Tanking Solution

[Brishawk]

Pretty simple, instead of having a priority pick in addition to picks you already have, change it so you have to trade the priority pick away. This way it facilitates brining in more mature talent to provide a more immediate boost to performance rather than a kid who may or may not get a game.

The strengthened version of this is if you are awarded a priority pick for your performance in 2011 then the pick is only usable in 2012 but must be traded in 2011. The pick number is based on the 2012 finishing result in the same way the compensation picks are. This way in 2012 the team has an incentive to win if only to decrease the value of the compensation pick so your opposition does not benefit as greatly from the trade.

That is the bare bones of it anyway. Anyone think this concept has legs?

 

[PTizzle]

Not such a bad idea, but would be difficult to enforce. What if they couldn't find a trade?

It seems solid although I would hope tanking would be dead for the forseeable future due to GWS and GC.

 

[Topper Harley]

I really like it.

I hate the whole priority pick system anyway, so I'm a fan of lessening its impact, this would work nicely.

 

[Eddie Dingle]

Tanking died with Dean Bailey.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Tanking died with Dean Bailey.

So what is Primus inventing right now?

Bombing?

 

[Eddie Dingle]

So what is Primus inventing right now?

Bombing?

You Camry supporters are well aware we didn't have to tank, we were just shit.

 

[royals1922]

Tanking died with Dean Bailey.

And with Geelong winning their 3rd premiership in 5 years.

 

[jonoman89]

Teams would still benefit from losing under that scenario. Not as much, but still enough to make it enticing to tank.

 

[Hipster Doofus]

It's a fairly logical solution with a couple of flaws

What if the team can't find a trade? Are they forced to make a trade?

It won't solve tanking it'll just minimize it, tanking will never go away, there will always be teams thinking about the future and planning for it

 

[donbooger]

Its pretty good it wouldnt hurt, if the AFL havent admitted tanking now they never will though.

 

[Turbocat]

Like it as it provides immediate assistance (in theory) rather than give hep today that helps in 3-4 years +. Sort of like the u17 picks GWS.

But I doubt it would stop tanking its still an advantage you gain by performing poorly , so a team has an incentive to play off.

I have often thought that a system needs to be conscious of trying to encourage the team to help themselves rather than just become a welfare team.

Like giving them extra Rookies spots or something like that,

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

It's a fairly logical solution with a couple of flaws

What if the team can't find a trade? Are they forced to make a trade?

It won't solve tanking it'll just minimize it, tanking will never go away, there will always be teams thinking about the future and planning for it

I would make it so that if you don't trade it, you can't use it yourself.

 

[LeverPuller]

Better one. In b4 everyone jumps on it because I'm a Melbourne supporter.

Allocate draft picks based on how long since you've won a flag. Teams without a flag slot in at the year they first started playing.

Thus, draft for end of 2012, assuming Collingwood win the 2012 premiership.

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

Second round of draft picks allocated as it is now.

Almost no incentive to tank, as it gets you virtually nowhere.

 

[donbooger]

Better one. In b4 everyone jumps on it because I'm a Melbourne supporter.

Allocate draft picks based on how long since you've won a flag. Teams without a flag slot in at the year they first started playing.

Thus, draft for end of 2012, assuming Collingwood win the 2012 premiership.

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

Second round of draft picks allocated as it is now.

Almost no incentive to tank, as it gets you virtually nowhere.

Has the potential for some enormous dynasties and bottom outs, think of the amount of great draft picks some of those low sides will get and the length of time the cats and pies will be getting scraps for.

An example of seeing the damage from lacking good draft picks is over time is Carlton early this decade

 

[LeverPuller]

Has the potential for some enormous dynasties and bottom outs, think of the amount of great draft picks some of those low sides will get and the length of time the cats and pies will be getting scraps for.

An example of seeing the damage from lacking good draft picks is over time is Carlton early this decade

Yes, but if you want to totally stamp out tanking, that's how you do it.

 

[donbooger]

Yes, but if you want to totally stamp out tanking, that's how you do it.

It would guarantee no long term premiership droughts. No matter how terrible you are, you will have team full of number 1 draft picks like Carlton eventually.

 

[Underarm]

Yes, but if you want to totally stamp out tanking, that's how you do it.

it takes more than No1 draft picks to become a champion side. Pies/gc/gws wouldnt see a no 1 pick for decades, if at all.

If anything it would just add to the pressure on dogs/demons/saints/tiges to get that premiership.

 

[NQTIGER]

Better one. In b4 everyone jumps on it because I'm a Melbourne supporter.

Allocate draft picks based on how long since you've won a flag. Teams without a flag slot in at the year they first started playing.

Thus, draft for end of 2012, assuming Collingwood win the 2012 premiership.

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

Second round of draft picks allocated as it is now.

Almost no incentive to tank, as it gets you virtually nowhere.

Thats pretty good, no incentive to tank......i like it and coming from a melb supporter too who would have thought

 

[KennyHunter9]

Would not have discouraged WCE from tanking ... ahem, sending all their experienced and talented players for surgery mid-season.

 

[LeverPuller]

it takes more than No1 draft picks to become a champion side. Pies/gc/gws wouldnt see a no 1 pick for decades, if at all.

If anything it would just add to the pressure on dogs/demons/saints/tiges to get that premiership.

Yeah, but we're not worrying about that sort of pressure, we're about stopping the tank.

 

[Underarm]

Yeah, but we're not worrying about that sort of pressure, we're about stopping the tank.

okay yeah, it would stop "tanking". just like getting rid of the Draft would too.

 

[Chewy]

This latest "Tanking Solution" is no solution. Carlton tanked in 2007. One of their assistant coaches admitted they threw their last game in round 22 versus Melbourne (in addition to their losing their previous 10 games and giving up second half leads in many of those)

Cation used the extra draft pick they secured from this blatant tanking to facilitate the Chris Judd trade. They were probably into Juddy all year long when it became obvious he wished to return home to Victoria. The Blues knew they'd need some extra trade currency and made the early call to tank over the second half of the year.

Tanking Carlton did exactly what the OP has suggested and traded their priority pick (well, pick 4 instead of pick 1)

Back to the drawing board

 

[Summer Nights]

Here's my solution to tanking:

The AFL's integrity officer can call upon a club to explain if they make really strange match committee choices or aren't satisfied that they're doing everything to win. The questions could be specific based on common sense football knowledge, like "why did you play this player out of position when clearly he wasn't injured and was in good form, when you could have won the game."

If the answers aren't good enough then they can strip them of a pick. It would be judgemental but that's better than having a system where it's quantitative based on ladder position.

The threat of it would be disincentive enough for it not to happen, so it probably wouldn't get to that stage. If it did, then they could do something like a panel decision after the club answers to them, then an anonymous vote of the the other clubs. If both the panel and the rest of the clubs agreed that they weren't satisfied that the club in question was doing everything it could to win then sanctions could be imposed.

Could be tinkered with, but I don't see why an old fashioned inquiry with proper process wouldn't be effective.

If the fans were worried what could trigger the process to begin with (if they were afraid the AFL would avoid the process), then it could be triggered by the AFL fans community. Fans could register their concern on the AFL website and if 1% of AFL Club members registered concern about a particular club (650K total, therefore 6500 club members) then it would trigger the process regardless of Demetriou's approval.

 

[TCP99]

Best way to eliminate tanking and stop totally supporting failure. Give the 9th team 1st pick, 10th second etc. When you get to last team 8th - 1st finish the round.

 

[Kepler26]

the solution is simple. get rid of the priority pick and have a draft lottery.