Region Specific Draft Picks

[Miss Vanessa]

What are people's thoughts on each club being designated a specific region that is "their" zone. Prior to each draft, each club can select the best youngster from their specific zone before the draft proper begins.

It would encourage teams to look after and promote football in their own zone and enable each club to have a genuine connection with the region they are based. Teams that do this well would be rewarded with the best youngsters to emerge from these zones.

It would also cut down on the number of "I want to go home trades". As an Adelaide fan, I recognise that this would mean we wouldn't have a player like Dangerfield, but in a way, it's actually a little sad that the guy won't ever play for the team he supported growing up... At least I hope he doesn't!

It would be interesting to see who would be playing where if this had been in affect over the last five-ten years. I wonder if it would all even out in the wash?

 

[Moonwatcher]

The AFL want the SA clubs licences. The AFL sees itself as the entity to promote football across Australia. There are opportunities similar to the NSW scholarship program (not sure if running anymore) that saw Adelaide net Taylor Walker for example. It would be nice to pick up another Mark Riccuito outside of the draft though

 

[mattyc75]

would be great if the eagles could have picked up 1 or 2 more of the west aussies that have been high draft picks in the last couple of years

 

[SimonH]

Totally agree with the concept that clubs keep some tangible connection with their local area (whether their 'local area' is just a suburb or two, or half of a vast state). Otherwise there's too much risk that clubs just become a series of generic interchangeable names & logos.

However, in the form that you propose, it would be too broad and undercut the draft. All draft picks come from some local area, and the fact is that the AFL club located closest to where the #1 draft pick comes from, has usually done little or nothing to develop that player-- or certainly not enough to justify undercutting the whole equalisation policy behind the draft.

The most realistic means might be to reintroduce zones through the rookie draft, as with the old Blions and Swans local rookie system, where anyone is freely available in the ND, but for those who are overlooked, a club can claim priority on up to 3 (or however many) 'zone selection' rookies. Entitlement to those extra rookies, if selected, is on an 'extra list' basis, i.e. they don't count towards your maximum number of rookies on your standard list. Of course, they ultimately need to be either upgraded to main list, or delisted, like any other rookie.

The simplest way of doing it in the ND would be a 'bidding system', a la father/sons-- but father/sons are relatively rare, whereas everyone comes from somewhere-- so in pretty short order the bidding system would eat the draft.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

I don't have any issue with programs that develop new pathways in the three powerhouse states, but programs that dramatically comprise the talent pool in the draft are a no go, especially after the volume of talent that was and will be kept at arms length from the established clubs during this expansion process.

 

[Firewalker]

I've always liked the idea of zonal picks returning, but you have to go back to the reasons why the were abolished in the first place, in the VFL they were cut due to zonal boundary complaints and stronger clubs seeming to have a stronger pool of players in their zone and so to make a fairer competition the Draft was developed. Each interstate club when they first entered were allowed to build their list with local zone selections - except for Brisbane of course, West Coasts main premiership teams of '92 & '94 were built from those zone selections, Adelaide were given more restrictions with zonal picks and thus only about 6 players ended up having decent careers, Freo also suffered with with a mix of poor/limited choices and Port picked up some quality with zone picks in 96.

All zonal picks were eventually disbanded after the 17 y/o zone selections in the 1999 draft (bar Sydney and Brisbane still having options with players from their state) so to make a more diverse pool of players and a more even league. (before the entry of GWS & GC)

I do like the Idea of players ending up in their own state though, but only after they've had the chance of being picked up by others teams. So why not allow the first 10 picks of the draft to stay as normal but for example say after pick 10 a top SA/WA product is still there available at pick 11 but Adel/Port/Freo/WC don't have a pick until pick 16 they can then nominate that player to be their Zone selection at pick 16 thus those who have pick 11-15 cannot take him. Priority would be to the club which has the highest draft order so just say Freo had pick 16 but WC had pick 15, the eagles would have first opportunity to select the WA player as a Zone Selection. Still not sure if a Victorian system would work sort of along the same lines given the large amount of Vic players in the draft pool and having 10 teams so they would probably cry foul over it.

 

[dlanod]

I like it! It lets us have a permanent ladder of:

1-4: West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide, Port Adelaide. They'd both get half of a traditional football state.
5-14: Victorian clubs. One eighth of the most populous AFL state.
15-16: Brisbane and Gold Coast. Half of Queensland each, slightly more developed AFL than NSW.
17-18: GWS and Sydney. Half of an AFL wasteland each.

Takes out that horrible "risk" part of betting on ladder finishes each year!

