Make the draft an auction...

[Pessimistic]

Thought about this before.

Father son would be a 50 point discount of that player if picked up by the eligible club - rival clubs pay full whack.

Could also have a 'home state' pool whereby each club gets an extra 10 points per H&A game (220 total) to spend on a player from that state eg hawks get in 2009, 130 points discount to be spent on victorian players, 40 points discount to be spent on tasmanian players - would allow for example the west coast to get more WA players.

I suspect the result would be a contested auction or tender for the sought after players but would change into a draft later on. Perhaps after the competitive part is over the clubs revert to drafting in turn for a nominal minimum sum for those players.


I reckon it wouild work but the transition would be difficult with typical seaching for loopholes by clubs.

Would need to be thoroughly modelled in paralell to drafts to prove it.

I reclon points should be able to be carried over whcih woulf mean rewards for lower finish etc could be spent in stronger drafts. Might need them to expire after 3 rears because if clubs dot on a roll they could keep saving and saving points till they built up a dominant position spending power wise year after year


The father son is leaning this way, now they have a bidding process they are talking about lowering the games qualification for F/S again

 

[beatlesmith]

i think the only real disadvantage is that teams would do less delisting so they could spread more points to get less players of a higher quality in the draft. This could create a huge amount of kids who don't get drafted, but come back the year after as mature age recruits, and then the kids of that year are drafted less and it snowballs down the line.

 

[shintemaster]

i think the only real disadvantage is that teams would do less delisting so they could spread more points to get less players of a higher quality in the draft. This could create a huge amount of kids who don't get drafted, but come back the year after as mature age recruits, and then the kids of that year are drafted less and it snowballs down the line.

I see what you're saying however is it necessarily a bad thing if we don't have as many 18 yo's playing AFL level football? If there are minimum numbers of players that must be changed on a list things could still tick over nicely.

 

[RUNVS]

Im bumping this thread (again) as i love the idea.

Teams are awarded points based on where they finished.

eg
16th - 2000
15th - 1950
14th - 1900
13th - 1850
12th - 1800
11th - 1750
10th - 1700
9th - 1650
8th - 1600
7th - 1550
6th - 1500
5th - 1450
4th - 1400
3rd - 1350
2nd - 1300
1st - 1250

- Teams go into a sealed first priced auction to buy picks for the first 3 rounds in the draft.
- Draft order for 4th, 5th and 6th Rounds are decided by the old system.
- Teams can carry over draft points from one season to the next.
- When trading players teams trade points (eg instead of a very complicated trade between Carlton and West Coast for Chris Judd Carlton could have just payed West Coast 800 draft pick points).

Trading becomes a million times easier under this system and it also makes the draft far more interesting as well.

 

[btdg]

Interesting idea, and I thought about a similar thing myself a while back.

But its far too strategic.

Lets assume the draft order is fairly clear, or at least clear enough that for each pick, multiple teams consider that player the best option for them.

At pick 1, every team should really bid the maximum they can. Hawthorn will get more out of having pick 1, than getting, say, picks 16, 32 and 34. So they'll bid the maximum they can. So will second placed. Ultimately, the team with the most points (ie the team that finished 16th) will bid enough to beat 15th (ie 1960 points in the latest example). This will continue throughout the first round - 15th will get the second pick using most of their point, 14th will get the third pick, etc.

Where it gets interesting is with the team that wins the premiership (and in the latets example, has 1250 points to spend). They will bid for the 15th player selected, and ultimately lose out. But they will have their full points allocation left, whereas the rest of the league will have very small amounts. The 16th player picked might only cost 60 points, compared to 1000+ for the rest. That leaves the premiers with most of their allowance remaining, so they can outbid everyone for the 17th player too... and the 18th... and the 19th...

This is an extreme example, but the reasoning holds even if you relax the assumption that everyone has the same preferences. Players at the top will bid 'up' very quickly. That will leave the lower ranked teams drained for points, leaving the top teams in the league to clean up the mid-ranked draftees. Then the lower teams will come in and pick up the lower rounds.

