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 for 2025 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.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

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.

So long as the tradeoff are all out of state sides get more games at the MCG. That should be in the fair compromise agreement

 

[Bestbird]

The DVI should have been adjusted years ago given the late picks trading scenario for a top 5 rated player.

Such an obvious rort that wasn't fixed till now.

 

[jdstorm]

So long as the tradeoff are all out of state sides get more games at the MCG. That should be in the fair compromise agreement

?????

How does that benefit away sides? And surely you’re not suggesting playing home games there.

A grounds a ground has 8 sticks and a center square.

Edit:

The aim of a game with a salary cap is the idea that teams pay equivalent value for player production.

The draft is just a way of allocating value to new players. I’m perfectly happy removing it there just needs to be a fair system that balances things better than they are now.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

?????

How does that benefit away sides? And surely you’re not suggesting playing home games there.

A grounds a ground has 8 sticks and a center square.

Out of state sides should play more than 2 games at the MCG if you are planning on holding the final there every year. Look at last year we didn’t play one after April how in the blue moon is that “fair”. Much easier to win if you play there more often and it’s fairer for everyone.

 

[jdstorm]

Out of state sides should play more than 2 games at the MCG if you are planning on holding the final there every year. Look at last year we didn’t play one after April how in the blue moon is that “fair”. Much easier to win if you play there more often and it’s fairer for everyone.

Moore park is plenty big enough to put cones out to replicate ground size and the SCG when full gets plenty loud enough. It’s a footy ground quit having a sook.

Might get more games at the G if your team wasn’t a bunch of unlikeable milquetoast campaigners who are unlikely to draw a crowd.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Moore park is plenty big enough to put cones out to replicate ground size and the SCG when full gets plenty loud enough. It’s a footy ground quit having a sook.

Might get more games at the G if your team wasn’t a bunch of unlikeable milquetoast campaigners who are unlikely to draw a crowd.

Then you can’t complain about the academies. There’s inequality always is every team gets some, Melb sides get it easier in finals and travel.

 

[jdstorm]

Then you can’t complain about the academies. There’s inequality always is every team gets some, Melb sides get it easier in finals and travel.

Those inequalities are very different things. The academy rort also benefits Melbourne sides. See Essendon this year.

It’s only an hour on a plane from Sydney to the MCG. You’d have an easier time getting here then to Penrith with traffic. Yet the roosters don’t sook up playing there or Paramatta.

The finals thing is a different issue. Melbourne teams get less travel but they don’t have a home ground advantage in local games.

I’ll admit there’s a good argument that the grand final location should be rotated (similar to the Super Bowl) it’s too big of an event to try and arrange last minute.

 

[Coach_Required]

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.

Think it's pretty obvious, if you have the number 1 pick why would you pick someone who isn't going to end up on your list.

Pick 1 is prestigious, why deny the club with that pick & the player they actually want that right?

 

[borrat]

the

will be

if Gallop turns out to be another Morris which would not have happened if Richmond had have been Pricks and bidded at 1

 

[Elixuh]

?????

How does that benefit away sides? And surely you’re not suggesting playing home games there.

A grounds a ground has 8 sticks and a center square.

Edit:

The aim of a game with a salary cap is the idea that teams pay equivalent value for player production.

The draft is just a way of allocating value to new players. I’m perfectly happy removing it there just needs to be a fair system that balances things better than they are now.

MCG grand final every year is one of the biggest inequalities in the game given the entire aim is to win flags

 

[threenewpadlocks]

MCG grand final every year is one of the biggest inequalities in the game given the entire aim is to win flags

Is it a bigger inequity than the fact that the Dogs had to play a home final at their opponent's home ground with more opponent fans in the stands?

Maybe it is or isn't, but you can't just state one and not the other.

 

[Elixuh]

Is it a bigger inequity than the fact that the Dogs had to play a home final at their opponent's home ground with more opponent fans in the stands?

Maybe it is or isn't, but you can't just state one and not the other.

That is unfair for the Dogs and I'm against it 100%, but locked in MCG grand final in a national comp is the biggest inequality. Chris Fagan wrote to the AFL earlier in the year or late last year comparing his experience of Grand Finals when he was at Hawthorn and the 2023 Grand Final and the disparity when one team is from outside Vic. Grand final day is the pinnacle of the sport for all the marbles - the purpose for which the comp operates - so such an inequality has to be weighted very heavily against others.

AFL must do more to achieve finals fairness | Footyology

footyology.com.au

 

[jdstorm]

That is unfair for the Dogs and I'm against it 100%, but locked in MCG grand final in a national comp is the biggest inequality. Chris Fagan wrote to the AFL earlier in the year or late last year comparing his experience of Grand Finals when he was at Hawthorn and the 2023 Grand Final and the disparity when one team is from outside Vic. Grand final day is the pinnacle of the sport for all the marbles - the purpose for which the comp operates - so such an inequality has to be weighted very heavily against others.

AFL must do more to achieve finals fairness | Footyology

footyology.com.au

Biggest is a stretch. It’s an about a 40% chance to be a neutral game assuming 1 interstate team makes it. (Like it was this year)

And even with a rotating grand final your still going to have the occasional home crowd but it’s 90% corporates that day anyway.

Not saying it isn’t an issue and I’d be more then happy to see that day rotated ( grew up in Sydney) Not sure how that works with various powerbrokers and contracts though.

But to compare that to the premiers getting access to the clear best player in the country for 4 4th round picks. Its a by far the worst rort since cost of living

 

[Elixuh]

Biggest is a stretch. It’s an about a 40% chance to be a neutral game assuming 1 interstate team makes it. (Like it was this year)

And even with a rotating grand final your still going to have the occasional home crowd but it’s 90% corporates that day anyway.

Not saying it isn’t an issue and I’d be more then happy to see that day rotated ( grew up in Sydney) Not sure how that works with various powerbrokers and contracts though.

But to compare that to the premiers getting access to the clear best player in the country for 4 4th round picks. Its a by far the worst rort since cost of living

I think the grand final should remain fixed at the mcg fwiw