Proposed Change to F/S and academy Bidding

Snippets from Herald Sun and the afl website:

CLUBS will be forced to pay what the AFL says is a fairer price for father-son and academy players under proposed radical changes.

Bidding would shift from the start of trade period to live on draft night under the scheme tabled to clubs late on Tuesday.

The Moneyball-style concept allocates draft picks a declining points value, with No. 1 worth 3000 points and pick No.2 worth 2517 and so on in a sliding scale.

This scale was based on data relating to the average player salaries of each pick from the year 2000 onwards.

If the proposed changes had been in place for the 2014 draft, the Sydney Swans would have had to give up picks No.18 and No.37, and its pick No.38 would have slid back to pick No.70 in order to secure highly-rated academy graduate Isaac Heeney…

I personally can’t see it working. The clubs will fight it. It’s a great concept though because if Melbourne were going to offer the higher pick (pick 2) why shouldn’t they have got Heeney?

Meh.
I’m a romantic.
I don’t really care about ‘fairness’ with f/s - I think it’s far more valuable for the supporters, the team, and the game in general, to develop and maintain team families. It’s not like every son becomes as good as their father. Sop, I’m all for making it easier, not harder, for teams to gather in their favorite sons.

heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/afl-clubs-to-pay-higher-draft-price-for-father-son-academy-stars/story-fni5f22o-1227198697857

AFL clubs to pay higher draft price for father-son, academy stars
Sam Landsberger
Herald Sun
January 27, 2015 7:09PM

CLUBS will be forced to pay what the AFL says is a fairer price for father-son and academy players under proposed radical changes.

Sydney is the first club set to be stung. The Swans have access to Josh Dunkley (son of former star Andrew) and academy gun Callum Mills (rated a possible No. 1 pick) and could need to cash in a multitude of picks — possibly over two seasons — to secure the pair.

Bidding would shift from the start of trade period to live on draft night under the scheme tabled to clubs late on Tuesday.

The new system could be ticked off at the AFL Commission meeting in March, before Round 1.

The Moneyball-style concept allocates draft picks a declining points value, with No. 1 worth 3000 points.

Some clubs are unconvinced with Brisbane Lions chief executive Greg Swann saying the changes are a knee-jerk reaction.

“We spend a lot of money on (academies) and if you can’t get some sort of benefit out of it then perhaps we should hand them back to the AFL to run,” he told the Herald Sun.

“The Swans are paying $1 million a year for their academy. We’re not that high, were in the hundreds of thousands … recruiters have to be prepared to let players go if they don’t meet the value.

“It’s almost the first stage of trading future picks.”

The AFL created the points system using player salaries from the past 15 years.

Discounts will be applied to ensure the father-son tradition remains and to provide incentive for the four northern clubs to run their talent academies.

The AFL is considering applying a 25 per cent discount to academy players and either a 25 or 15 per cent on father-sons.

It has given clubs until next month to give feedback on the discounts.

AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan said on the eve of last year’s draft the system was “so mathematically based it blows your head off”.

Some recruiters yesterday said they would lobby the AFL to keep the father-son and academy discounts in line.

“We invest a lot of time and effort (in father-son programs), so it should be the same. No doubt about that, it must be consistent,” one chief scout said.

But they agreed the current system needed “tinkering” and was too generous to clubs with multiple players available in one draft.

An example is 2010 when the Western Bulldogs picked up Mitch Wallis and Tom Liberatore for picks No. 22 and No. 41.

The Bulldogs snared Mitch Wallis for a bargain pick 41 after using pick 22 on Tom Liberat

The Bulldogs snared Mitch Wallis for a bargain pick 41 after using pick 22 on Tom Liberatore in 2010.

Recruiters say Gippsland Power’s Dunkley — if he chooses the Swans — could command a pick in the 10-25 range.

That could see the Swans charged about 3000 points for him and Mills.

They would have to build a “points bank” by trading in picks to cash in on draft night, or potentially roll their leftover debt into 2016. The debt would have to be paid, by shifting one or more picks to the back of the draft queue, before the trade period.

When Geelong handed Adelaide picks 14 and 35 for No. 10 and 47 last year the draft value index showed the Cats were the slimmest of winners, 1711 points to 1682.

Under the new system, after Adelaide bid pick 29 for Billy Stretch last year the Demons would have needed to buy that pick to use on Stretch and then pay it off by shifting No. 42 to 51 and having No. 40 tossed to the end of the draft.

But the current system simply allowed them to select Stretch with pick 42.

There is an expected spike in academy players drafted in the next few years and the overhaul could see the format of draft night drastically altered.

With a handful recruiting bosses and club powerbrokers overseas, some clubs say it is too early to form a stance.

Collingwood president Eddie McGuire launched a stinging attack on the academies last year but the AFL believes they are crucial to developing markets.

