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

[giantroo]

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I like the auction but I'd keep both styles and just have two different pools. The auction pool and the draft pool. Teams bid on points players then the team they are linked to has an option to match (likely at a small discount) or pass. Would mean fair price is basically always paid for players while giving the teams who finish lower on the ladder the option to take their picks to the draft instead (where they'll still be highly rated players).

You'd probably need a points bracket that breaks whether the points are taken off 1st or 2nd and beyond round picks but it'd be a lot of fun and most importantly to the AFL - create an extra event showcase (Auction night).

 

[TheTassieHawk]

If a team want to trade up from pick 18 to a top 5 pick then they have to give up a player of decent value to do so.

Similarly if a team want to match a bid for a top 5 pick then they should have to give up a player of decent value to get a high enough pick in the same draft to do so.

Even though the proposed points value changes appear to be a move in the right direction it won’t make enough of a difference unless a maximum of 2 picks can be used to match.

 

[sr36]

Yeah I wasn't referring to 2022, but I think we would've won in 2023. We lost to the pies by a goal, despite having a lot of injuries, and I mean a lot, then throw in Brayshaw getting concussed 5 mins in, plus we kicked horrendously for goal. I fully believe that with Mac Andrew we win the flag.

You're not watching the current game if you're arguing that paragraph based on the final score.

One of the biggest differences between Collingwood 2023 and 2024 was that our hold the lead tactics stopped working.

In that final, Collingwood outplayed Melbourne for 3 quarters and turned 25 points up. We then went into conservative mode and you gradually whittled down the lead, with all the play in your half, but our defensive mode was holding up well enough for us to hold on.

If circumstances had have made you a 5 goal better team, you would have turned at 3 quarter time in front and it would have been Collingwood at full throttle chasing you down as you tried to hold the lead.**** knows who would have won, but the game wouldn't have been played in your half for the whole final quarter like it was, leaving you with both defeat and a very flattering scoreboard at the end of the game.

 

[sr36]

If a team want to trade up from pick 18 to a top 5 pick then they have to give up a player of decent value to do so.

Similarly if a team want to match a bid for a top 5 pick then they should have to give up a player of decent value to get a high enough pick in the same draft to do so.

Even though the proposed points value changes appear to be a move in the right direction it won’t make enough of a difference unless a maximum of 2 picks can be used to match.

It's going to be interesting. Next year there's likely to be a lot of academy kids and a lot less picks with enough points to be effective to match with. You won't be able to increase your points as easily by trading down. 2nd round picks will be much more valuable with trading up a lot cheaper.

 

[sydney_gws]

It's going to be interesting. Next year there's likely to be a lot of academy kids and a lot less picks with enough points to be effective to match with. You won't be able to increase your points as easily by trading down. 2nd round picks will be much more valuable with trading up a lot cheaper.

I have no doubt it will be better, but clubs will find some minor flaw in the system, exploit it and the AFL will let it fester for 3 years before half fixing it.

 

[Stamos]

I have no doubt it will be better, but clubs will find some minor flaw in the system, exploit it and the AFL will let it fester for 3 years before half fixing it.

It will still be vastly improved over the current system.
The new DVI and reduced discount will fix most of the issues.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

It will still be vastly improved over the current system.
The new DVI and reduced discount will fix most of the issues.

It’s a thousand times better. IMO they just need to get rid of the deductions or if they have it then make it a blanket ~200pts instead of a % and it will be fair enough to accept.

 

[Stamos]

It’s a thousand times better. IMO they just need to get rid of the deductions or if they have it then make it a blanket ~200pts instead of a % and it will be fair enough to accept.

A discount is required to be able to match a bid with a subsequent pick.

200 points would be a bigger discount for every pick from 4 on than what is proposed.

 

[melanChronic]

A discount is required to be able to match a bid with a subsequent pick.

Why is that required? If you don't have the pick that the F/S is worth then you pay the equivalent in points.

It seems to me that the discount exists purely because under old systems the clubs with F/S options were used to getting their boys for way unders. So there would have been outrage at suddenly having to pay a fair price.

 

[Stamos]

Why is that required? If you don't have the pick that the F/S is worth then you pay the equivalent in points.

It seems to me that the discount exists purely because under old systems the clubs with F/S options were used to getting their boys for way unders. So there would have been outrage at suddenly having to pay a fair price.

