Opinion Will Brisbane’s win finally spell the end of the Academies?

[Philhawk]

Where did you get that stat from - I hunted and found only this

<<<
Tasmania and the Northern Territory have witnessed the most significant increases, with participation spikes of 13% and 9%, respectively. In the Northern Territory, girls now make up over 40% of Auskick participants, and the number of junior footballers in Tasmania has increased by 9%. Queensland has also seen a 6% rise in participation, contributing to a combined total of over 120,000 participants alongside New South Wales.

Traditional football strongholds like Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia continue to show solid numbers, with 222,000, 84,500, and 64,000 participants, respectively. Women and girls now account for 20% of all community football registrations nationally, highlighting the sport’s growing inclusivity>>>

Note the bolded.

Source: https://ministryofsport.com/afl-breaks-participation-record-reflecting-strong-grassroots-growth/[/B]

‘Simple as that’: The ‘lesson’ for rest of AFL in Lions’ blueprint to crack ‘tough’ Broncos market

‘Simple as that’: The ‘lesson’ for rest of AFL in Lions’ blueprint to crack ‘tough’ Broncos market

www.foxsports.com.au

Grabbed verbatim from here. Assuming they didn’t make it up.

 

[Philhawk]

I don’t think you understand the bold. And I’m not going to bother explaining it. You need someone who supports a vfl team who lives up here to explain it.

What talent pathway do you want to replace academies with?

What specifically is the issue, outside of a robust support for another code up there?

As has been touched upon, junior numbers are flourishing, academy kids are being produced at a rate higher than other “afl states”, the Lions keep going from strength to strength off field - what is still left to achieve?

 

[Ian Dunross]

The academies are great they've just got to change the bidding system so you can't just use 6 third rounders to draft a Will Ashcroft, or whatever the current system is.

We want gun kids from QLD and NSW coming thru the AFL system, but they need to be drafted for fair(ish) value.

In any event, isn't Brisbane the wrong test case, as their successes are due to excellent trading and then hitting the jackpot with father sons, unless I'm mistaken?

 

[Elixuh]

What specifically is the issue, outside of a robust support for another code up there?

As has been touched upon, junior numbers are flourishing, academy kids are being produced at a rate higher than other “afl states”, the Lions keep going from strength to strength off field - what is still left to achieve?

What you’re talking about takes decades. And operating in a competitive marketplace where we are no.2 to nrl means the landscape is vastly different than anywhere else outside nsw and qld.

Back to your question, what talent pathway do you want to replace academies with?

 

[Philhawk]

What you’re talking about takes decades. And operating in a competitive marketplace where we are no.2 to nrl means the landscape is vastly different than anywhere else outside nsw and qld.

Back to your question, what talent pathway do you want to replace academies with?

Keep the academies – they’ve clearly been successful in building pathways where NRL and soccer are bigger competitors – but just re-brand them or make them part of a more “open” system.

What doesn’t sit right is the exclusive access for Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and Gold Coast. If the goal is genuinely about development and growing the game, then the academies should be funded and run the same way, but their talent should enter the draft pool like everyone else. That way, Queensland and NSW kids still get elite coaching and resources from age 13–14 onwards, but without the automatic pipeline to the local AFL club.

It would preserve the development benefits, but remove the distortion at draft time.

Who says no?

 

[Toump Ass]

So you could get player bid on at pick 1 for pick 11 that’s actually worse then the current system they have

Not really. Would you rather have pick 11 in the draft or picks 43, 45, 47 and 52?

 

[Elixuh]

Keep the academies – they’ve clearly been successful in building pathways where NRL and soccer are bigger competitors – but just re-brand them or make them part of a more “open” system.

What doesn’t sit right is the exclusive access for Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and Gold Coast. If the goal is genuinely about development and growing the game, then the academies should be funded and run the same way, but their talent should enter the draft pool like everyone else. That way, Queensland and NSW kids still get elite coaching and resources from age 13–14 onwards, but without the automatic pipeline to the local AFL club.

