List Mgmt. NGA, Father son watch

[PeterSalt]

IIRC Cochrane is (was?) a Port runner and has stayed involved/ around the club, not North. It's very similar to the JHF quasi-FS situation.

He was development coach as well for a period as well. I don't know if he's still on the books there

My point about North was more along the lines of "can you imagine if North drafted him and he pulled the same stunt as JHF?" .. lol

 

[PeterSalt]

Speaking of Father Sons, how's Luke Edwards doing?

Someone mentioned the other day he had to retire due to repeated concussions

 

[1990crow]

Someone mentioned the other day he had to retire due to repeated concussions

Yeah that's what it says from October last year. Hopefully doing OK.

 

[adelaidecrows]

My solution is very simple

Keep the points system, but apply a weighting relative to the highest pick used to match the bid. The higher the pick used, the less weighting is applied

For example the new model has pick 6 = 1659 points. That can be paid through adding pick 29+31+33+35, which no club would accept for pick 6. With the 10% discount (which I would remove) that pick 35 only needs to be pick 42.

But what if there was a massive weighting if the first pick used to match a bid was (say) more than 10 picks away from where the bid occurs. In the above example, let's say you can use pick 29 as the first pick to match, but every subsequent pick is worth 50% less. Now you'd have to pair pick 29 also with picks 30+31+32+33+34+35+36 - which no club will be able to do.

The closer pick 29 becomes to pick 6, the less weighting is applied to subsequent picks.

This would allow for a system where second round picks retain value IF paired with an appropriate pick teams might trade for. As an example, it's realistic a club would trade pick 6 for picks 14 and 24 in an even draft (1645 points), but not realistic they would trade it for 24+30+36+40 (1630 points). My system would preserve the value of pick 24 ONLY IF paired with an appropriate higher pick, or if the bid was closer to pick 24.

TL;DR - make the points system more expensive the further the matching picks are from the actual bid

Another example: Sam Darcy gets bid on at pick 2. That year the Bulldogs trade out their pick 17 for later picks. The weighting system punishes the trade down from 17 to 23, and instead encourages trading UP to a fairer value

Jed Walter gets bid on at pick 3. Gold Coast trade out their pick 6 and match the bid using 26, 30 and 32. The AFL's new system would also require the use of pick 27 to match that. My system would mean if the first used pick is 26, it would require a further 5-7 second round picks to match. BUT if they kept pick 6 and matched, subsequent second rounders could be used at full value.

The system has to be fairer to all clubs.

Your system works but Id make it far simpler and far harder for clubs to draft FS and NGA

A club should have to hold a draft pick within 10 picks of the bid. No exceptions and it 100% has to be used. If you do not have one when the bid comes down you have exactly 5 minutes to find one then the player is gone. It should be that simple. If you have a FS or NGA going at number one and you cant get a pick inside that top 10, too bad so sad. You had ample opportunity to get one by trading out players, trading out draft picks months prior to the draft. At no stage should a system allow a club who has had successful year easy access to top end talent like what happened with the Ashcroft brothers. Basically the current system is merely a lipstick painted version of the original pig where clubs could pick them up anywhere.

 

[Cleric]

The interesting thing is where are Powa going to get all these 1st round picks for 2026 and 2027 for Cochrane (if the AFL approve his 2026 NGA eligibility) without Butters and others being on the market. Zemes Pilot (NGA), Louis Salopek and Tevita Rodan F/S's in 2027.
And NWM in 2025 if he nominates Powa.

They can go into deficit points wise to match a bid on Dougie. But, if there's any chance of an SA or WA NGA kid going at pick1, the AFL will change the rule for a year to make sure we don't get them.

While I love to stir the filth down the road, I would love to see the best SA talent stay in SA and watch the Vic's meltdown over it.

 

[Cleric]

The system has to be fairer to all clubs.

