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

[giantroo]

 

[EBERT THE KING]

What about not having father son matching in the first round at all? Then teams have to trade for them, that would mean they are paying fair value?

And yes yes, bin academy matching in the first round too.

That way the players that are borderline still get a chance (Cooper Harvey for example). And players like Darcy or Daicos get picked to any team and then if their fathers team is desperate for them they trade for them after 3 years.

Yep, dont mind this as well.

Anything that alleviates the fact that clubs like Fremantle, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Gold Coast, and GWS continually get stitched up by other clubs getting father son access, sits well with me.

 

[Ashman23]

Yep, dont mind this as well.

Anything that alleviates the fact that clubs like Fremantle, Port Adelaide, Adelaide, Gold Coast, and GWS continually get stitched up by other clubs getting father son access, sits well with me.

So, I guess you're hoping all your current and ex players are celibate and never have kids then?

Freo have existed for 30 years, I think some of your players have had kids that might be old enough to play senior level Aussie rules by now.

As for the discount, I agree, it should be done away with, the discount you get is actually the opportunity to select them when 17 other clubs don't get that opportunity.

 

[EBERT THE KING]

So, I guess you're hoping all your current and ex players are celibate and never have kids then?

Freo have existed for 30 years, I think some of your players have had kids that might be old enough to play senior level Aussie rules by now.

Not at all but id be happy to pay fair price, unlike majority of other father son picks in the last decade

 

[Dogflogger]

So, I guess you're hoping all your current and ex players are celibate and never have kids then?

Freo have existed for 30 years, I think some of your players have had kids that might be old enough to play senior level Aussie rules by now.

As for the discount, I agree, it should be done away with, the discount you get is actually the opportunity to select them when 17 other clubs don't get that opportunity.

I've been watching the saints for 30 years and they have existed for 150+ years, we've had less father sons in that time than Collingwood have had in the last decade. there is no rhyme or reason its just a spinning wheel of luck that if it hits enough times then you win premierships.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I've been watching the saints for 30 years and they have existed for 150+ years, we've had less father sons in that time than Collingwood have had in the last decade. there is no rhyme or reason its just a spinning wheel of luck that if it hits enough times then you win premierships.

The only factor is perhaps if you're a crap team you're more likely to cycle through players before they reach 100 games, while if you're a winning team, you're likely to keep the players already playing, and then get them to 100 games, thus making their sons now eligible for father-son. Probably a small effect but I don't think it's entirely luck if that's the case.

 

[Del228913]

Father sons is part of Aussie rules history and needs to stay. A fairer system is required, the points system is crap, now it gives clubs potentially 2 first round picks for a heap of picks in the second round.

I'd hope that we alter the rules, where you can only pick up 18 year olds in the first round. 2nd round onwards need to be 19+. Get rid of the Coates league, add 3 vic country teams to the vfl. Have the best 18 year kids play together for the ais in Canberra in the vfl. Have a list of 25-30 who live play, school and train in Canberra for a year. Have a horse, Leon Cameron type as coach. It would really reduce the home sickness factor.

First round picks should be on 4 year deals, top 5 picks, 5 year deals.

I'd let club trades players that are 3 years plus in the system, where only players who have signed as free agents after 7 years at a club, get to choose if they're traded, orherwise the club can trade. This would stop these stupid contracts we are seeing, as players will want some say, so they'll sign 2 or 3 year deals after their first one and wait for free agency and at the moment player managers are having too great of a say.

I think we'd end up with a far more even comp and actually interesting trades. Their should be money set aside as part of new TV deals for player relocation costs.

At the moment we have a Melbourne old boys club where we look after each other instead of the clubs best needs. Houston to the pies is a prime example

 

[GC2015]

Father sons is part of Aussie rules history and needs to stay. A fairer system is required, the points system is crap, now it gives clubs potentially 2 first round picks for a heap of picks in the second round.

The amusing part from my perspective is everyone in Victoria seemed to love the father-son rule for decades, until it started working for non-Victorian teams and delivered generational talents like Will Ashcroft to Brisbane. Now all of a sudden some people are questioning its validity when it's helping to deliver non-Vic teams premierships.

 

[bzparkes]

The amusing part from my perspective is everyone in Victoria seemed to love the father-son rule for decades, until it started working for non-Victorian teams and delivered generational talents like Will Ashcroft to Brisbane. Now all of a sudden some people are questioning its validity when it's helping to deliver non-Vic teams premierships.

To be fair, the rule was changed after Geelong got Hawkins.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

The amusing part from my perspective is everyone in Victoria seemed to love the father-son rule for decades, until it started working for non-Victorian teams and delivered generational talents like Will Ashcroft to Brisbane. Now all of a sudden some people are questioning its validity when it's helping to deliver non-Vic teams premierships.

