Roast Corrupt AFL Looking To Change F/S Bidding Rules

[Jarman3]

Wouldn't be surprised if the intent of reviewing the current process isn't being driven from closer to home.

There would be a number of Melbourne clubs looking at Collingwood and noting that among their best players are 3 F/S and a priority pick. Collingwood went from a bottom club and having to execute a salary purge to now being the best performing team in the competition. Must piss off a lot of teams who are forever on the rebuild cycle or who have bottomed out and can't get there hands on the best talent.

That would be fair enough if we're talking academy picks, and the AFL already changed the rule around matching bids on academy players early in the draft (but obviously wait to make sure we missed out on Jamarra Ugle-Hagan before changing the rule). Father son is a different story and a different set of rules applies (and should apply).

It's not like if you get gazumped on a bid (as we have multiple times) you drop 10 places down the order. You just go to the next pick. So instead of JUH you get Thilthorpe. Instead of H Himmelberg you get Tom Doedee. Instead of Tarryn Thomas you get Chayce Jones (or Zak Butters if you have better recruiters). You're not going from deadset gun to dud in 1 pick.

And the system is the same for teams whether at the top of the ladder or the bottom. If one of those perpetually rebuilding teams has a good FS prospect or two it can give them a boost. Dropping 1 spot down the order because you got your bid on a player matched is not going to derail your rebuild. What is much more likely to derail your rebuild is if you lose the opportunity to grab a good FS player of your own while also trading out your first round pick for another good player / pick.

 

[Brasher]

That would be fair enough if we're talking academy picks, and the AFL already changed the rule around matching bids on academy players early in the draft (but obviously wait to make sure we missed out on Jamarra Ugle-Hagan before changing the rule). Father son is a different story and a different set of rules applies (and should apply).

It's not like if you get gazumped on a bid (as we have multiple times) you drop 10 places down the order. You just go to the next pick. So instead of JUH you get Thilthorpe. Instead of H Himmelberg you get Tom Doedee. Instead of Tarryn Thomas you get Chayce Jones (or Zak Butters if you have better recruiters). You're not going from deadset gun to dud in 1 pick.

And the system is the same for teams whether at the top of the ladder or the bottom. If one of those perpetually rebuilding teams has a good FS prospect or two it can give them a boost. Dropping 1 spot down the order because you got your bid on a player matched is not going to derail your rebuild. What is much more likely to derail your rebuild is if you lose the opportunity to grab a good FS player of your own while also trading out your first round pick for another good player / pick.

Fair enough, but I never suggested it would derail a rebuild but it does reduce your options.

You can't rely on F/S to complete a rebuild but you also shouldn't be deprived the opportunity to pick that player if you think they are the one that gives you the best option.

If you don't get them, I can think of nothing worse than my competition getting better as a result at a fraction of the investment.

 

[PeterSalt]

Just on the Daicos drafting scenario, didn't Collingwood kick a bit of an own goal trading out their first round pick the year prior?

 

[rabidcrow]

I agree however, at some point the AFL needs to tidy up unfair advantages. The issue is F/S dont drop for every club very often at all. So its unfair regardless. If it was my choice id remove it all together as it makes a mockery of creating a fair playing field. Plus what..you saying they can tidy up loose ends after Welsh? At the end of the day don't panic. Its only a proposal right now and we dont really have any information to go on.

They have a habit of changing rules in time to screw us over. I actually assumed this was a joke!
We absolutely need to argue this like no tomorrow. At the very least this should be a “in 3 years time” introduction so that players already identified aren’t impacted




Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Peter Doherty]

Are there any proposed alternatives?

Heard some say you have to use a first round pick in matching if the bid comes in the first round etc.

So say next year we have pick 10, we select a player, then a bid on Welsh comes at pick 15 (we have no more first round picks).

Then what? We lose our future first?

Really interested to see this proposed fairer solution.

 

[Kwality]

THE AFC HAS TO FIGHT THIS ALL THE WAY… PARTICULARLY GIVEN THERE WAS NO THOUGHT OF THESE CHANGES FOR ASHCROFT OR DAICOS, BUT NOW WELSH IS ON THE HORIZON…

Reid 'open-minded', change flagged for bidding system, Hawk to re-sign

Check out all the latest trade news from around the League

www.afl.com.au

LEAGUE FLAGS CHANGES TO BIDDING SYSTEM​

THE AFL has flagged a series of potential changes to its draft bidding system, but has warned that an overarching umbrella structure for bids on both father-son and academy players remains unlikely.

Speaking on Gettable this week, the AFL's CEO elect Andrew Dillon revealed that the League continues to examine ways in which it can refine the draft's bidding process.

Currently there are three different sets of bidding rules depending on whether clubs elect to place them on father-son prospects, Northern Academy graduates or Next Generation Academy (NGA) players.

Clubs can currently match father-son bids anywhere in the draft, but can only match NGA bids outside the top 40 selections. There are also a host of intricacies for Northern Academy players, such as clubs only being able to match two top-20 bids if they play finals that season.


