Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild

[Sphynx]

Poor post mate and not required.

The game is for the better when we have 18 strong clubs.

Par for the course in here, the cheap shot is the easy response.

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

and eliminate three Melbourne teams.

This will end well.

 

[BloodySwan]

I don't have an issue with the acadamies existance to generate talent.

I have an issue with the way you can double up on top end talent, how you can bid on players with garbage picks and how you can continually harvest top 20 prospects.

You can keep any top 20+ prospect as far as I'm concerned.

The AFL introduced a rule to prohibit clubs from hoarding garbage picks, you can only use so many picks as you have open spaces. They only changed this last year due to the reduction in list sizes. Feel like it was a cop out though due to how many NGA prospects there were in the last draft

Points do need to be reassessed. The AFL originally said it would and it's surprising that they haven't done so. I'd be all for removing the discount but don't agree with an arbitrary cut off at pick 20 for any matching (including the NGA).

Make NGA requirements as hard as the academies. Players need to be in the system for a number of year, make it harder to match but no point in cutting them when the player actually develops. Counter productive IMO. Just because a player goes pick 1 doesn't mean they will ever develop - plenty of failed top 10 picks to show it's still a gamble.

Most importantly - if you don't have an issue with the academies why is every argument you make against them? Focus on the points and not the kids

 

[Elton Johns Wig]

If I were a Swans fan, I wouldn't want to give an inch either. Expecting them to move on the issue is wasting your breath. Save your time and your brain and go to a thread where discussion will get somewhere.

 

[chickentendies]

Academies so far have been disgustingly unfair and led to a complete dominance by the NSW clubs. I’m sick of the 0 flags they’ve won.
Let’s compromise and just give them the GF in NSW every year instead.

 

[Sphynx]

The AFL introduced a rule to prohibit clubs from hoarding garbage picks, you can only use so many picks as you have open spaces. They only changed this last year due to the reduction in list sizes. Feel like it was a cop out though due to how many NGA prospects there were in the last draft

Points do need to be reassessed. The AFL originally said it would and it's surprising that they haven't done so. I'd be all for removing the discount but don't agree with an arbitrary cut off at pick 20 for any matching (including the NGA).

Make NGA requirements as hard as the academies. Players need to be in the system for a number of year, make it harder to match but no point in cutting them when the player actually develops. Counter productive IMO. Just because a player goes pick 1 doesn't mean they will ever develop - plenty of failed top 10 picks to show it's still a gamble.

Most importantly - if you don't have an issue with the academies why is every argument you make against them? Focus on the points and not the kids

Why do you appose the arbitrary cut off?

The NGA prequalification requirements already match the requirements of the Academies. You already need to be in them for a number of years to qualify for the draft. If you are referring to the likes of Thomas, it's because that was right at it's inception, it does not represent the current requirements.


There should be absolutely no scenario where a team is able to advance in the draft order automatically to take a player.

It completely destroys the equality of the draft.

This occurs in no other draft system in the world.

 

[BloodySwan]

If I were a Swans fan, I wouldn't want to give an inch either. Expecting them to move on the issue is wasting your breath. Save your time and your brain and go to a thread where discussion will get somewhere.

I think this thread has shown how little brains run through bigfooty.

 

[SM]

Sounds like a great idea, let's do that. After all it's about local talent development.

Absolutely. And no clubs would have issues with GWS and Swans pooling resources, after all then we wouldn't need two sets of coaches etc. would be cheaper for the two clubs to run.

 

[SM]

Par for the course in here, the cheap shot is the easy response.

Haven't you done nothing but take cheap shots at me throughout this thread?

 

[Sphynx]

If I were a Swans fan, I wouldn't want to give an inch either. Expecting them to move on the issue is wasting your breath. Save your time and your brain and go to a thread where discussion will get somewhere.

When the NGA bidding rules were changed in the offseason and the Academy rules left untouched. I think the AFL is of the same opinion as the Swans fans.

 

[SM]

If I were a Swans fan, I wouldn't want to give an inch either. Expecting them to move on the issue is wasting your breath. Save your time and your brain and go to a thread where discussion will get somewhere.

