Rumour Bluemour Discussion XXXV - 'Loopy' Season has begun

[Coops93]

Gold Coast get there’s with sides bidding on there. Where no one else gets there’s if a bids in the top 40

Brisbane, GWS & Sydney have the same academy systems, it's not a Suns thing.

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

If father/son picks are acceptable(which I agree with) then accademy picks for new the clubs should be allowed to compensate for their unavailability of F/S's.
Sydney's accademies should be reduced due to their access to F/S's.
Do all the other interstate teams have access to early accademy picks?

 

[Coops93]

They don't, it's just the NSW & QLD regions. SA did have some sort of F/S rule with players who played in the SANFL prior to the AFL, though it was a bit rubbish imo. Adelaide was seething about Bryce Gibbs given his dad played 253 games for Glenelg but the rule was they had to have played 200 prior to 91' and he played 195 (or something close to that). I'm not sure what WA's was/is.

This is justified as being part of growing the game and increasing participation of the sport in non-AFL regions. It is working as participation is higher than ever in these states, however, there certainly is a conversation coming at some point regarding access to early picks from the academies though I'm not sure it's there yet. Having said that the AFL will be looking at the net benefit of greater participation & support versus other clubs whinging about fairness, as we know the all mighty $ is what the AFL are interested in most.

It's a bit of a freak year this one for the Suns. These clubs don't have first rounders every year locked to them, let alone multiple, so usually it isn't a yearly issue any more than F/S's are. But if there's too many more years like this from any of clubs you can be sure that will change quickly.

 

[lily of laguna]

If father/son picks are acceptable(which I agree with) then accademy picks for new the clubs should be allowed to compensate for their unavailability of F/S's.
Sydney's accademies should be reduced due to their access to F/S's.
Do all the other interstate teams have access to early accademy picks?

They are not like for like though.

Each year the academy pool gets bigger as more kids get into AFL. These academies work with and develop the cream if the crop so the total number and higher ability of the academy cohorts is far and away greater than the F/S benefits.

F/S picks are much more sporadic and talent more variable.

I think the suggestion that the value of the discount diminishing for each subsequent pick is valid.

This will still ensure non AFL states benefit and opens up the talent for other clubs.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Arr0w]

Personally, I would prefer they remove all discounts on academy, NGA and F/S.

Simply having access to players is a massive bonus

Of course, I also prefer it doesn't kick in until we draft, Ben, Lucas and Cody

 

[Bletch]

Personally, I would prefer they remove all discounts on academy, NGA and F/S.

Simply having access to players is a massive bonus

Of course, I also prefer it doesn't kick in until we draft, Ben, Lucas and Cody

Perhaps a graded thing - 1st round 0% discount, 2nd round 10%, 3rd round on keep the existing 20%.

 

[Arr0w]

Perhaps a graded thing - 1st round 0% discount, 2nd round 10%, 3rd round on keep the existing 20%.

Better than the current system I guess but still think it's a huge bonus

Remove the discount, you can still trade back to gain points. Also helps with strategy of what type you then need to target

The NGA criteria also needs an overhaul

 

[thylacine60]

Goldstein to *. Silly fella.

 

[Coona Blues]

Goldstein to *. Silly fella.

Has a history with the coach, so clearly a multifaceted role. Clarko busy with his own appointments.

 

[Arr0w]

Has a history with the coach, so clearly a multifaceted role. Clarko busy with his own appointments.

I still don't get it though. I know Phillips was great backup, but the have Draper and a very underrated Bryan

Need to start playing those types

 

[DamianBis]

I still don't get it though. I know Phillips was great backup, but the have Draper and a very underrated Bryan

Need to start playing those types

I think he's there for training standards rather than necessarily to play. From the sounds of things Essendon has a very lax culture similar to us before Judd came.

Sent from my CPH2371 using Tapatalk

 

[Arr0w]

I think he's there for training standards rather than necessarily to play. From the sounds of things Essendon has a very lax culture similar to us before Judd came.

Sent from my CPH2371 using Tapatalk

Makes sense then

 

[JoeyPBLUES]

I think he's there for training standards rather than necessarily to play. From the sounds of things Essendon has a very lax culture similar to us before Judd came.

Sent from my CPH2371 using Tapatalk

Would make sense given the fact they’ve been banned from holidays and the leadership group has roped in most of the team to go away and train together.

 

[tin tin]

Personally, I would prefer they remove all discounts on academy, NGA and F/S.