By definition no club has a pick that the bid is made at.
You don't think you should be able to match with the very next pick?

The values are arbitrary, they're not adjusted for the strength of the draft, or for where the dips in quality occur.
The massive reduction in DVI values, combined with a halving of the % discount in the 1st round will make clubs pay a much fairer price for their players.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

A discount is required to be able to match a bid with a subsequent pick.

200 points would be a bigger discount for every pick from 4 on than what is proposed.

It’s the top picks that are the biggest problem though. Ashcroft will get a 600pt reduction, equivalent to pick 24 next year. These are the players who compromise the draft the most.

Someone bid on at 40 hardly affects the draft but you only get about a 40pt discount. They would still cost you picks 46 and 50 to match, so the discount hardly helps.
A set point discount would be a more fair/even way of doing it.

 

[melanChronic]

By definition no club has a pick that the bid is made at.
You don't think you should be able to match with the very next pick?

At the moment you have the ludicrous situation where clubs will trade away any pick that is around the predicted value of the player lest it gets "eaten up" by the bid. I'd rather a system where it is encouraged for clubs to use a natural pick to select their F/S or academy target, and if they miss then they pay a points premium to match with later picks.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

At the moment you have the ludicrous situation where clubs will trade away any pick that is around the predicted value of the player lest it gets "eaten up" by the bid. I'd rather a system where it is encouraged for clubs to use a natural pick to select their F/S or academy target, and if they miss then they pay a points premium to match with later picks.

You could have a 10% bonus points if the pick is within 10 picks of the bid or something.

Or a sliding scale of 18% bonus pts if it’s the next pick, sliding to 0% to 18 picks after. That imo would be the smartest way but people would complain it’s too difficult even though any 10 year old could understand it.

 

[jdstorm]

I like the auction but I'd keep both styles and just have two different pools. The auction pool and the draft pool. Teams bid on points players then the team they are linked to has an option to match (likely at a small discount) or pass. Would mean fair price is basically always paid for players while giving the teams who finish lower on the ladder the option to take their picks to the draft instead (where they'll still be highly rated players).

You'd probably need a points bracket that breaks whether the points are taken off 1st or 2nd and beyond round picks but it'd be a lot of fun and most importantly to the AFL - create an extra event showcase (Auction night).

I used to like the auction format idea. But in practice I think it breaks down as teams with less needs (aka good teams) will blow their whole hand on one top player while bottom teams with more significant needs will be forced to wait/not match and be left with a bunch of pics in the 20s/later


In theory you’d combine auction + Draft.

So the team with the first pick would nominate a player. All teams would bid points and the nominating team (or FS/academy rights holder) would have the right to match the final auction outcome.

FatherSon/Academy pick matches would attract a penalty of say 5-10% extra on value.

Then if the nominating team doesn’t get the player they get to nominate the next player they want

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I used to like the auction format idea. But in practice I think it breaks down as teams with less needs (aka good teams) will blow their whole hand on one top player while bottom teams with more significant needs will be forced to wait/not match and be left with a bunch of pics in the 20s/later

Surely one solution to this is to simply make the points given to teams far more extreme between good/bad teams - a bottom team can outbid a top team and still have points left over? Instead of giving a bottom team double the points of a good team, give them triple. etc.

 

[Stamos]

FA compensation picks are a much bigger problem compromising the draft than F/S or academy access is.

 

[Andre the Giant]

If the AFL was fair dinkum about equalisation and the draft system they would redo the whole thing.

I know people get their knickers in a knot about Father/Son being this great ancient tradition, however it’s just a rort and imho unecessary. Let people make their own legacy or if clubs really want the son of a champion let them pay a premium.

As for Academies of which my club is a beneficiary, I am not wedded to them, perhaps after the 1st round but I think the first round should have no compromises and should be pure.

Next Gen in its current form should be scrapped however if clubs genuinely bring in non-AFL playing talent they should continue to be allowed to develop and list these players without penalty.

This is the spirit of what Next Gen is supposed to be, but instead it has been used to appease the big mouths from big clubs who love F/S but hate Northern Academies!

If anything, the AFL should run all Academies and if necessary let struggling teams pre-list some players to help accelerate their fortunes. Ultimately, it’s about trying to even out the competition, which in fairness is pretty even right now based on the last season!