Most Swans fans have been more than willing to give more than an inch through this discussion..

 

[Sphynx]

Haven't you done nothing but take cheap shots at me throughout this thread?

I don't think sphynx understands what an Academy actually is.

 

[SM]

.

That was a genuine comment because you were trying to compare a scholarship program awarded to individual athletes to an Academy that would service hundreds if not thousands of athletes.

But if your best response is "Well you are too!!" keep in mind you were the one who made the remark about cheap shots, not me.

 

[BloodySwan]

Why do you appose the arbitrary cut off?

The NGA prequalification requirements already match the requirements of the Academies. You already need to be in them for a number of years to qualify for the draft. If you are referring to the likes of Thomas, it's because that was right at it's inception.


There should be absolutely no scenario where a team is able to advance in the draft order automatically to take a player.

It completely destroys the equality of the draft.

This occurs in no other draft system in the world.

When the club needs to trade away for points so they can match a pick they're not just automatically advancing. Swans needed to trade Aliir away to be able to match Campbell last year. So it took a bottom 4 finish & trading away an established player to match the Campbell bid.

Now I agree, that's pretty light but the answer shouldn't be to just have Swans not get any chance to match at all. Remove the discount and increase the points at the pointy end and the Swans would have needed to trade away more than just 1 established player to match Campbell. Would have meant we didn't have enough to match for Gulden and he'd be at Geelong right now

 

[Sphynx]

That was a genuine comment because you were trying to compare a scholarship program awarded to individual athletes to an Academy that would service hundreds if not thousands of athletes.

But if your best response is "Well you are too!!" keep in mind you were the one who made the remark about cheap shots, not me.

I understand their fundamental differences. Thanks mate.

I was comparing their respective outputs given the continual trashing of the program, as being mismanaged and poorly run with few outcomes by Northern clubs as a way of justifying the harvesting of the entire talent pool of NSW.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

This will end well.

I hope so!

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You realise NGA academies don't have the ability to annex the entire talent pool like the Northern academies?

You realise the AFL didn't change the entire talent pathway of the state junior football system, abolish the state sides and replace them with the Northern academies to funnel every representative footballer in the state into them?


That's what the NAB League, the SANFL u/19's and the WAFL u/19's are there to function as.

The AFL even went as far as the nationalise the NAB League and the VFL to improve the pathway for your academies.

Anything else the rest of the comp can do for you and accommodate you?

AFL Victoria and the suburban mum and dads fund the development pathway of the NAB League for the betterment of the entire AFL competition.


Every single able body footballer has no other pathway into the AFL system in NSW other than via the Sydney or GWS academy. Unless they move to a Victorian boarding school and play NAB League and are thus developed by AFL Victoria but still remain eligible for Academy selection (another fantastic loophole for the academy system)

You realise all of the Victorian clubs had access to NSW talent via the NSW Scholarship scheme and completely ballsed it up?

 

[Sphynx]

When the club needs to trade away for points so they can match a pick they're not just automatically advancing. Swans needed to trade Aliir away to be able to match Campbell last year. So it took a bottom 4 finish & trading away an established player to match the Campbell bid.

Now I agree, that's pretty light but the answer shouldn't be to just have Swans not get any chance to match at all. Remove the discount and increase the points at the pointy end and the Swans would have needed to trade away more than just 1 established player to match Campbell. Would have meant we didn't have enough to match for Gulden and he'd be at Geelong right now

Nope.

There should be absolutely no scenario in which a club can manufacture another top 5 pick, other than trading for said pick.

There shouldn't be any scenario in which a club can manufacturer another first round pick, other than trading for said pick.

Each club gets awarded one of these selection for an entire season of bad performances.


It's akin to being awarded a priority pick without earning it.

 

[Sphynx]

You realise all of the Victorian clubs had access to NSW talent via the NSW Scholarship scheme and completely ballsed it up?

Did they balls it up?

Tell me how?

I know they invested in a whole heap of kids that probably didn't deserve to be drafted at the time and gave them 1 to 2 seasons at AFL level of development.