But the League is set to continue tying up any loose ends within its bidding process, including whether clubs can match first-round bids on father-son prospects with a host of later selections.

"They are really different, a father-son versus a Northern Academy versus a Next Generation Academy. They're all in for different reasons. Having specifics around each of those three is really important for us," Dillon told Gettable.

"What I'd like to look at is that our clubs are really good at, 'You write a rule, we're going to work out what's the best way we can – not exploit the rule – but do what we're doing within the rules?'

"When we first brought in the bidding system, we had the hidden picks where clubs were aggregating heaps of picks. We moved to change that. Sometimes, people look at it and say, 'How can you pick up a player in the early part of the draft by matching (a bid) with picks in the 40s?' Again, as we evolve, that's something to look at. We're taking feedback from clubs all the time on it." – Riley Beveridge

What childish interpretation of corrupt are you using here ?

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

It was always obvious that the AFL would change the Father/Son rules once non-Victorian sides started to get some benefits from it.

Anyone who can’t see it coming hasn’t been paying attention to the actions of this biased and compromised organisation for the past 25 years.

Only question is whether they’ll be able to find some loophole to make sure the Victorian clubs somehow continue to stock up with gun players from it.

 

[Jarman3]

What childish interpretation of corrupt are you using here ?

I think you're lost, my friend...

 

[pugsville]

Proposal, a F/S, Academ player bid matched in the first round can only be matched with first round pts.

If this year first round pick is not available next years pick is used. if that is not enough then the years afters 1st round picks is used for pts, and then the year afters first round pick. If you have traded out next years first round and you don't have enough pts with this years frst round you cannot bid match. (or that year pick is already pts for previous selection)

This will stop clubs trading out first round when they have a selection coming, up. sya you have a guy you pick match who goes number 2 and you have pick 10. Picks is 2517 pts, minus pick 10 pts 1385, that's defect of 1,132 pts or pick 11 in teh following draft whihc wil lbe deduced from their pick next year. Pick for 2 picks 10 and 11.

If the bid comes at say pick 6 and the club has already used r traed their pick 1 then full 1751 pts are deductedform ext year roudn 1 *and they cannot bid match if they have traded next years) and the year after that etc if pts still remain. Night see a trade in late round picks to help bid match but ony round 1 picks which should be a premium.

Rational - if you pick up high end rated talent, you must put up high end talent pts to match it

 

[pugsville]

It was always obvious that the AFL would change the Father/Son rules once non-Victorian sides started to get some benefits from it.

Anyone who can’t see it coming hasn’t been paying attention to the actions of this biased and compromised organisation for the past 25 years.

Only question is whether they’ll be able to find some loophole to make sure the Victorian clubs somehow continue to stock up with gun players from it.

No the reverse is true. The Expansion clubs have alwayss been favored they get academies and father sons. Loop holes are repeated found for clubs in non traditioal states.

Brisbane and Sydney hmm have little trouble attracting talent and retaining it . But they had an zone academy and full acces to father sons.

When will the trainer wells come off?

 

[PeterSalt]

Comes so easily from fan of a club that boast 2 x Daicos and 1 x Moore under the existing system .. ok

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Comes so easily from fan of a club that boast 2 x Daicos and 1 x Moore under the existing system .. ok

Must be no Vic based f/s talent projecting top 10 for the next few years!

Mutineer

Can you confirm?

By vic based - I mean aligned to a vic club

 

[FR0GGY]

Surely they can work on evening up other things that have more effect on the comp?

 

[1970crow]

Are there any proposed alternatives?

Heard some say you have to use a first round pick in matching if the bid comes in the first round etc.

So say next year we have pick 10, we select a player, then a bid on Welsh comes at pick 15 (we have no more first round picks).

Then what? We lose our future first?

Really interested to see this proposed fairer solution.

I know the AFL tends to create more problems with their solutions than they actually solve, but surely it’d be as simple as being required to have a selection in the round that you get the FS in. So if you’ve already used your first on a player (not traded it) then you’re eligible to get a FS in that round with later picks. Otherwise it’d be impossible to match if a player was bid on at 18.

 

[1970crow]

Proposal, a F/S, Academ player bid matched in the first round can only be matched with first round pts.

If this year first round pick is not available next years pick is used. if that is not enough then the years afters 1st round picks is used for pts, and then the year afters first round pick. If you have traded out next years first round and you don't have enough pts with this years frst round you cannot bid match. (or that year pick is already pts for previous selection)

This will stop clubs trading out first round when they have a selection coming, up. sya you have a guy you pick match who goes number 2 and you have pick 10. Picks is 2517 pts, minus pick 10 pts 1385, that's defect of 1,132 pts or pick 11 in teh following draft whihc wil lbe deduced from their pick next year. Pick for 2 picks 10 and 11.

If the bid comes at say pick 6 and the club has already used r traed their pick 1 then full 1751 pts are deductedform ext year roudn 1 *and they cannot bid match if they have traded next years) and the year after that etc if pts still remain. Night see a trade in late round picks to help bid match but ony round 1 picks which should be a premium.