It would preserve the development benefits, but remove the distortion at draft time.

Who says no?

Why do you think they’re funded and run the way they are?

 

[Viceregal]

Keep the academies – they’ve clearly been successful in building pathways where NRL and soccer are bigger competitors – but just re-brand them or make them part of a more “open” system.

What doesn’t sit right is the exclusive access for Brisbane, Sydney, GWS and Gold Coast. If the goal is genuinely about development and growing the game, then the academies should be funded and run the same way, but their talent should enter the draft pool like everyone else. That way, Queensland and NSW kids still get elite coaching and resources from age 13–14 onwards, but without the automatic pipeline to the local AFL club.

It would preserve the development benefits, but remove the distortion at draft time.

Who says no?

Bob the footballer in Queensland can choose between playing rugby league or aussie rules.

Atm he is choosing between

• getting developed and then drafted by the Broncos (with the extra lure of potential State of Origin and playing for Australia)
• getting developed and then drafted by the Lions his home state team.

Take out the Lions element and you have

• getting developed and then drafted by the Broncos (with the extra lure of potential State of Origin and playing for Australia)
• getting developed and potentially drafted to St Kilda or Melbourne

It is the pathway into the Lions that helps the athletes with choices like Bob decide to play aussie rules over league otherwise it is a secured future over a potential wasteland ...

 

[Tasmanian saint]

What you’re talking about takes decades. And operating in a competitive marketplace where we are no.2 to nrl means the landscape is vastly different than anywhere else outside nsw and qld.

Back to your question, what talent pathway do you want to replace academies with?

Have a centre of excellence like how basketball use to do it at the ais the afl pay for it and every club gets to benefit from players Australia wide

 

[Elixuh]

Have a centre of excellence like how basketball use to do it at the ais the afl pay for it and every club gets to benefit from players Australia wide

I agree but,

1 the afl used to fund it and it didn’t work for whatever reason

2 why aren’t they taking this route when it’s the most obvious solution?

3 why aren’t all the people who complain about academies, like Fred Bassatt, raising that as the obvious solution rather than saying just abolish them?

 

[Philhawk]

Bob the footballer in Queensland can choose between playing rugby league or aussie rules.

Atm he is choosing between

• getting developed and then drafted by the Broncos (with the extra lure of potential State of Origin and playing for Australia)
• getting developed and then drafted by the Lions his home state team.

Take out the Lions element and you have

• getting developed and then drafted by the Broncos (with the extra lure of potential State of Origin and playing for Australia)
• getting developed and potentially drafted to St Kilda or Melbourne

It is the pathway into the Lions that helps the athletes with choices like Bob decide to play aussie rules over league otherwise it is a secured future over a potential wasteland ...

Let’s not pretend the “pathway” itself is bulletproof. For every Eric Hipwood or Harris Andrews, there are hundreds of academy kids who end up back playing QAFL or local footy after 4–5 years of dangling on the hook. If 90% don’t make it, then what’s being “guaranteed”? It’s a marketing pitch, not a contract.

The comparison with the Broncos (or rugby league more generally) is also a bit off. League’s development system is genuinely tiered: you can miss NRL but still have semi-professional or rep footy at multiple levels, plus a realistic shot at State of Origin if you’re close. In AFL, you miss the draft and the next stop is suburban footy. That’s not the same safety net.

The other flaw is assuming kids are only weighing Lions v Broncos. If you’re good enough, you could be drafted by any AFL club. And if that club is well-run — Sydney, Geelong, Collingwood — that might actually be a far better environment than being locked into a struggling expansion side that hasn’t figured out development properly. The “home” narrative only sells if the local club is competitive and stable.

And one more thing that always gets left out of this conversation: expansion teams have always whinged about the “go home factor.” They say they need academies so kids stay local. But if you opened up the pool properly, you would actually increase the chances those same kids end up at a Victorian club, which is where the so-called “go home factor” kicks in hardest.

