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

[Lore]

 

[buttox]

The top 10 having no academy or fs would be a giant change.
Interesting to see if it goes through

 

[mpal6]

The top 10 having no academy or fs would be a giant change.
Interesting to see if it goes through

No priority pick too. Also make it for the whole first round, not just top 10.

If some club is losing a player for free agency, increase their cap for a set number of years (3/5) proportional to what the leaving player is getting and drop 95% spend limit. No band 1 in return.

 

[Profop]

So if they revert back to NGA’s being unrestricted how long was that change in place for like four years?

Gotta feel for Melbourne, don’t get to select Mac Andrew because of AFL flip flopping

 

[buttox]

So if they revert back to NGA’s being unrestricted how long was that change in place for like four years?

Gotta feel for Melbourne, don’t get to select Mac Andrew because of AFL flip flopping

Rumour posted last week is no academy or fs picks in the top 10. Dees would still have missed out.

 

[sydney_gws]

Rumour posted last week is no academy or fs picks in the top 10. Dees would still have missed out.

I doubt clubs accept that, Swans would be yelling loudly, as will Gold Coast.
Time will tell though, has Cal Twomey posted anything?
He probably knows but as an AFL employee will not spill the beans.

 

[Jen2310]

 

[Barrybran]

A grandfather clause makes sense. Clubs have planned for this year's draft and it would be unfair of the AFL to pull the rug out from under them. Still no news about removing discounts though.

 

[bluebaggerjuls]

So if they revert back to NGA’s being unrestricted how long was that change in place for like four years?

Gotta feel for Melbourne, don’t get to select Mac Andrew because of AFL flip flopping

Age reporting this is likely. Extremely unfair to Melbourne and also hawthorn to have changed the rules and then changed them back so quickly

 

[sydney_gws]

They should announce the changes for 2025, at least stop the clubs using 6 junk picks to match this year.
Surely nobody complains if only allowed to use 3 or 4 picks this year to match.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Age reporting this is likely. Extremely unfair to Melbourne and also hawthorn to have changed the rules and then changed them back so quickly

I agree, ploz give Motlop back to us, is only fair

 

[mpal6]

Age reporting this is likely. Extremely unfair to Melbourne and also hawthorn to have changed the rules and then changed them back so quickly

Nice, let everyone rort since the system is littered with inequalities from ground up including all the way to Grandfinals. way to go AFL, never change.

One day hopefully we'll get a CEO who has the backbone to say first round will be pure draft going forward. No father son, academy, NGA or priority picks. If any player wants to move later, stop sooking and go ask for a trade.

If any draftees choose to be "brave" and canvass that they want to stay home, remove them from draft for 3 years. They can always play VFL or SANFL or WAFL or QAFL until they feel they're ready to play under the same rules as everyone else.

 

[The Inbetweener]

Surprised to read that the NGA will potentially be brought into line with father sons and academies. Makes sense for them to all be the same, but also makes the draft even more compromised.

 

[sydney_gws]

Surprised to read that the NGA will potentially be brought into line with father sons and academies. Makes sense for them to all be the same, but also makes the draft even more compromised.

I guess that's because the Vic / SA/WA clubs want it. The other alternative was to only allow Northern academies to match from pick 21 onwards, but no way they want to do that.

 

[kreglze]

We are just on the way back to zones, might as well get rid of the draft at this point.

 

[Obeanie1]

Turn a blind eye to Grand final ? Turn a blind eye to inherent inequalities in fixture? Turn a blind eye to our club getting 1 game at MCG all season for multiple years and have a running narrative of "oh Lions won't win in MCG". Tell you what, all the clubs can EAD for all I care, all the victorian morons can stick their head up their asses and keep going with their kumbaya. If you like it go join them by all means. Don't give a flying **** about what you think.

Yes we need to rort and we will continue to rort if on the other end AFL will continue to rort the grand final in favor of some incumbent Victorian clubs. Can't fix that can you? now shut up and sit down.

Jeez talk about missing the entire point.

And actually backing up my arguement. Thanks for that.

So the Vics are miles ahead. We at least agree on that.

You admit the Northern academies are a rort. A rort that MUST be retained to balance the Vic rorts. Even though the Lions are making grand finals and have cashed in on father sons recently and will again this year.

SA clubs now getting an additional home game per season. Already had less travel and no problems attracting trades.

So where does that leave the WA clubs? No academy access. The biggest travel load in the completion. All but impossible to attract non WA players as trades or free agents.

That's the point.

The answer is not about taking away academies it's is making if fair for clubs struggling to rebuild. Doesn't matter where they are if they are down the bottom and struggling they get assistance. And more assistance that self serving Vic or expansion clubs playing in grand finals. THATS the issue.

And please before replying take a few momements to read my post properly and think.

In the meantime keep enjoying your rort. WA fans are jealous.......for obvious reasons.

