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

[giantroo]

 

[Groo2]

That problem just doesn’t exist in South Australia, where are they going to go (if not AFL), Adelaide United?

 

[Buget]

We can agree to disagree, but IMO that just won’t work. The Broncos can guarantee a 15 yo kid, that if that are good enough they can have a career in Brisbane. If that kid is 50/50 on what sport to choose and you can’t guarantee a similar pathway into the AFL (a career staying in Brisbane), then what do you think he/she is going to choose?

Let’s agree to that.

For the record, the AFL is technically a non-for-profit. It isn’t a corporation trying to establish or grow market share for profit. So the fact a few 15 year old kids have the potential multiple options for playing elite sport is actually such a luxury first world problem. When you consider the number of issues and problems our children face.

My opinion is somewhat clouded by the fact I moved interstate before I was 18 for work and I survived.

 

[sydney_gws]

Brisbane Broncos have an academy/development program giving local talent a direct pathway to their club. Presumably now the dolphins have something similar. This is who the AFL are competing with for elite talent in Brisbane. How is this the AFL going to do this without something similar (ie Lions/suns academies)?

Very few nrl players want to play afl

 

[threenewpadlocks]

A draft system makes sense in US sports because it’s developmental pathways are saturated by College sports.

This isn't true at all. The NHL draft is probably the most similar to the AFL in terms of young players getting drafted as 18 year olds and them, while being tied to a team, spending several years being developed in "reserves"-style football in their 2nd tier leagues or through the college system. And Baseball infamously has its farm systems where players are often not expected to be good enough to be MLB players until their mid-late twenties despite being high draft picks.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Let’s agree to that.

For the record, the AFL is technically a non-for-profit. It isn’t a corporation trying to establish or grow market share for profit. So the fact a few 15 year old kids have the potential multiple options for playing elite sport is actually such a luxury first world problem. When you consider the number of issues and problems our children face.

My opinion is somewhat clouded by the fact I moved interstate before I was 18 for work and I survived.

The AFL has an interest in having as many local players play for the local clubs in expansion markets, not because it's a 'first world problem' or it necessarily feels like it needs to 'defeat' the other sports (though that is an inherent by-product), but simply because the success and popularity of the local teams largely depends on their ability to engage with and be the overarching body for the sport in the state. In other words, why have those teams at all and hope that they become successful in future without giving them every opportunity to establish themselves as the masters of the sport in their regions, in all areas, such as elite development and junior participation.

People tend to forget, that for example, the relatively low GWS and GC crowds would contain in large part the footy-supporting members and families of individuals that are already part of the academies or are encouraged to stick with the sport participation wise because of the link between the footy they enjoy watching and the team branding the academies. While I think it's not great that e.g. Isaac Heeney was gotten so cheaply by the Swans and that has helped them be a good team (obviously), if I were to take a step back, I think it's broadly a good thing that the only AFL-quality player to come out of the most culturally anti-AFL region in the country, the Newcastle/Hunter region, is playing for a NSW team. The AFL's strategic goals in NSW would be made slightly more difficult if Heeney moved straight into a football-playing state.

 

[Buget]

The AFL has an interest in having as many local players play for the local clubs in expansion markets, not because it's a 'first world problem' or it necessarily feels like it needs to 'defeat' the other sports (though that is an inherent by-product), but simply because the success and popularity of the local teams largely depends on their ability to engage with and be the overarching body for the sport in the state. In other words, why have those teams at all and hope that they become successful in future without giving them every opportunity to establish themselves as the masters of the sport in their regions, in all areas, such as elite development and junior participation.

People tend to forget, that for example, the relatively low GWS and GC crowds would contain in large part the footy-supporting members and families of individuals that are already part of the academies or are encouraged to stick with the sport participation wise because of the link between the footy they enjoy watching and the team branding the academies. While I think it's not great that e.g. Isaac Heeney was gotten so cheaply by the Swans and that has helped them be a good team (obviously), if I were to take a step back, I think it's broadly a good thing that the only AFL-quality player to come out of the most culturally anti-AFL region in the country, the Newcastle/Hunter region, is playing for a NSW team. The AFL's strategic goals in NSW would be made slightly more difficult if Heeney moved straight into a football-playing state.

It’s an interesting sliding doors moment… Didn’t Melbourne bid on Heeney at pick 2, but under the rules Sydney could match with pick 18? Wasn’t that one of the reasons that the draft point index was introduced?

Ironically, didn’t Sydney then get Callum Mills the next year by matching Melbourne’s bid at pick 3 with picks 33, 36, 37 and 43.

