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

[Lore]

 

[giantroo]

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

The point curve doesn’t need to be changed as drastically as some suggest if we are getting rid of the discount which is the most obvious thing that needs to go.

I’d keep it the same as it is currently but slight changes to the point curve, remove discounts, only allow to match with two picks or you get a 250% tax on the remaining points taken off the following years pick in the round which the player was bid on.


Read is the player who comes up a lot, so even if the point curve isn’t changed then under these rules had they tried to match with picks 34 and 39 (wouldn’t be able to use 40) then they would have been 462 short so they would of carried a 1155 point deficit into the following season.
To match the the bid they would need at worst picks 25 and 26. That’s easily manageable but also not a ridiculous leg up.
Change the point curve slightly so it becomes say picks 21 and 22 and that’s about spot on imo.

 

[blackshadow]

I wonder if they will strip academy eligibility for father/sons.

Academies are supposedly about developing kids who wouldn’t normally be playing Australian Rules - sons of 100+ gamers don’t really fall into this category.

 

[Elixuh]

I wonder if they will strip academy eligibility for father/sons.

Academies are supposedly about developing kids who wouldn’t normally be playing Australian Rules - sons of 100+ gamers don’t really fall into this category.

Hopefully not, Brisbane have the Hodge boys coming through

 

[Stamos]

The point curve doesn’t need to be changed as drastically as some suggest if we are getting rid of the discount which is the most obvious thing that needs to go.

I’d keep it the same as it is currently but slight changes to the point curve, remove discounts, only allow to match with two picks or you get a 250% tax on the remaining points taken off the following years pick in the round which the player was bid on.


Read is the player who comes up a lot, so even if the point curve isn’t changed then under these rules had they tried to match with picks 34 and 39 (wouldn’t be able to use 40) then they would have been 462 short so they would of carried a 1155 point deficit into the following season.
To match the the bid they would need at worst picks 25 and 26. That’s easily manageable but also not a ridiculous leg up.
Change the point curve slightly so it becomes say picks 21 and 22 and that’s about spot on imo.

Wouldn't it just be simpler and more logical to fix the points curve first?
It's proven to be broken, and fixing it would solve nearly all the other issues.

 

[marcmurphy3]

Why are St Kilda leading the whining on fatherson? They haven't got anyone decent out of the rule, but they aren't at an inherehent disadvantage to any other club. Their players just haven't produced any decent offspring. It's a lucky dip.

 

[marcmurphy3]

It's funny how the Pies are used as an example. Yes, Nick Daicos was a rort but Darcy Moore required a pick similar to where he was rated (different system). Josh Daicos nobody wanted and wasn't a highly rated teen. He just happened to come good. Even on Nick Daicos, they actually traded away pick 2 that year (the year before without realising) to help grab those picks to match the bid so didn't really end up ahead.

It's correct to say that the pies fatherson's spearheaded their flag but to suggest they did so off the back of some kind of unfair advantage is simply untrue.

 

[Elixuh]

Why are St Kilda leading the whining on fatherson? They haven't got anyone decent out of the rule, but they aren't at an inherehent disadvantage to any other club. Their players just haven't produced any decent offspring. It's a lucky dip.

Because they've never been able to secure a decent FS, are unable to trade in decent players only C graders and have failed at the draft over a number of years.

 

[skinnyP]

It is fricken hilarious hearing the media and fans having a massive sook about mid season changes to Academy/FS Matching.

Where were your protests when the AFL scaled back the Giants zone to preclude us from recruiting Jarrod Brander and Charlie Spargo?? You were as quiet as Marcel Marceau then weren’t you but there is no interest like self-interest!

Where were the howls when Todd Marshall was ruled ineligible for the Giants Academy because of an alleged “registration error”?? Silent movie again…

Oh but when the obvious rort of the NGA Academy was set up, which is practically a back door mechanism to place highly talented kids with clubs was brought in, there were no cries then and heaven help us if we ever discuss Father/Son.

Most of the policies on the run against the Academies were done in the McCarthyism like fear mongering that the Giants would be unbeatable and win 5+ flags. We have won ZERO but still had our guts ripped out pretty regularly by heartland clubs.

So forgive me for not feeling much sympathy for the latest proposals. In my opinion the draft is way too compromised. Interstate clubs do need an Academy and some other help but we can’t go overboard.

Just manage that process carefully but try to reduce the compromise of the draft or just forget it and let the same 5 clubs challenge for it every season like the EPL. Then see how popular the game remains…

You can't seriously be complaining about a lack of draft concessions for gws..

 

[Dogflogger]

It's funny how the Pies are used as an example. Yes, Nick Daicos was a rort but Darcy Moore required a pick similar to where he was rated (different system). Josh Daicos nobody wanted and wasn't a highly rated teen. He just happened to come good. Even on Nick Daicos, they actually traded away pick 2 that year (the year before without realising) to help grab those picks to match the bid so didn't really end up ahead.

It's correct to say that the pies fatherson's spearheaded their flag but to suggest they did so off the back of some kind of unfair advantage is simply untrue.