Pretty sure the complaining about the father sons and academy kids being too much of an advantage for teams reached it's peak when Daicos, Ugle Hagan and Darcy all came through.

Ashcroft really didn't garner all that much outrage from my memory... At least not down in VIC other than the sooks at StKilda.

The northern academies are fast becoming a bit of a joke though, that much is very clear. Need some caps on clubs taking 3-5 quality kids every year or the draft will become practically useless.

 

[Del228913]

Pretty sure the complaining about the father sons and academy kids being too much of an advantage for teams reached it's peak when Daicos, Ugle Hagan and Darcy all came through.

Ashcroft really didn't garner all that much outrage from my memory... At least not down in VIC other than the sooks at StKilda.

The northern academies are fast becoming a bit of a joke though, that much is very clear. Need some caps on clubs taking 3-5 quality kids every year or the draft will become practically useless.

Can't see their been 3 top 10 picks each year in the Northern states. There's no way vic clubs should have academies though

 

[GC2015]

To be fair, the rule was changed after Geelong got Hawkins.

Sure, but there's a difference between the clubs disliking rules and requesting change from the AFL vs the way the public views a rule. For example, St Kilda admin seem furious about both the father-son rule and academies existing, but I'm pretty sure there would be a percentage of St Kilda supporters out there that like the romanticism of the father-son rule and hope that one day their club will benefit massively from it.

Pretty sure the complaining about the father sons and academy kids being too much of an advantage for teams reached it's peak when Daicos, Ugle Hagan and Darcy all came through.

Ashcroft really didn't garner all that much outrage from my memory... At least not down in VIC other than the sooks at StKilda.

The northern academies are fast becoming a bit of a joke though, that much is very clear. Need some caps on clubs taking 3-5 quality kids every year or the draft will become practically useless.

They're two different things. The outrage related to the NGAs in late 2020 when the number 1 pick Jamarra Ugle-Hagan went to the Bulldogs (after they had just competed in the finals) led to the rule being changed in mid-2021. Top 4 picks Daicos and Darcy were a part of the 2021 draft class and no rule was changed after they were drafted. The outrage returned in 2023 when the Suns drafted several first round picks and that led to rules changing in mid-2024.

The father-son rule has essentially remained untouched throughout the last few years.

Can't see their been 3 top 10 picks each year in the Northern states. There's no way vic clubs should have academies though

There has never been three top 10 picks coming out of the northern states in the same year. The most we saw was in 2023 when picks 3 & 9 came from Queensland. Every other year it's been either one or zero top 10 picks from the northern states. The Vic media has certainly blown it out of proportion in terms of how many top 10 picks are actually being produced by the northern academies in any given year and 2023 is very much an outlier when you compare it to literally any other year.

 

[Del228913]

Sure, but there's a difference between the clubs disliking rules and requesting change from the AFL vs the way the public views a rule. For example, St Kilda admin seem furious about both the father-son rule and academies existing, but I'm pretty sure there would be a percentage of St Kilda supporters out there that like the romanticism of the father-son rule and hope that one day their club will benefit massively from it.


They're two different things. The outrage related to the NGAs in late 2020 when the number 1 pick Jamarra Ugle-Hagan went to the Bulldogs (after they had just competed in the finals) led to the rule being changed in mid-2021. Top 4 picks Daicos and Darcy were a part of the 2021 draft class and no rule was changed after they were drafted. The outrage returned in 2023 when the Suns drafted several first round picks and that led to rules changing in mid-2024.

The father-son rule has essentially remained untouched throughout the last few years.


There has never been three top 10 picks coming out of the northern states in the same year. The most we saw was in 2023 when picks 3 & 9 came from Queensland. Every other year it's been either one or zero top 10 picks from the northern states. The Vic media has certainly blown it out of proportion in terms of how many top 10 picks are actually being produced by the northern academies in any given year and 2023 is very much an outlier when you compare it to literally any other year.

Well 3 in the top 15, but I agree it's an outlier, the aps vic schools hand out scholarships so they get the accolades

 

[briztoon]

The northern academies are fast becoming a bit of a joke though, that much is very clear. Need some caps on clubs taking 3-5 quality kids every year or the draft will become practically useless.

That’s happed twice in 13 years, and the GWS version turned out average at best, and none of them are at GWS anymore.

Nice b.s. story and overreaction anyway.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

That’s happed twice in 13 years, and the GWS version turned out average at best, and none of them are at GWS anymore.

