21st March 2017, 10:12 AM
AFL changes academy rules and shafts Giants and Swans
The AFL has decided to totally change the academy rules that will really hurt the Giants and the Swans. Top four teams which I expect will include both the Giants and the Swans will be limited to just one academy pick. As well the Giants have lost the Albury region from their academy. I think losing Albury is justified but I disagree with top four and top eight teams being limited in how many academy picks they can have. Last year the Swans did not have an academy pick but in another year they might want two It averages out and takes away much of the incentive for the Northern Clubs to run the academies. Not so much of a problem for Lions and Suns this year who I don't expect to make top eight but in the future who knows.
Giants lose access to top talent in academy overhaul - AFL.com.au
21st March 2017, 10:41 AM
We are not limited to one academy pick if you read the article carefully.
Originally Posted by rb4x
The limitation is on Top 20 picks and only if we are in the Top 4 (not top 8 as you state). We still get access to the number one elite kid like Isaac and Callum and we still get access to fully reference checked local talent in the 20s onwards at a discount. As the pipeline of talent starts to flow I think the impact on us will be lower than we think.
I think there is still benefit in the system but I imagine the Swans will take a more pragmatic approach going forward re funding.
Hopefully we are now at the end game with any tinkering and we can have certainty going forward.
21st March 2017, 10:48 AM
Just to clarify, I believe if you are top 4 then you are limited to one 1st round academy pick. Much of the below part of my post is pulled from the general topic thread, but I thought is was relevant to this thread.
I think its a wise decision from the AFL. I don't think you deserve two first round academy prospects if you make top 4. You may argue that you will need to trade to pay the points, but I think two 1st round selections is too much planned and secured talent for a top 4 side.
It may be unfair to those guys, but I think the reverse academy argument of busts such as Hiscox and Davis need to be argued against the Mills and Heeney argument.
Hiscox was a poor selection by the Swans in the 2nd round and was primary done to protect the integrity of the academy. It would have been a bad look if the Swans had not matched the Fremantle bid for Hiscox and send a Glebe boy to Fremantle (although he would have loved the coffee strip and the famous Sunday sessions in Fremantle). This would have eroded confidence in the Academy and the Swans knew this and wasted the 2nd round selection. Fremantle as a top 4 competitor at the time did well to make the Swans burn a 2nd round selection.
The AFL should know that Hiscox and Davis cost more than their fair value because of the need to protect the hope of future prospects. This should offset the Heeney and Mills argument.
I don't think the Swans will scale back their investment in the academy. To me, apart from a Heeney and Mills you get every now and then, the academy is a brilliant grassroots marketing initiative for the Swans. It helps the membership drive as family, friends and associates of Academy players get behind the Swans. The Swans would have someone looking at the return on investment in the academy in terms of increasing memberships and they would know the number.
21st March 2017, 11:42 AM
Regular in the Side
Very Good summary of the academy. Just having one selection is not such a bad thing. Don't forget the majority of kids in NSW still play Rugby. The Heeney and Mills situation is abnormal and it may be another 10 years before we get a quality player from the academy.
Originally Posted by Joel Ridge
21st March 2017, 12:51 PM
I doubt it will be 10 years (2018 is my guess, unless FS politics derails his availability) but I agree that the club getting Heeney and Mills in successive years is far from the current "normal". For the Swans, at least. The Giants' zone has proved to be so rich that they have picked up a stream of under-20 draft picks in the last couple of seasons, and the pipeline doesn't look to be slowing down. Even the removal of part of the zone won't entirely stem the flow.
Originally Posted by crackedactor
I am passionately supportive of the NSW and Queensland academies and what they are trying to achieve. And there does need to be some incentive to the four clubs to continue to invest their time into these schemes. But there needs to be a balance with the aims of draft equalisation (unless one is against the whole concept of draft equalisation). It would be a massive advantage to have access to players of Heeney and Mills' calibre every year (even without a draft discount). While it is some way off before that happens, it should be expected that, if the participation numbers are sustained, one or two of the best dozen players each year will start to consistently emerge from the major population centres along the NSW coast. I don't think that limiting the Swans to matching a bid for just one of these very best players each year is that unreasonable in the context of the entire competition and the draft.
21st March 2017, 12:58 PM
Regular in the Side
The AFL is making these rules up on the run. Just because GWS had a great year last year (largely because they had the Riverina), they are imposing this penalty on us, Brisbane and GCS. What if we go several years without an academy selection in the first round and then there are two in the one year? It's also unfair that they are doing this whilst leaving the father/son selections alone. They are supposed to be treated the same as the academy selections.
21st March 2017, 01:17 PM
This sounds like a solution to a perceived problem rather than an actual problem. GWS havent had many players at all from the contentious area of the riverina (murray river towns), but have quite a few from towns further north which are at best 50/50 AFL league. ie exactly what academies are for.
GWS must be widely successful as all their start-up concessions are being pulled back ahead of time.
