Make the draft an auction...

[Happy_Neale]

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??

Sounds similar to the NBA 'lottery' system - essentially it is a draw between the teams to determine the first pick(s). Have always thought this would be the best method. The team finishing last still has the best chance of getting the number one pick however it is not as high an incentive to finish low as it is now, with the first draft pick not being a sure thing. This would encourage teams to finish as high as they possibly can, and still have the chance to secure a number one draft pick (hate to imagine Geelong getting lucky in the lottery and getting a number one draft pick though).

This would discourage tanking, though it can probably never be effectively stopped

 

[db swannie]

Sounds similar to the NBA 'lottery' system - essentially it is a draw between the teams to determine the first pick(s). Have always thought this would be the best method. The team finishing last still has the best chance of getting the number one pick however it is not as high an incentive to finish low as it is now, with the first draft pick not being a sure thing. This would encourage teams to finish as high as they possibly can, and still have the chance to secure a number one draft pick (hate to imagine Geelong getting lucky in the lottery and getting a number one draft pick though).

This would discourage tanking, though it can probably never be effectively stopped

But if you only allow the number one pick to be drawn between the bottom eight teams, then Geelong, Hawks and the other 6 in the finals wouldn't get a chance at number 1.

So bottom 8 teams get 1 pick from a hat containing picks 1-8, then top 8 get the usual order as before.

This raises one concern: would you rather finish eighth and (probably?) go out in week 1 of the finals, or go into a draw for pick 1 in the draft?? I know what most supporters would rather (well, me anyway), and that is to play in a final!

 

[Happy_Neale]

But if you only allow the number one pick to be drawn between the bottom eight teams, then Geelong, Hawks and the other 6 in the finals wouldn't get a chance at number 1.

So bottom 8 teams get 1 pick from a hat containing picks 1-8, then top 8 get the usual order as before.

This raises one concern: would you rather finish eighth and (probably?) go out in week 1 of the finals, or go into a draw for pick 1 in the draft?? I know what most supporters would rather (well, me anyway), and that is to play in a final!

Not 100% sure of the system but I think with the NBA system all teams are in the lottery, but the top team has a relatively small chance of winning this lottery as compared to the bottom team. The odds would need to be worked out to permit the lowest team to have the greatest chance of winning, but not a gauranteed chance of winning, meaning it would not be the best possible option to finish on the bottom, if pride has anything to do with it

 

[woe31]

Not 100% sure of the system but I think with the NBA system all teams are in the lottery, but the top team has a relatively small chance of winning this lottery as compared to the bottom team. The odds would need to be worked out to permit the lowest team to have the greatest chance of winning, but not a gauranteed chance of winning, meaning it would not be the best possible option to finish on the bottom, if pride has anything to do with it

The NBA lottery only includes the 14 teams that do not make playoffs and only the first three picks are selected like this. The remaining picks go in order of overall records.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Not 100% sure of the system but I think with the NBA system all teams are in the lottery, but the top team has a relatively small chance of winning this lottery as compared to the bottom team. The odds would need to be worked out to permit the lowest team to have the greatest chance of winning, but not a gauranteed chance of winning, meaning it would not be the best possible option to finish on the bottom, if pride has anything to do with it

Not even close to how the NBA lottery works mate.

Only the 14 teams who don't qualify for the playoffs go in the NBA lottery and only the first 3 picks are up for grabs in the lottery.

 

[Bonz]

Is there a way we could propose this idea to the AFL?

I mean it would be awesome to actually see it implemented

 

[davis_756]

When I read the title I thought you were suggesting teams bid on players and the one with the highest bid wins like IPL not some rubbish points system.

It would work if all teams were bidding how much they would pay each player the following year, teams with more room in the salary cap would have more power to buy better players.

It would reward teams for having good business management skills and a team lacking stars and it would put a greater emphasis on recognizing talent other sides haven't seen and best of all stop tanking talk because finishing 16th wouldn't help anyone.