So which is it? You cannot have it both ways, complaining about losing kids to “home” while also demanding a monopoly over your own local talent. If anything, a genuinely open draft gives the kid the best chance of landing at a stable, well run club that makes “going home” less of an issue in the first place. Sydney and Geelong have made careers out of turning interstate players into long-term leaders, it is not impossible.

I agree but,

1 the afl used to fund it and it didn’t work for whatever reason

2 why aren’t they taking this route when it’s the most obvious solution?

3 why aren’t all the people who complain about academies, like Fred Bassatt, raising that as the obvious solution rather than saying just abolish them?

The better answer is to keep the academies but tighten the rules around access and fairness. Matching can be made harsher at the very top of the draft, perhaps by banning matches inside the top five or ten and increasing the points tax. The AFL can fund a baseline of coaching and welfare standards across the board so that every region gets a fair level of support. Independent audits and published data on how much work each academy actually does would also improve trust in the system. Shared state hubs a few times a year could give the top talent exposure to mixed coaching and neutral eyes without taking away the local, week to week development that actually matters.

Where I’ll agree with you is conceding that even if the AFL paid for everything and stepped in, it would still need regional hubs, staff and travel budgets. You end up spending close to the same money but you lose the co-investment from clubs and the efficiency of them targeting the top prospects in their zones. And if the AFL controls everything centrally you risk another metro-centric system where Victorian clubs inevitably have more pull. That recreates the problem the academies were designed to solve in the first place.

 

[kranky al]

‘Simple as that’: The ‘lesson’ for rest of AFL in Lions’ blueprint to crack ‘tough’ Broncos market

‘Simple as that’: The ‘lesson’ for rest of AFL in Lions’ blueprint to crack ‘tough’ Broncos market

www.foxsports.com.au

Grabbed verbatim from here. Assuming they didn’t make it up.

I’ve been caught like that before. You wanna wring their neck!!

 

[Elixuh]

Let’s not pretend the “pathway” itself is bulletproof. For every Eric Hipwood or Harris Andrews, there are hundreds of academy kids who end up back playing QAFL or local footy after 4–5 years of dangling on the hook. If 90% don’t make it, then what’s being “guaranteed”? It’s a marketing pitch, not a contract.

The comparison with the Broncos (or rugby league more generally) is also a bit off. League’s development system is genuinely tiered: you can miss NRL but still have semi-professional or rep footy at multiple levels, plus a realistic shot at State of Origin if you’re close. In AFL, you miss the draft and the next stop is suburban footy. That’s not the same safety net.

The other flaw is assuming kids are only weighing Lions v Broncos. If you’re good enough, you could be drafted by any AFL club. And if that club is well-run — Sydney, Geelong, Collingwood — that might actually be a far better environment than being locked into a struggling expansion side that hasn’t figured out development properly. The “home” narrative only sells if the local club is competitive and stable.

And one more thing that always gets left out of this conversation: expansion teams have always whinged about the “go home factor.” They say they need academies so kids stay local. But if you opened up the pool properly, you would actually increase the chances those same kids end up at a Victorian club, which is where the so-called “go home factor” kicks in hardest.

So which is it? You cannot have it both ways, complaining about losing kids to “home” while also demanding a monopoly over your own local talent. If anything, a genuinely open draft gives the kid the best chance of landing at a stable, well run club that makes “going home” less of an issue in the first place. Sydney and Geelong have made careers out of turning interstate players into long-term leaders, it is not impossible.



The better answer is to keep the academies but tighten the rules around access and fairness. Matching can be made harsher at the very top of the draft, perhaps by banning matches inside the top five or ten and increasing the points tax. The AFL can fund a baseline of coaching and welfare standards across the board so that every region gets a fair level of support. Independent audits and published data on how much work each academy actually does would also improve trust in the system. Shared state hubs a few times a year could give the top talent exposure to mixed coaching and neutral eyes without taking away the local, week to week development that actually matters.

