Fixing the "Tanking" Problem

[R00StaR]

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 pretty much sorts it out, its the PPs that cause all the issue. Not only that, it should discourage the bottoming out mentality meaning older solid contributors arent discarded too early and this should help eliminate some of the blow outs and create a more even comp (more interest)

 

[Chewy]

(Short version)

1. Get rid of priority picks. They are unfair on the rest of the comp. They give bottom clubs too much incentive to treat Rounds 12-22 as practise matches

2. Bring in a lottery to silence the debate, once and for all. The draft order doesn't really matter anyway, so let's give these clowns what they want and remove the "perception" that clubs would angle for a higher place in the draft order


(Long version)

This argument will never be resolved unless people on both sides of the debate see eye to eye on a few matters.

Football teams do not go out to lose on matchday, but this is not what people mean by tanking. People have issues with clubs they perceive are giving less 100% over the course of the season, whether it be playing their kids, or using their players out of position, sending their stars in for early season-ending surgery.

HOWEVER... There is nothing wrong with clubs doing this. If there was no draft, then it wouldn't be an issue. Clubs at the bottom of the ladder have always used these "off" years to rebuild, develop their players and get an early preparation for the next season. Why should they be in "win at all costs" mode, when their season is already kaput?

People are resentful of the bottom clubs receiving the early draft picks. They need to get over it. This is how the system is supposed to work. The worst teams get the best young talent. Simple.

HOWEVER... There is an issue of perception. Whether the AFL like it or not, there is so much unhealthy focus on the current system. Too much unhealthy focus clubs who may be rorting the system. The AFL were forced to make a few changes and water down the rules for priority picks. But they haven't gone far enough and the "issue" won't go away.

Priority picks are too much of an incentive for young rebuilding clubs like Melbourne and Carlton to remain uncompetitive for an extra season. They give it 85% instead of 100% and win just 4 games instead of 7 or 8 games. It's bad for the AFL competition. We want the shit clubs to fight like mad to get back up the ladder, but the AFL creates a system where it's better for them to wallow in shit for an extra year or two.

Even the priority picks at the end of the first round - picks 17, 18 - for the clubs who have one-off shit seasons - it's too much of an incentive for bottom teams to "put the cue in the rack" from Rounds 18-22. Whether a club receives a Priority Pick 3 or Pick 18, it doesn't matter. It's an extra gun footballer. REMOVE ALL PRIORITY PICKS!! They are unfair anyway and give some clubs an unfair leg-up over their rivals. Why should the horrible clubs get an extra boost, while the terrible clubs who finish 12th or 13th get just 1 pick?

I don't think the draft order really matters. I think people who propose these NBA style lotteries are just getting carried away. I don't believe any team would throw their season away just so they can get the 1st draft pick instead of the 3rd draft pick. The difference between kids chosen in the top 3 or top 5 is fairly neglible anyway. Nobody knows which will become superstars.

HOWEVER... because people won't shut up about it and it ruins the ****ing football season to hear people whine about it... and because the draft order doesn't make a heap of difference anyway... I say lets go with the lottery. Don't get caught up in the details. It doesn't matter. It can be a simple coin flip for all I care. Let's just remove the certainty that wooden spooner is guaranteed first pick in the draft and the 2nd last is guranteed 2nd pick. Let's remove all the possible talk of tanking, innuendo, draft tampering an so forth. Let's give the idiots what they want so we can all just focus on the football.

And if any idiot starts whining about football teams tanking for draft lottery position, they will be fired out of cannon over the Great Southern Stand for the Grand Final pre-match entertainment.

 

[mollyfud]

(Short version)

1. Get rid of priority picks. They are unfair on the rest of the comp. They give bottom clubs too much incentive to treat Rounds 12-22 as practise matches

2. Bring in a lottery to silence the debate, once and for all. The draft order doesn't really matter anyway, so let's give these clowns what they want and remove the "perception" that clubs would angle for a higher place in the draft order

Your first point is fine but there is only one positive of having a lottery. It is another talking point.

I have long argued that a Lottery causes more tanking as you have no guarntee of getting the help you need the first time so you are likely to go back again and again until you do. Also, most lotteries have to be weighted meaning there is still a benefit in losing in a lottery system compared to winning in one! If there isn't weighting, you give just as much chance of the best of the lottery teams getting number 1 as the worst of them. This could mean if the lottery was say those teams missing the final, in 09 the Hawks could of got the number 1 pick, 1 year after they won the flag basically on the back of a truck load of injuries! I think the AFL world would be up in arms if the Hawks got Nic Nat the year after a flag!

 

[stugots]

only way to rid the game of tanking would be to bring in relegation to a lower league, & I doubt anyone wants to see that

tanking will always exist to some extent so yes removing priority picks & the guarantee of the early picks appear to be the only way to help reduce the problem.

