St Kilda President Andrew Bassat tees off on the AFL draft system, specifically father/son and the Northern Academies

[Toump Ass]

we haven't had any father sons until now, say hi to jack for me you pelican

The audacity to call me a pelican while not even knowing one of your greatest ever players in Johnathan Brown is a father-son selection.

Congratulations on outing yourself as a bandwagon-jumping moron lmao.

 

[caloschwaby]

No, because more successful clubs are more likely to have 100 gamers. See the stats I posted up the thread. So that entrenches generational inequality.

Frankly, that is nobody's issues except for St Kilda. Even the list you produce there bares little correlation to that fact. Melbourne don't strike me as the pinnacle of success in any period after the 60s despite the odd GF here and there, and yet there they are at the top of the board.

Except that richer clubs have more money to run these sorts of events, whereas shoestring clubs like the Saints and Kangas might not be able to spare the cash for it. So again that entrenches generational inequality.

Again, that just a personal club issue. Not enough money to run what's essentially a glorified Auskick session at Moorabbin/Arden St? Looks like there are bigger issues internally than worrying about F/S system.

I mean, it's fine, if you don't believe in equalisation and think we should move towards an EPL-style "cash buys flags" system then that's a perfectly valid belief. But just say that. Believing in equalisation and also father-son should produce cognitive dissonance because they're exactly at odds with each other.

Complete strawman lol. F/S is a move towards an EPL-style "cash buys flags" - despite F/S not involving cash and the EPL not possessing a F/S selection system?

Also equalisation. St Kilda have been prime benefactors of "equalisation" having access to the best parts of the draft for the better part of a decade, on top of that the league giving literal free picks to GC and North for being cellar dwellers. Cash can't buy flags, but just having slightly above-average list management over any period of time really helps.

"Equalisation" is literally less equal than any element of the F/S system by definition - it is not random, it is biased toward teams that are worse (by design) and at the best of times the league can sprinkle some magic beans to teams in need like a benevolent god.

Nobody restricted the amount of 100-game players St Kilda have had, nobody manipulated St Kilda fathers to not have as many sons. Nobody has done anything to "keep" St Kilda out of this system.

 

[Nvent]

Jed Walter and Ethan Read have no right to be at the GC. Am I doing this right?

Given that JUH was basically a once off then the league realized they gifted the WB the number one pick its not close.

 

[Rotayjay]

Yet there's been 9 different premiers (half the comp) in the past 12 years.

All fans should have hope their club can win a flag if their club is run properly.

I think equalisation isn't doing too badly (and we certainly had our chance in 2017), but I also don't think the academies have had their full effect yet. If clubs keep getting access to players cheaply, the effecr will be cumulative.

Same goes for increased player power and increased player movement. The scales are tipped too far in favour of already-successful clubs and equalisation is under threat, not dead.

 

[Toump Ass]

Cash can't buy flags.

It really does help win them though.

 

[Sentinel]

Bassat (perhaps inadvertently) tying father-sons into his argument as part of the disadvantages of smaller clubs is a huge red herring, but I don't disagree with his broader point.

It's impossible to argue that father-sons and all academies don't distort the fairness of the draft, particularly with the points discount added on top to allow clubs (mine included) cheap access to top talent that they wouldn't otherwise have. I don't think this is a big club/small club thing at all though. It is however further exacerbated by free agency and the trade period (both of which are a big club/small club thing) with the pull of big clubs playing in front of big crowds compared to smaller clubs like St Kilda playing Sunday twilight in front of 15k at Marvel.

If F-S, academies and free agency are going to exist, which is fine if we want to look at other elements and accept the draft needs to be somewhat compromised as a result, as Bassat says then clubs at the very least should be made to pay a fair price. How they can achieve that is hard to say but the current system for both bid matching and free agency compensation is ridiculous.

It's disingenuous to say clubs give up absolutely nothing to match top picks, but with the current points system they definitely come with a heavy discount on top of the 20% (soon to be 10%) discount already handed to them by the AFL, and clubs finishing towards the bottom of the ladder who don't have access to these players are punished disproportionately.

 

[bergholt]

Frankly, that is nobody's issues except for St Kilda. Even the list you produce there bares little correlation to that fact. Melbourne don't strike me as the pinnacle of success in any period after the 60s despite the odd GF here and there, and yet there they are at the top of the board.

Yeah, it's obviously not going to be perfectly correlated, although Melbourne were up around the mark through the late 80s early 90s, the Stynes + Healy + Wilson + Lovett days.

Again, that just a personal club issue. Not enough money to run what's essentially a glorified Auskick session at Moorabbin/Arden St? Looks like there are bigger issues internally than worrying about F/S system.