It didn't work for all of them, but the strike rate was decent given the exposure and the opportunity they had for each kid. Remembering the total amount allowed each year was what, 30 to 40 kids in total across the entire comp? And the earliest opportunity they were allowed to access them was 17 years of age?

Now, give those clubs 3,000 kids I'm sure the results would have been different.

 

[BloodySwan]

Nope.

There should absolutely no scenario in which a club can manufacture another top 5 pick, other than trading for said pick.

There shouldn't be any scenario in which a club can manufacturer another first round pick, other than trading for said pick.

Each club gets awarded one of these selection for an entire season of bad performances.


It's akin to being awarded a priority pick without earning it.

Then you remove any incentive from the Swans to develop players. They get too good? Can't access them, so instead of the Academies having hundreds of kids go through them every year it becomes a mechanism for the Swans to target a couple prospect rucks at the end of each draft.

 

[Elixuh]

How about the academy players are able to be picked up by any of the clubs in that state and when one of them is bid on both those clubs are required to submit their points to buy them like an auction?

No discounts, priority access to local talent is enough. Imagine if the Eagles and Dockers were able to veto another club picking a WA player in the draft to pick them up themselves instead, with a discount - the ability to access the player without having to call their name is value enough. I'd argue it's the highest value.

But where is the incentive to pour money into development from grass roots if you have to enter and auction and pay more than the player is worth to draft them?

If Sydney develop a player from the age of 10 and he is a solid 2nd round pick and is bid on at say 24 but then they have to enter an auction with another club who has not committed any resources towards this person and have to in effect spend a first round worth of points on him - why would anyone bother when the hit rate re just getting an academy player onto a list is less than 0.5%.

Surely if having access is such a big benefit then all clubs would be happy to set up their own academies in NSW and Qld? Yet no one wants to do it. Why do you think that is?

There is a reason why Eddie was always asking for academies to be wound up and never asking for Collingwood to have access.

 

[Sphynx]

Then you remove any incentive from the Swans to develop players. They get too good? Can't access them, so instead of the Academies having hundreds of kids go through them every year it becomes a mechanism for the Swans to target a couple prospect rucks at the end of each draft.

So you admit your only incentive is to double up on players?

I'm not saying you can't still draft these kids, you can, if you have a pick high enough.


In that system, Sydney would have still walked away from 2020 with Braeden Campbell and Errol Gulden.


Gulden's bid would have been matched in the second round.

Sydney would have drafted Campbell with Pick #4.


Sorry, how is the above scenario unfair?

Why was Aliir Aliir worth Logan McDonald?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Why do you appose the arbitrary cut off?

The NGA prequalification requirements already match the requirements of the Academies. You already need to be in them for a number of years to qualify for the draft. If you are referring to the likes of Thomas, it's because that was right at it's inception, it does not represent the current requirements.


There should be absolutely no scenario where a team is able to advance in the draft order automatically to take a player.

It completely destroys the equality of the draft.

This occurs in no other draft system in the world.

Why does it seem to be only the draft that should have integrity?

 

[boncer34]

But where is the incentive to pour money into development from grass roots if you have to enter and auction and pay more than the player is worth to draft them?

If Sydney develop a player from the age of 10 and he is a solid 2nd round pick and is bid on at say 24 but then they have to enter an auction with another club who has not committed any resources towards this person and have to in effect spend a first round worth of points on him - why would anyone bother when the hit rate re just getting an academy player onto a list is less than 0.5%.

Surely if having access is such a big benefit then all clubs would be happy to set up their own academies in NSW and Qld? Yet no one wants to do it. Why do you think that is?

Source please.

 

[BloodySwan]

So you admit your only incentive is to double up on players?

I'm not saying you can't still draft these kids, you can, if you have a pick high enough.


In that system, Sydney would have still walked away from 2020 with Braeden Campbell and Errol Gulden.


Gulden's bid would have been matched in the second round.

Sydney would have drafted Campbell with Pick #4.


Sorry, how is the above scenario unfair?

Why was Aliir Aliir worth Logan McDonald?

I actually said Aliir for Campbell was too cheap.....

Remove top 20 bidding, needs to be removed for all including F/S