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

[giantroo]

 

[Obeanie1]

But the point being is that things like cities represented, size of fanbases, different ground access etc. is all just part and parcel of the inherent diversity of various teams in the league, many of which were known as teams became teams.

West Coast knew about the lengthy plane trips when they entered the league, but they also knew of a period of time when they could have an exclusive window as the only team in Perth before another team would come in, for example. So they could build a fanbase and benefit from that.

I'm not saying that is or isn't "fair" with the size of the fanbase or the amount of travel, just that it's not really relevant to how the league should equalise their competition. The same factors that make the plane trip long, also provide opportunity for West Coast to have a stronger net home ground fan-based advantage than the league average (given that the net advantage they have of their team's fans minus opposition fans across all their games is the largest in the league, even the St Kilda game I went to yesterday had a few thousand Eages fans among a sub 20k crowd, while, additionally, West Coast have greater familiarity with the two Melbourne stadiums, its dimensions, the fact many players have played there dozens of times before than 16 teams have familiarity with Perth). Both are realities of the nature of the city of Perth itself, and we shouldn't equate that away, because Perth developing the way it did had nothing to do with the sport.

The whole thing is ridiculous that Perth teams are claiming any sort of disadvantage. Perth's isolation has led to it growing as a city which has led to the strength of the two clubs, as much as it has made a plane trip longer.

So travel disparity isnt a disadvantage?

Even though the science says it is.

Whens the last time a Vic player drove from Perth home to Melbourne with a punctured lung?

And since when has a loud crowd who cheer louder than others make up for the 15,000 km and hours extra travelled by players, the ruturn leg after playing and you are bruised and battered. The bruises you have iced start swelling again with changing air pressure.

Even now with two SA teams getting an extra home game?

Whats ridiclous is is entitled Melbourne fans thinking less home ground advantages evens the ledger here. Are you serious or trolling?

 

[threenewpadlocks]

So travel disparity isnt a disadvantage?

Even though the science says it is.

Whens the last time a Vic player drove from Perth home to Melbourne with a punctured lung?

And since when has a loud crowd who cheer louder than others make up for the 15,000 km and hours extra travelled by players, the ruturn leg after playing and you are bruised and battered. The bruises you have iced start swelling again with changing air pressure.

Even now with two SA teams getting an extra home game?

Whats ridiclous is is entitled Melbourne fans thinking less home ground advantages evens the ledger here. Are you serious or trolling?

Travel disparity is a by-product of being a team from Perth, and as such, the existance of Perth being "a city" isn't an inequity. The argument boils down to Perth exists in the manner that it does = unfair.

As much as the Dogs' smaller fanbase is a by-product of representing a working-class region is also unfair, I can equally make a (dumb) argument that the Western Suburbs existing in the manner it does = unfair for the Dogs.

I'm not saying disparities don't exist (even if I think the travel element of the WA teams is overblown and study after study show that there's significant home ground advantages driven by size of crowds), just disparities as they relate to things such as the cultural and geographic location and what it represents is something that is just part and parcel of the inherent variance among teams that the league will always have and is not something that should be attempted to be squared away.

Otherwise you can make arguments about the inequities represented by geography in every element of the game, for instance, for instance, that Western Australians make up more than 1/9th of the AFL playing base, or that Vic Metro and Vic Country only get 2 U/18 champs teams for 10 AFL teams located in that geographic state teams to themselves while WA and SA get to witness their own team for two players in each state, helping drafting and recruiting, etc, etc, etc.

 

[3agles87]

Travel disparity is a by-product of being a team from Perth, and as such, the existance of Perth being "a city" isn't an inequity. The argument boils down to Perth exists in the manner that it does = unfair.

As much as the Dogs' smaller fanbase is a by-product of representing a working-class region is also unfair, I can equally make a (dumb) argument that the Western Suburbs existing in the manner it does = unfair for the Dogs.

I'm not saying disparities don't exist (even if I think the travel element of the WA teams is overblown and study after study show that there's significant home ground advantages driven by size of crowds), just disparities as they relate to things such as the cultural and geographic location and what it represents is something that is just part and parcel of the inherent variance among teams that the league will always have and is not something that should be attempted to be squared away.

Otherwise you can make arguments about the inequities represented by geography in every element of the game, for instance, for instance, that Western Australians make up more than 1/9th of the AFL playing base, or that Vic Metro and Vic Country only get 2 U/18 champs teams for 10 AFL teams located in that geographic state teams to themselves while WA and SA get to witness their own team for two players in each state, helping drafting and recruiting, etc, etc, etc.

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, the inequality comes from a lot of choices the AFL makes about scheduling.