In the space of two drafts, the “matching with a first round pick” and current system were identified as having issues.

Melbourne faired alright, they ended up with this guy called Petracca and Brayshaw in 2014 and Oliver in 2015…

 

[Jirik13]

Adjusting points and limit or remove discount should do it. I would probably also change how many bids can be matched in the first round. Top 4 teams from 1 to none and 5-8 teams from 2 to 1 match. But this rule should apply the same way for F/S which I think there is no chance to happen. Carlton is a top 4 candidate this year and will get probably 2 F/S in the first round. Lions got Will Ashcroft and Fletcher 2 years ago. This year Levi Ashcroft and possibly Marshall as first rounders.

Top 4 and possibly top 8 teams don't deserve matching bids advantage. Just try to get picks and use them to draft kids if you want.

No finals no match limit works well to assist expansion team like Suns. 2023 collection of 5 quality academy kids (including Clohesy who surprisingly no other team drafted) should get finally Suns over the hump and play finals in the next 1-2 years. Still no guarantees.

As for academies, obviously, the amount of money invested is a key factor. Not surprisingly, Suns academy is starting to produce good talent only after going from a joke investment (250K) to over 1M from 2018. Swans academy is getting a lot of money from QBE sponsorship long-term (something like 1.2M 5 years ago).

Could AFL grow in rugby area with academies completely separated from the clubs and kids going directly to draft? Probably yes but as efficiently? Not sure. It's a big incentive and great assistance for members of academy to train with AFL players and use club's facilities, coach expertise. E.g., Rogers spent a whole pre-season and trained under Miller and Anderson a year before he was even drafted. Obviously, clubs would not do that without benefiting from drafting these kids.

 

[TheLastCall]

Adjusting points and limit or remove discount should do it. I would probably also change how many bids can be matched in the first round. Top 4 teams from 1 to none and 5-8 teams from 2 to 1 match. But this rule should apply the same way for F/S which I think there is no chance to happen. Carlton is a top 4 candidate this year and will get probably 2 F/S in the first round. Lions got Will Ashcroft and Fletcher 2 years ago. This year Levi Ashcroft and possibly Marshall as first rounders.

Top 4 and possibly top 8 teams don't deserve matching bids advantage. Just try to get picks and use them to draft kids if you want.

No finals no match limit works well to assist expansion team like Suns. 2023 collection of 5 quality academy kids (including Clohesy who surprisingly no other team drafted) should get finally Suns over the hump and play finals in the next 1-2 years. Still no guarantees.

As for academies, obviously, the amount of money invested is a key factor. Not surprisingly, Suns academy is starting to produce good talent only after going from a joke investment (250K) to over 1M from 2018. Swans academy is getting a lot of money from QBE sponsorship long-term (something like 1.2M 5 years ago).

Could AFL grow in rugby area with academies completely separated from the clubs and kids going directly to draft? Probably yes but as efficiently? Not sure. It's a big incentive and great assistance for members of academy to train with AFL players and use club's facilities, coach expertise. E.g., Rogers spent a whole pre-season and trained under Miller and Anderson a year before he was even drafted. Obviously, clubs would not do that without benefiting from drafting these kids.

I like the idea of limiting all teams to 1 academy pick in the first round, 2 in the second. Put the discount based on the average of the last three years spot on the ladder (1%-18%, but more likely 3%-14%) and the discount only applies to the first pick you use. Stop teams points shopping as much.

Father/sons no discount.

 

[Bestbird]

It’s an interesting sliding doors moment… Didn’t Melbourne bid on Heeney at pick 2, but under the rules Sydney could match with pick 18? Wasn’t that one of the reasons that the draft point index was introduced?

Ironically, didn’t Sydney then get Callum Mills the next year by matching Melbourne’s bid at pick 3 with picks 33, 36, 37 and 43.

In the space of two drafts, the “matching with a first round pick” and current system were identified as having issues.

Melbourne faired alright, they ended up with this guy called Petracca and Brayshaw in 2014 and Oliver in 2015…

Amazing that the AFL didn't see that the bolded wasn't an issue in the first place.

 

[Buget]

Amazing that the AFL didn't see that the bolded wasn't an issue in the first place.

The rules allow it though. Really, until the significantly comprised draft last year, the AFL probably wasn’t even looking at it.

In that 2015 draft, Sydney traded out their first and second to stockpile those picks. In the end they draft Mills, Tyrone Leonardis (pick 51 - didn’t make it) and Liam Dawson (pick 56 - that was a good late pick).