Simply having access to players is a massive bonus

Of course, I also prefer it doesn't kick in until we draft, Ben, Lucas and Cody

I like the academy and F/S rules but I think it would be fairer if the league introduced a points and/or quota system - limiting the amount of points and/or players a club could spend/take over a 5-10 year period. That would stop clubs getting 3-4 academy prospects a year, or Geelong/Dogs getting a conga line of father/sons. These elements genuinely skew the integrity of the draft. It would also mean that clubs have to be more selective about who they take under the rule. Can still draft them but can't use the points discount indiscriminately.

I have no idea how the points thing would work, but I don't think it would be too hard given we currently attribute points to picks. The AFL could also link it to the number of players taken or a combination of the two.

 

[katmanblue]

If father/son picks are acceptable(which I agree with) then accademy picks for new the clubs should be allowed to compensate for their unavailability of F/S's.
Sydney's accademies should be reduced due to their access to F/S's.
Do all the other interstate teams have access to early accademy picks?

You can churn many more through the academy system.

And players coming through are already familiar with players and coaches and gameplans when drafted.

Father/son, not so much


Sent from my SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[katmanblue]

.

It's a bit of a freak year this one for the Suns. These clubs don't have first rounders every year locked to them, let alone multiple, so usually it isn't a yearly issue any more than F/S's are. But if there's too many more years like this from any of clubs you can be sure that will change quickly.

I'm not so sure. I reckon multiple will become the norm.

Sent from my SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SurreyBlue]

I like the academy and F/S rules but I think it would be fairer if the league introduced a points and/or quota system - limiting the amount of points and/or players a club could spend/take over a 5-10 year period. That would stop clubs getting 3-4 academy prospects a year, or Geelong/Dogs getting a conga line of father/sons. These elements genuinely skew the integrity of the draft. It would also mean that clubs have to be more selective about who they take under the rule. Can still draft them but can't use the points discount indiscriminately.

I have no idea how the points thing would work, but I don't think it would be too hard given we currently attribute points to picks. The AFL could also link it to the number of players taken or a combination of the two.

Father Sons are a big part of a clubs history and culture. To limit or remove a clubs ability to recruit a FS, would be detrimental to the longevity of the sport, with supporter groups becomimg disenchanted. i feel the current system of using national points is fair and works.

The academy picks are just a handout to interstate teams, and the amount of talent being thrown to them yearly, is a farce. This needs to be removed, but we all know that isn’t happening.

 

[TimeFor17]

Father Sons are a big part of a clubs history and culture. To limit or remove a clubs ability to recruit a FS, would be detrimental to the longevity of the sport, with supporter groups becomimg disenchanted. i feel the current system of using national points is fair and works.

The academy picks are just a handout to interstate teams, and the amount of talent being thrown to them yearly, is a farce. This needs to be removed, but we all know that isn’t happening.

I agree with you to a degree but isn’t it a disadvantage to GC and GWS that without academies they won’t get any F/S picks for at least 15 years?

I think Brisbane and Sydney should not get the academy benefits but if we want the game to grow we need to help the new clubs playing finals multiple years and maybe sneak in a flag.

 

[Coops93]

I'm not so sure. I reckon multiple will become the norm.

Sent from my SM-F926B using BigFooty.com mobile app

If it does it's a great thing for the game

 

[ferrisb]

Becoming clearer by the year that they need to change the Rules for Academy players and Father Sons to make it a free for all in the first round.

It's never fair for all clubs and with the flexibility and creativity of pick movement, clubs are getting these gun players for chips.

Even if only the top 10. Absolute joke the Dogs got JUH and Darcy B2B despite not being even a bottom 6 team.

You shouldn't lose a Father Son because they're too good.

In terms of league integrity the F/S/Academies are inherently compromising. F/S is purely a feel good rule, nothing else. While it's fine if you're in favour of that feel good rule, then we must also accept that the draft is already inherently compromised because of it and we're ok with that.

So, why is the compromise that benefits the small interstate teams in non-AFL territories wrong? It grows the game and keeps those interstate teams filled with local talent instead of Vic talent that has been shown time and again to want to leave.

What about if teams can match bids in the first round, but there is no discount?

Or if teams can only match bids with picks in the same round as bids (including future pick in that round)?

Or both?

I think father-son picks are close to the best thing in footy. And I see value in the northern academies. I don't think the answer is to scrap them.

I think the answer is to keep them but not make them such an advantage. You get right of refusal over the kid but you have to pay a fair price to do so.

 

[Coops93]

What about if teams can match bids in the first round, but there is no discount?

Or if teams can only match bids with picks in the same round as bids (including future pick in that round)?

Or both?

I think father-son picks are close to the best thing in footy. And I see value in the northern academies. I don't think the answer is to scrap them.

I think the answer is to keep them but not make them such an advantage. You get right of refusal over the kid but you have to pay a fair price to do so.

Fully agree with ditching the discount. I'm not really sure why it ever existed in the first place?