 

[Mountain Giant]

I like it! It lets us have a permanent ladder of:

1-4: West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide, Port Adelaide. They'd both get half of a traditional football state.
5-14: Victorian clubs. One eighth of the most populous AFL state.
15-16: Brisbane and Gold Coast. Half of Queensland each, slightly more developed AFL than NSW.
17-18: GWS and Sydney. Half of an AFL wasteland each.

Takes out that horrible "risk" part of betting on ladder finishes each year!

AFL should also abolish the salary cap. I much prefer the more steady predictable European soccer leagues where the same 2 to 4 teams compete to win the league each year.

 

[GetDimmaBack]

VFL had zoning from about 1966 until they introduced the draft in the late 80s.
Hawks and Blues had very productive areas.

A mix of drafting and zoning might work.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

So now that all the Melbourne teams play out of the MCG and half of them train out of the MCG precinct how exactly do we allocate their zones? Based on suburbs they no long represent? Or based on their origins from 50 years ago.

 

[piesaregreat]

If a club gets a good zone they will fight to protect it
If a club gets a shit zone the reason it is a bad idea become immediately obvious.

 

[fishardansin]

I think it could be a similar system to the father son style bidding system and limited to one club. Each state can be divided up into regions in both the city and country assigned to each club. I also think this will have a positive effect on all young kids coming through because clubs will be investing heavily in the best kids from these areas trying to fast track their development. These kids will take their lessons back to their clubs and representative sides. On top of this it'll see the clubs and their players out in the communities much more which is a good thing for both the local footy clubs and for membership growth for all clubs.

I'd also like to see something similar done with all the remote indigenous communities. If they were zoned to clubs then they were be encouraged to spend more time developing kids out there. Especially if there was some sort of special rookie list, similar to NSW scholarship or international rookie list, where they could pick them up as a 16 year old and fund them to study or do a trade in the city of that club as well as work on things like diet and other life skills. The work in the indigenous communities could go hand in hand with state level softball as this is the most popular sport amongst the women. Yes I am a bit biased and would like to see Essendon get rewarded for their time and effort in Wadeye and Tiwi Islands.

18, or 36 if clubs get first pick in both their metro and country zone, kids across the country would not be disastrous or too lopsided for competition. A handfull of kids from the remote indigenous communities would definitely not effect equity either. These would obviously be sporadic and the positive effects of dreams, improved health and a feeling of being wanted by the broader outside community would be fantastic for a gaping wound on the soul of this nation.

 

[dlanod]

18, or 36 if clubs get first pick in both their metro and country zone

No objections as long as all non-Victorian clubs get zones in Melbourne.

Of course, that does defeat the point...

 

[fishardansin]

No objections as long as all non-Victorian clubs get zones in Melbourne.

Of course, that does defeat the point...

I disagree. If Brisbane and Gold Coast split the Brisbane and Gold Coast area in some even geographical manor, relating to population, and similarly with the regional areas then they would be able to spot super talented kids playing any sport. They could get some kids playing a rugby code, for example, who is displaying super qualities at the age of 14 and try to convert him to AFL. They should be allowed to give him scholarships to schools and even pay for any transport required for training, as well as supply him with any gear required. So they get more kids converting to the game and in essence repay the investment into their clubs that all Victorian clubs/fans have made in starting your clubs and keeping them afloat.

The Victorian based clubs trying to decide who will be "the gun" for each draft year from one area will probably have a list of 10 or 20 kids because you never can tell who will come on the most in those formative years. The stand out kid at 14 could just be more advanced in puberty than the rest and fall well back to the field once he's grown up. Conversly the kid with a late start in puberty showing a bit and expected to really come on once he finishes puberty may just not come on in the end. You never can tell. Needless to say the other kids in the group who are not selected as "the gun" of this group will be well developed and available to all clubs in the draft, which needless to say will potentially benefit non Victorian clubs. Also those who go through this process and turn out to not be good enough at all for AFL might very well grow up to share their experience and become fine coaches and role models for future juniors.

On top of all this I'd be happy if they sweetened the deal to add some sweetners for the NSW and QLD clubs where on top of their international rookie list, and my proposed indigenous rookie list, there was a third rookie list where kids who had a crack at making professional rugby, for either code, but didn't quite make it could be given a chance. There must be plenty of kids with good skills and work ethic who just fail in the end because they can't build the size required of those games but have very good endurance capabilities and will build the lesser size required of AFL.

Yes we have the TAC in Victoria as well as other development pathways in the other traditional football states but there is nothing wrong with adding more. On top of that it should become patently obvious that direct involvement by AFL clubs in the other states will have a massive impact on growing the game.