The other issue with the AFL is the unfairness of the salary cap. This system actually ends up hurting smaller and less attractive teams as they have to pay overs to secure and retain talent.

Meanwhile, clubs like Geelong can sell lifestyle and benefit from the geographic origins of talent and pay under market value.

There is a reason only some clubs are actively able to recruit each trade period whilst others can only rely on unwanted players and the draft.

I see a solution with this. We already have a draft points index. Why not have an AFL player index. Every player has a value assessed one week after the Grand Final, each team has a total which they must not go over. In instances where values increase then teams have to trade to conform.

The benefit of this is that it stops teams from stockpiling talent and it also takes away perceived advantages of bigger clubs

Players will like this as it will create more movement which has an inflationary effect and fans when they get their heads around it will appreciate that their clubs have a better opportunity to get players.

I would get rid of free agency compo and also bring free agency back a year and perhaps two years but with that players cannot determine trades and clubs can get maximum value on the market.

In this system the club is given the power. The system in Australia is way too geared to players as it was effectively set up by an ex AFL PA leader in Demetriou.

This sounds complicated but it’s not, it just takes work and inclusion of the Clubs, Players Association, and game’s best minds to make it workable and as digestible for the lowest common denominator. Before the draft index came in people feared it could be complicated and now everyone understands it.

There is no perfect system and even something like this will eventually be manipulated, however this is fairer and it will actually lead to a far less compromised draft and trading process.

Anyways just ideas from a random nuffy fan of a “plastic” club in Sydney

 

[jdstorm]

If the AFL was fair dinkum about equalisation and the draft system they would redo the whole thing.

I know people get their knickers in a knot about Father/Son being this great ancient tradition, however it’s just a rort and imho unecessary. Let people make their own legacy or if clubs really want the son of a champion let them pay a premium.

As for Academies of which my club is a beneficiary, I am not wedded to them, perhaps after the 1st round but I think the first round should have no compromises and should be pure.

Next Gen in its current form should be scrapped however if clubs genuinely bring in non-AFL playing talent they should continue to be allowed to develop and list these players without penalty.

This is the spirit of what Next Gen is supposed to be, but instead it has been used to appease the big mouths from big clubs who love F/S but hate Northern Academies!

If anything, the AFL should run all Academies and if necessary let struggling teams pre-list some players to help accelerate their fortunes. Ultimately, it’s about trying to even out the competition, which in fairness is pretty even right now based on the last season!

The other issue with the AFL is the unfairness of the salary cap. This system actually ends up hurting smaller and less attractive teams as they have to pay overs to secure and retain talent.

Meanwhile, clubs like Geelong can sell lifestyle and benefit from the geographic origins of talent and pay under market value.

There is a reason only some clubs are actively able to recruit each trade period whilst others can only rely on unwanted players and the draft.

I see a solution with this. We already have a draft points index. Why not have an AFL player index. Every player has a value assessed one week after the Grand Final, each team has a total which they must not go over. In instances where values increase then teams have to trade to conform.

The benefit of this is that it stops teams from stockpiling talent and it also takes away perceived advantages of bigger clubs

Players will like this as it will create more movement which has an inflationary effect and fans when they get their heads around it will appreciate that their clubs have a better opportunity to get players.

I would get rid of free agency compo and also bring free agency back a year and perhaps two years but with that players cannot determine trades and clubs can get maximum value on the market.

In this system the club is given the power. The system in Australia is way too geared to players as it was effectively set up by an ex AFL PA leader in Demetriou.

This sounds complicated but it’s not, it just takes work and inclusion of the Clubs, Players Association, and game’s best minds to make it workable and as digestible for the lowest common denominator. Before the draft index came in people feared it could be complicated and now everyone understands it.

There is no perfect system and even something like this will eventually be manipulated, however this is fairer and it will actually lead to a far less compromised draft and trading process.

Anyways just ideas from a random nuffy fan of a “plastic” club in Sydney

I don’t get why people rally against father son picks when they are 1 functionally the same as academy players

And 2 the issue isn’t that they exist but rather the system is set up in such a way that teams don’t pay fair value for them.

If the system worked as intended teams would occasionally be passing on these players or having to trade significant value from their team to get them in. Neither of which really happens right now.