Also stupid that a team cant "bank" picks. If it hasnt taken a top20 academy kid for a few years and then 2 come up in a top 4 year, they should be able to take both. Guns are still as rare as hens teeth.
21st March 2017, 01:36 PM
Not correct - the majority of kids in NSW play soccer, followed by league. Rugby and AFL are somewhere after that (not sure in which order).
Originally Posted by crackedactor
Anyway taking away GWS's access to a well developed AFL region had to happen, especially given the benefits they were reaping for very little effort. Bit of a bummer that we and the other clubs were collateral damage re the academies but there shouldn't be too great an impact in reality.
21st March 2017, 01:40 PM
Sensible decision by the AFL but over 12 months late in making the changes. They should have made the changes before the last draft where GWS gamed the system to get Toranto at pick 2 before their first academy player needed to be bid on. I think this what what ultimately forced the AFL to act, albeit under extreme pressure from Eddie and his running mates, last year GWS should have been using their first pick on Setterfield, not taking a Vic draftee.
I like the level of access being tied to ladder position and it should ensure the northern teams become more locally sourced over time which is a good thing.
Don't think we will change anything as getting priority access to draftees you know absolutely thoroughly is invaluable. Just think how much effort goes into interviewing draftees, parents, school teachers, junior coaches for players you won't get to draft because they were picked before your turn, that's wasted resource and effort. We don't need to do anywhere near that level of research for academy players, and if you know you have a R1 tied to you, there's a swag of R1 picks you don't need to do work on that year.
If these changes were in place from the start would things have been different for us? No, we just would have paid more for Heeney, as we should have. So good changes, just overdue. Will take the heat right out of northern academy whinging.
Last edited by 707; 21st March 2017 at 01:54 PM.
21st March 2017, 04:06 PM
I'm okay with the new rules limiting 1st round academy selections, with one exception. I think there should be some flexibility to cover 2 high draft picks in a single year when there were none in the previous year. For example, if the Swans don't have any 1 round academy players in this coming draft year, we could still match bids on on Blakey and Close in 2018, if they both happen to receive bids in the first round and we finish top 4. I further think that we should be able to bid on 2 players in a given year if we are willing to forfeit our right to a first round bid in the following year. In this way, we can only get 2 first round academy players in any 2 successive years.
If we had the situation of a Mills and Heeney both coming through in the same year, it would be a pity to lose either one. But I think it would be fair if we forfeited out right to get another one in the following year, or forgo a top pick in a prior year. It's a small point, but one that clears up a circumstantial anomaly.
21st March 2017, 05:04 PM
AFL changes academy rules and shafts Giants and Swans
I'm also ok with the new rules (although frustrated by the constant tinkering apparently without discussion with the Swans). However I'm annoyed that it appears that the rules for F/S selections and drafting from the Next Generation Academies (NGAs) have been left unchanged. I suspect the latter, in particular, will provide some exceptional talent, and possibly in the near future.
I also note that GWS has been allowed to have continued access to Next Generation talent from the Albury/Murray area, so therefore presumably under the unchanged drafting rules.
So (hypothetically) if the Swans develop two boys from multicultural backgrounds into exceptional prospects through our academy, and they both become eligible in the same draft, the Swans are subject to the new tougher drafting rules. But if (say) the Crows bring forward two exceptional prospects from their NGA (not out of the question given their zone and the immigration patterns into Adelaide) then they have access to both under the more relaxed rules.
This only makes sense if the intent is to give the NGAs a few years to develop and then make the rules the same as those for the northern academies. However I haven't read anything to say that is the case.
21st March 2017, 05:18 PM
I am able to accept these changes but surely we can just leave the system unchanged for a period now.
Originally Posted by Meg
All the Swans have ever really asked for was one priority pick from NSW and we still effectively have that. And if the "problem" arises where we miss out on a first rounder because we have too many then that is just something we need to cop for the good of the game. The ultimate situation would be that Sydney produces so many AFL standard players that the Academy system is not required at all but I think we are a good 15 years away minimum from that.
I agree with Ludwig that I'd like some flexibility, in fact I'd like it matched to how many top 20 picks we have in the draft order. Whether that can be negotiated is doubtful.
Finally re GWS, for those with no sense of geography they have only lost the Murray/Albury area and not Riverina. The two are not the same. I watched Gill on AFL 360 and I was impressed with him actually. he just said that from a big picture strategic point of view he didn't see how concessions could apply to kids who already had an existing pathway via an elite Victorian competition (i.e. the Murray Bushrangers in the TAC Cup) and he said frankly he wondered why it was ever allowed in the first case. It does not affect the Riverina so GWS still have a golden patch, who knows they might start giving a damn about the game in Western Sydney.
I just hope this whole debate can now be put to rest but I suspect you'll hear the squealing any time we recruit anyone good, just waiting for the dirty shin-boners to have a cow when we select Nick Blakey
Tags for this Thread
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO