Fixing the "Tanking" Problem

[Onetonylockett]

Now the Bailey has pretty much admitted that Melbourne tanked to get early draft picks I have come up with a solution to discourage tanking.

9th place = 1st pick
10th = 2nd
11th= 3rd
12th = 4th
13th = 5th
14th = 6th
15th= 7th
16 = 8th
17th = 9th, 12th
18th = 10th, 11th

then....

8th = 12th
7th = 13th
6th = 14th
etc etc

This would give good incentive to finish higher up the ladder. It would stop teams around 8 or 9 tanking because they would be keen to play finals. And last place still gets a couple of first round draft picks.

Any thoughts? dislikes? improvements

 

[omit]

Under this system finishing 17th or 18th is still significantly better than 16th or 15th.

Tanking will still exist

 

[TheLoungeLizard]

Only thought is if say a Collingwood, who is at the top of the ladder get a decent pick, then they will never come down. And it'll be like the EPL, the same 2 sides winning every year.

 

[wmvaux]

Dumb idea, the team that finishes last deserves all the help they can get, if teams were good enough to win games they would. So what if a team tanks, it's totally up to them if they want the wooden spoon, it doesn't mean they get the best player in the draft, only the first pick.

With that idea, you would have teams down the bottom for longer periods as they aren't capable of getting early picks that they need to get up the ladder. And you can still have teams tanking for a ninth spot.

 

[stickman11]

i thought i have seen one of these silly threads last year.

 

[EaglesFlyingHigh]

What if a team is genuinely crap?

 

[Kim Hagdorn]

Richmond would love this idea.

Seriously though just getting rid of all PP should be enough.

 

[Byron_Clanger]

You will never get rid of tanking, the team who finishes last deserves the first overall pick, nothing you can do about it unless the AFL implement a lottery system of some sort similar to the NBA

 

[big_e]

Not well thought out. It's possible for a side finishing ninth to only be percentage away from sixth or seventh. And you'd reward them with the number one pick over a side that is genuinely sh*t and needs the help?

Even if a side does tank, they're only going to do it if they are in the worst two or three sides anyway.

 

[reincarnated]

Should the AFL ban Melbourne from taking part in this year's national draft?

The coach has admitted it. If he and Melbourne football club don't get a please explain, well I'll be buggered.

 

[Arwib]

All this emphasis on one or two players.

I mean really.

 

[CursoryMercenary]

Simply employ a NBA draft style draw. 18th with the best chance and 9th with the least chance of getting no.1. It'll work, but because it's not their own idea the AFL don't want to know about it..

 

[Murraj1966]

Certainly not.

I always liked the idea of a raffle for each appropriate pick between teams in 4 ladder spot intervals.

So under this system it'd be.

18th - 15th Picks 1-4
14th - 11th Picks 5-8
10th - 7th Picks 9-12

Then you could continue the draft in order from there.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

The best anti-tank gun proposal I've seen was on here a couple of years back. The #1 pick goes to the team who has been out of the finals for the longest, #2 to the team that's missed out 2nd longest etc. Where two teams have been out of the finals for the same amount of time, the one that finishes higher up the ladder gets first pick. once the non-finalists are sorted, the top 8 get ranked 8-1 as per the current system.

It is never better to lose than to win, and the teams that need the help most still get it.

 

[liz]

The best anti-tank gun proposal I've seen was on here a couple of years back. The #1 pick goes to the team who has been out of the finals for the longest, #2 to the team that's missed out 2nd longest etc. Where two teams have been out of the finals for the same amount of time, the one that finishes higher up the ladder gets first pick. once the non-finalists are sorted, the top 8 get ranked 8-1 as per the current system.

It is never better to lose than to win, and the teams that need the help most still get it.

Not a bad suggestion.

I think a reform of priority picks is the first step. Either completely abolish them, or make them into a mechanism that really helps only those clubs in dire straits, list wise.

Firstly, make any club that has played finals in, say, the past 4 or 5 seasons, ineligible for a priority pick.

Secondly, impose at least a one year gap between seasons that a club is eligible for a priority pick - ie you can't get one in successful seasons.

More controversially, grant priority picks on the basis that they have to be traded for a player, or players. Clubs qualifying for them will already have access to one of the top 2 or 3 players in the draft through their normal pick. Give them additional help only to strengthen their squad with an experienced player or two, to try and shake this mentality that some clubs have that wholesale development in teenagers is the only viable way to build a list.

 

[Scully 31]

Draft lottery is the best bet were anyone out of the finals can get the first pick. The lower you are the better chance you have getting the top pick. This helps minimize tanking but still rewards the shite teams who needs good players.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_NBA_Draft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Draft_Lottery

Above is a link to a NBA draft which shows how they decide who gets what pick and the percentages they have at each pick.


