Analysis Improving the bidding system

Remove this Banner Ad

Laphroaig

I Hate You
Jul 22, 2013
16,286
23,775
AFL Club
Carlton
The aim isn’t perfection, its improvement and basing it off evidence.

That could be easily done. At the moment there is systematic over-valuing of lower picks. A tweak would improve things significantly.
Ditching the whole ugly mess would improve things more.
 

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 22, 2009
23,304
25,387
AFL Club
West Coast
Ditching the whole ugly mess would improve things more.
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
That’s a separate consideration and conversation.

I was just pointing out that if we are keeping the points system, then adjusting it slightly will improve the system significantly. No more trades where clubs can improve points by 20-50% instantly. No more desire by academy clubs to stockpile late picks.
I'm not feeling it.

Doesn't matter how it gets tweaked, Clubs will just find a different way to game it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Suma Magic

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 22, 2009
23,304
25,387
AFL Club
West Coast
I'm not feeling it.

Doesn't matter how it gets tweaked, Clubs will just find a different way to game it.
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
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.
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
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.
“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
Two of those we paid the equivalent of a top 5 pick.
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
Sep 23, 2005
125,799
49,710
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Sydney Swans
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.
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
Stuff all? Apart from Heeney (and it's better than Hawkins going for a 3rd rounder) what other one didn't we pay fair price? Two of those we paid the equivalent of a top 5 pick. Blakey wasn't bid till 10 so blame the clubs there and we paid the price.

If you want to iron out that advantages, that's fine, how about ironing some that Victorian clubs get too. Should work both ways.
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.
 

Nutjob

Club Legend
Oct 23, 2014
1,364
2,574
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Don’t disagree that Sydney benefit from the academy, but let’s not entirely fool ourselves that there’s not a huge structural disadvantage. One example, we lost the best F/S we’ve ever had, who ended up at your club, due to being in a non-football state.
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
 

The Inbetweener

Premiership Player
Nov 25, 2011
4,144
4,673
Footscray
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Victorian clubs have way more an advantage. It’s not even close there.
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?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Simon_Nesbit

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 26, 2001
11,022
6,395
Tasmania
AFL Club
Hawthorn
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.
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
Feb 17, 2010
1,908
3,269
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
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.
 

anotherletdown

Club Legend
Oct 14, 2016
1,022
999
AFL Club
Sydney
Let's not pretend Sydney are even remotely close to GWS and Gold Coast's situation. Let's take GWS as an example.

GWS struggle to retain or attract talent because:
- They are a new franchise with no history
- GWS are stacked full of first round talent to the point where first rounders are playing in the twos/playing out of position
- They are the smaller club in a two club city representing a specific NRL dominated area of Sydney (as opposed to Sydney representing the whole city).
- They are not from a traditional football state

Sydney also don't struggle to retain or attract talent because of their history. They are literally a Victorian club that moved interstate.
They had Tippett and Buddy come, two of the most high-profile recruits in recent history.
For Sydney to be treated the same as GWS from an academy perspective is downright ludicrous. Why do they deserve to receive more talent than North and Adelaide? They get to select McDonald in addition to Campbell just because?

If you compare North Melbourne and Sydney, I'd say Sydney is easily better placed to attract and retain talent. North as a small Melbourne club has to compete with 10 other clubs for Victorian talent, including the big clubs with better facilities and more success.

If North can be treated like every other Vic club, then so can Sydney. The Northern academy needs to be changed.
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
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.
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
Feb 17, 2010
1,908
3,269
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
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.
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
Oct 1, 2006
21,478
12,926
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Everton, Storm, Victory
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.
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.
 

JayJ20

Brownlow Medallist
Aug 28, 2016
13,861
19,405
AFL Club
Essendon
Victorian clubs have way more an advantage. It’s not even close there.
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
Oct 12, 2007
20,524
26,470
The Hills
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
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.
 

powerrrrrrrrrrrr

Club Legend
Feb 17, 2010
1,908
3,269
adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
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.
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.
 

The 747

Brownlow Medallist
Jan 19, 2008
17,265
20,404
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Don’t disagree that Sydney benefit from the academy, but let’s not entirely fool ourselves that there’s not a huge structural disadvantage. One example, we lost the best F/S we’ve ever had, who ended up at your club, due to being in a non-football state.
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

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
 

Remove this Banner Ad