Priority Picks fair?

[JeffDunne]

kahuna71, leave Deej alone. He loves his BRAND and can't stand to see it tarnished.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by Deej
Difference is, this is sport, not society. If you didn't have welfare in society you'd have other problems present themselves, it's a strategy to minimise society's problems. You ever been to columbia? Madness. No welfare there. Maybe if they had welfare they'd have a few less probs, although obviously there's more wrong there than just no welfare you know what i mean. Without welfare you get people being killed for a pack of smokes. This sort of thing would never happen in afl. Society needs certain handouts just to make the streets safe(r). I don't totally think handouts should be scrapped in every corner of human existence, just in sport. Sport should be open competition in every way. (except maybe a salary cap, but that's only to save clubs like melbourne overspending and sending themselves broke trying to compete)

whose up for a eight team competition ?
two in WA
Two in SA
one in NSW ( maybe)
one in QLD

two maybe three teams would survive in Victoria - and you're team carlton would be one to go at present.

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
kahuna71, leave Deej alone. He loves his BRAND and can't stand to see it tarnished.

Why is it so hard to believe or understand, all i want is the chance to have a crack at every available player in the country. I don't want to stand in line for anything. I don't want handouts whether it's part of this system or that system or any friggin system you bring up. If we lose i want it to be because we aren't good ennough but have had every equal opportunity that everyone else has had, unimpeded. If we win i want it to be off our own bat, in a handout free zone.

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
two maybe three teams would survive in Victoria - and you're team carlton would be one to go at present.

That's life.

 

[Chemical]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
two maybe three teams would survive in Victoria - and you're team carlton would be one to go at present.

well carltons third highest in members, so i doubt they will go

 

[conVINCEd]

Deej, the fact is that Carlton would have received just as many priority draft picks (2) in the last two years as the Saints if your previous "administration" hadn't cheated.

You also would have had numerous later picks that you were stipped of.

Would you slash your wrists over the resultant increase of talented young players on the Blues list or would you be enjoying watching their development?

And before you take your "Me takey no handouties" stance, have a think in regards to where you might be on the ladder currently if you had Goddard, Wells and probably Tenace running alongside Walker in a navy blue jumper, and whether you would hate it so much if the Blues weren't still struggling as they currently are.

Kudos for fighting to the bitter end, although you do remind me of the knight from Monty Python who loses all his limbs in a fight and continues to scream at his opponent even though...well I'm sure you know the story.

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by chemical
well carltons third highest in members, so i doubt they will go

I would bet my balls that we'd survive.

 

[skipper kelly]

Originally posted by Deej
Difference is, this is sport, not society. If you didn't have welfare in society you'd have other problems present themselves, it's a strategy to minimise society's problems. You ever been to columbia? Madness. No welfare there. Maybe if they had welfare they'd have a few less probs, although obviously there's more wrong there than just no welfare you know what i mean. Without welfare you get people being killed for a pack of smokes. This sort of thing would never happen in afl. Society needs certain handouts just to make the streets safe(r). I don't totally think handouts should be scrapped in every corner of human existence, just in sport. Sport should be open competition in every way. (except maybe a salary cap, but that's only to save clubs like melbourne overspending and sending themselves broke trying to compete)

Deej.

I am all for an open competition with no restraints, zoning, the whole lot.

But as it stands, we have what we have, and I dont regard the draft, cap or draw as handouts. They all even themselves out in the end. The clubs that dont gain an advantage from these seem to get the money from the AFL, to balance the shortfalls.

This is how the AFL want it and this is how they will keep it until there is a change of ideas at the top. It may only take one man, and it may be in 20 years time, but I feel quite confiednt that one day it will be an open competition.

Up until then I will just enjoy it as it is, and every team that has stuck to the system and gained the ultimate success, will in my eyes earned it.

It is heartbreaking when your club is down, but thats football.

Cheers.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by MarkT
No we don't. I like many others pay taxes and that money gets used for a host of things. I in fact have benefited as a child from this as the child of a single mother. That is not what I am talking about. I have no problem with taxes in principle nor welfare, medical, etc system being funded out of those taxes. Nor do I have any problem with a handout to the needy. That has nothing to do with the debate about rewarding poor performance better than we reward good performance.

