DRAGONS FFC Would you change point 1 to be total points value?
Strategy Fremantle Dockers Next Generation Academy
- Thread starter GreatPurpleShark
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,302
It would make sense to have an allowance of points per club issued each year, banked if not used, up to a maximum value equating to a first round pick and a second round pick tied to your ladder position - and I would make those points able to be traded, but if they are traded they tie to the new club's ladder position.
I'm not interested in clubs being excluded from their own academies or father sons, I don't like other clubs being excluded from profiting from those needs.
The northern academy players offered the ability for clubs excluded from the system to profit by trading points of bundled later picks for far superior first round picks that academy club wouldn't be able to use - until the AFL stopped that.
I'm not interested in clubs being excluded from their own academies or father sons, I don't like other clubs being excluded from profiting from those needs.
The northern academy players offered the ability for clubs excluded from the system to profit by trading points of bundled later picks for far superior first round picks that academy club wouldn't be able to use - until the AFL stopped that.
As I've said before, having a pool of points you access for all special selections would help with the idea of equalisation. To get any F/S, NGA or other possibles you get the points there.
There could be a sliding scale of points allocated relative to success across, say, the past 5 years. Whether it resets every year or is fully or partially cumulative from season to season, you can also build in how much they've used it across the past 5 years (again just as an example).
So if you've won a premiership last year, repeated top 4 finishes across the last five years and numerous recent F/S and/or NGA selections, you get the smallest allocation of points to use.
As it stands, I'm struggling to be invested in the NGA selections, given anyone decent you're almost training for someone else. Likewise, I see why it'd be hard for the club to remain fully invested in the NGA program and possibly deprioritise it under the current rules.
Jinx.
I wouldn't have them as tradeable though. It'd serve at cross purposes to what they're there for in the first place and the powerful can just use their power to subvert it all.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,305
Consider some clubs will have no NGA and no father sons for many years, possibly even more years than would fill their max points account should there be a limit on it.
Those clubs should be able to benefit from trading the points as they sure aren't getting the talent.
Alternatively clubs could have no limit on total points and then when they have some Pavlich and Mundy young guns coming through they can match the pick #2 and #3 on those with the points to get all their benefit in one focused point.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,306
If the points accrued were also tied to your ladder position then it would serve to benefit the lower clubs more than those doing well, allowing academy and father son players to be a form of equalisation - we know how the AFL loves that.
Match the ghost pick with ladder position and we are at (no discounts):
2022 6th = pick #13 = 1212 points (no FS or NGA in National Draft) = 1212 points
2021 11th = pick #8 = 1551 points (Benning #54 = 220 points) = 1331 points
2020 12th = pick #7 = 1644 points (Walker #50, Western #54 = 493 points) = 1151 points
2019 13th = pick #6 = 1751 points (Henry #9 = 1469 points) = 282 points
So over the last four seasons we have run a total surplus of 3976 which is pick #1 and pick #19.
We obviously would have different results over that period if rules weren't changed and our points surplus is reflective of our bottom ten/bottom six finishing.
Match the ghost pick with ladder position and we are at (no discounts):
2022 6th = pick #13 = 1212 points (no FS or NGA in National Draft) = 1212 points
2021 11th = pick #8 = 1551 points (Benning #54 = 220 points) = 1331 points
2020 12th = pick #7 = 1644 points (Walker #50, Western #54 = 493 points) = 1151 points
2019 13th = pick #6 = 1751 points (Henry #9 = 1469 points) = 282 points
So over the last four seasons we have run a total surplus of 3976 which is pick #1 and pick #19.
We obviously would have different results over that period if rules weren't changed and our points surplus is reflective of our bottom ten/bottom six finishing.
Although I'd view those points as being bonuses outside the more universally accessible system of trading picks and players etc. To an extent, given the random and intermittent nature of F/S and NGA, trading would neutralise any moderating impacts of introducing separate points system, as you might trade your way through two drafts and have no need for those points for another 5 years. So in effect you're unconstrained.
Probably not. I tend to believe that imbalance comes when any given team is entirely F/S and NGA players. As it is people are complaining about Sydney because they average 1 per year. So that number seems fair to me. Yes you might get a glut of talent eligible in one year and a few lean years either side. But you use your preferential pick once and then what ever falls to your remaining draft hand is what pick.
In general I tend to believe that all the AFL teams tend to do the draft as frenemies. NGA and F/S candidates slide because you don't want anger the other club too much. eg: Ashcroft should have copped a bid. GWS was being nice. Every now and then, there is an a***e who rogers someone. (Thanks Silvani we would have preferred not to go into points deficit over Henry)
But then I tend to be a grumpy gus who believes that clubs should have as many rights as the whinny children they draft. Mommies boys, heartbroken girlfriend chasers or any number of other "i don't like it here" justifications should result in state nomination and no more. "Going home" is just that not destination club time.
Tonga Bob
Blacula Stan Account
- Oct 26, 2013
- 28,073
- 68,655
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Other Teams
- SFFC, LFC, ADO, CI Warriors
- Moderator
- #2,309
I think it's time to have a serious conversation about the NGA.
Don't know about you but I'm resigned to the fact that the chances of this benefiting our list is marginal at best. Sure we may find a diamond in the rough who could go on to play 50-100 serviceable games, but in terms of cost/benefit analysis it's dead in the water imo.
