Leave the damn rule alone. They reigned it in after Geelong got Ablett with pick 138 or something, but the protections now are enough.
I think that the Victorian clubs have an advantage over the Sydneys and the Brisbanes in that players actually want to play down here (and the go home factor), so if they get an advantage with the academies (however small that is), then I don’t GAF.
Sydney’s main advantage, the COLA, has already been unwound so I consider everyone to be on a relatively even playing field. Even if it still uneven though, a change to the F/S would disadvantage Victorian clubs as well, so that wouldn’t eradicate the disparity.
I don’t think anyone’s worried about the Academy kids being too small of an advantage.
Heeney would’ve gone 1 or 2. And this is year 1 of the system. They’ve another very very good kid coming up.
They have half a state’s worth of kids they can throw any money they want at and get for as cheap picks as they want.
This is farkin stupid, and I reckon some teams have had to overpay for father/son in the current system, let alone this one.
Any examples?
Under the F/S bidding system the club with rights - at worst - have to match the round of pick that someone else will give up (and that is a binding concrete offer, AFAIK there’s no jerry rigging).
For mine it’s about the best, fairest rule the AFL have put in place, ever. So hardly surprising they’ve ■■■■ the bath with having an unlimited number of academy kids going into the same system.
AFAIK Joe (10?) and McDonald (7? 8?) are the highest F/S picks there’s been so far. Viney was way unders as only 1 or 2 clubs could make an offer to force Melbourne to use their highest pick (2), so they got him at 19 or 20.
In hindsight… not really. Ayce Cordy maybe?? I actually agree that the current system is the right one.
At worst, you pay a first rounder for a kid who is probably worth a second rounder, unlike the new system, where you could pay 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounder, plus next years 2nd rounder.
Youngsters aren’t a proven commodity in the way that free agents are.
If the AFL want to turn the draft into something resembling a free market then they should do some more thinking about how much value they attribute to the high picks. Player salaries are a really bad way of measuring how good a player is. For one, early picks are paid more money from day one of their career. In addition, they are retained on lists longer because list managers are human and don’t always screen out the sunk cost of using an early pick in the first place.
They probably also skewed the market by only looking at the salaries of players picked in the main draft and ignored rookies.
The idea is poo, absolutely no doubt about it and I agree with the above comments.
And thinking laterally…hypothetical scenario:
If we have Tom Wallis and Harvey Daniher next season in the draft, and each gets a bid of a third round pick, and the points of those two third round picks add together to the equivalent of our second round pick, technically the system should allow us to pick two players with one draft pick, correct?
A reply to: @You Shall Be Smoten regarding QuoteLink
One player, one pick
Youngsters aren’t a proven commodity in the way that free agents are.
If the AFL want to turn the draft into something resembling a free market then they should do some more thinking about how much value they attribute to the high picks. Player salaries are a really bad way of measuring how good a player is. For one, early picks are paid more money from day one of their career. In addition, they are retained on lists longer because list managers are human and don’t always screen out the sunk cost of using an early pick in the first place.
They probably also skewed the market by only looking at the salaries of players picked in the main draft and ignored rookies.
yup just as likely to end up with a gumbleton/watts/gibbs than a goddard/cooney/judd.
The more interesting twist is that bidding will be done on draft night. That means clubs with F/S and Academy players will be unsure of exactly what picks they will have for that draft. List management decisions will be crucial. Clubs will have to guess that an F/S/Academy player will be worth = Pick 50 could be downgraded to pick 70 - Does a club use Pick 70 or decide to keep a fringe player on the list - These decisions could be made in the dark.
This is farkin stupid, and I reckon some teams have had to overpay for father/son in the current system, let alone this one.
Any examples?
Under the F/S bidding system the club with rights - at worst - have to match the round of pick that someone else will give up (and that is a binding concrete offer, AFAIK there’s no jerry rigging).
For mine it’s about the best, fairest rule the AFL have put in place, ever. So hardly surprising they’ve ■■■■ the bath with having an unlimited number of academy kids going into the same system.
AFAIK Joe (10?) and McDonald (7? 8?) are the highest F/S picks there’s been so far. Viney was way unders as only 1 or 2 clubs could make an offer to force Melbourne to use their highest pick (2), so they got him at 19 or 20.
In hindsight… not really. Ayce Cordy maybe?? I actually agree that the current system is the right one.
At worst, you pay a first rounder for a kid who is probably worth a second rounder, unlike the new system, where you could pay 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounder, plus next years 2nd rounder.
Yeah, as it has ended up.
