Opinion Sydney Swans Academy and Rebuild

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Syooo...can we backdate this, cause I wouldn't mind seeing Tom McCartin down back for us this weekend...

Haha, but seriously, it's completely fanciful for an absolute multitude of reasons - that being a serious one. It would however, force clubs to invest from early on, and organically eliminate clubs that don't put time, money and effort into developing their kids from an early age. Would lead to some clubs actually having to work for it, rather than just getting handed it through the draft. Would also make it more likely there'd be a national competition a lot sooner...

We can backdate it to about 10 years ago when Sydney offered to stay out of the draft and build solely on local talent. The Vic clubs said no way.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

That's fair enough, however, as has been said ad nauseam throughout this thread, it shouldn't entitle you to get a Top 5 kid every year from the Academy, plus your own first round draft pick - to somehow compensate for this. Otherwise, as I have repeated many times over, you're essentially saying that Campbell, Mills and Blakey should be given to you outside the draft due to your investment, and you should then just be able to use your own first round pick to pick someone else you didn't invest money into via your academy.

The exact same thing should be in place for Sydney like any other Club.

If the swans want a player from their academy then they need to match any other bid with points.

I'm not sure if that's how its currently set up but that's the way it should be.

 

[Shadow89]

Come on mate. The exodus out of Brisbane claiming homesickness was at serious crisis point a few years ago. Sure it’s incumbent on northern clubs to be “good clubs” to prevent that but a single year, a single crisis, a single poor coaching appointment can destroy a club in very quick time with the Vic vultures hovering.

100% agree on that. However, you also have to think just how much success Brisbane had prior to their downturn. Yes they were at breaking point, but some of those players like Yeo and Redden, actually came across to another interstate club in WA. I don't think that was an issue that was primarily just a Vic centric one.

 

[On Topic]

Keep the academy. It’s good for the game to lure more talent into the AFL. However, matching bids shouldn’t have a discount. It should be a premium price to pay if you want to jump the queue so to speak. Same goes for father-sons, zones and other academy’s.

Swans are flying atm so their kids they have gotten through the system are being highlighted.

 

[Shadow89]

We can backdate it to about 10 years ago when Sydney offered to stay out of the draft and build solely on local talent. The Vic clubs said no way.

To be fair, as much as we get lumped in with the Vic clubs, we actually are our own city with a lot of our own local funding/development that other clubs leech off too.

We get no home finals, we always have to play the 'big' clubs at their home ground because of the crowd draw, and even on the afldraftcentral.com.au webpage, we are listed as 'the biggest feeder club for the AFL.' We get no initial return on that investment, and a whole bunch of our players end up at other clubs around the country.

I'd argue that we probably wouldn't be as opposed to the idea, as other solely Melbourne based clubs - given how many Falcons we draft, and how the bulk of our trades back in are Falcons too.

 

[Shadow89]

Is this salty thread STILL going?

Such a shame Victorians cannot comprehend other australian cultures where AFL is not #1 on the sports news cycle.

He says on a site called 'bigfooty' - a site primarily devoted to talking about AFL...

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

100% agree on that. However, you also have to think just how much success Brisbane had prior to their downturn. Yes they were at breaking point, but some of those players like Yeo and Redden, actually came across to another interstate club in WA. I don't think that was an issue that was primarily just a Vic centric one.

That success was temporary built on the back of the merger.

Just as Geelong’s was built off the back of father/sons, Hawthorn’s priority picks etc.You still need to be a well run club, you still need to develop your low end talent, you still need to be able to retain players at lower cost etc etc

 

[zyzzbruh]

That's fair enough, however, as has been said ad nauseam throughout this thread, it shouldn't entitle you to get a Top 5 kid every year from the Academy, plus your own first round draft pick - to somehow compensate for this. Otherwise, as I have repeated many times over, you're essentially saying that Campbell, Mills and Blakey should be given to you outside the draft due to your investment, and you should then just be able to use your own first round pick to pick someone else you didn't invest money into via your academy.

As Bruce mentioned, it only ever happened once. So what would you have suggested in that situation? that we downgrade our pick 4 to get Campbell instead of mcdonald? Again that's also a disadvantage because Campbell was rated lesser than pick 4, and was actually thought to have gone closer to pick 10. Even so, to get Campbell we had to give up picks and points to get the upgrade. Essentially to bridge that gap of disadvantage all we are getting with the academy system is a pick upgrade every now and again. People are thinking it's a 'free' player when it's not. It's not that massive of an advantage and realistically still probably doesn't undo the massive advantage VIC clubs still have.