In a nutshell if we did operate like that there would be nothing because there would be hardly a taxpayer to pay the bills. The reward for effort is exactly what allows a social justice system to be funded.
Can you tell me of any enlightened country that would pay a higher dole than average weekly earnings or that would offer free medical care above the average hospital standard for paying punters or that would allocate jobs on the basis of least suitability?

poor performance is not something that is intentional - just like unemployment or any other social malady. I dont know a club who would set out to win less than 5 games. There has got to be a team that finishes no1 and there has to be a team that finishes 16th. Thats a fact. We do not operate on an equal playing field. WA and SA being two horse towns - look at their memberships and their sponsorships. Therefore when a team struggles as when a person struggles welfare kicks in. Unless you voted for pauline (second time in two weeks i have mentioned her name !) this should be easy enough to understand

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by Deej
Why is it so hard to believe or understand, all i want is the chance to have a crack at every available player in the country. I don't want to stand in line for anything. I don't want handouts whether it's part of this system or that system or any friggin system you bring up. If we lose i want it to be because we aren't good ennough but have had every equal opportunity that everyone else has had, unimpeded. If we win i want it to be off our own bat, in a handout free zone.

Deej, think back to when you were in school. When picking teams, you'd take turns in picking the players. Distrubute the players evenly as to have an even competition. It was all about equity, the very essence of any sporting competition.

The system we have in the AFL is designed with this in mind. It's not a difficult concept really. Each year, with the talent that is available, a system is in place to ensure it is distrubuted evenly among all sixteen clubs rather than allowing the natural progression of the best players to the strongest clubs. Just like in the school yard.

There is nothing unfair about it. In fact, it helps ensure that all sixteen clubs have a sporting chance. It is not that difficult to understand.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
poor performance is not something that is intentional - just like unemployment or any other social malady. I dont know a club who would set out to win less than 5 games. There has got to be a team that finishes no1 and there has to be a team that finishes 16th. Thats a fact. We do not operate on an equal playing field. WA and SA being two horse towns - look at their memberships and their sponsorships. Therefore when a team struggles as when a person struggles welfare kicks in. Unless you voted for pauline (second time in two weeks i have mentioned her name !) this should be easy enough to understand

makes sense to me, but to many right of centre the unemployed have chosen to be unemployed and therefore deserve nothing. same as football clubs. if you've got the money, why the hell can't we do whatever we want? everyone else can get stuffed. worked beautifully at Carlton for years.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Deej, think back to when you were in school. When picking teams, you'd take turns in picking the players. Distrubute the players evenly as to have an even competition. It was all about equity, the very essence of any sporting competition.

The system we have in the AFL is designed with this in mind. It's not a difficult concept really. Each year, with the talent that is available, a system is in place to ensure it is distrubuted evenly among all sixteen clubs rather than allowing the natural progression of the best players to the strongest clubs. Just like in the school yard.

There is nothing unfair about it. In fact, it helps ensure that all sixteen clubs have a sporting chance. It is not that difficult to understand.

This also makes a lot of sense. If the richest kid in school bought the best players what kind of competition would that be?

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by Deej
I would bet my balls that we'd survive.

would you ?
If the AFL moved to radical 8 team comp last year - and only teams that were really profitable would move forward - then hello Essendon and Collingwood - goodbye the rest.
As much as an open competition sounds good in theory - everyone knows that we have six interstate team and 10 in Victoria . Victoria cant support 10 teams in an open slather anything goes enviroment. And i suspect of the brakes were released we would see Essendon and Collingwood getting stronger and the balance falling away.
If thats what you want fine but besides the alcohol, drugs, sexual allegations, bad umpires, sam newman and eddie macguire - i think the AFL is doing just dandy

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Deej, think back to when you were in school. When picking teams, you'd take turns in picking the players. Distrubute the players evenly as to have an even competition. It was all about equity, the very essence of any sporting competition.

