Fixing the "Tanking" Problem

[mollyfud]

easy to fix:
1st 8 picks {teams 9th to 18th} are drawn from a barrel
picks 9 to 18 go teams 8th to 1st in order
thereafter picks go in reverse ladder order,
no tanking as you are not guaranteed 1st pick,and finishing 9th you still have a shot at no 1 draft pick,priority picks to be abandoned

a) Wouldn't it have to be the 1st 10 picks to have teams 9th to 18th?
b) As a fan, if 9th had same chance of getting 1st pick as last, I would be expecting my side to avoid 7th or 8th on the ladder as I would rather a 1 in 10 chance of scully, 1 in 9 of trengove, etc then getting flogged in week 1 of the finals!
c) Lets look at this system in 09. Would you be happy with the hawks getting Nic Nat the year after they won a flag totally on the back of a flood of injuries?
d) if you don't get PENALISED (not "not reward"), why wouldn't you still tank as its better to play kids, get plays repaired via surgery, etc then winning?

Everyone repeat after me. Lottery drafts don't work to stop tanking! They just give one more day of interest. Negatively though they effect competition balance and encourage more tanking!

 

[PapaJ]

a) Wouldn't it have to be the 1st 10 picks to have teams 9th to 18th?
b) As a fan, if 9th had same chance of getting 1st pick as last, I would be expecting my side to avoid 7th or 8th on the ladder as I would rather a 1 in 10 chance of scully, 1 in 9 of trengove, etc then getting flogged in week 1 of the finals!
c) Lets look at this system in 09. Would you be happy with the hawks getting Nic Nat the year after they won a flag totally on the back of a flood of injuries?
d) if you don't get PENALISED (not "not reward"), why wouldn't you still tank as its better to play kids, get plays repaired via surgery, etc then winning?

Everyone repeat after me. Lottery drafts don't work to stop tanking! They just give one more day of interest. Negatively though they effect competition balance and encourage more tanking!

OK:

Everyone repeat after me. Lottery drafts don't work to stop tanking! They just give one more day of interest. Negatively though they effect competition balance and encourage more tanking!


... to be honest, I only cut and pasted that

But seriously, you're right, an 'even lottery' for the bottom 9 wouldn't work, even an 'odds system' based on wins would be only marginally useful. But an odds system based on a number of years of results might work a bit better.

In any case, as many have said, the biggest issue is the PP which has been too easy/simple to get. At the same time, if clubs are finding themselves genuinely at the bottom for a few seasons, then I think they should get some decent help. It's just that temptation to bottom out in one year, or make the most of a bad year to start with that most don't like etc.

 

[mollyfud]

OK:

Everyone repeat after me. Lottery drafts don't work to stop tanking! They just give one more day of interest. Negatively though they effect competition balance and encourage more tanking!


... to be honest, I only cut and pasted that

But seriously, you're right, an 'even lottery' for the bottom 9 wouldn't work, even an 'odds system' based on wins would be only marginally useful. But an odds system based on a number of years of results might work a bit better.

In any case, as many have said, the biggest issue is the PP which has been too easy/simple to get. At the same time, if clubs are finding themselves genuinely at the bottom for a few seasons, then I think they should get some decent help. It's just that temptation to bottom out in one year, or make the most of a bad year to start with that most don't like etc.

The issue with even thinking of trying to change the draft system at the moment are:
1) Draft is in a mess with two new teams and compensation picks and will be for a number of years
2) Free agency is about to start and that is going to see a big change in the way players move and whether they stay or go from a club. If you think club loyalty is dying now, wait till we get a situation were a good player is a year away from becoming a free agent and clubs working out if they are better off trading him or risk him walking away for basically nothing!

 

[PapaJ]

The issue with even thinking of trying to change the draft system at the moment are:
1) Draft is in a mess with two new teams and compensation picks and will be for a number of years
2) Free agency is about to start and that is going to see a big change in the way players move and whether they stay or go from a club. If you think club loyalty is dying now, wait till we get a situation were a good player is a year away from becoming a free agent and clubs working out if they are better off trading him or risk him walking away for basically nothing!

You sure got the bold bit right, there's nothing to be done for now because of the expansion mode and all the "held over" picks as well. But when it all settles down, I sure hope they give some serious and sophisticated thought to it all.

Free Agency certainly becomes an interesting issue with drafting etc., but we don't really know what the AFL version is going to be. The version that's coming in is fairly restrictive and I suspect that it will slowly develop rather than explode into a free-for-all.

If the latter does happen then quite likely a lot of clubs are going to be in a lot of trouble and then we'll go back the other way and need to prop up struggling teams with even more picks (PPs etc.) than we have in the past. I don't think we'll go all that way though.

Given the 'compensation' setup the AFL have used with the expansion teams, I could even see some sort of similar system being introduced with players who exercise a free agency - some sort of compensation mediated by the AFL itself. Not sure if I like the idea, but it could happen.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

Given the 'compensation' setup the AFL have used with the expansion teams, I could even see some sort of similar system being introduced with players who exercise a free agency - some sort of compensation mediated by the AFL itself. Not sure if I like the idea, but it could happen.