PAYING THE PRICE

How the Isaac Heeney case would have played out under the AFL’s proposed new father-son/academy bidding system

— Melbourne bids pick No. 2 (worth 2517 points) for Swans academy member Heeney.

— Sydney matches the bid and lands player, but “owes” 1888 points (2517 points, discounted by 25 per cent) to the draft.

— Points are matched to Sydney’s original first pick, No. 18 (985 points), and that pick is moved to the back of the draft. The Swans still owe 903 points.

— Remaining points are matched to Sydney’s next pick, No. 37 (483 points) and that pick is moved to the back of the draft. The Swans still owe 420 points.

— Remaining points are matched to Sydney’s next pick, No. 38 (465 points). The 45 leftover points entitles Sydney to “buy” pick No. 70 rather than go to the back of the line.

— Sydney would have effectively sold picks 18, 37 and 38 for 2 (Heeney), 70, 88 and 89. The Demons then would have taken Christian Petracca and Angus Brayshaw at No. 3 and 4.

— Last year they were able to select Heeney at No. 18 and retain picks No. 37 and 38. They selected two more academy players, excluded from this scenario.

KEY POINTS

— AFL proposes points discounts of 25 per cent for academy players and either 15 or 25 per cent for father-son picks.

— Clubs can go into points debt if all picks are cashed in, but debt must be paid before next season’s trade period.

— Father-son and academy bidding will be live on draft night with a rolling updated order

— Points system calculated on average player salaries from 2000-2014

— The system developed with consultation from the Player Movement Advisory Group and incorporates research from some American sports including the NFL

AFL DRAFT VALUE INDEX

Pick 1: 3000 points (Start of Round 1)

Pick 19: 948 points (Start of Round 2)

Pick 37: 483 points (Start of Round 3)

Pick 55: 207 points (Start of Round 4)

Pick 73: 9 points (Start of Round 5)

Hmmm. And not in a good way.

There’s a lot of holes in this.

  • It doesn’t address the pure grotesque imbalance that is the interstate academy system. Swans etc still get a whole state of talent to choose from rather than (or in addition to!) just having to see how the genetic lottery works out with past players. Not only that, but the AFL is STILL talking about giving more of a discount to the interstate academies than f/s players,. which is just plain ridiculous. if anything it should be the other way round. And ■■■■■■ Swann has the nerve to whinge about paying $1m/yr or hundreds of thousands for their academy - well, news flash, bozo, every victorian club would LOVE to be allowed to spend that money to get freebie talent, but unlike you, they aren’t allowed to. It’s like he won the ■■■■■■■ lottery and is now complaining about how heavy all the ■■■■■■■ money is to carry home.

  • If you have even two decent f/s players available, then it’ll wipe out your draft. Later round picks are worth so few points that it’ll take piles of them to even match a 2nd rounder. This can potentially really hurt in a situation like the wallis/Libba one the Dogs had - sure, you’d get two decent players at somewhat under market value, but then you’d have basically nothing until after everyone else had drafted. If you’re in a rebuild phase and have had a big list turnover (and unless you can coax over a FA or two) then you’d basically be compelled to pass on one of them just to fill up the numbers with decent prospects, otherwise you’d be picking into the hundreds.

  • Using average player salaries over the past 15 years to generate the points system is ridiculous, the #1 in particular has been horribly overvalued by Tom Scully’s contract. There would be all sorts of other odd artifacts too, if that’s how the values have been calculated. Is pick 40 worth 7000 points because Ablett was picked there?

  • there’s STILL nothing to stop the interstate clubs stockpiling 3+ top players from their academies in one year. Sydney and GWS still have close to a third of the national population to pick from, which is just nuts, and the academy imbalance is only going to get worse over time as more of the draft-age academy kids will have been in the academy system for many years and will be accordingly of higher standard. There’s no limitation on numbers of academy players selectable. I can quite easily see a time when Sydney (for instance) gets 4 top 10 quality players by giving up all their picks up to the 30th round, or something equally mathematically ridiculous. This will never happen with f/s players simply because there aren’t that many f/s candidate around, but there’s no upper limit to the size of academies and the interstate sides have an entire state to choose the best talent from. It will happen, and this system ignores that inevitability. the herald-sun’s Heeny ‘scenario’ in the article above ‘excludes’ the swans’ other two academy players from its calculation, which is the stupidest or most mendacious idea ever, since the whole point of this is supposedly to limit the advantage when a club has multiple academy/f-s players available in one year. Landsberger doesn’t even look at this VERY RELEVANT SCENARIO, and i’m almost paranoid enough to believe that this is because the AFL has instructed him not to.

I can see what they’re trying to do, but in very typical AFL style they’re ignoring the major problem (the appalling bias inherent in the Academy system, especially for Sydney and Brisbane who are also entitled to f/s selections!) and screwing over the clubs who just happen to get lucky with f/s picks. Beef up the interstate clubs, screw over clubs who try to keep tradition alive. Very, very standard AFL move.

