Tanking - how to stop it?

[sue 9,107]

Haven't thought this idea through, but what about reversing things to stop tanking while giving weak clubs a boost:

The higher a club finishes in the finals, the more of its players can be poached by the clubs who finish say from 10th to wooden spoon (with no advantage for being bottom). No team will tank in the finals to preserve a player or 2 for the next year. A club is unlikely to tank to just miss out on a finals berth.

Problems: No top club will agree. Perhaps they will/can tie everyone up with contracts? Really weak clubs get same advantage as mid-range clubs. Doubtless there are other reasons why the idea is a complete lemon....

[e25 5]

You're right, you haven't thought this idea through.

Sorry, I don't think it has much merit.

The draft system without priority picks should be enough, in my view.

[Guest hangon007]

Haven't thought this idea through, but what about reversing things to stop tanking while giving weak clubs a boost:

The higher a club finishes in the finals, the more of its players can be poached by the clubs who finish say from 10th to wooden spoon (with no advantage for being bottom). No team will tank in the finals to preserve a player or 2 for the next year. A club is unlikely to tank to just miss out on a finals berth.

Problems: No top club will agree. Perhaps they will/can tie everyone up with contracts? Really weak clubs get same advantage as mid-range clubs. Doubtless there are other reasons why the idea is a complete lemon....

... you could insert a pre-first round selection where every club get a selection ... almost like the GWS mini draft this year, where players get to nominate your club/s. Kids would have to agree to the nomination for that first round.

You could only select kids in the first round that nominated you as a preferred club/s.

Call it an almost reward for the kids that performed brilliant in TAC cup football.

What that effectively would do is force AFL clubs to invest even more in the youth of tomorrow. If you where going to tank it would not ensure you the kids you want ... in fact the kids are less likely to want you.

You would kill tanking ... you would return the integrity to the game ... you reward top performing kids ... you reward AFL clubs that invested in the kids.

Edited August 8, 2011 by hangon007

[rpfc 28,483]

Just do a lottery with PP only determined by the commission if a club falls in a heap.

Done.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Haven't thought this idea through, but what about reversing things to stop tanking while giving weak clubs a boost:

The higher a club finishes in the finals, the more of its players can be poached by the clubs who finish say from 10th to wooden spoon (with no advantage for being bottom). No team will tank in the finals to preserve a player or 2 for the next year. A club is unlikely to tank to just miss out on a finals berth.

Problems: No top club will agree. Perhaps they will/can tie everyone up with contracts? Really weak clubs get same advantage as mid-range clubs. Doubtless there are other reasons why the idea is a complete lemon....

The problem doesn't stem from the draft or the priority pick but rather the problem is the certainty of where & how to get the pick/player, you want.

IMO the problems start with the knowledge that if you List Manage Heavily, you can get the 2 Top picks in the Land.

If we drew the first 5 draft selections for Rnd 1, out of a Hat, that would end the certainty of aiming for a particular player...

But also, if the 2nd Year priority pick was taken after the 9th placed Team, Rnd1(before the finalists), instead of prior to the Draft, IMO that would help to keep it Honest.

There are good things that come from having the safety net. But the abuse of the system needs to be addressed.

[Range Rover 1,935]

Just do a lottery with PP only determined by the commission if a club falls in a heap.

Done.

I agree with you Rpfc ..... did I really just say that?

- Lottery for the bottom four or six clubs to get picks 1 - 6.

- Commission to step in as need be.

This blight on our game must end now.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Range Rover

[Guest hangon007]

Just do a lottery with PP only determined by the commission if a club falls in a heap.

Done.

Do you want to give the AFL more power ... geez big call. How do you define "heap" ... how many years to they have to be in a "heap".

Clubs might agree to it one year if it suited them ... But the next they would start making "railroad" statements.

All drafts are different, a PP pick in some drafts is not as valuable as PP in other drafts.

Many times its not the physical pick that counts ... its your ability to develop the pick that counts.

Edited August 8, 2011 by hangon007

[old55 23,611]

... you could insert a pre-first round selection where every club get a selection ... almost like the GWS mini draft this year, where players get to nominate your club/s. Kids would have to agree to the nomination for that first round.

You could only select kids in the first round that nominated you as a preferred club/s.

Call it an almost reward for the kids that performed brilliant in TAC cup football.

What that effectively would do is force AFL clubs to invest even more in the youth of tomorrow. If you where going to tank it would not ensure you the kids you want ... in fact the kids are less likely to want you.

You would kill tanking ... you would return the integrity to the game ... you reward top performing kids ... you reward AFL clubs that invested in the kids.

Oh yeah that'd work - kids would be lining up to go to Port Adelaide.