Where I’ll agree with you is conceding that even if the AFL paid for everything and stepped in, it would still need regional hubs, staff and travel budgets. You end up spending close to the same money but you lose the co-investment from clubs and the efficiency of them targeting the top prospects in their zones. And if the AFL controls everything centrally you risk another metro-centric system where Victorian clubs inevitably have more pull. That recreates the problem the academies were designed to solve in the first place.

The issue is then we are funding and resourcing talent with little benefit where other clubs are using the equivalent funds and resources on their premiership program.

 

[Mynamesinuse]

Our grand final side had academy picks that were picks 25, 42 and 61. They weren't the multiple first round academy picks that seems to be the narrative coming out of this.

Benefitting from father sons, absolutely, we've been very lucky in that regard. But I don't remember the same uproar when Collingwood won a flag off the back of Moore and Daicos x 2, as well as Quaynor from their NGA academy.

Annable I'll give you is a big leg up, especially since we've just gone back to back.

Marshall

I believe you forgot to include all of the clubs who benefited from getting better picks than they would otherwise have had at their disposal by swapping their later picks for other team's earlier picks ... on the years you have a F/s to pay for the points were worth more than the picks and for the other club without F/s that year they reap the reward.

So there are clubs who do those trades and they do them for their own self interest ... kind of a win-win really.

Taking the piss obviously

 

[GC2015]

Marshall

So Brisbane had three academy players line up for them in the GF on Saturday. Sam Marshall was the third worst rated player in the GF and was only slightly ahead of two blokes that were either subbed out (Starcevich) or subbed in late (Martin). He was bid on with a second round pick (25) last year and didn't really have much influence in his 11 AFL games for the Lions this season. He may develop into a solid player over the next few years, but as of right now there's no real indication that he's going to be good/great player for Brisbane and wasn't rated very highly as a junior as evidenced by his second round draft bid.

The other two GF academy graduates Gallop (bid on with pick 42) and Andrews (bid on with pick 61) weren't highly rated juniors either. There's really nothing unfair about Brisbane developing a fourth round pick into a very good player (Andrews) and no one at the time of drafting could have ever predicted Andrews would develop the way he has. If they did, they would have bid on him well before the fourth round like we've seen with other Brisbane academy graduates that have gone on to become good players like Mabior Chol. Yes, that's right, Brisbane did NOT match a bid for Chol when he graduated from their academy program and we all see the kind of player he's become after being rated as low as a rookie pick in his draft year. So that's an example of Brisbane's academy program actually helping other clubs.

The 'leg up' has clearly been the father-son access that netted them W.Ashcroft (bid on with pick 2), L.Ashcroft (bid on with pick 5) and J.Fletcher (bid on with pick 12) as they were much higher rated juniors than any of their academy graduates and were far more influential on field this season, but it's not even really a leg up because every club has access to the F/S rule and we've seen others ride the coat tails of their F/S players all the way to a flag like Collingwood did with Moore and the Daicos boys two years ago. The Lions just got incredibly forunate with the F/S rule and it just so happened to coincide with their premiership window being open, but it's still not an indication that something unfair has occurred. It's luck of the draw and could have happened to any club (except the Suns and Giants for obvious reasons).

What has really occurred here is Brisbane has done extremely well in the areas of natural drafting + developing, trading and free agency to build a premiership list that was later boosted by some luck from the F/S rule. Anyone who follows the draft closely would know that Brisbane's academy access has been largely underwhelming to date and Annable is really the first significant prospect that has come through and will join their list next month. However, we know the draft bid matching rules are changing to make it far more difficult to keep these players so Brisbane will be paying heavily to keep any highly rated academy or F/S prospects in the future.

