Ok, we have all had our fill of tanking have we not?

The answer to stop tanking for picks is not a weighted lottery - it will just result in teams posiitoning for a better 'chance' of a better pick and won't stop tanking.

I have a straightforward way to incentivise being competitive in the games in which a team is ineligible to make the finals.

I call it the The Competitive Percentage Determinator.

Once a team is mathematically no chance to make the finals - their percentage is recorded. When the season is finished the teams will be ranked from highest relative percentage increase to lowest, and the team that has increased it's percentage the most will be awarded the top pick.

The increase in percentage is relative, so poor teams that get slighlty better but still lose are not put out by having wins and losses determine picks.

Essentially:

Team A 60% increases to 63.5%. Relative increase of 5.83%.

Team B 100% increases to 105%. Relative increase of 5%

Team A gets the better pick.

The results for 2012 would have seen the Lions rewarded for their competitiveness at the end of the season when the 'season was lost' by giving them Pick 2, and it would have punished the Bulldogs for blatantly letting the arse fall out of their season by giving them Pick 10.

2012

1. GWS +10%

2. BL +6.9%

3. Melb +5.1%

4. GC +3.7%

5. Rich +1.3%

6. St K -0.3%

7. Carl -1.2%

8. Ess -1.7%

9. PA -2.3%

10.WB -5.8%

(The increase is relative to the percentage when finals become mathematically impossible. Eg. GWS went from 42 to 46.2: an increase of 10%)

There is an element of luck when it comes to this; if a team plays a far better team during this run they will be worse off. But I feel it will give the team (and those selecting the team) something to play for, and keep in mind that the lowest pick they will recieve is still a top 10 pick.

Thoughts?

Ok, we have all had our fill of tanking have we not?

The answer to stop tanking for picks is not a weighted lottery - it will just result in teams posiitoning for a better 'chance' of a better pick and won't stop tanking.

I have a straightforward way to incentivise being competitive in the games in which a team is ineligible to make the finals.

I call it the The Competitive Percentage Determinator.

Once a team is mathematically no chance to make the finals - their percentage is recorded. When the season is finished the teams will be ranked from highest relative percentage increase to lowest, and the team that has increased it's percentage the most will be awarded the top pick.

The increase in percentage is relative, so poor teams that get slighlty better but still lose are not put out by having wins and losses determine picks.

Essentially:

Team A 60% increases to 63.5%. Relative increase of 5.83%.

Team B 100% increases to 105%. Relative increase of 5%

Team A gets the better pick.

The results for 2012 would have seen the Lions rewarded for their competitiveness at the end of the season when the 'season was lost' by giving them Pick 2, and it would have punished the Bulldogs for blatantly letting the arse fall out of their season by giving them Pick 10.

2012

1. GWS +10%

2. BL +6.9%

3. Melb +5.1%

4. GC +3.7%

5. Rich +1.3%

6. St K -0.3%

7. Carl -1.2%

8. Ess -1.7%

9. PA -2.3%

10.WB -5.8%

(The increase is relative to the percentage when finals become mathematically impossible. Eg. GWS went from 42 to 46.2: an increase of 10%)

There is an element of luck when it comes to this; if a team plays a far better team during this run they will be worse off. But I feel it will give the team (and those selecting the team) something to play for, and keep in mind that the lowest pick they will recieve is still a top 10 pick.

Thoughts?

hahaha...............i can't think of one commentator or journalist who could understand this let alone describe or comment about it

you really need to get out of canberra

Are there any real thoughts out there?

Not sure why we worry there has never been team found guilty!

I heard the inventer of this system talk about it on SEN a month or so ago. As a mathmatician myself, I found it most interesting but the general public will not understand it and it will therefore cause more problems than it solves.

I heard the inventer of this system talk about it on SEN a month or so ago. As a mathmatician myself, I found it most interesting but the general public will not understand it and it will therefore cause more problems than it solves.

I find it interesting, and I think what rpfc has offered is worth some consideration. It's about maintaining competition. It's about incentive to win and keeping players on the park longer towards the end of the season, rather than off for early operations for niggles.

