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

[giantroo]

 

[sydney_gws]

I think all the excess points Brisbane got this year is an imdication that even though the points curve is adjusted, exploitation will still be possible. They really need a rule around number of picks to match. I think 3 is the number ( unless that somehow doesn't work).
Then they might need an additional rule of a pick within 12 of the bid must be used (although if a bid within top 7 comes, they can use their ladder R1 to match).
So this year for Ashcroft, Brisbane would under these rules have to use 18 on its own to match, along with its 2025r1, 2026r1.
Matching for Marshall would have been via 2nd round picks, they would need to have traded players out to match Marshall.

 

[chels]

The afl have made a start on improving bid matching. A next step should be questioning why, the clear #1 pick was not bid on until #5. While the potential for collusion exists, clubs will find a way to rort the system.

 

[Elixuh]

Obviously clubs didn’t rate Levi as highly as the Bigfooty experts

 

[LukeParkerno1]

I think all the excess points Brisbane got this year is an imdication that even though the points curve is adjusted, exploitation will still be possible. They really need a rule around number of picks to match. I think 3 is the number ( unless that somehow doesn't work).
Then they might need an additional rule of a pick within 12 of the bid must be used (although if a bid within top 7 comes, they can use their ladder R1 to match).
So this year for Ashcroft, Brisbane would under these rules have to use 18 on its own to match, along with its 2025r1, 2026r1.
Matching for Marshall would have been via 2nd round picks, they would need to have traded players out to match Marshall.

This was the last year of the old system- next year you can only match with points till the end of the 3rd round. That is a significant change across the board.

 

[sr36]

So Carlton trade in four 2024 picks in the third / fourth rounds last year and you think that's got nothing to do with them planning to match bids for the Camporeale twins? Come on now. Their plans were obvious 12 months ago. Turns out they didn't need them for the most part, but that doesn't mean it's fair to just change the rules on them and other clubs. B.Camporeale was named in the AA team and SA's MVP so it's not like we're talking about rookie prospects.

I'll concede that Brisbane did most of their work for Levi Ashcroft this year. I'll cop that one.

Tigers would have a case too. They'd pretty clearly topped up on matching picks in the previous trade period.

 

[jdstorm]

I think all the excess points Brisbane got this year is an imdication that even though the points curve is adjusted, exploitation will still be possible. They really need a rule around number of picks to match. I think 3 is the number ( unless that somehow doesn't work).
Then they might need an additional rule of a pick within 12 of the bid must be used (although if a bid within top 7 comes, they can use their ladder R1 to match).
So this year for Ashcroft, Brisbane would under these rules have to use 18 on its own to match, along with its 2025r1, 2026r1.
Matching for Marshall would have been via 2nd round picks, they would need to have traded players out to match Marshall.

I think a fairer rule would be that teams are unable to trade their first round pick if they want to match a player.

That’s where these points are coming from splitting 1 high pick multiple times.

Match with your first + as many picks as you want

 

[Elixuh]

I think a fairer rule would be that teams are unable to trade their first round pick if they want to match a player.

That’s where these points are coming from splitting 1 high pick multiple times.

Match with your first + as many picks as you want

A lot of the really beneficial pick splits we have done over the years have predominantly been with bottom of the ladder rebuilding teams. So if I’m the AFL I wouldn’t mind clubs doing it tbh.

 

[jdstorm]

A lot of the really beneficial pick splits we have done over the years have predominantly been with bottom of the ladder rebuilding teams. So if I’m the AFL I wouldn’t mind clubs doing it tbh.

Of course you wouldn’t mind clubs doing that it’s the biggest rort in the game and you’re taking full advantage.

It’s far better for the health of the league if good clubs have to move on decent players if they want to move up.

You still get to match with multiple picks just might have to trade a player or two that’s worth a 2nd to get get the required points. Or a first and split those picks.

So you can get around it in some ways but it forces top teams to not hoard talent

 

[Elixuh]

Of course you wouldn’t mind clubs doing that it’s the biggest rort in the game and you’re taking full advantage.

It’s far better for the health of the league if good clubs have to move on decent players if they want to move up.

You still get to match with multiple picks just might have to trade a player or two that’s worth a 2nd to get get the required points. Or a first and split those picks.

So you can get around it in some ways but it forces top teams to not hoard talent

Of course, I love a rort this is well established.

 

[jdstorm]

Of course, I love a rort this is well established.

For sure. It’s great when you can pull it off. Problem is with Footy that rort (which we’d all love our teams to do as much as possible) isn’t harmless and actually hurts the overall quality of the game.

So you have to close that loophole.

 

[Elixuh]

For sure. It’s great when you can pull it off. Problem is with Footy that rort (which we’d all love our teams to do as much as possible) isn’t harmless and actually hurts the overall quality of the game.

So you have to close that loophole.

There are plenty of inequalities in the game that will never be addressed. The aim if the game is to balance out the inequalities not take the ones that we can away without further thought.