My Draft Proposal

[DaSawx]

Isn't winning itself the incentive? Unless there is a definite incentive to lose, like now finishing 15th is better than finishing 12th. Surely if there is no "reason to lose" teams will try harder to win for the fans. Some clubs may still rest players but it won't be as prevalent as it is now.

How is it prevalent now? Bombers and Carlton are doing what they can to avoid the spoon, apart from the Kangaroos resting a couple of players all teams are trying to win.

 

[Books]

A team in 8th is hardly a competitor for the flag just as lower teams aren't going to be able to get 9th spot they simply aren't good enough.
Any proposal other then the removal of priority picks I feel is an overeaction to media hype.

Priority picks certainly are a problem. But even without them, don't you think a club in the current system would rather finish 14th than 10th because of the benefits in the draft? Picks 3,19,35 (for 14th) is a lot better than 7,23,39 (for being 10th).

 

[Hadders]

Isn't winning itself the incentive? Unless there is a definite incentive to lose, like now finishing 15th is better than finishing 12th. Surely if there is no "reason to lose" teams will try harder to win for the fans. Some clubs may still rest players but it won't be as prevalent as it is now.

Honestly I don't see how it'd be any different. These days with the financial incentives that come with making the finals, that is the only goal that clubs have. If they know that they can't make it in one year they're going to do everything they can to make sure they do the next. So the resting of players/playing of youngsters won't change. Clubs will be prepared to drop a few positions if they think that it gives them a better chance of making the finals the next year.

 

[jules101]

I think that it should stay the way it is but if you finish last you get the 1st draft pick and on grand final day you have to stand out on the middle of the G and have footys kicked at you for being so s#%t! That would stop tanking

 

[fusion]

OK thanks for the feedback. Is "speeding up the equalisation" a problem? That was not really my intention, my main aim was to eliminate tanking. But the primary reason that the draft exists is to even-up the competition, so I don't see why doing that is such a problem.

The system is designed to even up the competition, which is good in principal. Teams can "tank" by not selecting Matthew Lloyd when he could potentially play, or resting Grant/Simpson with 3 weeks to go.

But once they hit the field they do try to win. Essendon showed that against Collingwood, and North gave everything in the match against West Coast.

If resting players is as bad as the tanking gets, then I'm not sure that the draft needs a radical overhaul as you've suggested.

The only thing I would change, would to eliminate the certainty that the bottom team gets the 1st pick. Perhaps the bottom 4 clubs could go in to a lottery. The number of tickets in the lottery depends on number of wins. So if a club finished last with zero wins, they'd have a greater chance of getting pick #1 than a team finishing 15th with two wins.

They are advantaged, but it takes away the absolute guarantee of getting pick #1. Imagine if 15th v 16th was Round 22, and they had the same number of wins, and the #1 pick was the next Gary Ablett. By still having a random element you could tank and still not get #1 pick - less of an incentive to tank.

The other thing that should change is the guaranteed #1 pick in the PSD. Having first pick in both the national and PS drafts is a big advantage. (e.g. say Chris Judd wanted to return to Victoria and play for Carlton, and was out of contract. He could leave WCE, and they get nothing. If the #1 PSD pick was also a lottery, he could end up with Essendon or perhaps even an interstate team... it would encourage him to help his team out with a trade).

 

[Kickin_Goals]

Didn't you see above? Blues in 1999 made the GF from 8th! Plus the membership and sponsorship bonuses that come from making the finals are too great for a side to purposely drop out.

And what are you talking about the priority picks? They have been all but removed. Not many teams are going to try and lose games for an extra 2nd round pick or purposely underperform for 2 seasons to get a priority 1st round pick.

Any action is pretty much an over reaction and it's just tripe brought up by the media anyway.

 

[DaSawx]

Priority picks certainly are a problem. But even without them, don't you think a club in the current system would rather finish 14th than 10th because of the benefits in the draft? Picks 3,19,35 (for 14th) is a lot better than 7,23,39 (for being 10th).

Not if coaches are in trouble, not if attendances drop, most clubs wouldn't.
Tell me, which teams this year aren't trying to win games on purpose to stay as low as they can?

 

[jules101]

The system is designed to even up the competition, which is good in principal. Teams can "tank" by not selecting Matthew Lloyd when he could potentially play, or resting Grant/Simpson with 3 weeks to go.

Not playing Lloyd is not tanking. Essendon are not playing Lloyd so that he doesn't re injure his hamstring and miss the preaseason.

 

[Books]

I think that it should stay the way it is but if you finish last you get the 1st draft pick and on grand final day you have to stand out on the middle of the G and have footys kicked at you for being so s#%t! That would stop tanking

Lol. They could even sell tickets to the public for a chance to aim a kick at Sheedy / Pagan / whoever's head. What a great idea. I'd certainly put in a bid.

 

[fusion]

Not playing Lloyd is not tanking. Essendon are not playing Lloyd so that he doesn't re injure his hamstring and miss the preaseason.

That's why i put it in inverted commas. Some people may interpret that as "tanking" as Essendon is not playing their best 22, and they have stated he could play if the team was in finals contention.

