Expansion QLD and NSW academies

[Bjo187]

Participation in Queensland this year has apparently hit 90k which if W.A hasn't grown much (87k last year), it will be the second biggest football participation state in Australia now. This is a good thing for the game.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Participation in Queensland this year has apparently hit 90k which if W.A hasn't grown much (87k last year), it will be the second biggest football participation state in Australia now. This is a good thing for the game.

Guess these numbers heavily suggest the SA clubs need academies to keep up here.

Only had the 64k last year in SA. Falling quite a bit behind it seems which is showing through.

Much greater population in the northern states which means they require a smaller % to play and they see huge returns. But we know they don’t care about that, AFL would be more than happy for the northern clubs to get their pick of the best bunch out of 250k+ in years to come.

Meanwhile, we go to the draft in an open pool in the hope of maybe getting the 1 decent SA prospect for the year.

 

[Maddo11]

Get players from NSW and QLD to nominate for the draft so all clubs can access them.

What players? No academies means no professional training means no draft quality players.

Xavier and Scotch College can only "produce" so much talent per year as well, the league can't sustain 20 teams from just Vic, SA and WA population

 

[Cmarsh]

Participation in Queensland this year has apparently hit 90k which if W.A hasn't grown much (87k last year), it will be the second biggest football participation state in Australia now. This is a good thing for the game.

Source?

That's great if true, but I suspect the AFL will eventually need to look at tailoring back the current drafting arrangements from academies due to their success.

 

[WilloTree]

There seems to be a fair bit of confusion regarding the Northern Academies and the draft. They aren't the same thing.

Whilst they are currrently linked, they are two seperate entities. For instance, if the AFL decided that clubs being able to 'match bid' wasn't neccessary anymore, the Academies wouldn't suddenly collapse into a ball of rubble.

 

[Cleric]

I am in two minds with the Northern academies.
While I don't like the fact that they get the pick of the talent from their state at a discount, and when there's no good kids coming the next year they then get to take the next best kid from interstate, on the other hand I think its extremely good if all teams have a higher % of local kids to give it a more parochial state feeling.

 

[werdna78]

I am in two minds with the Northern academies.
While I don't like the fact that they get the pick of the talent from their state at a discount, and when there's no good kids coming the next year they then get to take the next best kid from interstate, on the other hand I think its extremely good if all teams have a higher % of local kids to give it a more parochial state feeling.

Agree, IMO South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania (once in the AFL) should have academies to grow the game.

It helps with the go home factor and the fringe benefits players have playing in Melbourne.

 

[Bjo187]

Source?

That's great if true, but I suspect the AFL will eventually need to look at tailoring back the current drafting arrangements from academies due to their success.

Gold coast CEO said it the other day on sen.

The NGA access for all the southern clubs and paying fair price will even out the advantage the northern clubs get. The afl were dumb moving it to only after pick 40.

The other option in the future like the swans suggested years back to the afl is, these northern clubs can only draft out of their academies and not the main draft, so no double dipping.

 

[Cmarsh]

Gold coast CEO said it the other day on sen.

The NGA access for all the southern clubs and paying fair price will even out the advantage the northern clubs get. The afl were dumb moving it to only after pick 40.

The other option in the future like the swans suggested years back to the afl is, these northern clubs can only draft out of their academies and not the main draft, so no double dipping.

Problem with only being allowed to draft out of your academy is that in lean years you're stuffed. The Giants academy for example has had a number of lean years.

 

[Denno]

Guess these numbers heavily suggest the SA clubs need academies to keep up here.

Only had the 64k last year in SA. Falling quite a bit behind it seems which is showing through.

Much greater population in the northern states which means they require a smaller % to play and they see huge returns. But we know they don’t care about that, AFL would be more than happy for the northern clubs to get their pick of the best bunch out of 250k+ in years to come.

Meanwhile, we go to the draft in an open pool in the hope of maybe getting the 1 decent SA prospect for the year.

You have the advantage however, of players wanting to "go home", which the northern clubs, at the moment, rarely benefit from (and hopefully, in time, the Academies address).

