Could it be the draft order is wrong (back to front) ?

[Pessimistic]

I'm taking the criticism on board BUT

relating it to current premiership teams (assembled under tha old system) and then saying youd 'top up' with naatnui is not a true criticism.

The whole teams would be different if built using a different system

 

[PAFC_1870]

Dumbest thread in a while.

 

[calyam]

My idea is better but no less crazy.

Draft picks awarded in order of how long it's been since the club last won the flag. Teams who haven't won the flag are put in at year of entry to the comp.

Thus, current draft order:

1 - Bulldogs
2 - Melbourne
3 - St Kilda
4 - Richmond
5 - Carlton
6 - Fremantle
7 - Adelaide
8 - North
9 - Essendon
10 - Brisbane
11 - Port
12 - West Coast
13 - Hawthorn
14 - Collingwood
15 - Gold Coast
16 - Geelong
17 - GWS
18 - Sydney

No possible way for teams to tank. When a team wins the flag they drop to last spot. Picks resume normal ladder order from 2nd round. No compo.

I prefer the softer 'last time a team made the finals' ordering myself.

 

[LeverPuller]

I prefer the softer 'last time a team made the finals' ordering myself.

Problem with that one is that it can get tough. What happens if both teams lose the prelim, for example?

 

[calyam]

Problem with that one is that it can get tough. What happens if both teams lose the prelim, for example?

Well for the teams who make the finals you simply order then in terms of where they end up finishing. For the two preliminary final losers they are ranked in terms of who finished higher on the ladder. For example, this season Adelaide finished third because they finished higher on the ladder and Collingwood finished fourth.

 

[Lensen]

T should be a fixed order. You get draft picks in the following order
1
18
2
17
3
16
...
9
10

Put a team a against each h number and that is the draft for year 1. Then each team shifts down one spot the next year. So this year's #1 is next years #18 etc

Eliminates tanking immediately and over time gives an equal opportunity to access talent

 

[Thewlis Dish]

Still think the best way would be a draft lottery similar to that of the NBA.

All teams that miss the finals go into the lottery. Say 18th gets 1000 chances, 17th gets 900, 16th gets 800 etc, all the way down to 9th, who get 100. This lottery is just for the top three picks, and after that it's normal reverse order. So the wooden spooners pick 4th at worst.

Teams who make the eight pick in order as it is now. It's not going to eliminate tanking entirely, as there's an advantage to finishing lower, but not a guaranteed advantage. Only big issue I could see is it would be far more beneficial (potentially) to finish 9th than 8th, given you're likely not going to have a chance at a flag anyway.

 

[coryne]

If there was going to be a Lottery system set up I would want it to be a "rolling lottery" where 4 teams are able to get any one pick, and each side has a single "ball". So for pick #1 teams which finished 18th, 17th, 16th and 15th are entered into a draw with an equal chance of getting the #1 pick. The draw is done, and the "ball" which is selected is replaced with one for the next team (14th) for the #2 pick. You could have it so any one team can slide no further than 4 places down the draft so teams which finished lower down the ladder still get a quality pick.

 

[josh the gent]

My idea is better but no less crazy.

Draft picks awarded in order of how long it's been since the club last won the flag. Teams who haven't won the flag are put in at year of entry to the comp.

Thus, current draft order:

1 - Bulldogs
2 - Melbourne
3 - St Kilda
4 - Richmond
5 - Carlton
6 - Fremantle
7 - Adelaide
8 - North
9 - Essendon
10 - Brisbane
11 - Port
12 - West Coast
13 - Hawthorn
14 - Collingwood
15 - Gold Coast
16 - Geelong
17 - GWS
18 - Sydney

No possible way for teams to tank. When a team wins the flag they drop to last spot. Picks resume normal ladder order from 2nd round. No compo.

We would have had pick 1 since 2005. Me likey.

@ the OP - I actually don't see too much wrong with the current system. Isn't the stat that all teams (excl. GC and GWS) have played in at least 1 Prelim since 2001?

 

[telsor]

The OPs idea might work if there was no player loyalty and at the end of their contract, all players are, in effect, up for auction.

