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

[giantroo]

 

[FreeAgent1]

“The afl wants one system for FS, NGA and Academy”

This is pretty stupid, as it will dilute the talent pool exactly when Tassie come in…..

Imagine if the entire top 20 picks are either NGA or TAS!

Remove the entire entitlement for top 18 picks, make the first round sacrosanct.

 

[mpal6]

“The afl wants one system for FS, NGA and Academy”

This is pretty stupid, as it will dilute the talent pool exactly when Tassie come in…..

Imagine if the entire top 20 picks are either NGA or TAS!

Remove the entire entitlement for top 18 picks, make the first round sacrosanct.

That's the easiest fix as all the argument is about first round picks.

If you remove father/son, priority, NGA, and academy from first round - it'll become simple to manage.

 

[Dogflogger]

That's the easiest fix as all the argument is about first round picks.

If you remove father/son, priority, NGA, and academy from first round - it'll become simple to manage.

Why not remove them from all rounds and just have teams draft the players with the picks they have? would make this all a lot more simple wouldn't it? just have the AFL fund the academies and pay a stipend to the coaches and players who work with the academy. every team has levers to pull to get picks for F/S or academy players, its called trading.

 

[mpal6]

Why not remove them from all rounds and just have teams draft the players with the picks they have? would make this all a lot more simple wouldn't it? just have the AFL fund the academies and pay a stipend to the coaches and players who work with the academy. every team has levers to pull to get picks for F/S or academy players, its called trading.

First round is where the problem lies. Cream of the crop is rated in first round and if you're getting multiple bites in various ways, it makes the rest of the crowd unhappy. If clubs get a player via 2nd round or later and he turns out to be a gun, the uproar isn't as bad as first round.

Jamarra went pick 1 and NGA got changed. Heeney was bid at 2 and matched with 18 and previous version of academy bid matching changed. No one is arguing here about why we got Jack Payne at pick 54.

 

[My_Username]

“The afl wants one system for FS, NGA and Academy”

This is pretty stupid, as it will dilute the talent pool exactly when Tassie come in…..

Imagine if the entire top 20 picks are either NGA or TAS!

Remove the entire entitlement for top 18 picks, make the first round sacrosanct.

Nah, allow it, just adjust the system so you can't pick up an early 1st round pick with a pile of crap picks.

Picks within 10 of the bid get 20% discount.
Picks >30 from the bid get a 20% penalty. (i.e. they're worth 20% fewer points).

and/or a requirement that the first pick used is within 1 round of the bid.

With live trading, all of this should be very doable.

So if you want a guy who will go pick 3, you're going to want to have some pretty good picks yourself or it'll eat up your entire draft.

 

[Dogflogger]

First round is where the problem lies. Cream of the crop is rated in first round and if you're getting multiple bites in various ways, it makes the rest of the crowd unhappy. If clubs get a player via 2nd round or later and he turns out to be a gun, the uproar isn't as bad as first round.

Jamarra went pick 1 and NGA got changed. Heeney was bid at 2 and matched with 18 and previous version of academy bid matching changed. No one is arguing here about why we got Jack Payne at pick 54.

but wouldn't it be much less of a headache just to abolish it all? I'm failing to understand why any of this is preferable to a simple draft with no concessions.

If the go home factor is so big in the AFL when it comes to trading then wouldn't all these northern acadamy players be likely to ask to be traded home if there were not drafted by their acadamies club? that seems like a big enough benefit for the northern leagues dunno why they need a different set of acadamy rules.

 

[mpal6]

but wouldn't it be much less of a headache just to abolish it all? I'm failing to understand why any of this is preferable to a simple draft with no concessions.

If the go home factor is so big in the AFL when it comes to trading then wouldn't all these northern acadamy players be likely to ask to be traded home if there were not drafted by their acadamies club? that seems like a big enough benefit for the northern leagues dunno why they need a different set of acadamy rules.

That's a very good point, there is no formal structure or career prospects linked with AFL in NSW or QLD beyond your playing career. If you're a mid-range player from QLD or NSW, you'd prefer to setup base in Melbourne as there are 10 clubs to switch around and get post-career opportunities in coaching, media, player agent etc. There is a "Northern Academies" thread either in our board or draft board where it gets discussed extensively by people far more involved than me. There are points about how QLD private school boards (old boys club) still push back against setting up AFL programs in the private schools and continue to keep it as rugby league hub. It has changed in Gold Coast schools in a positive way which is why we see all these good prospects coming through but Brisbane and elsewhere there is still big opposition for it.

Go-home factor works for Victoria and rarely does the other way around. Even players who move interstate for financial reasons, they tend to move back to Victoria quickly when they retire. Hodge is one of the unique ones in recent past, staying up in QLD but on a plane every week to do his commentary work back to Melbourne or somewhere in Australia.