I mean, this is exactly my point. You either say "you've been historically unsuccessful so you're doomed to the same going forward", or you say "it matters that every club gets a fair shot at a successful period every ten years or so". If you don't believe historically unsuccessful clubs should have a shot in the future then that's fine, it's not wrong to believe that. But if you believe everyone should have a chance at a shot then a level playing field is the only way to achieve that.

Complete strawman lol. F/S is a move towards an EPL-style "cash buys flags" - despite F/S not involving cash and the EPL not possessing a F/S selection system?

Whether or not it's specifically cash makes no difference, it's just a physical manifestation of power. There's no fundamental reason that Man U + Arsenal + Liverpool + Man C + Chelsea should be the big 5 clubs except that they were run well enough over a long period of time, and got lucky enough over that time, to be the biggest.

But in their system, there's no way for anyone else to challenge that without just putting in a huge amount of cash (which Abramovich did to bring Chelsea back up and Abu Dhabi did for Man City). Leicester can pop up and win a lucky title but then still get relegated a few years later. The cartel at the top never really changes.


The same would clearly be true in the AFL without equalisation. Instead, we have a salary cap and a draft.

The salary cap is mildly effective at keeping teams solvent but does minimal amounts for equalisation - very few players leave a good club for more money at a poor club.

The draft is ok for equalisation. But the team that finishes bottom gets one great pick (call it "priority"), and then every other pick they get is one worse than the pick the premiers get. Because aussie rules is a team game, only maybe two #1 picks ever have been good enough to really change the fortunes of their clubs: Hodge and Riewoldt. Harley should probably be the same. That's not many in 40 #1 picks over the years.

And then the draft's equalisation measures are diluted by father-son and academies. At various times priority picks have been given, and I think they should still exist because they were the most effective measure ever seen for equalisation. More shots at a great player is more likely to actually change the fortunes of a club. And currently free agency compo picks are given, and they're ok for equalisation.

If we want a competition with equalisation, we should have a level playing field.

Also equalisation. St Kilda have been prime benefactors of "equalisation" having access to the best parts of the draft for the better part of a decade, on top of that the league giving literal free picks to GC and North for being cellar dwellers. Cash can't buy flags, but having slightly above-average list management over any period of time really helps.

I don't think anyone's arguing against any of this? But also it wouldn't be surprising if richer clubs could afford better list managers, would it?

 

[bergholt]

Nobody restricted the amount of 100-game players St Kilda have had, nobody manipulated St Kilda fathers to not have as many sons. Nobody has done anything to "keep" St Kilda out of this system.

Right, it's not biased, it's just completely random, which by definition will lead to unfair results. I thought we already discussed that?

So if you believe in equalisation, why not remove that source of guaranteed unfair results, and just have an open draft for all players regardless of who their fathers are?

 

[Elixuh]

It's easy to attack a clubs drafting that hasn't had the luxury of buying in players such as Daniher, Dunkley and Neale. Then to be handed a Ashcroft.

Seems he has a very valid point.

I'm not attacking St Kilda. Brisbane had the same issues. We fixed out back office and coaching, went to the draft in successive years with a strategy to build a nucleus of a team. Once that was done, THEN we could sell a message to bring in players like Daniher, Dunkley and Neale. You think players of that ilk would come to a basketcase? It is why St Kilda can't attract any talent.

 

[WeeBlake]

Didn’t he say the system was unfair? How is it unfair if everybody operates under the same system?

What he’s actually saying is it needs to change because it’s not currently benefiting the Saints.

Apartheid was fair then I guess

 

[bergholt]

I'm not attacking St Kilda. Brisbane had the same issues. We fixed out back office and coaching, went to the draft in successive years with a strategy to build a nucleus of a team. Once that was done, THEN we could sell a message to bring in players ilk Daniher, Dunkley and Neale. You think players of that ilk would come to a basketcase? It is why St Kilda can't attract any talent.

Completely agree, which is why the Saints (and other small Melbourne clubs) need the playing field to be as level as possible outside that. There's enough unfairness already in historical inequities, no need to have more with father-son and similar.

 

[joe444]

1. It's the points which annoy me. Completely inscrutable.
2. Academies annoy me second because they should be run by the league for the overall good of the game, not to harvest talent for particular teams.
3. If you win the flag, you've achieved the ultimate, so I'd happily accept a system which denied them access to a first round and academy picks for the subsequent draft.

 

[The Jack]

Right, it's not biased, it's just completely random, which by definition will lead to unfair results. I thought we already discussed that?

It's really not that hard to understand is it? Add the absurd discount given, on top of the already random good fortune, and the system is an absolute mess.

 

[Elixuh]

Equalisation doesn't mean every club has to be up at the same time. It's zero sum so that's impossible. It means everyone has approximately equal chance to get there.



Bassat acknowledged historical incompetence in his speech. You don't have to remind Saints fans of that, we can enumerate the **** ups in far more detail than you can.

But is your argument that if you ****ed up historically then you should never be allowed to be successful? The only ask here is for a level playing field.