Instead of participating in some program that comes from the AFL (who let's be honest gives us three quarters of f*ck all assistance), we should partner with organisations like Clontarf or the Stephen Michael Foundation who do great work in providing similar pathways that extend beyond football. That way any development that we do in the NGA is covered, plus we get the satisfaction of telling the AFL to stick their biased and prohibitive drafting concessions up their arses.
Don't know about you but I'm resigned to the fact that the chances of this benefiting our list is marginal at best. Sure we may find a diamond in the rough who could go on to play 50-100 serviceable games, but in terms of cost/benefit analysis it's dead in the water imo.
Instead of participating in some program that comes from the AFL (who let's be honest gives us three quarters of f*ck all assistance), we should partner with organisations like Clontarf or the Stephen Michael Foundation who do great work in providing similar pathways that extend beyond football. That way any development that we do in the NGA is covered, plus we get the satisfaction of telling the AFL to stick their biased and prohibitive drafting concessions up their arses.
Cat b list is great tho
We have 2 players sitting outside the list right now that we can't have without the nga
Henry going means we never got to abuse the nga system though, does suck
Even if we pick NGA players from now on, realistically we could have just picked them after pick 40 anyway, like walks and drapes etc
It's a pointless program except the odd list concession from a cat b perspective now
Even if we pick NGA players from now on, realistically we could have just picked them after pick 40 anyway, like walks and drapes etc
It's a pointless program except the odd list concession from a cat b perspective now
Draper?
Yeah maybe, seems to have fallen off the pace over the season.
I'm still in love with all of Williams kicks to leads from his highlights video. Get that dude the ball 25 times a game and we'll kick an extra 3 goals.
- May 3, 2013
- 1,968
- 2,370
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Draper has constantly said he’s natural position is as a forward and that’s what he was recruited as, might be time to play him in his natural position and see how he goes?
Looks like clubs are pushing to align the NGA rules with the northern rules.
Any changes won’t be until next year though.
Any changes won’t be until next year though.
- May 3, 2013
- 1,968
- 2,370
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
Ofc it happens after we miss out on Motlop and Edwards
That’s a terrible decision. The draft is already very compromised with academies and father sons. You add a bigger compromise and teams at the top of the ladder won’t ever have to rebuild, as they will get similar talented kids to the bottom teams. Take the Daicos brothers and Darcy Moore out of Collingwood and they aren’t much chop.
Jamarra shouldn’t be playing for the dogs. There’s so many inequalities. We’ve literally had none.
Needs to be restrictions on how clubs match bids for all academy players and father sons imo.
Problem ATM is that a top eight side can convert their first and second rounders into enough points to match anything way too easy.
If the system was designed correctly Western Bulldogs need to at least a future first or a good best 22 player to get JUH or Darcy.
There should be no discounts.
Going into deficit limits should be **** all (4th round equivalent).
There should be a minimum percentage of points the highest pick needs to make up (say 70%)
If you can't meet that criteria it should be tough luck. That's all that needed to change but the AFL couldn't get it right.
Problem ATM is that a top eight side can convert their first and second rounders into enough points to match anything way too easy.
If the system was designed correctly Western Bulldogs need to at least a future first or a good best 22 player to get JUH or Darcy.
There should be no discounts.
Going into deficit limits should be **** all (4th round equivalent).
There should be a minimum percentage of points the highest pick needs to make up (say 70%)
If you can't meet that criteria it should be tough luck. That's all that needed to change but the AFL couldn't get it right.
The proposed changes on AFL.com.au today are nuts. Will make the draft even more compromised.
Rejig the points scale.
Remove discount.
Priority picks and free agency compensation picks carry no point value.
Working on a proposed scale, would make it near impossible to match in the top 5.
Remove discount.
Priority picks and free agency compensation picks carry no point value.
Working on a proposed scale, would make it near impossible to match in the top 5.
Snuffaluphagus
Moderator
- Sep 10, 2015
- 21,304
- 71,971
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
- Moderator
- #2,323
Personally think the top 40 bidding is dumb and I’m glad they are changing it even if it’s perfectly stopped us getting two players. There is so much they can do to easily fix how compromised it all is though. Hopefully they take this opportunity to do that
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #2,324
Every change of the rules to "make them more fair" only increases the advantage of the clubs who already have players through the former way. Every single change increases the gap and it will take ten to fifteen years to cycle out the advantage - but who ever lets the rules sit still for that long?
The rules need to be set somewhere and then left alone to settle. All this quest for a more even draft is doing is making sure the sides who already got their players pull the ladder up behind them.
What you should be looking at is a mechanism where costs can be applied to clubs who have benefits under the old rules in order to keep that player. The same mechanism can later be used by the AFL to claw back priority pick help when they realise they've overfilled the cup.
The rules need to be set somewhere and then left alone to settle. All this quest for a more even draft is doing is making sure the sides who already got their players pull the ladder up behind them.
What you should be looking at is a mechanism where costs can be applied to clubs who have benefits under the old rules in order to keep that player. The same mechanism can later be used by the AFL to claw back priority pick help when they realise they've overfilled the cup.
I like how the points work now
People underestimate how much trading that has brought into the game
Clubs have picks they can target to move up the draft nowadays, I reckon it's great for the competition
People underestimate how much trading that has brought into the game
Clubs have picks they can target to move up the draft nowadays, I reckon it's great for the competition
Similar threads