Likely #1 pick: "Ummm Collingwood looks good"

Best player from Perth: "Umm the Eagles look suitable"

[John Dee 445]

The automatic priority pick is the problem. Leave the draft the way it is and make any priority pick the behest of the AFL commission.

[PaulRB 6,372]

Have the fixture have every team play each other once by Rd 17 at which time the draft order (and Priorities are set). I would add that the fixture for Rd 18-24 should not have any top 4 team play any bottom 4 team (based on the previous seasons results)...

Solves Tanking and late season blowouts where a low team is trying youth Vs a top team tuning up for finals.

[Guest hangon007]

Oh yeah that'd work - kids would be lining up to go to Port Adelaide.

Likely #1 pick: "Ummm Collingwood looks good"

Best player from Perth: "Umm the Eagles look suitable"

Yip its up to the clubs to sell the virtues of their clubs to the kids.

I'm sure many kids would be happy to stay in SA ... you have no go home factor.

Simple kids get three choices in their nomination for

1/ Preferred club ...

2/ Preferred clubs ....

3/ No preference ....

You never force kids where they dont want to go!!!!!! You reward clubs who invest in the kids to get them to nominate their club. You reward kids who have brilliant under age footy ie TAC cup.

So it might just work. But I didn't expect you to see the idea.

If kids choose Collingwood over you ... what is stopping them in 2 years time? Better to know from day 1 & avoid the situation.

You would have passionate kids that want to play for the jumper .... ohhhhhhh B)

Edited August 8, 2011 by hangon007

[e25 5]

The automatic priority pick is the problem. Leave the draft the way it is and make any priority pick the behest of the AFL commission.

It depends though.

If it were at the behest of the AFL commission, would we have been awarded a pick in 2009?

God knows we deserved one, even if we had to use some unusual tactics against Richmond to secure it.

[Striker475 696]

Different solution:

First round of draft picks allocated by who has waited the longest to win a premiership.

Thus (assuming Collingwood win the flag):

1. Western Bulldogs

2. Melbourne

3. St Kilda

4. Richmond

5. Fremantle

6. Carlton

7. Adelaide

8. North

9. Essendon

10. Brisbane

11. Port

12. Sydney

13. West Coast

14. Hawthorn

15. Geelong

16. Gold Coast

17. GWS

18. Collingwood

When you win the flag, you drop to the bottom.

Takes any temptation out of the system at all.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Striker475

[hrob 2]

I like the idea of taking away the priority picks, also i'd like the AFL to sort of copy the way the draft is done in the NBA. For instance make it a lottery draft for the bottom 4 sides each year. Both these solutions would fix the tanking issue I feel.

[H_T 3,048]

Just do a lottery with PP only determined by the commission if a club falls in a heap.

Done.

I agree with you Rpfc ..... did I really just say that?

- Lottery for the bottom four or six clubs to get picks 1 - 6.

- Commission to step in as need be.

This blight on our game must end now.

Agree.

[Guest hangon007]

I agree with you Rpfc ..... did I really just say that?

- Lottery for the bottom four or six clubs to get picks 1 - 6.

- Commission to step in as need be.

This blight on our game must end now.

This has been tried overseas its NOT effective against tanking. They have even tried "weighted probability pick theory" ... but there is still a marginal advantage to tank.

Plus you could have the situation where a club finishes 12 and get the first pick. (AFL dont like that idea)

as I said above ... not all drafts are the same PP in one draft is not the same as a PP in the next.

Plus most importantly it doesn't stop kids being forced to go where they dont want to go... restriction of trade.

Edited August 8, 2011 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

Different solution:

First round of draft picks allocated by who has waited the longest to win a premiership.

Thus (assuming Collingwood win the flag):

1. Western Bulldogs

2. Melbourne

3. St Kilda

4. Richmond

5. Fremantle

6. Carlton

7. Adelaide

8. North

9. Essendon

10. Brisbane

11. Port

12. Sydney

13. West Coast

14. Hawthorn

15. Geelong

16. Gold Coast

17. GWS

18. Collingwood

When you win the flag, you drop to the bottom.

Takes any temptation out of the system at all.

Interesting idea ... I like it ... just not sure you could sell this to the other clubs.

How would you stop restriction of trade ... How would you stop kids going where they dont want too and possibly walking out 2-4 years later?

[Born to Run 204]

Just do a lottery with PP only determined by the commission if a club falls in a heap.

Done.

RPFC - reckon the lottery has some real merit, but can you imagine the outcry if the worst team got pick 8 when the 9th team gets the best talent in the country. In this regard I think the Lottery is dangerous – no matter how you calculate the odds of getting the pick pending on where you finish on the ladder.

If you look at the differences in quality between pick 1 and 8 – it is usually significant. [Please note I have conveniently not used pick 7 as that has been weirdly very good...Selwood, Rich, Palmer (in his first year)].

