'Sweeping changes' to Academy and Father/Son bidding system

[Bloods05]

The issue, Melbournehammer, is that the clubs all agreed to set up the academies under one set of rules, and now that there is a chance the Swans might get a bit of luck, they want to change those rules. Worse still, we are being accused of cheating, and by Eddie McGuire of all people.

You can argue the rights and wrongs of the academy rules, but you don't change them just because a top side has a year or two where it gains an advantage from them. If, say, Hawthorn or (dare I say it) Collingwood had a year or two in which they got a couple of potential top-10 father-son picks, would that be reason enough to change those rules? Of course not.

The academies exist to increase the AFL talent pool. The clubs decided in their wisdom to tie them to the 4 northern clubs, to ask those clubs to contribute to their financing, and in return to offer them first dibs on one player a year. That was the deal. You don't change it as soon as it yields a result.

[dimelb]

Thanks Meg.
Amid the dreck that is most of Murdoch's Rags, Patrick Smith stands out for grasp of an issue and capacity to discuss it in an interesting and honest way.

[Mel_C]

Great article by Patrick Smith. I loved how he called Newbold Eddie's deputy sheriff ????.

[Melbournehammer]

The issue, Melbournehammer, is that the clubs all agreed to set up the academies under one set of rules, and now that there is a chance the Swans might get a bit of luck, they want to change those rules. Worse still, we are being accused of cheating, and by Eddie McGuire of all people.

You can argue the rights and wrongs of the academy rules, but you don't change them just because a top side has a year or two where it gains an advantage from them. If, say, Hawthorn or (dare I say it) Collingwood had a year or two in which they got a couple of potential top-10 father-son picks, would that be reason enough to change those rules? Of course not.

The academies exist to increase the AFL talent pool. The clubs decided in their wisdom to tie them to the 4 northern clubs, to ask those clubs to contribute to their financing, and in return to offer them first dibs on one player a year. That was the deal. You don't change it as soon as it yields a result.

Actually that is exactly what has happened. As father son picks were seen to distort the draft the mechanism was leveled up. I am not overly happy with the bitterness of the pies nor the naked self interest of Eddie, but let's be clear - we may have two players out of the box here, but how often need it occur to be an unfair advantage ? And our response is that we were playing within the rules. That's fine, but it also justifies changes to the rules as necessary.

[Ludwig]

Actually that is exactly what has happened. As father son picks were seen to distort the draft the mechanism was leveled up. I am not overly happy with the bitterness of the pies nor the naked self interest of Eddie, but let's be clear - we may have two players out of the box here, but how often need it occur to be an unfair advantage ? And our response is that we were playing within the rules. That's fine, but it also justifies changes to the rules as necessary.

The rules can change, but not in the middle of the game. The kind of targeting Eddie and Co. are looking for is analogous to them saying 'the Swans are kicking too many goals lately, so if the Swans kick a goal it should only be worth 5 points and not 6'.

As Patrick Smith and others have pointed out, there are many anomalies in the way the game is run. If is just not right to single out the Swans for targeting. It's time Collingwood give up a bit too.

[Melbournehammer]

Yeah that's the bit I think needs to be sorted out. It does have a sense of being changed halfway through the game.

But 2015 seems at least sufficiently prospective and not retrospective.

Anyway what do I know.

[liz]

Actually that is exactly what has happened. As father son picks were seen to distort the draft the mechanism was leveled up. I am not overly happy with the bitterness of the pies nor the naked self interest of Eddie, but let's be clear - we may have two players out of the box here, but how often need it occur to be an unfair advantage ? And our response is that we were playing within the rules. That's fine, but it also justifies changes to the rules as necessary.

But if the mechanisms to level up the distortion of the FS drafting opportunities were successful, why are they suddenly not so successful?

I acknowledge that there is a small benefit to the Swans (and other northern clubs - though note how the issue is being played out by Eddie and his cronies as a Swans' Academy issue?!!) but it is far too soon to justify the level of hyperbole. In the space of half a season, playing in division 2 and a handful of Rams TAC Cup games, Heeney has gone from someone who might or might not cost the Swans their first pick under the bidding system to the number one pick in the draft. Please! He's probably just a top 10 pick but with all the talls on offer, and someone like Petracca dominating division 1 to a far greater degree than Heeney did division 2, his tag as the number one pick seems driven by agendas.

