Fixing the "Tanking" Problem

[Papa Juggs]

You need to give more picks in the same year so the players are going to the same team at the same age.

Richmond getting a decent kid every year is too slow.

They have Martin and Lids and the rest are either promising or total spuds.

 

[RupertPupkin]

I think my suggestion I made in another thread is best. We all know teams have plans that are at least three years into the future so why have a one year draft? Nobody would tank if they had to slum it for three or more years.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21565934&postcount=24

The time has come for the AFL to bring in a three year rule for all drafts. That means that the number of games a team has won over the previous three years will indicate where they end up in the draft.
So in 2006 WC won 17, 2007 15, 2008 4. That gives them a total of 36 or an average of 12. The roos had 33 over the same time giving them an average of 11. Therefore, they get to pick before WC for 2009. Much fairer.

 

[Father Jack]

just get rid of the priority pick, you'll find then that a wooden spoon isn't worth it simply to move up a spot or two in the picking order. It might be for two bites of the cherry though.

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

just get rid of the priority pick, you'll find then that a wooden spoon isn't worth it simply to move up a spot or two in the picking order. It might be for two bites of the cherry though.

Yep, although I would like the AFL have the power to award a priority pick to a club that has been down and out for several years and need help. Priority picks for one poor season is BS.

 

[Father Jack]

make it three years of shitfullness if you must have the priority, currently if you arse up one year and then start poorly you'd be sorely, sorely tempted to 'position players' (or however Bailey referred to it) but if you two stinkers of years and then started the third badly you'd face a fan revolt that no priority pick could salvage if you were to go 4 and plenty or worse.

(must ... resist ... temptation ... to ... exclude .. Richmond ...)

 

[tacopavlich]

a lottery system that rewards and punishes no one is the best way to go. if a teenager is the best in the land, why should he be punished by being sent to a weak shit club? "btw i'm aware of the irony that freo usually is the weak shit club"

 

[compass]

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.

This is more or less a system I devised about 4 years ago. It was all about taking a long-term view of a club’s success (or lack thereof) and at the same time make tanking impossible.

Here it is: http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=365684

 

[Papa Juggs]

a lottery system that rewards and punishes no one is the best way to go. if a teenager is the best in the land, why should he be punished by being sent to a weak shit club? "btw i'm aware of the irony that freo usually is the weak shit club"

Hodge, Riewoldt, Goddard, Murphy, Gibbs.

All look to be playing finals footy this year.

Weak shit club? I think not.

Tom Scully on the other hand... maybe

 

[greennick]

I think my suggestion I made in another thread is best. We all know teams have plans that are at least three years into the future so why have a one year draft? Nobody would tank if they had to slum it for three or more years.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21565934&postcount=24

This is a dumb idea. If a team is starting to rise, they could still be getting better draft picks than a team on the way down. It would make the swings even longer and cause teams to spend more time down the bottom than otherwise. It wouldn't stop teams tanking anyway as they would now get advantages for tanking for up to 3 years.

 

[wmvaux]

A Lottery is a shit way to decide, what if the bottom team is there for 4 years and they get the last pick each time.

1st pick should always go to the bottom side and I like a priority pick if they don't win more than 8 games in 2 years, help get them up the ladder quicker. So the priority pick could be 1st pick before the second round. No one wants to see the same team down the bottom more than 2 years.

 

[mollyfud]

There are boards for this and that, the media, MRP/Umpiring, etc,etc. I think it is time to move the "Fixing Tanking" threads into a board of there own as it is an old tired issue that the same issues are thrown around again and again and again!

Lets face it, as tanking in reality (as Dean Bailey laid out) is playing players in new positions, playing kids and sending guys off for surgeries to be ready for the next year. Unless hurt the teams for losing (and I mean you take draft picks off them not just move them down) you are still better off tanking then not tanking!

So again, new board please!

 

[dajesmac]

Richmond would develop a powerhouse under this system.

 

[skipper kelly]

I know this is a silly idea and totally against what sport is about but why not investigate teams that deliberately lose.

 

[RooHooDoo]

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.

I agree, however netting 1 star player makes a massive difference in basketball because you only have 5 players on the court.

 

[Blue1980]

I know this is a silly idea and totally against what sport is about but why not investigate teams that deliberately lose.

Almost impossible to prove, as the players would be trying in all cases. Its the coaches/match committees who play players in experimental roles, send players off on end of season surgery early etc.

I don't know how it could be policed.

 

[nick1408]

I have posted this elsewhere in the past but it is my take on making both the draft and fixture fair while also removing tanking:

I still feel the easiest and fairest way is to copy the Scottish Premier League system. They have 12 teams and split the table into groups of six part way through the season for the final games of the season.

For the AFL I see the system working as such:

Everyone plays eachother once (17 games). After this, the ladder is split into three groups of six. They then play a further five games against the teams in their group of six to make up the 22 games. A team cannot go higher or lower than their group of six in ladder position. The top six will play for the double-chance top four positions, the middle six play for the last two finals positions and the bottom six play for draft picks with the top position of the bottom six (13th) getting pick one and 18th getting pick six. The last bit here would stop tanking and really this model should keep all games competitive (i.e. no tanking).

Disadvantages are that only 17 games are locked in for the first 17 weeks then the last five after the 17th game. A potential loss of marquee games as you will no longer be able to program Collingwood-Carlton twice. This may (or will?) be enough for the AFL to dismiss it straight out I feel.