The system we have in the AFL is designed with this in mind. It's not a difficult concept really. Each year, with the talent that is available, a system is in place to ensure it is distrubuted evenly among all sixteen clubs rather than allowing the natural progression of the best players to the strongest clubs. Just like in the school yard.

There is nothing unfair about it. In fact, it helps ensure that all sixteen clubs have a sporting chance. It is not that difficult to understand.

Jeff are you being serious?

I know exactly what the system is set out to acheive, i've said it many times it's manipulative and creates a contrived competition ala the reason why i say any success or failure acheived in this system is artificial and devalued, in equal proportions.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by JeffDunne
Deej, think back to when you were in school. When picking teams, you'd take turns in picking the players. Distrubute the players evenly as to have an even competition. It was all about equity, the very essence of any sporting competition.

The system we have in the AFL is designed with this in mind. It's not a difficult concept really. Each year, with the talent that is available, a system is in place to ensure it is distrubuted evenly among all sixteen clubs rather than allowing the natural progression of the best players to the strongest clubs. Just like in the school yard.

There is nothing unfair about it. In fact, it helps ensure that all sixteen clubs have a sporting chance. It is not that difficult to understand.

well put.....

 

[PowerOfThePussy]

My take on this topic

- Priority picks do not win you Grand Finals
- Reverse order draft gives clubs a chance to rise up the ladder
- Priority Picks increase this rise up the ladder

I don't have a problem with the reverse order draft as it stands. In fact, I believe it is particularly necessary given that some clubs are afforded Blockbusters, massive TV exposure etc and others get nothing. In this world of uneven playing fields (off the field - if that makes sense), at least this gives the lower clubs access to the better players, which may then eventuate into getting access to TV, sponsorships etc.

The priority picks however are a joke. Way too much of an advantage. It pushes everybody down the draft list and when the drafts are thin, this can be very dangerous. Having a measurable target (5 1/2 wins) is far too open to abuse IMO.

So to relate this to St.Kilda as everybody seems to be doing - the way I see it is this - Congratulations to St.Kilda for being where they are - they are obviously well managed and playing with a lot of confidence. They haven't broken the rules - the rules reward being crap and they just happened to be the crappiest for the longest and at the right point in time. They have 2 priorities which somebody pointed out, so they have done well with this system, but it's the AFL that has the wrong system - not St.Kilda.

Cheers
POTP

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Deej
That's life.

It's not life it's complete and utter crap. Anyone who things any natioonal competition can be viable with only a few Vic teams is kidding themselves. If you take the guts of the VFL out of the AFL you have a competition with huge operating costs and no way of paying for them. The carnage in Victoria would mean the TV rights falling through the floor and the smaller number of teams in the biggest market would mean the proportion of Victorians following the AFL would be quite low.

 

[nutbeennn]

Originally posted by Deej
Jeff are you being serious?

I know exactly what the system is set out to acheive, i've said it many times it's manipulative and creates a contrived competition ala the reason why i say any success or failure acheived in this system is artificial and devalued, in equal proportions.

more and more people are going to football each year.
People have expressed concerns about outside football influences ruining football, umpires, etc - but i have yet to hear anyone complain that " i hate football because its too even"

The AFL want an even competition and so do the punters

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by kahuna71
This also makes a lot of sense. If the richest kid in school bought the best players what kind of competition would that be?

Why do you always talk about buying players? What about if one very smart student went and secretly negotiated with the best spread of players (not necessarily the best one or two but the best overall spread) and convinced them if they joined his team they would be joining a great organisation with a history of success/winning, professional, looks after you after footy, encourages a well-rounded life, will win flags blah blah and for joining him they would be renumerated very well (maybe not as much as some others but through success will come fame will come sponsorship dollars etc).....