Under the current system, it would be the equivalent of giving Melbourne (2008) picks 1, 40, 56, 72, and Hawthorn picks 16, 18, 20, 22. It seems to be the complete opposite of what you want (in that Melbourne really need lots of solid players to biuld a foundation, whereas a Hawthorn draftee has to be pretty damn good to even get a game)

 

[RUNVS]

Interesting idea, and I thought about a similar thing myself a while back.

But its far too strategic.

Lets assume the draft order is fairly clear, or at least clear enough that for each pick, multiple teams consider that player the best option for them.

At pick 1, every team should really bid the maximum they can. Hawthorn will get more out of having pick 1, than getting, say, picks 16, 32 and 34. So they'll bid the maximum they can. So will second placed. Ultimately, the team with the most points (ie the team that finished 16th) will bid enough to beat 15th (ie 1960 points in the latest example). This will continue throughout the first round - 15th will get the second pick using most of their point, 14th will get the third pick, etc.

Where it gets interesting is with the team that wins the premiership (and in the latets example, has 1250 points to spend). They will bid for the 15th player selected, and ultimately lose out. But they will have their full points allocation left, whereas the rest of the league will have very small amounts. The 16th player picked might only cost 60 points, compared to 1000+ for the rest. That leaves the premiers with most of their allowance remaining, so they can outbid everyone for the 17th player too... and the 18th... and the 19th...

This is an extreme example, but the reasoning holds even if you relax the assumption that everyone has the same preferences. Players at the top will bid 'up' very quickly. That will leave the lower ranked teams drained for points, leaving the top teams in the league to clean up the mid-ranked draftees. Then the lower teams will come in and pick up the lower rounds.

Under the current system, it would be the equivalent of giving Melbourne (2008) picks 1, 40, 56, 72, and Hawthorn picks 16, 18, 20, 22. It seems to be the complete opposite of what you want (in that Melbourne really need lots of solid players to biuld a foundation, whereas a Hawthorn draftee has to be pretty damn good to even get a game)

That is one of te reasons this idea i so great. Strategy would be extremely important.

Would teams be willing to risk all their points on 1 player?
Would teams be happy to wait a while and pick up some good cheap picks (like picks 15 to 25 which are still great picks but would be alot cheaper)?

Basically this idea puts more pressure on the recruiters to make good decisions. A good recruiter could make a killing in the draft picking up bargin after bargin but a bad recruiter could waste all their points on a complete dud of a player.

A sealed first priced auction would also prevent teams out bidding each other which means every team has to make each bid while not knowing what the other teams are bidding.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Couldn't imagine how badly Fremantle would screw up a system as strategic as this.

 

[db swannie]

I'm not sure if it's been said already, but IMO the bottom eight teams should go into a draw for the first eight places in the draft. Thus finishing from ninth to 16 will matter little in terms of the draft, as all teams in the bottom eight will have a chance at getting pick 1. Seems like one possible way to get rid of tanking??

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

(Reverse Ladder Order Bidding - 16th chooses player to be bid upon, all teams can bid, 16th has last bid. Then 15th chooses player.....etc

Really like this idea - combined with the OP, and this:

Uncontracted players leave the club through the same process - when they are bid upon, whatever points they go for are added to the club that they previously belonged to.

Trading places an artificial 'worth' on a player - this way automatically allocates their worth.

To avoid issues - I would allow clubs to select as many players as they want for free (0 points) - however obviously if someone else bids on that player, then they will need to raise their bid to get the player.

 

[lloydy_loinchop]

Couldn't imagine how badly Fremantle would screw up a system as strategic as this.

lol

I'm not sure if it's been said already, but IMO the bottom eight teams should go into a draw for the first eight places in the draft. Thus finishing from ninth to 16 will matter little in terms of the draft, as all teams in the bottom eight will have a chance at getting pick 1. Seems like one possible way to get rid of tanking??

great way to stop tanking but still keeping the draft.Something liek this could be used in the draft by creating a bigger gulf of auction points between finals and non finals teams, as suggested above. The auction system is better than the draft system still though because of its advantages in the pre season draft, and msot im-portantly, proper currency for trades.

 

[Consumed]

Making the draft an auction would be an excellent option.
Which means collingwood (who are the richest club would pick up most of the prize recruits) Essendon,west coast and freo will also pick up a few and the rest would miss out.
Yeah let's go for it.
Bye ,bye to the tankers.

