The draft system needs to change to stop all this talk about tanking.

Lottery system from BF (and elsewhere):

16th 8 balls

15th 7 balls

14th 6 balls

13th 5 balls

12th 4 balls

11th 3 balls

10th 2 balls

9th 1 ball

1 ball from the 36 is drawn for the number 1 pick. Continue until pick 8. If a team that has already been drawn is drawn again that ball is discarded until an undrawn team is drawn. 8th gets pick 9 thru to 1st at pick 16. From the second round onwards just revert back to 16th getting the first pick in the second round.

There is not sufficient incentive to try to finish 15th or 16th over 13th or 14th. The 9th placed team has odds of 36 to 1 of getting the number one pick so you can imagine that it wouldnt happen very often.

Priority pick:

Retain it but have it always at the start of the second round. There's benefit there e.g. a player like Blease but not enough to tempt a team to deliberately lose.

  old55 said:

The draft system needs to change to stop all this talk about tanking.

Lottery system from BF (and elsewhere):

16th 8 balls

15th 7 balls

14th 6 balls

13th 5 balls

12th 4 balls

11th 3 balls

10th 2 balls

9th 1 ball

1 ball from the 36 are drawn for the number 1 pick. If a team that has already been drawn is drawn again that ball is discarded until and undrawn team is drawn. Continue until pick 8 then just continue as normal. From the second round onwards just revert back to 16th getting the first pick in the second round.

There is not sufficient incentive to try to finish 15th or 16th over 13th or 14th. The 9th placed team has odds of 36 to 1 of getting the number one pick so you can imagine that it wouldnt happen very often, if ever.

Priority pick:

Retain it but have it always at the start of the second round. There's benefit there e.g. a player like Blease but not enough to tempt a team to deliberately lose.

I think it's fair enough. I'd also like to see implemented a Staggered Prizemoney for each finishing position as added incentive to finish higher. In conjunction with the lottery system.

So Hawthorn could come 9th this year due to abberations having just won a flag and get lucky in the lottery and end up with pick 1 ?

Yeah, nah.

  Hannibal said:

So Hawthorn could come 9th this year due to abberations having just won a flag and get lucky in the lottery and end up with pick 1 ?

Yeah, nah.

1 in 36 chance.

  Hannibal said:

So Hawthorn could come 9th this year due to abberations having just won a flag and get lucky in the lottery and end up with pick 1 ?

Yeah, nah.

Small enough risk to tolerate to stop talk of teams losing deliberately - one number on the roulette wheel.

Maybe teams will tank out of the finals to get the chance?

You could restrict the lottery to the bottom 4 if the odds make you queasy.

Why make wholesale changes to a system that has been in place for many years; you risk abandoning many good aspects.

Try removing the priority pick and see how that goes. There may still be tanking, but that heat will have gone out of the issue. I would favour the commission sitting at the end of the year to review and award priority picks to the needy; it just should not be able to be automatically achieved.

Just imagine that the priority pick was not there for us this year. We might be accused of tanking to get Skully, but not really, as we would get second prize in Trengove. Contrast this with the prospect of getting both Skully and Trengove.

The priority pick makes the reward to great; all of those people who accuse us of tanking would be doing the same were they in our position.

I like the look of your system, and Im 100% behind a lottery system being introduced.

However, I'd probably do it slightly different. I'd have all 16 teams in the lottery. So 16th would have 16 balls, 15th 15 balls and 1st 1 ball, etc...

The reason I would want the top 8 included in the lottery is to acknowledge teams in the 5th-8th region who maybe just fall short of premiership contention (think North Melb. and Adelaide in recent years). By including them in the lottery, they get an opportunity to improve their draft pick to nab a player who might help to take them to the next level.

As I see it, the system is punishing teams who perform well most years, but who never quite have the class to win a flag.

I'd also conduct the lottery for every round, not just the 1st.

But i do like your idea of keeping the priority pick, but shifting it to the start of the second round. That way, poor sides will have an opportunity to improve (enhancing the AFL's idea of competitive balance) while not being unfair to the rest of the clubs. They will also have less incentive to 'tank' or 'list manage' or whatever you want to call it.

Good job..

I don't think I like that or any lotto system but I agree that a PP prior to the first round has to go. A 2nd round PP shouldn't be much of a problem but it is more susceptible to weak drafts so in the end it may not do it's job apart from being a trade option. As far as the general draft order goes it should stay as it is, at the end of the day we have to have an order of some kind. I like the idea of Staggered Prizemoney suggested by HT or at least some other kind of incentive to aim for the best possible ladder position.

  old55 said:

The draft system needs to change to stop all this talk about tanking.

