Laphroaig
I Hate You
- Jul 22, 2013
- 16,286
- 23,775
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Ditching the whole ugly mess would improve things more.
NEW
0 v WEL
0 PM
SYD
0 v MAC
0 PM
ADE
8.13
61 v STK
1.2
8 FT
COL
7.7
49 v MEL
1.8
14 FT
SA
117 v NO
114 FT
BRO
98 v DAL
115 FT
SLC
88 v RGV
97 FT
MIL
105 v LAC
100 FT
PHI
109 v CLE
112 FT
BNE
115 v CNS
95 FT
NY
110 v IND
107 FT
BOS
111 v WSH
110 FT
ORL
109 v UTH
124 FT
LAL
117 v GS
91 FT
OKC
96 v DEN
126 FT
HOU
84 v MEM
133 FT
MIA
109 v ATL
99 FT
MIN
99 v PHX
118 FT
SAC
126 v CHA
127 FT
WSH
128 v MIN
112 FT
DET
90 v NY
109 FT
SEM
93 v ILL
76 FT
Analysis Improving the bidding system
- Thread starter AlibiMonday
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Suma Magic
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 22, 2009
- 23,304
- 25,387
- AFL Club
- West Coast
That’s a separate consideration and conversation.
I was just pointing out that if we are keeping the points system, then adjusting the curve slightly will improve the system significantly. This would stop pick trades where clubs can improve points by 20-50% (which increases the real discount they get on accessing academy and father-son players). No more desire by academy clubs to stockpile late picks.
Laphroaig
I Hate You
- Jul 22, 2013
- 16,286
- 23,775
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I'm not feeling it.
Doesn't matter how it gets tweaked, Clubs will just find a different way to game it.
Suma Magic
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 22, 2009
- 23,304
- 25,387
- AFL Club
- West Coast
If the points curve doesn’t align to the market value of picks, it can be gamed. The bigger the difference between the curve and the market, the more the system is gamed.
It’s clearly over-valuing lower picks now.
An adjustment to reduce the relative value of lower picks will reduce gaming.
It’s just basic maths.
Laphroaig
I Hate You
- Jul 22, 2013
- 16,286
- 23,775
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Nah.
There is no true market value. And never will be.
The whole thing is a stupid, half arsed artificial construct implemented to achieve a questionable purpose. Farting around with it is not going to make it any the less stupid, half arsed or artificial.
Suma Magic
Brownlow Medallist
- Aug 22, 2009
- 23,304
- 25,387
- AFL Club
- West Coast
“There is no true market value. And never will be.” - I’m not saying that a perfect curve is possible. You are putting forward a straw man argument. I’m not sure why.
I’m just saying that it’s easy to improve the current curve. Eg if you simply do this adjustment the points curve is much closer to average market value as judged by an analysis of all drafts.
Points value x (0.99^pick number)
Last edited:
owen87
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 23, 2016
- 9,337
- 11,923
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Sydney just picked up the equivalent of two Top-5 selections in the one draft. I'm not sure you've got a whole lot of ground to stand on to make the argument Sydney specifically hasn't been incredibly advantaged by the academy system.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
Victorian clubs have way more an advantage. It’s not even close there.
Kreuuuzeurns
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 25, 2013
- 5,339
- 8,294
- AFL Club
- Carlton
A bunch of picks in the 2nd and 3rd round, not to mention the 20% discount, is not a fair price for a top 5 quality talent no matter what the points index tells you.
LukeParkerno1
Post-Human
We still paid and we didn’t have any second and third rounders where we actually usually draft well
You recruited a F/S via the academy when his father had played over 300 games, won 2 flags and is an assistant coach.
Thank god for the academy, I don’t know how Blakey would have coped without having any footballing resources around him during his development years.... fmd.
On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Kreuuuzeurns
Norm Smith Medallist
- Sep 25, 2013
- 5,339
- 8,294
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Oh no, no second or third rounders. How will you survive without those?
