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

[giantroo]

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I have no faith the points change makes any difference. **** me they have to eventually restrict access from finishing position. Just ridiculous every grand finalists is propped up by young elite talent they paid nothing for at some point in the last 10 years which often makes the difference on winning a flag or not.

Top 4 cant match bids on 1 to 10, the rest of the finalists cant match 1 to 4. Protect the top end of the draft and stop top sides topping up with elite talent which they shouldn't be able to get near.

 

[amazingjoshy]

Probably time to admit the access to the northern academies is just too big an advantage

2 of the 4 sides played in the GF, and GWS should've if not for some all time choking

 

[kaiserchief13]

Don't worry mate they are changing the rules in a year or two so you pay more for those picks it should all even out in a decade or two as all the experts say. In the mean time just sit back and enjoy watching the Ashcroft and Daicos brothers tearing it up for the next decade while somehow taking pay cuts to keep their teams together.

Giving up more crap draft picks is not the same as using a high draft pick to select them. 20+30+40 != 1/2/3.

F/S shouldn't be allowed to be used in the first round, if the player is taken by another team in first round so be it.

 

[Dogflogger]

Giving up more crap draft picks is not the same as using a high draft pick to select them. 20+30+40 != 1/2/3.

F/S shouldn't be allowed to be used in the first round, if the player is taken by another team in first round so be it.

But then how would we all get these happy feelings if a son of a gun was drafted to another team?????????

It's obviously worth the unfairness to the AFL so what can anyone do. you just better hope if you get a good father son your not down low on the ladder or another team might actually bid on him early

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Giving up more crap draft picks is not the same as using a high draft pick to select them. 20+30+40 != 1/2/3.

F/S shouldn't be allowed to be used in the first round, if the player is taken by another team in first round so be it.

Would anybody have an issue though if Brisbane had to give up all of their first round picks for the next three years (assuming that they still have picks in the teens over the next two years) to get the younger Ashcroft?

The issue is that the points don't represent how much that pick is truly worth. Even with the adjustment it won't get there year. Teams would trade pick 2 for all of pick 8, 13 and 18 if another team in theory had those picks, or at least they would do it most of the time. The issue is when you can match pick 2 with picks 13, 25 and 32 or whatever.

 

[SweatOnMySkin]

I think the issue is more of a problem with being able to access multiples in the same draft. Sure we got lucky with some F/S and Jamarra via the NGA but our entire draft in those years became about those players and we had to grab late speculative guys to fill out our drat for the year. It's mostly a lottery and not suggesting we havent done well from it.

The second they outlaw something like F/S from the top end you can guarantee some club who has had no luck with it at all are going to get screwed over. Call it the Mac Andrew scenario

just to be clear before I get called some kind of hypocrit solely on the club i support. Should we have been able to trade up to stay ahead of a Croft bid last year and still be allowed to take him? I'm not sure it's good for the game, i think all clubs should have to start making tough decisions around first round level players

 

[Tas]

I think the issue is more of a problem with being able to access multiples in the same draft. Sure we got lucky with some F/S and Jamarra via the NGA but our entire draft in those years became about those players and we had to grab late speculative guys to fill out our drat for the year. It's mostly a lottery and not suggesting we havent done well from it.

The second they outlaw something like F/S from the top end you can guarantee some club who has had no luck with it at all are going to get screwed over. Call it the Mac Andrew scenario

just to be clear before I get called some kind of hypocrit solely on the club i support. Should we have been able to trade up to stay ahead of a Croft bid last year and still be allowed to take him? I'm not sure it's good for the game, i think all clubs should have to start making tough decisions around first round level players

The problem is the draft was intended to be the mechanism to balance talent to create a more even playing field so we didn't have a wide variance in strength of teams. They decided it was best from a commercial perspective as it would have more people interested in each season.

There are just too many compromises to this with father son, free agency which heavily favours contenders vs non-contenders and these academy systems.

I think academies are good for the game, but talent development should be something the AFL does, there is no reason why the AFL can't do what the clubs are doing. They can also give more employment opportunities to retiring AFL players to help in development, then these players go into the general pool. If GC wants players from the GC region then they can use a pick they think is worthwhile or trade for them.