I do have questions with regards to the old problem that is the fixture and what teams play others at the seasons end. For example some ranked at 14, 15, 16 may not play a top 8 side in the last 5 rounds of the season. Yet, sides ranked 12 and 13 may play 4 out of 5 top 8 sides. Should this type of scenario be considered and taken into account?

Wow, interesting idea.

How would it apply in the following scenario:

Team A has mathematically no chance of reaching finals. They therefore decide to sideline their best two players for early surgery and blood some new players in their stead. This is completely legal list management as far as I'm aware and pretty common when you have no chance of playing finals. Would the introduction of the new players and removal of the veterans mean that that team is less competitive? The team's weighted percentage increase therefore doesn't move, or actually goes backwards.

So, under this system as I understand it, teams are in a position of having to choose if they should be competitive for draft picks OR rest veterans and blood rookies. They can no longer do both - ie rest veterans to blood rookies AND get a draft pick advantage.

Actually after thinking about that scenario more, I think I like your idea BETTER than when I started this post. Putting clubs in that position may actually be a good thing.

Ideologically speaking though, under your proposal, the team 'most in need' does not actually get the best draft pick. The best draft pick goes to the MOST IMPROVED team in the back half of the ladder.

Also I'm not a mathematician, but some teams will be able to start their weighted percentage calculation much earlier than others if they happen to suck it up in the first half of the year. GWS for example probably mathematically couldn't the 8 by round 10 or something (just guessing) but Richmond were a chance right up until round 20 or so?

Sorry, there's a few scattered thoughts there, but I think the idea has a lot of merit and should be dissected further.

edit - spelling

So a genuinely poor team, with genuine injuries goes backwards, finishes last and still misses out on the top pick?

The biggest problem I foresee is that the fixture isn't a level playing field, making it easier for some teams to improve their percentage based solely on who they play in the last 5 or 10 rounds (or whatever is happens to be)

I really don't think that there's a real answer to the tanking situation. Even the NBA's lottery system encourages tanking to a certain degree as the lower finishing teams still get a greater chance of landing the top pick.

Good thoughts Choke; the first two thoughts that sprang to my mind were that it advantages teams who bow out early, and doesn't necessarily reward team that needs it the most; interestingly these two thoughts seem to be contradictory. I think I need to see it applied retrospectively to previous seasons to get a clear picture of how it would affect the draft.

Good thoughts Choke; the first two thoughts that sprang to my mind were that it advantages teams who bow out early, and doesn't necessarily reward team that needs it the most; interestingly these two thoughts seem to be contradictory. I think I need to see it applied retrospectively to previous seasons to get a clear picture of how it would affect the draft.

Yep, I wish I had the time and ability to actually run those scenarios. It'd be really interesting.

Maybe there should be some sort of modifier, call it a "number of games co-efficient" or something, where those teams who bow out early have their weighted percentage changed by a multiple (no idea what though).

Could apply a similar modifier to the quality of opposition they play.

Could get messy with the formula.

Under this scheme who decides when a team is no longer in contention for finals? And how?

Mind you, while I see some merit in considering the scheme, I think removal of the priority pick is the best method. As has been said before, it's the extra pick that was the problem, not the ability to jump up a place or two in the order.

I find it interesting, and I think what rpfc has offered is worth some consideration. It's about maintaining competition. It's about incentive to win and keeping players on the park longer towards the end of the season, rather than off for early operations for niggles.

I do have questions with regards to the old problem that is the fixture and what teams play others at the seasons end. For example some ranked at 14, 15, 16 may not play a top 8 side in the last 5 rounds of the season. Yet, sides ranked 12 and 13 may play 4 out of 5 top 8 sides. Should this type of scenario be considered and taken into account?

That is just the sort of problem I was thinking of. You would have to introduce a wrinkle whereby the relative methods of the fixture were bought into account. Every time you have to do something like that, the number of people who comprehend the system would diminish.

Good stuff, choke.

As for your first part - resting players is tanking. So I agree with your thought process there. Clubs should try to compete in every game.