Brisbane only played its first game at Optus against the Eagles this year. It opened in 2018.
A new round was created for South Australia.
Round 0 was created. Could have been used to give those with the biggest travel burden an in season break, but wasn’t.
Regular trips down to Tassie for WA teams. Not sure about now but historically has meant a stopover in Melbourne for the travelling WA team.

So your argument of mere geography falls down a bit.

As to the noise of affirmation, I expect the Big V clubs still get the benefit of that in a pretty significant number of games. Don’t think Richmond, Collingwood or Carlton supporters would be too worried about being drowned out by Roos, Saints or Bulldogs fans, and they get to stay home more than any other teams.

What we do appear to agree on is that there is a lot of inequality from the design of the league. Poor working class bulldogs. Not sure you will like my solution though as it would involve killing off a couple (or a few) Victorian teams. More travel for the remaining Vics but they can also have more noise of affirmation as their reward. A pipe dream, I know.

I wonder what they would prefer, more noise of affirmation or less travel? Don’t worry, it is a rhetorical question. I know the answer from each time a VIC team comes over to WA and the commentators talk about the tyranny of distance for the poor Vics.

 

[Profop]

Perth teams should just say thank you for being created and stop whinging

 

[3agles87]

Perth teams should just say thank you for being created and stop whinging

Victorian teams should just say thank you for saving us from bankruptcy, and then realise that it is now a national competition.

 

[Elixuh]

Perth teams should just say thank you for being created and stop whinging

Imagine saying that to a WCE supporter, the wealthiest club in the league. You should just say thank you to wce for putting soup in your little bowl when you ask 'please sir may I have some more to stay afloat'.

 

[sydney_gws]

So travel disparity isnt a disadvantage?

Even though the science says it is.

Whens the last time a Vic player drove from Perth home to Melbourne with a punctured lung?

And since when has a loud crowd who cheer louder than others make up for the 15,000 km and hours extra travelled by players, the ruturn leg after playing and you are bruised and battered. The bruises you have iced start swelling again with changing air pressure.

Even now with two SA teams getting an extra home game?

Whats ridiclous is is entitled Melbourne fans thinking less home ground advantages evens the ledger here. Are you serious or trolling?

I agree travel is a disadvantage, WA teams need to play more back to back games in Melbourne. Play Sunday, then Friday night. If really needed ( newborn kids for example), a couple of players can go back to see family (or AFL can pay for some additional babysitting as required).

 

[Choogler]

It isn't equal when clubs have to pass on players who indicate during pre-draft interviews that they have no interest in moving from their home state. This happens every draft. It is especially problematic for clubs in NSW and Qld as the access to homegrown talent (certainly at the top end) is far less - hence the need for academies. I know that prior to us becoming good, I can't remember which draft, 4 out of the projected top 10 picks told us they didn't want to be drafted out of their state and so we couldn't pick them

The other side to academies is that it builds talent that wouldn't otherwise exist in the AFL system, which is especially important if we are increasing the number of teams. Surely you can't think it reasonable for clubs like Brisbane to fund and operate the academies with no direct benefit?

I personally like the concept of F/S, that is coming from a club that hasn't historically benefited from it. Certainly not like a lot of the Vic clubs. IMO it should be simplified and the players nominate the club as a F/S and the club can take them pre-draft provided they have an available list spot. I can see the downside to it, but it'll remove all these annoying arguments which in essence mean very little.

Father Son was never meant to provide clubs with a leg-up over other clubs. Every pick in every round of the draft should be taken within the 18 picks of each round. There are only 3 ways to do that.
No assistance picks ever, to any club
No AFL gifted compensation picks for FA... let the destination club provide the compensation rather than get a free hit... in reality it assists the big Vic clubs become stronger at the expense of the weaker ones
Finally, bid matching for FS and Academy players can only be done with a pick in the bid round.
Seems pretty simple way of fixing something as currently compromised as the draft

 

[mpal6]

Father Son was never meant to provide clubs with a leg-up over other clubs. Every pick in every round of the draft should be taken within the 18 picks of each round. There are only 3 ways to do that.
No assistance picks ever, to any club
No AFL gifted compensation picks for FA... let the destination club provide the compensation rather than get a free hit... in reality it assists the big Vic clubs become stronger at the expense of the weaker ones
Finally, bid matching for FS and Academy players can only be done with a pick in the bid round.
Seems pretty simple way of fixing something as currently compromised as the draft

The bolded bit is likely to be introduced this year since AFLW has got it. It's a fair rule change as long as future picks are allowed to be used in bid match.

For example we hold our first this year and we match Ashcroft. If Marshall becomes a late first round bid, we'll have the option of using our future first to match him if he's highly rated by the club. Our current pick is 16, let's say we have a Collingwood like season next year and end up with pick 5/6/7, then it'll balance out to look like we paid 5/6/7 for Ashcroft and pick 16 for Marshall which is likely to be a lot closer to fair value.