 

[fairdinkum]

This is an incredibly good idea. Props to the OP. Did you steal this idea from another sport or is this original? Good form either way!

Big issue would be whether it is a blind auction or a general one. If you make it general, it might become too tactical, with clubs intentionally bumping up prices of players they have no interest in, just to shaft other clubs. For instance, Hawthorn hears that Brissy really want Player X (The best ruckman in the draft and also from Brisbane) so when Brissy gets what seems like the final bid in, Hawthorn bid an extra 100 and force Brisbane to part way with 200 more than a regular 'market value' suggests is fair.

I'd go with a blindish auction whereby they go through each player who is in the auction*, one by one, and each club puts in a bid (through a computer, perhaps?) which the others can't see, until all bids are in. Highest bid wins. So it is 'Player #84, Player X, enter your bids'. Carlton think he is worth 500 points, but don't really need another ruckman, so put in for 300 to steal him if other clubs aren't interested. Melbourne reckon he is worth 400 and bid 400, Brisbane reckon he is worth 500 and desperately want him so bid the full 500, etc. Turns out Bris and Sydney both put in 500, so the announcement goes 'Multiple clubs bid 500. Those clubs must rebid now'. Sydney don't believe he is worth more than the 500 so they sit, Bris put in the extra 50, announcement is made 'Auction won by Bris with bid of 550'.

Now that Sydney know the ruckman they wanted is taken, they put their efforts into securing the next best ruckman who is up for auction a few players later.

*Clubs would be asked to nominate all players they have interest in, and only those players go through the auction.

Not without its flaws, but I really think this is a fantastic concept.

 

[WesternFront]

Cracking idea, wont add much more as people have pointed out its greats points and shortcomings.

Surely there is enough for the AFL to work to come up with a system.

Well done a great idea.

PS. To the clown from Collingwood who didnt read the post before commenting and for assuming they are the richest. Nice Stuff.

 

[lazy]

This is an incredibly good idea. Props to the OP. Did you steal this idea from another sport or is this original? Good form either way!
Big issue would be whether it is a blind auction or a general one. If you make it general, it might become too tactical, with clubs intentionally bumping up prices of players they have no interest in, just to shaft other clubs. For instance, Hawthorn hears that Brissy really want Player X (The best ruckman in the draft and also from Brisbane) so when Brissy gets what seems like the final bid in, Hawthorn bid an extra 100 and force Brisbane to part way with 200 more than a regular 'market value' suggests is fair.

I'd go with a blindish auction whereby they go through each player who is in the auction*, one by one, and each club puts in a bid (through a computer, perhaps?) which the others can't see, until all bids are in. Highest bid wins. So it is 'Player #84, Player X, enter your bids'. Carlton think he is worth 500 points, but don't really need another ruckman, so put in for 300 to steal him if other clubs aren't interested. Melbourne reckon he is worth 400 and bid 400, Brisbane reckon he is worth 500 and desperately want him so bid the full 500, etc. Turns out Bris and Sydney both put in 500, so the announcement goes 'Multiple clubs bid 500. Those clubs must rebid now'. Sydney don't believe he is worth more than the 500 so they sit, Bris put in the extra 50, announcement is made 'Auction won by Bris with bid of 550'.

Now that Sydney know the ruckman they wanted is taken, they put their efforts into securing the next best ruckman who is up for auction a few players later.

*Clubs would be asked to nominate all players they have interest in, and only those players go through the auction.

Not without its flaws, but I really think this is a fantastic concept.

Really could solve the whole free agency problem as players will be able to move freely around with clubs getting paid points.

Ryan Okeefe could have gone to melbourne club who could have paid Swans 400 points. Swans then use those points to secure another player/players.

 

[Wildmanwok]

I like the idea, and make it blind whereby you must put in all your bids for all the players you want in rounds..

Round 1 put your bids in using as many points as you want for all the players you want..

The AFL the works out the winners of certain players and how many points each club has left for round 2 of the simultaneous blind auction.

And so on until all your points are used up.