Because at this point they get one every two years they are just a great example, Do you think getting discounted players that can be pre trained at your academy helps list management? that's all i care about, i don't care about the quality i just think if you can get a bunch of discounted and potentially loyal players into 1 team it helps list management a crazy amount.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It's funny how the Pies are used as an example. Yes, Nick Daicos was a rort but Darcy Moore required a pick similar to where he was rated (different system). Josh Daicos nobody wanted and wasn't a highly rated teen. He just happened to come good. Even on Nick Daicos, they actually traded away pick 2 that year (the year before without realising) to help grab those picks to match the bid so didn't really end up ahead.

It's correct to say that the pies fatherson's spearheaded their flag but to suggest they did so off the back of some kind of unfair advantage is simply untrue.

Solid handwave away with Moore. He was a top 3-5 prospect that was able to be drafted with pick 9. The current bidding system would still allow Collingwood to get him for similar with the discount, granted, but the ability to jump up more than 3 spots in the top 10 cannot surely be characterised as a "similar pick".

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Wouldn't it just be simpler and more logical to fix the points curve first?
It's proven to be broken, and fixing it would solve nearly all the other issues.

the discount has an equally big affect on the points curve so it’s pointless changing the points curve before getting rid of the discount.
if you have a player bid on at pick 1 that instantly makes pick one worth 600pts less So they need worse picks to match. So you could change the points curve and end up needing the exact same picks to match then if you had just taken away the discount.
The worse thing about the discount is that the better and more highly rated the prospect the bigger discount you get which if anything it should be the opposite.

 

[Couch Coach]

Solid handwave away with Moore. He was a top 3-5 prospect that was able to be drafted with pick 9. The current bidding system would still allow Collingwood to get him for similar with the discount, granted, but the ability to jump up more than 3 spots in the top 10 cannot surely be characterised as a "similar pick".

Actual = Pick 5 Bid by dogs.
Pick 9 https://central.rookieme.com/afl/2014/11/10/luke-mcalisters-november-phantom-draft/
Pick 12 https://central.rookieme.com/afl/2014/07/09/alex-takles-phantom-draft/
Pick 6 https://www.afl.com.au/news/443857/phantom-draft-form-guide-november-update
Pick 11 https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/knightmares-2014-phantom-draft.1060197/

Ranked as a Top 5 by the dogs but others had him 5-15 range.

 

[Stamos]

the discount has an equally big affect on the points curve so it’s pointless changing the points curve before getting rid of the discount.
if you have a player bid on at pick 1 that instantly makes pick one worth 600pts less So they need worse picks to match. So you could change the points curve and end up needing the exact same picks to match then if you had just taken away the discount.
The worse thing about the discount is that the better and more highly rated the prospect the bigger discount you get which if anything it should be the opposite.

First you fix the points curve, then you calculate the appropriate discount.
The discount could potentially be a set amount of points, rather than a percentage (as it currently is later in the draft).

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Wouldn't it just be simpler and more logical to fix the points curve first?
It's proven to be broken, and fixing it would solve nearly all the other issues.

Atm to match pick 1 it takes about pick 13 and 14 if you take away the discount it would be 8 and 9. That’s pretty much where it should be

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

First you fix the points curve, then you calculate the appropriate discount.
The discount could potentially be a set amount of points, rather than a percentage (as it currently is later in the draft).

Yeh if there is to be a discount just make it a set amount. Say 100pts or whatever.

 

[Stamos]

Atm to match pick 1 it takes about pick 13 and 14 if you take away the discount it would be 8 and 9. That’s pretty much where it should be

Yes, but at the moment the points value of #1 is too low. That's a bigger problem than any discount.
Fix the points first.

 

[FootyLad0]

I wonder if they will strip academy eligibility for father/sons.

Academies are supposedly about developing kids who wouldn’t normally be playing Australian Rules - sons of 100+ gamers don’t really fall into this category.

Easiest thing to do is make it a blanket decision on F/S, Northern and NGA academies.

Pay a pick within 10 places of the oppo bid or you lose them.
No restrictions on what round this is.

If Carlton want both Campo boys then pay up.
If Brisbane want Ashcroft (F/S) and Marshall (Academy) then pay up.

No more protecting or jumping the board without paying the price.

 

[Stamos]

Easiest thing to do is make it a blanket decision on F/S, Northern and NGA academies.

Pay a pick within 10 places of the oppo bid or you lose them.
No restrictions on what round this is.

If Carlton want both Campo boys then pay up.
If Brisbane want Ashcroft (F/S) and Marshall (Academy) then pay up.

No more protecting or jumping the board without paying the price.

Easy maybe, but also silly.
So you can match a bid at #1 with #10, but you can't match a bid at #45 with #56?

 

[KnaveyBlue]

No problem with any changes

Just give the clubs reasonable notice to plan and not pull the rug from under them

Yeah sure my team is Richmond and picks after 40 would lose their value but its only 535 points which is nothing really
49, 58, 68, 72

But just the fairness to the clubs to get sufficient warning

This, surely.

