News AFL to overhaul draft on father-sons, academy picks

[juss]

We traded into next year with the strategy to upgrade those picks to clubs who need points next year.

I can't tell if this helps or hinders that strategy or makes no difference?

It seems like in hindsight this change if implemented before next year's trade/draft would dick our plan but who was to know?

 

[TheUnicorn]

We traded into next year with the strategy to upgrade those picks to clubs who need points next year.

I can't tell if this helps or hinders that strategy or makes no difference?

It seems like in hindsight this change if implemented before next year's trade/draft would dick our plan but who was to know?

I have a feeling you guys are going to regret it.

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

VICBIAS at work again

It didn’t take them long to throw the toys out of the cot and try to get what they want. Unfortunately, some of the loudest voices on this issue are from those who appear to have a rudimentary understanding about the challenges of developing and retaining talent in QLD and NSW.

If changes are coming then I hope that it’s nothing more than scrapping the 20% discount for Northern Academy and F/S selections and allowing other clubs to match bids on their NGA Academy kids from pick 20-25, instead from pick 40.

 

[RUNVS]

How would this solve the problem? All the top teams would trade out their over inflated depth for points and bid the totality of their hands at the start of the draft.

Massive problem with that strategy though as suddenly said team has no depth, and after a few years they do not have enough young players coming into the side either. A side won't be good if they are only bringing in 1 top 5 pick every season.

 

[Elixuh]

It didn’t take them long to throw the toys out of the cot and try to get what they want. Unfortunately, some of the loudest voices on this issue are from those who appear to have a rudimentary understanding about the challenges of developing and retaining talent in QLD and NSW.

They understand the challenges but want to retain their structural VFL advantages. This is a reactionary and short sighted decision by the AFL.

 

[RUNVS]

They understand the challenges but want to retain their structural VFL advantages. This is a reactionary and short sighted decision by the AFL.

The Victorian clubs have no structural advantages (just don't count how many non-Victorian clubs have won the flag since 2007).

 

[Cunnington Cartel]

They understand the challenges but want to retain their structural VFL advantages. This is a reactionary and short sighted decision by the AFL.

We shouldn’t expect anything less, as it’s the same attitude that has held the sport back since the national comp’s inception in 1990. Although in saying that, there have been some almighty sooks coming out of WA and SA about the academies as well.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

The Victorian clubs have no structural advantages (just don't count how many non-Victorian clubs have won the flag since 2007).

Sydney have won the flag twice in the last 20 odd years and been a competitive top 8 club the majority of the time without having any player retention issues… you lost Mitchell because he couldn’t get a game in your star studded midfield… the only one you lost to location factors was Dawson…

I am glad the AFL will be stopping the academy injustice soon and forcing a fair price.

About time

 

[Shadow89]

We traded into next year with the strategy to upgrade those picks to clubs who need points next year.

I can't tell if this helps or hinders that strategy or makes no difference?

It seems like in hindsight this change if implemented before next year's trade/draft would dick our plan but who was to know?

Late picks will become a lot more worthless points wise under this plan - so all those third rounders might not be so helpful when trying to acquire the Suns/Crows/Lions/Blues picks for their first round kids.

 

[Danw0w]

Just remove the discount. It's really not difficult guys.

 

[TheUnicorn]

Just remove the discount. It's really not difficult guys.

That doesn’t really fix the main issue.

 

[Danw0w]

That doesn’t really fix the main issue.

Whats the main issue then?

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Whats the main issue then?

That picks in the 30's and 40's do not equal first round picks. No club in a million years would trade a top 10 pick for a couple of picks in the 30's and 40's. So paying 'full price' is not really full price at all - not even remotely close.

The idea by the AFL - that you need to match with a pick within 9 picks of the one you are matching is a MUCH better idea. You will at least need a first rounder (and change) to match a top 5 pick instead of the current ridiculous scenario of using a bunch of late, nothing picks.

 

[Mitchell Madness]

Make the draft a lucky dip. Each round has the club name, with every available player in another bucket.

With pick 1, Collingwood have selected.... Jackson Hughjass from Bordertown Football Club.
Jackson is a 45 year old plumber with 2 dodgy knees and a bad back, who entered the draft on a boys night when he had too many nose beers in an attempt to regain his youth

 

[RUNVS]

That picks in the 30's and 40's do not equal first round picks. No club in a million years would trade a top 10 pick for a couple of picks in the 30's and 40's. So paying 'full price' is not really full price at all - not even remotely close.

The idea by the AFL - that you need to match with a pick within 9 picks of the one you are matching is a MUCH better idea. You will at least need a first rounder (and change) to match a top 5 pick instead of the current ridiculous scenario of using a bunch of late, nothing picks.