More importantly we've used the first rounders this year and next so there'll be no second bite of the cherry unless we end up trading someone of value from our list.

This rule is fair and we need the same to be introduced for NGAs as well. For example if Essendon gets Kako via NGA bid match in first round, they need to make a decision whether to match it via 2024 first (if yet to be used) or 2025 first, in the process use their corresponding first rounder.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Well the Daveys were very late picks. Why shouldn't Essendon be able to have both when every club has decided they didn't want to bid on them 3 times or so? If you make it that clubs can only take one a year does the other go undrafted?

Nobody in their right mind (apart from Stkilda who seem to using it as a smokescreen to camouflage their real problems) wants to stop father sons. All clubs would like to ensure that the really good ones don't end up being gifted to already good teams. Nick daicos should have cost the pies their first pick both if that year and the next. The teams that allowed him to slip to pick 4 should hang their heads in shame and the system that allowed him to be selected with anything other than first round picks needs to be corrected.

But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to take twins as father sons in the same year provided that you have the genuine currency to do it.

For unrated twins (the daveys in your example) you can still use a regular draft pick just not have exclusive rights to match

 

[sydney_gws]

For unrated twins (the daveys in your example) you can still use a regular draft pick just not have exclusive rights to match

I think just limiting the number of picks to match does the job required.
If Brisbane win the flag and Ashcroft is bid at pick 1, not appropriate to just use 18 to match the bid. With the current curve, they need the 2400 points to match ( although I think discount will shrink to 10% so 2700 points).
I think rule should be 3 picks to match, so Brisbane would need to match ashcroft with 18,2025r1,2026r1 ( points coming back if that goes over 2700 points).
For the academy player, match with 54, 2025r2 2026r2 if needed.

 

[Stamos]

I think just limiting the number of picks to match does the job required.
If Brisbane win the flag and Ashcroft is bid at pick 1, not appropriate to just use 18 to match the bid. With the current curve, they need the 2400 points to match ( although I think discount will shrink to 10% so 2700 points).
I think rule should be 3 picks to match, so Brisbane would need to match ashcroft with 18,2025r1,2026r1 ( points coming back if that goes over 2700 points).
For the academy player, match with 54, 2025r2 2026r2 if needed.

Fixing the points curve does the job required without any other restrictions necessary.

 

[Sainter1873]

Fixing the points curve does the job required without any other restrictions necessary.

I’m not sure why people come up with other solutions when updating the DVI is the simplest and best solution.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Fixing the points curve does the job required without any other restrictions necessary.

Now now this is the AFL who have this amazing ability to make the most simple thing horrible! It's not hard, fix the curve, and 90% of the issues are done, but no lets fix this and that and leave the major issue there...bangs head it's like it is Homer Simpson running the AFL!

 

[Stamos]

It's not hard, fix the curve, and 90% of the issues are done

I think only 90% is being conservative

 

[sydney_gws]

Now now this is the AFL who have this amazing ability to make the most simple thing horrible! It's not hard, fix the curve, and 90% of the issues are done, but no lets fix this and that and leave the major issue there...bangs head it's like it is Homer Simpson running the AFL!

They hopefully do at least a 75% good job of it, but will wait to see.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

They hopefully do at least a 75% good job of it, but will wait to see.

You are HIGHLY optimistic let me put it that way, if they do it half right i'll be amazed

 

[Dangerousfield]

You are HIGHLY optimistic let me put it that way, if they do it half right i'll be amazed

AFL are four seasons too late doing anything and are still no guarantee to do anything this draft.

Get prepared for top picks to Brisbane and Gold Coast for bags of junk picks again!

Fix the points curve to have the last pick worth anything around 36-39, ditch the discount and amazingly it all works easily and fairly. A top four team should never have access to a top 5 pick without having to burn their first and second rounder plus maybe some of next years. Pick 18 & 36 should not get you a top 5 player.

Laura Kane is already an embarrassing failure, just a gobbledegook speaking, massively overpaid front person for the incompetance that is the AFL executive.

 

[Moonatic77]

AFL are four seasons too late doing anything and are still no guarantee to do anything this draft.

Get prepared for top picks to Brisbane and Gold Coast for bags of junk picks again!

Fix the points curve to have the last pick worth anything around 36-39, ditch the discount and amazingly it all works easily and fairly. A top four team should never have access to a top 5 pick without having to burn their first and second rounder plus maybe some of next years. Pick 18 & 36 should not get you a top 5 player.

Laura Kane is already an embarrassing failure, just a gobbledegook speaking, massively overpaid front person for the incompetance that is the AFL executive.

Great post Danger, couldn't have summed it up better myself. Like the use of the word gobbledegook too.
Laura Politician Kane

 

[threenewpadlocks]

AFL are four seasons too late doing anything and are still no guarantee to do anything this draft.