 

[stefoid]

It would have a lot of unforseen complications, but it would be good for a team who really need to address deficiencies.

 

[lazy]

Its the right time of year to bump this thread with draft coming up and I just really want to see this implemented

 

[Pessimistic]

The bid system for f/s and the compensation picks for defectors to GC/WS which are "wildcard' to a certain extent shows they are happy with some of the concepts.

Would have been good to see something like this (with GC and WS given bucketloads of points to start up in action.


Any Ideas on how to phase this in ?

One thought I das was to do it in paralell. Keep the current system but allocate points to teams and deduct them as they draft players (or even trade them) They would be arbitary values but would establish the points in direct relation to current dealings

eg Hawks traded kennedy and McGlynn to Sydney in return for picks x x and x which are worth yy points. North traded gibson to hawthorn for pic x and x which is equivalent to yy points

 

[Redeye Rambler]

Great idea for a game (eg supercoach ) but its too complicated and potential for disappointment too high for real life. (would be good to watch though)

Stick with the draft with selections in reverse finishing order like we do now.

The priority pick can still serve a purpose, but all priority picks should be mature aged players or delisted players. This will provide bottom teams a chance to pick up a player or 2 that will boost their performance in the short term, without providing too much incentive to tank.

I'm sure that there is a couple of players that Melbourne would find useful that were delisted this year.

 

[snrub]

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.

How very embarrassing for you.

 

[snrub]

Remove the PRIORITY PICK. Problems solved.

That doesn't go far enough IMO. All clubs who previously received priority picks should have to place those players in the next PSD. Problem solved.

 

[SinCitySainter]

I think this would make the strong clubs with good depth stronger and the weak clubs with little depth weaker.

If Geelong need to draft just the two players because of a Rookie promotion what is to stop them putting all their points on one top player which improves their list and then going for a real smokie as the other who would cost them nothing. Melbourne can't afford to really splurge on the top talent because they need to draft a significant number of players all of which must improve their list. So Geelong pay 1000 points on a single top 3 player where as Melbourne draft 4 500 point mid-second rounders. Melbourne have used twice the number of points but have far greater requirements.

The only way this could work is if the points allocation is based around the number of players you need to draft with the amount you receive per player increasing the lower down the ladder you finished. Say Melbourne get 1000 points for each player its needs compared to Geelong who get say 500 per player to be drafted.
This solution however would not get away from the tanking as a choice arguement.

 

[swiftdog]

I think this would make the strong clubs with good depth stronger and the weak clubs with little depth weaker.

If Geelong need to draft just the two players because of a Rookie promotion what is to stop them putting all their points on one top player which improves their list and then going for a real smokie as the other who would cost them nothing. Melbourne can't afford to really splurge on the top talent because they need to draft a significant number of players all of which must improve their list. So Geelong pay 1000 points on a single top 3 player where as Melbourne draft 4 500 point mid-second rounders. Melbourne have used twice the number of points but have far greater requirements.

The only way this could work is if the points allocation is based around the number of players you need to draft with the amount you receive per player increasing the lower down the ladder you finished. Say Melbourne get 1000 points for each player its needs compared to Geelong who get say 500 per player to be drafted.
This solution however would not get away from the tanking as a choice arguement.

Melbourne would still have 3x the amount of points that Geelong has, and that's before trade week. No doubt the McLean trade would have got them some decent points as well under this system. Melbourne would be looking to acquire points during trade week whereas some top-end teams like Geelong and Collingwood probably wouldn't mind spending a few points during trade week if it means stocking up there list for the next year. E.g. for Collingwood: spending points to get Jolly and Ball. You'd assume that at the end of trade week Melbourne, Freo etc (assuming there smart) would still have at least 3x and maybe even 4x the amount of points for the draft that the top teams have.