Although worth noting that price they paid (pick 14) was put on him by St Kilda bidding their pick 13 for him. Dogs matched, Saints took some other meh KPF (Tom Lynch) instead.
I’d argue that’s a lose-lose, and happily attribute that to luck of the draw rather than a fault of the system.
AFL Integrity Unit @IntegrityUnit · Jan 27
We didn’t want to overhaul the system, but then Joe Daniher chose Essendon over Sydney, and it became clear something had to be done.
0 replies . 2 retweets 4 favourites
Reply Retweet2 Favourite4
More
Just let f/s’s play wherever they want ffs. I don’t care about the ‘ranking’. Clubs will get lucky streaks with family lines, so what. It’s not the end of footy. Far more important to keep developing that passion for the club/sport. You have salary caps to keep things even.
Just let f/s's play wherever they want ffs. I don't care about the 'ranking'. Clubs will get lucky streaks with family lines, so what. It's not the end of footy. Far more important to keep developing that passion for the club/sport. You have salary caps to keep things even.
Let’s see, by my count 14 of 62 father son recruits between 88 and 2007 have player more than 100 games. 18 played less than 10 games. It’s just as much a lottery as any other draft pick, it shouldn’t be touched
Just let f/s's play wherever they want ffs. I don't care about the 'ranking'. Clubs will get lucky streaks with family lines, so what. It's not the end of footy. Far more important to keep developing that passion for the club/sport. You have salary caps to keep things even.
That’s far too simple
Play where they want to yes, but what value/draft pick should be assigned to the player? Fair value or the last pick of the draft by that club? & Clubs can decide if they will Rookie List of Main list the son?
why dont we get rid of free agent compensation picks while we are at it.
Just let f/s's play wherever they want ffs. I don't care about the 'ranking'. Clubs will get lucky streaks with family lines, so what. It's not the end of footy. Far more important to keep developing that passion for the club/sport. You have salary caps to keep things even.
That’s far too simple
Play where they want to yes, but what value/draft pick should be assigned to the player? Fair value or the last pick of the draft by that club? & Clubs can decide if they will Rookie List of Main list the son?
why dont we get rid of free agent compensation picks while we are at it.
I’m a simple guy. Some say too simple
Why rank them?
Players have sons. If the fathers played 100 or more games for a club, the son may choose to play for same club, under the general conditions (cap/rookie/etc) for a standardised contract term (let’s say - 4 years), provided the club has list-space, cap-space, and is willing.
If the son doesn’t want to play for the club - well f-off, and enter the draft, and be ranked wherever you get ranked.
The salary cap will take care of what happens if too many sons become too many stars.
Pros - Teams get to experience the wonders of F/S playing for their teams, and compare them. Family names linked to clubs. Kids not having to leave a state when their dad played in another. No farking around with points and whatnot, like morons.
Interesting article in the HS today… John Longmire’s kids have joined the Swans academy, as has Blakey’s son. Means they now have the choice on whether to join North under F/S or the Swans through the academy. If those kids are super talented they could use their academy to rip two F/S picks away from North. Talk about an abuse of the system. There to promote the game my ■■■■.
Also says the Swans have 550 kids in their academy. That blew my mind. Think of how much bigger that is than the potential talent pool any other club has access to through father son. And they have access to the cream of that crop. No wonder Eddie’s red in the face about academies.
Interesting article in the HS today... John Longmire's kids have joined the Swans academy, as has Blakey's son. Means they now have the choice on whether to join North under F/S or the Swans through the academy. If those kids are super talented they could use their academy to rip two F/S picks away from North. Talk about an abuse of the system. There to promote the game my ■■■■.
Also says the Swans have 550 kids in their academy. That blew my mind. Think of how much bigger that is than the potential talent pool any other club has access to through father son. And they have access to the cream of that crop. No wonder Eddie’s red in the face about academies.
The number blew my mind as well. Their argument that they are stopping the kids from playing other sports suggests to me that these should be AFL ran academies not club based.
Interesting article in the HS today... John Longmire's kids have joined the Swans academy, as has Blakey's son. Means they now have the choice on whether to join North under F/S or the Swans through the academy. If those kids are super talented they could use their academy to rip two F/S picks away from North. Talk about an abuse of the system. There to promote the game my ■■■■.
Also says the Swans have 550 kids in their academy. That blew my mind. Think of how much bigger that is than the potential talent pool any other club has access to through father son. And they have access to the cream of that crop. No wonder Eddie’s red in the face about academies.
The number blew my mind as well. Their argument that they are stopping the kids from playing other sports suggests to me that these should be AFL ran academies not club based.