That is the very essence of it mate.

 

[seysearles]

Answer = www. thefixture. com. au

No idea why but bigfooty is censoring this url link. If i place without spaces between the letters it blocks it out. Strange!?!

 

[Furn]

Answer = www. thefixture. com. au

No idea why but bigfooty is censoring this url link. If i place without spaces between the letters it blocks it out. Strange!?!

This is just the reset to ranked divisions idea i posted 2 years ago.

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=619115&highlight=out+there

post 15

 

[Fitzey]

Tanking Debate: Life Bans for Coaches that Tank

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...andrew-demetriou/story-e6frf9io-1226114285107

Now throw down you opinion and i'll update it tomorrow or Tuesday with more information.

 

[RogerC]

Just so we're clear on what the issue actually is:

1. The AFL are all for equalisation. They're unlikely to favour a lottery, or anything that takes #1 pick from the last-placed club, no matter how forcefully the idea is presented.

2. Tanking, for mine, is not about being the worst club in any given year and staying there. It's all about free-falling down the ladder late in the season to secure better draft picks. If a club spends 2/3 of the year around 10th or 11th, but ends up 15th or 16th because they decided to "rest" players or experiment, do they really deserve pick #2 or #3? That is where the problem lies.

3. It's not the tanking itself that needs to be addressed. After all, if a team decides to lose a match (as long as no betting agencies are involved, of course) that's their issue. It's the incentive to lose, the reward on offer for throwing matches late-season, that is the problem. The incentive needs to be removed. That's the responsibility of the AFL administration, and them alone.

4. So the balance has to be struck between compensating clubs who need the picks, and not rewarding the rest of them.

That's your starting point.

***

I still think, about 3 years after I first heard of it, that doling out the draft picks earlier in the year is the best way to go about it. As soon as a club can no longer mathematically make the finals, they're given their draft pick. That means that, at any given time, a club has to choose between trying to make the finals and getting a good draft pick. And for the top picks that choice is restricted to about a week or two, well before the season is over.

No club would seriously consider tanking under that system unless they were already so dire they were virtually guaranteed pick #1 or #2 anyway. And after about round 16/17, they can do what they like because the pick is locked away.

It wouldn't be difficult to understand. Stats boffins would be well onto it, so we'd all know when a club was about to get their draft pick. And for picks 6-9, say, the clubs who are in the running for them are also still in the running for a spot in the finals.

 

[RogerC]

As a postscript to that, I did send that idea through to Demetriou about a year ago, and got a very nice letter in response. He didn't like the idea because he thought it was too complicated. But he did like another idea of mine, putting the priority picks around pick 10, before the teams that made the finals get their first round picks. It doesn't look at this stage like he's going to follow through on it, though.

Demetriou, as it turns out, is going to deal with the issue of tanking by pretending it doesn't exist.

 

[wmvaux]

Just so we're clear on what the issue actually is:

1. The AFL are all for equalisation. They're unlikely to favour a lottery, or anything that takes #1 pick from the last-placed club, no matter how forcefully the idea is presented.

2. Tanking, for mine, is not about being the worst club in any given year and staying there. It's all about free-falling down the ladder late in the season to secure better draft picks. If a club spends 2/3 of the year around 10th or 11th, but ends up 15th or 16th because they decided to "rest" players or experiment, do they really deserve pick #2 or #3? That is where the problem lies.

3. It's not the tanking itself that needs to be addressed. After all, if a team decides to lose a match (as long as no betting agencies are involved, of course) that's their issue. It's the incentive to lose, the reward on offer for throwing matches late-season, that is the problem. The incentive needs to be removed. That's the responsibility of the AFL administration, and them alone.

4. So the balance has to be struck between compensating clubs who need the picks, and not rewarding the rest of them.

That's your starting point.

***

I still think, about 3 years after I first heard of it, that doling out the draft picks earlier in the year is the best way to go about it. As soon as a club can no longer mathematically make the finals, they're given their draft pick. That means that, at any given time, a club has to choose between trying to make the finals and getting a good draft pick. And for the top picks that choice is restricted to about a week or two, well before the season is over.

No club would seriously consider tanking under that system unless they were already so dire they were virtually guaranteed pick #1 or #2 anyway. And after about round 16/17, they can do what they like because the pick is locked away.

It wouldn't be difficult to understand. Stats boffins would be well onto it, so we'd all know when a club was about to get their draft pick. And for picks 6-9, say, the clubs who are in the running for them are also still in the running for a spot in the finals.

Teams know well in advance that they won't be playing finals footy and you could have a situation where multiple teams are tanking come round 10 to try and get the picks.

It doesn't matter what the system is, teams will always try and get an advantage if their in a situation to.

Realistically how many times has a team finished bottom and didn't deserve to finish last? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head and whether it's last or second last, is there really a big deal between pick 1 or pick 2.... let them have their pick, let them move up the ladder.

 

[RogerC]

Teams know well in advance that they won't be playing finals footy and you could have a situation where multiple teams are tanking come round 10 to try and get the picks.

