News AFL to overhaul the draft, discuss changes to Academy and FS bid matching

[giantroo]

 

[GC2015]

Agreed. The idea that once the draft opens you can trade in picks you don't have the list spots for is madness.

What are you talking about? Live trading on draft means you can complete trades in real time if there's a player available that you want. Let's say you have three spots open on your list as well as your standard first, second + third round picks and there's a player available in the first round that you're interested in drafting, but you're 10 spots away and the team about to make their selection is telling you that you can have their pick for two first rounders this year. It's easy to do a straight swap of your future first rounder for another team's current first rounder and although you have four picks and only three spots available on your list, you're about to complete a live trade for a player you want. That's just one example of how you can use excess picks to eventually get a preferred outcome.

Acquiring draft capital can be used in lots of different ways. Simply suggesting that if you only have x spots open then you should only be able to take x picks into the draft is an unnecessary restriction that eliminates so many possibilities for teams. I get that you don't like how teams can accumulate later picks to match bids, but that's been mostly addressed by the change in draft pick point value for the 2025 draft.

 

[Jirik13]

Nothing about it is unmanageable, but priority access to academy and father son does undoubtedly reduce the effectiveness of the draft as an equalisation measure.

Having said that, the draft isn't some sacred perfect instrument that distributes divine justice like some seem to view it. It's a very imperfect equalisation measure that gives a leg up to struggling teams. The question is quite simply do FS and academies (which both have very valid reasons), mess with equality in the competition too much? I think they were beginning to under the old matching scale and they probably still will under the new one. Suspect it'll take a fair bit of tinkering to get it right. Hopefully it gets to the stage where the advantage is access to a player who you have far greater knowledge about and who already has a connection and increased loyalty to the club, rather than a really cheap acquisition price to go on top of that.

By some mysterious ways AFL managed to have extremely even competition. 2024 was insanely close and I suspect 2025 will be the same.

It's just Tigers lights out.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

There were 9 academy picks this draft.

3 of those NGA.
2-3 more than weren’t matched.

I don’t think it’s at unmanageable levels. It’s just portrayed hysterically by the media and Fred Bassat from St Kilda.

It will get worse and worse IMO with unlimited bidding zones for NGAs as well. Tassie I assume will get priority access to Tassie kids

 

[Elixuh]

It will get worse and worse IMO with unlimited bidding zones for NGAs as well. Tassie I assume will get priority access to Tassie kids

Don’t you mean better and better

 

[threenewpadlocks]

What are you talking about? Live trading on draft means you can complete trades in real time if there's a player available that you want. Let's say you have three spots open on your list as well as your standard first, second + third round picks and there's a player available in the first round that you're interested in drafting, but you're 10 spots away and the team about to make their selection is telling you that you can have their pick for two first rounders this year. It's easy to do a straight swap of your future first rounder for another team's current first rounder and although you have four picks and only three spots available on your list, you're about to complete a live trade for a player you want. That's just one example of how you can use excess picks to eventually get a preferred outcome.

Acquiring draft capital can be used in lots of different ways. Simply suggesting that if you only have x spots open then you should only be able to take x picks into the draft is an unnecessary restriction that eliminates so many possibilities for teams. I get that you don't like how teams can accumulate later picks to match bids, but that's been mostly addressed by the change in draft pick point value for the 2025 draft.

Of course, but this is a long post for not addressing the fundamental issue.

You cannot delist players on draft day. Therefore, the fourth pick at the time that a bid is match is a meaningless asset as a live draft pick for the team using it as values.

Of course that pick itself may end up a live pick for your example - you may trade your future first for a current first, draft that player, then trade away your second rounder to a different team (say for a different future second), reactivating your third round pick as a live pick.

The point is that you should be forced to do that before a bid comes in (or very quickly as you're deciding to match a bid or not). If you fail to, then you should only be able to claim points equal to the list spots you have open. So if you trade for that first rounder, take it, then have a bid come straight away, you have two list spots left, you should only be allowed to claim points for the first and second rounder, not the third.

 

[GC2015]

Of course, but this is a long post for not addressing the fundamental issue.

You cannot delist players on draft day. Therefore, the fourth pick at the time that a bid is match is a meaningless asset as a live draft pick for the team using it as values.