LOL. Collingwood lost the profits for about 3 years of trading with their failed hotel enterprise.

LOL. You don't understand the thread.

 

[thesmallprint]

I still love this idea.

 

[MF]

I still love this idea.

Me too. It solves so many of the current problems with the draft/tanking/father son/trade week etc and doesn't really present any new problems.

 

[BEEG]

Watching the Indian auction for players made me think that this could work well for the AFL draft and also reduce tanking.

Why dont teams accrue auction points for drafting.

ie.. Premiers get 1000 points
Runners up get 1100 points
3rd gets 1200 points

etc.

16th spot gets 3000 points.

(They would have to do some thinking on the maths side to get this fair but that wouldnt be hard)

Then we have one draft at the start of the season and teams use their points to auction for players. Points could also accrue from year to year so teams could save some of their points for the following year if they dont want to use their points on "expensive" players.

There would be easy ways to tweak the system as well...

You could also award 500 points for teams that do not win 5 games or more.
Father and son selections could mean that the club has a 500 point start on getting that player but he would still be up for auction but other teams would have to pay through the nose.
Salary cap penalties could mean loss of auction points.
Teams could also trade players for auction points rather than players if they dont want players. ie. WC could have traded Judd this past year for 2000 auction points to use when they wanted to use them. Rather than hoping Carlton had players or picks they wanted.

This would make great viewing and teams would get very interested on how they went in the auction and how many points they still have in the bank for next year. etc.

Brilliant idea would be awesome to watch

 

[Bonz]

This idea.... Is the best idea I have ever read on bigfooty...

It would be really interesting to see what the swans would do Lots of decent picks (picks in the 15-30 range) or would we go for a top 3 pick.

It would be great to watch...and it would really suck if you wasted your currency on a player such as Tambling...(Not taking a shot at him as i think he has allot of potential just using him as an example)

 

[lloydy_loinchop]

Me too. It solves so many of the current problems with the draft/tanking/father son/trade week etc and doesn't really present any new problems.

i think that there is only 1 problem, and this problem i think is fixed more effective with the current draft. That is that the bottom teams are given a leg up. Currently i nthe draft, the worst team gets the best pick. With the auction system, it won't necessarily be so.

e.g. last season Melbourne wanted Jack Watts, but realistically needed many more draftees because of the high turnover of players due to delistings and retirements.

Western Bulldogs need a tall forward. Western Bulldogs, seeing that they really need a tall forward but not much else, can use most of their auction points to get Watts. Melbourne needed to save some of their auction points for later on, so WB win the aution. Therefore Melbourne miss out on getting the best player.

Can anyone suggest a solution to this problem? There will probably be one, it's just not apparent to me right now.

 

[year of the cat]

It has already been mentioned but under this system Geelong or Hawthorn who have fairly complete lists already could have loaded up on just the one player (i.e. Jack Watts) who was the marquee player of the draft. Even if they eventually do not obtain that player it means that the lowly teams ability to draft more talent is very much diminished.

You would have to have a huge differential between the 1st placed and 16th placed teams in order to avoid this happening.

Whilst the idea would be good for tv I don't really think it improves the equalisation program that the AFL now has in place.

 

[Bloody Hell]

point 1 can be fixed by putting a cap on the amount of players that can be bought in certain point areas.

Exactly, this would protect clubs from themselves.

Strong clubs could top up with cheaper players and stockpile their auction points for when they will really need them.

This wouldn't be an issue.

Teams would still get the numbers they need - one year the No. 1 pick might go for 2500. Just means Pick 60 would go for 5.

The following year pick No. 1 might go for 1200. Pick 60 would go for 25.

Same number of players - same number of "points" - just distributed differently.

 

[Bosk]

I would like to see a system in place where all teams who finish outside the eight receive the same number of points, and all teams who make the finals receive half that number of points.

I don't agree with the current system. It punishes the team who wins the grand final and rewards the team who finishes last - this is nonsensical.

The AFL needs to move away from their previous history of giving special assistance to certain clubs. All clubs need to be treated equally for the competition to be more than the mickey mouse game the AFL has tried to turn it into.