Father son is also a problem, i think it should go as well. If you want a son of a past player then get a pick that you think you can get them with, or trade for them. Clubs are paying for top end talent with garbage picks. I am fine with Collingwood getting Daicos, but they should have paid something that was equivalent to his real value, getting the pick he went at would have been massively more expensive than what they paid for him. Getting top end draft talent should be harder the higher up you are on the ladder.

Allocation of talent and balancing of the talent pool can't be reliant on luck. There should be a system in place that doesn't create abnormalities that can massively distort the competition for a decade.

We all know the reason the north academies exist is because the AFL need these teams to be strong in fickle rugby territory, it has nothing to do with what they claim. It is about expansion and market share, it is a complete compromise of the game. They need to just come out and say that otherwise it has to go. Just call a spade a spade.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The problem is the draft was intended to be the mechanism to balance talent to create a more even playing field so we didn't have a wide variance in strength of teams. They decided it was best from a commercial perspective as it would have more people interested in each season.

There are just too many compromises to this with father son, free agency which heavily favours contenders vs non-contenders and these academy systems.

I think academies are good for the game, but talent development should be something the AFL does, there is no reason why the AFL can't do what the clubs are doing. They can also give more employment opportunities to retiring AFL players to help in development, then these players go into the general pool. If GC wants players from the GC region then they can use a pick they think is worthwhile or trade for them.

Father son is also a problem, i think it should go as well. If you want a son of a past player then get a pick that you think you can get them with, or trade for them. Clubs are paying for top end talent with garbage picks. I am fine with Collingwood getting Daicos, but they should have paid something that was equivalent to his real value, getting the pick he went at would have been massively more expensive than what they paid for him. Getting top end draft talent should be harder the higher up you are on the ladder.

Allocation of talent and balancing of the talent pool can't be reliant on luck. There should be a system in place that doesn't create abnormalities that can massively distort the competition for a decade.

We all know the reason the north academies exist is because the AFL need these teams to be strong in fickle rugby territory, it has nothing to do with what they claim. It is about expansion and market share, it is a complete compromise of the game. They need to just come out and say that otherwise it has to go. Just call a spade a spade.

It does make you wonder if a draft is strictly necessary to achieve competitiveness and equalisation (provided you have a salary cap and maybe make it easier for the salary cap to functionally operate, such as changing rules about third party payments or making payments public). My instinct is yes as there would still be too many geographic and big club/small club biases ... but the NRL doesn't have a draft, and there's no particular reason to think that they have a more disequal league than the AFL.

 

[BrutThough]

Ridiculous that premiers can get pick 1 without having to trade for it. F/S is nice and all but the draft is meant to be an equalisation measure to make the teams more even.

Their academy access to Marshall is the more ridiculous one.

You shouldn't be able to claim someone in the QLD zone if they are living in Melbourne and apart of the Sandy system. Maybe if they were still a bottom 4 team it would pass the sniff test as a means to help them but definitely not after they've won a premiership.

 

[mpal6]

Their academy access to Marshall is the more ridiculous one.

You shouldn't be able to claim someone in the QLD zone if they are living in Melbourne and apart of the Sandy system. Maybe if they were still a bottom 4 team it would pass the sniff test as a means to help them but definitely not after they've won a premiership.

Higher he goes, difficult it'll be for us to match. May be we might scrape through this year but it'll more than likely affect our future first.

We lost 2023 draft first rounder in the same way while trying to get Ashcroft, Fletcher and trading Dunkley in during 2022. With points change, it'll affect things more in future.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

I believe in the concept of F/S, Zone, NGA, etc (even if not the implementation), IF we fix the points issue.

Allocating more accurate point values to picks should be an EASY solution to solve, even adjustable year by year. There's a great example, this year, answer these questions..

Richmond fans, would you trade pick 1 for Freo's 9, 10 and 16?
Fremantle fans, would you trade 9, 10 and 16 for pick 1?

If Richmond say yes, Freo no....the points decline in value is too steep.
If Fremantle say yes, Richmond no...the decline in value isn't steep enough.
If both are unhappy....we probably have it about right.

If there's a year with a standout #1, pick 1 might be worth picks 2, 3 AND 4. Another year might have 4-5 players capable of going #1. Letting clubs "bid" on players allows a better determination of value (and player ranking).

As I've said before, changing from draft picks to draft points and implementing auction style bidding for recruitment solves all of these issues.