You could say Sydney actually nail that draft, as they got Papley in the rookie draft. 3 first 23 players (before Dawson got traded), who will play 200 plus games.

 

[Elixuh]

What happens if someone bids on a player at pick 18. You will be unable to match?

Wouldn’t the most logical system be to consider a round as 18 picks, so you just have to match within 18 picks of a bid.

 

[jdstorm]

This isn't true at all. The NHL draft is probably the most similar to the AFL in terms of young players getting drafted as 18 year olds and them, while being tied to a team, spending several years being developed in "reserves"-style football in their 2nd tier leagues or through the college system. And Baseball infamously has its farm systems where players are often not expected to be good enough to be MLB players until their mid-late twenties despite being high draft picks.

So college baseball and hockey don’t exist? Come on now. Both those sports offer multiple pathways into their professional ranks. Baseball players infamously have to choose college or minor leagues.

Baseball’s “farm/minor league system” is basically an academy system by a different name. And their “little league” is their junior professional program

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

One of our ITK posters suggests that the AFL want to bring in pick purchasing and changes to bidding this year, but a few clubs are pushing back as “they’re not ready”.

 

[Elixuh]

One of our ITK posters suggests that the AFL want to bring in pick purchasing and changes to bidding this year, but a few clubs are pushing back as “they’re not ready”.

AFL has allowed future pick trading for years. Clubs made trades and list decisions for this year under the current rules last year.

You can’t change those types of rules without giving a 12 month lead in (ie prior to the relevant years draft and trade period). Well you can, but it’d be amateur hour stuff.

 

[Buget]

AFL has allowed future pick trading for years. Clubs made trades and list decisions for this year under the current rules last year.

You can’t change those types of rules without giving a 12 month lead in (ie prior to the relevant years draft and trade period). Well you can, but it’d be amateur hour stuff.

I actually agree with this. At least 12months is needed as you can current sell future picks out to the following years draft.

However, given the nature of list management, any draft rule changes will benefit some teams more than others.

Thats not to say they shouldn’t change them. How many rules changes have there been since Geelong picked up Hawkins on the cheap? They are still benefiting from the rules at that time.

 

[Elixuh]

I actually agree with this. At least 12months is needed as you can current sell future picks out to the following years draft.

However, given the nature of list management, any draft rule changes will benefit some teams more than others.

Thats not to say they shouldn’t change them. How many rules changes have there been since Geelong picked up Hawkins on the cheap? They are still benefiting from the rules at that time.

I’m not taking a position on whether the rules should be changed / not changed and what those changes might be.

But Brisbane is a good example of my point. We made list and trade decisions last year for our f/s and academy picks for this year, under the current rules as they were. You can’t justifiably then change those rules for this years draft.

They need to announce the changes before this years trade and draft period, to commence for next years draft and trade period.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

AFL has allowed future pick trading for years. Clubs made trades and list decisions for this year under the current rules last year.

You can’t change those types of rules without giving a 12 month lead in (ie prior to the relevant years draft and trade period). Well you can, but it’d be amateur hour stuff.

Which teams will be hindered? Maybe those in their window or close to them who took a punt with a trade of a future pick.

Which teams will be helped? Undoubtedly the ones who need it the most.

In the current environment of “north need more help”, “Tassie will win a flag before hawthorn” and “it takes teams too long to rebuild” and Tasmania draft concessions being imminent the AFL need to bite the bullet.

 

[Elixuh]

Which teams will be hindered? Maybe those in their window or close to them who took a punt with a trade of a future pick.

Which teams will be helped? Undoubtedly the ones who need it the most.

In the current environment of “north need more help”, “Tassie will win a flag before hawthorn” and “it takes teams too long to rebuild” and Tasmania draft concessions being imminent the AFL need to bite the bullet.

Any club that traded picks with a view to f/s and academy picks this year.

Ladder position is irrelevant to this. F/s and academy picks are completely random.

 

[sydney_gws]

Which teams will be hindered? Maybe those in their window or close to them who took a punt with a trade of a future pick.

Which teams will be helped? Undoubtedly the ones who need it the most.

In the current environment of “north need more help”, “Tassie will win a flag before hawthorn” and “it takes teams too long to rebuild” and Tasmania draft concessions being imminent the AFL need to bite the bullet.