Of course that pick itself may end up a live pick for your example - you may trade your future first for a current first, draft that player, then trade away your second rounder to a different team (say for a different future second), reactivating your third round pick as a live pick.

The point is that you should be forced to do that before a bid comes in (or very quickly as you're deciding to match a bid or not). If you fail to, then you should only be able to claim points equal to the list spots you have open. So if you trade for that first rounder, take it, then have a bid come straight away, you have two list spots left, you should only be allowed to claim points for the first and second rounder, not the third.

I disagree. I think you should be allowed to trade for as much draft capital as you want. If you want to load up for a future draft like Richmond did last year, then you should be able to do so knowing full well that you were going to trade for better picks at a later date. The value of a draft pick changes from year to year depending on your club's priority access to F/S or academy players.

Footy followers often talk about how long it can take to rebuild a list and if you restrict a club's ability to pull off moves like this then it's probably going to take even longer. Ideally, you wouldn't have situations like North Melbourne right now where they spend 5+ years placed in the bottom 2. That's not good for footy.

 

[sr36]

By some mysterious ways AFL managed to have extremely even competition. 2024 was insanely close and I suspect 2025 will be the same.

It's just Tigers lights out.

There's two aspects to equality - gap between teams and how much the teams at the top and bottom change. I think it's pretty hard to argue against the idea that Collingwood and Sydney bounced back really quickly after long runs in the finals due to doing the best regarding draft concessions.

The impact of the academies is designed to grow over time, as the aim is for them to produce more and more top kids over time. The very first academy kids are only just at their peak and the impact will grow as more and more kids get added that way, so we haven't got to the peak of the impact from the really cheap price they've been gotten at.

A move to a higher price for these kids is good, but I think it'll still play out that they're a significant bargain and result in teams with better academies being significantly over-represented in the top half of the ladder.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I disagree. I think you should be allowed to trade for as much draft capital as you want. If you want to load up for a future draft like Richmond did last year, then you should be able to do so knowing full well that you were going to trade for better picks at a later date. The value of a draft pick changes from year to year depending on your club's priority access to F/S or academy players.

Footy followers often talk about how long it can take to rebuild a list and if you restrict a club's ability to pull off moves like this then it's probably going to take even longer. Ideally, you wouldn't have situations like North Melbourne right now where they spend 5+ years placed in the bottom 2. That's not good for footy.

This makes little sense. The (now thankfully old) draft value points index literally ascribed points values to draft picks that teams would literally pass over, like picks in the 60s and 70s.

The whole point of the DVI exercise is to ascribe value to each draft pick so that teams can effectively bunch their picks together, to trade up to 80% of the value of the pick where the bid was, to match the bid.

The whole idea of the DVI points reflecting how teams actually value those picks is lost a bit if a team, with live draft picks, cannot get any value out of the pick (because they're prevented from taking it as a live pick without the list spot), as well as the points for later picks being over-valued anyway (as shown by all the one-way trades and teams playing DVI arbitrage).

What you're saying is just the antithesis of the whole point of the DVI and bid matching element. "Limiting the ability to rebuild a list" is not an argument in itself, and the ability of teams to pull themselves out of the bottom 2 already has a way of rebuilding the list - you get pick 1 or pick 2 in the draft.

 

[GC2015]

What you're saying is just the antithesis of the whole point of the DVI and bid matching element. "Limiting the ability to rebuild a list" is not an argument in itself, and the ability of teams to pull themselves out of the bottom 2 already has a way of rebuilding the list - you get pick 1 or pick 2 in the draft.

Sure, but that's not the only way to rebuild a list. You don't have to use the draft as your only way of rebuilding if that's the way you want to go about it. What's wrong focusing on trading mechanisms to rebuild your list instead of the draft?

 

[mpal6]

That's possibly the dumbest idea I've ever heard. There's 100 ways to make the draft entertaining without doing anything that dumb.

Feel free to share the 100 ways to make it entertaining.

AFL are doing what they feel is a good idea, I believe they've taken the live pick trading idea from NBA and just tweaked it a little to suite previous rules (which did not offer more than 1 year future trading). Now they've opened up 2 years future trading, they may revisit it.

With only one year future trading and limited options, letting clubs do unlimited trade after draft opens up is one way to create some buzz. Like in this year, we traded away our excess third / fourth rounders like confetti which was a parallel story to the actual draft.