Each and every year, the majority of players moving, move to "go home". On top of that, you have players openly (or otherwise) thumbing their nose at the "open" draft, and making it clear they only want to stay in their home state.

This is the inherent advantage "footy states" have.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

You have the advantage however, of players wanting to "go home", which the northern clubs, at the moment, rarely benefit from (and hopefully, in time, the Academies address).

Each and every year, the majority of players moving, move to "go home". On top of that, you have players openly (or otherwise) thumbing their nose at the "open" draft, and making it clear they only want to stay in their home state.

This is the inherent advantage "footy states" have.

We’ve had what, 2 players return home to port in the last 5+ years? JHF and Luko which also cost us 3 first round picks to get them back.

In that time, we’ve lost more players leaving to return home. So we are more impacted by the go home factor that we benefit from it. Even this year, we have another 2 top players who may potentially leave again.

We don’t benefit from having an academy which would allow us to just pick these players from the draft and then in turn, save us from spending multiple first round picks to get them to return and also losing other high quality players when they leave.

Let’s not pretend we’re scooping up SA players regularly to return home. It simply isn’t the case and we lose more than we gain.

 

[Denno]

We’ve had what, 2 players return home to port in the last 5+ years? JHF and Luko which also cost us 3 first round picks to get them back.

In that time, we’ve lost more players leaving to return home. So we are more impacted by the go home factor that we benefit from it. Even this year, we have another 2 top players who may potentially leave again.

We don’t benefit from having an academy which would allow us to just pick these players from the draft and then in turn, save us from spending multiple first round picks to get them to return and also losing other high quality players when they leave.

Let’s not pretend we’re scooping up SA players regularly to return home. It simply isn’t the case and we lose more than we gain.

There's more than that (Sweet, BZT off the top of my head), plus others too. Adelaide also - Rankine, Dawson, ANB, Cumming (more there too)................

The SA (and WA, and Vic) teams still have the advantage of potentially being able to trade for a player that wants to "go home" (Houston/Lukosius being the most recent example for Port). The 4 Northern Clubs don't have that option (currently), and hence are at a disadvantage. If a trade is made, it's generally for picks, and so the cycle starts again.......

Port (in isolation) may have been impacted overall negatively by the go home factor (debateable), but it absolutely pales into comparison with the go home factor that has played out over the years for the Northern Clubs to deal with (and continue to do so). Player managers know this too, so even if a player doesn't move, the clubs need to pay "overs" to keep them, and we end up with the ridiculous salary dump situations at GC (and GWS).

If the SA (or WA) pipeline of young talent began to dry up, I agree, measures would need to be taken. I can't see it personally though - being traditional footy states should see to that - it's all swings and roundabouts from one year to the other (ie, numbers may fluctuate from year to year, but overall there will be enough talent).

I'll be honest though - I don't know what the end game looks like. If the Academies are churning out 20-25% of the draftable talent each year (and not just all bottom end players, obviously), consistently, then we may be in a position to remove the bid process, etc (ie, there will be enough players to trade back "home" to the Northern Clubs - make it a more open draft), but then you have the NGA's to deal with, still.

I don't think the AFL knows what the end game looks like.........

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

There's more than that (Sweet, BZT off the top of my head), plus others too. Adelaide also - Rankine, Dawson, ANB, Cumming (more there too)................

The SA (and WA, and Vic) teams still have the advantage of potentially being able to trade for a player that wants to "go home" (Houston/Lukosius being the most recent example for Port). The 4 Northern Clubs don't have that option (currently), and hence are at a disadvantage. If a trade is made, it's generally for picks, and so the cycle starts again.......

Port (in isolation) may have been impacted overall negatively by the go home factor (debateable), but it absolutely pales into comparison with the go home factor that has played out over the years for the Northern Clubs to deal with (and continue to do so). Player managers know this too, so even if a player doesn't move, the clubs need to pay "overs" to keep them, and we end up with the ridiculous salary dump situations at GC (and GWS).

