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

[giantroo]

 

[GC2015]

I’ve always liked the Tigers.

Fair to say this will be one of the last times we'll see a trade like this taking place. Using several third rounders to match a top 2 bid won't be possible from next year onward.

 

[sr36]

Fair to say this will be one of the last times we'll see a trade like this taking place. Using several third rounders to match a top 2 bid won't be possible from next year onward.

It shifts the range of matching picks. At the moment it's picks in the 40s, it'll shift to picks in the late 20s and 30s.

2nd round picks will become more valuable in trade and because a lot of them will disappear in matching, early 3rd round picks will move up and become more valuable in the draft.

 

[sydney_gws]

It shifts the range of matching picks. At the moment it's picks in the 40s, it'll shift to picks in the late 20s and 30s.

2nd round picks will become more valuable in trade and because a lot of them will disappear in matching, early 3rd round picks will move up and become more valuable in the draft.

They should shift them higher by limiting the number of picks to match to 3 in my view.
Anyway, time will tell. It might only be 2 years in that everybody is complaining the new system is being exploited in some way.

 

[Dr Tigris]

They should shift them higher by limiting the number of picks to match to 3 in my view.
Anyway, time will tell. It might only be 2 years in that everybody is complaining the new system is being exploited in some way.

Next year I'd guess before they realise the system isn't foolproof.

All this'll do is make round 2 picks worth more IMHO. Some years this will make third rounders more useful in the draft. So strategic trades might change in content a bit.

 

[GC2015]

Next year I'd guess before they realise the system isn't foolproof.

All this'll do is make round 2 picks worth more IMHO. Some years this will make third rounders more useful in the draft. So strategic trades might change in content a bit.

Also, being able to trade two years into the future is going to change the dynamics of the trade period. It really opens the door for teams to use future assets should they feel its necessary. No doubt we'll eventually see a team demand 3x first round picks over three years for a star player and there will be a club willing to mortgage their future to do it.

 

[Dr Tigris]

Also, being able to trade two years into the future is going to change the dynamics of the trade period. It really opens the door for teams to use future assets should they feel its necessary. No doubt we'll eventually see a team demand 3x first round picks over three years for a star player and there will be a club willing to mortgage their future to do it.

It'll certainly allow teams to play much more sophisticated, or stupid, games with their draft picks.

I can imagine a team paying 3 firsts for an A grader and their salary to get that premiership. get it right - heros. get it wrong and ... off the cliff.

 

[Obeanie1]

I'm still not sure what your problem is then.

You said earlier that the WA teams need to sleep with their own blankies more, this solutions just exacerbates that problem

Half the flight time.

Thats the issue.

If you dont get that then you havent been paying attension much.

 

[WilloTree]

AFL micromanaging clubs to get father/sons is entirely unnecessary.

Clubs can have father/sons without the mess that is currently points, bids, matching etc etc.

If you want a bloke...draft him.

It's just so simple it stuns me we still even have this conversation.

 

[TheTassieHawk]

They should shift them higher by limiting the number of picks to match to 3 in my view.
Anyway, time will tell. It might only be 2 years in that everybody is complaining the new system is being exploited in some way.

2 picks is enough on my view regardless of what points system is being used.

 

[danster168]

AFL micromanaging clubs to get father/sons is entirely unnecessary.

Clubs can have father/sons without the mess that is currently points, bids, matching etc etc.

If you want a bloke...draft him.

It's just so simple it stuns me we still even have this conversation.

100%. The idea that you get access to a player you haven't earned is a joke. Getting that player at a discount is a further joke. Until the AFL fixes the mess we can't take an unfair competition seriously.

 

[GC2015]

100%. The idea that you get access to a player you haven't earned is a joke. Getting that player at a discount is a further joke. Until the AFL fixes the mess we can't take an unfair competition seriously.

How do you earn a player? Finish low on the ladder? Spend 5+ years developing them in your academy?

Objectively, F/S does seem the least deserving of the three avenues. Take Will Ashcroft for example. He was in the Suns Academy between ages 10-14 and during that time was developed into an U15 AA player as a bottom ager. Then he heads to Melbourne to attend Brighton Grammar / play for Sandringham where he goes through the APS + NAB League pathway like most Vic kids.

They further develop him into an All Australian at both the U16 & U18 levels. The Lions got permission to have him participate in a few training camps and three VFL games, but they were largely uninvolved in his development from 10-18 years of age. Were West Coast / North Melbourne and/or Gold Coast more deserving of Ashcroft's services because of their ladder position / development investment?

