries and playing well beyond normal game time.
Supposedly * copied their supplement program?
Their sports science has been innovative.
Their system is obviously in line with AFL umpiring objectives as they seem to get the rub of the green on a regular basis.
They have overcome the adversity of wearing Poo and wee every week.

How do we equalise?
1. Draft well and develop. We seem to have improved drafting and hopefully player development will now be better. That said we did develop players like Betts, Waite, Josh Kennedy, etc. who are still some of the best in the league so maybe retention is also a key need. We are at a disadvantage in trading as Players will take lower $ to play at Hawks and win premierships as the endorsements more than make up the deficit in $.
2. We have a good coach, and maybe we can lure Ratten back as an assistant or develop new high quality assistants.
3. Our supporter base will return when we win games but a new stadium deal is important now.
4. We are not ready for FA yet, but next year should be interesting. Unfortunately we will have to pay overs compared to Hawks.
5. Simmo is defying age, but Judd and Carrots did not. Hopefully our young guns can peak as one.
6. Hopefully nobody is doing supplements anymore.
7. we can look into sports science but leaders will want to be associated with the Hawks for a few years yet. However, as we emerge this will change.
8. Maybe we need to liase and train with the Umps more?
9. Ha Ha Go Blues!

 

[Windhover]

Analysis of this is pretty poor.
What you are not taking into account is two new clubs with fantastic concessions meant the normal equalisation policies that ensure the cellar dwellers get the early picks was taken away for a few years. GWS and Gold Coast were never going to become a power team in 3 or 4 years so that has helped the teams towards top in timing of them coming in, keep on top longer than what would have happened had those two new clubs not come in. Most of the top end talent went to those new clubs so little chance of any other teams making up ground on the clubs winning premiership. The so called window of opportunity to win flags got increased a few years for the Hawks, Swans and Cats of the world in this era because there was less chance the new crop of teams that want to contend could get enough talent in, to take over. This to me is why Fremantle fell short and St.Kilda types. The introduction of free agency has also added to Hawks extending their period of being a strong contender.
However these buffer temporary effects that have worked in favour of Hawks, Swans and Cats in latest era will not last much longer and normal equalisation policy effects should be seen to start taking effect in coming years.

Very interesting theory I had not previously considered. Of course, if it is an explanation for the Hawks prolonged dominance, it is only one factor. They have leveraged the advantage they had before the Northern teams soaked up available talent by cunning top-ups of their list (Lake, Frawley, McEvoy, Burgoyne). They have also had phenomenal luck with injury/longevity. Who would have guessed in 2005 Sam Mitchell would be among the best players in 2016 whilst Chris Judd long washed up? And very good coaching.

I will put a condition on that prediction though . GWS concessions have proven to be so good I see them have an extended run as premiership contender for some time. They will still be getting early picks for a few more seasons, that normally, clubs with already very strong talented lists could not get access to, so readily. So once Hawks slide is clear when the Hodge's and Mitchell's retire , I think there is little doubt GWS can do what Brisbane Lions did on back of merger concessions and Hawks did recently and get multiple premierships a lot easier than normally can be expected.

I do not think many would disagree a prolonged run in the finals awaits GWS but winning multiple flags requires more than just a strong list. Player retention has been and can be assumed to be likely to continue to be a problem for GWS. How they handle this will be critical.

However the general salary cap and draft equalisation policies for mine have proven to do over the long run what they were brought in for.
No more clear example of this than the fact from 1967 to 1989 era of a time before equalisation policies could see any effects we saw Richmond, Carlton, Hawthorn , North and Essendon be the only clubs in league over 23 seasons win a flag.
Once the equalisation policies were into the system a few years we saw from 1990 to 1997,
SEVEN different clubs win the premierships from 1990 to 1997. That is massive change.