If the SA (or WA) pipeline of young talent began to dry up, I agree, measures would need to be taken. I can't see it personally though - being traditional footy states should see to that - it's all swings and roundabouts from one year to the other (ie, numbers may fluctuate from year to year, but overall there will be enough talent).

I'll be honest though - I don't know what the end game looks like. If the Academies are churning out 20-25% of the draftable talent each year (and not just all bottom end players, obviously), consistently, then we may be in a position to remove the bid process, etc (ie, there will be enough players to trade back "home" to the Northern Clubs - make it a more open draft), but then you have the NGA's to deal with, still.

I don't think the AFL knows what the end game looks like.........

Fair call, actually completely forgot about Sweet and BZT.

However the lions in particular haven’t exactly had issues with attracting talent the last 5/6 years with the likes of Neale, Cameron, Daniher, McKenna, McCarthy, Dunkley etc. this far out weights our “go home” selections.

Same with the Swans over the years.

Even the Giants and Suns as newly formed clubs are showing they can attract talent.

So although it may not be the go home factor, that’s just as offset by their ability to still attract talent so I don’t think that’s exactly a square argument to justify the need for the academies.

When was the last time the Swans or Lions lost a high quality player due to go home? Unless I’m completely forgetting someone here, It seems majority of their interstate players continue to remain at the club anyway (Mcluggage a recent example).

While GC and to a lesser extent the Giants have more been a victim of this but some of that is due to the high talent on their lists with the number of high picks meaning they simply can’t fit them all and players leaving due to limit success with a new club. Both factors I would argue will even out in time and isn’t as simple as players leaving to go home when that isn’t the case with the other 2 Northern clubs.

 

[Denno]

Fair call, actually completely forgot about Sweet and BZT.

However the lions in particular haven’t exactly had issues with attracting talent the last 5/6 years with the likes of Neale, Cameron, Daniher, McKenna, McCarthy, Dunkley etc. this far out weights our “go home” selections.

Same with the Swans over the years.

Even the Giants and Suns as newly formed clubs are showing they can attract talent.

So although it may not be the go home factor, that’s just as offset by their ability to still attract talent so I don’t think that’s exactly a square argument to justify the need for the academies.

When was the last time the Swans or Lions lost a high quality player due to go home? Unless I’m completely forgetting someone here, It seems majority of their interstate players continue to remain at the club anyway (Mcluggage a recent example).

While GC and to a lesser extent the Giants have more been a victim of this but some of that is due to the high talent on their lists with the number of high picks meaning they simply can’t fit them all and players leaving due to limit success with a new club. Both factors I would argue will even out in time and isn’t as simple as players leaving to go home when that isn’t the case with the other 2 Northern clubs.

GC and GWS had the high talent on their lists obviously to give them an initial leg-up, but also because they knew players would depart to "go home". You only had to see Tanner Bruhn's face on draft night to see what the end game was going to be!

Whether a player is "high quality" or not is largely irrelevant to the actual trend. I seem to recall something in the vicinity of 75% of trade moves (maybe FA is different?) was for a player to go home. Bris lost Sharp in the offseason, Syd lost Parker and Kostanty - all to their home state. McStay was also a higher profile FA loss (to home state) too, not that long ago. Where were McLuggage and Berry linked to last year? Yep, their home state, by default (thankfully, not that anything eventuated). Already this year, in Port's case, with Bergman and Butters, it's links to their "home state" for a move. The trend continues.

Yes, Brisbane has been able to attract talent - besides Cameron, Dunkley and Neale though, the rest were "damaged goods" in some way, shape or form, and therefore a risk. No doubt some of these moves was driven by the potential for team success, but the fact remains, Bris (and Syd) haven't been able to trade for a player "going home" (maybe Cameron at a stretch), to anywhere near the same extent, that other clubs can and continue to do, without having to do much else than exist. It matters less for Vic clubs - they will, by default, attract players regardless of success, simply by being in Vic. Same for SA and WA - being a footy state counts.