 

[Number37]

Fairest solution.

Each state has its own academy.
NSW clubs get NSW
Qld clubs get Qld
SA clubs get SA
WA clubs get WA
Vic clubs get Vic.

 

[Seedsfan]

It only evens out thanks to the academy. If all 9 other Melbourne clubs have a pick before yours, you're still going to more than likely have the ability to choose the next best VIC based 1st round rated player. Where as if we had a pick after 9 other clubs, we would've had no chance of picking up mills, heeney or blakey, and the chance in those years of picking up the next top rated NSW kid was 0, because there were none after those mentioned. There's you clear cut VIC advantage which the academy has been implemented to stem. And even with that, our % of home grown talent is still significantly low.

So please tell me how that isn't a liable reason as to why the academy system exists for interstate clubs...

You’re to biased to bother with if you have pick 9 you take the best available like any other club. You talk about things being unfair yet you are happy you can trade out your first pick each year knowing you can get someone on a massive discount

 

[zyzzbruh]

Fairest solution.

Each state has its own academy.
NSW clubs get NSW
Qld clubs get Qld
SA clubs get SA
WA clubs get WA
Vic clubs get Vic.

Fairest would be to have a list cap on number of players from home state. That would mean more intensive list management, clubs would need to share the spread of talent, and it won't be so easy for them to pry players home at the drop of a hat because they would need a spot in the list cap to bring them back in. It would also force clubs to buy into interstate development equally.

 

[Shadow89]

As Bruce mentioned, it only ever happened once. So what would you have suggested in that situation? that we downgrade our pick 4 to get Campbell instead of mcdonald? Again that's also a disadvantage because Campbell was rated lesser than pick 4, and was actually thought to have gone closer to pick 10. Even so, to get Campbell we had to give up picks and points to get the upgrade. Essentially to bridge that gap of disadvantage all we are getting with the academy system is a pick upgrade every now and again. People are thinking it's a 'free' player when it's not. It's not that massive of an advantage and realistically still probably doesn't undo the massive advantage VIC clubs still have.

Lol, no you can't twist it all in knots like that. It's fairly simple, if another club rated Campbell higher (like Hawthorn did), then they would have drafted him at Pick 5. If you rated him higher than McDonald, you would have drafted him at Pick 4 - why should you get both, unless you're saying that you don't think your academy kid should actually be openly available to anyone that rates him higher than you guys do?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

You’re to biased to bother with if you have pick 9 you take the best available like any other club. You talk about things being unfair yet you are happy you can trade out your first pick each year knowing you can get someone on a massive discount

If you’re not prepared to forgo Daicos get out of the conversation. You’re just being disingenuous. The interstate clubs do not exist to develop talent for Collingwood to scavenge once they turn 23/24.

 

[Shadow89]

Fairest would be to have a list cap on number of players from home state. That would mean more intensive list management, clubs would need to share the spread of talent, and it won't be so easy for them to pry players home at the drop of a hat because they would need a spot in the list cap to bring them back in. It would also force clubs to buy into interstate development equally.

It's happened more than once, it happened with Mills too where you traded out Pick 14 and got a whole bunch of picks in the 30's that were worth the points with a 20% discount for the Pick 3 you needed for Mills. You essentially went from a mid first rounder to a Top 3 pick, just because of trading your pick and then lumping a bunch of nothing picks together with a 20% discount on top to upgrade from a speculative kid, to one of the Top 3 kids in the country.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Lol, no you can't twist it all in knots like that. It's fairly simple, if another club rated Campbell higher (like Hawthorn did), then they would have drafted him at Pick 5. If you rated him higher than McDonald, you would have drafted him at Pick 4 - why should you get both, unless you're saying that you don't think your academy kid should actually be openly available to anyone that rates him higher than you guys do?

This wouldn’t even be a discussion but for North’s passing on McDonald.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

It's happened more than once, it happened with Mills too where you traded out Pick 14 and got a whole bunch of picks in the 30's that were worth the points with a 20% discount for the Pick 3 you needed for Mills. You essentially went from a mid first rounder to a Top 3 pick, just because of trading your pick and then lumping a bunch of nothing picks together with a 20% discount on top to upgrade from a speculative kid, to one of the Top 3 kids in the country.

Who was the other first round pick we got that year?

 

[Shadow89]

This wouldn’t even be a discussion but for North’s passing on McDonald.