As for those who need the picks the most - their 'bar' is lower than others because their percentage is lower when they are mathematically out of the running. Ours was 64.2 when we were zero chance, and we got to 67.5. An increase of only 3.3% but that increase would outweigh a team that goes from 100 to 105 because it is relative to where the percentage was.

Another 'advantage' given to those teams out early is that they are given more games to improve their percentage. GWS fought out the year, still lost games but would still get the top pick in this system.

Good thoughts Choke; the first two thoughts that sprang to my mind were that it advantages teams who bow out early, and doesn't necessarily reward team that needs it the most; interestingly these two thoughts seem to be contradictory. I think I need to see it applied retrospectively to previous seasons to get a clear picture of how it would affect the draft.

I can do that - but you have to keep in mind that teams have tanked in previous seasons. So it wouldn't accurately reflect 'what would occur' if this system was in place.

That is just the sort of problem I was thinking of. You would have to introduce a wrinkle whereby the relative methods of the fixture were bought into account. Every time you have to do something like that, the number of people who comprehend the system would diminish.

Bah, no one understands how the AFL works now, this is nothing new!

I actually think some relative modifiers would be a good idea, even if people don't get it. It may end up correcting for the AFL's flawed fixture.

So the AFL can say something like "Due to a host of reasons including TV rights, derbies and grudge matches, the AFL will never be able to deliver a 100% fair fixture. However, though this new draft formula, we can correct for those irregularities where it effects the draft picks of those who don't make the 8."

Its a good idea rpfc, but it still penalises a side who genuinely does not have and desperately needs forwards.

But it certainly promotes competitiveness which is needed, bottom clubs are going to stay at the bottom more and more.

$$$ spending on FD will dictate that.

Again, the more games played when not a chance to make finals means a better opportunity to increase your percentage.

Even in lossses.

Good stuff, choke.

As for your first part - resting players is tanking. So I agree with your thought process there. Clubs should try to compete in every game.

As for those who need the picks the most - their 'bar' is lower than others because their percentage is lower when they are mathematically out of the running. Ours was 64.2 when we were zero chance, and we got to 67.5. An increase of only 3.3% but that increase would outweigh a team that goes from 100 to 105 because it is relative to where the percentage was.

Another 'advantage' given to those teams out early is that they are given more games to improve their percentage. GWS fought out the year, still lost games but would still get the top pick in this system.

Yep, I get that it's relative.

BUT - is a a weighted increase of 3.3% of the Dees equivalent to a 3.3% increase for, say, Richmond? It could be argued that it's actually HARDER for us to raise our bar, even on a weighted vs played opponents scale, than it is for them. The same for GWS, it may be more difficult for such a young team to lift in the second half of the season, but for Richmond with the likes of Cothin and Deledio, etc, have the experience to do so. Having said that, I don't think we should be correcting for a team's skill level.

I think the real point in favour of a system like this is as you said, teams who are out of the finals get an incentive to play harder and better. I think if we get the maths right, this could be a winner. The ideology of lifting the back half of the ladder would benefit the game tremendously. More crowds, better quality footy and, *gasp*, cheering for your team to WIN for a draft pick.

So a genuinely poor team, with genuine injuries goes backwards, finishes last and still misses out on the top pick?

The biggest problem I foresee is that the fixture isn't a level playing field, making it easier for some teams to improve their percentage based solely on who they play in the last 5 or 10 rounds (or whatever is happens to be)

I really don't think that there's a real answer to the tanking situation. Even the NBA's lottery system encourages tanking to a certain degree as the lower finishing teams still get a greater chance of landing the top pick.

This does solve tanking - there is no desire from teams to let the arse fall out of their season as they will be punished a number of places in the draft.

It creates other, but I believe smaller and manageable, problems such as a team that is poor losing players to real injuries and being affected in that draft. However, they are still gauranteed a top 10 pick.

It also opens up a number of scenarios where these games are suddenly important to clubs and for fans - and for the right reasons.

The Swans are playing GC but GC know that if they can stay within 2 goals of the Swans they will get a higher pick. It will mean there is something a stake in normally nothing games at the end of the season.

