News Ltd showed an example of what would have happened to Sydney last year if this rule was in place. Basically, they pick up Heeney, then their next pick becomes 67 and the remaining picks start at 89.
■■■■ Sydney and all that but that is absolutely retarded that a FS (or acadamy) recruit can basically mean a team no longer participates in the draft in any meaningful way.
Maybe this system can work for acadamy recruits IF the acadamy team is able to pass on the player and then be compensated for the investment they had made in the player prior to the draft. i.e. Sydney see how recruiting Heeney means they would basically be excluded from the draft so by passing they get some other form of compensation, like favourable umpiring or MRP decisions*. There is no way in hell it should ever apply to father-son though.
Joke, obviously, but they would deserve something…
Their compensation is the option of taking the player. People go on about Heeney, but the Swans took two other academy players in the main draft, plus one in the rookie draft. They’re getting plenty of compensation.
Their compensation is the option of taking the player. People go on about Heeney, but the Swans took two other academy players in the main draft, plus one in the rookie draft. They're getting plenty of compensation.
Is it really an option that they get one player and lose out completely on the rest of the draft? Let's ignore that there are some people out there who think that pick 89 is worth just as much as pick 5, recruiters just need to "think creatively". Fact is, having all your picks bumped down to 67, 89, 90, etc, just so you can get one player is not having an "option". That's like an armed bandit saying his victims have an option to not be robbed.
The worst the bidding system can get is premier has access to pick 1. Heeney was GF runner up has access to pick 2, which is basically as bad as it can get. So Sydney say “given the price they want us to pay, it’s not worth getting Heeney.” What’s the problem with that? They still would have benefited from 3 more academy picks last year, who under the new system would have cost them 37->63, their last pick, and a rookie pick respectively.
A way better example is Jack Steele to GWS. Lowish ranking team bidding for highish ranked player. Someone bids pick 15, GWS give up 23, and 24 moves to 27. That’s what most of the examples are going to look like.
If the standard case turns into top 4 teams trying to get top 10 talent through the academies, that will be a pretty good indicator that the equalisation program needs some serious work.
Edit: I think the system is ■■■■■■ stupid, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for a team who played in a grand final not getting one of the best players in the draft at discount rates. Especially for reasons that exist predominantly to keep teams nobody’s interested in competitive.
The worst the bidding system can get is premier has access to pick 1. Heeney was GF runner up has access to pick 2, which is basically as bad as it can get. So Sydney say "given the price they want us to pay, it's not worth getting Heeney." What's the problem with that? They still would have benefited from 3 more academy picks last year, who under the new system would have cost them 37->63, their last pick, and a rookie pick respectively.
A way better example is Jack Steele to GWS. Lowish ranking team bidding for highish ranked player. Someone bids pick 15, GWS give up 23, and 24 moves to 27. That’s what most of the examples are going to look like.
If the standard case turns into top 4 teams trying to get top 10 talent through the academies, that will be a pretty good indicator that the equalisation program needs some serious work.
Edit: I think the system is ■■■■■■ stupid, but I don’t have a lot of sympathy for a team who played in a grand final not getting one of the best players in the draft at discount rates. Especially for reasons that exist predominantly to keep teams nobody’s interested in competitive.
Fair enough.
Are we going to see Sydney hobbling acadamy players junior development to keep prices down? Insert the word “disincentivise” as appropriate…
News Ltd showed an example of what would have happened to Sydney last year if this rule was in place. Basically, they pick up Heeney, then their next pick becomes 67 and the remaining picks start at 89.
■■■■ Sydney and all that but that is absolutely retarded that a FS (or acadamy) recruit can basically mean a team no longer participates in the draft in any meaningful way.
Maybe this system can work for acadamy recruits IF the acadamy team is able to pass on the player and then be compensated for the investment they had made in the player prior to the draft. i.e. Sydney see how recruiting Heeney means they would basically be excluded from the draft so by passing they get some other form of compensation, like favourable umpiring or MRP decisions*. There is no way in hell it should ever apply to father-son though.