Nah it still would be - would just be about DGB instead

 

[zyzzbruh]

You’re to biased to bother with if you have pick 9 you take the best available like any other club. You talk about things being unfair yet you are happy you can trade out your first pick each year knowing you can get someone on a massive discount

Rightio, chances are that next best is a VIC or WA player who wants to eventually return home. You're the one being biased because you know that when you pick the next best player that you don't have to worry about keeping him. Like i said, you're very thick my dude. Look at our most recent first round draft picks who were the 'next best' as you say: Jetta, Rohan, Jones... guess what.. All wanted to return home. After them comes Ling (VIC), Rowbottom (VIC), Mcdonald(WA)... Guess what the story is going to be again. Fact of the matter we we have to open our legs to keep top end talent whilst you sit their trying to protect your privilege. Our convo ends here, I ain't arguing with someone who lacks logic.

 

[Shadow89]

Who was the other first round pick we got that year?

Sorry I was more just stating the bidding inequity that existed. You're both right though that there has only been one instance - this year - where you've ended up with two bites at the cherry.

 

[Number37]

Fairest would be to have a list cap on number of players from home state. That would mean more intensive list management, clubs would need to share the spread of talent, and it won't be so easy for them to pry players home at the drop of a hat because they would need a spot in the list cap to bring them back in. It would also force clubs to buy into interstate development equally.

Vic clubs will never do that.
The draft is a Ponzi scheme with Vic clubs sitting at the top.
On the replies in this thread and knowing how the AFL operates, watch for a knee jerk reaction.

The Swans and other academy clubs will have no option other than to start hiding kids/or the kids tanking draft interviws/or going in for surgery in their draft year.

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Sorry I was more just stating the bidding inequity that existed. You're both right though that there has only been one instance - this year - where you've ended up with two bites at the cherry.

But you said every year. That year our next picks were in the 50s. We hardly got him for free.

 

[Shadow89]

Rightio, chances are that next best is a VIC or WA player who wants to eventually return home. You're the one being biased because you know that when you pick the next best player that you don't have to worry about keeping him. Like i said, you're very thick my dude. Look at our most recent first round draft picks who were the 'next best' as you say: Jetta, Rohan, Jones... guess what.. All wanted to return home. After them comes Ling (VIC), Rowbottom (VIC), Mcdonald(WA)... Guess what the story is going to be again. Fact of the matter we we have to open our legs to keep top end talent whilst you sit their trying to protect your privilege. Our convo ends here, I ain't arguing with someone who lacks logic.

So legitimately asking this then, you do think you should be given your academy kid outside the draft (essentially)? There's been too many sh*tfights, but this is just something I want people to answer for me, lol - without it being a jab. If you genuinely think that the weight of numbers is against you in regards to players leaving, then you genuinely think your academy kids should be guaranteed to you guys, without other clubs being able to select them? Would I be right in saying that?

Because even if you rated Campbell at 10 (which is what you said before), then Hawthorn rating him at 5 means that you don't think it's fair that you guys should have to give up all your draft collateral to pay the same price for him that Hawthorn would - am I right in saying that?

 

[Taylor]

Vic clubs will never do that.
The draft is a Ponzi scheme with Vic clubs sitting at the top.
On the replies in this thread and knowing how the AFL operates, watch for a knee jerk reaction.

The Swans and other academy clubs will have no option other than to start hiding kids/or the kids tanking draft interviws/or going in for surgery in their draft year.

I don't think rules would force the Swans to cheat.

But if you're putting different rules in for local and interstate talent then it shouldn't be restricting local to encourage interstate, it should be incentivising interstate with a COLA bonus for those players over the locals.

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

In the meantime people should cool their jets.

This year's Academy crop has some some good ordinary footballers (as Jack Dyer would say). Maybe some 3rd or 4th Rounders if the kids develop and hopefully some Wicks type rookies.

 

[zyzzbruh]

Sorry I was more just stating the bidding inequity that existed. You're both right though that there has only been one instance - this year - where you've ended up with two bites at the cherry.

If he was rated higher than pick 4 then he would've been bid on and we would've matched it. He wasn't, and we can easily say we rated DGB and Mcdonald higher than him. after our pick 4 its the same as every other year, to get our academy player we have to match the bid with our next picks which we did. So even though it essentially looks like we've had 2 bites of the cherry, technically we didn't. We just seem extremely lucky because the bid came straight after our pick.