I think that we need to abolish the PP altogether. It’s a blight on the game as people associate future premierships with draft picks (however right or wrong that is)

How about this as a radical idea......instead of additional draft picks, the salary cap of lesser performing team(s) could get a top up of (say) 10% for the following year only.

The extra salary cap may be able to be used to retain players on longer term contracts – protecting them from getting mauled by other clubs that will try and steal their players because of lack of success and it MAY allow the poorly performing club to recruit a good player through the Pre Season Draft – effectively providing a really ‘useful pick’ in the PSD as the extra cash could land someone really good.

Before people jump all over me because some of the lesser clubs only pay 92.5% of the cap to be eligible for the AFL handout – hopefully with better stadium deals to come, each club should hopefully be paying closer to the 100% salary cap.

It would be great to try and get a more instant result to the struggling club rather than get a draft pick that in reality could take up to 4 years to affect the teams performance significantly.

Getting an established high profile player with leadership potential can have a very strong affect on the club, just ask Carlton…….

The other good thing is that the salary cap reverts back to ‘market’ in the next season, so things come back to being normal pretty quickly.

I fully understand this has issues, perhaps the greatest of these is that perhaps teams will tank anyway (although you would not think that getting extra $$ in one year will deliver a flag in 4 years)………I don’t know……but it may also create some benefits? Just wanted to hypothesize about it another way than draft picks.

Just a discussion point.

[old55 23,611]

Different solution:

First round of draft picks allocated by who has waited the longest to win a premiership.

Thus (assuming Collingwood win the flag):

1. Western Bulldogs

2. Melbourne

3. St Kilda

4. Richmond

5. Fremantle

6. Carlton

7. Adelaide

8. North

9. Essendon

10. Brisbane

11. Port

12. Sydney

13. West Coast

14. Hawthorn

15. Geelong

16. Gold Coast

17. GWS

18. Collingwood

When you win the flag, you drop to the bottom.

Takes any temptation out of the system at all.

I like this idea - 2nd round etc would be in reverse ladder order. The only downside is that Port Adelaide in their current parlous state wouldn't get a #1 pick for at least 10 years even if they finished bottom every year.

The variation posted on BF where it is "longest out of the finals", then teams in the finals in reverse ladder order (then 2nd round etc in reverse ladder order) has merit too. No team would tank out of the finals.

[Born to Run 204]

Different solution:

First round of draft picks allocated by who has waited the longest to win a premiership.

Thus (assuming Collingwood win the flag):

1. Western Bulldogs

2. Melbourne

3. St Kilda

4. Richmond

5. Fremantle

6. Carlton

7. Adelaide

8. North

9. Essendon

10. Brisbane

11. Port

12. Sydney

13. West Coast

14. Hawthorn

15. Geelong

16. Gold Coast

17. GWS

18. Collingwood

When you win the flag, you drop to the bottom.

Takes any temptation out of the system at all.

Super concept. Have not thought through all the permutations of it - but it is interesting.

I guess the issue may come if the runner up is Western Bulldogs, they would get the number 1 draft pick.

What it does is really accentuate the focus on equalization by the AFL. It may be seen as simply taking the concept too far. I know I would certainly be a fan of it considering where we sit!

[old55 23,611]

How would you stop kids going where they dont want too and possibly walking out 2-4 years later?

How often has this happened? It just a massive furphy. Give me some examples - it's just not a problem. Unless there's some massive incentive like the GW$s, required kids stay at the clubs they're drafted to.

Edited August 8, 2011 by old55

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

You reward clubs who invest in the kids to get them to nominate their club. You reward kids who have brilliant under age footy ie TAC cup.

Good idea. So Clubs just "invest" in a young player or their family members? By paper bags of unused notes. Swiss bank accounts. Third party arrangements. Has all the honesty and integrity of the process of persuasion of an IOC or FIFA delegate.

[John Crow Batty 8,871]

How about making the last 6 rounds of the season premium draft pick mini season? The bottom six teams at that stage get to qualify. The best performed of these bottom six for the remainder of the season get the first pick and so on. As the strength of these sides will be relatively even, the competition should be keen.

Edited August 8, 2011 by america de cali

[John Dee 445]

It depends though.

If it were at the behest of the AFL commission, would we have been awarded a pick in 2009?

God knows we deserved one, even if we had to use some unusual tactics against Richmond to secure it.

The commission would have to set out the ground rules and say that there is no questioning of their descisions, like in all other matters. They should say that they will look at the performance over the past few seasons and a clubs current form, and how hard they were trying in the last few rounds, the harder the better.

[e25 5]

They'd be open to legal action by teams who believed they deserved a priority pick, but weren't awarded one, based on a panel making an unfair judgment.

Much easier to have a tangible measure... like, say... maximum number of wins over 2 years running?