To me, this model is the fairest to keep 22 games, a top 8 and make all 22 games mean something for the season. Others may see some things in it I cannot so feel free to pick apart.

I know there are some who don't like the idea for the league but the drafting system wouldn't work without the league setup. I don't think you could pick bits and pieces out.

Th advantage is you can set the final games as such:

Top group plays all games Friday and two Saturday day games, middle group gets two Saturday night and one early Sunday game, bottom group gets all Sunday games.

 

[mollyfud]

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

If I was an administrator in this competition and I was sitting 8th, I would order my coach to do what ever they could to finish 9th! Think about it. Finish 8th and get flogged first or second week of the finals or get the best kid in the country? I know what I would be doing!

So to sum it up, this doesn't stop tanking, just moves it to a differnent part of the ladder and PUNISHES a team for being crap!

 

[Adelaide Hawk]

Still laughing at Adrian Anderson on SEN a few minutes ago. Still in total denial that tanking takes place. He starts by saying he has received dozens of phone calls about Bailey's comments yesterday, then afterwards says he hasn't seen the press conference yet. Pull the other one Adrian. You honestly expect us to believe you haven't seen Bailey's comments when it has been splashed all over the media for the past 24 hours? Why don't I believe you?

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Came up with an idea a few years ago.Sides get split into 4x4[Now with 18 teams.6x6].The sides are grouped forever.
Basically without going through it all again.
Each group on a rotation basis each year will end up having dibs at the top 6 draft pick,every 3yrs no matter where they are on the ladder.The order within the group is determined by ladder position of that year.

 

[mollyfud]

Still laughing at Adrian Anderson on SEN a few minutes ago. Still in total denial that tanking takes place. He starts by saying he has received dozens of phone calls about Bailey's comments yesterday, then afterwards says he hasn't seen the press conference yet. Pull the other one Adrian. You honestly expect us to believe you haven't seen Bailey's comments when it has been splashed all over the media for the past 24 hours? Why don't I believe you?

It really doesn't matter what the AFL think, its what the AFL can prove and you can't prove wrong doing!

As soon as the Dogs can't make finals, they will send players off for Surgery, etc. Higgins is one. If the Dogs were top 4, he would do everything he can to get back for finals but if they miss finals (or are about too) they will send him for surgery. This is Tanking. Should the AFL investigate the Dogs for this? No, its smart! And this is also why unless you actually fine/takeaway draft picks, you will never stop tanking as even if you take the guarantee on draft picks, you are still better to do things to improve the players you have!

On Players out of position, if this was studied, how many games would you have to accuse Kevin Sheedy of tanking? ;-) And how do you analysis if a move was tanking if you are the AFL? Have a CRP? Coaching Review Panel to make sure every move was done sole in an effort to win todays match? Unrealistic!

As much as I think its useful, if you have a large issue with tanking, get rid of the priority pick or make it human judged but that is all you can do!

 

[tattooedswan]

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.

I like this idea, there should be a lottery to deter teams from finishing lower on the ladder.

 

[telsor]

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.

So teams tank to finish 15th rather than 14th because it's a massive improvement?

I like the general idea, but you need to take it a step further.

4 teams go into the lottery, with the lowest team getting 4 chances, the next 3, then 2, then 1.

the 'winner' gets removed and the next lowest team goes in ( same arrangement of balls ).

So

1st draw
18 -4 balls
17 -3
16 -2
15 -1

the team coming 16th 'wins' and gets first pick

2nd draw
18 -4
17 -3
15 -2
14 -1

etc.

alternatively, if you want to givethe lower teams a better chance, add a ball to each team still in the pot after each round.

so 2nd round would be

18 -5
17 -4
15 -3
14 -1



Either method means coming lower still increases the likelihood of a good pick, but there are no guarantees, meaning the incentive to tank is less.

 

[mollyfud]

So teams tank to finish 15th rather than 14th because it's a massive improvement?

I like the general idea, but you need to take it a step further.

4 teams go into the lottery, with the lowest team getting 4 chances, the next 3, then 2, then 1.

the 'winner' gets removed and the next lowest team goes in ( same arrangement of balls ).

So

1st draw
18 -4 balls
17 -3
16 -2
15 -1

the team coming 16th 'wins' and gets first pick

2nd draw
18 -4
17 -3
15 -2
14 -1

etc.

alternatively, if you want to givethe lower teams a better chance, add a ball to each team still in the pot after each round.

so 2nd round would be

18 -5
17 -4
15 -3
14 -1



Either method means coming lower still increases the likelihood of a good pick, but there are no guarantees, meaning the incentive to tank is less.

This won't stop tanking as in this system you are still better off losing and preparing your plays for the next year, oh, and by the way you could end up in a better group of picks and even with more balls the more you lose!

You can't stop tanking, just forget about it! Actually, I am wrong. Only thing to stop tanking is relegation and we will never had that.

 

[thekelvin]

What if a team is genuinely crap?

Exactly. I dont think tanking is a big issue. Teams that finish low need help, and there might be teams that are legitimately playing bad to get good picks, but these teams never seem to get much success. Breeds a losing culture.

 

[blue harvest]

Maybe base it on where you are on the ladder after round 15, would stop all the 'doing the best for the club' stuff in the last few rounds.