It is a complete fallacy that any club has ever bought a premiership in my opinion. Just one ingredient don't make a masterpeice, it must be a well managed & united team in every way. Money is but one of many req'd ingredients.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
poor performance is not something that is intentional - just like unemployment or any other social malady. I dont know a club who would set out to win less than 5 games. There has got to be a team that finishes no1 and there has to be a team that finishes 16th. Thats a fact. We do not operate on an equal playing field. WA and SA being two horse towns - look at their memberships and their sponsorships. Therefore when a team struggles as when a person struggles welfare kicks in. Unless you voted for pauline (second time in two weeks i have mentioned her name !) this should be easy enough to understand

I think you miss my point. Our society doesn't reward unemployment to a higher level than it the rewards of employment. We don't take single mothers and give them more then working families earn. If we did why would people work? We make payments or give assistence to allow survival and some sort of reasonable life because we don't want to see these people die in the streets. Of course it still happens that some do die in the streets but it's a more complex issue than we could do justice to here.

 

[Deej]

Originally posted by nutbeennn
If the AFL moved to radical 8 team comp last year - and only teams that were really profitable would move forward - then hello Essendon and Collingwood - goodbye the rest.

Do you believe everything you see on tv? Perception hardly ever equates to reality.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by Deej
Why do you always talk about buying players? What about if one very smart student went and secretly negotiated with the best spread of players (not necessarily the best one or two but the best overall spread) and convinced them if they joined his team they would be joining a great organisation with a history of success/winning, professional, looks after you after footy, encourages a well-rounded life, will win flags blah blah and for joining him they would be renumerated very well (maybe not as much as some others but through success will come fame will come sponsorship dollars etc).....

Did you go to a private school in the leafy suburbs?

It is a complete fallacy that any club has ever bought a premiership in my opinion. Just one ingredient don't make a masterpeice, it must be a well managed & united team in every way. Money is but one of many req'd ingredients.

Ok, so if you buy the best players and this doesn't guarantee success, how does being given the first pick in a draft guarantee success?

 

[conVINCEd]

Come on Deej, everyone else got a response - why not me?

Damnit I want the same as everyone else. Sound familiar?

Can you explain the correlation between;

1.) you fighting tooth and nail about this issue and the impact it has on your club;

2.) wanting Carlton to fold??

Cos I'm very about that.

 

[kahuna71]

Originally posted by Deej
Why do you always talk about buying players? What about if one very smart student went and secretly negotiated with the best spread of players (not necessarily the best one or two but the best overall spread) and convinced them if they joined his team they would be joining a great organisation with a history of success/winning, professional, looks after you after footy, encourages a well-rounded life, will win flags blah blah and for joining him they would be renumerated very well (maybe not as much as some others but through success will come fame will come sponsorship dollars etc).....

It is a complete fallacy that any club has ever bought a premiership in my opinion. Just one ingredient don't make a masterpeice, it must be a well managed & united team in every way. Money is but one of many req'd ingredients.

because that's what would happen. are you saying it's not? a carlton supporter of all people? that's laughable. or in this fantasy league of yours players would of course not go where the money is, but to where the people were nicer, the weather warmer and the dope cheaper for less money?


all of what you said still happens, it just happens when it's time to re-sign.

 

[JeffDunne]

Originally posted by PowerOfThePussy
My take on this topic

- Priority picks do not win you Grand Finals
- Reverse order draft gives clubs a chance to rise up the ladder
- Priority Picks increase this rise up the ladder

I don't have a problem with the reverse order draft as it stands. In fact, I believe it is particularly necessary given that some clubs are afforded Blockbusters, massive TV exposure etc and others get nothing. In this world of uneven playing fields (off the field - if that makes sense), at least this gives the lower clubs access to the better players, which may then eventuate into getting access to TV, sponsorships etc.

The priority picks however are a joke. Way too much of an advantage. It pushes everybody down the draft list and when the drafts are thin, this can be very dangerous. Having a measurable target (5 1/2 wins) is far too open to abuse IMO.

So to relate this to St.Kilda as everybody seems to be doing - the way I see it is this - Congratulations to St.Kilda for being where they are - they are obviously well managed and playing with a lot of confidence. They haven't broken the rules - the rules reward being crap and they just happened to be the crappiest for the longest and at the right point in time. They have 2 priorities which somebody pointed out, so they have done well with this system, but it's the AFL that has the wrong system - not St.Kilda.

Cheers
POTP

Well put pussy! More power to you.