Lottery system from BF (and elsewhere):

16th 8 balls

15th 7 balls

14th 6 balls

13th 5 balls

12th 4 balls

11th 3 balls

10th 2 balls

9th 1 ball

1 ball from the 36 is drawn for the number 1 pick. Continue until pick 8. If a team that has already been drawn is drawn again that ball is discarded until an undrawn team is drawn. 8th gets pick 9 thru to 1st at pick 16. From the second round onwards just revert back to 16th getting the first pick in the second round.

There is not sufficient incentive to try to finish 15th or 16th over 13th or 14th. The 9th placed team has odds of 36 to 1 of getting the number one pick so you can imagine that it wouldnt happen very often.

Priority pick:

Retain it but have it always at the start of the second round. There's benefit there e.g. a player like Blease but not enough to tempt a team to deliberately lose.

Nice Idea up until 9th Placed team gets the Number one Draft Pick. Then all HELL will break Loose. Imagine SEN in Melt down! AFL House would Be set on Fire!

Won't Happen (or Shouldn't Happen)! The only way to stop Tanking is to have decent Prize money Increments on each ladder position.

Even then clubs will decide whether to Tank or not

  why you little said:

Won't Happen (or Shouldn't Happen)! The only way to stop Tanking is to have decent Prize money Increments on each ladder position.

Even then clubs will decide whether to Tank or not

Where is the money going to come from?

I think the space between 16th and 15th should be larger. Remember, the bottom placed team is often very far off from the 15th placed team, as we were last year. Giving the 16th team 8 balls and the 15th team 7 balls gives them 15th 1 less chance to get the No. 1 overall pick.

Should be something like:

16th - 100 balls

15th - 40 balls

14th - 30 balls

13th - 20 balls

12th - 10 balls

11th - 8 balls

10th - 5 balls

9th - 3 balls

If a team is eligible for a priority pick, their ball number goes down to within a certain percentage of THE NEXT TEAM WITHOUT A PRIORITY PICK.

So, say Melbourne and Fremantle, who finish 16th and 15th, are eligible for a priority pick this year. They will get the first two picks (priority picks), but then Fremantle ball total will go down to within, say, 20% of 13th place, and Melbourne's will go down to within 20% of 14th place. This is so as to reduce the amount of chance they have of getting No. 1 and No. 2.

2009 lottery example:

Priority selection/s:

No. 1 - Melbourne

No. 2 - Fremantle

So the first two picks are Melbourne and then Fremantle. Their placings in the lottery are irrelevant.

Then, the draft starts in the placings of the lottery. Remember, Fremantle and Melbourne both had their ball numbers decreased, as they were eligible for the priority, so the number goes down to within a certain percentage of the next team WITHOUT a priority pick.

Lottery ranking:

1. Fremantle (They got lucky in this lottery. Only had 23 or so balls)

2. North

3. Melbourne (unlucky buggers! Had 39 or so balls)

4. W.C.

and so on.

If the AFL wants to keep the priority system, there is ALWAYS going to be tanking talk. If you incorporate a lottery system but take away the priority selection, then a team like Melbourne, who has been bad for going on 3 years, only gets 1 pick in the top 10. It's lose/lose, really. So it's just a matter of implementing a way so a team isn't 100% guaranteed 2 picks in the top 4 or 5 picks.

Does that make sense? lol

  calabreseboy said:

I think the space between 16th and 15th should be larger. Remember, the bottom placed team is often very far off from the 15th placed team, as we were last year. Giving the 16th team 8 balls and the 15th team 7 balls gives them 15th 1 less chance to get the No. 1 overall pick.

Should be something like:

16th - 100 balls

15th - 40 balls

14th - 30 balls

13th - 20 balls

12th - 10 balls

11th - 8 balls

10th - 5 balls

9th - 3 balls

That's better than my version . I like it... But I would do it with all 16 teams instead of the bottom 8...

  old55 said:

16th 8 balls

15th 7 balls

14th 6 balls

13th 5 balls

12th 4 balls

11th 3 balls

10th 2 balls

9th 1 ball

Priority pick:

As long as we have a draft, you can't stop tanking.