If there was going to be a Lottery system set up I would want it to be a "rolling lottery" where 4 teams are able to get any one pick, and each side has a single "ball". So for pick #1 teams which finished 18th, 17th, 16th and 15th are entered into a draw with an equal chance of getting the #1 pick. The draw is done, and the "ball" which is selected is replaced with one for the next team (14th) for the #2 pick. You could have it so any one team can slide no further than 4 places down the draft so teams which finished lower down the ladder still get a quality pick.

I'd weight it, but yes...for the first round.

For for 1st pick.
18th - 4 balls
17th - 3 balls
16th - 2 balls
15th - 1 ball

Then after the 1st pick, the winner drops out, a new team comes in and all teams get 1 more ball.

So if 16th won, for pick 2 you'd have...

18th - 5 balls
17th - 4 balls
15th - 2 balls
14th - 1 ball

So so on through the rounds.

In theory, 18th could get the last pick, but the odds are very slim.

 

[Cat Addict]

With regards to highest teams getting the highest picks, I am not sure this would be 100% the best for there development. Generally the higher picks are the more ready made players, and are ready to go from round one the next year (obviously not always true with talls). The problem is the stronger teams don't always have walk up starts in there best 22, and might be starved of opportunity / development, where as the lesser teams have space avaiable but might be getting more project talent (lower first round) they might be a year or two away from senior action, and with there "poorer development methods" as you put it would be even further away from playing. Where as if they went to a higher club, they can develop these player that need it and have time to "make room" in there best 22 in coming seasons when they are ready.

So you could argue that the higher picks that need less hands on development and just pure game time to develop, and lower picks going to the teams that have the better development in place is better all round for the game as you get more player to a higher level, instead of 6-10 absolute guns and then nothing.

 

[coryne]

The OPs idea might work if there was no player loyalty and at the end of their contract, all players are, in effect, up for auction.





I'd weight it, but yes...for the first round.

For for 1st pick.
18th - 4 balls
17th - 3 balls
16th - 2 balls
15th - 1 ball

Then after the 1st pick, the winner drops out, a new team comes in and all teams get 1 more ball.

So if 16th won, for pick 2 you'd have...

18th - 5 balls
17th - 4 balls
15th - 2 balls
14th - 1 ball

So so on through the rounds.

In theory, 18th could get the last pick, but the odds are very slim.

I say leave it at 1 ball each. That way you have no extra incentive between finishing 18th and 15th (eg no extra balls). Sure there is an incentive to finish 15th instead of 14th (eg a crack at #1) but no system will be perfect (eg it would just be cruel if a player which finished 18th recieved a pick out of the top 10, which is why I would make it so no team can drop 4 spots further down the ladder than they otherwise would be)

 

[Jack_the_Ninja]

The answer is zoning, if your club doesn't develop its region well enough then you fail to succeed. This way grass roots footy benefits and kids get to play for the team they barracked for as a kid and not get shuffled off to bum****sville to play for a pack of perennial loosers. If a kid gets overlooked and goes to another club then transfer fee applies.

 

[coryne]

The answer is zoning, if your club doesn't develop its region well enough then you fail to succeed. This way grass roots footy benefits and kids get to play for the team they barracked for as a kid and not get shuffled off to bum****sville to play for a pack of perennial loosers. If a kid gets overlooked and goes to another club then transfer fee applies.

Great idea from a WA club supporter. 1 major AFL state, 2 teams, the WA teams would raffle off the premiership every year ................

 

[telsor]

Great idea from a WA club supporter. 1 major AFL state, 2 teams, the WA teams would raffle off the premiership every year ................

Broadly, yes, that's the problem with zoning...zones can never be equal.

Even if you do get it right to start with, do you adjust the zones every census? Or every time studies are done on kids playing the game?

 

[Barry_Badrinath]

Imagine in 2001 if Brisbane got the chance to add Hodge or Judd to their team....
And then next year they added Goddard.....
And next year they added Cooney......

They probably would've won the flag again in 2004 if all this happened and then they'd get their pick of Deledio/Roughead/Griffen/Franklin.