Other good way to compare this is look at the top assistant coaches that Lions or Gold Coast have been able to attract in the last 10 years. Damien Hardwick has brought a change for Gold Coast but before that, it was a struggle for them too. Lions have always had an issue here managing with same set of coaches lately and rotating their roles.

So your point while nice to hope it happens, rarely does. Even Will Ashcroft thought long n hard about father son nomination coz he is a footy nut and couldn't ignore the attraction of staying in Melbourne.

 

[mpal6]

‘Play the homesick card’: Fuse lit in AFL debate as Vic clubs savaged over draft hypocrisy

‘Play the homesick card’: Fuse lit in AFL debate as Vic clubs savaged over draft hypocrisy

www.foxsports.com.au

Ignoring the tone of the article, there is some good detail on the GWS academy draftees in there (pasted below). No one's complaining about GWS lately because either they're all midrange picks or talent is starting to spill over to other clubs.


RECENT GWS GIANTS ACADEMY PICKS

• 2023: 1 (Harvey Thomas – Pick 59, GWS)

• 2022: 2 (Harry Rowston – Pick 16, GWS, Nick Madden – Category B rookie, GWS)

• 2021: 3 (Josh Fahey – Pick 42, GWS, Patrick Voss – pre-season draft – Fremantle, Cooper Sharman – mid-season draft – St Kilda)

• 2020: 2 (James Peatling – mid-season draft – GWS, Nick Murray – pre-season draft -Adelaide)

• 2019: 1 (Tom Green

12

Tom Green

Age

23

Ht

192cm

Wt

92kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

11.5

3star

K

4.3

2star

HB

7.3

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.3

4star

CL

2.8

4star

D

11.5

3star

K

4.3

2star

HB

7.3

4star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.3

3star

CL

2.8

4star

D

11.5

3star

K

4.3

2star

HB

7.3

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.3

4star

CL

2.8

5star

– Pick 10, GWS)

• 2018: 1 (Kieren Briggs – Pick 34, GWS)

• 2017: 1 (Nick Shipley – Pick 64, GWS)

 

[borrat]

Lets all wish Will Ashcroft the best tonight on his return

and hopefully Sam Marshall doesn't play 'to well' for the reserves on Saturday

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

First round is where the problem lies. Cream of the crop is rated in first round and if you're getting multiple bites in various ways, it makes the rest of the crowd unhappy. If clubs get a player via 2nd round or later and he turns out to be a gun, the uproar isn't as bad as first round.

Jamarra went pick 1 and NGA got changed. Heeney was bid at 2 and matched with 18 and previous version of academy bid matching changed. No one is arguing here about why we got Jack Payne at pick 54.

And specifically, it's being a finals or top 4 having access to top 10 draft talent for cheap. I've wanted the first round protected more (doesn't sound like that's happening) so I'd love a system where you can match only as high as your finishing position, win the flag, can only match from 18 onward

 

[Taylor]

I find the idea that father son selections should be changed after nearly every other club has had a lick of the ice cream, some to far greater amounts than others, when clubs like Fremantle are about to hit a period of access themselves very distasteful.

All changes only make the existing advantages greater. Collingwood don't have to give Daicos back, Dogs don't have to let Darcy walk away - but they'll be used to stop the next club getting their turn.

It is possible to quantify the benefits clubs have received from academy, father son etc. If your club has benefited too much in the last five years, you can't match the bid.

 

[Elixuh]

I find the idea that father son selections should be changed after nearly every other club has had a lick of the ice cream, some to far greater amounts than others, when clubs like Fremantle are about to hit a period of access themselves very distasteful.

All changes only make the existing advantages greater. Collingwood don't have to give Daicos back, Dogs don't have to let Darcy walk away - but they'll be used to stop the next club getting their turn.

It is possible to quantify the benefits clubs have received from academy, father son etc. If your club has benefited too much in the last five years, you can't match the bid.

Its a bit of an own goal by some clubs who complained about academies and have caused the whole system involving pick matching to be reconsidered and changed, especially those who are about to benefit from FS. Fremantle was one of those clubs and Carlton another

They're only changed FS to make it more palatable alongside the real target which is academies.

 

[mpal6]

And specifically, it's being a finals or top 4 having access to top 10 draft talent for cheap. I've wanted the first round protected more (doesn't sound like that's happening) so I'd love a system where you can match only as high as your finishing position, win the flag, can only match from 18 onward

They could do something creative like a cap penalty. You want to play finals and still want a top 10 player? fine. Your cap goes down by 5% next year and so on. There just needs to be a list squeeze one way or another so it directly impacts the advantage clubs are trying to gain via draft.

