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

[random260]

Regardless of what happens with father and son. At no point should that result in Daicos being anywhere but Collingwood.

So make changes all you like but the premise should stay the same in that sons should almost be guaranteed to play for father club

 

[kreuze_missile]

Do it in 2025.

We got Camporeale's incoming.

 

[The Lobbster]

Regardless of what happens with father and son. At no point should that result in Daicos being anywhere but Collingwood.

So make changes all you like but the premise should stay the same in that sons should almost be guaranteed to play for father club

Surely it has to be on the club to make that happen. The changes are not removing F/S but just trying to make them pay a fairer price.

It has to be remembered that the draft is fundamentally an equalisation method, trying to allow poorly performing clubs the chance to improve whilst ensuring successful clubs don't just dominate every year. NGA, F/S and Northern academies all distort the equalisation for justifiable reasons but at the moment it seems that no enough of a premium is being paid to distort this. Basically whilst there should be a mechanism for a father son selection, it should be up to the club to make it happen as opposed to the AFL giving them too much help. At the moment that balance hasn't really being achieved IMO.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Do it in 2025.

We got Camporeale's incoming.

That's exactly what is happening.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

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?

Changes won't take effect until 2025.

 

[WillHayward]

Finally. Can they review Free Agency compensation as well? F/S, Academy, and Free Agency compensation are the leading reasons why the draft is so compromised right now.

They just told us they conducted a review on FA compensation.

They told us they won't tell us what was in the review but trust them because they did an awesome job on the review. Was absolutely brilliant they said. Greatest review ever.
Very Trumpian.

 

[RUNVS]

They just told us they conducted a review on FA compensation.

They told us they won't tell us what was in the review but trust them because they did an awesome job on the review. Was absolutely brilliant they said. Greatest review ever.
Very Trumpian.

Apparently Tom Harley went to the AFL as well crying, saying he has never seen such a good review in his life.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Surely it has to be on the club to make that happen. The changes are not removing F/S but just trying to make them pay a fairer price.

It has to be remembered that the draft is fundamentally an equalisation method, trying to allow poorly performing clubs the chance to improve whilst ensuring successful clubs don't just dominate every year. NGA, F/S and Northern academies all distort the equalisation for justifiable reasons but at the moment it seems that no enough of a premium is being paid to distort this. Basically whilst there should be a mechanism for a father son selection, it should be up to the club to make it happen as opposed to the AFL giving them too much help. At the moment that balance hasn't really being achieved IMO.

I would like to see the SA and WA clubs get easier access to their Father/Son selections (say down from 200 SANFL/WAFL games to 150)

 

[Guardian Hawk]

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.

I appreciate the clarification but I knew what you meant. For me, it amounts to the same thing (albeit indirectly). As it stands, the Northern academies significantly benefits a couple of clubs and severely reduces the talent pool for other clubs. It is especially costly to those at the top end of the draft. If all clubs could contribute equally to those academies (meaning the individual club cost would not be extravagant) to enable greater talent availability (and reduce the significant advantages your competitors are getting), I would imagine most (if not all) clubs would sign up.

The VFL clubs northern academy investment is a false equivalence because as soon as the Vic clubs showed some interest and began diverting resources, the rules changed to take all the incentive/benefit away (can only bid after pick 40).

 

[Taylor]

All these changes will do is make it harder to get to the same level as clubs who already benefited from the old way. Their advantage is increased as the cost to get there increases.

So I propose that nothing changes, except every club is given a soft cap of academy/FS points and if your squad has players on it that together tally above that level then you don't get to match bids with bulk late picks or get a discount anymore until you're under the soft cap.

You can keep it simple and give ranges of picks a point value but they already have points attached, may as well use the AFL system.

I'd propose the soft cap around 3500 to 4000 points. How would your club sit with that cap based off where your current academy or father sons were taken?

It would only apply restrictions to clubs who already have the benefits, everyone else gets to proceed as usual. The clubs still get access to their players, they just pay more if they have the cumulative value in excess of pick 1 on their squad.

 

[Elixuh]

As it stands, the Northern academies significantly benefits a couple of clubs…

It directly benefits the clubs that run the academies, sure. There is also investment to deliver the academies by these clubs though. And when you talk about benefit it’s all relative. Vic clubs have 65% of their players drafted from their home state; Northern clubs 23%. There is no other way to address that huge benefit that the Vic clubs have other than through things like academies.