 

[Purple Suit]

I like it! It lets us have a permanent ladder of:

1-4: West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide, Port Adelaide. They'd both get half of a traditional football state.
5-14: Victorian clubs. One eighth of the most populous AFL state.
15-16: Brisbane and Gold Coast. Half of Queensland each, slightly more developed AFL than NSW.
17-18: GWS and Sydney. Half of an AFL wasteland each.

Takes out that horrible "risk" part of betting on ladder finishes each year!

You forgot NT and Tasmania. Throw them to NSW & QLD and it might prop them up occasionally to have a tilt for 9th.

 

[dlanod]

I disagree. If Brisbane and Gold Coast split the Brisbane and Gold Coast area in some even geographical manor, relating to population, and similarly with the regional areas then they would be able to spot super talented kids playing any sport. They could get some kids playing a rugby code, for example, who is displaying super qualities at the age of 14 and try to convert him to AFL. They should be allowed to give him scholarships to schools and even pay for any transport required for training, as well as supply him with any gear required. So they get more kids converting to the game and in essence repay the investment into their clubs that all Victorian clubs/fans have made in starting your clubs and keeping them afloat.

The Victorian based clubs trying to decide who will be "the gun" for each draft year from one area will probably have a list of 10 or 20 kids because you never can tell who will come on the most in those formative years. The stand out kid at 14 could just be more advanced in puberty than the rest and fall well back to the field once he's grown up. Conversly the kid with a late start in puberty showing a bit and expected to really come on once he finishes puberty may just not come on in the end. You never can tell. Needless to say the other kids in the group who are not selected as "the gun" of this group will be well developed and available to all clubs in the draft, which needless to say will potentially benefit non Victorian clubs. Also those who go through this process and turn out to not be good enough at all for AFL might very well grow up to share their experience and become fine coaches and role models for future juniors.

On top of all this I'd be happy if they sweetened the deal to add some sweetners for the NSW and QLD clubs where on top of their international rookie list, and my proposed indigenous rookie list, there was a third rookie list where kids who had a crack at making professional rugby, for either code, but didn't quite make it could be given a chance. There must be plenty of kids with good skills and work ethic who just fail in the end because they can't build the size required of those games but have very good endurance capabilities and will build the lesser size required of AFL.

Yes we have the TAC in Victoria as well as other development pathways in the other traditional football states but there is nothing wrong with adding more. On top of that it should become patently obvious that direct involvement by AFL clubs in the other states will have a massive impact on growing the game.

NSW and Qld clubs already what you're describing in their academies. However you're basically guaranteeing each Victorian club a free top 20 pick each year. Have a look where the best Queenslander or NSWman goes each year (yes, I know there's freak years like Riewoldt). There's a reason NSW and Qld clubs already have what you're describing - because they're not expected to get a shitload of talent out of it... maybe a few mid to late rounders. Hell, throw Tasmania and NT in there. There's some boom mid rounders from there as well... any first rounders? Well, they're few and far between - again, unlike what the Victorian, WA and SA clubs would be getting if they get to pick the best of the talent.

You talk about "sweetening" the deal with non-AFL players. Wow, I'm sure they'll be queueing up for that - after all how many of those become top footballers? And how many get delisted after a few years (McNamara, Mills, Orreal, etc)?

At least in Victoria the "stand out kid at 14" will still probably prove to be an adequate footballer. The "super talented kid playing any sport" has a far far higher chance of flaming out or deciding they don't like AFL. Every time zoning comes up, it's always a system that will entrench advantages for the footballing states and almost invariably will be coming from people in those states. Thankfully the AFL, having decided on the advantages of a national competition, would be unwilling to load a gun and point it at their foot in an aim to give those clubs a free kick. As it is, clubs like Fremantle and West Coast have done a fantastic job of identifying local talent through their rookie lists. And good on them! Funnily enough, they didn't need special inducements for it...

 

[fishardansin]

Might make up for the extended salary caps that Brisbane used to get three premierships and Sydney now have.

 

[dlanod]

Might make up for the extended salary caps that Brisbane used to get three premierships and Sydney now have.

Haha, well at least you've put some honesty in that answer. The old VFL "Screw the rest, we want built-in advantages!" attitude.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

I like it! It lets us have a permanent ladder of:

1-4: West Coast, Fremantle, Adelaide, Port Adelaide. They'd both get half of a traditional football state.
5-14: Victorian clubs. One eighth of the most populous AFL state.
15-16: Brisbane and Gold Coast. Half of Queensland each, slightly more developed AFL than NSW.
17-18: GWS and Sydney. Half of an AFL wasteland each.

Takes out that horrible "risk" part of betting on ladder finishes each year!

