Strategy Fixing the Academy System

[SplintWhisky]

So, we have the chat most years and every year everyone cries out that the system isn't fair and that its broken with Academy and Father-Sons. And I agree that it is broken, but its broken because those wanting to fix it only look at it from one angle and that is; Is the club tied to this player paying a price that makes it slightly fairer to the other clubs?

Frankly that way of thinking is flawed. We should be looking at this from a competition wide fix and this is what I think should be done straight away

All Clubs should be allowed to have a reasonable shot at getting the academy or father son

At the moment, there is no reason to bid on a player unless they are sliding too much. Why would you want to piss off another club by bidding at fair value when you have no chance of getting the player?

Solution? Clubs can bid multiple picks like the academy club can.

Imagine if on draft night, Dillon comes up and says "With Picks 5, 28 and 62, Richmond has bid on Player X from the Gold Coast Academy, Gold Coast is on the clock". Richmond could have a genuine shot at an academy kid that would be top 10 or top 5 in talent and if Gold Coast wants them, they have to pay what the market has determined as fair value.

Now every club has a shot at getting these academy players AND every club now values picks the same way. Gold Coast and other academy sides would be less likely to just trade away their picks for points since now, those picks could bite them in the arse. They also don't have the ability to do the math before draft night. No more "We have enough points to cover the worst case scenario for these 3 kids".

Also the other thing I would introduce is no refunds. If you have to make up 1000 points but you only have a combo that leads to 1500 then tough t***ies, you lose 500 points, shit happens.

I think by making so other clubs ACTUALLY have a genuine chance at getting an academy kid they bid on, then the academy systems become fairer in the current form.

 

[Julio Dulio]

Just make it mandatory that every club is required to have an academy and all players go into an open pool.

 

[JAKLAUGHING]

To fix this mess of an Academy System...First you have to fix The AFL Old Boys Club...

 

[partycorolla]

Just make it mandatory that every club is required to have an academy and all players go into an open pool.

That's pointless. Why would clubs put time and money into a system that doesn't benefit them?

You may as well have the AFL own and run the academies, not the clubs. Just have an academy for every state/region, develop the talent, send the kids to train with clubs randomly (within their state) and then make they can go into the open pool.

The issue with NSW and Qld academies is that one of their selling points is that they can attract kids who may otherwise play rugby/basketball etc by offering them an elite pathway and the chance to start their career in the state they live in.

 

[Julio Dulio]

That's pointless. Why would clubs put time and money into a system that doesn't benefit them?

You may as well have the AFL own and run the academies, not the clubs. Just have an academy for every state/region, develop the talent, send the kids to train with clubs randomly (within their state) and then make they can go into the open pool.

The issue with NSW and Qld academies is that one of their selling points is that they can attract kids who may otherwise play rugby/basketball etc by offering them an elite pathway and the chance to start their career in the state they live in.

Firstly i said it would be mandatory. Second, you think developing players and the game in your state would be pointless? You think having high quality players from your state with the go home factor not an advantage, more players being drafted from your state not an advantage? High level grass roots footy in your state not an advantage? You, like the afl, look too short term

 

[Bojangles17]

It looks like finally the afl have acknowledged the rort in place now and clubs will be paying a premium rather than cut price for these top rated talents
Pity lions and GC have got away with daylight robbery , meanwhile any poor prick this year and beyond will pay a king ransom.

 

[partycorolla]

Firstly i said it would be mandatory. Second, you think developing players and the game in your state would be pointless? You think having high quality players from your state with the go home factor not an advantage, more players being drafted from your state not an advantage? High level grass roots footy in your state not an advantage? You, like the afl, look too short term

In case you've missed my point, which it appears you have, why would clubs wish to develop players they no longer have access to? The go-home factor was an issue for the northern clubs which partly led to their support of the academies. They can currently develop their own and keep them irrespective of their actual value (now slowly being tightened). All you've asked is why wouldn't clubs support the status quo. You haven't addressed any inequity at all!

Under your proposal, a top pick from a northern (or any other academy) doesn't get drafted by that club unless they have the appropriate pick. So why would clubs support that with their own time and money. E.g. It's hard to understand why RFC would put any time into Cody Walker (in our NGA) now that he has chosen Carlton as a Father-son. If he wasn't a father-son and he was in OUR academy but we had no rights to him, why not let someone else pay and hope he's around come draft time. If the AFL paid for it, then no worries...everyone gets a crack at them irrespective of state.

So please tell me again, in plain english, what the incentive is for each club to have their own academy (which they already do FYI) if they don't get exclusive access to the players in that academy?

 

[Julio Dulio]

In case you've missed my point, which it appears you have, why would clubs wish to develop players they no longer have access to? The go-home factor was an issue for the northern clubs which partly led to their support of the academies. They can currently develop their own and keep them irrespective of their actual value (now slowly being tightened). All you've asked is why wouldn't clubs support the status quo. You haven't addressed any inequity at all!

