Random National Draft Idea

[Danoz]

Couldn't sleep last night, not sure why, but ended up with this in my head.

It has been suggested previously by a few parties to set the draft order based on a mid point in the season. What if each round of the draft was randomly set on the ladder of a different round during the season?

Day before the trade period, or even day after the GF (or somewhere in between) a computer randomly allocates each round of the draft to an end of round ladder from that year.

To go further, each ladder could be separated into thirds. A number from 1-6 is randomly allocated to each team in each third of the ladder, 1-6 being the draft order for that round?

AFL could have another tense revenue/publicity raiser, would completely eliminate tanking as there would be zero guarantees on draft position, and all teams who have sat near the bottom of the table have some chance of getting the number one pick.

Thoughts?

 

[living_in_syd]

Not much love on this thread. Sorry not sure I fully understand your idea.

Maybe to help other people understand too is perhaps do the last three years based on your above method (which I dont undestand) as an example.

 

[ioppolo]

So for the 2012 ladder...

Hawthorn
Adelaide
Sydney
Collingwood
West Coast
Geelong
Fremantle
North Melbourne

St Kilda
Carlton
Essendon
Richmond
Brisbane
Port Adelaide
Bulldogs
Melbourne
Gold Coast
GWS

Picks 1-6 would be randomly drawn between GWS, GC, Melb, Dogs, Port & Brisbane
Picks 7-12 between Richmond, Dons, Carlton, StK, North, Freo
13-18 Geelong, WCE, Coll, Sydney, Adelaide, Hawks

A hypothetical draft order:
1 Bulldogs
2 GWS
3 Brisbane
4 Port Adelaide
5 Melbourne
6 Gold Coast
7 Essendon
8 St Kilda
9 Fremantle
10 Richmond
11 North Melbourne
12 Carlton
13 Adelaide
14 Geelong
15 Sydney
16 West Coast
17 Hawthorn
18 Collingwood

Is this what you mean?

 

[scottwade]

What if each round of the draft was randomly set on the ladder of a different round during the season?

Day before the trade period, or even day after the GF (or somewhere in between) a computer randomly allocates each round of the draft to an end of round ladder from that year.
To go further, each ladder could be separated into thirds. A number from 1-6 is randomly allocated to each team in each third of the ladder, 1-6 being the draft order for that round?



Thoughts?

So lets say the computer selects the order for the 1st rd of the 2013 draft after rd 3 next year.
1st 3 games Hawthorn plays Geelong, West Coast (in Perth) & Collingwood.
Potentially 3 losses and bottom of the ladder.

Do we really want a system that hypothetically would give the Hawks the first pick in the 2013 draft?

 

[tigs2010]

My thoughts?

Do a Dustin Martin/Dan Connors and take a sleeping pill.

 

[Danoz]

Not much love on this thread. Sorry not sure I fully understand your idea.

Maybe to help other people understand too is perhaps do the last three years based on your above method (which I dont undestand) as an example.

Sounded great to me at 5am

Lets say the computer randomly selects rd 10 2012 ladder which the first round of the draft will be based on.

Ladder:
PosTeam
1 West Coast
2 Essendon
3 Adelaide
4 Collingwood
5 Sydney
6 Hawthorn
7 Carlton
8 Geelong
9 St Kilda
10 Richmond
11 Fremantle
12 North Melbourne
13 Port Adelaide
14 Brisbane Lions
15 Western Bulldogs
16 Melbourne
17 GWS Giants
18 Gold Coast
Bold teams randomly selected to get picks 1-6, italicised teams randomly selected to get picks 7-12, underlined teams randomly selected to get picks 13-18.
Then the computer selects another ladder to do round 2, 3, 4, 5 etc.
Does that make sense?

So lets say the computer selects the order for the 1st rd of the 2013 draft after rd 3 next year.
1st 3 games Hawthorn plays Geelong, West Coast (in Perth) & Collingwood.
Potentially 3 losses and bottom of the ladder.

Do we really want a system that hypothetically would give the Hawks the first pick in the 2013 draft?

Gives every team a chance. But teams down the bottom for most of the year, theoretically have a better chance of getting pick one.

Hawks may only be in the bottom third for, say, 5 weeks, and so have 5/22 chances of being in the top 6 and 1/6 of getting first pick. Thats a 4% chance of getting first pick.

If GWS are in the bottom 6 for the entire year, they have a 17% chance to get first pick.

A team that is in the bottom 6 for one week has less than 1% chance to get first pick, but still a chance.

A team that is not in the bottom 6 at any stage will not have a chance at getting #1.

 

[yaco55]

I suggested the breaking up of first round draft selections into groups of six about two years ago.

It's a good system - But it must be done after Round 22.

 

[Stromageddon]

If the AFL had an even fixture it wouldn't be such a bad idea.

 

[Membling]

Further idea, perhaps use the 1-6 lottery for the last 8 rounds. So any round from rounds 14-22 could be selected. Bend it out more than allowing the first few rounds as there is no form line to go by

 

[Benno30]

should be using a lottery method like the NBA Fairest way for sure.

 

[borderbarry]

I think the current system is the fairest, as long as there are no extra picks allowed in the first round. It has been ridiculous the last few seasons, new teams or not. At the end of the season, the premiership team should know it is getting pick 18.