Your system works but Id make it far simpler and far harder for clubs to draft FS and NGA

A club should have to hold a draft pick within 10 picks of the bid. No exceptions and it 100% has to be used. If you do not have one when the bid comes down you have exactly 5 minutes to find one then the player is gone. It should be that simple. If you have a FS or NGA going at number one and you cant get a pick inside that top 10, too bad so sad. You had ample opportunity to get one by trading out players, trading out draft picks months prior to the draft. At no stage should a system allow a club who has had successful year easy access to top end talent like what happened with the Ashcroft brothers. Basically the current system is merely a lipstick painted version of the original pig where clubs could pick them up anywhere.

Why should it be harder to draft FSs? Its only become an issue over the last couple of years because we have had a handful of top level FSs come on board.
No one cared when Geelong got their father sons for nothing which set them up as a dynasty. No one cared when WC got their FSs which got them their premierships.
The minute however a few teams are down the bottom due to their own mismanagement, and are crying foul over Academies and FS to defelct from their own shortfalls, here we are.
One thing you can bet your bottom dollar on is if St Kilda had a number of highly rated FSs coming into their team they wouldn't be saying shit.

And as for North, they had a top 10 FS, have four or five on their list, and also got a top 10 NGA as well. They have benefitted from both of them and are still rubbish. Same goes for WC. Their initial premierships are due to FSs, and they currently have an AA one on their list they got for pick 50 odd.

I want to see FS continue even tho the Crows have only had one decent pick up from it.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Why should it be harder to draft FSs? Its only become an issue over the last couple of years because we have had a handful of top level FSs come on board.
No one cared when Geelong got their father sons for nothing which set them up as a dynasty. No one cared when WC got their FSs which got them their premierships.
The minute however a few teams are down the bottom due to their own mismanagement, and are crying foul over Academies and FS to defelct from their own shortfalls, here we are.
One thing you can bet your bottom dollar on is if St Kilda had a number of highly rated FSs coming into their team they wouldn't be saying shit.

And as for North, they had a top 10 FS, have four or five on their list, and also got a top 10 NGA as well. They have benefitted from both of them and are still rubbish. Same goes for WC. Their initial premierships are due to FSs, and they currently have an AA one on their list they got for pick 50 odd.

I want to see FS continue even tho the Crows have only had one decent pick up from it.

Yes they did. The system changed because of Gary Ablett Jnr. When he became a star of the game many were up and arms that he was able to be obtained so cheap.

The equalisation measures in the AFL make it hard for clubs to stay on top for long periods. Its almost impossible. By allowing top clubs to gain access to easy top picks it allows those top teams an artificial stint while teams going through a rebuilding phase at any level have to suck it up. Its completely unfair. Brisbane with half decent list management could be a certain top 4 team for the next decade. Yes its a lottery but damn man, have to be fair to the competition. Clubs should can get the FS but they need to actually be made to give real value up that genuinely affects their list. Not the bs points accumulation system.

 

[spenze]

Didn’t he run off with Jenny?

They are in Czechoslovakia together, making babies...

 

[dogs105]

They are in Czechoslovakia together, making babies...

I saw one of the babies, and the baby looked at me.

 

[spenze]

I still think Father son should be 200 games. Should be a true legend of a club to get there under the method.

Look, it has merit but for a player to play 100 games, they have likely been at the club 5-8 years, I think at that stage, fans remember that player.

I'm not sure why F/S is an issue in the first place, it isn't that which is clogging up the first round of draft picks, it is the AFLs stupid response to get a flag for its nepo babies. The sooner, it goes back to zones, the better, the AFL introduced an equalisation methos that was fairish but then have bastardized it so much it's own father wouldn't recognise it

 

[cleanhands]

They are in Czechoslovakia together, making babies...

Has he had the reverse snip?

 

[spenze]

Has he had the reverse snip?

Ahhh, the "stich in time makes babies fine" operation

 

[Cleric]

Yes they did. The system changed because of Gary Ablett Jnr. When he became a star of the game many were up and arms that he was able to be obtained so cheap.