 

[stallon]

Higher he goes, difficult it'll be for us to match. May be we might scrape through this year but it'll more than likely affect our future first.

We lost 2023 draft first rounder in the same way while trying to get Ashcroft, Fletcher and trading Dunkley in during 2022. With points change, it'll affect things more in future.

You wont need more first rounders in the near future, youve gotten 2x Ashcrofts, Marshall and Fletcher in the last 3 drafts in the first round of the draft, all while finishing 4th, 2nd and 1st in those 3 years.
Should be picks 15, 17 and 18.

If we say picks 15 and 18 get Fletcher and Marshall roughly, youve basically turned pick 17 and a couple of 2nd rounders into 2 top 3 picks AND a very good midfielder in his prime.

2 genuine pick 1 contenders, and 2 others in the first round is more talent than the Eagles have gotten access to despite the Eagles being last and 16th in 2 of those years.

Youve refreshed an already strong midfield with elite talent without having to dip on the ladder.

If you managed to keep presence in the first 3 rounds of next years draft without trading out some good players then the system is broken. If your 3rd pick this year is in the first 4 rounds of the draft then the system is broken. If you dont have to trade out best 22 quality players to make this happen then the system is broken

Im not against f/s as a concept, but its way too cheap

 

[stallon]

I think the simplest way would be to limit it to 3 picks that can be used to match any bid, with no discounts, or maybe tiered discounts with the top teams getting 0 and it ramping up to 10% for the bottom clubs as an equalisation thing.

This would make matching a bid on Ashcroft this year, who lets assume is pick 2, cost 2481 points under the new system.
If you have to limit it to 3 picks used with no discount, that would make picks 16, 19 and 20 be roughly the picks required to match the bid(4 points short).
Would a club trade pick 2 for those 3 picks? probably not, but they at least have to pay up a decent price.
If a club had pick 8, theyd need to find a couple of mid 20s picks, this also sounds about right, while still being under the general trade value.

A bid on a guy taken at pick 30 would require 454 points. Picks 46, 47, and 48 would roughly get it done. Alternatively pick 35 +47 would do it. That sounds reasonably fair

 

[mpal6]

You wont need more first rounders in the near future, youve gotten 2x Ashcrofts, Marshall and Fletcher in the last 3 drafts in the first round of the draft, all while finishing 4th, 2nd and 1st in those 3 years.
Should be picks 15, 17 and 18.

If we say picks 15 and 18 get Fletcher and Marshall roughly, youve basically turned pick 17 and a couple of 2nd rounders into 2 top 3 picks AND a very good midfielder in his prime.

2 genuine pick 1 contenders, and 2 others in the first round is more talent than the Eagles have gotten access to despite the Eagles being last and 16th in 2 of those years.

Youve refreshed an already strong midfield with elite talent without having to dip on the ladder.

If you managed to keep presence in the first 3 rounds of next years draft without trading out some good players then the system is broken. If your 3rd pick this year is in the first 4 rounds of the draft then the system is broken. If you dont have to trade out best 22 quality players to make this happen then the system is broken

Im not against f/s as a concept, but its way too cheap

Yep, I won't dispute anything around father son. It's a luck of draw at this stage and it's unfair on quite a few clubs.

Our academy so far has been average at best in terms of identifying good talent early. There are a bunch of posters in our board academy watch thread who lay into the club program for being a hindrance to kids, making them choose between academy and local club programs etc. Marshall is our genuine late first round prospect after Hipwood in 2016 is reflective of our progress in this area.

 

[mpal6]

I think the simplest way would be to limit it to 3 picks that can be used to match any bid, with no discounts, or maybe tiered discounts with the top teams getting 0 and it ramping up to 10% for the bottom clubs as an equalisation thing.

This would make matching a bid on Ashcroft this year, who lets assume is pick 2, cost 2481 points under the new system.
If you have to limit it to 3 picks used with no discount, that would make picks 16, 19 and 20 be roughly the picks required to match the bid(4 points short).
Would a club trade pick 2 for those 3 picks? probably not, but they at least have to pay up a decent price.
If a club had pick 8, theyd need to find a couple of mid 20s picks, this also sounds about right, while still being under the general trade value.

A bid on a guy taken at pick 30 would require 454 points. Picks 46, 47, and 48 would roughly get it done. Alternatively pick 35 +47 would do it. That sounds reasonably fair

Simplest way in my view is make first round pure. That'll settle things for every club out there.

