I don't think Dean Bailey will be too popular at Port, Brizzy or the Gold Coast!

http://www.heraldsun...f-1226263121387

Teams would actually not try to win so they could get better picks? I'm shocked at the very notion!

I was waiting for this....Wet Coke get Jack Darling...ours ends up at GW$....Bailey told the truth.

He was the scapegoat...It is never good to be on welfare.

Will be interesting to see what HQ does about this...Free Agency will only make the gap wider...

The article says "Dean Bailey said he had coached for good draft picks". I don't think he actually said. Am I wrong?

The article says "Dean Bailey said he had coached for good draft picks". I don't think he actually said. Am I wrong?

No Dean coached within the rules of HQ. That's what makes it interesting.

I think it's something that definitely needs to be addressed. Having the top draft pick for finishing last is one thing, but adding an extra high pick is a bit much if you ask me. That being said, it was perfectly fine when we had the priority selection. After all, we wouldn't have one of our captains if we didn't get the priority pick. It's completely different when it's other teams that are benefitting from being bad...

This is really all about GWS topping up after 2 poor seasons and an inablitly to lure top line players to the club due to poor performance and conditions. The AFL will manipulate the rules any way they can to make this club work, wait for the relocation (Bears/Lions) after the current media deal is up.

A bit of revisionist history eh Mr Anderson ? There is nothing new or earth shattering in any of this, its purely the spin that the AFL now need to give it in order to set it up to suit whatever lop sided changes it needs to make ( in its view) to continue their little experiments in wonderland.

Bullsh!t factor ......10+

I think the Priority Pick System is based on a healthy communal system. The Problem with it is IMO, is the certainty of being able to control the clubs ladder position, to grab player 'X'... When the Clubs become overly competative in a race to the bottom, it;s like becoming cannibalistic. Anti communal.

IF, the clubs whom miss out on the finals the Pre' Year go into a pool to be drawn lucky dip style, including the club with the priority pick, this would stop the certainty & IMO, stop as much rorting. Especially the obvious rorting, & player position experimenting.

I think the Priority Pick System is based on a healthy communal system. The Problem with it is IMO, is the certainty of being able to control the clubs ladder position, to grab player 'X'... When the Clubs become overly competative in a race to the bottom, it;s like becoming cannibalistic. Anti communal.

IF, the clubs whom miss out on the finals the Pre' Year go into a pool to be drawn lucky dip style, including the club with the priority pick, this would stop the certainty & IMO, stop as much rorting. Especially the obvious rorting, & player position experimenting.

You can guarantee there will be no lottery system until GWS and Gold Coast are up and running then the AFL will have a brilliant new idea of a lottery type system to stop tanking.

The only way to do it is to have discretion at which teams get a priority pick.

We won 12 games in 3 years. 13 and we miss out. Did we deserve one? Hell yes.

If port are [censored] again this year, despite trying to win games the whole time, then yes, they deserve a pick. It not rocket science.

Just set up a group of talking head boffins, let the media influence them, and bobs your fathers brother.

Always award a pick at the start of round 2 is the way to go IMO. This should be helpful - in theory if you finish last and are the only team to qualify you've had 3 picks by the time al the other teams have had one. i.e. 1 (1st pick R1 for finishing last), 19 (prio pick), 20 (1st pick R2) - but it's not worth tanking for pick 19.

Always award a pick at the start of round 2 is the way to go IMO. This should be helpful - in theory if you finish last and are the only team to qualify you've had 3 picks by the time al the other teams have had one. i.e. 1 (1st pick R1 for finishing last), 19 (prio pick), 20 (1st pick R2) - but it's not worth tanking for pick 19.

that sounds a better idea

what about mid-round (ie before the finalists) so 1, 11, 19 or is the 11 too appealing for tanking?

11 is still worthy of a tank, I think.

Abolish the whole system- we don't need it anymore!

A lottery system with weighted representation is the only way to stop blatant tanking. Any other system has a stated advantage, however small which will invite tanking.

The article says "Dean Bailey said he had coached for good draft picks". I don't think he actually said. Am I wrong?

No you're not. This is Jon Ralph's personal crusade. Wish he would STFU & concentrate on trying to write a decent article about footy.