I obv have a vested due to the Campos, but clubs have already traded for picks in this draft, and did so rightfully expecting their value would remain consistent. It would be amateur hour for the AFL to suddenly move the goalposts pre-draft. (Would definitely be on-brand for this administration tho).

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Yes, but at the moment the points value of #1 is too low. That's a bigger problem than any discount.
Fix the points first.

It’s the same problem. Change pick 1 from 3000pts to 4000 and if you keep the discount then pick 1 is still only worth 3200, pretty much where it would be without the discount.
The easiest thing to do is drop the discount then you work it out from there.

The discount is the biggest problem because the better the prospect the better the discount.

 

[stavro#4]

Why are St Kilda leading the whining on fatherson? They haven't got anyone decent out of the rule, but they aren't at an inherehent disadvantage to any other club. Their players just haven't produced any decent offspring. It's a lucky dip.

It's funny how the Pies are used as an example. Yes, Nick Daicos was a rort but Darcy Moore required a pick similar to where he was rated (different system). Josh Daicos nobody wanted and wasn't a highly rated teen. He just happened to come good. Even on Nick Daicos, they actually traded away pick 2 that year (the year before without realising) to help grab those picks to match the bid so didn't really end up ahead.

It's correct to say that the pies fatherson's spearheaded their flag but to suggest they did so off the back of some kind of unfair advantage is simply untrue.

Because they've never been able to secure a decent FS, are unable to trade in decent players only C graders and have failed at the draft over a number of years.

Because the issue is father sons and academies provide the same advantage to clubs with little anyone else can do.

2 years ago we had pick 10 and took Phillipou.

However Cameron Mackenzie - who was a stkilda NGA player - was not eligible to be drafted by us - unless available at our pick (went just before).

In similar situations to those with Father sons or Academy players, we would have effectively been able to double dip. Trade back for points and something the following year or on draft night, trade back into a draft that was touted as a stellar draft.

So a club, outside the 8 for the majority of the 2010s/20s thus far - has had to do so against hand outs for expansion sides, against the better sides landing all the free agents and then again taking all the cream talent associated to academies or father son talent with nothing they can do - whilst those same clubs not only get the player they wanted for ass end picks, they in some cases land an extra bounty for the following year.

The system as it is, isn’t fair. Yes father sons are luck. I have no issues with father sons. Keep the rule.

Just ensure fair market value is paid. This points bullshit creates an uneven playing field and whilst I can respect fans of Carlton/brisbane/richmond that think it’s unfair, it’s only because you have skin in the game this year and next year when you don’t - you don’t and won’t care that it would impact another club.

It should be as simple as finding first round picks for first round talent. If we look at last year. The suns won’t land 4 first round picks - so it makes a first round talent available to someone else.

 

[sydney_gws]

Why are St Kilda leading the whining on fatherson? They haven't got anyone decent out of the rule, but they aren't at an inherehent disadvantage to any other club. Their players just haven't produced any decent offspring. It's a lucky dip.

Probably have had less people play 100 games than other clubs, I realise alot of their champion players had girls.

 

[Couch Coach]

Because the issue is father sons and academies provide the same advantage to clubs with little anyone else can do.

2 years ago we had pick 10 and took Phillipou.

However Cameron Mackenzie - who was a stkilda NGA player - was not eligible to be drafted by us - unless available at our pick (went just before).

In similar situations to those with Father sons or Academy players, we would have effectively been able to double dip. Trade back for points and something the following year or on draft night, trade back into a draft that was touted as a stellar draft.

So a club, outside the 8 for the majority of the 2010s/20s thus far - has had to do so against hand outs for expansion sides, against the better sides landing all the free agents and then again taking all the cream talent associated to academies or father son talent with nothing they can do - whilst those same clubs not only get the player they wanted for ass end picks, they in some cases land an extra bounty for the following year.

The system as it is, isn’t fair. Yes father sons are luck. I have no issues with father sons. Keep the rule.

Just ensure fair market value is paid. This points bullshit creates an uneven playing field and whilst I can respect fans of Carlton/brisbane/richmond that think it’s unfair, it’s only because you have skin in the game this year and next year when you don’t - you don’t and won’t care that it would impact another club.

It should be as simple as finding first round picks for first round talent. If we look at last year. The suns won’t land 4 first round picks - so it makes a first round talent available to someone else.

Not all first round picks are equal.
Last years first round went to pick 29!
That's an abnomal year (but it could happen again with Tasmania coming in or priority picks handed out).
Even in a normal year there is no way Pick 1 and Pick 18 (both first rounders) are comparable.

 

[stavro#4]

Not all first round picks are equal.
Last years first round went to pick 29!
That's an abnomal year (but it could happen again with Tasmania coming in or priority picks handed out).
Even in a normal year there is no way Pick 1 and Pick 18 (both first rounders) are comparable.

But landing first round picks when you remove the points formula that clearly distorts the value - will mean they will be harder to attain. That in effect cleanses a number of issues.

It prevents blowouts like last year - we keep pushing the first round back because of bids. When in reality - having only 18 first round picks increase their value