Get prepared for top picks to Brisbane and Gold Coast for bags of junk picks again!

Fix the points curve to have the last pick worth anything around 36-39, ditch the discount and amazingly it all works easily and fairly. A top four team should never have access to a top 5 pick without having to burn their first and second rounder plus maybe some of next years. Pick 18 & 36 should not get you a top 5 player.

The thing about people arbitrarily saying that players shouldn't be able to go to certain clubs as a right to match (not get a discount, just match, pay equivalent value) when there is a genuine connection ie F/S or Academy is just strange.

If a premiership team gets gun F/Ss in a year or across multiple years let them draft that player, but also, wipe out their draft hand for multiple years. I find it strange that the the Dogs were able to get Jamarra and Darcy as a twice-finals team but still able to take a pick 55, 43, 13, 24 and 39 in those two drafts and the draft pick after.

The right to match itself is an advantage anyway even if you pay identical draft value in matching a pick because you get to avoid the risk that other teams didn't rate that player, but you don't have that information. You might rate your own father/son the standout number 1 on your draft board, and would match a pick 1 if a bid comes for pick 1, but obviously, you can wait until a bid eventually comes than match it. An extreme example would be if you rate him pick 1 and nobody else has them on his draft board, you can wait and wait and wait and then pick them up as a F/S rookie pick. If that player was in an open draft you would draft that player with a live pick to avoid the risk of any other club taking them (even if they eventually wouldn't), because you don't know that about other clubs.

A funny thing is that the points were so slanted for the Dogs getting Jamarra, using 29, 33, 41, 42, 52, 54 (while only taking two players live in the draft) that there's the possibility that neither Adelaide or Dogs even rated him as the first pick in the draft. The issue is that the Dogs were never not going to match a bid (otherwise we take pick 29, 33 to the live draft and pass over every other selection), and Adelaide knew that so could take the risk in Dogs not matching even if they didn't rate him. Such is the absurdity of the alternative with the Dogs using pick 29 and 33 instead is that the Dogs could have rated Jamarra as low as the 20th best player in the open draft and it still would have made sense to match a bid on pick 1 (such is that pick 29+33 is worth roughly pick 20 in that draft).

That shows you how inadequate the points system is currently.

 

[blaisee]

Victorian teams should just say thank you for saving us from bankruptcy, and then realise that it is now a national competition.

no its not

its the vfl with some donors making up the numbers

 

[3agles87]

no its not

its the vfl with some donors making up the numbers

Maybe, and therein lies the problem. The VFL is just too stupid to realise it

 

[blaisee]

Maybe, and therein lies the problem. The VFL is just too stupid to realise it

Nah look I was only joking you are welcome and you are equals

 

[Obeanie1]

Travel disparity is a by-product of being a team from Perth, and as such, the existance of Perth being "a city" isn't an inequity. The argument boils down to Perth exists in the manner that it does = unfair.

As much as the Dogs' smaller fanbase is a by-product of representing a working-class region is also unfair, I can equally make a (dumb) argument that the Western Suburbs existing in the manner it does = unfair for the Dogs.

I'm not saying disparities don't exist (even if I think the travel element of the WA teams is overblown and study after study show that there's significant home ground advantages driven by size of crowds), just disparities as they relate to things such as the cultural and geographic location and what it represents is something that is just part and parcel of the inherent variance among teams that the league will always have and is not something that should be attempted to be squared away.

Otherwise you can make arguments about the inequities represented by geography in every element of the game, for instance, for instance, that Western Australians make up more than 1/9th of the AFL playing base, or that Vic Metro and Vic Country only get 2 U/18 champs teams for 10 AFL teams located in that geographic state teams to themselves while WA and SA get to witness their own team for two players in each state, helping drafting and recruiting, etc, etc, etc.

How many times have WA clubs played in Tasmania?

How many times have they played in Geelong?

Now how about Collingwood?

The AFL could do a hell of alot better in the fixturing to equalise the travel burden but it hasn't. It doesn't give a rats.

And neither do other teams because they know its an advantage to them leaving things as they are.

Eddie had several excellent ideas that commercially made alot of sense. And money.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

How many times have WA clubs played in Tasmania?

How many times have they played in Geelong?

Now how about Collingwood?

The AFL could do a hell of alot better in the fixturing to equalise the travel burden but it hasn't. It doesn't give a rats.

And neither do other teams because they know its an advantage to them leaving things as they are.

Eddie had several excellent ideas that commercially made alot of sense. And money.

You do realise that Melbourne teams give up some home ground advantage by playing in front of smaller crowds when they take games away form their main home stadium? North are far less likely to win without the noise of affirmation of a few disinterested Hobartites compared to a crowd of tens of thousands of more of actual North fans who make noise in Melbourne?