It is a great thing I agree, I'm more critical of the fairness of it. Collingwood absolutely should not have access to a generational no.1 draft pick because they gave up a few 3rd round picks, that's hilarious. Make them stump up a couple of firsts and actually pay for the privilege, which most teams would still do far more often than not.

I didn't mind the idea before where first rounders are 0% discount, 2nd are 10% and anything more is 20% discount. First rounders are really where the damage occurs, a speculative pick in the 40s on a f/s isn't really hurting anyone.

As Arrow said, even though I'd like these changes, I'd like them even more if they made them after we get Campo 1, Campo 2 & Cody...

 

[El Topo]

Interstate academies are good for the game and can be fixed with some necessary (and IMHO inevitable) tweaks - NGA is where it gets murky. Players like J.Motlop, Quaynor, JUH being outside of the regular draft pool is an absolute farce.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Fully agree with ditching the discount. I'm not really sure why it ever existed in the first place?

It is a great thing I agree, I'm more critical of the fairness of it. Collingwood absolutely should not have access to a generational no.1 draft pick because they gave up a few 3rd round picks, that's hilarious. Make them stump up a couple of firsts and actually pay for the privilege, which most teams would still do far more often than not.

I didn't mind the idea before where first rounders are 0% discount, 2nd are 10% and anything more is 20% discount. First rounders are really where the damage occurs, a speculative pick in the 40s on a f/s isn't really hurting anyone.

As Arrow said, even though I'd like these changes, I'd like them even more if they made them after we get Campo 1, Campo 2 & Cody...

Could introduce some kind of restriction whereby you need to use at least one draft pick within the first round to match a top 10 bid or something to that effect.

Ie. if your player gets bid on inside the top 10 picks, you can match the points with any number of picks as long as one of them is a first rounder.

Players outside that elite bracket aren't impacted, but it means a club getting a top shelf prospect needs to chip in at least one meaningful pick.

 

[Sector 7G]

Fully agree with ditching the discount. I'm not really sure why it ever existed in the first place?

It is a great thing I agree, I'm more critical of the fairness of it. Collingwood absolutely should not have access to a generational no.1 draft pick because they gave up a few 3rd round picks, that's hilarious. Make them stump up a couple of firsts and actually pay for the privilege, which most teams would still do far more often than not.

I didn't mind the idea before where first rounders are 0% discount, 2nd are 10% and anything more is 20% discount. First rounders are really where the damage occurs, a speculative pick in the 40s on a f/s isn't really hurting anyone.

As Arrow said, even though I'd like these changes, I'd like them even more if they made them after we get Campo 1, Campo 2 & Cody...

While I agree with this completely, you have to laugh at the Pies trading out pick 2 to get a bunch of picks that haven't shown much when they didn't need to and miss out on Finn Callahan.

Point system needs to be revised as it doesn't reflect the true value of early picks especially with the reduced list sizes and the ability to have patience developing young players.

 

[Blue__Balls]

While I agree with this completely, you have to laugh at the Pies trading out pick 2 to get a bunch of picks that haven't shown much when they didn't need to and miss out on Finn Callahan.

Point system needs to be revised as it doesn't reflect the true value of early picks especially with the reduced list sizes and the ability to have patience developing young players.

Think about it a bit more - this is probably the most elegant solution anyway.

You could increase the value of first round picks, and leave the points for later picks unchanged.
You could decrease the value of later picks, and leave the points for the first round unchanged.
Or you could do a bit of both - increase the points for early picks, decrease the points for later picks.

No matter which way you cut it, it makes it harder to match early bids with multiple later picks.

It's also, as you say, probably a more accurate reflection of how clubs rate the picks.

Currently, picks 18 + 19 are considered to be of equal value to Pick 4 or 5. Realistically, they'd probably get you Pick 10.

Currently, the matrix suggests that throwing in Pick 37 should get you from Pick 2 up to Pick 1. Sure...

Maybe something like this would be more accurate, and serve to force clubs matching early bids to pay a steeper price:
Pick 1 - 4000 pts
Pick 2 - 3300 pts
Pick 3 - 3100 pts
Pick 4 - 2900 pts
Pick 5 - 2750 pts
Pick 6 - 2600 pts
Pick 7 - 2450 pts
Pick 8 - 2300 pts
Pick 9 - 2150 pts
Pick 10 - 2000 pts
Pick 11 - 1850 pts
Pick 12 - 1700 pts
Pick 13 - 1550 pts
Pick 14 - 1400 pts
Pick 15 - 1300 pts
Pick 16 - 1200 pts
Pick 17 - 1100 pts
Pick 18 - 1000 pts
Pick 19 - 950 pts
Picks 20+ - effectively unchanged