Under your proposal, a top pick from a northern (or any other academy) doesn't get drafted by that club unless they have the appropriate pick. So why would clubs support that with their own time and money. E.g. It's hard to understand why RFC would put any time into Cody Walker (in our NGA) now that he has chosen Carlton as a Father-son. If he wasn't a father-son and he was in OUR academy but we had no rights to him, why not let someone else pay and hope he's around come draft time. If the AFL paid for it, then no worries...everyone gets a crack at them irrespective of state.

So please tell me again, in plain english, what the incentive is for each club to have their own academy (which they already do FYI) if they don't get exclusive access to the players in that academy?

In case you've missed my point, which it appears you have, why would clubs wish to develop players they no longer have access to? The go-home factor was an issue for the northern clubs which partly led to their support of the academies. They can currently develop their own and keep them irrespective of their actual value (now slowly being tightened). All you've asked is why wouldn't clubs support the status quo. You haven't addressed any inequity at all!

Under your proposal, a top pick from a northern (or any other academy) doesn't get drafted by that club unless they have the appropriate pick. So why would clubs support that with their own time and money. E.g. It's hard to understand why RFC would put any time into Cody Walker (in our NGA) now that he has chosen Carlton as a Father-son. If he wasn't a father-son and he was in OUR academy but we had no rights to him, why not let someone else pay and hope he's around come draft time. If the AFL paid for it, then no worries...everyone gets a crack at them irrespective of state.

So please tell me again, in plain english, what the incentive is for each club to have their own academy (which they already do FYI) if they don't get exclusive access to the players in that academy?

Because it would be mandatory!! That’s three times I’ve said it now, not sure how else to say it.

 

[PHanevski]

The simple way to fix it is that there should be an academy in each state run by the AFL. Add more where there is a geographical need. As academies wouldn't be linked to clubs, kids would just be available in the draft.

I still like the idea of father son which would just be normal biding like there is now.

Also if the AFL run them then club dividends would even out as the there wouldn't be a need to provide more funds to the clubs with academies.

 

[SplintWhisky]

In case you've missed my point, which it appears you have, why would clubs wish to develop players they no longer have access to? The go-home factor was an issue for the northern clubs which partly led to their support of the academies. They can currently develop their own and keep them irrespective of their actual value (now slowly being tightened). All you've asked is why wouldn't clubs support the status quo. You haven't addressed any inequity at all!

Under your proposal, a top pick from a northern (or any other academy) doesn't get drafted by that club unless they have the appropriate pick. So why would clubs support that with their own time and money. E.g. It's hard to understand why RFC would put any time into Cody Walker (in our NGA) now that he has chosen Carlton as a Father-son. If he wasn't a father-son and he was in OUR academy but we had no rights to him, why not let someone else pay and hope he's around come draft time. If the AFL paid for it, then no worries...everyone gets a crack at them irrespective of state.

So please tell me again, in plain english, what the incentive is for each club to have their own academy (which they already do FYI) if they don't get exclusive access to the players in that academy?

I have an idea for an academy system as well that I think would be great.

Every club has an academy system and their access is based on the amount of contact hours and development they have with said player. This would also be scaled by distance from club to player as well. So if you spend 5 hours as Richmond with a player in the Kimberly that is worth more than 5 hours with a player out in Gippsland.

The other thing I would do as well is make it so the Junior clubs get paid for players that go into an academy. It will also be on a sliding scale. So say a club has one kid picked they get 10k for example, but if they have 2 kids picked, then they get 8k per kid or something. This way, it builds an incentive for the junior clubs to actually want to develop kids well and it actually gets money into the grass roots footy (which currently the AFL couldnt give 2/5 of a shit about).

 

[partycorolla]

Because it would be mandatory!! That’s three times I’ve said it now, not sure how else to say it.

So your point is to make the situation worse than the current one where clubs actually get a benefit out of what they put into it? Gee I hate school holidays...

You haven't incentivised performance or input at all... you've done the opposite.

Think of work... if you do really well and make your KPIs or quotas, then you get a bonus. In your scenario, the boss says 'work harder but you get no bonus, because I said so'. Wowee, that's some bright thinking!

 

[Julio Dulio]

So your point is to make the situation worse than the current one where clubs actually get a benefit out of what they put into it? Gee I hate school holidays...

You haven't incentivised performance or input at all... you've done the opposite.

Think of work... if you do really well and make your KPIs or quotas, then you get a bonus. In your scenario, the boss says 'work harder but you get no bonus, because I said so'. Wowee, that's some bright thinking!

Honesty this take is so dumb I’ve got to stop. You think paying people to do a job isn’t an incentive? Absolute potato of an opinion.
CEO: hey mate, your job is to run the academy, it’s funded, but there is no expectation, I don’t even expect you to develop home grown talent. We’re just going to develop shit footy players, draft Victoria’s best and then watch em all go home. Sound good.

