The draft myth?

[DrEvil_]

Why is this thread dominated by Hawthorn, stop.

Reality is dominated by Hawthorn.

 

[the dog's kennel]

What I would give for 6 or 7 straight years with no draft concessions, with the current father-son/ academy system and no free agency compo.

I think things would even up real fast.

By the way, that doesn't mean there would be a huge turnover like in NRL. You simply need to draft too much talent to succeed in AFL - it takes ages. In NRL you buy the right 3 or 4 players and your club is transformed.

 

[Scotland]

The draft gives you access to 18 year olds. I think people expect it to be much faster acting than it is.

 

[cryptor]

What I would give for 6 or 7 straight years with no draft concessions, with the current father-son/ academy system and no free agency compo.

I think things would even up real fast.

By the way, that doesn't mean there would be a huge turnover like in NRL. You simply need to draft too much talent to succeed in AFL - it takes ages. In NRL you buy the right 3 or 4 players and your club is transformed.

Doggies have quite a few FS picks coming through over the next few years, don't they?

 

[Hinkley29]

They produce drafted players every year, they would play for those clubs.
But even with a draft why can't the clubs have one priority pick every year from their home state before the draft?
The best 10 players in Victoria go to Victorian clubs, the best two West Aussies go to the Eagles and Dockers, then SA etc etc and then after that we have the draft.

So as an alternative to a "stupid" draft system, you propose....... another draft followed by a draft.

Why just have 1 "stupid" draft when you can have 2 eh?

 

[captain cotch 9]

It just shows that the draft isn't the most important thing.
Development and environment is.
Look at Melbourne for example.

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

win the flag and to be honest that really is not a lot of clubs for 16 years. Even worse if you only consider since 2007 as then you only have

Geelong
Hawthorn
Collingwood
Sydney

so 4 teams winning the flag in 9 years is pitiful.

Why is that pitiful? it's not bad that teams win multiple championships. Every league has dominant sides:

In the last 16 seasons the NBA has seen:

5x Spurs
5x Lakers
3x Heat
1x Pistons
1x Mavericks
1x Celtics

EPL it's just Man U, Man City, Arsenal and Chelsea.

Even the NFL which is one of the most difficult leagues to dominate (they have a draft too) has seen the Patriots win 4 of the last 14.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

It just shows that the draft isn't the most important thing.
Development and environment is.
Look at Melbourne for example.

Exactly, if we're looking at equalization, changing the draft will not achieve the objective.

Teams like Hawthorn & melbourne prove that the number of high draft picks you have means nothing. It's about how you develop the talent that determines whether promising players will become great afl players.

Leave the draft alone.

Nrl has had a revolving door policy with their premierships. But also with players. teams from one season to the next look very different. It's ridiculous.

 

[Debris]

Exactly, if we're looking at equalization, changing the draft will not achieve the objective.

Teams like Hawthorn & melbourne prove that the number of high draft picks you have means nothing. It's about how you develop the talent that determines whether promising players will become great afl players.

Leave the draft alone.

Nrl has had a revolving door policy with their premierships. But also with players. teams from one season to the next look very different. It's ridiculous.

I think you are missing the point of the thread, though. We know the draft has some negative side effects. You are often moving 17 and 18 year old men across the country and well away from their family and support structures and some of them just can't cope with it at that age. If the draft has no effect on equalization, why have it at all? What is the purpose of the draft? Better to get rid of it if it serves no purpose and introduce rules which will actually help equalization (if that is what is wanted).

 

[Richo83]

The draft is fine, and it's actually the thing which is helping equalise the competition. It also allows players to use draft chips to buy in talent that they normally wouldn't be able to get. Free agency isn't helping. The idea to stop the top four from free agency seems arbitrary, unfair and wouldn't fix the problem anyway. What the AFL needs is to get rid of compromised drafts.

 

[beta_condition]

I think you are missing the point of the thread, though. We know the draft has some negative side effects. You are often moving 17 and 18 year old men across the country and well away from their family and support structures and some of them just can't cope with it at that age. If the draft has no effect on equalization, why have it at all? What is the purpose of the draft? Better to get rid of it if it serves no purpose and introduce rules which will actually help equalization (if that is what is wanted).

But the draft does, since 2000 every side has played in a preliminary final, that's a 16 year period thats a sign that it's working I would of thought. Only 5 teams haven't made a Grandfinal and of those 5 teams Footscary and Adelaide could of easy won a flag, North Melbourne have also made a number of Preliminary finals during that time with 3 totally different teams.


Look at Footscray near the bottom of the ladder in the mid 2000's able to build a team capable of winning a flag, bottoming out over a course of 4 years and now our back with a side which looks premiership bound. I'd say it working.

 

[Debris]

But the draft does, since 2000 every side has played in a preliminary final, that's a 16 year period thats a sign that it's working I would of thought. Only 5 teams haven't made a Grandfinal and of those 5 teams Footscary and Adelaide could of easy won a flag, North Melborune have also made a number of Preliminary finals during that time with 3 totally different teams.

I see no evidence that the draft is the reason for this, though, and I would argue you don't keep it unless you have pretty convincing evidence that it is doing something. This is why I brought up the NRL where equalization seems to be working at least as well without it. There have been 6 different side win the premiership in the last 6 years in the NRL.