I know there's a portion of footy followers in the southern states that want to point the finger and blame something that their club doesn't have access to as evidence that Brisbane's recent success has been undeserved, but if you do the research then you'll discover that it's just not true. It's a fallacy to suggest that Brisbane's recent success has come off the back of access to graduates from their academy program.

 

[CarterS]

Brisbane were outsiders in the market for the last 2 GFs as well as the Prelim this year and every away final last year. They were hardly dominant in either year (not even top 4 last year), just came good at the right time compared to other teams.

Hipwood is one of the more ridiculed players in the competition, Keays was delisted, Coleman has missed 2 seasons with ACL injuries and Payne another.

 

[Walter H White]

Brisbane were outsiders in the market for the last 2 GFs as well as the Prelim this year and every away final last year. They were hardly dominant in either year (not even top 4 last year), just came good at the right time compared to other teams.

Hipwood is one of the more ridiculed players in the competition, Keays was delisted, Coleman has missed 2 seasons with ACL injuries and Payne another.

The fact that you won 2 grand finals with those setbacks shows just how stacked you are. A list that is about 25% better than the next best in the comp.

 

[Walter H White]

This might have a simple answer that I haven't thought of, but why do Brisbane and Sydney get Father/Son and Academies? Isn't that double dipping?

It makes sense that the expansion clubs get Academies because they haven't been around long enough for F/S, but this seems unfair to me.

 

[CarterS]

The fact that you won 2 grand finals with those setbacks shows just how stacked you are. A list that is about 25% better than the next best in the comp.

Hindsight is 20/20, nearly everyone tipped Geelong and Bris got out to about 2.60 in the betting.

Yeah we do have a great list but there's so many other factors involved.

Majority of our backline played through 2016 when we lost to Adelaide by 138 and won 3 games for the year. Battlers like Gardiner and Lester coming good, Zorko overlooked in 4 drafts. Harris Andrews wasn't bid on until the end of the 2nd round.

Answerth was great for us last year, pick 55. Morris, Pick 31. McCluggage Pick 3 and Berry Pick 17 in 2016, nailed those picks but they were our regular picks because we finished 2nd last the year before. Rayner was a Number 1 pick and for years people said he was a dud. Bailey pick 15 same year, a few of the players picked above him are genuine spuds. Jack Payne same year, no one even bid on him and we took him Pick 54. Reville was driving a forklift a few years ago, picked up as a mature age rookie. We've generally nailed the draft. Heaps of academy players have come and gone who ended up doing nothing as well.

We've obviously benefitted from the academies but i think the benefit is overstated a fair bit. We've benefitted a lot more from Father Son. That's just pure luck. Gold Coast are benefitting a lot more than us I'd say, GC is probably stronger than Brisbane in terms of junior footy.

Annable would be a different story and I generally agree that we should pay a pretty big price for him. I don't follow the draft points system that closely so I don't know the specifics about what price we have to pay for him. Probably a bit lucky we're sneaking in before further changes are made.

 

[lioninthesand]

Ty Gallop, Sam Marshall, Keidean Coleman, Jack Payne, Harris Andrews

31

Harris Andrews

Age

28

Ht

200cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.8

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.6

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

151.7

2star

D

17.0

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.0

3star

D

9.8

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.8

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

94.0

2star

—none of these players are in the AFL system, certainly not as high picks, without the Academy program. There’s no COATES League equivalent in Queensland or NSW, so it’s the academies that go out, identify these kids, and develop them. It’s a classic chicken-and-egg scenario.

And let’s be clear, most of these players weren’t exactly valued by other clubs at the draft either. Harris Andrews

31

Harris Andrews

Age

28

Ht

200cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.8

3star

K

7.4

3star

HB

5.4

4star

M

5.6

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

151.7

2star

D

17.0

4star

K

9.0

4star

HB

8.0

4star

M

4.0

4star

T

2.0

3star

D

9.8

3star

K

5.0

2star

HB

4.8

4star

M

3.4

4star

T

1.6

4star

MG

94.0

2star

went at pick 67. Jack Payne at 54. Coleman was initially overlooked, then taken at 37 a year later, Ty Gallop went at 47 annd only because the Cats did some homework other wise he was projected pick 100, Even Sam Marshall went pick 25.