The Inbetweener
Premiership Player
You are putting all Victorian clubs in one bracket which isn’t accurate in terms of advantage. If a gun player wants to return to VIC, it’s only a handful of the bigger clubs that have a realistic chance to get them.
And in terms of the GF being played at the MCG... my team doesn’t get ANY home ground advantage throughout the finals with no games at Marvel. Unlike your team which gets true home ground advantage during finals.
So could I argue due to interstate teams getting actual finals home ground advantage, that’s a massive advantage over almost half the Victorian teams?
eastfreo75
Brownlow Medallist
No discount.
Improve the points system to lessen later picks.
The advantage for the club is that you get a home grown talent or maintains tradition.
Improve the points system to lessen later picks.
The advantage for the club is that you get a home grown talent or maintains tradition.
Simon_Nesbit
Brownlow Medallist
This. (the other benefit of course is you get access to a player you otherwise miss out on!)
As I've argued elsewhere, 'replace picks with points' solves most of the issues around the draft, but there's still some opposition.
Similarly, increasing the points value rate of decay for draft picks will disincentivise trading for multiple low picks for 'points'.
Instead of having a discount, I wouldn't mind seeing the first pick used receive a bonus. That further incentivises clubs to keep a pick 'near' the expected position they have to match.
powerrrrrrrrrrrr
Club Legend
Academy players should only be tied to their respective state and not to a particular team.
The whole point of academies is around retention, so it should not matter which club they play for as long as they are in their home state. This removes the go home factor and loosing players which are home sick.
Then we can remove the bidding and matching process completely and it simply comes down to which club from the players home state is willing to use their highest draft pick first, again giving first preference to the lower teams with the higher draft pick.
For example, Ugle Hagan
The first Victorian team to hold a draft pick was the Kangaroos. They can decide to use their pick 2 to draft him (which of course they would), alternatively if they chose to skip, the Hawks would be the next club available to take him.
This would force clubs to pay fair value for the player while the player remains in their home state. If the bulldogs really wanted to get a pick infront of the Roos to take first pick and JUH, then they have to pay a fair price and trade to get up the draft.
Academies shouldn’t be all about certain clubs getting a benefit over others. It’s about the players being given the best support and opportunities to succeed as AFL players and increase opportunities in diverse communities.This approach will come in swings and round abouts, where players “tied” to certain clubs will miss out on that player due to holding lower a draft pick, but in alternative years it will be in reverse where they may hold a higher pick and will have first access to a player “tied” to another club in their state.
Similar to Lachie Jones at port this year. Adelaide would have had first swipe at him if they wanted to use their pick 11 for example to take him first, or port are forced to trade ahead of the expected pick value to take the player first.
Clubs will hold the benefit of a player only being available within their state and no need for discounts or players tied to specific clubs.
The whole point of academies is around retention, so it should not matter which club they play for as long as they are in their home state. This removes the go home factor and loosing players which are home sick.
Then we can remove the bidding and matching process completely and it simply comes down to which club from the players home state is willing to use their highest draft pick first, again giving first preference to the lower teams with the higher draft pick.
For example, Ugle Hagan
The first Victorian team to hold a draft pick was the Kangaroos. They can decide to use their pick 2 to draft him (which of course they would), alternatively if they chose to skip, the Hawks would be the next club available to take him.
This would force clubs to pay fair value for the player while the player remains in their home state. If the bulldogs really wanted to get a pick infront of the Roos to take first pick and JUH, then they have to pay a fair price and trade to get up the draft.
Academies shouldn’t be all about certain clubs getting a benefit over others. It’s about the players being given the best support and opportunities to succeed as AFL players and increase opportunities in diverse communities.This approach will come in swings and round abouts, where players “tied” to certain clubs will miss out on that player due to holding lower a draft pick, but in alternative years it will be in reverse where they may hold a higher pick and will have first access to a player “tied” to another club in their state.