 

[Obeanie1]

I don't have to chuck a hissy fit on anything as my take on father/son, academy, priority picks in the first round is very well documented even in this thread prior. Not going to re-hash for your mouth breathing views on as if academy is the greatest bane on the game and everything else is squeaky clean perfect like Grand finals, travel arrangements and Victorian clubs constantly gutting GWS, GC lists for their own well being.

Talk to me when you've moved Grand final out of MCG or talk to me when you've given consistent opportunity to all interstate clubs to play in the permanent Grand final venue. Until then your single minded hypocritical view on academy father-son is just hot air. Keep blowing it.

You seem to be very focused on the grand final at the MCG.

As the excuse for retaining academy rorts.

Problem there is the grand final only affects two clubs each year not every year which is what the academy bidding system does.

Last year Collingwood finished top and Lions 2nd. So the Pies actually earned home ground advantage in the GF even though it was already decided by AFL House.

When was the last time the Lions were unfairly disadvantaged by the GF automatically being at the MCG? Not recently.

Answer is simple. Help clubs and lists who need help more than those who do not. No matter where they are located.

If you can't agree with that it just shows how one eyed you are supporting your club and don't GAF about a fair competition.

 

[Obeanie1]

The top 10 having no academy or fs would be a giant change.
Interesting to see if it goes through

The answer to this needs to be simple.

Group all priority access into a pool. Father sons, academy access and free agents.

Now set guidelines on how much priority access is permitted. Based on current standings.

Grand final teams get 1 shot.

Teams finishing from 3 to 13 get priority access to 2 players only.

Teams from 14 to 18 no restrictions.

Then the strong lists need to make a choice to get priority access to either a FS or academy kid or a free agent. Not all three at once.

The weaker lists get more access the grand final Teams less.

And this access changes as a club moves up and down the ladder.

 

[mpal6]

You seem to be very focused on the grand final at the MCG.

As the excuse for retaining academy rorts.

Problem there is the grand final only affects two clubs each year not every year which is what the academy bidding system does.

Last year Collingwood finished top and Lions 2nd. So the Pies actually earned home ground advantage in the GF even though it was already decided by AFL House.

When was the last time the Lions were unfairly disadvantaged by the GF automatically being at the MCG? Not recently.

Answer is simple. Help clubs and lists who need help more than those who do not. No matter where they are located.

If you can't agree with that it just shows how one eyed you are supporting your club and don't GAF about a fair competition.

I care about winning premierships mate, may be your priorities are different - can't help you there.

Run home from this round onwards:
Carlton - 3 games at MCG
Essendon - 4 games at MCG
Collingwood - 7 games at MCG
Melbourne - 5 games at MCG
Bulldogs - 0 games at MCG
Sydney - 0 games at MCG
Brisbane - 1 game at MCG
Geelong - 2 games at MCG
GWS - 2 games at MCG
Fremantle - 1 game at MCG

Of all finals bound teams, there is a clear advantage in fixture for certain clubs prior to the big event. This may seem like a non-factor to you, this is the type of inequality that is littered across the competition. Why should Swans get zero games at MCG from July through to finals and then show up to that ground on last day of september and expected to win? Can you ever fix this?

you are having a massive whinge about "academy rort, academy rort, academy rort" like a stupid parrot, while turning a blind eye to everything else out there.

Like I posted in many of my earlier posts - I am all for fairness, make first round pure like they do in other competitions. But in return bring travel equality, fixture equality before trivializing MCG advantage in finals that certain clubs seem to carry all season.

 

[Profop]

I care about winning premierships mate, may be your priorities are different - can't help you there.

Run home from this round onwards:
Carlton - 3 games at MCG
Essendon - 4 games at MCG
Collingwood - 7 games at MCG
Melbourne - 5 games at MCG
Bulldogs - 0 games at MCG
Sydney - 0 games at MCG
Brisbane - 1 game at MCG
Geelong - 2 games at MCG
GWS - 2 games at MCG
Fremantle - 1 game at MCG

Of all finals bound teams, there is a clear advantage in fixture for certain clubs prior to the big event. This may seem like a non-factor to you, this is the type of inequality that is littered across the competition. Why should Swans get zero games at MCG from July through to finals and then show up to that ground on last day of september and expected to win? Can you ever fix this?

you are having a massive whinge about "academy rort, academy rort, academy rort" like a stupid parrot, while turning a blind eye to everything else out there.

Like I posted in many of my earlier posts - I am all for fairness, make first round pure like they do in other competitions. But in return bring travel equality, fixture equality before trivializing MCG advantage in finals that certain clubs seem to carry all season.

Would Sydney/Brisbane want to swap home games out in order to play more games at the MCG? I mean this season perhaps is a rare one where Sydney may have chosen a riskier proposition in order to get MCG access but generally you’d think no

I would have thought you prefer to play where you’re more likely to win and then ensure you’re good enough on the day to win anywhere

 

[mpal6]

Would Sydney/Brisbane want to swap home games out in order to play more games at the MCG? I mean this season perhaps is a rare one where Sydney may have chosen a riskier proposition in order to get MCG access but generally you’d think no

I would have thought you prefer to play where you’re more likely to win and then ensure you’re good enough on the day to win anywhere

Sydney is 3 games clear from second place and looking at a Grand final spot easy if they get through a quali and prelim in SCG. From that perspective, I believe they'll be open to swap.