These players were passed over or undervalued by every club in the draft. That’s not an Academy advantage—it’s a failure of other clubs to do their homework. Clubs want to pass up on these kids, then once our System gets the most out of them, they want to retrospectively complain because they turn into good players and it’s ‘unfair’

The Academy system gives clubs a reason to invest in local athletes who wouldn’t otherwise get a pathway into AFL, especially in the northern states where Aussie Rules isn’t the dominant sport. Without that draft incentive, there’s no reason for clubs to spend time or resources finding these players and helping them grow.

(Yes, Cooper Hodge and Nick Blakey

22

Nick Blakey

Age

25

Ht

196cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.9

3star

K

7.0

3star

HB

2.9

3star

M

2.3

2star

T

2.4

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

8.1

2star

K

6.3

3star

HB

1.9

1star

M

2.1

2star

T

2.6

4star

MG

189.1

3star

D

7.2

2star

K

5.2

2star

HB

2.0

2star

M

1.2

2star

T

1.2

3star

are examples of those who would exsist without acadamies - however, they are still at a disadvantage without the strong Victorian pathways system around them, to develop them but I do acknowledge this is a bit of a fly in the ointment)

The only reason people are upset is because Brisbane got lucky with a run of father-son picks—Will and Levi Ashcroft, and Jaspa Fletcher. Any club with a decent history has/can/will at some point benefit from that kind of draft/DNA fortune eventually. That’s not an academy issue, that’s a father son issue.

Suggesting we have been ‘gifted’ is just pure sour grapes.

Chris Fagan and the footy department have built a strong, sustainable culture over years—and yes, they’ve had some luck with fathers sons, like every successful side does.

interstate teams already face real disadvantages—traveling 8 to 9 times more a year than Victorian clubs, for example. Having to overcome a vic team on the MCG on GF day. 80% of the draft pool being from Vic. If we’re talking about fairness, maybe start there. Any perceived cost to benefit ratio we get from academies is instantly balanced by a host of disadvantages interstate teams face anyway (which we are cool with BTW).

I’m all for tightening rules around Academies and father-son selections—maybe introduce weighted points based on ladder position, limit bidding to once per year, or explore other fairness mechanisms. That’s a conversation worth having.

But let’s not pretend this is about fairness when the real complaint is: “If we can’t have the talent you identified, nurtured, and developed, then we’d rather shut down your academy so no one finds them at all.” That’s peak Vic salt.

 

[kranky al]

And let’s be clear, most of these players weren’t exactly valued by other clubs at the draft either. Harris Andrews went at pick 67. Jack Payne at 54. Coleman was initially overlooked, then taken at 37 a year later, Ty Gallop went at 47 annd only because the Cats did some homework other wise he was projected pick 100, Even Sam Marshall went pick 25.

Coleman?

They named a bloody medal after him ffs

 

[Elixuh]

This might have a simple answer that I haven't thought of, but why do Brisbane and Sydney get Father/Son and Academies? Isn't that double dipping?

It makes sense that the expansion clubs get Academies because they haven't been around long enough for F/S, but this seems unfair to me.

Why do other clubs get NGA and fs access

 

[CatsDan]

If it wasn't for the Father Son and Academies we win this game. Fact.

 

[Walter H White]

Why do other clubs get NGA and fs access

I don't agree with the NGA nonsense either. I would probably also get rid of F/S if it was up to me.

 

[MSB ROYS]

If it wasn't for the Father Son and Academies we win this game. Fact.

If it wasn't for father son Geelong's last premiership would have been 1963. Made up fact.