Most of the time teams use higher picks to get those picks in the 30's and 40's so it is a bit disingenuous to imply they don't.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

Most of the time teams use higher picks to get those picks in the 30's and 40's so it is a bit disingenuous to imply they don't.

Hey? The trade cost for picks in the 30's and 40's is nowhere near the cost of first round picks - that's not really debatable.

So paying 'full price' under the current points system would do nothing to address the issue - that clubs can pick up elite first round talent for a tiny fraction of what their really worth.

 

[Elixuh]

We can remove it all so that there is no bidding and equal access to talent but all of the clubs would have to financially contribute to all of the Northern academies. Which of course they won’t want to do.

 

[Dirty_banchez]

The draft is becoming absurd. If it keeps on like this, why not scrap the draft and have an NRL style free for all?

Someone will challenge the legality of the draft.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Most of the time teams use higher picks to get those picks in the 30's and 40's so it is a bit disingenuous to imply they don't.

That just tells you the curve is set wrong. Top 10 picks should be worth double we all know it even as our club benefits from it. I like the planned idea of matching a bid within 9 selections, at least it means clubs pay a price and not get a bargain every time.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

We can remove it all so that there is no bidding and equal access to talent but all of the clubs would have to financially contribute to all of the Northern academies. Which of course they won’t want to do.

Of course they would want to - what a funny thing to say. If there was an option to pay to access elite level talent - every club, even the poorer ones - would opt in. In an equalised competition, clubs go to all sorts or ridiculous lengths to get any advantage over their competitors - including expensive personnel, overseas trips, 'research', anything that might help.

Which is part of the reason academies represent such a huge advantage - with some clubs able to 'harvest' elite talent from an early age and get it to the club on the (very) cheap.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

While they are at it though remove this "compensation" for Free Agency. No system where it's BETTER to send players to other clubs is a good system. Don't pretend North weren't pushing McKay out the door to get a free top 5 pick. Fix everything don't do this half way.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

That just tells you the curve is set wrong. Top 10 picks should be worth double we all know it even as our club benefits from it. I like the planned idea of matching a bid within 9 selections, at least it means clubs pay a price and not get a bargain every time.

Thank you. Absolutely right. and this isn't about Sydney or the Northern academies exclusively either (even though Gold Coast this year is the clearest example of the inequity in the current points curve).

MY own club was able to match Pick 19 with a couple of crap picks in the 40's. That's not right! If we went to trade those picks with another club, we mght get pick 35 or something. There is no chance anyone would give us a top 30 pick, let alone pick 19.

the points curve is so far off reality it's not funny and matching a bid within 9 picks of the one you are matching is a massive improvement.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Thank you. Absolutely right. and this isn't about Sydney or the Northern academies exclusively either (even though Gold Coast this year is the clearest example of the inequity in the current points curve).

MY own club was able to match Pick 19 with a couple of crap picks in the 40's. That's not right! If we went to trade those picks with another club, we mght get pick 35 or something. There is no chance anyone would give us a top 30 pick, let alone pick 19.

the points curve is so far off reality it's not funny and matching a bid within 9 picks of the one you are matching is a massive improvement.

Yep, I've said it before but do the pub test. If you held pick 5 for arguments sake and I had picks 32, 34, and lets say 43...what hand is better? You'd think it's the top 5 pick right...nope. Red flag everyone, that just says it right there. The discounts aren't the problem it's the curve it's horribly overvaluing selections in the second and third rounds.

 

[CakeEater]

Its quite telling that this change only comes after a non vic club made out like bandits.

All the other times a vic club has benefitted from academy picks ( Jamarra, that nm kid) and father son picks ( how long do you have?) And the system hasnt changed, but it changes after this year is emblematic of where the AFL is at.

 

[Elixuh]

Of course they would want to - what a funny thing to say. If there was an option to pay to access elite level talent - every club, even the poorer ones - would opt in. In an equalised competition, clubs go to all sorts or ridiculous lengths to get any advantage over their competitors - including expensive personnel, overseas trips, 'research', anything that might help.

Which is part of the reason academies represent such a huge advantage - with some clubs able to 'harvest' elite talent from an early age and get it to the club on the (very) cheap.

Under what I proposed in my post you quoted you wouldn’t get direct access to the talent. You would contribute to funding the academies and then there is equal access through the draft. To put it in simple terms for you, hawthorn contribute to funding the academies but get no material benefit other than the knowledge they are growing the talent pool for the league.

VFL clubs have been given the opportunity to develop their own academies in the northern markets requiring investment in infrastructure and ongoing investment yet none have done so. Wonder why.