 

[danster168]

I'll die on this hill until someone at Fox steals it and pushes it through but as more and more kids get assigned to "academies" the only way to fix it is separating the pools into draft and auction nights. It has the benefit of fixing the FA compo as well where teams get points (that can be traded for picks if desired) instead. Fixes EVERYTHInG

No it doesnt. How does it fix the fact that top 4 clubs get access to top end talent that they don't deserve. It doesn't fix that at all. Only way to fix it is to abolish it all together.

 

[danster168]

There were 9 academy picks this draft.

3 of those NGA.
2-3 more than weren’t matched.

I don’t think it’s at unmanageable levels. It’s just portrayed hysterically by the media and Fred Bassat from St Kilda.

and me. It's an absolute disgrace. The amount of leg ups your club has got with the father/son is something that will never happen again. Completely uneven playing field. Great for Brissy. But horrendous for the integrity of the comp.

 

[Elixuh]

and me. It's an absolute disgrace. The amount of leg ups your club has got with the father/son is something that will never happen again. Completely uneven playing field. Great for Brissy. But horrendous for the integrity of the comp.

But Danny, Melbourne has had 7 father sons to our 5. We are just getting a lick of the ice cream and you want to kick the ladder away as we climb up it

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

No it doesnt. How does it fix the fact that top 4 clubs get access to top end talent that they don't deserve. It doesn't fix that at all. Only way to fix it is to abolish it all together.

This is the bit I don't like, and why I think Academy/Zone/FS are actually a good idea, just implemented poorly. (IMO deliberately, for $$$ reasons).

The Draft picks your team receives at the end of each year are certainly not deserved - they were not earned. If anything it's actually the opposite - they are a handout from the league, to help your club be competitive. The poorer you are as a club, the more help you receive.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Pretty much, it’s like they are saying oh you only have this many list spots but guess what boys when I say go you can have 30 list spots…ridiculous. You have the list spots you have that’s it. No ifs or buts if you have to go into deficit so be it. If you don’t get a player good it shows the system is working

100 %. If clubs like Brisbane or gc or anyone wants to use like 10 picks to take academy players that's their business but they should be forced to delist 10 players to do it and not allowed to use picks there are no spots for. It's a stupid loophole.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

What are you talking about? Live trading on draft means you can complete trades in real time if there's a player available that you want. Let's say you have three spots open on your list as well as your standard first, second + third round picks and there's a player available in the first round that you're interested in drafting, but you're 10 spots away and the team about to make their selection is telling you that you can have their pick for two first rounders this year. It's easy to do a straight swap of your future first rounder for another team's current first rounder and although you have four picks and only three spots available on your list, you're about to complete a live trade for a player you want. That's just one example of how you can use excess picks to eventually get a preferred outcome.

Acquiring draft capital can be used in lots of different ways. Simply suggesting that if you only have x spots open then you should only be able to take x picks into the draft is an unnecessary restriction that eliminates so many possibilities for teams. I get that you don't like how teams can accumulate later picks to match bids, but that's been mostly addressed by the change in draft pick point value for the 2025 draft.

Because if you look at what's happening clubs are for example having 33 on their list, taking 5 points carrying picks to the draft. But then when the draft opens they will trade their first 2 picks down into 4 or 5 picks that give more points than 2, and use those picks to match bids even though they now have 8 or 9 picks and only 5 list spots for them. That simply shouldn't be allowed. If you want to use Max points in that way fine go for your life, but delist players and risk whether another club DFAs them before you can pick them up at the end of the draft. Anything else is an unjustifiable rort.

To use Brisbane as an example they still would have been able to do whatever they wanted with pick trading on draft night but knowing before the night they were likely to do it (it was obvious) they would have had to delist an extra 3 or 4 players to open up the spots to allow the trade downs, and then pick them up at the end of the draft if they haven't been later poached. If you want the benefit of the trade downs you should have to take the risk
After all in the regular ND and RD you aren't allowed to carry picks to the draft that you have no spots for so why should there be one rule pre draft and another on the night itself? It makes no sense.