 

[stallon]

Simplest way in my view is make first round pure. That'll settle things for every club out there.

Im not against the concept of f/s or academies.
I do think if a club wants to pay up for it, I dont mind them having a chance to keep the family links at the club. Makes clubs feel more like clubs and less like corporate entities imo

 

[stallon]

Yep, I won't dispute anything around father son. It's a luck of draw at this stage and it's unfair on quite a few clubs.

Our academy so far has been average at best in terms of identifying good talent early. There are a bunch of posters in our board academy watch thread who lay into the club program for being a hindrance to kids, making them choose between academy and local club programs etc. Marshall is our genuine late first round prospect after Hipwood in 2016 is reflective of our progress in this area.

Yep I agree the academies have for the most part been not that productive. GC very little until last year, Sydney had Heeney and Mills as elite talent, you guys very little and GWS have had a few ok picks but nothing to complain about.
Thats why I dont think they should be shut down, just a fair price needs to be paid otherwise it ruins the competition.

Once you do get a few things going right at the same time, GC academy and your f/s with a sprinkling of academy mixed in for example, it just sets you up to be a dynasty team with no skilled or lucky recruiting. Its just handed to you.
Makes it all look very bad

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

The horse has bolted on this. 4 years too late

The better late then never concept might be okay for some but when you realise Will/Levi Ashcroft have 10+ years ahead of them then its not all that meaningful

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

Yep, I won't dispute anything around father son. It's a luck of draw at this stage and it's unfair on quite a few clubs.

Our academy so far has been average at best in terms of identifying good talent early. There are a bunch of posters in our board academy watch thread who lay into the club program for being a hindrance to kids, making them choose between academy and local club programs etc. Marshall is our genuine late first round prospect after Hipwood in 2016 is reflective of our progress in this area.

The rule isnt coming in for Sydney/Brisbane. Its coming in because of Gold Coast. Last year was embarrassing. 2025 and 2026 will be even worse.

 

[Jirik13]

The rule isnt coming in for Sydney/Brisbane. Its coming in because of Gold Coast. Last year was embarrassing. 2025 and 2026 will be even worse.

Point change will make a big difference. Lowering deficit limit also helps. Also, academy bids do have limit if teams play finals. Probblem is F/S is not included in limit. Limit could be stricter. I would not allow matching bid in first round for top 4 teams, max one match for 5-8 teams. That would include academy, F/S, NGA combined. The same rule for all 3.

 

[stallon]

3 picks max able to be used to match any bid and no discounts.

Problem sorted, AFL where do I send the invoice for my consultancy

 

[BrutThough]

Higher he goes, difficult it'll be for us to match. May be we might scrape through this year but it'll more than likely affect our future first.

We lost 2023 draft first rounder in the same way while trying to get Ashcroft, Fletcher and trading Dunkley in during 2022. With points change, it'll affect things more in future.

It shouldn't have that much impact on your F1. If its looking close, you just trade your F2 or F3 for some extra points this year. And even if it did slightly push it back, it will have minimal impact on your list compared to the impact the 4 high first rounders will have.

 

[BrutThough]

Point change will make a big difference. Lowering deficit limit also helps. Also, academy bids do have limit if teams play finals. Probblem is F/S is not included in limit. Limit could be stricter. I would not allow matching bid in first round for top 4 teams, max one match for 5-8 teams. That would include academy, F/S, NGA combined. The same rule for all 3.

The fix seems to simple for everyone on the outside so we all know it's not what the AFL will do.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

I have no faith the points change makes any difference. **** me they have to eventually restrict access from finishing position. Just ridiculous every grand finalists is propped up by young elite talent they paid nothing for at some point in the last 10 years which often makes the difference on winning a flag or not.

Top 4 cant match bids on 1 to 10, the rest of the finalists cant match 1 to 4. Protect the top end of the draft and stop top sides topping up with elite talent which they shouldn't be able to get near.

I agree with all of this. I'd love to see it more accessible or the price paid a LOT higher.

But the Tiges being propped up by elite talent they paid nothing for? We got doughnuts...

 

[GoEaglesGoSGIO]

3 picks max able to be used to match any bid and no discounts.

Problem sorted, AFL where do I send the invoice for my consultancy

Too lenient really.