I 100% agree that not playing Lloyd is the correct thing to do, and if you read my post, I said that Essendon did not show any signs of lying down against Collingwood.

This whole tanking issue is about perception. In reality it isn't as bad as we think - certainly not bad enough to radically change the draft as suggested by the original poster.

 

[Books]

The system is designed to even up the competition, which is good in principal. Teams can "tank" by not selecting Matthew Lloyd when he could potentially play, or resting Grant/Simpson with 3 weeks to go.

But once they hit the field they do try to win. Essendon showed that against Collingwood, and North gave everything in the match against West Coast.

If resting players is as bad as the tanking gets, then I'm not sure that the draft needs a radical overhaul as you've suggested.

The only thing I would change, would to eliminate the certainty that the bottom team gets the 1st pick. Perhaps the bottom 4 clubs could go in to a lottery. The number of tickets in the lottery depends on number of wins. So if a club finished last with zero wins, they'd have a greater chance of getting pick #1 than a team finishing 15th with two wins.

They are advantaged, but it takes away the absolute guarantee of getting pick #1. Imagine if 15th v 16th was Round 22, and they had the same number of wins, and the #1 pick was the next Gary Ablett. By still having a random element you could tank and still not get #1 pick - less of an incentive to tank.

The other thing that should change is the guaranteed #1 pick in the PSD. Having first pick in both the national and PS drafts is a big advantage. (e.g. say Chris Judd wanted to return to Victoria and play for Carlton, and was out of contract. He could leave WCE, and they get nothing. If the #1 PSD pick was also a lottery, he could end up with Essendon or perhaps even an interstate team... it would encourage him to help his team out with a trade).

Good points, all of them. There would be a big difference between 12th (pick 5) and 13th (chance for pick 1) but that is not the end of the world. I would settle for your changes, they are better than the current system IMO.

 

[jules101]

That's why i put it in inverted commas. Some people may interpret that as "tanking" as Essendon is not playing their best 22, and they have stated he could play if the team was in finals contention.

I 100% agree that not playing Lloyd is the correct thing to do, and if you read my post, I said that Essendon did not show any signs of lying down against Collingwood.

This whole tanking issue is about perception. In reality it isn't as bad as we think - certainly not bad enough to radically change the draft as suggested by the original poster.

I read it. I thought u meant that the club was tryint to tank but players wont...

 

[fusion]

Good points, all of them. There would be a big difference between 12th (pick 5) and 13th (chance for pick 1) but that is not the end of the world. I would settle for your changes, they are better than the current system IMO.

There will never be a perfect system, and the current system is probably not going to change. It's better than the system where one bad year could land a club a priority pick prior to round 1.

The flaw in my system is the cut off between team 12 and 13 could see tanking between those teams if they faced off in Round 22. Another modification would be to see all teams 9-16 all go in to the lottery, but have it heavily stacked against team 9. The problem is that giving the 9th team the #1 pick is ridiculous.

Ultimately, apart from seeing teams rest players, I can't recall seeing a team go out to deliberately lose a game. If we can accept that Collingwood rests Buckley during the season, then why can't we be happy that North rests Simpson or Grant? If that is as bad as so called "tanking" gets then the system probably doesn't need a major overhaul.

The AFL is 100% committed to making the competition more even by using the draft and salary caps. Yet they will allow Melbourne to give up a homeground advantage to Brisbane, and the Bulldogs a game to Sydney. I think there are more problems in fixturing than the draft... but that's for another thread.

 

[fusion]

I read it. I thought u meant that the club was tryint to tank but players wont...

Nah, I don't think Essendon would tank... Too proud a club. But I have heard people query why Lloyd isn't playing, or why the Essendon v Carlton game ended as a draw. My club has also been questioned for putting Grant in to surgery early, and resting Simpson. And if Archer is going to play on in 2007 why the hell would they risk bringing him back this year, as he could pop the shoulder and need a reconstruction.

 

[DaSawx]

or why the Essendon v Carlton game ended as a draw.

God there is a lot of stupid people in this country. I'm not saying you are but anyone who thnks that draw was orchestrated or anything are either taking the pi$$ or really, really, really, really stupid.

 

[doppleganger]

The priority picks coming before the first round was too big an advantage for struggling clubs, ie st.kilda lucking out and grabbing both kosi & riewoldt in the same year is too big an advantage, hence this has been addressed.

Now with the need to be rubbish for a couple of years in a row, ie win 4 games or less two years in a row, if a team actually does this then they need the help of the priority pick

The system proposed in the first post doesn't actually differentiate the massive class gap between the bottom 8, ie geelong this year were premiership favourites but have had a bad year and look likely to miss the finals, but under ur system they are rated at the same level as essendon a team that lost 14 games in a row!!

The best system is a lottery system, which is conducted for each round of the draft based on positions on the ladder & number of wins. Meaning have a lottery for round 1, then do it again for rnd 2, this will hopefully ensure that a club finishing 10th who lucks out by getting pick 1 does not then have the first pick in every round after it also!!........ie not going to go into the mathematics behind the chances but a team that finishes 16th with 3wins.........would have a higher chance of receiving the number 1 draft pick then a team who finishes 16th with 5 wins in a different year.