I'd say the same approach for restricted/unrestricted free agency - you lose a player, you'll get cap increase but no priority pick. Feel free to load up that war chest and go after some top liner but you're not getting a freebie band 1.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

For the millionth time, if clubs had to use a collection of draft picks that were in practical terms similar in value to the position where the player was bid on, it wouldn't be an issue.

If Collingwood, paying 4 picks, had to pay pick 10, 20, 30 and 40 to match for Daicos (and somehow got their hands on all those picks in the first place) rather than four picks in the 30s and 40s, there would be less of an issue, and people wouldn't consider it a rort. Update the numbers and reduce the discount. That's it.

Everything is more complicated and opens the risk of additional ways of rotting the system or being unfair (as people have suggested with Mac Andrew and Melbourne) - you don't need artificial limits of when points cut off, when you can/can't match bids etc. etc.

If a team gets multiple players in a year or in similar years, more power to them - if they are all top talents they may not simply have the total amount of draft picks to get them all without trading out players.

 

[My_Username]

For the millionth time, if clubs had to use a collection of draft picks that were in practical terms similar in value to the position where the player was bid on, it wouldn't be an issue.

If Collingwood, paying 4 picks, had to pay pick 10, 20, 30 and 40 to match for Daicos (and somehow got their hands on all those picks in the first place) rather than four picks in the 30s and 40s, there would be less of an issue, and people wouldn't consider it a rort. Update the numbers and reduce the discount. That's it.

Everything is more complicated and opens the risk of additional ways of rotting the system or being unfair (as people have suggested with Mac Andrew and Melbourne) - you don't need artificial limits of when points cut off, when you can/can't match bids etc. etc.

If a team gets multiple players in a year or in similar years, more power to them - if they are all top talents they may not simply have the total amount of draft picks to get them all without trading out players.

No discount, and the first pick used to match is no more than double the pick being matched.

So if you want to match pick 3, your first pick has to be no more than pick 6. Match pick 10, you can use pick 20. etc.

This can be extended to triple, but if you do, you pay extra (you have to pay, say, 20% more points).

 

[stallon]

No discount, and the first pick used to match is no more than double the pick being matched.

So if you want to match pick 3, your first pick has to be no more than pick 6. Match pick 10, you can use pick 20. etc.

This can be extended to triple, but if you do, you pay extra (you have to pay, say, 20% more points).

I like this idea actually, i never liked the whole needing a pick within 10 picks of the bid or needing a pick in the same round ideas as you never know exactly where theyre gonna go.

At least with this there is some leeway so clubs have more than 1 pick they can chase unless it's literally pick 1 they're after.

 

[mpal6]

No discount, and the first pick used to match is no more than double the pick being matched.

So if you want to match pick 3, your first pick has to be no more than pick 6. Match pick 10, you can use pick 20. etc.

This can be extended to triple, but if you do, you pay extra (you have to pay, say, 20% more points).

Let's say Gold Coast last draft as an example - If clubs know you've to get within double the pick range, they could bid on Walters, Read, Rogers as 1/2/3 knowing GC won't have 2/4/6 to match. It'll create an uproar the other way but it may not be that amplified as it's just an interstate club left empty handed in the end.

 

[stallon]

Let's say Gold Coast last draft as an example - If clubs know you've to get within double the pick range, they could bid on Walters, Read, Rogers as 1/2/3 knowing GC won't have 2/4/6 to match. It'll create an uproar the other way but it may not be that amplified as it's just an interstate club left empty handed in the end.

Well GC could have matched Walter, but with the others if they cant match, then those clubs have to take a player well outside their range.
Imagine if GC matched Walter bid from West Coast, then North took Read with 2/3 and Hawks took Rogers at 4. Theyd look pretty stupid wouldnt they?

 

[mpal6]

Well GC could have matched Walter, but with the others if they cant match, then those clubs have to take a player well outside their range.
Imagine if GC matched Walter bid from West Coast, then North took Read with 2/3 and Hawks took Rogers at 4. Theyd look pretty stupid wouldnt they?

I think GC had only pick 4 on hand for starters, so per my example if Walter went 1 - they could not have matched it. Could have got Read at 2 and that's it. In theory that's what will happen if GC played finals or top 4 as per current rules. The higher they go, they are limited on what they can take.

 

[stallon]

I think GC had only pick 4 on hand for starters, so per my example if Walter went 1 - they could not have matched it. Could have got Read at 2 and that's it. In theory that's what will happen if GC played finals or top 4 as per current rules. The higher they go, they are limited on what they can take.

If Walters was pick 1 and GC had 4, then under what was suggested, they need to trade up a pick. If they cant then they miss out, too bad. It would take paying overs to a team with a top 3 pick, is that worth it? Probably not, but at least they are forced to pay somewhat fair value for a guy who was rated very similarly to Reid by a lot of people.