 

[GC2015]

Because if you look at what's happening clubs are for example having 33 on their list, taking 5 points carrying picks to the draft. But then when the draft opens they will trade their first 2 picks down into 4 or 5 picks that give more points than 2, and use those picks to match bids even though they now have 8 or 9 picks and only 5 list spots for them. That simply shouldn't be allowed.

Why? Each pick holds different value to clubs depending on their priority access situation. For example, pick 9 held less value to Essendon this year because they knew there was a possibility that a bid would come through for Kako before pick 9 rolled around. So they made the decision to trade down and secured a future first round pick in the process. What's wrong with that?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Why? Each pick holds different value to clubs depending on their priority access situation. For example, pick 9 held less value to Essendon this year because they knew there was a possibility that a bid would come through for Kako before pick 9 rolled around. So they made the decision to trade down and secured a future first round pick in the process. What's wrong with that?

You are confusing concepts.

I am not saying there's anything wrong with a club swapping a r1 for an fr1 or vice versa if they have the list spots.

I'm talking about clubs having say only 4 or 5 list spots and using 8-10 picks for points value at the draft. Prior to the draft if you have 6 picks of value and only 4 spots your last 2 picks disappear to why should it be any different on draft night? That's nonsensical.

 

[danster168]

But Danny, Melbourne has had 7 father sons to our 5. We are just getting a lick of the ice cream and you want to kick the ladder away as we climb up it

haha, nice try Elixuh Our father-sons outside of Viney were lowly ranked juniors.

 

[danster168]

This is the bit I don't like, and why I think Academy/Zone/FS are actually a good idea, just implemented poorly. (IMO deliberately, for $$$ reasons).

The Draft picks your team receives at the end of each year are certainly not deserved - they were not earned. If anything it's actually the opposite - they are a handout from the league, to help your club be competitive. The poorer you are as a club, the more help you receive.

you earn them by finishing low on the ladder. i.e. there is a cost to receiving the good draft pick. We can get hung up on the semantics of the word 'deserve' but you don't get good draft picks if you're a good team. That's an obvious equalisation measure. And that's where the Academy/Father-son have really trivialised the value of a flag. in my opinion of course. But this is going around in circles I think it's pretty clear that a top 4 team shouldn't have 2 number 1 picks in quick succession.

 

[jdstorm]

Why? Each pick holds different value to clubs depending on their priority access situation. For example, pick 9 held less value to Essendon this year because they knew there was a possibility that a bid would come through for Kako before pick 9 rolled around. So they made the decision to trade down and secured a future first round pick in the process. What's wrong with that?

As the system currently stands the issue is it gets teams a virtually free FRP.

The old system where teams had to use their firsts was better. Trading down multiple times for surplus points (or trading out for multiple FRP) is a complete rort.

If teams had to actually pay fair value it wouldn’t be that bad. Just give every team an academy.

Priority picks are by far a bigger blight on the game. The AFL generated what 5 extra FRP this year that all clubs had to foot the bill for just because the salary cap/free agency works as intended.

That’s a far bigger rort

 

[Elixuh]

haha, nice try Elixuh Our father-sons outside of Viney were lowly ranked juniors.

Some would argue the Dees only won the flag because of Viney though Danny.

 

[danster168]

Some would argue the Dees only won the flag because of Viney though Danny.

lol no-one does. if u didn't realise, 1 f/s in 20 years is well below afl avg. and we smashed the dogs by 80 who had 3 more father sons.

You won't have an asterisk-free result until both Ashcrofts retire. That's just the reality. But you're competing with Collingwood and Dogs. That's your tier 1, gifted league. So you won that

 

[Elixuh]

lol no-one does. if u didn't realise, 1 f/s in 20 years is well below afl avg. and we smashed the dogs by 80 who had 3 more father sons.

You won't have an asterisk-free result until both Ashcrofts retire. That's just the reality. But you're competing with Collingwood and Dogs. That's your tier 1, gifted league. So you won that

So Fletcher is ok? You just have a vendetta against the ashcrofts?

You’ve actually had 4 fs in 20 years Danny,
Viney
Stretch
Woewoedin
Brown

In that time Brisbane has had 4 as well.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

mis post edited

Look lets be real there's arguments both sides, but my standpoint hasn't changed, you get the list spots you have to match, that's it. Will that mean you miss ourt on players yes. The clubs make the call who to match and who to leave in the open pool