…severely reduces the talent pool for other clubs.

It increases the talent pool. VFL clubs have guys on their list today that they wouldn’t have but for the academies expanding the talent pool. Taking the Suns haul of players in the most recent draft as an example, having lived in Queensland my whole life I can tell you with certainty that without the academies zero (maybe one at a pinch) would have been drafted without the academies. Even if one made it through it certainly wouldn’t have been in the first round. All these guys would have been funnelled into other sports elite pathways as happened prior to the creation of the academies.

It is especially costly to those at the top end of the draft. If all clubs could contribute equally to those academies (meaning the individual club cost would not be extravagant) to enable greater talent availability (and reduce the significant advantages your competitors are getting), I would imagine most (if not all) clubs would sign up.

The VFL clubs northern academy investment is a false equivalence because as soon as the Vic clubs showed some interest and began diverting resources, the rules changed to take all the incentive/benefit away (can only bid after pick 40).

Incorrect on all counts with the above lol. The big VFL clubs see pouring resources into northern academies as a waste of time for a range of reasons including…they already have structural advantages over talent; the northern clubs would be advantaged with go home factor and kids not wanting to be drafted out of state. They don’t view it as a worthwhile investment of resoruces. Otherwise it’d be happening.

 

[The Lobbster]

I would like to see the SA and WA clubs get easier access to their Father/Son selections (say down from 200 SANFL/WAFL games to 150)

The unfortunate place WA and SA clubs find themselves is that it has been too long since their inception for WAFL or SANFL selections to really matter anymore and too soon since inception for actual AFL father sons to appear. Whilst some solutions probably involving NGAs could be applied, this gap was always likely to happen and it might just be a case of tough luck.

However, the argument of reducing the games played criteria probably should have been in from the start for a few reasons, with a key question being whether the quality of the father as a player affects the quality of the son as a player. If the answer to this question is yes (even slightly), then I would argue the games limit was always too high. In the case of Fremantle, the existence of West Coast and the national draft had been actively removing highly rated players from the WAFL, likely before meeting the father son game criteria so all that was left were WAFL journeymen, which again comes back to that key question.

But again, not much can be done about it now and IMO, the SA and WA clubs have bigger fish to fry than the draft if they're looking for equalisation.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

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.

Some people seem to read Vic Bias no matter what.

The exact example you used of the rules not being changed DID change the rules. When the Bulldogs got Jamarra, the rules were immediately changed that VIC clubs could not match a bid on an academy kid before pick 40 (whilst the nothern clubs can still match bids on anyone, including multiple early first rounders as we saw this year).

If anything, your examples show the exact opposite of "Vic Bias".

Also, northern academy clubs have been 'making out like bandits' for years and years and years with no rule change. Sydney, for example, has been harvesting elite talent and selecting early picks (regardless of ladder position) for years whereas as soon as 1 Vic club got the same benefit, the rules were changed (for the Vic clubs only). That is anything but Vic bias.

The issue is significant and a change is long overdue. Yes, this year may have been the worst ever example but the points system has long made no sense (where 2 picks in the 40's is the same as a first rounder). The other issue that did arise this year is that one of the (mostly ineffective) counter measures is that you can only take as many picks to the draft as you have open list spots (to prevent loading up on a million shit picks to match first rounders), Gold Coast got around this rule very easily this year by doing that and then trading the picks they had for a million shot picks on draft night.

The points system is clearly broken and needs to be addressed. It's only going to get worse if it isn't, with a number of elite F/S coming through AND the under16 AA side being nearly 60% from the Northern academies.

Let's not make this some kind of parochial conspiracy and see that a rule change is necessary.

 

[Taylor]

the rules were immediately changed that VIC clubs could not match a bid on an academy kid before pick 40

What actually happened was the clubs outside of VIC couldn't match until pick #40 but the Vic clubs couldn't match before pick #20.

Thats how a Freo academy player can be picked up in the early twenties by Carlton but St Kilda could match a bid on their own and retain him a few picks later.