Nice b.s. story and overreaction anyway.

If you look ahead to the next few drafts they are absolutely rife with academy and F/S kids, and very very good ones at that.

Clubs up north have realized the massive advantage they can provide a team and have rightly invested time and resources into them to make sure they can maximize their returns.

Reality is with more teams and far more resources going into developing local talent the 3-4 player hauls will only become more and more common until changes are inevitably made.

But nice melt.

 

[GC2015]

Well 3 in the top 15, but I agree it's an outlier, the aps vic schools hand out scholarships so they get the accolades

Queenslander Sam Marshall was an example of that last year. Showed promise as a youngster on the Sunshine Coast and gets offered a scholarship as a 15 year old to board at Melbourne Grammar from 2022 to complete years 10, 11 and 12 in Melbourne. Would he have become a first round pick if he had not moved to Melbourne? Who knows, but Melbourne Grammar and Sandringham still get the credit for producing him. The Lions Academy definitely helped him out along the way, but there's no doubt that the majority of his important development years occurred at Melbourne Grammar + Sandringham.

This is nothing new. Look at Cyril when he moved to Melbourne to board at Scotch in 2004 and went on to become a first round pick as well as an incredible AFL player. Although we haven't seen many Queenslanders follow this pathway until the Ashcrofts and Marshall in recent years. I'm sure the Melbourne APS schools will continue offering scholarships to outstanding Queensland prospects, but it's questionable as to whether those players should accept the offer. Marshall himself actually advocated for Queenslanders to not follow the pathway he did and said he thinks QLD prospects are better off staying up here due to how challenging his experience was.

 

[sr36]

That’s happed twice in 13 years, and the GWS version turned out average at best, and none of them are at GWS anymore.

Nice b.s. story and overreaction anyway.

I read it as a prediction for the future. If the academies have any value, the average number taken early will continue to gradually rise. I'd be expecting a gradual increase in top kids coming from the Northern States - seems inevitable.

 

[Ashman23]

Teams also won't/don't invest in kids they know they don't/won't get draft concession easy access.

Academy draftee numbers are tipped to rise, that's OK, good luck to those clubs that have access, that's the current rules. Once again though, the AFL will react too late to keep the system 'fair'.

 

[briztoon]

If you look ahead to the next few drafts they are absolutely rife with academy and F/S kids, and very very good ones at that.

Clubs up north have realized the massive advantage they can provide a team and have rightly invested time and resources into them to make sure they can maximize their returns.

Reality is with more teams and far more resources going into developing local talent the 3-4 player hauls will only become more and more common until changes are inevitably made.

But nice melt.

I’m not sure you’re aware or not, but the AFL did change the rules and DVI for matching bids.

Unless you’re a team like Gold Coast and spent the last three drafts accruing and pushing forward extra draft picks, it’s going to be very hard for a top 8 team to match on two high end academy kids. Would pretty much wipe that team out of two drafts.

Yes they get the two academy kids, but the rest of their picks for this draft and the next draft are all at the end of the draft.

Other than GC this year, which other club has multiple potential top 10 prospects? This year or next?

 

[sr36]

Unless you’re a team like Gold Coast and spent the last three drafts accruing and pushing forward extra draft picks, it’s going to be very hard for a top 8 team to match on two high end academy kids. Would pretty much wipe that team out of two drafts.

Yes they get the two academy kids, but the rest of their picks for this draft and the next draft are all at the end of the draft.

Other than GC this year, which other club has multiple potential top 10 prospects? This year or next?

It'd wipe a top 8 team out of more than two years of draft picks to get access to 1 top kid without father son or academy concessions. It's still a significant advantage to have priority access to a top kid.

Eg/ This year's Brisbane first and second plus next year's picks wouldn't have gotten you the pick to take Ashcroft.

There's little doubt that the new DVI will continue to advantage teams that have priority access to top kids.

There's lots of advantages and disadvantages in the system. It's how it all nets out that really matters.

I'm of the view that as the Academies continue to do their job of producing more AFL players - which is a good thing - the Northern clubs will be significantly over-represented in terms of flags, top 4 and finals. And there will need to be a further re-think of the system. But only time will tell on that front.

The AFL equalisation measures have so far done a good job of levelling the competition and giving all clubs a chance of success at some stage, but the academy advantages are only just beginning to kick in with the first players taken now at their peak and more being added regularly and you'd expect it to increase over time - the draft has been pretty significant in terms of equalisation, but with more priority access, the effectiveness of the draft as an equalisation measure is likely to diminish.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

If the DVI was accurate/fair, we'd be seeing bottom-four teams actively trading down.

It doesn't happen (yet).

 

[briztoon]

If the DVI was accurate/fair, we'd be seeing bottom-four teams actively trading down.

It doesn't happen (yet).

Why?

The DVI has one purpose, and one purpose only. For a team to match an academy kid or father son kid.

It has absolutely no relevance as to the strength or depth of a particular draft, or even a section of a draft.

And absolutely, categorically should not be used to determine the fairness, or otherwise, of any pick trade, slide up, or slide back. (Though looking at the math now, it's much closer to what real trades should look like, in terms of multiple picks for one high end pick, i.e pick 8 & 9 "might" get your pick 2, if you look at recent trades to see what pick 2 or pick 3 was traded for. Or picks 25 & 26 "might" get you pick 18)

What the new DVI has done, is make it far harder and disincentivized teams wanting to trade up for picks, that are up for sale from an academy or father son team.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

The amusing part from my perspective is everyone in Victoria seemed to love the father-son rule for decades, until it started working for non-Victorian teams and delivered generational talents like Will Ashcroft to Brisbane. Now all of a sudden some people are questioning its validity when it's helping to deliver non-Vic teams premierships.

The most significant change to the rule came about some 20 years ago, when Tom Hawkins, a top-3 draft prospect, was able to be recruited for a third round pick. Once can only assume that they would have made the same rule changes at any stage in the few years before hand if any father/son player happened to have also been a top prospect, such as if Marc Murphy had elected to play for Brisbane. Don't be ridiculous here.

 

[Simon_Nesbit]

Why?

The DVI has one purpose, and one purpose only. For a team to match an academy kid or father son kid.

It has absolutely no relevance as to the strength or depth of a particular draft, or even a section of a draft.

And absolutely, categorically should not be used to determine the fairness, or otherwise, of any pick trade, slide up, or slide back. (Though looking at the math now, it's much closer to what real trades should look like, in terms of multiple picks for one high end pick, i.e pick 8 & 9 "might" get your pick 2, if you look at recent trades to see what pick 2 or pick 3 was traded for. Or picks 25 & 26 "might" get you pick 18)

What the new DVI has done, is make it far harder and disincentivized teams wanting to trade up for picks, that are up for sale from an academy or father son team.

In a round-a-bout way, I think you agree with me?

If we are using DVI to calculate bid-matching, then it should be somewhat based in reality. If we cannot imagine a club making that trade, then the DVI still isn't accurate.

Using your example, pick 8 and 9 'might' get pick 2 in a trade - so if that trade went ahead both parties clearly saw value in the others hand.

Under the revised DVI, picks 10 and 11 are equal to pick 2. Still a little generous (even before discount), but an improvement from the old values where 11 and 13 were rated higher than 2. I think the DVI changes only went half-way.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

If you look ahead to the next few drafts they are absolutely rife with academy and F/S kids, and very very good ones at that.

Clubs up north have realized the massive advantage they can provide a team and have rightly invested time and resources into them to make sure they can maximize their returns.

Reality is with more teams and far more resources going into developing local talent the 3-4 player hauls will only become more and more common until changes are inevitably made.

But nice melt.

The new rules have come in, not before you guys were able to get the twins last year though, among others. Yes the rules will be adjusted but I hope you were channelling your angst last year when you were gifted 2.

The northern states bleed players way more, as it's much easier to keep players in traditional states so having more local players makes sense not just for the club but for the competition. Already we are talking at the Cats getting their fingers on Rowell, that's what northern clubs have to deal with and it's yearly.

The simple solution has been all along, fix the curve and it should have been done 2 years ago, last year at the latest, instead the AFL in their wisdom keep wasting everyone's time. Every year a club will whinge so just do it for goodness sakes it's not actually that hard.

 

[briztoon]

In a round-a-bout way, I think you agree with me?

If we are using DVI to calculate bid-matching, then it should be somewhat based in reality. If we cannot imagine a club making that trade, then the DVI still isn't accurate.

Using your example, pick 8 and 9 'might' get pick 2 in a trade - so if that trade went ahead both parties clearly saw value in the others hand.

As a recent example West Coast traded pick 2 for picks 8 & 12.

Personally I don’t see that as fair value, but that was the trade.

Under the revised DVI, picks 10 and 11 are equal to pick 2. Still a little generous (even before discount), but an improvement from the old values where 11 and 13 were rated higher than 2. I think the DVI changes only went half-way.

Typically a team trading a first round pick for points, is looking for a significant points upgrade. Previously many of those trades have seen the team trading out for points, looking for 500+ points, or picks they can on trade again for more points.

So typically were not looking at a break even scenario, but one team getting a significant benefit.