New Draft Idea???

[Gizza]

Just throwing this idea out there for a bit of fun.

What if rather than the current 'tanking' system we have a bottom 8 finals series with the prize being higher draft picks. It would probably need a % system for teams knocked out in the same round (or a play-off between those teams).

I'm tossing up between having it completely reversed in that 15/16th get the bye/second chance and the lower placed teams get the home games to still give the lower placed teams a better chance at the draft picks, or not as this would still give some benefit to tanking.

I think this would be an interesting idea.

 

[AG]

Finals football is enough. We don't need all 16 teams playing for two respective prizes. Every football fan should be watching the good teams fight it out for the flag.

 

[mcgarnacle]

getting rid of priority picks is a simpler, logical, and better idea.

 

[mollyfud]

Just throwing this idea out there for a bit of fun.

What if rather than the current 'tanking' system we have a bottom 8 finals series with the prize being higher draft picks. It would probably need a % system for teams knocked out in the same round (or a play-off between those teams).

I'm tossing up between having it completely reversed in that 15/16th get the bye/second chance and the lower placed teams get the home games to still give the lower placed teams a better chance at the draft picks, or not as this would still give some benefit to tanking.

I think this would be an interesting idea.

So a team that misses the finals with a winning record gets pick 1 and the team in most need that is just plain struggling gets pick 8?

Personally, no thanks! Why change the system we have when we have such an even competition as it is!

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Draft picks allocated after Rd.15 - with the presumption that all teams play each other once prior to this.

At rd.15 only the truly woeful are out of contention (mathematically anyway).

 

[mcgarnacle]

Personally, no thanks! Why change the system we have when we have such an even competition as it is!

interesting comment.

two teams are currently 12-0, another is 1-11.

furthermore, one team is 56-6 since beginning of 2007, another is 9-47.

the system of predominately recruiting via the drafting of unproven kids is proven to perpetuate a 'rebuild-growth-compete-decline' cycle. it allows some teams to remain strong for several years, and others to wallow in the depths while waiting for their selections to 'develop'.

the AFL's whole restrictive recruiting system is flawed, not just the draft.

 

[Damon_3388]

getting rid of priority picks is a simpler, logical, and better idea.

Exactly. Don't overcomplicate things just to curb a problem that isn't even that big to begin with. AFL players would be too proud to 'throw a game' I'd think. And even if coaches are picking less than their best 22, then I still think there's not enough games in the season (as opposed to say the NBA, where you're still not guaranteed the best draft pick if you tank, but some teams still appear to do it) for tanking to become a real serious problem IMO.

 

[finn]

what i'd like to see is a rotating system

if it starts from 2010 (and ladder finishes how it is now)
bottom club gets pick 1 then the following year they get pick 16 eg melb
second bottom gets pick 2 then next year get pick 15 eg fremantle
etc etc
priority picks are done before round two even if club wins less than 5 games - or at a stretch after the club has had first round pick in that year.
all picks can be swapped into the future until 1 cycle is complete (16 years or 18 when gc and ws come in)

clubs would know exactly which first round pick they'd get years in advance and perhaps plan accordingly. all clubs get a first round pick every 16 or 18 years and, more importantly, it is equal across all clubs. there'd be no reward for losing games and finishing bottom would have no impact on picks thus making finishing bottom bad again

 

[greennick]

what i'd like to see is a rotating system

if it starts from 2010 (and ladder finishes how it is now)
bottom club gets pick 1 then the following year they get pick 16 eg melb
second bottom gets pick 2 then next year get pick 15 eg fremantle
etc etc
priority picks are done before round two even if club wins less than 5 games - or at a stretch after the club has had first round pick in that year.
all picks can be swapped into the future until 1 cycle is complete (16 years or 18 when gc and ws come in)

clubs would know exactly which first round pick they'd get years in advance and perhaps plan accordingly. all clubs get a first round pick every 16 or 18 years and, more importantly, it is equal across all clubs. there'd be no reward for losing games and finishing bottom would have no impact on picks thus making finishing bottom bad again

But how stupid would it be if Geelong got the number 1 pick this year? Dumb idea for that reason alone. The draft is there for equalisation, why throw the baby out with the bathwater because of this alleged tanking issue?

 

[SugarHealey]

Just throwing this idea out there for a bit of fun.

Hello Woosha, so you don't just want to tank hard & milk the Draft from the bottom end, but when you can't get away with it anymore you want to change the rules so you can exploit it from your new preferred position, 9th hey?

 

[Marlin01]

I heard a suggestion on another thread that I thought had some merit. Award the draft picks after round 15. That way every team has played each other once and it removes the tanking that generally goes on in the last few weeks of the season.

I think the priority picks have to go though.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Just throwing this idea out there for a bit of fun.

Hello Woosha, so you don't just want to tank hard & milk the Draft from the bottom end, but when you can't get away with it anymore you want to change the rules so you can exploit it from your new preferred position, 9th hey?

This coming from a Melbourne supporter.....

 

[Ysaye]

I wish one of the mods would sticky that post that someone did a month or so ago about getting rid of the draft and letting the salary cap / bid system do it's thing - that was the best "fair recruiting" idea for sometime.

 

[finn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn
what i'd like to see is a rotating system

if it starts from 2010 (and ladder finishes how it is now)
bottom club gets pick 1 then the following year they get pick 16 eg melb
second bottom gets pick 2 then next year get pick 15 eg fremantle
etc etc
priority picks are done before round two even if club wins less than 5 games - or at a stretch after the club has had first round pick in that year.
all picks can be swapped into the future until 1 cycle is complete (16 years or 18 when gc and ws come in)

clubs would know exactly which first round pick they'd get years in advance and perhaps plan accordingly. all clubs get a first round pick every 16 or 18 years and, more importantly, it is equal across all clubs. there'd be no reward for losing games and finishing bottom would have no impact on picks thus making finishing bottom bad again

But how stupid would it be if Geelong got the number 1 pick this year? Dumb idea for that reason alone. The draft is there for equalisation, why throw the baby out with the bathwater because of this alleged tanking issue?

reread - the bottom team this year gets pick 1 while the top team gets pick 16

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Draft picks allocated after Rd.15 - with the presumption that all teams play each other once prior to this.