Imagine a 17 y.o version of Lebron James. Teams who are out of the finals will pretty much tank for "clearly the number one best player".

The fans wanted Lebron bad and they wanted the Cavs to tank hard to ensure they get the most balls. It will happen and imagine a Lebron going to Hawthorn. Ouch.

I'm happy to give 16th 1st pick, 15th 2nd pick etc.

Priority picks need to stay too as there will be [censored] teams that need help. A tighter criteria is needed though to ensure the teams that need it get it. And not exploited.

E.g Percentage 2 years running of <75%.

Number of Wins during the 2 years.

The teams they beat. (Weagles beat like five or six top 8 teams in their poor period. Beat Two, maybe three top 4 teams)

When they win it ( Carlton wins 4 of the first 10, loses 12 of the last 12)

  why you little said:

Won't Happen (or Shouldn't Happen)! The only way to stop Tanking is to have decent Prize money Increments on each ladder position.

Yeah sure WC, Collingwood and Adelaide will all be killing each other to win an extra $100K

One ball to chase in footy is enough.

  Scully The Tank Engine said:

Where is the money going to come from?

The Goddam Broadcast Rights that the AFL Demand!! They are so loaded in there. Time to put money back in to the clubs.

I'm not a lottery fan in general. Scrap the priority pick (in a year or two of course) and keep the system as is after that (eg. 16th gets 1, 15th gets 2 and so on). Old, under your system, this is the breakdown of the percentage chance each team outside the 8 has of securing the #1 pick:

16. 22.22%

15. 19.44%

14. 16.67%

13. 13.89%

12. 11.11%

11. 8.33%

10. 5.56%

9. 2.78%

In my opinion, that is nowhere near enough of an advantage for the lower teams. Of course, if you did this, you'd have to implement something like what the NBA has where the bottom-ranked team can fall to no lower than pick 4, otherwise you could end up with the unlikely but ludicrous situation where the spooners don't pick until 6, 7 or 8.

Ultimately, while a lottery has noble intentions, you're just going to draw the attention of the whingers and conspiracy theorists to other targets. Instead of people moaning about a team's list management, there would be utter uproar if a 9th placed Collingwood or Carlton wound up with the #1 pick, similar to the 1985 NBA Draft, where people still complain that commissioner David Stern pulled out New York's "frozen" envelope first so that the big market team could select Patrick Ewing. We now have a system that allows the poorer sides to reap some benefit in an increasingly rich-get-richer climate. Ditch the priority pick and keep the draft order according to the ladder.

Nice work though, Old!

  Hannibal said:

So Hawthorn could come 9th this year due to abberations having just won a flag and get lucky in the lottery and end up with pick 1 ?

Yeah, nah.

Exactly, which makes the lottery a no-go-zone. It would be horrendous if a team like Hawthorn could just miss the finals and then get pick 1.

I'm going to start a new poll to see whether it's the PP that makes the difference or not. Because I'm beginning to think that, no matter what the system is, teams will still tank if the lower positions get the better picks.

  High Tower said:

I think it's fair enough. I'd also like to see implemented a Staggered Prizemoney for each finishing position as added incentive to finish higher. In conjunction with the lottery system.

Would only make the league more imbalanced. The West Coasts and Collingwoods of the league already have an advantage due to spending massive amounts more on recruiting, coaching and development. (They can afford too though so good on them in that regard) You think a few bucks would make the pp look any less enticing to West Coast.

Might make a few meaningless wins enticing for the struggling clubs like North and Us however and forever trapping us into mediocrity.

  old55 said:

Lottery system from BF (and elsewhere):

16th 8 balls

15th 7 balls

14th 6 balls

13th 5 balls

12th 4 balls

11th 3 balls

10th 2 balls

9th 1 ball

I think I read somewhere that in the NBA, the number of balls is different. I could be wrong, but I like this version.

16th 128 balls

15th 64 balls

14th 32 balls

13th 16 balls

12th 8 balls

11th 4 balls

10th 2 balls

9th 1 ball

Notice that your chances are double that of the team before you. Also that the 16th placed team is by far the most likely. Also notice that 16th has roughly half the balls, making it a nervous wait hoping that the half the first ball is drawn in is your half.

I think the model called for a situation where once your ball was selected, all the rest of yours are removed from the full amount before the next selection.

It's all well and good, but I think you'll find there'd be more complaints about the system. I reckon the first time a team gets duped by this, or the first time a team like Hawthorn gets REALLY lucky, people would crack the sads big time.