The past 10 years have seen exactly NIL NSW players picked in the first round. Or the second round, for that matter. You have to go back to LRY and McVeigh for the most recent players to reach those lofty draft heights. Development in the state needs a serious overhaul and four years ago all the clubs signed off on a programme that would allow the Swans (and the other northern clubs) to pump significant time, money and effort into a system designed not just to identify the cream of the crop at age 17 and get them on the cheap, but to provide a scheme that would directly touch hundreds of kids each year. Some will enhance the overall draft pool. Others will just play for fun. Only now are Eddie and co screaming foul.

One of the tenets of the academy programmes was to tell local kids that, if they were good enough, they would get to play for their local team. This was seen to be important in NSW and Queensland, where they can sign for their elite league, rugby or soccer teams on a similar basis. Yes, it is slightly at odds with the national draft schema of the AFL but was seen to be a reasonable compromise given the much greater benefits the scheme set to offer the broader competition in the medium term. But now the goalposts are being moved, quite literally. You qualify to graduate to you local side if you're good, but hey Mssrs Heeney and Mills, just make sure you're not too good. Don't bust a gut to develop too quickly or the competition will renege on what they promised you.

In some ways, this is quite amusing because I reckon a lot of the competition has little idea about the draft. The histories of Melbourne, Richmond and Carlton indicate that drafting the most highly rated juniors has little to do with building a successful, sustainable team. Yes, draft access is one important part of the competition but it is such a small part in the overall scheme of things that this whole issue is truly overblown.

[Matt80]

The following is the proposed Matt80 solution to the academy drafting rules.

For argument sake assume the Swans have pick 18.

If an Academy or F/S player is bid for by an opposition club, the following conditions apply:

- If there is a draft position differential of under 8 picks then the host club only gives up the next available round pick. For example Heeney is bid for at pick 11 and the Swans use pick 18 to secure him.

-If there is a draft position differential of between 8 and 16 picks then the host club will give up their next available round pick and their next available pick two rounds later. For example Heeney is bid for at pick 6. There is a differential of 12 places, meaning that the Swans will need to give up their first round and their 3rd round to secure him.

- If there is a draft differential of plus 16 then the host club will give up their next available draft pick and the next draft pick in the following round. For example Heeney is bid for at pick 1. There is a differential of 17 places, meaning that the Swans will need to give up their 1st and 2nd round picks to secure him.

- If a club bids in the first round for an oppositions Academy player and secures him, then that club will pay $250,000 to the Academy of the players origin. The $250,000 will be funded as an independent payment out of that clubs salary cap for the following season. The payment is contingent on the host club not cutting any of their own investment in the Academy as a result of the payment for the first round player.

- If a club bids in the 2nd round for an oppositions Academy player and secures him, then the club will pay $100,000 to the Academy of the players origin. The $100,000 will be funded as an independent payment out of that clubs salary cap for the following season.

Picks in the 3rd or latter rounds don't incur compensation.

I think this system is fair to both parties. If a club is getting a draft steal of more than 7 places then they have to give up more than the next pick.

If an opposition club wants and bids for an Academy player then there is some form of monetary compensation to the host academy.

What do you think?

[Bloods05]

Seems OK Matt, just leave out the self-promoting bull@@@@ and people might take you more seriously.

[Bloods05]

Actually Melbournehammer, as I recall, those F/S changes were made after Geelong got a huge advantage, not before. That is the difference. Assumptions are clearly being made about Heeney and Mills before they have played a single game of senior footy. I understand their form in the reserves suggests they may be good, but the idea that they are both world-beaters is presumptuous at best. As Liz says, this is about agendas.

[Doctor]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Eddies and Newbolds of the world are very happy for there to be teams from outside Victoria in the AFL, they just don't want them to do very well.

[Ludwig]

The following is my solution to the drafting rules:

No change.