Similar to Lachie Jones at port this year. Adelaide would have had first swipe at him if they wanted to use their pick 11 for example to take him first, or port are forced to trade ahead of the expected pick value to take the player first.
Clubs will hold the benefit of a player only being available within their state and no need for discounts or players tied to specific clubs.
anotherletdown
Club Legend
- Oct 14, 2016
- 1,022
- 999
- AFL Club
- Sydney
North should probably have accepted relocation then? Maybe have it forced on them like SM did?
The fact is the academies are the only way to train kids to a suitable level in the northern states, there is no other viable talent pathway. The local comp just can't do it. There is also a big go-home factor with new draftees and also a cost of living spike if you're from another state. Nearly zero 3rd party sponsorships available, no blockbuster games and the lack of exposure costs players in the long run. The comp also needs a Sydney rivalry for the TV dollars.
So, after you have found a better way to balance out some of those issues we can talk academies
Lore
Moderator ❀
- Dec 14, 2015
- 21,664
- 27,526
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I like this idea. The only issue is that the academies apparently don’t really work unless they’re aligned to an AFL brand, so if you had state based academies that the clubs were jointly responsible for without having first preference they may choose not to invest in it, which adversely affects clubs that are less well off financially and players may be less willing to get involved in it.
I don’t see why in general you couldn’t include an element of state based drafting though. It could be separate drafts after the first round, or a bidding system. Players can elect to stay in the open pool after the first round or choose a particular state for the later parts of the draft. Perhaps higher salaries and longer contracts in the open pool.
Perhaps you can exclude players from the open pool if they are a mature age draftee that has already nominated for and not been selected at a draft in a previous year, so they’d potentially only be available in their chosen state.
If they pick a state that is over-represented it’ll be harder to get drafted and failing that they could end up in the rookie draft on an even shorter contract for a lower salary, so there’s a built in disincentive for the player to select a state as well – you’d only do it if you’re desperate to stay home, terminally ill relative or something similarly more important than money. In the AFLW there seems to be a trend towards choosing a state where you have a better chance at an opportunity which I would expect to carry over to the AFL as well.
I think state based drafts would ultimately encourage more talent from WA and SA to enter the draft as well. If you think about being a state league footballer in Victoria, nominating for the draft means a better than 50% chance of landing in your home state (and mature players often have established careers, partners, families so that should be a consideration). For SA and WA players in a similar position you don’t have that likelihood of ending up at home and may choose to play WAFL or a lower league rather than nominate in the national draft. Similarly of course for the Northern states except that they would probably choose rugby rather than state league footy.
Having said that, I think if they don’t get drafted previously they’re now a sort of free agent in the SSP anyway, so if another Tim Kelly came along he wouldn’t need to go in the draft..?
Ultimately if it means less barriers to participation and a larger talent pool then the whole competition benefits.
powerrrrrrrrrrrr
Club Legend
In response to the first part about clubs investing time into academies when they may not get first preference of a player, I think that if the player is good enough even if they don’t get the first preference they always have the option then to trade a pick to get ahead of opposing state based teams. So again with the JUH example, the dogs would be incentivised to continue to commit their resources to the player as they can still trade up to get the player.
It would be a bit of a give and take system. Some years clubs will invest in a player and miss out, but in other years they won’t have the same level of players in their academy but they may get access to players from other clubs academies.
If it was a process driven from HQ which requires certain commitments from all clubs, then I could see the system working quite smoothly without clubs getting frustrated for missing players in their academy when all clubs are then on an even field.
I agree though with the rest of what you have said, there is certainly some merit for a state based draft for some. The rulings around that and criteria would have to be quite strict I think to maintain the integrity of the draft.
Red Black and Blue
Brownlow Medallist
The academies should be there to balance out new teams that don’t have access to father sons and to grow the sport at grass roots level that’s it.