Reward teams who don't make the finals with extra points, but that's it. No advantages or disadvantages based on ladder position. And no priority picks, cash loans or financial assistance to any club.
The AFL must be seen as impartial for the competition to be taken seriously.

 

[Pessimistic]

Bigfooty draft enhusiasts need to model this and present a blueprint.

Note that the father son system has an element of auction to it

 

[swiftdog]

Can anyone suggest a solution to this problem? There will probably be one, it's just not apparent to me right now.

RUNVS suggested a great solution which is similair to what I was thinking. Just use this system for the first 3 rounds of the draft (as in, all teams must make at least 3 picks using their points), after all teams decide that they've done using their picks then continue the draft as nomal. Key terms here areat least.

It would be bad strategy by WB to want to spend about 1000 points on Watts. From there they have 200 points to spend on 2 players. I'm guessing that players worth 100 points are going to be not the greatest prospects (maybe round 3?), from here a club like Melbourne can simply re-screw over the likes of WB by using their left over points by spending 110 points on these players, keeping in mind that when round 4 starts they'll have the first pick anyway. So they might effectifvely get picks 3, 20, 30, 41, 43, 47 etc(just an example), where WB might get 1, 65, 73. It's rare for a team to have only 1 hole to fill.

Hope that makes sense, probably doesn't.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I love this idea. It's absolutely brilliant, providing that agreement can be reached on all the obvious ins and outs such as the bidding system, points allocated, trade week, father-sons etc.

 

[RUNVS]

I love this idea. It's absolutely brilliant, providing that agreement can be reached on all the obvious ins and outs such as the bidding system, points allocated, trade week, father-sons etc.

The actual bidding would be exciting in itself.

Just a reminder

Sealed first-price auction
A sealed first-price auction is a form of auction where bidders submit one bid in a concealed fashion. The submitted bids are then compared and the person with the highest bid wins the award, and pays the amount of his bid to the seller. This differs from a standard English auction in that bids are not open or called; bidders must submit valuations based upon supposed market value and their own willingness to pay — as opposed to engaging in competition through relative prices with other bidders. Other forms of auction include the second price auction, where the highest bidder wins but pays only the second-highest bid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealed_first-price_auction

----------------------------------------------------

Just imagine a week or two before the draft all 16 teams get together. Each team gets a computer and when they call pick 1 every team makes a bid on their computer and after 30 seconds the winning bid comes up on a big screen.

The extra strategy involved with this draft idea would be great to see.

As i also said this system would be great for trade week as well as teamc could trade points for players. It would be far easier to come up with a fair deal for all parties under a points system.

 

[screech]

The bidding could take place via the following.

16th place team starts the bidding on a player then the 15th placed side, 14th...etc

When there are no more teams wanting to bid, the remaining players are then select as they are now starting with the 16th placed side, then 15th..etc, there's no auction or points required. It's fair to assume that the top 40-50 players would have been sold at auction by this time.

Eg. Carlton are the first bidder and offer say 250 points for Kruezer, Richmond get the next bid and offer 300 points etc etc...aqll teams get a chance to bid then then it's back to Carlton who have to beat Geelong's offer which is now at say 1200 points.
Once this auction is finalised Richmond start the bidding on the next player of their choice.

This would work nicely if the club bidding first nominates the player being bidded upon, the starting club could then rotate through (15th next, then 14th etc) - the nominating team has the final bid on the player (ie they get 2 bids, initial and final, everone else gets 1 bid per player) this would speed up the process and ensure that clubs are making serious bids.
Each team gets a turn at having the final bid - teams exit the process once they have a full list or pass on a nomination.

 

[screech]

It has already been mentioned but under this system Geelong or Hawthorn who have fairly complete lists already could have loaded up on just the one player (i.e. Jack Watts) who was the marquee player of the draft. Even if they eventually do not obtain that player it means that the lowly teams ability to draft more talent is very much diminished.

You would have to have a huge differential between the 1st placed and 16th placed teams in order to avoid this happening.

Whilst the idea would be good for tv I don't really think it improves the equalisation program that the AFL now has in place.

Yes, but for how long can this last, sooner or later a larger group will need replacing and it will even out. If a club can go on indefinitely just picking 3 players each year then that is amazing list management and probably does deserve to be rewarded with success.