So are the references here to the Nov 2020 announcement that I posted higher up?Originally Posted by liz
So are the references here to the Nov 2020 announcement that I posted higher up?
I believe so.
If they strip the top 20 picks from the Academies, they would also have to do that with father-son draft picks. I don't see that happening.
The current system works well enough. Anyone who has an objection would have to explain how Josh Dunkley got to the Bulldogs.
"Unbelievable!" -- Nick Davis leaves his mark on the 2005 semi final
No change to Father Son I believe.
correct
I've always thought the 20% discount was nonsense for Acadamies, NGA's and F/S, being able to match a bid and therefore draft that player should be incentive enough but not also getting them points cheap.
Think that may be the next dilution we see, dropping the discount, and it would be fair.
NGA's were always a straight out rort, that's why the VFL is progressively winding back access to post pick 20 this year and next year it will be post pick 40.
I don't think the discounts are an issue. Having the right to match a bid at a pick by the club that ranks the player the highest (which is what the bidding system effectively does) isn't as valuable as having that pick yourself. You don't have a choice of player. For instance, if the Swans had held pick 3 in 2015, they might have preferred another player over Mills. Of course they were going to match the bid, because he was a bargain compared to their actual first pick, but given a free hand they might have used pick 3 on someone else if they had held it in an open draft.
They also provide some protection against tactical (vexatious?) bidding. (I also think the gradient of the points curve is too steep at the top and the discount helps to mitigate this.)
I think the biggest weakness (from the perspective of balancing out the advantage to the academy club) is the ability to package lots of lower picks. That was exacerbated this year because of the COVID/shrinking list concession, and that certainly helped the Dogs and Swans. Have a system where you need a pick within 10 places of the pick bid and it balances things out a bit. It means that the Swans would likely have had to choose between Campbell and McDonald this year (or at least, choose just two of the three we landed up with). And in 2015, we would have had to trade up a few places to have a pick good enough to secure Mills.
I also didn't much like (from a fairness perspective) the trading in and out that the Swans did to effectively secure Rowbottom while also matching the Blakey bid. My amendment above would effectively eliminate this from happening. (It's still possible even after they tweaked the rules - you just now need to involve more than one other club.)
That's not to say I'm not delighted to watch Mills (and Dawson - who maybe we wouldn't have got had we had to trade up for Mills, though Leonardis might have been the casualty instead), Blakey AND Rowbottom, Campbell AND McDonald (and Gulden) run around for us. But I kinda see why the degree of draft advantage causes a little angst for other clubs.
Matt Rendell was asked by Dwayne Russell on SEN today on his thoughts of the Swans Academy and whether we should continue to have first dibs on players it produces. Matt gave our Academy a big thumbs up detailing how it came to be and run, stating it's most likely the best run of the Northern Academies. He went on to further bat for the Northern Academies how important they are for the expansion of the competition and AFL player pool, adding the disadvantage the Northern States have with the go home factor when recruiting interstate players and lack of father/sons.
Whilst he's heard whinging about how the Academy picks comprise the draft, he says so be it but stressed the point the Northern Clubs don't get these players for free having to match bids like father/sons. He went on to give example Nick Daicos will most likely be Pick 1 this year which Collingwood will need to match bid and how they'd prepared for that with their swap of future picks from previous trade period.
Hoping Nick Daicos gets bid on really high as the Pies only hold four point bearing picks in the late 30/40s, can't currently match anything higher than pick 4.
Last trade period was a disaster for them - nice :-)
I refuse to watch Footy Classified on a Wednesday because of Eddie but last night when I turned on the tv it was on Channel 9 and the program was discussing the academies. Ross Lyon was very complimentary and spoke with facts. Eddie responded and said he was all for the academies. I nearly choked when I heard that. But then his verbal diarrhea started saying that the draft was compromised and that the players produced should go in the draft pool. My tv went on mute!
In an alternate universe (Probably one where Eddie resides most of the time), an academy setup where all players go into the draft pool makes sense. But it also involves bascially the only talent pool tool being academies (i.e. replacing all other pathways) with one of either 2 options:
- every club having an academy and producing players for the draft pool (Where is the incentive in that - it wont happen); or
- the AFL runs the lot.
Now we've seen previously how good the AFL is at developing players outside the traditional footy states.... so it would be a return to where all the talent comes out of basically VIC/SA/WA and bits and bobs from elsewhere.....
"You get the feeling that like Monty Python's Black Knight, the Swans would regard amputation as merely a flesh wound."
mmm... the AFL runs the lot, huh? I spent 14 years at a Sydney junior club with my boys and we often wondered if the AFL even
had an office or any employees in Sydney. Man, if Errol has another good game and we have the temerity to beat last years
wooden spooners on Saturday, I can see Victoria going into a full Covid style lockdown and NASA scientists being called in to get
the world back spinning on it's axis again.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks