Opinion The bidding system

[Dan12]

I'm wondering what others think about the current academy and father son bidding system.

At the moment it's a free kick for teams lucky enough to have academy/FS players (Collingwood, the dogs and Saints the biggest beneficiaries). The Pies have seven picks no higher than 36- it is hard to equate that somehow with pick two.

The dogs won't have to give up much more than pick 17 (with it being traded for so many later picks) for likely the second or third name read out in Darcy.

The Saints have 62, 66, 67- those picks will go down to 50s picks once the Daicos and Darcy bids are in- and they probably get them two top 30 picks.

The system is not able to adjust for a lot:

- the variance of different drafts (some years might be very skinny and late picks are thrown away to academy clubs)
- the fact that a club like the Saints will have all their picks moved up the order due to the earlier bids being matched for Daicos and Darcy.
- the mid season draft took 20 odd draftees off the board and makes lower picks less valuable.

The value the points system places on lower picks does not equal the value clubs place on them. E.g. if Richmond traded their picks 26 and 27 for St. Kilda's pick 9, every tigers fan here would be doing cartwheels and every Saints fan distraught...... But the bidding system says that these are the same value.

How I'd fix it:

1. The 20% points discount should be scrapped for father sons. The club that gets to nab them shouldn't get a discount for having sheer good luck.
2. The discount for academy players should be halved (10%). Academies actually do invest in the player and there should be a discount associated with that, but the main discount is the skewed system that says two mid 20s picks equals a top 10 pick.
3. For first rounders, clubs should only be able to stockpile max 3 later picks to match. For second rounders onwards, only two picks.

If this were the case, the value of the player and the picks to match would be much closer aligned.
Say Daicos was bid on at 2 and these changes were in place, they would only be able to use three picks (not seven, like they do now). To match, they would need picks 20, 23 and 24.
Say Darcy's bid is at 3. The Dogs would need picks 24, 25 and 27.
Windhager and Owens at 25 and 30- the Saints would need 46, 47, 48, 51.

That's just..... Fairer.

Would be interested in others' opinions.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

I'm wondering what others think about the current academy and father son bidding system.

At the moment it's a free kick for teams lucky enough to have academy/FS players (Collingwood, the dogs and Saints the biggest beneficiaries). The Pies have seven picks no higher than 36- it is hard to equate that somehow with pick two.

The dogs won't have to give up much more than pick 17 (with it being traded for so many later picks) for likely the second or third name read out in Darcy.

The Saints have 62, 66, 67- those picks will go down to 50s picks once the Daicos and Darcy bids are in- and they probably get them two top 30 picks.

The system is not able to adjust for a lot:

- the variance of different drafts (some years might be very skinny and late picks are thrown away to academy clubs)
- the fact that a club like the Saints will have all their picks moved up the order due to the earlier bids being matched for Daicos and Darcy.
- the mid season draft took 20 odd draftees off the board and makes lower picks less valuable.

The value the points system places on lower picks does not equal the value clubs place on them. E.g. if Richmond traded their picks 26 and 27 for St. Kilda's pick 9, every tigers fan here would be doing cartwheels and every Saints fan distraught...... But the bidding system says that these are the same value.

How I'd fix it:

1. The 20% points discount should be scrapped for father sons. The club that gets to nab them shouldn't get a discount for having sheer good luck.
2. The discount for academy players should be halved (10%). Academies actually do invest in the player and there should be a discount associated with that, but the main discount is the skewed system that says two mid 20s picks equals a top 10 pick.
3. For first rounders, clubs should only be able to stockpile max 3 later picks to match. For second rounders onwards, only two picks.

If this were the case, the value of the player and the picks to match would be much closer aligned.
Say Daicos was bid on at 2 and these changes were in place, they would only be able to use three picks (not seven, like they do now). To match, they would need picks 20, 23 and 24.
Say Darcy's bid is at 3. The Dogs would need picks 24, 25 and 27.
Windhager and Owens at 25 and 30- the Saints would need 46, 47, 48, 51.

That's just..... Fairer.

Would be interested in others' opinions.

I would keep the current system but require more draft points ,say 20% more, if a second father and son 1st round selection is selected within a 3 year period.

 

[pugsville]

Steepen the curve, 4th rounds picks should not be worth any points at all. Have pick 54 with 9 pick 1 worth 3,000 and run a stepper curve. With Round 3 not worth much points a of of the shenanigans will be harder.

 

[Jibroni]

Yes decrease the premium for 3rd and 4th round picks and place more onus on the clubs to accumulate high draft picks

 

[Monkey King]

I love the FOS rule. Bidding could be fixed up by club's needing to match a bid with a pick from that round. Forget about getting a pick two level player with a bunch of picks in the 40's like the Pies are going to. Pay a first-rounder upfront, then match remaining points with what you've got left.

 

[danielG]

I love the FOS rule. Bidding could be fixed up by club's needing to match a bid with a pick from that round. Forget about getting a pick two level player with a bunch of picks in the 40's like the Pies are going to. Pay a first-rounder upfront, then match remaining points with what you've got left.

This is a really good discussion point because the system as it stands has shown itself to be flawed. I like the idea of fourth rounds picks being exempt from the points system. Any picks that wouldn't otherwise be used by clubs shouldn't be included.
AFL need to get to the point where the first round is as close to uncompromised as possible so northern academy selections are open to all in the first round, after that the system stands as is.
Father Sons is a great tradition, but agree the discount needs to be scrapped, the clubs getting the luck of a father son selection is benefit enough.
If northern states issue with developing players then losing them, maybe they get a payment or draft points for players developed in their system that are drafted elsewhere.

 

[H00t]

I can think of a couple of solutions.

changing the value of picks would be a start. The point system undervalues early picks and overvalues later picks. Add this to removing the discount and teams getting enough points will be a challenge. As it should be. Matching shouldn’t be easy to do. It’s already such a huge advantage.

Teams should also need to have taken a pick before being able to match a bid or match with a pick in the same round. Prevents teams from being able to trade out of the first round if they have to match an early bid

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Collingwood have given up a heck of a lot in the past 2 years to ensure they have enough points for Daicos (as well as clear up cap space)

Nor sure if they are as big a beneficiaries as the OP thinks.

 

[TheTassieHawk]

The suggested limit of 3 picks for an early match is a much better outcome than the current system however I would decrease this to 2 regardless of 1st round or later bids.

I think if this was brought in for a season or 2 then further discussion could then be had about varying the points curve and discounts.

 

[Prochard123]

As long as the rules are fair and apply equally to everyone there’s no problem here.

Both Brisbane and Sydney have had a stack of young talent come fromacademy.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

A few things could be done but I would be happy with just scraping points after the third round and FS getting no discount.

You could also make clubs match only with picks within the round of the bid. Even if that means they lose points from future picks over say a three year period. It would mean Bulldogs for instance would end up losing this years and you would imagine next years first rounders to pay for Darcy. Collingwood would lose next years first then possibly have the following seasons again down graded to match a Daicos bid.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

As long as the rules are fair and apply equally to everyone there’s no problem here.

Both Brisbane and Sydney have had a stack of young talent come fromacademy.

It’s not fair though, it’s just dumb luck

 

[Dan12]

Collingwood have given up a heck of a lot in the past 2 years to ensure they have enough points for Daicos (as well as clear up cap space)

Nor sure if they are as big a beneficiaries as the OP thinks.

No they haven't..... And the cap space thing wasn't related.

They started with picks at 36, 43, 46, 48 this year.
As for next year's draft they've traded out of the second and fourth rounds but have three third rounders. So a minor loss.

In terms of players, they've brought in two cheap players (Kreuger, Lipinski) and lost one (Lynch). Minor gain.

So really they haven't given up much more than their four mid range picks for a top 1-3 pick (although they have traded smartly). And they'll have leftover points after they match for later picks.... That's ridiculous.

And the dogs, well they will basically get pick 3 and will give up Lipinski, Young and pick 17 for that. They'll probably trade to get better future picks too or have a lot of leftover points. Also ridiculous.

 

[eastfreo75]

The system is faulty but let’s make small changes to make a little bit more fairer.

The argument from the academy picks is that the club should be rewarded because they have done the hard work.

I would say you already have advantages by recruiting a player with no flight risk, player you know well and you taught them in your system reducing transition time.

Here’s my suggestions:
1. Get rid of discounts
2. Any pick after pick 30, the player comes for free. The real issues is the high draft picks.
3. Only first and seconds picks count towards points.

 

[Cripptonite]

There are many issues with the bidding system but first let’s remember why it was brought in, because under the old system Sydney were able to match a bid at pick 2 for Heeney with their pick 17 which was widely viewed as unfair since it was nowhere near market value.

Fast forward to now we’ve had JUH, Darcy and now Daicos who are top 3 prospects being matched with low-value 3rd and 4th round picks which is even less of an outlay than what Sydney gave up for Heeney. How? Clubs have fairly manipulated the system and live/future pick trading makes it even easier to do so. The whole system is broken.

1) It creates a false economy where later picks have value to teams who are matching but little to no value for anyone else. Why do picks in the 60s have points values attached when there won’t be 60 live picks on draft night? Picks in the 40s and 50s also have much more DVI value than actual market value. The DVI index needs a complete overhaul. Also first round picks are worth little for teams with top-end prospects like the Bulldogs or Pies this year but have huge value to anyone else.

2) Under the current format, live trading should not co-exist with this bidding system. Sydney used the “pick-parking” strategy to pick up Blakey which was supposedly allowed that one time with commentary at the time suggesting clubs could no longer use the strategy. However there have been no measures put in place to actually stop this from repeating.

Collingwood basically did the same approach in the 2020 draft waiting for the McInnes bid before trading back in, the only difference was they didn’t trade out the original pick. They could potentially do the same again this year (traded out current year picks for futures with their GC trade, then after Daicos gets bid on trade back in).

In addition, clubs have five minutes to match a bid on draft night and for some stupid reason can trade their next pick before matching to create greater draft capital, further offsetting the loss associated with matching a bid.

3) NGAs shouldn’t exist.

4) Northern Academies in my opinion should be run by the AFL not the clubs and whilst I don’t mind the Northern clubs being able to match a bid, prime talent (maybe top 20) should be in the open pool for Northern academy prospects as they are currently for NGAs.

5) Discounts are too high (priority access to a player is enough of a win).

 

[goodie23]

It’s not fair though, it’s just dumb luck

Dumb luck and dodgy zoning.

 

[Freomaniac]

It’s not fair though, it’s just dumb luck

That's your opinion. Not mine.

As a Victorian team, your team can get local talent in the VFL and tac cup. The draw back is 9 other Vic clubs have got the same mind set.

The Queensland clubs have the WAFL and the NEAFL to get local talent but both those leagues are inferior compared to the SANFL, WAFL and VFL

 

[Vindicater]

Get rid of the 20% discount.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

The only adjustment they need to make is revisiting the points allocates to picks.

It is obvious that clubs put higher value on higher picks and less on later picks than the system does.

Once we have enough data they need to use actual pick trades to make it more reflective of market value.

 

[danielG]

Get rid of the 20% discount.

I think its generally agreed that its faulty and yet we'll most likely have the same conversation next year. The AFL are just not proactive about fixing things until the media raise the issue of the system being broken. At the absolute minimum the discount goes, and the points only apply for the first 3 rounds. Can go further but that's a start. First round selections should be excluded from northern academy access.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

That's your opinion. Not mine.

As a Victorian team, your team can get local talent in the VFL and tac cup. The draw back is 9 other Vic clubs have got the same mind set.

The Queensland clubs have the WAFL and the NEAFL to get local talent but both those leagues are inferior compared to the SANFL, WAFL and VFL

If the Suns loses say 2 out of King, Lukosisus and Rankie at the end of next week, I honestly think the AFL will give Gold Coast even greater academy access and quite frankly I would be happy with that.

Southern and Eastern based clubs can complain all they want, but until they stop treating Gold Coast as a feeder club and raid them every year, they shouldn't complain one jot.

 

[danielG]

If the Suns loses say 2 out of King, Lukosisus and Rankie at the end of next week, I honestly think the AFL will give Gold Coast even greater academy access and quite frankly I would be happy with that.

Southern and Eastern based clubs can complain all they want, but until they stop treating Gold Coast as a feeder club and raid them every year, they shouldn't complain one jot.

GC act as a feeder club because of the way it's run not it's location. Geographically they are in a better position football wise to be a success than GWS but GWS administratively are a better run club and they succeed because of it. GC don't need drafting concessions they need a wise head to take control. They need Clarko basically, not 3 more young locals who may or may not develop. The development is as big a problem as the retention at GC.

 

[RUNVS]

If the Suns loses say 2 out of King, Lukosisus and Rankie at the end of next week, I honestly think the AFL will give Gold Coast even greater academy access and quite frankly I would be happy with that.

Southern and Eastern based clubs can complain all they want, but until they stop treating Gold Coast as a feeder club and raid them every year, they shouldn't complain one jot.

Yep. Look at St Kilda fans who were already circling like vultures the moment Ben King was drafted to Gold Coast, or Adelaide fans with the SA kids Gold Coast drafted. It is really ugly.

AFL need to open things up for Gold Coast, make it so they pretty much get exclusive access to half of Queensland and all of the Northern Territory. There won't be a go home factor for someone drafted from NT.

 

[Gussman]

If I could make a change it would be to only allow a bid to be matched if a club has a pick within a certain range (next 10 picks or so) alongside the current point requirements. Player gets bid on at 10 shouldn't be matched with a bunch of picks in the 30s and 40s. Forces clubs to keep a pick in the range in which a player will be drafted. If a player gets bid on outside the clubs range they can use live trading to trade into that range or let him go.

 

[RUNVS]

If I could make a change it would be to only allow a bid to be matched if a club has a pick within a certain range (next 10 picks or so) alongside the current point requirements. Player gets bid on at 10 shouldn't be matched with a bunch of picks in the 30s and 40s. Forces clubs to keep a pick in the range in which a player will be drafted. If a player gets bid on outside the clubs range they can use live trading to trade into that range or let him go.

I would go entirely to a points system. Remove picks trading entirely.