At rd.15 only the truly woeful are out of contention (mathematically anyway).

I heard a suggestion on another thread that I thought had some merit. Award the draft picks after round 15. That way every team has played each other once and it removes the tanking that generally goes on in the last few weeks of the season.

I think the priority picks have to go though.

I know Perth is 2 hours behind and all....but sheesh.

 

[GmeUP]

Quote:
Originally Posted by finn
what i'd like to see is a rotating system

if it starts from 2010 (and ladder finishes how it is now)
bottom club gets pick 1 then the following year they get pick 16 eg melb
second bottom gets pick 2 then next year get pick 15 eg fremantle
etc etc
priority picks are done before round two even if club wins less than 5 games - or at a stretch after the club has had first round pick in that year.
all picks can be swapped into the future until 1 cycle is complete (16 years or 18 when gc and ws come in)

clubs would know exactly which first round pick they'd get years in advance and perhaps plan accordingly. all clubs get a first round pick every 16 or 18 years and, more importantly, it is equal across all clubs. there'd be no reward for losing games and finishing bottom would have no impact on picks thus making finishing bottom bad again

But how stupid would it be if Geelong got the number 1 pick this year? Dumb idea for that reason alone. The draft is there for equalisation, why throw the baby out with the bathwater because of this alleged tanking issue?

reread - the bottom team this year gets pick 1 while the top team gets pick 16

Which means if it started in '07 Geelong got pick 16 that year and then after finishing 2nd in '08 they get pick 1 where Melbourne finish last in '08 and get pick 14-13 hence widening the gap between the top and bottom teams.

Also your trying to run the results of 1 season over 2 years drafts meaning in 10 years time teams would be 20 years away from getting the draft picks they earnt a decade earlier.

Basically your idea sux. You would of been better suggesting Melbourne and Geelong rotating after each round giving Melbourne picks 1 and 32 and Geelong 16 and 17. Which i still don't like.

The draft as it sits is doing it's job. Essendon had a decent stint on top and now for the last few years we have languished towards the bottom awaiting our turn to rise again. Hawthorn, Geelong and St.Kilda have risen from stints down the bottom and are back on top. Whilst clubs such as West Coast, Port and Brisbane have had their down years after reaching success at the top.

The only problem is with clubs tanking to gain priority picks, which if the priority picks were removed would only change to clubs tanking to get the #1 pick instead of #3.

 

[soupaman]

The round 15 idea is clearly the best, but would require the AFL to revert to logic and ensure every team plays eachother once by that point.

It's a point in time where it's a bit early for the 10-14 teams to tank, and anybody above that is clearly still fighting it out for finals.

It also prevents the accumulation of injuries at the tail end of the season to benefit the club.

 

[Colin Grigson]

This coming from a Melbourne supporter.....

We're not tanking. We just aren't good enough...

I think there should be a lottery system, where the team that finishes 16th gets, say, 16 balls. 15th gets 15 and so on...and this would be done for each round of the draft.

Not sure exactly how it would work, but the idea is that the teams which finish say 5th-10th, the teams which normally gain very little from the current draft system, get an opportunity to get a pick in the top 3.

It would still favour the teams down the bottom, but it would give those better performing sides an opportunity to acquire a higher pick. On the flip side, there's a chance they could end up with a lower pick, though I think if you ask a middle of the road side which system they prefer, i think they'd go down the lottery path.

I'm not for sides being rewarded for bad management. Sides that run their clubs well shouldn't be punished by the draft system, which is what is currently happening.

A lottery system would also reduce the incentive for teams to tank or bottom out (whatever you want to call it..)

 

[scotty4]

i like the sound of this rd 15 idea myself, it would also make the draw seem reasonably even.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

Getting rid of priority picks is all that needs to be done.

Nowadays, they're unnecessary, because teams have such good scouting that they rarely waste a Top 3 pick entirely.

 

[Dermie The Kid]

My apologies if i am a little off topic here... But can someone please tell me how this years draft works in relation to whether Goldcoast pinching 5-10 or so of the first 20 draft picks. Or is that starting from the 2010 draft.

Much appreciated.

 

[Ants]

Its very simple. Look at how successful the rookie draft is. So factor off that.

Remove priority picks and list maximums, and teams at the bottom with plenty of salary space can recruit an extra 2-4 players at the end of the regular draft before the rookie draft begins. Based on its success, they should be able to get the same impact as the priority picks have anyway.

This coming from a Melbourne supporter.....

Be fair. The only reason Melbourne didn't have Watts AND Natanui last year is they didn't tank in 2007 at the end. One of only two teams to EVER miss priority picks by one win.

 

[greennick]

My apologies if i am a little off topic here... But can someone please tell me how this years draft works in relation to whether Goldcoast pinching 5-10 or so of the first 20 draft picks. Or is that starting from the 2010 draft.

Much appreciated.

GC will really affect the draft next year. However, this year they are changing the drafting age by 4 months. This will mean there is only a pool of 8 months of "new" kids for the 2009 draft. The GC will have access to a bunch of the 17 year olds that would have been old enough if they were not changing the age. They also have access to some more Qld kids. 2010 is the year they will dominate the draft. This year they are really just getting in early on next year's riches. They will end up having dominated the class of 2010 with their sole access to the 17 year olds this year and the high picks next year.