List Mgmt. Help clubs rebuild, by changing the draft order

[go_the_dockers]

Clubs are stuck in the bottom 8 for extending periods and at the opposite side of things, clubs are continuously making finals.

This order would make it a night mare to match an early bid if you finish top 8 for an NGA, F/S or academy player.

Trading a future 2nd would be very dangerous, as the range is massive.

What are peoples thoughts on changing the draft order to below.

The bottom team would also get pick 28, 2nd bottom would get 30 etc. etc.


Position 18 - Pick 1 and 11
17 - Pick 2 and 13
16 - Pick 3 and 15
15 - Pick 4 and 17
14 - Pick 5 and 19
13 - Pick 6 and 21
12 - Pick 7 and 23
11 - Pick 8 and 25
10 - Pick 9 and 27
9 - Pick 10 and 29
8 - Pick 12 and 31
7 - Pick 14 and 33
6 - Pick 16 and 35
5 - Pick 18 and 37
4 - Pick 20 and 39
3 - Pick 22 and 41
2 - Pick 24 and 43
1 - Pick 26 and 45

 

[stallon]

I dont mind it, but I dont think we need to go that drastic. The draft has worked for a very long up until pretty recently.

Just limit access to academies, perhaps even do a limit of a certain amount of matched bids over a period of years. Maybe an average of 1 per year over any 5 year period, or a certain amount of points per 5 years can be used to match bids - like if a club had 2 top 10 selections they wouldnt have the ability to match another top 10 selection due to points left for matching bids.

 

[nahnah]

Not awful but if a top team randomly has an injury plagued year and it ends up with pick 3 and 15 while a team with an awful list randomly is mediocre for the year and ends up with 12 and 31 it wouldnt be ideal

I reckon they should bring back the priority picks like back in 2005 where you got one for consecutive under 5 win seasons or whatever it was but instead of wins make it like have a % of under 75% which could reduce the tanking

 

[Richmond Flats]

Scrap academies, priority picks and father sons. Introduce a mid season trade period.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I dont mind it, but I dont think we need to go that drastic. The draft has worked for a very long up until pretty recently.

Just limit access to academies, perhaps even do a limit of a certain amount of matched bids over a period of years. Maybe an average of 1 per year over any 5 year period, or a certain amount of points per 5 years can be used to match bids - like if a club had 2 top 10 selections they wouldnt have the ability to match another top 10 selection due to points left for matching bids.

Scrap academies, priority picks and father sons. Introduce a mid season trade period.

Free agency has had a massive impact. The ability to bring in a free agent, and get 7 plus years out of them stops teams from needing to rebuild.

These only work if you scrap free agency as well. Otherwise the big clubs, especially the big vic clubs will continue to dominate.

 

[go_the_dockers]

Not awful but if a top team randomly has an injury plagued year and it ends up with pick 3 and 15 while a team with an awful list randomly is mediocre for the year and ends up with 12 and 31 it wouldnt be ideal

I reckon they should bring back the priority picks like back in 2005 where you got one for consecutive under 5 win seasons or whatever it was but instead of wins make it like have a % of under 75% which could reduce the tanking

As long as it starts at pick 10, and not any earlier it is ok.

I think you need to avoid the hard cut off, to not encourage clubs to tank too much.

You could easily manipulate percentage in 2 or 3 games.

 

[nahnah]

You could easily manipulate percentage in 2 or 3 games.

You could but it would require embarrassing losses for the most part which is the off putting part vs just losing games

 

[Atomboy]

As long as it starts at pick 10, and not any earlier it is ok.

I think you need to avoid the hard cut off, to not encourage clubs to tank too much.

You could easily manipulate percentage in 2 or 3 games.

What about a lottery like what the NBA does ?.

The randomness would stop any incentive to tank and it would give the AFL another piece of content to televise.

 

[Fadge]

Clubs are stuck in the bottom 8 for extending periods and at the opposite side of things, clubs are continuously making finals.

This order would make it a night mare to match an early bid if you finish top 8 for an NGA, F/S or academy player.

Trading a future 2nd would be very dangerous, as the range is massive.

What are peoples thoughts on changing the draft order to below.

The bottom team would also get pick 28, 2nd bottom would get 30 etc. etc.


Position 18 - Pick 1 and 11
17 - Pick 2 and 13
16 - Pick 3 and 15
15 - Pick 4 and 17
14 - Pick 5 and 19
13 - Pick 6 and 21
12 - Pick 7 and 23
11 - Pick 8 and 25
10 - Pick 9 and 27
9 - Pick 10 and 29
8 - Pick 12 and 31
7 - Pick 14 and 33
6 - Pick 16 and 35
5 - Pick 18 and 37
4 - Pick 20 and 39
3 - Pick 22 and 41
2 - Pick 24 and 43
1 - Pick 26 and 45

Why should mediocrity be MORE rewarded?

 

[go_the_dockers]

Why should mediocrity be MORE rewarded?

Not every club has access to father sons, or multiple free agents.

You don't want clubs stuck at the bottom for a decade.

 

[Altum Volantes]

What about a lottery like what the NBA does ?.

The randomness would stop any incentive to tank and it would give the AFL another piece of content to televise.

Well because the AFL would just fix the lottery, just like the NBA does....

It doesn't stop NBA teams from tanking either BTW.

 

[My_Username]

Free agency has had a massive impact. The ability to bring in a free agent, and get 7 plus years out of them stops teams from needing to rebuild.

These only work if you scrap free agency as well. Otherwise the big clubs, especially the big vic clubs will continue to dominate.

Scrap FA and the AFLPA would riot.

The legality of the draft, salary cap, and trading regimes are 'questionable' unless all parties consent to them. AFLPA withdrawing that consent and the house of cards will collapse.

 

[Outtatym]

What about a lottery like what the NBA does ?.

The randomness would stop any incentive to tank and it would give the AFL another piece of content to televise.

Teams will still tank for a better % chance.

 

[THE_GUN]

Why should there be a max list size when we have a salary cap ?

With a salary cap the teams on the bottom struggle to meet the cap floor even if they are paying the min and banking the extra 5% for 2/3 years or what ever it is.

Why not allow more Rookie list spots for lower teams e.g
8-12 extra 3 spots for 3 years if they want to use them
13-18 extra 6 spots for 3 years if they want to use them

The extra Rookie spots they use the salary must come from the cap and not outside the cap as these team have a shed load of cap space. This enables the lower teams to take more speculative spots with the chance to find a gem and rebuild quicker and not need assistance for being down the bottom longer

What are the drawbacks/problems associated with this idea ?