F/S is a unique part of our game and provides supporters with a sense of romanticism that connects them to the club generationally. I can only imagine the thrill Geelong supporters got from watching Gary Ablett Sr dominating in the hoops and then just five years after his retirement they draft Gary Ablett Jr, who goes on to win premierships and a Brownlow with the Cats. For that reason, it's not going anywhere and that's coming from a supporter that hasn't had a single F/S pick in our 15 year history and probably won't for another 10+ years. It's clearly not fair, but the AFL has proven many times that they are okay with unfair outcomes if it serves an intended purpose.

 

[danster168]

How do you earn a player? Finish low on the ladder? Spend 5+ years developing them in your academy?

Objectively, F/S does seem the least deserving of the three avenues. Take Will Ashcroft for example. He was in the Suns Academy between ages 10-14 and during that time was developed into an U15 AA player as a bottom ager. Then he heads to Melbourne to attend Brighton Grammar / play for Sandringham where he goes through the APS + NAB League pathway like most Vic kids.

They further develop him into an All Australian at both the U16 & U18 levels. The Lions got permission to have him participate in a few training camps and three VFL games, but they were largely uninvolved in his development from 10-18 years of age. Were West Coast / North Melbourne and/or Gold Coast more deserving of Ashcroft's services because of their ladder position / development investment?

F/S is a unique part of our game and provides supporters with a sense of romanticism that connects them to the club generationally. I can only imagine the thrill Geelong supporters got from watching Gary Ablett Sr dominating in the hoops and then just five years after his retirement they draft Gary Ablett Jr, who goes on to win premierships and a Brownlow with the Cats. For that reason, it's not going anywhere and that's coming from a supporter that hasn't had a single F/S pick in our 15 year history and probably won't for another 10+ years. It's clearly not fair, but the AFL has proven many times that they are okay with unfair outcomes if it serves an intended purpose.

You earn a player by your ladder position. Regarding academies, it's a no from me. Abolish father/sons and academies completely. It's a joke that the competition has been decided by teams that have been the most benefited by these handouts. We've got a competition based off pure luck. It's embarrassing.

So yes, in your example the bottom teams deserve Ashcroft.

Yes, the F/S is unique because it's trash. Does anyone care that Daniher was winning grand finals for Brisbane? Or that Lachie Hunter played for Melbourne or that Tom Mitchell is at the pies? nup, no-one cares. Not even the players. Now, IF the father/son was to continue into the future, clubs that love the romance of having a father-son at their club should be paying overs for that privilege. Certainly not a bloody discount. If a club wants unfair access to a player they didn't deserve by ladder position then they should have like a 200% points weighting added on to protect the integrity of the competition.

In your example, Cats fans loved watching Gary Ablett Jnr because he was a great player. Did the Cats fans love watching Nathan Ablett? No. I can guarantee that the Dees fans would've loved watching Gary Ablett Junior play in the red and blue just as much. The idea of romance in a professional competition is embarrassingly amateur and unfair but yes, unique.

You said it yourself 'it's clearly not fair'. I care about the integrity of the competition more than anything. Do I care that Taj Woewodin is at the dees? I couldn't care less.

 

[WilloTree]

How do you earn a player? Finish low on the ladder? Spend 5+ years developing them in your academy?

Objectively, F/S does seem the least deserving of the three avenues. Take Will Ashcroft for example. He was in the Suns Academy between ages 10-14 and during that time was developed into an U15 AA player as a bottom ager. Then he heads to Melbourne to attend Brighton Grammar / play for Sandringham where he goes through the APS + NAB League pathway like most Vic kids.

They further develop him into an All Australian at both the U16 & U18 levels. The Lions got permission to have him participate in a few training camps and three VFL games, but they were largely uninvolved in his development from 10-18 years of age. Were West Coast / North Melbourne and/or Gold Coast more deserving of Ashcroft's services because of their ladder position / development investment?

F/S is a unique part of our game and provides supporters with a sense of romanticism that connects them to the club generationally. I can only imagine the thrill Geelong supporters got from watching Gary Ablett Sr dominating in the hoops and then just five years after his retirement they draft Gary Ablett Jr, who goes on to win premierships and a Brownlow with the Cats. For that reason, it's not going anywhere and that's coming from a supporter that hasn't had a single F/S pick in our 15 year history and probably won't for another 10+ years. It's clearly not fair, but the AFL has proven many times that they are okay with unfair outcomes if it serves an intended purpose.

Oh, I'm all for the romanticism of clubs drafting or trading in father/sons. Don't get me wrong. There's just no need for an additional rule for it when there is already a fair mechanism to do it.

 

[HavUEvaSeenTheRain]

At best Father Sons should come with a 25% tax not a discount. If the clubs actually think it’s important then they can still get them.

 

[GC2015]

You earn a player by your ladder position. Regarding academies, it's a no from me. Abolish father/sons and academies completely. It's a joke that the competition has been decided by teams that have been the most benefited by these handouts. We've got a competition based off pure luck. It's embarrassing.

So yes, in your example the bottom teams deserve Ashcroft.

Yes, the F/S is unique because it's trash. Does anyone care that Daniher was winning grand finals for Brisbane? Or that Lachie Hunter played for Melbourne or that Tom Mitchell is at the pies? nup, no-one cares. Not even the players. Now, IF the father/son was to continue into the future, clubs that love the romance of having a father-son at their club should be paying overs for that privilege. Certainly not a bloody discount. If a club wants unfair access to a player they didn't deserve by ladder position then they should have like a 200% points weighting added on to protect the integrity of the competition.

In your example, Cats fans loved watching Gary Ablett Jnr because he was a great player. Did the Cats fans love watching Nathan Ablett? No. I can guarantee that the Dees fans would've loved watching Gary Ablett Junior play in the red and blue just as much. The idea of romance in a professional competition is embarrassingly amateur and unfair but yes, unique.

You said it yourself 'it's clearly not fair'. I care about the integrity of the competition more than anything. Do I care that Taj Woewodin is at the dees? I couldn't care less.

Oh, I'm all for the romanticism of clubs drafting or trading in father/sons. Don't get me wrong. There's just no need for an additional rule for it when there is already a fair mechanism to do it.

Fair enough. I reckon if you did a poll you'd find the people who are most in favour of it are the clubs that have benefitted greatly from it (Collingwood, Geelong, Brisbane) and the ones that are most against it are the ones that haven't really benefitted from recently it like St Kilda, Fremantle Richmond and possibly even Melbourne.

Carlton are about to benefit greatly from it with the Camporeale twins + Walker and Collingwood have another F/S gem next year in Tom McGuane. Essendon have had their fair share as well with players like Dustin Fletcher and Jobe Watson. So these big clubs are going to continue to push for it to hang around.

It's not going away so you may as well embrace it. That's how I look at it considering my club won't have one for a while.

 

[danster168]

Fair enough. I reckon if you did a poll you'd find the people who are most in favour of it are the clubs that have benefitted greatly from it (Collingwood, Geelong, Brisbane) and the ones that are most against it are the ones that haven't really benefitted from recently it like St Kilda, Fremantle Richmond and possibly even Melbourne.

Carlton are about to benefit greatly from it with the Camporeale twins + Walker and Collingwood have another F/S gem next year in Tom McGuane. Essendon have had their fair share as well with players like Dustin Fletcher and Jobe Watson. So these big clubs are going to continue to push for it to hang around.

It's not going away so you may as well embrace it. That's how I look at it considering my club won't have one for a while.

I'll never embrace inequality in the afl. Like flags don't even mean anything anymore. Who was in last year's granny? Brisbane and Sydney? who won the granny the year before? Collingwood. None of these teams are getting close to a flag without their f/s or academy picks.Sydney and Coll wouldn't have even made the finals.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I'll never embrace inequality in the afl. Like flags don't even mean anything anymore. Who was in last year's granny? Brisbane and Sydney? who won the granny the year before? Collingwood. None of these teams are getting close to a flag without their f/s or academy picks.Sydney and Coll wouldn't have even made the finals.

You've harped on about this a lot and refuse to acknowledge that there is still some cost to acquiring these players.

Sure, they got F/S and Academy players. They still paid something for it. They could have maybe still won the flag with the alternate talent they could have recruited without those playres.

 

[GC2015]

I'll never embrace inequality in the afl. Like flags don't even mean anything anymore. Who was in last year's granny? Brisbane and Sydney? who won the granny the year before? Collingwood. None of these teams are getting close to a flag without their f/s or academy picks.Sydney and Coll wouldn't have even made the finals.