Not at all. Have a look at the ladder in round 10 this year if you want a good example. Adelaide, in 13th spot, were only two games out the eight. North were fourth-last, and they had finals claims until two weeks ago. Even up to round 15, teams as low as 13th on the ladder were only a game out of the finals.

And like I said, the issue is not the teams that are down there already, it's the ones who decide to go for a better pick by dropping games later in the season.

It takes well over half a season for the majority of clubs to know whether they're good enough. By that stage, they can't do much good for themselves by dropping games. It would hardly be worth it. By the time they'd dropped a couple of spots, picks 1, 2 and probably 3 would already be decided.

Three teams knew they were out of the running by about round 13 or 14. The rest were all in there. If any one of them decided at that point that their season was over, the worst - the very worst - they could snaffle by tanking would be pick 4 or 5. Which is more or less what they would get anyway, because the teams above them are all trying to get into the finals.

 

[RogerC]

Realistically how many times has a team finished bottom and didn't deserve to finish last? I can't think of anyone off the top of my head and whether it's last or second last, is there really a big deal between pick 1 or pick 2.... let them have their pick, let them move up the ladder.

Well, I don't know about that, but have a little look at Collingwood in 2005. Lost every game after round 14 - including five losses to teams outside the eight - and went from pick #4 alone to picks #2 and #5. That was more about priority picks than ladder position, probably, but same principle. They managed to drop behind a team two games and 6% behind them, and reaped the reward.

Similar story with Carlton in 2007. Lost every game after round 11. Went from pick #4 to picks #1 and #4.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it. It was smart thinking. I'm saying the incentive was very strong for them to do it. Remove the incentive and things might have been a bit different. If the top three draft picks had been settled by about round 16, we wouldn't have seen prolonged tanking like that. It would have gained both clubs one extra spot, maybe.

I'm not saying it would remove tanking entirely. But it would severely restrict the opportunities for exploiting the situation, and it would get rid of the prolonged farce that sees teams trying to lose for around a third of the season.

 

[Wokko]

It's not the priority picks that seperate the top from the mediocre teams, it's finding the gems in the rough, the rookie picks and second/third rounders who can enter into a best 22 and upgrade the list. Also a bit of luck with father/sons and trades helps too. Collingwood and Geelong's success isn't due to a plethora of early picks (1-3), in Geelong's case they've got none, Collingwood have 2. In fact most of the successful sides haven't spent an extended period on the bottom racking up early picks, but have a culture of sustained success. If teams need to 'tank' it probably wont be helpful for 4-5 years anyway and if they can't find decent late picks or rookies it wont help that much at all.

 

[wmvaux]

Not at all. Have a look at the ladder in round 10 this year if you want a good example. Adelaide, in 13th spot, were only two games out the eight. North were fourth-last, and they had finals claims until two weeks ago. Even up to round 15, teams as low as 13th on the ladder were only a game out of the finals.

And like I said, the issue is not the teams that are down there already, it's the ones who decide to go for a better pick by dropping games later in the season.

It takes well over half a season for the majority of clubs to know whether they're good enough. By that stage, they can't do much good for themselves by dropping games. It would hardly be worth it. By the time they'd dropped a couple of spots, picks 1, 2 and probably 3 would already be decided.

Three teams knew they were out of the running by about round 13 or 14. The rest were all in there. If any one of them decided at that point that their season was over, the worst - the very worst - they could snaffle by tanking would be pick 4 or 5. Which is more or less what they would get anyway, because the teams above them are all trying to get into the finals.

I think 99% of people had either Port, Brisbane or Gold Coast as coming last this year, clubs know if their good enough or not, your not going to have a club like North who believe at their best are good enough to make the finals, decide after Round 15 we're not going to make it so lets tank.

 

[wmvaux]

Well, I don't know about that, but have a little look at Collingwood in 2005. Lost every game after round 14 - including five losses to teams outside the eight - and went from pick #4 alone to picks #2 and #5. That was more about priority picks than ladder position, probably, but same principle. They managed to drop behind a team two games and 6% behind them, and reaped the reward.

Similar story with Carlton in 2007. Lost every game after round 11. Went from pick #4 to picks #1 and #4.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it. It was smart thinking. I'm saying the incentive was very strong for them to do it. Remove the incentive and things might have been a bit different. If the top three draft picks had been settled by about round 16, we wouldn't have seen prolonged tanking like that. It would have gained both clubs one extra spot, maybe.

I'm not saying it would remove tanking entirely. But it would severely restrict the opportunities for exploiting the situation, and it would get rid of the prolonged farce that sees teams trying to lose for around a third of the season.

Collingwood had a stack of injuries and had to play kids, they dropped 2 spots on the ladder from Round 14, not that big a deal to drop 2 spots in 8 games. Yes they may have decided with the system the way it was then that taking a priority pick was worth it, but rules have been changed since then. I think it was any team with 4 wins or less could get a priority pick, I like the model that says if you don't win more than 4 2 years running you get a priority pick.

I know what your saying and can understand how it reduces the chances of teams exploiting the rules, my main thing is we need to make sure the weakest team get the first pick, otherwise we aren't looking after most needy.