If the ability for the draft to help the lowest ranked sides is compromised, then the draft becomes a liability.

Basically you're trading a small part of the Draft's effectiveness for the opportunity to MAYBE stop teams tanking.

I have to say, if I was the AFL, and I was faced with only a lottery system or the current system, I'd stay with the current one. After all, we have been tuning in every week, as it gives us something to barrack for, even though we're on the bottom. They'd be loving that.

  Hannibal said:

So Hawthorn could come 9th this year due to abberations having just won a flag and get lucky in the lottery and end up with pick 1 ?

Yeah, nah.

If 9th get the no1 pick with winning 11 games and the bottom team only win 2 games and get pick 8 there would be an uproar, couldn't possibly happen.

The priority pick should stay it is evening up the competition. I don't see much difference between 6th and 16th with the top 2 teams being very good and 3rd to 5th being good teams. That's the great thing about the AFL it still gives fans the belief that it doesn't matter how bad we are eventually we could still have a crack for a priemership. The last thing I want to see is the AFL turn into the EPL where only the big clubs can win the premiership, it is already happening with salary cap concessions they shouldn't take one of the few evening the competition tools away it could only hurt a club like ours.

With the lottery system why do we want to be like the American's? All their sports suck we shouldn't be taking their ideas cause they have no idea.

The media is a joke. So what if we lose a few meaningless games trying new things? sometimes you have to take a step backwards to go 2 steps forward and I think that is what Bailey is doing with experimenting, hopefully he won't crack under pressure from the media and play safe football.

  Dappa Dan said:

I have to say, if I was the AFL, and I was faced with only a lottery system or the current system, I'd stay with the current one. After all, we have been tuning in every week, as it gives us something to barrack for, even though we're on the bottom. They'd be loving that.

Hmm. That's an interesting perspective Dappa. Maybe the AFL likes it as it is simply because it continues to generate interest in matches that would otherwise be absolutely ignored by the AFL community (e.g. Melbourne v Richmond). Maybe they're hoping that this week, because of this tanking talk, people will watch/listen/attend the North v Melbourne match, where otherwise they wouldn't.

  old55 said:

Yeah sure WC, Collingwood and Adelaide will all be killing each other to win an extra $100K

I was talking serious Cash. $100K is nothing!

The league made $760 Mill off the last lot of Broadcast Right, Next years dealings are tipped to be close to a$Bill.

That leaves more than enough cash to Divvy up.

I don't see them doing it but it is the only way to stop Tanking.

A lottery System is still a Gamble no matter how many Balls you have, if a top side got lucky. Bottom side supporters would give up & walk away before a season starts.

  titan_uranus said:

Hmm. That's an interesting perspective Dappa. Maybe the AFL likes it as it is simply because it continues to generate interest in matches that would otherwise be absolutely ignored by the AFL community (e.g. Melbourne v Richmond). Maybe they're hoping that this week, because of this tanking talk, people will watch/listen/attend the North v Melbourne match, where otherwise they wouldn't.

Yep this system keeps us all interested and involved each day.

If for example in this years Draft the Melbourne Football Club pulled out 4 dud balls in the lottery. Supporters & maybe even sponsors would walk away next year.

The System we have now aint great, but a lottery is potential disaster

.

  pantaloons said:

I'm not a lottery fan in general. Scrap the priority pick (in a year or two of course) and keep the system as is after that (eg. 16th gets 1, 15th gets 2 and so on). Old, under your system, this is the breakdown of the percentage chance each team outside the 8 has of securing the #1 pick:

16. 22.22%

15. 19.44%

14. 16.67%

13. 13.89%

12. 11.11%

11. 8.33%

10. 5.56%

9. 2.78%

In my opinion, that is nowhere near enough of an advantage for the lower teams. Of course, if you did this, you'd have to implement something like what the NBA has where the bottom-ranked team can fall to no lower than pick 4, otherwise you could end up with the unlikely but ludicrous situation where the spooners don't pick until 6, 7 or 8.

Agree on pick 1 but the chances of the bottom team getting a pick somewhere in the first 4 is still something like 75%. You could increase the number of balls (as discussed here by others) and decrease the number of teams in the lottery to get an acceptable formula which balances giving a fair chance with elimating certainty. I think the 128 balls and the 100 balls scenarios tip it too far towards the current situation but there's a balance in there somewhere.