 

[partycorolla]

Honesty this take is so dumb I’ve got to stop. You think paying people to do a job isn’t an incentive? Absolute potato of an opinion.
CEO: hey mate, your job is to run the academy, it’s funded, but there is no expectation, I don’t even expect you to develop home grown talent. We’re just going to develop shit footy players, draft Victoria’s best and then watch em all go home. Sound good.

You honestly don't understand so I don't there is much point going on. I'll try once more for you and then let you get back to your homework.

Clubs currently have their own academies - every single one of them. The incentive is that if they develop talent then they get access to that talent, (currently at a reduced draft cost for some reason).

If players in the academies were not tied to the clubs then there is little incentive for clubs to put any time or money in or seek to find a competitive advantage in their academies (as they currently do).

It would be easier for the AFL to run it themselves, pay coaches and development people through the AFL and simply give the clubs less of a handout to cover the cost. This way academy produced players are free to everyone at no cost to the clubs. Doesn't help the go-home factor or the incentive for NSW and Qld players to stay in their state which is more likely if they play league... but definitely more even.

If you think Brisbane or Richmond or Collingwood or anyone want to spend time developing talent so that someone else can pick them up, then you have the potato thinking. People here were rightly questioning why we put time into Cody Walker but at least he had to make a decision between 2 clubs rather than 18 or 19 having access to him.

So your ridiculous CEO analogy is only apt if we follow your stupid idea to have clubs run acacdemies that they don't benefit from. The AFL CEO mind you can employ people to run AFL-run academies which I have suggested previously.

Now back to your homework.

 

[Bird Man]

The only system that works would be to have a pure draft like the NBA and NFL. The AFL has its own funded academies in all the states and clubs are incentivised through cap relief to support the academies, but they don't have to.

Extend the rookie contract to 4 years and if the F/S wants to go to their old man's team then they can request a trade or wait till their 5th year. If that team can't retain then the AFL can help with imporvment of facilities and cap space for development coaches.

 

[Julio Dulio]

You honestly don't understand so I don't there is much point going on. I'll try once more for you and then let you get back to your homework.

Clubs currently have their own academies - every single one of them. The incentive is that if they develop talent then they get access to that talent, (currently at a reduced draft cost for some reason).

If players in the academies were not tied to the clubs then there is little incentive for clubs to put any time or money in or seek to find a competitive advantage in their academies (as they currently do).

It would be easier for the AFL to run it themselves, pay coaches and development people through the AFL and simply give the clubs less of a handout to cover the cost. This way academy produced players are free to everyone at no cost to the clubs. Doesn't help the go-home factor or the incentive for NSW and Qld players to stay in their state which is more likely if they play league... but definitely more even.

If you think Brisbane or Richmond or Collingwood or anyone want to spend time developing talent so that someone else can pick them up, then you have the potato thinking. People here were rightly questioning why we put time into Cody Walker but at least he had to make a decision between 2 clubs rather than 18 or 19 having access to him.

So your ridiculous CEO analogy is only apt if we follow your stupid idea to have clubs run acacdemies that they don't benefit from. The AFL CEO mind you can employ people to run AFL-run academies which I have suggested previously.

Now back to your homework.

The fact that you think doing homework is some kind of insult, really does explain why this is too difficult for you to grasp.

 

[partycorolla]

The fact that you think doing homework is some kind of insult, really does explain why this is too difficult for you to grasp.

You think that doing the homework was an insult? That says plenty young fella. Once again, you've missed the point.

I'm still waiting to hear a response that would explain why you want to take an existing system and make it worse for the clubs and expect them to buy in to it. Oh wait, that's right - because it would mandatory. So ridiculous. If you don't think the AFL running them is a better alternative to your plan then there isn't much hope for you.

Do you understand why clubs currently invest in academies?

 

[Julio Dulio]

You think that doing the homework was an insult? That says plenty young fella. Once again, you've missed the point.

I'm still waiting to hear a response that would explain why you want to take an existing system and make it worse for the clubs and expect them to buy in to it. Oh wait, that's right - because it would mandatory. So ridiculous. If you don't think the AFL running them is a better alternative to your plan then there isn't much hope for you.

Do you understand why clubs currently invest in academies?

Bit old to be arguing with kids on the interwebs old man?

 

[partycorolla]

Bit old to be arguing with kids on the interwebs old man?

Possibly but education is education.

 

[Yze does it]

The simple way to fix it is that there should be an academy in each state run by the AFL. Add more where there is a geographical need. As academies wouldn't be linked to clubs, kids would just be available in the draft.

I still like the idea of father son which would just be normal biding like there is now.

Also if the AFL run them then club dividends would even out as the there wouldn't be a need to provide more funds to the clubs with academies.

Saints have academies. The Saints do get $25 million off the AFL . put in the work looks like lot's of juniors.they got wind Hager and owens cos he is half Japanese.we Took bigoa off them.



The Sun's is close to me now. Getting younger and U 13 now
A lot of coaching needs 5 staff.
Nepo babies?

$15 million a year. Just getting success. After 15 years.

Lions got father son too.


I think the AFL finally changing the bid match rules after our complaint
Father son's have been crappy for us.