The equalisation measures in the AFL make it hard for clubs to stay on top for long periods. Its almost impossible. By allowing top clubs to gain access to easy top picks it allows those top teams an artificial stint while teams going through a rebuilding phase at any level have to suck it up. Its completely unfair. Brisbane with half decent list management could be a certain top 4 team for the next decade. Yes its a lottery but damn man, have to be fair to the competition. Clubs should can get the FS but they need to actually be made to give real value up that genuinely affects their list. Not the bs points accumulation system.

The only option is points.
If team has pick 8, and another club bids on him at pick 3, how do they match it?
It can only be done on a pts basis.
The AFL has gone from allowing clubs to get FSs for their last picks prior to 1997.
Then they changed it to having to use a second round pick regardless of where they were bid on.
Then they changed it to a bidding process and points.
Now they have reduced the discount by half, and reduced the points that picks carry.

Its been a constant tightning of the cost clubs have had to pay.
Clubs today are paying more than they ever had to to get FSs.
You have the Northern clubs getting their academy players like FSs, and the AFL is not going to stop that. So the answer is to stop every other club having a way to get players like FSs? Take away any other advantage non Northern clubs have?
If Darcy and Daicos didn't exist we wouldn't be having this conversation.
This is being driven by poorly ran clubs who want to deflect away their own poor decisions.
They want you to believe that they are where they are because they couldn't take Daicos, Darcy or Ashcroft.
When Tasmania comes in they will 100% have an academy, and will need it to survive.

If anything the AFL could put a limit on it like a club can only take three FS or Academy players in any five year period under the bidding system, however I am against that even because I am sick of the AFL changing rules after a few clubs have recieved the benefit of those rules. Them taking it away is more unfair then allowing only certain clubs to have been advantaged by it.
They allowed Bulldogs and North to get top 10 NGA kids, and then stopped it after that meaning those two clubs got an uneven advantage.
Just stop with changing the f'n rules every couple of years.

 

[adelaidecrows]

The only option is points.
If team has pick 8, and another club bids on him at pick 3, how do they match it?
It can only be done on a pts basis.
The AFL has gone from allowing clubs to get FSs for their last picks prior to 1997.
Then they changed it to having to use a second round pick regardless of where they were bid on.
Then they changed it to a bidding process and points.
Now they have reduced the discount by half, and reduced the points that picks carry.

Its been a constant tightning of the cost clubs have had to pay.
Clubs today are paying more than they ever had to to get FSs.
You have the Northern clubs getting their academy players like FSs, and the AFL is not going to stop that. So the answer is to stop every other club having a way to get players like FSs? Take away any other advantage non Northern clubs have?
If Darcy and Daicos didn't exist we wouldn't be having this conversation.
This is being driven by poorly ran clubs who want to deflect away their own poor decisions.
They want you to believe that they are where they are because they couldn't take Daicos, Darcy or Ashcroft.
When Tasmania comes in they will 100% have an academy, and will need it to survive.

If anything the AFL could put a limit on it like a club can only take three FS or Academy players in any five year period under the bidding system, however I am against that even because I am sick of the AFL changing rules after a few clubs have recieved the benefit of those rules. Them taking it away is more unfair then allowing only certain clubs to have been advantaged by it.
They allowed Bulldogs and North to get top 10 NGA kids, and then stopped it after that meaning those two clubs got an uneven advantage.
Just stop with changing the f'n rules every couple of years.

I think the weighting is enough. be within 10 picks no exceptions. there are really no excuses for a club not being prepared. You make good points but you cant pretend to that they dont exist. The fact is there are more footballers than ever before and that soon clubs will get access to the sons of their female players that may or may not occur. So the chances are increasing and the system needs to be adapted to prevent FS loterry winners from gaining an unfair advantage.