The hard salary cap for clubs is what is evening clubs out mostly.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

If we get rid of the draft we'll be in an even worse state than we are now. Teams with access to talent rich pockets will have more direct path to the better players, creating an uneven competition.

 

[L Dizz]

What I would give for 6 or 7 straight years with no draft concessions, with the current father-son/ academy system and no free agency compo.

I think things would even up real fast.

By the way, that doesn't mean there would be a huge turnover like in NRL. You simply need to draft too much talent to succeed in AFL - it takes ages. In NRL you buy the right 3 or 4 players and your club is transformed.

This last part is spot on. They're completely different games. Rugby league has a lot more role players on the park compared to Aussie Rules. If you get the top half back, hooker and prop or fullback and put them in the bottom side, they'll likely make the finals. If you put Fyfe, Rance and Hawkins in the Carlton team (or Brisbane for that matter) they'll still probably be rubbish.

 

[GoTheSwannies]

I don't think the draft is the answer. The draft is set up to assist the bottom clubs from getting off the bottom of the ladder. If you look at the last 10 to 20 years, it's been successful.

The problem were looking at here (if you consider it a problem in the first place) is the top teams being able to remain at their peak for an extended period. Changing the draft will not prevent the top team/s staying there.

Draftees take several years before they have a significant impact on the performance of their team.

That's where the salary cap and free agency comes I to play.

I think the answer would be to lower the cap floor. Allowing the bottom teams to build a war chest to poach talent from the top sides. At the moment, there's not enough of a differential between what their current club is paying and what another club is willing and able to pay them to switch clubs.

Players are willing to accept less to stay with a competitive team.

I personally don't see an issue with the way things are now. Brisbane, Geelong & Hawthorn were able to maintain their success for different reasons. All involve keeping a core group of star players together.

 

[Underdog]

More than happy to share ALL the WA talent with Freo whilst our Northern friends flounder and the Vic teams share in a hugely diluted pool of players.

The NRL doesn't really face these issues because they're all very localised. Moving to another team is easy, it's not an interstate move with a 4 hour plane flight home.

This reason alone makes the comparison to NRL a silly one.

 

[raskolnikov]

More than happy to share ALL the WA talent with Freo whilst our Northern friends flounder and the Vic teams share in a hugely diluted pool of players.

The NRL doesn't really face these issues because they're all very localised. Moving to another team is easy, it's not an interstate move with a 4 hour plane flight home.

This reason alone makes the comparison to NRL a silly one.

Warriors and Cowboys say hi.

 

[Messenger]

I see no evidence that the draft is the reason for this, though, and I would argue you don't keep it unless you have pretty convincing evidence that it is doing something. This is why I brought up the NRL where equalization seems to be working at least as well without it. There have been 6 different side win the premiership in the last 6 years in the NRL.

The hard salary cap for clubs is what is evening clubs out mostly.

Well I think having sixteen teams finish top 4 in the last fifteen years is evidence, isn't it?

 

[RUNVS]

Well I think having sixteen teams finish top 4 in the last fifteen years is evidence, isn't it?

15 years is a long time, in fact it is really 3 or 4 generations in football terms.

 

[Messenger]

15 years is a long time, in fact it is really 3 or 4 generations in football terms.

We've had a draft for nearly three decades. Don't we need to consider the entire history?

 

[RUNVS]

We've had a draft for nearly three decades. Don't we need to consider the entire history?

Probably not as not a lot of work was put into the draft in those first few years. It has only become what we would consider properly professional in the last decade.

 

[Debris]

Well I think having sixteen teams finish top 4 in the last fifteen years is evidence, isn't it?

That is a common logical error that people make. Correlation does not equal causation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

This is why I am constantly bringing up the NRL example. You have pretty much the same recruiting rules excluding the draft and getting possibly a better result, implying that the draft does nothing.

 

[beta_condition]

That is a common logical error that people make. Correlation does not equal causation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

This is why I am constantly bringing up the NRL example. You have pretty much the same recruiting rules excluding the draft and getting possibly a better result, implying that the draft does nothing.

It also could exactly be the reason and without solid information debunking it than thats a conclusion you should assume, quite frankly the instability of the NRL is a negativity to me, the inability of Melbourne and Carlton to form dominate teams since 2000 is a reflection of how a club is run not a indication of a failed recruiting system.

 

[Messenger]

That is a common logical error that people make. Correlation does not equal causation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

This is why I am constantly bringing up the NRL example. You have pretty much the same recruiting rules excluding the draft and getting possibly a better result, implying that the draft does nothing.

You also set the standard of equalisation as premierships.

We've discussed any number of causative factors that explain performance differences and others have raised issues about the NRL structure.

I'd be interested in your solution, though.

 

[RUNVS]

You also set the standard of equalisation as premierships.

We've discussed any number of causative factors that explain performance differences and others have raised issues about the NRL structure.

I'd be interested in your solution, though.

My solution

- Lower the minimum salary cap requirements from 95% to 85%
- A top 4 team can't sign a free agent unless they lose a free agent