Joke, obviously, but they would deserve something…
Way I see it there’s no way a bidding system can work and be fair when you have 2, 3, 4, 6 kids at once.
Hence the thread title. They’ve unlocked a Pandora’s box and I can’t see a solution that works.
I like the academies. Anything that help talented kids from Qld & NSW to choose Aussie Rules as their sport is a good thing. We take the pathway into AFL for granted down there and over here but the infrastructure doesn't exist in those other states. It will take decades to replicate the school + junior football systems. I get what the AFL are doing. Talented NSW kid makes it to big time playing for NSW side has 10x the impact of a superficial I Folau style marketing coup. For the AFL to remain the premier football code across the nation, it must gain support in NSW and Qld.
How far do you stuff everything for that though?
How far do you tilt the compensation?
Sydney have barely missed finals for 15 years, won 2 flags, and still no-one up there really gives a stuff. Lions won 3 in a row, and they were financially on the rocks 3 years later. How far do you push it?
I’m not too fussed about a top team losing out on the whole draft in order to pick one player. Previously it was draft order, now it’s relative overall value of picks. Not overly different.
The team that finished last in the H&A season gets a total value of 4647 points worth of picks. The team that finishes first gets 1726.
We always knew the top teams got substantially weaker draft picks. This is just presenting it in a different way and giving them a choice on how to best use their draft position.
A) Heeney said he wouldn’t be playing AFL if it hadn’t been for Sydney’s academy getting him as a young kid. i.e. because it is a non-traditional footy state he would have drifted into other sports as a young kid without the pathway and reinforcement an academy-type setup offers. NOT that if someone else had drafted him last year he would have given aussie rules away.
B) Very few I’d be guessing, not the serious one who want to really try for a career anyway (there may be a few Nathan Abletts who give up if they don’t get a sympathy lifeline).
Alternatively, let EVERY club run an academy. Surely the objective of the academies is not just to get more blokes from non-traditional footy areas into AFL, but also to raise the standard of footy being played in those areas, and exposing more kids to top-level coaching could help that. Hell, let Melbourne run an academy in Alice around Liam Jurrah's stomping ground, we'll have one around the top end and Tiwi, St Kilda can have NZ since they're so keen to play Anzac day games there etc etc
Really? I would have thought the AFL's objective was to get more blokes from non-traditional footy areas into AFL thus expanding the AFL's reach (because lets face it the modern day AFL desperately wants nothing more than to be the NFL) whilst also giving teams like Sydney and Brisbane (and now more expansion teams) priority access to top talent as they know if those teams have to spend many years down the bottom of the ladder they will quickly become 5000 + tarps teams.
News Ltd showed an example of what would have happened to Sydney last year if this rule was in place. Basically, they pick up Heeney, then their next pick becomes 67 and the remaining picks start at 89.
■■■■ Sydney and all that but that is absolutely retarded that a FS (or acadamy) recruit can basically mean a team no longer participates in the draft in any meaningful way.
Maybe this system can work for acadamy recruits IF the acadamy team is able to pass on the player and then be compensated for the investment they had made in the player prior to the draft. i.e. Sydney see how recruiting Heeney means they would basically be excluded from the draft so by passing they get some other form of compensation, like favourable umpiring or MRP decisions*. There is no way in hell it should ever apply to father-son though.
Joke, obviously, but they would deserve something…
Way I see it there’s no way a bidding system can work and be fair when you have 2, 3, 4, 6 kids at once.
Hence the thread title. They’ve unlocked a Pandora’s box and I can’t see a solution that works.
If they’ve solved the first ‘problem’ by adding a layer of complexity, then they could solve the problem you highlight by adding an additional layer of complexity (e.g. 50% points discount on player #2… or some other discount on the player valuation). Not saying I support the concept as I think that the push to make the competition ‘fair’ has a natural limit and these rules are well beyond that. It’s similar to the obsession one-day cricket seems to have with putting in novelty fielding restrictions, or NAB cup super-goals.