They still had other guys they could match with worse picks.
What happens if GC cant match Walters is they just take another guy with pick 4, or they split 4 into multiple picks to be able to get both Read and Rogers, plus theyd have some left overs they could probably get another player before Graham got bid on.
With Read and Rogers being rated in the 8-16 range, there is no way a team bids on them in the top 5, all GC have to do then is just not match, and the other team is stuck with a guy rated at pick 10 for pick 4 or something.

Either way it ends up, GC is still ahead of where they wouldve been without the access

Itd be a significant upgrade on how bidding works.

It does mean your Lions wouldve had 0 chance of matching either of the Ashcrofts though, so I can understand why you think itd be worse, even though itd be objectively better.

 

[Jirik13]

If Walters was pick 1 and GC had 4, then under what was suggested, they need to trade up a pick. If they cant then they miss out, too bad. It would take paying overs to a team with a top 3 pick, is that worth it? Probably not, but at least they are forced to pay somewhat fair value for a guy who was rated very similarly to Reid by a lot of people.

They still had other guys they could match with worse picks.
What happens if GC cant match Walters is they just take another guy with pick 4, or they split 4 into multiple picks to be able to get both Read and Rogers, plus theyd have some left overs they could probably get another player before Graham got bid on.
With Read and Rogers being rated in the 8-16 range, there is no way a team bids on them in the top 5, all GC have to do then is just not match, and the other team is stuck with a guy rated at pick 10 for pick 4 or something.

Either way it ends up, GC is still ahead of where they wouldve been without the access

Itd be a significant upgrade on how bidding works.

It does mean your Lions wouldve had 0 chance of matching either of the Ashcrofts though, so I can understand why you think itd be worse, even though itd be objectively better.

Adjust points curve and all issues are basically solved. Not all that complicated stuff suggested here by some.

Remove discount.

Unify academy, NGA, father/son rules. May sure NGA is not a joke like it was in the past.

Currently for academies, top 4 team can only have one match in round 1. I would change it to 0. 5-8 currently 2 matches. I would change it to 1. Outside 8 no limits. Combine academy/NGA and F/S bids for these limits.

 

[mpal6]

If Walters was pick 1 and GC had 4, then under what was suggested, they need to trade up a pick. If they cant then they miss out, too bad. It would take paying overs to a team with a top 3 pick, is that worth it? Probably not, but at least they are forced to pay somewhat fair value for a guy who was rated very similarly to Reid by a lot of people.

They still had other guys they could match with worse picks.
What happens if GC cant match Walters is they just take another guy with pick 4, or they split 4 into multiple picks to be able to get both Read and Rogers, plus theyd have some left overs they could probably get another player before Graham got bid on.
With Read and Rogers being rated in the 8-16 range, there is no way a team bids on them in the top 5, all GC have to do then is just not match, and the other team is stuck with a guy rated at pick 10 for pick 4 or something.

Either way it ends up, GC is still ahead of where they wouldve been without the access

Itd be a significant upgrade on how bidding works.

It does mean your Lions wouldve had 0 chance of matching either of the Ashcrofts though, so I can understand why you think itd be worse, even though itd be objectively better.

You started at academy matching and finished up with how it'll affect father-son for us. While it's true, it'd also affect every other club with father-son prospect so I'll be fine with it.

I'm not sure Vic clubs who have a better father son strike rate would be happy. Lions had Brown in 1999 under old rules and after that it was Ashcrofts in 2022/2024 who look good. Our success rate is sporadic at best.

 

[Maybe Tomorrow]

Adjust points curve and all issues are basically solved. Not all that complicated stuff suggested here by some.

Remove discount.

Unify academy, NGA, father/son rules. May sure NGA is not a joke like it was in the past.

Currently for academies, top 4 team can only have one match in round 1. I would change it to 0. 5-8 currently 2 matches. I would change it to 1. Outside 8 no limits. Combine academy/NGA and F/S bids for these limits.

Agree with this. So for example, if Brisbane finish top 4 this year they can only match one FS/acdemy/NGA player in the first round. So would have to choose between Ashcroft jr and Marshall. Or Carlton might only be able to match one of their FS this year.

Helps the teams down the ladder get an extra player or two.

 

[Dangerousfield]

Lyon flying the "woe is us" flag for St.Kilda

So many cumbersome solutions being suggested when three simple things fix it all

Change the points curve, pick 36 is the last pick worth points
No discount as being able to match is a big bonus
Cannot use more than two picks to match with any shortfall coming off your first rounder next year and you cannot trade it

Simple and would have fixed the JUH, Darcy, Daicos, Ashcroft rorts

 

[Crankyhawk]

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.

On disturbing it may be easier to rotate the GF or subject it to same rules as other finals (higher placed teams home state)rather than trying to equalise access to mcg