 

[Scotland]

If two teams are level on points at 15th and 16th and playing each other going into Rd 22 and there is an obvious standout junior that will go number 1 in the draft then both clubs won't really want to win - so you can never 'fix' tanking.

Tanking exists because there is a strong motivation to perform poorly and bugger all motivation to be a middle of the road team.

To limit the effects of tanking you need to decrease the motivation to perform poorly and increase the motivation to perform to the best if your abilities, even if that means finish 9th or 10th.

For mine the former is easy - get rid of priority picks altogether. I'm open to the idea of a lottery of picks 1-4, 5-8, 9-13 etc. but I don't see the idea as a panacea. The latter I think can be helped via an English Premier League style financial model, where a portion of the TV rights income is divided equally between all clubs and a portion is distributed based on ladder position. If each ladder position is worth an extra $100k for example then it provides at least some motivation to get out there and have a dip.

 

[Father Jack]

Okay, just for an exercise (and I know there are other variables at play in who clubs choose in addition to just picking the best on offer) here are the top 8 picks from the lest 10 or so drafts. If you were to take out the priority picks, do you think it would be worth tanking to move up the order one or two places? Would a wooden spoon be worth the shame?

2000

1. Nick Riewoldt - St Kilda
2. Justin Koschitzke - St Kilda
3. Alan Didak - Collingwood
4. Luke Livingston - Carlton
5. Andrew McDougall - West Coast
6. Dylan Smith - Kangaroos
7. Laurence Angwin - Adelaide
8. Daniel Motlop - Kangaroos

2001

1. Luke Hodge - Hawthorn
2. Luke Ball - St Kilda
3. Chris Judd - West Coast Eagles
4. Graham Polak - Fremantle
5. Xavier Clarke - St Kilda
6. Ashley Sampi - West Coast Eagles
7. David Hale - Kangaroos
8. Jimmy Bartel - Geelong

2002

1. Brendon Goddard - St Kilda
2. Daniel Wells - Kangaroos
3. Jared Brennan - Brisbane Lions
4. Tim Walsh - Western Bulldogs
5. Jarrad McVeigh - Sydney Swans
6. Steven Salopek - Port Adelaide
7. Andrew Mackie - Geelong
8. Luke Brennan - Hawthorn

2003

1. Adam Cooney - Western Bulldogs
2. Andrew Walker - Carlton
3. Colin Sylvia - Melbourne
4. Farren Ray - Western Bulldogs
5. Brock McLean - Melbourne
6. Kepler Bradley - Essendon
7. Kane Tenace - Geelong
8. Raphael Clarke - St. Kilda

2004

1. Brett Deledio - Richmond
2. Jarryd Roughead - Hawthorn
3. Ryan Griffen - Western Bulldogs
4. Richard Tambling - Richmond
5. Lance Franklin - Hawthorn
6. Tom Williams - Western Bulldogs
7. Jordan Lewis - Hawthorn
8. John Meesen - Adelaide

2005

1. Marc Murphy - Carlton
2. Dale Thomas - Collingwood
3. Xavier Ellis - Hawthorn
4. Josh Kennedy - Carlton
5. Scott Pendlebury - Collingwood
6. Beau Dowler - Hawthorn
7. Patrick Ryder - Essendon
8. Jarrad Oakley-Nicholls - Richmond

2006

1. Bryce Gibbs - Carlton
2. Scott Gumbleton - Essendon
3. Lachlan Hansen - Kangaroos
4. Matthew Leuenberger - Brisbane Lions
5. Travis Boak - Port Adelaide
6. Mitchell Thorp - Hawthorn
7. Joel Selwood - Geelong
8. Ben Reid - Collingwood

2007

1. Matthew Kreuzer - Carlton
2. Trent Cotchin - Richmond
3. Chris Masten - West Coast
4. Cale Morton - Melbourne
5. Jarrad Grant - Western Bulldogs
6. David Myers - Essendon
7. Rhys Palmer - Fremantle
8. Lachlan Henderson - Brisbane Lions

2008

1. Jack Watts - Melbourne
2. Nic Naitanui - West Coast
3. Stephen Hill - Fremantle
4. Hamish Hartlett - Port Adelaide
5. Michael Hurley - Essendon
6. Chris Yarran - Carlton
7. Daniel Rich - Brisbane Lions
8. Tyrone Vickery - Richmond

2009

1. Tom Scully - Melbourne
2. Jack Trengove - Melbourne
3. Dustin Martin - Richmond
4. Anthony Morabito - Fremantle
5. Ben Cunnington - North Melbourne
6. Gary Rohan -Sydney
7. Brad Sheppard - West Coast
8. John Butcher -Port Adelaide

2010

1. David Swallow - Gold Coast
2. Harley Bennell - Gold Coast
3. Sam Day - Gold Coast
4. Andrew Gaff - West Coast
5. Jared Polec - Brisbane Lions
6. Reece Conca - Richmond
7. Josh Caddy - Gold Coast
8. Dyson Heppell - Essendon

 

[CF]

here's another stupid idea:

we go:
18th side gets 1st pick to 1st side gets 18th pick and so on - no priority picks for finishing bottom 4 for consecutive years. one player each team unless picks traded.

works for me.