Also if clubs are now paying a ‘fair’ price for a father-son recruit, the games limit should be wound back from 100 games toward 1 game. The sons of spuds should be available at a ‘fair’ price.
If the QLD & NSW states were top four for the next 10 years, AFL would still struggle over there. IMO, expanding in non-traditional Aussie Rules states has less to do with performance balance and far more to do with marketing and how the sport is portrayed.
Regarding F/S, I still reckon a kid should have every chance in the world to play for the same team as his dad. Tribalism is what makes footy so powerful. Stop trying to even everything out and make it grey. A champion player’s son rarely becomes a champion player. It’s all fargin myth.
Im sure there’s a small handful of times where it’s happened, over the decades F/S has been a thing (it predates the draft by a fair way).
To me that’s little more than dumb luck. If a couple of the 10? 20? eligible fathers in the right age group have good kids, in the same year - that’s just God kissing you on the chop. A windfall. You don’t change rules based on freak occurrences.
Sydney and GWS and Brisbane have already had multiple bites at the cherry in the 2-3 years their academies have been a thing. And look like having more next year.
Makes me very very angry.
I’d hate to see a situation where it’s not economical for clubs to take the sons of club champions because it’s going to cost them multiple picks over multiple years.
I couldn’t give a flying fudge if Sydney and Brisbane didn’t get their next handout. They’ve won between them 5 flags of the last 15 and lost a grand final or two each. Boo hoo. Poor you.
Is that not exactly what this will do though?
If you have a top 10 quality f/s coming through it seems you will basically be removed from most of the immediate draft and possibly the same the following year?
Im sure there’s a small handful of times where it’s happened, over the decades F/S has been a thing (it predates the draft by a fair way).
To me that’s little more than dumb luck. If a couple of the 10? 20? eligible fathers in the right age group have good kids, in the same year - that’s just God kissing you on the chop. A windfall. You don’t change rules based on freak occurrences.
Sydney and GWS and Brisbane have already had multiple bites at the cherry in the 2-3 years their academies have been a thing. And look like having more next year.
Makes me very very angry.
I’d hate to see a situation where it’s not economical for clubs to take the sons of club champions because it’s going to cost them multiple picks over multiple years.
I couldn’t give a flying fudge if Sydney and Brisbane didn’t get their next handout. They’ve won between them 5 flags of the last 15 and lost a grand final or two each. Boo hoo. Poor you.
Is that not exactly what this will do though?
If you have a top 10 quality f/s coming through it seems you will basically be removed from most of the immediate draft and possibly the same the following year?
■■■■■■■ afl.
Isnt that if only someone with a higher pick nominates to use their pick on said kid?
Would be super ■■■■■■ port did tha… oh wait, they did…
Im sure there’s a small handful of times where it’s happened, over the decades F/S has been a thing (it predates the draft by a fair way).
To me that’s little more than dumb luck. If a couple of the 10? 20? eligible fathers in the right age group have good kids, in the same year - that’s just God kissing you on the chop. A windfall. You don’t change rules based on freak occurrences.
Sydney and GWS and Brisbane have already had multiple bites at the cherry in the 2-3 years their academies have been a thing. And look like having more next year.
Makes me very very angry.
I’d hate to see a situation where it’s not economical for clubs to take the sons of club champions because it’s going to cost them multiple picks over multiple years.
I couldn’t give a flying fudge if Sydney and Brisbane didn’t get their next handout. They’ve won between them 5 flags of the last 15 and lost a grand final or two each. Boo hoo. Poor you.
Is that not exactly what this will do though?
If you have a top 10 quality f/s coming through it seems you will basically be removed from most of the immediate draft and possibly the same the following year?
■■■■■■■ afl.
Isnt that if only someone with a higher pick nominates to use their pick on said kid?
Would be super ■■■■■■ port did tha… oh wait, they did…
Yep.
If another team bids say a top 5 pick it appears you lose your next best pick as well as pretty much everything else of value in that draft.
So the impact on F/S team will be significant to the point of being almost entirely detrimental.