Further more if you look at the final ladder in 2006 you will find Brisbane, North Melbourne, Essendon and Carlton the bottom 4 on ladder.
Only seven years previously Essendon, North Melbourne and Brisbane were top three and guess whom played off in the grand final that year ?
You guessed it Carlton. So the general equalisation policies of AFL can see over the seven year period sides from top be right at the bottom. The system has not changed too much in that time. Things have been tinkered with such as priority picks no longer handed out willy nilly but the rest of it is pretty much the same. The bottom team gets pick 1 and premiers last pick of each round. That is the same essential policy that got brought in during late 1980's to stop the situation of 3 or 4 clubs totally dominating. Essendon, Carlton and Hawthorn collectively had most of the other clubs close to bankrupt trying to keep up with the power lists those clubs had in early to mid 1980's.

It has taken my club well over two decades to buy into the new system that got brought in during late 1980's.
Last thing I want to see is system change again as soon as we actually embrace what has been in place for long time now.

Unlike you I do not enjoy the equalisation system. It intentionally rewards mediocrity which should be anathema to any sporting contest.

Politically I would describe myself as a liberal socialist (I see a place for individual liberty but recognise this MUST be balanced by providing opportunity for all (equalisation) and a strong safety net that sees those who need support given it.

But "sport" is NOT and should NOT involve those sorts of socialist ideals. If a Club goes all out to win a flag in a given year by spending millions of dollars of bringing in the best players, good luck to that Club. If it wins the flag and goes broke, bye-bye. If it wins the flag year in and year out because it dominates its competition (like Man U), good luck to that Club. What we (those interested in the sport) get is the best team that can be fielded.

With equalisation no team is permitted to have all the best players (Sydney being the obvious exception to this rule with the Buddy/Tippett contracts). Every time a team improves, the opportunity to recruit young talent diminishes and the salary cap tends to become harder to manage (less room to recruit better players). Every time a team diminishes it improves the opportunity to recruit young talent and its salary cap tends to become easier to manage (more room to recruit better players).

The argument for socialism in AFL is that we have a "better" competition. That with all this equalisation we will tend over time to have a Nirvana of 18 teams evenly balanced talent-wise each with genuine chances of winning the flag.

Any student of game theory can see at once that this Nirvana is never gonna happen. Why? All that "equalisation" does is set in place a whole heap of parameters that can be (and are) used to manipulate the system of equalisation to improve a given Club's chance of winning a Flag, NOT in a given season but over the course of several seasons. So, for example, Sydney have spent much of their salary cap for years in advance in the hope that Buddy will win them one or more flags now. When, in the last and most expensive years of his contract Buddy is unlikely to even be playing, Sydney will have a left-over salary cap that is unlikely to enable them to go anywhere but down, a long way.

It is common knowledge that we, the might Blues, had (rightly under current rules) given up on this year and next for even making the finals. We are not the only side that went into season 2016 harbouring absolutely no ambition to win the Flag. What sort of a competition is that? A sort of sooky, wet, everyone-wins-a-prize for competing comp that is a mockery of the "winner takes all" mentality that competitive sport is all about.

And, if the Nirvana were ever achieved what would we have? 18 mediocre teams each of which had talent so thinly spread that not one of them would be able to successfully execute a game plan from quarter to quarter, still less from game to game through the season. Each Club forced to select several spuds every game that ruin the possibility of beautifully fluent ball movement because, when the spud eventually gets hands on the ball 20 m clear with a 30 m pass to make to the leading forward they are gonna kick it over the leading forwards head into the arms of the happy defender.

 

[BlueJet]

Equalisation is working, the best run clubs Hawthorn, Sydney, Geelong etc are the ones who have had the most success as opposed to the richest winning every other year.
Despite their dominance, clubs like Hawthorn and Geelong have got their results through smart list management, smart recruiting and balancing their cap perfectly, as opposed to fielding All Star equivalent sides.
Similarly the struggling clubs have remained in that situation because they've done a shit job at those same aspects of building a footy team, a few of them (Carlton included) seem to have finally clued in on this though and begun to turn it around.