This truly is the best way too have a Draft. It's just fair on all levels

 

[Top_4_Tiger]

The best anti-tank gun proposal I've seen was on here a couple of years back. The #1 pick goes to the team who has been out of the finals for the longest, #2 to the team that's missed out 2nd longest etc. Where two teams have been out of the finals for the same amount of time, the one that finishes higher up the ladder gets first pick. once the non-finalists are sorted, the top 8 get ranked 8-1 as per the current system.

It is never better to lose than to win, and the teams that need the help most still get it.

Surprisingly very good idea. I haven't heard it before.

The only potential downside to it is when a team like Richmond hasn't played finals in 10 years - we would get the #1 pick literally every year until we make the finals again. It could be excessive compensation.

Also, this year when Richmond were looking like finals were a possibility, we would have been faced with a mild temptation to tank (or be accused of tanking) because in the end our outcome could be finish 8th and play 1 final and get pick 20, or finish 9th, get a #1 pick, and have a real crack next year. Unfortunately we have fallen far lower anyway, but mid-season speculation would not disappear nonetheless.

Still better than the current system but a 9-18 lottery is the way to go IMO. Don't use bins of 18-14 etc - we want to remove all forms of "guaranteed rewards" for failure. Tanking will not exist if your ladder position will either give you a number of lottery tickets, or a place in the finals - it's too risky to tank for slightly greater odds of getting a high pick, and a finals spot is just reward for winning.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Surprisingly very good idea. I haven't heard it before.

The only potential downside to it is when a team like Richmond hasn't played finals in 10 years - we would get the #1 pick literally every year until we make the finals again. It could be excessive compensation.

You wouldn't expect that to happen, though. Richmond have been out of the finals for ten years now, but they haven't been getting into the top few draft picks in most of those years. Under this system a team's picks will get progressively better until they get back into the top half of the ladder. By the time you get a #1 pick you probably already have a few #2,3,4 type players in your team which should be plenty to get you into contention for finals. It would be rare, I think, for a team to even get two consecutive #1 picks.

On the other hand, Richmond are a special case in things like this and anything is possible!

Also, this year when Richmond were looking like finals were a possibility, we would have been faced with a mild temptation to tank (or be accused of tanking) because in the end our outcome could be finish 8th and play 1 final and get pick 20, or finish 9th, get a #1 pick, and have a real crack next year. Unfortunately we have fallen far lower anyway, but mid-season speculation would not disappear nonetheless.

I really doubt that. Do you really think a team that haven't played finals for ten years would go into a game knowing that winning it would put them into the 8, then decide to lose that game instead? I don't.

In any case, it would be a very rare situation for a team to be in the position of being able to choose between finals and the #1 pick.

 

[Suma Magic]

Lottery

 

[Dalphonso]

You will never get rid of tanking, the team who finishes last deserves the first overall pick, nothing you can do about it unless the AFL implement a lottery system of some sort similar to the NBA

We are going to finish last and only get pick 3 or 4?
What a joke that is.No incentive to even tank.We are just absolute crap.

 

[Papa Juggs]

If you want to know how many picks a team needs a 1 year to build a competitive team the AFL has already outlined this.

It's picks 1,2,3,7,9,10,11,13 as shown by what they've giving the 2 new teams.

It's obvious to me that the bottom teams like Richmond and Melbourne don't get enough support and are just getting robbed by these new teams.

 

[ash_78]

Let's just wait another year or 2 before changing the rules please gentlemen

 

[Portmanteau]

Why don't they have an annual lottery to decide what draft order method to use:

Reverse finishing order (18th picks first, 17th, 16th...)
Finishing order (9th, 10th, 11th...)
Draft lottery weighted in favour of reverse finishing order
Completely random lottery
Reverse finishing order of percentage
Finishing order of percentage

Give a random number of balls to those 6 choices (total of 100 balls) every year and stop tanking.

 

[longsuffreosupp]

Surprisingly very good idea. I haven't heard it before.

The only potential downside to it is when a team like Richmond hasn't played finals in 10 years - we would get the #1 pick literally every year until we make the finals again. It could be excessive compensation.

Maybe one of those years they'd use the #1 to lure a player

 

[calyam]

The best anti-tank gun proposal I've seen was on here a couple of years back. The #1 pick goes to the team who has been out of the finals for the longest, #2 to the team that's missed out 2nd longest etc. Where two teams have been out of the finals for the same amount of time, the one that finishes higher up the ladder gets first pick. once the non-finalists are sorted, the top 8 get ranked 8-1 as per the current system.

It is never better to lose than to win, and the teams that need the help most still get it.

I actually quite like that. I'm sure there's some manipulation to it that makes it far from ideal but it seems pretty good

Simply employ a NBA draft style draw. 18th with the best chance and 9th with the least chance of getting no.1. It'll work, but because it's not their own idea the AFL don't want to know about it..

Tanking still happens in the NBA. They discuss it each and every year, with teams shutting down key players during the final quarter of the season. In fact I'd go so far as to say that tanking is worse in the NBA than in the AFL.