Brisbane were already good before Ashcroft joined them. They made the GF without him last year, so it's probably a stretch to suggest they wouldn't be where they are without benefitting from the F/S rule. Nick Daicos seemed to have a more profound impact on Collingwood so I'd probably agree with that. Not sure about Sydney because they would have drafted/traded in completely different players if they hadn't been using those picks to secure academy talent. We'll never know what an academy-less Sydney team in 2024 looks like so it's impossible to say.

 

[jdstorm]

Academy systems and draft systems are opposing ideals. Personally I think the idea that bad teams deserve picks leads to teams deliberately losing and that’s worse for the sport than giving clubs access to kids they develop.

The issue with FatherSon/academy players is that the rules don’t apply to every team equally and value is skewed unreasonably.

Let’s just give every team an academy and access to those kids (provided they spend a significant amount of time there regardless of nepotism or not)

Then use a fair system for paying for those players. Teams should pay overs in points and they should not be able to trade out 1st round picks if they are matching

 

[danster168]

Brisbane were already good before Ashcroft joined them. They made the GF without him last year, so it's probably a stretch to suggest they wouldn't be where they are without benefitting from the F/S rule. Nick Daicos seemed to have a more profound impact on Collingwood so I'd probably agree with that. Not sure about Sydney because they would have drafted/traded in completely different players if they hadn't been using those picks to secure academy talent. We'll never know what an academy-less Sydney team in 2024 looks like so it's impossible to say.

Not to mention Fletcher who has been handy. I believe that have another also?

Collingwood had Nick Daicos, Josh Daicos, Darcy Moore and Quaynor all gifted to them under rules I've never agreed with.

Where would the dogs be without Ugle-hagan and Sam Darcy etc.? bottom 8 imo. Basically this whole father/son and nga has dictated the ladder for years.

 

[GC2015]

Not to mention Fletcher who has been handy. I believe that have another also?

Collingwood had Nick Daicos, Josh Daicos, Darcy Moore and Quaynor all gifted to them under rules I've never agreed with.

Where would the dogs be without Ugle-hagan and Sam Darcy etc.? bottom 8 imo. Basically this whole father/son and nga has dictated the ladder for years.

Again, Brisbane were a good team before Ashcroft and/or Fletcher joined them. They played in a prelim 6 or so weeks before they were drafted. Fletcher is good but he was not the guy that tipped them over the edge in terms of being a flag contender. They were already there.

Nick Daicos may have been that guy for Collingwood. They weren't great in the year that they drafted him.

The Dogs were also good before they got Ugle-Hagan and Sam Darcy. They played finals in 2020 when Ugle-Hagan was recruited and they made a GF in 2021 when Darcy was drafted. It's not unreasonable to suggest they may still be good enough to play finals without them. You have to remember that draft/trade plans change if you remove these father-son + academy situations. They don't necessarily automatically become worse teams overall without them.

 

[danster168]

Again, Brisbane were a good team before Ashcroft and/or Fletcher joined them. They played in a prelim 6 or so weeks before they were drafted. Fletcher is good but he was not the guy that tipped them over the edge in terms of being a flag contender. They were already there.

Nick Daicos may have been that guy for Collingwood. They weren't great in the year that they drafted him.

The Dogs were also good before they got Ugle-Hagan and Sam Darcy. They played finals in 2020 when Ugle-Hagan was recruited and they made a GF in 2021 when Darcy was drafted. It's not unreasonable to suggest they may still be good enough to play finals without them. You have to remember that draft/trade plans change if you remove these father-son + academy situations. They don't necessarily automatically become worse teams overall without them.

Yes they do. It's safe to say that Collingwood are significantly worse without Daicos x 2, Moore and Quaynor. And the dogs are significantly worse without Juh and Sam Darcy.

 

[GC2015]

Yes they do. It's safe to say that Collingwood are significantly worse without Daicos x 2, Moore and Quaynor. And the dogs are significantly worse without Juh and Sam Darcy.

In isolation, yes, if you remove those players from their teams then they are worse. However, you don't know what they would have done in terms of trades, free agency and the draft had they not matched those F/S and/or academy bids. As an example, Collingwood would have had a natural pick 2 in 2021 had they not been accomodating for a Daicos bid and that probably would have netted them one of the other available top five picks in Jason Horne-Francis, Finn Callaghan or Mac Andrew (assuming Daicos and Darcy weren't available). Collingwood wouldn't necessarily have been worse off with a player like Mac Andrew, it just would have been different. So I wouldn't be that absolute in my conclusion about it.