I think they have to at least make partial changes this year.
Limiting matching bids to only 3 picks could start this year, disadvantage nobody.
I guess Brisbane Carlton probably complain a bit but we can see the damage being done to the credibility of the competition as teams down the bottom are getting the talent to rise so slowly they stay down for longer now than before.
I am not suggesting going back to priority early first round picks , but they allowed teams to rise quite quickly in the 2000's compared to now.

 

[Choogler]

Yeah it’s solely because they want them to be successful to bring more league fans over to AFL which is a dogshit business model


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

It is not necessarily the business model that is flawed, but the way the expansion to non-AFL states ie: GWS and GC was done is flawed.

There are 4 clubs in Melbourne that constantly need financial propping up (Melbourne, NM, StK and WB). The AFL now has those 4, Brisbane, GWS and GC to prop-up. The expansion into GC and GWS should have involved at least 2 of those 4 Melbourne based clubs relocating instead of 2 new start-up clubs. If they refused, then withdraw their additional funding forcing them to accept, merge or become defunct. It would have saved the AFL in excess of $350 million dollars to date, and reduced the number of clubs in Victoria. The added bonus would be a more balanced fixture with more teams playing each other twice and more travel for Vic-based clubs.

I'll now wait for the vitriol from the supporters of those clubs.

 

[Buget]

I think they have to at least make partial changes this year.
Limiting matching bids to only 3 picks could start this year, disadvantage nobody.
I guess Brisbane Carlton probably complain a bit but we can see the damage being done to the credibility of the competition as teams down the bottom are getting the talent to rise so slowly they stay down for longer now than before.
I am not suggesting going back to priority early first round picks , but they allowed teams to rise quite quickly in the 2000's compared to now.

I don’t mind the “maximum of 3 picks to match” thing.

Did some quick maths with the draft pick calculator. For pick 1 you roughly need picks 17, 18, 19 to match (if they remove the 20% discount). With the discount it was around pick 23, 24 and 25.

This basically means if it’s a Brisbane and Ashcroft situation, Brisbane doesn’t just get a high draft pick for beans. As they have to find some significant draft capital to cover. So was Ashcroft worth multiple current/future first 23 players?

If it’s say Hawthorn, who had pick 3 and their natural round 2 pick is 21, the surplus points would slide that pick back to pick 63.

So essentially, is Pick 1 worth a future first 23 player? That would be Hawthorn’s question.

 

[anotherletdown]

It’s not about exceptions. Its about a rule that works and makes sense.

Needing to use a first round pick to match a bid in the first round is silly when it becomes harder and harder to match bids the later in the first round it goes especially when the 1st round goes 18 picks. And a player bid with the last of the first round is unmatchable where a pick later and it’s easily matched.

Late first round picks aren’t nearly the problem as teams not needing to pay much for early picks.

Agreed.

I'm thinking a total discount of xxx amount of points per draft is worth considering. Keep the curve, keep the discount but make it die off at a certain point. Limits or kills the chance of double dipping on a second player if you happen to have an early bid but allows you freedom to match later in the draft.

No idea where to make the points cut but 600 points is the discount for a pick one. Half of that? Maybe the discount value of the first pick of the finals teams? No idea, I'm just spitballing

 

[anotherletdown]

AFL has allowed future pick trading for years. Clubs made trades and list decisions for this year under the current rules last year.

You can’t change those types of rules without giving a 12 month lead in (ie prior to the relevant years draft and trade period). Well you can, but it’d be amateur hour stuff.

Yes, it'd be right in the AFL wheelhouse to change this year

 

[Stamos]

GETTABLE: No.1 pick favourite, Academy rule changes, Eagle's talks, Roos hunted

Riley Beveridge and Cal Twomey are joined by Mac's Sports Tom McConville, discuss the 'Trading Revolution' and a special treat in honour of Harley-mania

www.afl.com.au

 

[sydney_gws]

GETTABLE: No.1 pick favourite, Academy rule changes, Eagle's talks, Roos hunted

Riley Beveridge and Cal Twomey are joined by Mac's Sports Tom McConville, discuss the 'Trading Revolution' and a special treat in honour of Harley-mania

www.afl.com.au

They said there will be a change to the points curve, but as I predicted it seems like the changes won't be as strong as most on this board want.
Cal said they don't want to ruin trade week by having teams unable to trade their picks away in case they need them for bidding.
I disagree with this, if you have a highly rated academy or father son, you shouldn't be able to much else that trade period ( unless you trade out players to get picks to use on other players).
Brisbane for example shouldn't have been able to get Dunkley and Ashcroft 2 years ago without trading out at least 2 decent fringe players.