 

[mollyfud]

If two teams are level on points at 15th and 16th and playing each other going into Rd 22 and there is an obvious standout junior that will go number 1 in the draft then both clubs won't really want to win - so you can never 'fix' tanking.

Tanking exists because there is a strong motivation to perform poorly and bugger all motivation to be a middle of the road team.

To limit the effects of tanking you need to decrease the motivation to perform poorly and increase the motivation to perform to the best if your abilities, even if that means finish 9th or 10th.

For mine the former is easy - get rid of priority picks altogether. I'm open to the idea of a lottery of picks 1-4, 5-8, 9-13 etc. but I don't see the idea as a panacea. The latter I think can be helped via an English Premier League style financial model, where a portion of the TV rights income is divided equally between all clubs and a portion is distributed based on ladder position. If each ladder position is worth an extra $100k for example then it provides at least some motivation to get out there and have a dip.

I hate the idea of linking finances to not tanking!!!!!!

If you do this, it means the rich clubs can tank but the poor ones must continue to try!

You know another thing that discourages or minimizes tanking to a degree (very limited) without effecting the effectiveness of the draft to help out struggling clubs, increase the number of teams that make the finals! My opinion is that there should be a final 8 with two play-in games between teams 7-10 but most don't like the idea of "rewarding mediocrity". Personally I think its rewarding loyal fans. Imagine the level of tanking if you go to a final 6 as many have called for!!!!!
JMTC

 

[micksolo]

to play devils advocate, the rich clubs won't be so rich anymore if they start finishing bottom of the ladder. Members and attendances will start dropping off as well as sponsors.

But I still think its not a good idea to tie tanking to a financial reward, unless of course its in the scheme of finishing positions gets a certain bonus from the AFL. Finishing first will get the highest $'s finishing last will get the least. Then it makes it worthwhile for the bottom 4 clubs to fight it out to get the extra cash.

I think a lottery system is also a good idea.

 

[Baldur]

But the AFL says there is no tanking & furthermore that Bailey did not admit to tanking.

Cannot fix a problem if you refuse to admit you have one

 

[smasha]

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?

LOL,they think we're stupid.

 

[Scotland]

I hate the idea of linking finances to not tanking!!!!!!

If you do this, it means the rich clubs can tank but the poor ones must continue to try!

You know another thing that discourages or minimizes tanking to a degree (very limited) without effecting the effectiveness of the draft to help out struggling clubs, increase the number of teams that make the finals! My opinion is that there should be a final 8 with two play-in games between teams 7-10 but most don't like the idea of "rewarding mediocrity". Personally I think its rewarding loyal fans. Imagine the level of tanking if you go to a final 6 as many have called for!!!!!
JMTC

I knew someone would counter with 'the rich clubs can tank but the poor ones can't'.

The argument has some merit, but loss of revenue from lower gate takings, membership drop off etc. affects clubs already and club at the centre of the latest tanking debate certainly isn't 'rich'.

The idea of making revenue to the clubs partially dependant on performance makes sense even without the existance of tanking. A team that's not having a real crack doesn't deserve the same slice of the pie as one that is battling to make the 8.

 

[Tiger2709]

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.

That's alright the Saints like picking up our left over spuds, but this is not about Richmond, it's about tanking for 1st pick

 

[telsor]

I knew someone would counter with 'the rich clubs can tank but the poor ones can't'.

The argument has some merit, but loss of revenue from lower gate takings, membership drop off etc. affects clubs already and club at the centre of the latest tanking debate certainly isn't 'rich'.

The idea of making revenue to the clubs partially dependant on performance makes sense even without the existance of tanking. A team that's not having a real crack doesn't deserve the same slice of the pie as one that is battling to make the 8.

While I like some kind of reward for achievement, and money is the obvious medium for this, however I cn't help but observe that if you follow the theory that more money = better football dept = more chance of success, then you're cementing teams in their current positions.

 

[sunshine_saint]

I think the OP suggestion is a great idea.
Makes everyone in the bottom 8 compete hard at the end of the season.

Alternately I ilke the idea of a ballot for the bottom 6 teams for the first 6 picks.