It would be fairer for Port if they retained it as-is for one more year - Port is the team most hurt by the compromised drafts and deserve a #1 pick if they win less than 5 this year. However it would be a disaster if GC won less than 5 and also qualified - altho I'm pretty confident they will win 5+. Personaly I'd go one more year as-is and then change to start of 2nd round for less than 5 wins - no matter how many years in a row.

One possible enhancement - This is a pretty tradeable pick - maybe they could make it like the GWS mini-draft pick but force it to be traded for a player (not picks), then other clubs could bid for it with seasoned players - it's more likely to deliver a ready-to-go player to the struggling club.

Always award a pick at the start of round 2 is the way to go IMO. This should be helpful - in theory if you finish last and are the only team to qualify you've had 3 picks by the time al the other teams have had one. i.e. 1 (1st pick R1 for finishing last), 19 (prio pick), 20 (1st pick R2) - but it's not worth tanking for pick 19.

If we had have done it that way from 2008, we'd still have another 2 Years of rebuild going on.

IMO it's close to right, except for the guarantee of pick for position.

11 is still worthy of a tank, I think.

Abolish the whole system- we don't need it anymore!

That would work in an Open worldwide competition where any New team could enter with relevant funding.

BUT, in a small closed 'Pond', there is only a certain No of fish, so to control the growth rate of the fish, so they don't devour the others, it's an ongoing controlling progression.

Always award a pick at the start of round 2 is the way to go IMO. This should be helpful - in theory if you finish last and are the only team to qualify you've had 3 picks by the time al the other teams have had one. i.e. 1 (1st pick R1 for finishing last), 19 (prio pick), 20 (1st pick R2) - but it's not worth tanking for pick 19.

I don't think this would work, even for a pick 11 let alone a 19. Picks 10 - 20 are littered with failures and average AFL players whereas you're close to guaranteed a gun with pick 1 - 4.

I don't think the mini-lottery would work either as clubs on the fringe of the bottom group would still tank for it.

If the priority pick stays, I think the only viable solution is for the AFL to form a sub-committee which reviews struggling clubs each season and awards the pick at its discretion. I don't see another way.

If the priority pick stays, I think the only viable solution is for the AFL to form a sub-committee which reviews struggling clubs each season and awards the pick at its discretion. I don't see another way.

You could be right there. But how fair is it? I wouldn't always trust HQ. The lottery is at least random. 50/50 on this one...

You could be right there. But how fair is it? I wouldn't always trust HQ. The lottery is at least random. 50/50 on this one...

Well that's the problem isn't it. I wouldn't either given what's transpired over the past year.

One way could be to select a committee of 7, with say 6 respected, eminent football people (one from each of NSW, SA, Qld and WA and two from Vic) with the 7th member a chairperson from a judicial/footy background to cast the deciding vote if it's locked at 3-3.

This two seasons of four wins or less line they go with should also be scrapped. A strong case can be made that three seasons stuck on 5 wins or 4 seasons on 6 wins (or any other variant around that mark) also warrants a club receiving assistance.

There's got to be a priority pick mechanism for helping struggling clubs or it just becomes the English Premier League with haves and have-nots and a season full of dead rubber matches. It's already headed that way.

They just need to get their heads out of their backsides and come up with a system that has some semblance of fairness about it.

Edited February 6, 201213 yr by Range Rover

Do away with priority picks completely. Give them extra rookie picks and let's see if they can unearth a nugget.

I haven't thought this through too thoroughly

but if the intent is to even the comp up....

how about just banning the 8 finalists from the first round of the draft

I don't think teams would tank a finals appearance to retain a late first round pick.....or would they?

thoughts

Edited February 6, 201213 yr by daisycutter

I haven't thought this through too thoroughly

but if the intent is to even the comp up....

how about just banning the 8 finalists from the first round of the draft

I don't think teams would tank a finals appearance to retain a late first round pick.....or would they?

thoughts

A step better than the lottery system but still problematic. The fact that no 5th-8th side has looked remotely capable of winning the flag since the introduction of the final 8 system would lead to inevitable conjecture about late season results.

Edited February 6, 201213 yr by Range Rover