 

[Andre the Giant]

I don’t get why people rally against father son picks when they are 1 functionally the same as academy players

And 2 the issue isn’t that they exist but rather the system is set up in such a way that teams don’t pay fair value for them.

If the system worked as intended teams would occasionally be passing on these players or having to trade significant value from their team to get them in. Neither of which really happens right now.

They are rallied against because they run against the spirit of equalisation and this is for F/S, Next Gen and Academies when it comes to elite 1st round talent.

Daicos, Jamarra, Tom Green, Ashcroft etc are all franchise changing talent. Let these guys get to the weaker clubs and let them improve.

Father/Son is just an immature gimmick which people have grown to enjoy because it’s couch change.

In the US the Madden brothers were NFL royalty, one played for dads team one played for a different team, both had great careers and made their own legacies.

Even with the points allocation it contravenes equalisation. Just take all of these things out of 1st round and keep it pure!

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Surely one solution to this is to simply make the points given to teams far more extreme between good/bad teams - a bottom team can outbid a top team and still have points left over? Instead of giving a bottom team double the points of a good team, give them triple. etc.

I posted a system a while back with a points bidding format.
Essentially the idea was that bidding for each pick would go in a rotating order.
Eg pick one goes from 1st to last ladder spot, meaning each club bids how many points they wish and then the next club outbids or passes. So the bottom team just has to outbid the most recent bid and make their selection.
The other teams don't get to bid again.
Then for pick 2 the order rotates such that 2nd last has the last bid, and so on.

 

[jdstorm]

They are rallied against because they run against the spirit of equalisation and this is for F/S, Next Gen and Academies when it comes to elite 1st round talent.

Daicos, Jamarra, Tom Green, Ashcroft etc are all franchise changing talent. Let these guys get to the weaker clubs and let them improve.

Father/Son is just an immature gimmick which people have grown to enjoy because it’s couch change.

In the US the Madden brothers were NFL royalty, one played for dads team one played for a different team, both had great careers and made their own legacies.

Even with the points allocation it contravenes equalisation. Just take all of these things out of 1st round and keep it pure!

So if teams had to pay greater then market value for father sons and choose to overpay to keep or not that would circumvent equalisation.

In the US players playing for their hometown teams is rare and always fun. Having gimmicks that tie teams to their communities isn’t inherently bad.

Honestly it’s why I don’t like the draft as an equalisation system especially with how broken it is currently

Just give every team academies, have a salary cap for academy spending and have a points matching system for fairness if you really want that

 

[jdstorm]

I posted a system a while back with a points bidding format.
Essentially the idea was that bidding for each pick would go in a rotating order.
Eg pick one goes from 1st to last ladder spot, meaning each club bids how many points they wish and then the next club outbids or passes. So the bottom team just has to outbid the most recent bid and make their selection.
The other teams don't get to bid again.
Then for pick 2 the order rotates such that 2nd last has the last bid, and so on.

Personally I’d rather a team nominate.

Aka last team nominates. Teams bid they have the right to match.

If team last doesn’t match they get to nominate the next player available until they get the player they want.

Then team 2 gets to nominate ect

 

[swuzzlebubble]

Personally I’d rather a team nominate.

Aka last team nominates. Teams bid they have the right to match.

If team last doesn’t match they get to nominate the next player available until they get the player they want.

Then team 2 gets to nominate ect

Could be interesting but I think it opens up for team last to start off with their 2nd or third preference and then wait for another team to nominate their #1 choice who they can outbid for

 

[Coach_Required]

Personally I’d rather a team nominate.

Aka last team nominates. Teams bid they have the right to match.

If team last doesn’t match they get to nominate the next player available until they get the player they want.

Then team 2 gets to nominate ect

If a bidding system came into it then I hope the top teams don't get as many points to bid as bottom sides. Also you would hope there was a maximum allowed and if a bottom side bids the same points as a top side the bottom side gets preference due to ladder position.

 

[swuzzlebubble]

If a bidding system came into it then I hope the top teams don't get as many points to bid as bottom sides. Also you would hope there was a maximum allowed and if a bottom side bids the same points as a top side the bottom side gets preference due to ladder position.

The challenge would be to handle the effect of trading. A top team may trade out a star player and get points which allows them to outbid everyone for #1.