 

[SSSSSS]

Well over due but it's a bit rich for this to be spearheaded by the two clubs that have overwhelmingly benefited from F&S and in Collingwood's case both F&S and NGA.

 

[Guardian Hawk]

What actually happened was the clubs outside of VIC couldn't match until pick #40 but the Vic clubs couldn't match before pick #20.

Thats how a Freo academy player can be picked up in the early twenties by Carlton but St Kilda could match a bid on their own and retain him a few picks later.

When was this cos that's definately not the rule now?

This draft Hawthorn missed on an academy kid (and brother of a current player) because Collingwood selected him in the late 30's. Similarly, Bulldogs missed on theirs when Dodoro pinched him at pick 39.

 

[ScottBo]

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.

Mitchell couldn't get with the Swans star-studded midfield? He played more games in his last season for the Swans than he did in any season at the Hawks. He was our second best performing midfielder in his last game as a Swan, the 2016 GF.

Not potting you, but it's just one example of the crap that's perpetuated in the AFL media and on Bigfooty.

 

[Bulldog Joe]

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.

The system was changed after Jamarra and is the reason that Northern Academies can match before pick 40 but NGA's are unable to.

 

[bzparkes]

Surely if they want to equalise 'properly' they ladder the 'discount' appropriately.

For instance, bottom 4 get 20% discount, the next 4 10%, middle tables get none and it flips until the top 4 have to pay a 20% premium in points to match a bid.

The only clubs getting a discount should be the bottom 4 to help them out and in the case of NGA, they should be allowed to match 1 inside the top 20.

Handing probable #1 picks to clubs regularly playing finals in Ashcroft, Daicos(yes I know Collingwood finished in the bottom 4 that year but it was a massive outlier, based on previous and post form from that year) and Darcy, without the clubs having to give up anything meaningful in return, is plain stupid.

Those clubs should get the chance to match a FS/NGA bid, however they should to have to give up something meaningful later in the draft, so the decision actually means something.

 

[adammania9]

Hmm yes glad Nick Daicos etc will be right in their primes when Pav and Mundy’s kids come through and we have to pay through our bleeding anus’s while they paid a packet of knock off Aldi chips for Nick

If North Melbourne did their due diligence and bid on the best player at pick 1, there wouldn’t be an issue. The Magpies would have paid through the nose.

Karma already hit the Pies from earlier too. They traded their future first knowing Daicos was going to be special only to discover that pick ended up being 2.

 

[master bate]

I would like to see the SA and WA clubs get easier access to their Father/Son selections (say down from 200 SANFL/WAFL games to 150)

Why? They've all been around long enough now that almost all father sons will be coming from the AFL era. Apart from super old dad Michalanney it will be players who actually played for the club. The rule is for before the clubs came in to the AFL for a reason so they'll actually phase out naturally.

I can't see any reason why WA or SA teams won't produce as many father sons as any other team as it now moves in to guys who played in the 00's.

 

[adammania9]

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.

Then where were the cries when Ashcroft went 2 then Fletcher shortly after? Or the Giants nabbing Hopper, Kennedy and Himmelberg in the first round with only one good selection? Or Sydney securing Mills with dud picks in the 30’s and Blakey a few years after the same way?

 

[Taylor]

When was this cos that's definately not the rule now?

This draft Hawthorn missed on an academy kid (and brother of a current player) because Collingwood selected him in the late 30's. Similarly, Bulldogs missed on theirs when Dodoro pinched him at pick 39.

The 2021 draft. The year after JUH.

 

[Taylor]

Why? They've all been around long enough now that almost all father sons will be coming from the AFL era. Apart from super old dad Michalanney it will be players who actually played for the club. The rule is for before the clubs came in to the AFL for a reason so they'll actually phase out naturally.

I can't see any reason why WA or SA teams won't produce as many father sons as any other team as it now moves in to guys who played in the 00's.

Fremantle had a period in the mid 2010s where there were most of our 100+ game players either still in the team or just retired.

I've actually got a graph of this showing the number of players for all clubs who had played 100 or more games born within a window where they would be having sons about draft age recently, showing which clubs are behind the rest.

I'll dig it up.

 

[Taylor]

This would say that for a level playing field Port, Freo and the two expansion clubs should have priority access to some extra talent.