Once the cycle repeats, and Bris and Syd drop down the ladder, what will the attraction be to move, if it's not "going home"?

I guess overall though, I don't think we'll ever, as an industry be able to buck the trend (ie, ~75%, or whatever it is, of players moving to their home state during trade period), so the more players that come through from the Northern Clubs, and potentially be part of two way trades in future, can only be a good thing.

I get it though - you (and plenty of others) see the Northern Academies as an advantage. I (and others!) see the Academies as addressing an inherent disadvantage. Never the twain shall meet.......

 

[ibd77]

Well the AFL plan is working.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

I just can’t work out why all this whinging was not happening before the last 5 years? What’s happened I wonder???

 

[paulige]

Well the AFL plan is working.

View attachment 2281831

In terms of contributing to our current success, this is what we have to show from the last 10 years of academy:

Hipwood Pick 14
Payne Pick 54
Andrews Pick 61

Hipwood (one of the most maligned players in the comp), and a couple of blokes taken past pick 50?

This was the AFL plan?

 

[BangyBangy]

Well the AFL plan is working.

View attachment 2281831

Thank you for taking time away from your sack Hinkley thread to post this.

Yes, the Brisbane Academy is the reason for our recent success & flag........

 

[jonnobackpocket]

In terms of contributing to our current success, this is what we have to show from the last 10 years of academy:

Hipwood Pick 14
Payne Pick 54
Andrews Pick 61

Hipwood (one of the most maligned players in the comp), and a couple of blokes taken past pick 50?

This was the AFL plan?

Geez, it’s a wonder we haven’t won ten straight with results like that don’t you hate it when the truth turns uneducated opinions.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

Geez, it’s a wonder we haven’t won ten straight with results like that don’t you hate it when the truth turns uneducated opinions.

* ruins

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I just can’t work out why all this whinging was not happening before the last 5 years? What’s happened I wonder???

You have a short memory. GWS had their zone changed because it was seen as too big of an advantage. Hopefully as time goes on football in the Northern states can continue to grow to a point their zones will be drastically reduced to.

 

[jonnobackpocket]

You have a short memory. GWS had their zone changed because it was seen as too big of an advantage. Hopefully as time goes on football in the Northern states can continue to grow to a point their zones will be drastically reduced to.

I think football is the Northern states is going just fine thanks. So everyone is here sooking about the advantages and you are saying you want them to continue to grow??? Imagine the feet stamping if the academies grew bigger and better. Christ

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

I think football is the Northern states is going just fine thanks. So everyone is here sooking about the advantages and you are saying you want them to continue to grow??? Imagine the feet stamping if the academies grew bigger and better. Christ

Yes, the end goal should be that football is strong enough in many of these areas that we can get rid of club academies.
The fact is people have always had an issue with academies when they are seen to be giving too big of an advantage hence why GWS lost half of their area nearly 10 years ago. Hopefully football becomes strong enough (in Queensland in particular) that we see much smaller academies

 

[paulige]

Yes, the end goal should be that football is strong enough in many of these areas that we can get rid of club academies.
The fact is people have always had an issue with academies when they are seen to be giving too big of an advantage hence why GWS lost half of their area nearly 10 years ago. Hopefully football becomes strong enough (in Queensland in particular) that we see much smaller academies

That’s fair - if QLD were able to consistently supply close to 10% of the total player pool (in a 20 team comp), it would be hard to argue for any advantages such as bid matching, or discounts.

I’m guessing we are still a very long way off that though. Would love to see a breakdown of what % of currently listed players come from each state (as well as the same breakdown for the last decade of national drafts).

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

That’s fair - if QLD were able to consistently supply close to 10% of the total player pool (in a 20 team comp), it would be hard to argue for any advantages such as bid matching, or discounts.

I’m guessing we are still a very long way off that though. Would love to see a breakdown of what % of currently listed players come from each state (as well as the same breakdown for the last decade of national drafts).

The magic number will be nowhere near 10% as long they are still allowed to pick non Queensland kids. It will be closer to 6-7% and atm I imagine it’s under 5.