 

[Benno30]

I think the current system is the fairest, as long as there are no extra picks allowed in the first round. It has been ridiculous the last few seasons, new teams or not. At the end of the season, the premiership team should know it is getting pick 18.

It is not really that fair when teams with no morale can tank to get better picks. Carlton and Melbourne both have done it and results could go either way from tanking but carlton have certainly done alright out of it.

If we did the lottery system then we would not have as much trouble with tanking. Therefor making it fairer. Everyone is still encouraged to win and not drop games deliberately.

 

[Masto]

This idea might be viable if the draw was equal. Because it isn't I will say ABSOLUTELY NOT.

 

[Wickzki]

All this would encourage is the shit teams to tank from the outset of the season. Do not want.

 

[Deleted member 98541]

Here's a random national draft idea: Punish teams that tank.

Swing the axe once and send a message to anyone else who looks like making a mockery of the competition. Reverse ladder order is fine if teams set out to do their best at winning.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

Had a idea about 4yrs ago.Teams divided into groups of 4[16 sides back then].Those 4 sides stay in that group for good.Each year all groups are rotated from picks 1-4,5-8 etc etc.
So for example:Adelaide,Brisbane,Carlton & Collingwood are in group 1,They would go into the picks 1-4 this year.Next year they would move to picks 5-8
Essendon,Fremantle Geelong & Hawthorn are in group 4,They would get picks 13-16.Next year they would move to picks 1-4.
The pecking order within the groups can be determined either by ladder position or maybe a lottery system.
Obviously now with 18 sides you would have to make it 3 sides x 6 groups.
IMO,its the best way of getting rid of the preception at least of clubs tanking.

 

[Knightmare]

I'm not too fussed.

I consider the current system fine.

With the rules as they are at present I consider tanking an non issue and I don't see it as an even moderately effective way to build a list anymore without those priority selections as you previously had.

Look at Melbourne. So many years down the bottom, so many 1st round draft picks and they're still down the bottom. From 2014 I expect they start to show some improvement but more so due to the more mature recruits they've added. All those players they had on their list during those tanking years have come to nothing and it shouldn't surprise any.

Carlton the same. Despite having Gibbs and Murphy they haven't demonstrated that they are anything special. Judd is the difference maker and with him Carlton can make the top 8 every year and his addition started to turn that culture but it took Judd, the best player in the competition at the time of his move to lead from the front to start any change. Had he not been recruited I can't help but think they'd still be struggling and be in a similar situation to Melbourne where they also would have all those guys in their 20s who just wouldn't have developed and they'd still be rebuilding.

Being a 22 man game the AFL is not like an NBA where a no.1 pick can change a franchise. In addition to this with these draft prospects being 18 year olds as opposed to players who are mostly drafted in their 20s in the NBA the chances of getting that franchise player or the best guy in the draft at pick 1 isn't nearly as likely either.

It really takes either a large quantity of super high level draft picks as GWS and Gold Coast if you want to build through the draft. The only other way to build now is through quality coaching, having strong leadership and your best player being the hardest trainer on your team to set that example.

It's no co-incidence that Sydney, Adelaide and Geelong haven't needed to bottom out. They have all had that appropriate mix of quality coaching, leadership and have made strong list management decisions to keep the teams up and keep the teams winning. Collingwood is joining this company.

With these teams many will argue that they draft better than anyone else (Geelong, Adelaide and Collingwood most specifically) or trade better than everyone else like Sydney which is correct but I'd also add in addition to this these clubs have made these guys better through their quality coaching, strong cultures and strong leadership to fast-track the development of these players. This has enabled a Dayne Beams for example to become the best and fairest on a strong team so early when he likely would not have reached this level of success on a still building club such as a Melbourne or Port Adelaide and more likely in these situations would be a best 22 player but not the a-grade midfielder he became in 2012.

So for you rebuilding clubs. Don't put all your stocks in that pick 1. It more likely than not as history suggests will produce a very good player. But you need a lot more to become competitive these days in an 18 team competition and having the no.1 pick along isn't making anyone a contendor.

Take Gary Ablett. Mostly considered the best player in the competition. Directly after he left Geelong won a premiership and all his new team won was the wooden spoon. In Ablett's final year his team was clearly effected by the Ablett-Thompson conflict but even despite losing the best player in the competition and the coach I considered the best in the competition at the time. Geelong proved they could still win with their motivated veteran team and having those quality, motivated veterans really fast-tracked the development of those young players and helped them play such good footy right away which on a losing team absolutely would not have happened.

I'd even recommend to the AFL to ignore tanking - let clubs tank. Don't bother fining them and don't even consider it an offense. It's only going to hurt the clubs not only losing fans (membership + attendence) but also breeding a cycle of losing as Richmond only now seem to be starting to get out of after so long. I really applaud the way Richmond have operated in recent years recognising that building through the draft no longer is effective and they've gone the Sydney route analysing opposition lists, finding that underutilised talent who can fit their team and give them a role. Don't be surprised if they're a top 4 side in 2014 with the way they are building their list. It's so much more sound than their previous bottoming out strategy which never took them further than the middle of the ladder.