For us, we're still touch n go for finals so we can't really choose. Play and win wherever.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't understand this idea of just artificial limiting with rules about which picks can match, limits to number of players.

If a wins the flag and has a pick 1 F/S or three players in the first round or whatever, let them match them if they have the points.

The issue is that the points in later picks are worth too much. It's a lot harder for teams to get the points for top players if they can't just trade down for more points (because teams with 3rd round picks have less points), plus, with a different scale, finals teams are getting fewer points than top teams anyway).

If a team can somehow trade out enough players or future draft assets that they somehow have eight second round picks and eight list spots free to match three players in the first round or two top 10 players or whatever, more power to them. The issue is that teams can match those players currently with five or six second round picks, not eight.

Throw in the 20% discount - maybe we can still have a discount for the same principle but make it 5% or whatever, and it gets fixed.

The logic behind why the rules were implemented in the first place have not changed - removing access just undermines the systems and investments in the first place, which just seems illogical.

 

[tombomb]

I don't understand this idea of just artificial limiting with rules about which picks can match, limits to number of players.

If a wins the flag and has a pick 1 F/S or three players in the first round or whatever, let them match them if they have the points.

The issue is that the points in later picks are worth too much. It's a lot harder for teams to get the points for top players if they can't just trade down for more points (because teams with 3rd round picks have less points), plus, with a different scale, finals teams are getting fewer points than top teams anyway).

If a team can somehow trade out enough players or future draft assets that they somehow have eight second round picks and eight list spots free to match three players in the first round or two top 10 players or whatever, more power to them. The issue is that teams can match those players currently with five or six second round picks, not eight.

Throw in the 20% discount - maybe we can still have a discount for the same principle but make it 5% or whatever, and it gets fixed.

The logic behind why the rules were implemented in the first place have not changed - removing access just undermines the systems and investments in the first place, which just seems illogical.

Remove the discount, rebalance the points table. There doesn't need to be any rules around where picks land or how many.

This whole issue could have been fixed in 5 minutes, 10 years ago.

 

[TheLastCall]

I care about winning premierships mate, may be your priorities are different - can't help you there.

Run home from this round onwards:
Carlton - 3 games at MCG
Essendon - 4 games at MCG
Collingwood - 7 games at MCG
Melbourne - 5 games at MCG
Bulldogs - 0 games at MCG
Sydney - 0 games at MCG
Brisbane - 1 game at MCG
Geelong - 2 games at MCG
GWS - 2 games at MCG
Fremantle - 1 game at MCG

Of all finals bound teams, there is a clear advantage in fixture for certain clubs prior to the big event. This may seem like a non-factor to you, this is the type of inequality that is littered across the competition. Why should Swans get zero games at MCG from July through to finals and then show up to that ground on last day of september and expected to win? Can you ever fix this?

you are having a massive whinge about "academy rort, academy rort, academy rort" like a stupid parrot, while turning a blind eye to everything else out there.

Like I posted in many of my earlier posts - I am all for fairness, make first round pure like they do in other competitions. But in return bring travel equality, fixture equality before trivializing MCG advantage in finals that certain clubs seem to carry all season.

The AFL don't allocate games on the last third of the season till half-way through the season. They need to start giving the top 10 teams MCG exposure (priority). How simple would it be to make sure teams get priority to MCG whilst playing in Melbourne if they are in the top 10.

On Father/son academy. Kill the discount and make sure teams have a pick within 10-15 of the pick they get the player at and no extra picks they don't have places for.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

Remove the discount, rebalance the points table. There doesn't need to be any rules around where picks land or how many.

This whole issue could have been fixed in 5 minutes, 10 years ago.

It would almost solve the problem but the only thing is it’s fairer to make teams use a certain amount of picks because it makes them use picks closer to the bid meaning earlier draft picks get eaten up by matching which stops teams getting pushed back in the draft.

Eg would be if Campo, Welsh, Ashcroft and Lambard are bid on at 6,7,8 and 9 and are all matched with picks after 22 then it pushes the bottom 4 sides second rounders back by 4 picks. If they need to get much closer to those bids because they only have two picks to match we might see a situation where those bottom 4 sides early second rounders only get knocked back by 1 or 2 spots because better picks are used to match


Edit. We need it to work so that if you have pick say 27 in the draft you are getting as close to the 27th best talent in the draft as possible. Not the 35th or some crap that we have seen.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

On Father/son academy. Kill the discount and make sure teams have a pick within 10-15 of the pick they get the player at and no extra picks they don't have places for.

Agree also no trades after the draft commences opening more spots than a team has vacated. It's pretty simple.