Thats my whole argument. FS is about the romance of the sons playing at the same club as their father...now soon to be mother. Why gift those clubs a pure list advantage.

 

[MarcusP2]

[ increasing focus on youth development, kids

The only option is points.
If team has pick 8, and another club bids on him at pick 3, how do they match it?
It can only be done on a pts basis.
The AFL has gone from allowing clubs to get FSs for their last picks prior to 1997.
Then they changed it to having to use a second round pick regardless of where they were bid on.
Then they changed it to a bidding process and points.
Now they have reduced the discount by half, and reduced the points that picks carry.

Its been a constant tightning of the cost clubs have had to pay.
Clubs today are paying more than they ever had to to get FSs.
You have the Northern clubs getting their academy players like FSs, and the AFL is not going to stop that. So the answer is to stop every other club having a way to get players like FSs? Take away any other advantage non Northern clubs have?
If Darcy and Daicos didn't exist we wouldn't be having this conversation.
This is being driven by poorly ran clubs who want to deflect away their own poor decisions.
They want you to believe that they are where they are because they couldn't take Daicos, Darcy or Ashcroft.
When Tasmania comes in they will 100% have an academy, and will need it to survive.

If anything the AFL could put a limit on it like a club can only take three FS or Academy players in any five year period under the bidding system, however I am against that even because I am sick of the AFL changing rules after a few clubs have recieved the benefit of those rules. Them taking it away is more unfair then allowing only certain clubs to have been advantaged by it.
They allowed Bulldogs and North to get top 10 NGA kids, and then stopped it after that meaning those two clubs got an uneven advantage.
Just stop with changing the f'n rules every couple of years.

But Darcy, Daicos and the Ashcrofts do exist, and I'd suggest only going to get more common in the era of professionalism and targeted development programs.

FS is a throwback from an earlier era and shouldn't exist. You want to play for your father's club? Get traded there.

 

[Cleric]

I think the weighting is enough. be within 10 picks no exceptions. there are really no excuses for a club not being prepared. You make good points but you cant pretend to that they dont exist. The fact is there are more footballers than ever before and that soon clubs will get access to the sons of their female players that may or may not occur. So the chances are increasing and the system needs to be adapted to prevent FS loterry winners from gaining an unfair advantage.

Thats my whole argument. FS is about the romance of the sons playing at the same club as their father...now soon to be mother. Why gift those clubs a pure list advantage.

My main point is that this has come about due to Darcy, Daicos and Ashcroft. A knee-jerk reaction to then change it and we will most likely enter a period where no FS is valued that high.
The thought by some seems to be you can have access to the poor quality FSs but not the real good ones. That's not the way to run the system. No one is upset with us getting Welsh as a FS, because he isn't that good. No one was upset when we got Borlase as an NGA because he is a b grader, but they got upset when Bulldogs had JUH.
Additionally, no one would have been upset if Daicos was a FS for St Kilda or North, but they are upset that Collingwood got him.
Basically, the clubs that missed out are jealous that they didnt get the good FS come through their club. That's all it is.

We just have to accept that there will be some average FS, and then there will a couple of elite ones come through. Roll the dice on which club is going to be the one that gets the good kid.
One thing is for sure, there will be far more average FSs than good ones.

Plus, I'm hoping we get a clutch of high level FSs come through for us, and hopefully we can get them as cheap as every other club has till now.

 

[Cleric]

[ increasing focus on youth development, kids
But Darcy, Daicos and the Ashcrofts do exist, and I'd suggest only going to get more common in the era of professionalism and targeted development programs.

FS is a throwback from an earlier era and shouldn't exist. You want to play for your father's club? Get traded there.

So its a negative that we get better quality players because they came through a clubs father son academies and realised their talent better than has happened historically?
That to me is a good thing. Hopefully it spurs on all the other clubs to invest more in the development of their FSs.