On the Ball matter is there technically a difference between a player not accepting a contract (i.e. Ball) and a player being delisted? Most would expect that St.Kilda should get some sort of compensation for losing Ball. How about Richmond and Rodan? Rodan was delisted IIRC and then was picked up by Port, should Richmond get some sort of compensation? I'd say yes assuming that the answer to my original question was no (no difference between delisting and not accepting a contract). As there would be no PSD and Ball would be auctioned off maybe the amount that he is purchased for (i.e. 600 points) goes to St.Kilda for next year, or maybe half the amount that he's purchased for.

But bringing in free agency opens a new can of worms...

 

[SinCitySainter]

Melbourne would still have 3x the amount of points that Geelong has, and that's before trade week. No doubt the McLean trade would have got them some decent points as well under this system. Melbourne would be looking to acquire points during trade week whereas some top-end teams like Geelong and Collingwood probably wouldn't mind spending a few points during trade week if it means stocking up there list for the next year. E.g. for Collingwood: spending points to get Jolly and Ball. You'd assume that at the end of trade week Melbourne, Freo etc (assuming there smart) would still have at least 3x and maybe even 4x the amount of points for the draft that the top teams have.

On the Ball matter is there technically a difference between a player not accepting a contract (i.e. Ball) and a player being delisted? Most would expect that St.Kilda should get some sort of compensation for losing Ball. How about Richmond and Rodan? Rodan was delisted IIRC and then was picked up by Port, should Richmond get some sort of compensation? I'd say yes assuming that the answer to my original question was no (no difference between delisting and not accepting a contract). As there would be no PSD and Ball would be auctioned off maybe the amount that he is purchased for (i.e. 600 points) goes to St.Kilda for next year, or maybe half the amount that he's purchased for.

But bringing in free agency opens a new can of worms...

I agree Melbourne would still have the 3x the amount of points that Geelong has. Melbourne however need to draft significantly more and better players than Geelong and cannot really afford to pull a smokie as they need all their drafted players to play a role in the next few years. Geelong are in a much better position to speculate on picks as if they miss completely it doesn't really hurt them.

Only the top sides would be able to throw all their eggs in the one basket with the hope of gaining 1 great pick up which would improve their side.
Most clubs and particularly those at the bottom of the ladder need a number of players to improve their lists enough to compete. The current system gives them that by every single one of their picks being earlier than higher placed sides equivilent selections. It is fair but unfortunately open to manipulation.

 

[SinCitySainter]

One more consideration in this proposal is with trading. If you could trade these auction points it creates a situation again where the stronger clubs strengthen their lists at the weaker clubs expense.
Lets look at Geelong. It was widely reported that they would need to off load some players this year for salary cap reasons. Under the current system they would have got maybe 2nd rounders each for Varcoe and Byrne. The second rounders would not really have helped Geelong greatly and in fact just weakened the side. However if they had said to Melbourne we will give you our first rounder, Varcoe and Byrne for pick one Melbourne would have said no chance. The ability to pick up a potential star in Trengove far out weighing the the value of two good work horses and a good to average kid. However under the Auction system I could see Melborune offering the equiviliant points for Varcoe and maybe Freemantle the same for Byrne. Then Geelong end up with enough points to make almost impossible for Melbourne to compete for that number one ranked player. In this situation the sum of the parts is worth so much more than the whole and only the strong clubs could afford to look at it this way.

 

[Monkey King]

The system as it is encorages clubs (e g Carlton) to not try for a few years

This is such a tired re-write of history. If you honestly believe Carlton didn't try for a few years you truly don't know anything about footy.

 

[Aeolus]

Perhaps instead of bidding for a particular player, clubs bid for a particular pick. This means a player order for bidding doesnt need to be made. EG first everyone bids for pick 1. club A wins it and pick John Smith. Then bid for pick two. This continues until everyone runs out of points, then draft any remaining players needed as per reverse ladder order.

 

[Bollox]

Dont need to change much from how it is right now. Just dump the priority pick and give it 2 yrs to check the results after the GC17 and WS draft periods.
No need to complicate or change anything drastically simply because others do things differently.

Same with free agency..simply not necessary.

If it aint badly broken dont replace it...adjust, maintain and polish it is plenty.