I'm not so sure it would be as simple as that. A cursory look at last years draft has 10 different TAC teams, 2 SANFL teams, 4 WAFL teams and one Tasmanian team have at least one player picked on the top 25. Absolutely, the Qld and NSW teams would require special rules to even it up... As others have pointed out, access to NT and Tassy players. Out of interest, I wonder how many guys playing in the TAC were originally born in NSW or Qld? But surely something could be figured out?

And I'm not simply proposing this to ensure a dominance of teams from SA and WA. In fact, as I recall in the mid 2000s there was a real dearth of talent in SA with only a handful of young guys picked up from the SANFL... In fact as I write, I'm looking at the 2007 draft where the Crows picked up Dangerfield at 10. That year, the first pick from a club that would align with the Crows was Tom McNamara from South Adelaide, picked at 66. And going purely on who was picked first, Geelong would have chosen Lachlan Henderson ahead of Dangerfield, who would have then slipped through to the draft proper. So it wouldn't necessarily mean getting a gun every year.

And I realize now that I should have really specified TAC, SANFL teams etc. would be aligned with AFL clubs. Not necessarily zones. Again, I think it would be interesting to see how each AFL list would look if this had been in affect for 10 years. I'd love to do it but I'm very, very lazy

 

[Miss Vanessa]

So now that all the Melbourne teams play out of the MCG and half of them train out of the MCG precinct how exactly do we allocate their zones? Based on suburbs they no long represent? Or based on their origins from 50 years ago.

On reflection, given 99% of kids get picked via TAC teams or the SANFL and WAfL, each AFL team would be aligned with certain clubs in these comps... NSW and QLD teams would obviously require special rules to even things up... Not quite sure how though!

So, yeah, the whole zone thing is probably a bit misguided.

 

[Miss Vanessa]

AFL should also abolish the salary cap. I much prefer the more steady predictable European soccer leagues where the same 2 to 4 teams compete to win the league each year.

Actually, I'm all for equality. If someone could definitively prove to me that this would be inequitable then I would quite happily forget about it. I'd just love to see a comp where teams still have a real connection with their communities. Unlike European football, particularly the EPL, where there are next to no locals playing for any of the top sides.

 

[Lana]

Why don't we make it total free agency but keep a set solid and even salary cap, set an upper limit on players on a list at 50 but no lower limit and only have an international and supplimentry players( players who haven't played football at any level for the past 3 years) rookie list with as many players as the club is willing to support, This is initally off the salary cap, but once these a player plays 3 AFL level games in a year they need to be included in the cap.

Make the trade system financial for contracted players. For example Hawkins has 3 years left on his contract but wants to leave geelong, If lets say he wants to leave to go to another club they have to agree on a transfer fee that both parties agree on while uncontracted players walk to the club of there choice. Lets say Carton gives geelong 1 million dollars to geelong for him.

Overall this will make the most even competition possible, player mobility will be really high, no player will ever be put in a state or list that they don't want to and gives teams incentive to develop relationships with local teams as feeder clubs as this will enable them to encourage player retention through unfinancial means

 

[Cleric]

I am all for some sort of Zone or first picks from each state goes to those clubs. As a Crows supporter and a South Australian, every year I look at the draft talent comming from our local clubs (Grundy, Mayes, Toumpas this year and Aish, Dunston, Scharenberg next) and I know that my club will never get the opportunity to draft them. The same goes for the WA clubs I am sure.

 

[dlanod]

Actually, I'm all for equality. If someone could definitively prove to me that this would be inequitable then I would quite happily forget about it. I'd just love to see a comp where teams still have a real connection with their communities. Unlike European football, particularly the EPL, where there are next to no locals playing for any of the top sides.

It'd be pretty simple. Have a look at the pick number of the first draftee from each TAC team, first two from SA and first two from WA. Then have a look at the first four from a combination of NT, Tasmania, NSW, ACT and Queensland. Average it out over a decade. Find that the average for most of the first lot is probably less than pick 20 (barring some of the worse TAC teams). The average of the last lot is probably around pick 40 to 50. Imagine you're giving a free first round pick to all teams from footy states and only a second to third rounder to the other teams. QED.

 

[bumsonseats]

I dont believe in zones......all clubs should have equal opportunity to the available talent based on the draft order. Zones are just another form of selective favouritism that only some clubs get. Its a National competition. If you dont want to go interstate, then dont nominate for the draft. If you really want to go home, them request a trade at the end of your first 2 year contract.

The rules should be the same for every club where humanly possible............end of story.
The only inequality I see being difficult to overcome is the draw, because as we all know......some clubs get to play more of the weaker sides, whilst some (Melbourne) clubs dont travel perhaps as much as they should. But I think these things can be overcome with a bit of intent, so why advocate just another inequality.