Six points for every goal is also a throwback to an earlier era, so should we change it to three points?
I could think of nothing better than seeing a super son of Mark Ruccutio playing for the Crows rather than playing for North Melbourne.
Its part of what makes AFL different and great. In the old days we had that through the zone system, and to still have family legacies in our clubs is great.

Hell, I would be happy to see a brother, brother rule come in.

 

[adelaidecrows]

My main point is that this has come about due to Darcy, Daicos and Ashcroft. A knee-jerk reaction to then change it and we will most likely enter a period where no FS is valued that high.
The thought by some seems to be you can have access to the poor quality FSs but not the real good ones. That's not the way to run the system. No one is upset with us getting Welsh as a FS, because he isn't that good. No one was upset when we got Borlase as an NGA because he is a b grader, but they got upset when Bulldogs had JUH.
Additionally, no one would have been upset if Daicos was a FS for St Kilda or North, but they are upset that Collingwood got him.
Basically, the clubs that missed out are jealous that they didnt get the good FS come through their club. That's all it is.

We just have to accept that there will be some average FS, and then there will a couple of elite ones come through. Roll the dice on which club is going to be the one that gets the good kid.
One thing is for sure, there will be far more average FSs than good ones.

Plus, I'm hoping we get a clutch of high level FSs come through for us, and hopefully we can get them as cheap as every other club has till now.

yes a five year straight knee jerk reaction.

 

[Archie87]

To give Port access to an elite draft talent that is already in the existing talent pathways that they have had SFA to do with developing until his bottom age u18 year is just an absurd draft rort...

Adelaide and every other club need to call this potential bullshit out. NGAs have a place but there needs to be some sort of 3-year minimum involvement rule...

 

[steve9798]

They can go into deficit points wise to match a bid on Dougie. But, if there's any chance of an SA or WA NGA kid going at pick1, the AFL will change the rule for a year to make sure we don't get them.

While I love to stir the filth down the road, I would love to see the best SA talent stay in SA and watch the Vic's meltdown over it.

You would love to see the number one talent in the draft go to our hated rivals. Strange call.

 

[steve9798]

To give Port access to an elite draft talent that is already in the existing talent pathways that they have had SFA to do with developing until his bottom age u18 year is just an absurd draft rort...

Adelaide and every other club need to call this potential bullshit out. NGAs have a place but there needs to be some sort of 3-year minimum involvement rule...

I hope the AFC are fighting this. About time we paid this scum back for Gibbs, the Tex rumour, being a club riddled with *****.

 

[WeeBlake]

So its a negative that we get better quality players because they came through a clubs father son academies and realised their talent better than has happened historically?
That to me is a good thing. Hopefully it spurs on all the other clubs to invest more in the development of their FSs.

Six points for every goal is also a throwback to an earlier era, so should we change it to three points?
I could think of nothing better than seeing a super son of Mark Ruccutio playing for the Crows rather than playing for North Melbourne.
Its part of what makes AFL different and great. In the old days we had that through the zone system, and to still have family legacies in our clubs is great.

Hell, I would be happy to see a brother, brother rule come in.

Fine fine, great old tradition, fine. But everyone has to pay full price. If you finish top 4 and get a pick 1 father son you should not get a first round pick for at least two years, probably three.

 

[BunjiMC]

I like the change to 200 games for father son.

Can anyone make a list of who would be available to us if that was the case?

 

[Vader]

I like the change to 200 games for father son.

Can anyone make a list of who would be available to us if that was the case?


View attachment 2390185

Refer to the list in this thread, subtracting the players who didn't reach 200:
https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/forums/adelaide.15/

 

[Cleric]

You would love to see the number one talent in the draft go to our hated rivals. Strange call.

I am happy to see an SA kid stay at home. In the AFL today, NSW and Qld kids are a lock to play in their home state.
Victorian kids have a 55% chance to stay at home and play football.
SA and WA kids carry the burden of relocation with only a 11% chance of getting a chance to stay home and play football.
Anytime that can be reversed im all for it.