Retention is blown out of proportion as an issue. Retention doesn’t appear to be an issue when competent people are running the club. Do interstate clubs lose players more, maybe (certainly not more than Essendon), does it effect team success? Not on average. Far better ratio for interstate clubs making prelims than Victorians. Only GC haven’t for interstate clubs in the last 6 years. Carlton, Essendon, Melbourne, Saints for Vic teams over ten years.
That's simply not true. Smaller Melbourne clubs like North Melbourne have less advantage than teams like Sydney.
North have tried and failed to attract players like Daniher, Buddy and Tippett. They're also in constant competition with the bigger Victorian clubs. Sydney on the other hand have no problems attracting A-grade talent. Sydney also do not have any issues retaining players.
North are going down for a rebuild while Sydney have been gifted:
Isaac Heeney
Callum Mills
Nick Blakey
Braeden Campbell
All are top 3-5 in talent through the academy while also accessing players like McDonald and Stephens for finishing in the bottom 4. Literally at no expense of your own. Just need to ensure you have enough second and 3rd rounders to select a top 5 pick.
What should be 2 top 5 picks in the last 10 years becomes 6 top end talent over the last 6 years. Sydney literally played in the 2014 grand final having contended for years then get to select Isaac Heeney, a top 3 pick, without losing any player.
Speaking of Nick Blakey, he had the chance of joining North Melbourne or Brisbane under the F/S rule but elected to go to Sydney through their academy. What could be a North or Brisbane player is now a Sydney player thanks to the academy. Again, no issues attracting or retaining talent.
Let's not even get to the COLA BS that was giving you free hits to attract players like Buddy on salaries Victorian teams couldn't match.
Sydney are only riding the coat tails of Northern expansion clubs like Gold Coast and GWS who are actually struggling to retain talent for various reasons. Let's not pretend Sydney are in GWS and Gold Coast's position. Not even close.
It's one thing to have the advantage (which I don't really care too much about), but it's another thing to dismiss the undeniable advantage Sydney gains from it.
Enviable Tradition
Professional Procrastinator
What if we just said that first rounders could only be matched if you have a pick in the next 18 picks.
So if you have Ugle-Hagan coming through you need to keep your first rounder as part of the matching (or at least trade it for a late first rounder + extras).
If you have a Lachy Jones coming through you might need to keep your first and 2nd just to be sure (or trade out your first and upgrade your 2nd).
It isn't perfect but it makes the matching team pay a more reasonable price whilst still having a degree of flexibility.
So if you have Ugle-Hagan coming through you need to keep your first rounder as part of the matching (or at least trade it for a late first rounder + extras).
If you have a Lachy Jones coming through you might need to keep your first and 2nd just to be sure (or trade out your first and upgrade your 2nd).
It isn't perfect but it makes the matching team pay a more reasonable price whilst still having a degree of flexibility.
powerrrrrrrrrrrr
Club Legend
If that was the case then only Gcs and GWS should have academies and no other clubs.
The FS is another rule in itself which needs changing to have consistent and a uniform approach.
The fact the WA clubs eligibility is at 150 games; SA clubs at 200; others at 100; just makes a mockery of another system which breeds inequality across the league.
I would be more than happy to remove academies and instead set FS eligibility at 100 games across the country and only keep the GWS and GC academies for 15-20 years until they start being eligible for some FS picks.
You picked up of the greatest players of all time - at zero trade cost - due to being in a non-football state.
BloodySwan
Norm Smith Medallist
- Oct 2, 2016
- 5,332
- 9,477
- AFL Club
- Sydney
The AFL Draft: How Afraid Should Clubs Be Of The 'Go-Home' Factor?
Is the AFL’s infamous “go-home” factor as significant as so many fear? Today, we’ll take a look at the numbers and try to get to the bottom of that question.
www.statsinsider.com.au
25% of Victorians drafted interstate get traded home
The biggest talent pool in the AFL, a quarter of the players go home. This doesn't take into effect the players who just don't make it - minimum a quarter of the players drafted.
I don't think a 20% reduction in points is enough
Similar threads