That is so complicated! Seriously, WTF.

What’s that got to do with Moneyball?

Agree.
You’d think they’d learnt from the complex points system that was implemented for tribunal cases. But this one seems overboard.

I really don’t see why the current father son nominations, etc would need to be changed.

“sarcastica” So crazy I find it hard to believe a trusted and respected well run organisation like the AFL has even tried to float it. “sarcastica”

What a terrible system top to bottom. The points system will be broken, I don’t trust them to get the maths right based on shifting salary caps, different caps for different teams, etc. Then teams have to what? Make trades and so forth based on what they think another team will bid on draft night? It makes no sense.

The AFL proposing a lower discount for FS options than for academy picks (15% instead of 25%) is ridiculous, for all the reasons HM outlined. You’d be better off in most situations just hoping that a FS slips to your position, or trading for them after their first contract runs out.

As I’ve said before, the AFL pretending that FS picks and academy picks have anything to do with each other is just the most frustrating kind of bullshit that permeates the head office at the moment.

You’d fair dinkum get your kids to tank for a year, wouldn’t you?

A reply to: @wimmera1 regarding QuoteLink

You'd fair dinkum get your kids to tank for a year, wouldn't you?

You’d have to give it some serious thought. You’d probably get stung less with the penalties if they did you for draft tampering than what you’d have to pay based on the formula.

Why?

What reason would they have to consider this an issue that needs resolving?

I can’t believe that they have chosen this issue as the one where the draft pick impact rolls over to the year after.

It’s largely because the academy system is out of control. Sydney has stockpiled players (and developed them) and no one else gets a go at them! They had 3 academy kids this year ! Next year they have Andrew Dunkley’s son who is ranked around 10-15 in the draft and another academy kid who might well be No 1. Assuming they finish top 4 they would get 2 first round picks for something like pick 17 and pick 35. this new system is aimed squarely at Sydney. That doesn’t make it right !

I am highly sceptical that the AFL would do anything at all to hinder the Swans.

Although perhaps GWS and GCS are the new babies and are getting all the attention.

happy for fairness with regards to academy players…but fairness with father sons is bs. father sons is chance.
Academies get the pick of best afl players in the state and devleop
I was happy with the old system - 3rd rounder. yes cats did well out of it in 2001, but it was their recruiting which made them a champion team. - imagine getting players of quality Bartel, Kelly, Ablett Jnr, Stevie J in one draft, you would be happy to get 1 or 2.

although the new system works well for picking up fringe father sons - rookie list who are passed in national draft.

top drafts -
1994 - Lucas, Caracella, Moorcroft, Blumfield
1999 - Corey, Chapman, Enright, Ling
2001 - Ball, Clarke, Dalsanto, McGuire, Montagna
- Hodge, Mitchell, Brown, Ladson
- Bartel, Kelly, S Johnson, Ablett, D Johnson
2005- Roughead, Franklin, Lewis, Murphy Taylor

the fact the hawks and cats both nailed 2 drafts close together (99/01, 01/05) set them up for years to come.

Has anybody else seen the new points system the AFL is going to implement for the draft including a new bidding system for the F/S and Academy layers.

I’m not going to run thought as its overly complicated for what should be a simple process.

I think the AFL has screwed this one big time, awful system that gives the appearance of fairness but is open to extortion and a nightmare for clubs.

Another poor job from AFL house coming your way!

You'd fair dinkum get your kids to tank for a year, wouldn't you?

Swans wouldn’t ever try and sneak one through the draft!!! (ignores Kieran Jack’s dad saying “oh yeah he wasn’t even registered for the draft at all”)

Why?

What reason would they have to consider this an issue that needs resolving?

I can’t believe that they have chosen this issue as the one where the draft pick impact rolls over to the year after.

Because 17 clubs don’t have Sydney’s academy or rights to Sydney’s academy.
Classic ‘swallow a spider to catch the fly’ stuff.
Just makes the draft even more of a joke. It’s basically forced trading (well you can have pick 2 but you have to give up pick 38, 37, your bootstudder, and the concession to the cafe at your home ground).

If the AFL believe the acadamies are so important why don’t they fund them themselves and allow all 18 clubs access to them in the draft?

Then there would be no need for any ugly/irrelevant mathematical formula.

Combining the academy discussion with the father/son rule is just sleight of hand by the afl - leave the f/s rule alone - it has nothing to do with the inherent academy bias.

MONEYBALL!!

The other interesting point is that the “cost” of the FS/Academy bid player can be rolled into a 2nd draft year, so in essence you are trading away future draft picks to secure him. The AFL are dead against allowing clubs to trade future picks at the trade period, yet for this bidding system it seems to be allowed?