I understand what equalisation means. This competition is never going to be equal, especially with half the comp residing in the same city. St Kilda fans weren't in tears when they were benefiting from the Brisbane players wanting to come back to Victoria a decade ago. I remember Saints fans telling us that they were bending us over a barrel giving us a second rounder for a top10 ruck and that there was nothing we could do because the players wanted to come home. It is very St Kilda though that the one you took was the spud.

I think the points your president is making would hold much more weight if St Kilda wasn't such a basketcase in every area, including having a poor list due to terrible drafting and trading.

Did he go through the Saints strategy of how they're going to get out of this rather than just complaining? My worry with the Saints is that you need to hit the draft but by the time those players are ready your current A graders like Sinclair and Steele will be done. They're both 30 next year. The Saints have a really odd list profile and a lack of genuine talent coming through across all the lines.

 

[Nvent]

I'm not attacking St Kilda. Brisbane had the same issues. We fixed out back office and coaching, went to the draft in successive years with a strategy to build a nucleus of a team. Once that was done, THEN we could sell a message to bring in players ilk Daniher, Dunkley and Neale. You think players of that ilk would come to a basketcase? It is why St Kilda can't attract any talent.

StKilda are in the mix with Collingwood Carlton Richmond etc for players. Brisbane are contending with GC.

 

[Elixuh]

Completely agree, which is why the Saints (and other small Melbourne clubs) need the playing field to be as level as possible outside that. There's enough unfairness already in historical inequities, no need to have more with father-son and similar.

The father/son rule isn't unequal. Every single club in the comp (more or less) has the same access. In fact it should tend in FAVOUR of clubs who have been in the league for a long time like St Kilda. The only clubs who could reasonably complain about its inequality is GCS and GWS.

The outcome may seem to create inequality but it is based on pure luck.

I've always been for the father/son rule, even before the Ashcrofts were on the radar. It sucked that Collingwood won the flag off the back of getting Daicos, but I'm OK with the concept of the rule.

 

[Bont the Lord]

Given that JUH was basically a once off then the league realized they gifted the WB the number one pick its not close.

So you're fine with pick 3 and 9? Sounds fair!

 

[Elixuh]

StKilda are in the mix with Collingwood Carlton Richmond etc for players. Brisbane are contending with GC.

Player movement isn't all geography based. But in any event it goes back to my other point that there are too many teams in Melbourne.

 

[Sully111]

The father/son rule isn't unequal. Every single club in the comp (more or less) has the same access. In fact it should tend in FAVOUR of clubs who have been in the league for a long time like St Kilda. The only clubs who could reasonably complain about its inequality is GCS and GWS.

The outcome may seem to create inequality but it is based on pure luck.

"pure luck" isn't the way to run a national sport.

What a ridiculous argument.

FMD

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Have you ever explained the father son rule to an epl or nba fan?

In my experience, they see it as laughable and can’t comprehend how such a rule exists in a professional sport.

It's staggering.

It's staggering laughable in isolation - but when you add to it the fact that the AFL introduced a Draft and salary cap to ensure equalisation, it becomes beyond the realms of imagination how utterly stupid it is.


It's like equalisation is critical to the integrity of the game.....except when some bloke happens to father a child that happens to be a boy - then suddenly equalisation isn't that important at all.

 

[Nvent]

Player movement isn't all geography based. But in any event it goes back to my other point that there are too many teams in Melbourne.

It's not but its a point of difference and a reason to move clubs. Look at Geelong they've got Danger, Jeremy Cameron and Henry of late purely for location.

 

[Elixuh]

"pure luck" isn't the way to run a national sport.

What a ridiculous argument.

FMD

I agree with the sentiment that there is something to celebrate in sons and daughters of past players being able to play for their parents' club. So I'm a proponent of the rule.

St Kilda's issue is that it is one of the smallest and commercially irrelevant clubs in a saturated market. The consequence of that is if they muck up drafts and trades etc it sets them back much more than it would a Collingwood. Collingwood completely botched its salary cap management a few seasons ago but managed to easily get out of it and then won a flag, because they're one of the biggest clubs. I guarantee if that was St Kilda it sets you back 5+ years.

 

[SeaOfFire]

"pure luck" isn't the way to run a national sport.

What a ridiculous argument.

FMD

Let's just have a round ball then ?

 

[Lingsface]

But no one has got as much money from the AFL as St Kilda. Father son is equal chance lottery, sorry your players have had girls or not very good footballing boys.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Player movement isn't all geography based. But in any event it goes back to my other point that there are too many teams in Melbourne.

I hate the Vic centric culture around footy.

But....If Brisbane need father-son and academy picks to remain competitive, and if they need to remain constantly competitive to be solvent in terms of crowds and interest - how can there be a case to have less clubs in Victoria?

Where would the clubs go if not remaining in Victoria?

Where could they prosper?