Rational - if you pick up high end rated talent, you must put up high end talent pts to match it

And there’s no reason we can’t backdate it a few years. You guys get your shitty picks back and lose future firsts for Daicos.

 

[Mutineer]

Must be no Vic based f/s talent projecting top 10 for the next few years!

Mutineer

Can you confirm?

By vic based - I mean aligned to a vic club

Levi Ashcroft (Sandringham Dragons) would be right up there but he's tied to Brisbane

Camporeale brothers Lucas and Ben (Carlton), especially Lucas might be in with a shot.

 

[arrowman]

I don't care if they tighten up the rules, but give a couple of seasons notice ffs.

Certainly, looking at it from our point of view, advance notice should be given. For example, suppose we trade our 2024 first rounder this year, because we're planning on taking Welsh under the current rules. Then the rules are changed in 2024, and bingo, we have no 2024 first rounder to use if the rules require that (OK, if the rules allowed us to use our 2025 first rounder instead, then maybe).

I do agree that being able to take a player rated as a first rounder, with 3-4 junk picks, is pretty dodgy.

 

[Jarman3]

I know the AFL tends to create more problems with their solutions than they actually solve, but surely it’d be as simple as being required to have a selection in the round that you get the FS in. So if you’ve already used your first on a player (not traded it) then you’re eligible to get a FS in that round with later picks. Otherwise it’d be impossible to match if a player was bid on at 18.

I think a better way would be just that when a bid comes on your F/S player, the first pick you use to match must be within 1 round (ie currently 18 picks, soon to be 20 with a couple more expansion teams). So if a pick comes at 4 eg Daicos, then Collingwood would have had to match with a pick no later than 22, plus any later picks needed to make up the points instead of a handful in the late 30s and 40s. While a player like Max Michalanney who got a bid at 17 we would have had to match with a pick no later than 35 instead of one in the 40s and a couple in the 50s.

 

[BRL121]

Certainly, looking at it from our point of view, advance notice should be given. For example, suppose we trade our 2024 first rounder this year, because we're planning on taking Welsh under the current rules. Then the rules are changed in 2024, and bingo, we have no 2024 first rounder to use if the rules require that (OK, if the rules allowed us to use our 2025 first rounder instead, then maybe).

I do agree that being able to take a player rated as a first rounder, with 3-4 junk picks, is pretty dodgy.

Why? If the vaunted AFL points system is kosher, then what grounds for dodginess accusation is there?

 

[Maddogmetro]

I do agree that being able to take a player rated as a first rounder, with 3-4 junk picks, is pretty dodgy.

What would be extra dodgy is Victorian clubs being allowed to take advantage of the dodginess for years, but then us being prevented from doing so.

 

[1990crow]

Proposal, a F/S, Academ player bid matched in the first round can only be matched with first round pts.

If this year first round pick is not available next years pick is used. if that is not enough then the years afters 1st round picks is used for pts, and then the year afters first round pick. If you have traded out next years first round and you don't have enough pts with this years frst round you cannot bid match. (or that year pick is already pts for previous selection)

This will stop clubs trading out first round when they have a selection coming, up. sya you have a guy you pick match who goes number 2 and you have pick 10. Picks is 2517 pts, minus pick 10 pts 1385, that's defect of 1,132 pts or pick 11 in teh following draft whihc wil lbe deduced from their pick next year. Pick for 2 picks 10 and 11.

If the bid comes at say pick 6 and the club has already used r traed their pick 1 then full 1751 pts are deductedform ext year roudn 1 *and they cannot bid match if they have traded next years) and the year after that etc if pts still remain. Night see a trade in late round picks to help bid match but ony round 1 picks which should be a premium.

Rational - if you pick up high end rated talent, you must put up high end talent pts to match it

How convenient this all now applies after Collingwood gets their Daicos brothers on the cheap, Bulldogs get Sam Darcy etc.

 

[1990crow]

No the reverse is true. The Expansion clubs have alwayss been favored they get academies and father sons. Loop holes are repeated found for clubs in non traditioal states.

Brisbane and Sydney hmm have little trouble attracting talent and retaining it . But they had an zone academy and full acces to father sons.

When will the trainer wells come off?

What zone does has Adelaide had in the past 30 years?
Why was Adelaide required to have sanfl players play 250 games when they joined?
What academy has Adelaide had?

Do you know see why our fans would see this as unfair?

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

No the reverse is true. The Expansion clubs have alwayss been favored they get academies and father sons. Loop holes are repeated found for clubs in non traditioal states.

Brisbane and Sydney hmm have little trouble attracting talent and retaining it . But they had an zone academy and full acces to father sons.

When will the trainer wells come off?

Still waiting for the crows to come out on the good side of any AFL policy or ruling. It’s been 32 years now.

How many father son selections have the Pies had in the last 20 odd years?

 

[Peter Doherty]

Still waiting for the crows to come out on the good side of any AFL policy or ruling. It’s been 32 years now.

Max Michalanney.

 

[Rankine2Thilthorpe]

Max Michalanney.

That’s one.