Could you imagine the recent Geelong line up with 5 of Cotchin/Kreuzer, Natainui, Scully/Martin, Bennell/Gaff, Patton/Coniglio added to it? There would be no decline. They'd just keep on dominating forever.

 

[Agent93]

Great idea from a WA club supporter. 1 major AFL state, 2 teams, the WA teams would raffle off the premiership every year ................

He's not the only one who's thrown the zoning idea around. Many Melbourne fans were doing the same in the tanking thread of not long ago.

It's a stupid idea though.

 

[mayhem20202]

He's not the only one who's thrown the zoning idea around. Many Melbourne fans were doing the same in the tanking thread of not long ago.

It's a stupid idea though.

It sure is

 

[Kayaz]

We reallllllly should just do a lottery like the NBA does, imagine the interest it would create, and you could have it some what performance based like they do, so if you finish last you have 25% chance to get the first pick 20% chance for the 2nd last placed team etc etc...

Edit: should of read the 2nd and 3rd pages.

 

[iameviljez]

The answer is zoning, if your club doesn't develop its region well enough then you fail to succeed. This way grass roots footy benefits and kids get to play for the team they barracked for as a kid and not get shuffled off to bum****sville to play for a pack of perennial loosers. If a kid gets overlooked and goes to another club then transfer fee applies.

It is a good idea in theory - much like, for example, the way in which soccer teams develop their young talent - but zoning was used from the 60s till the 80s and the net effect was that between '67 (Richmond) and '89 (Hawthorn), only 5 teams won flags (Essendon, Richmond, North, Carlton, and Hawthorn). The zones were hard to allocate and above all it would be extremely inequitable to implement in a modern, nationwide competition. Adelaide, Port Adelaide, West Coast and Fremantle would benefit immensely; you'd hate to be Brisbane or Sydney.

Say what you will about the National Draft; it has worked in terms of giving every club a legitimate shot at a flag. Clubs without a historically strong supporter or financial base such as the Dogs, Saints, Port, Sydney, Brisbane and North have all had a crack at success in the last decade and a half and the game is much better off for it.

 

[iameviljez]

Could you imagine the recent Geelong line up with 5 of Cotchin/Kreuzer, Natainui, Scully/Martin, Bennell/Gaff, Patton/Coniglio added to it? There would be no decline. They'd just keep on dominating forever.

Yes, I could imagine this. I'm just nipping off to the mens' room now. Won't be a few minutes.

 

[iameviljez]

T should be a fixed order. You get draft picks in the following order
1
18
2
17
3
16
...
9
10

Put a team a against each h number and that is the draft for year 1. Then each team shifts down one spot the next year. So this year's #1 is next years #18 etc

Eliminates tanking immediately and over time gives an equal opportunity to access talent

I have always wanted this system. Finish down the bottom when it's your turn for pick 18? Bad luck.

 

[strobe00]

We reallllllly should just do a lottery like the NBA does, imagine the interest it would create, and you could have it some what performance based like they do, so if you finish last you have 25% chance to get the first pick 20% chance for the 2nd last placed team etc etc...

Edit: should of read the 2nd and 3rd pages.

I'd only see a point in raffling picks 1, 2 and 3. Any further than that is pointless really.

The only reason to raffle is to prevent tanking for the top pick. Mix up the top three, and the three crappiest teams in the league still get the three best picks, but a team can't guarantee that they'll pick up the best player.

 

[Faz 2000]

What about some sort of system where the draft picks are awarded based on the finishing order from the previous season, with the lowest teams getting the highest picks and the higher teams getting lower picks?

It would sort of help weaker teams get better, promote evenness in the comp, and ensure all teams have the opportunity to refresh their list every year.

It's sort of like... all functioning draft systems in the world of sports.

 

[Jack_the_Ninja]

What about some sort of system where the draft picks are awarded based on the finishing order from the previous season, with the lowest teams getting the highest picks and the higher teams getting lower picks?

It would sort of help weaker teams get better, promote evenness in the comp, and ensure all teams have the opportunity to refresh their list every year.

It's sort of like... all functioning draft systems in the world of sports.

You forgot the bit about brown paper bags.