 

[sunshine_saint]

There are only two people on the entire planet who do not believe tanking exists and have their head in teh sand on the issue. Demetriou ands his not so bright side-kick.

 

[WinmarToLockett]

I don't know why a team would tank, it's not like number 1 draft picks are guaranteed to be the best player of their year. As for Priority picks... I think if team is shit for years on end they deserve them.

Not trying to say Melbourne didn't tank... We sure did. And we're probably paying for it now.

 

[MC Extra Dollop]

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 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.

The SPL system would be brilliant for determining the finals positions, but it would be terrible for the draft picks. There's the threat of relegation hanging over the teams who finish on the bottom in the big soccer leagues, so there's never any threat of them tanking. What I would suggest is the bottom six teams play for seedings in the NBA-style draft lottery, so the teams from 1-12 on the ladder stay in the same position, but the team who finishes on top of the 13-18 pool after the final rounds gets the most balls in the lottery (though only a slight advantage on the other teams).

At the end of the day though, no system will be perfect. Port Adelaide are shit this year and they deserve the first pick in the draft. They're obviously not tanking. Get rid of the priority picks though.

 

[mollyfud]

The SPL system would be brilliant for determining the finals positions, but it would be terrible for the draft picks. There's the threat of relegation hanging over the teams who finish on the bottom in the big soccer leagues, so there's never any threat of them tanking. What I would suggest is the bottom six teams play for seedings in the NBA-style draft lottery, so the teams from 1-12 on the ladder stay in the same position, but the team who finishes on top of the 13-18 pool after the final rounds gets the most balls in the lottery (though only a slight advantage on the other teams).

At the end of the day though, no system will be perfect. Port Adelaide are shit this year and they deserve the first pick in the draft. They're obviously not tanking. Get rid of the priority picks though.

Exactly! No need for a lottery that will do nothing for the tanking issue.

 

[seysearles]

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.

Agree. The first team that is mathematically out of finals contention gets first pick and so on. Best idea by far. Inventivises winning for the longest period possible.

 

[ekzistenz]

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!

I don't think it's that bad. As mollyfud has said here. Apart from the priority pick which gives a little too much incentive, regardless of a high draft pick or not, if a time doesn't look like playing finals they are more than likely going to look towards the next season and work towards improving the team in the long term.

 

[Hats off to Roy Harper]

The Lottery system could work.. but teams could still tank to get a better chance in the lottery... If you are no chance of making finals why would you not experiment with your list anyway?... Why doesnt the AFL just have cash penalty's for teams that finish on the bottom like a million dollars and so forth and teams from 14-13 up to 1st get cash from the AFL depending on how they finish. That would be incentive not to finish low on the ladder. Win games or go broke

 

[Dagless]

Introduce controlled, salary cap free agency. with current draft setup sans any PP.

No, that's too easy...

 

[nick1408]

The SPL system would be brilliant for determining the finals positions, but it would be terrible for the draft picks. There's the threat of relegation hanging over the teams who finish on the bottom in the big soccer leagues, so there's never any threat of them tanking. What I would suggest is the bottom six teams play for seedings in the NBA-style draft lottery, so the teams from 1-12 on the ladder stay in the same position, but the team who finishes on top of the 13-18 pool after the final rounds gets the most balls in the lottery (though only a slight advantage on the other teams).

At the end of the day though, no system will be perfect. Port Adelaide are shit this year and they deserve the first pick in the draft. They're obviously not tanking. Get rid of the priority picks though.

I'm not a huge fan of a lottery, that's why I offered the idea to make clubs try and win the first pick. What was offered by the first club mathematically out of finals contention would work well.

Another idea I have seen is to make the draft positions determined on a ladder running from round 12-round 11 over two seasons. Still over 22 games but by making it over two seasons a club would need to tank for two seasons (as Melbourne did, admitedly) rather than just one. Most teams should still be in contention in round 11 so most games should still be competitive.

 

[RupertPupkin]

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.

How is it dumb?
A team that is on the rise gets draft picks over a team that has tasted success? I don't think that is dumb, that is the point of the draft. It means that clubs that win a flag then have a hangover year don't get picks over a club that has finally made it to the finals. So Hawthorn don't get to pick ahead of the bombers at the end of 2009 because they won the flag in 2008, had 39 wins over the three year period whereas Essendon had 28.
It means that West Coast don't get to pick Natanui as draft pick 2, 2 years after winning a flag.
It would mean clubs like Richmond or Melbourne would be able to improve over the years but still draw on their previous down time as the performance over three years would count.
Yes, teams could tank for three years but as Jack said, imagine the loss of fans if you knew your club wasn't going to try for at least three years and probably five if they wanted to get some first grabs at the draft.
Teams that were genuinely in a slump would get the picks but bad years would count for very little.