 

[Vtech]

The system is designed to even up the competition, which is good in principal. Teams can "tank" by not selecting Matthew Lloyd when he could potentially play, or resting Grant/Simpson with 3 weeks to go.

But once they hit the field they do try to win. Essendon showed that against Collingwood, and North gave everything in the match against West Coast.

If resting players is as bad as the tanking gets, then I'm not sure that the draft needs a radical overhaul as you've suggested.

The only thing I would change, would to eliminate the certainty that the bottom team gets the 1st pick. Perhaps the bottom 4 clubs could go in to a lottery. The number of tickets in the lottery depends on number of wins. So if a club finished last with zero wins, they'd have a greater chance of getting pick #1 than a team finishing 15th with two wins.

They are advantaged, but it takes away the absolute guarantee of getting pick #1. Imagine if 15th v 16th was Round 22, and they had the same number of wins, and the #1 pick was the next Gary Ablett. By still having a random element you could tank and still not get #1 pick - less of an incentive to tank.

The other thing that should change is the guaranteed #1 pick in the PSD. Having first pick in both the national and PS drafts is a big advantage. (e.g. say Chris Judd wanted to return to Victoria and play for Carlton, and was out of contract. He could leave WCE, and they get nothing. If the #1 PSD pick was also a lottery, he could end up with Essendon or perhaps even an interstate team... it would encourage him to help his team out with a trade).

Great post! very good ideas with the lottery for both drafts

 

[Vtech]

Not playing Lloyd is not tanking. Essendon are not playing Lloyd so that he doesn't re injure his hamstring and miss the preaseason.

Players are paid big dollars to play football. If they are fit they should be earning their on field money.

 

[jules101]

Players are paid big dollars to play football. If they are fit they should be earning their on field money.

Tarrant?

 

[Laurie Bingham]

Wouldn't a simple solution be for your draft position be the average of your last three years' finishing position ?

That would eliminate the situation where a club like Melbourne got priority picks (McLean and Sylvia) for one bad year when they weren't deserving of them.

It would also give the bottom clubs a greater incentive to finish the year strongly knowing that their draft position isn't just determined by one ordinary year. It would still achieve the stated aim of the draft (to keep the competition reasonably even by giving assistance to the bottom teams). There would be less tampering with the draft by the bottom clubs (no-one wants to finish bottom three years in a row just for the early picks)

It may not fix the issue of a club finishing ninth - tenth year after year but why should a club be rewarded for finishing ninth ?

 

[Drugs Are Bad Mackay?]

I quite like your thinking, Books. There is an air of banality and acceptance over the competition at the moment. Almost everyone is happy. The Top 8 clubs are a chance for some finals success and the bottom 7 clubs are developing young lists and have the prospect of picking up some genuine talent in the draft. Everyone understands and accepts the 'trampoline' system that is in place. No one will spend long down the bottom of the ladder. Everyone will get their turn to win. Geelong are the only club who would be genuinely disappointed in 2006. They are a bit like Bobby Cunis - neither one thing nor the other.

It seems that the 'premiership window' theory has been adopted across the board. Essentially, winning games isn't important unless you are a chance to win the flag. If you aren't a chance to win a premiership then take your foot off the gas and look to next year or the year after. No sense in fighting a battle you can't win. The result? Garbage football. Eight or nine teams having a crack, the rest biding their time until a better opportunity presents itself. These clubs understand that you have to get worse in order to get better.

Where is the passion?

Survival of the fittest = passion. Pragmatic list management and premiership windows does not. You need to be playing for keeps every time you take the field. At the moment teams are happy if they win and pragmatically taking a longer term view if they lose. No one bleeds.

With the reverse order draft system and priority picks, the AFL has created this monster themselves. Clubs understand that to rebuild your list and have a crack at a premiership the only way to do it is to delist you older, middle-range players, promote your rookies and try and pick up the best talent available in the draft.

The standard and excitement of AFL football has suffered as a result. It's still good to watch but doesn't get your blood boiling anymore.

My solution is to remove the link between where you finish on the ladder and draft order. The draft order should be organised on a simple rotation system. Ie every 16 years you will get a No. 1 selection, every two years you will get a top 8 pick etc. All supporters want is for their clubs to get a fair go. The 'rich' clubs won't be able to do as they please because of the salary cap. This is enough of a competition evener-upper IMO.

There should be significant $ for where you finish on the ladder, right down to No. 16. Reward good performances, not bad. Create an environment of excellence rather than a safety net.

 

[Kickin_Goals]

Tarrant?

You know full well he's a special case

 

[jules101]

You know full well he's a special case

he's a head case more like it

 

[celtic_pride]

This argument is only valid if there is a reasonable chance of the draft system happening. It won't, so the debate is closed.
The AFL won't listen to whingening fans of the Crows, Eagles etc.
BTW Roos fans advacting change as well wouldnt' be pleased if hypothetically their team finishes bottom 4/2 in the next year or two (a distinct possiblity)

 

[DaSawx]

I'd like to know which of the games have been so called 'rubbish games'