Yep, I wish I had the time and ability to actually run those scenarios. It'd be really interesting.

Maybe there should be some sort of modifier, call it a "number of games co-efficient" or something, where those teams who bow out early have their weighted percentage changed by a multiple (no idea what though).

Could apply a similar modifier to the quality of opposition they play.

Could get messy with the formula.

That's along the likes of what I was thinking in the UF thread. A match ratio (co-efficient) for the teams that bow out early. So that it's weighted. Agree it would get messy with the formula, but the objective is to make these sides play to win at all times of the season.

Easier said than done I suppose.

Yes as long as the % are weighted as to ladder position/list experience it could work.

A narrow loss to a GF Contender should be correctly awarded.

Weather conditions must be factored..Roof, raining, heat factor, travel.....

Yep, I get that it's relative.

BUT - is a a weighted increase of 3.3% of the Dees equivalent to a 3.3% increase for, say, Richmond? It could be argued that it's actually HARDER for us to raise our bar, even on a weighted vs played opponents scale, than it is for them. The same for GWS, it may be more difficult for such a young team to lift in the second half of the season, but for Richmond with the likes of Cothin and Deledio, etc, have the experience to do so. Having said that, I don't think we should be correcting for a team's skill level.

I think the real point in favour of a system like this is as you said, teams who are out of the finals get an incentive to play harder and better. I think if we get the maths right, this could be a winner. The ideology of lifting the back half of the ladder would benefit the game tremendously. More crowds, better quality footy and, *gasp*, cheering for your team to WIN for a draft pick.

They have less games to improve their percentage, as they will be out of the race sooner.

If they win the last two 'meaningless' games 110 to 80 and they are on 100% (2000 pts) before those games they will only increase their percentage by 2.77%.

If we are on 60% and lose 5 games 110 to 80 we will increase our percentage by 3.3% as it is relative.

Maths weighs this scenario in favour of the poorest teams.

It just lets them know that you can try and win games now - there is no deterrent.

That's along the likes of what I was thinking in the UF thread. A match ratio (co-efficient) for the teams that bow out early. So that it's weighted. Agree it would get messy with the formula, but the objective is to make these sides play to win at all times of the season.

Easier said than done I suppose.

Yes as long as the % are weighted as to ladder position/list experience it could work.

A narrow loss to a GF Contender should be correctly awarded.

Again, no extra weighting.

Maths weighs it in favour of the poorest teams. Any other 'addendums' makes it more complex than it needs to be.

As illustrated above - if a poor team loses 5 games by 5 goals they will get a higher pick than if a middling team wins two games by 5 goals.

2012

1. GWS +10%

2. BL +6.9%

3. Melb +5.1%

4. GC +3.7%

5. Rich +1.3%

6. St K -0.3%

7. Carl -1.2%

8. Ess -1.7%

9. PA -2.3%

10.WB -5.8%

(The increase is relative to the percentage when finals become mathematically impossible. Eg. GWS went from 42 to 46.2: an increase of 10%)

There is an element of luck when it comes to this; if a team plays a far better team during this run they will be worse off. But I feel it will give the team (and those selecting the team) something to play for, and keep in mind that the lowest pick they will recieve is still a top 10 pick.

Thoughts?

They have less games to improve their percentage, as they will be out of the race sooner.

If they win the last two 'meaningless' games 110 to 80 and they are on 100% (2000 pts) before those games they will only increase their percentage by 2.77%.

If we are on 60% and lose 5 games 110 to 80 we will increase our percentage by 3.3% as it is relative.

Maths weighs this scenario in favour of the poorest teams.

It just lets them know that you can try and win games now - there is no deterrent.

I like that the maths favourably weights towards the poorer performing teams. I'm just looking at your scenario above.

Port and the Bulldogs are the ones that trouble me. There has to be some way of correcting so that a team like Carlton doesn't get a pick ahead of these two? This is where I think some form of modifier has to be in order. Maybe a simple reconciliation with ladder position after the weighted calc? So if you finish last on the ladder but the weighted calc puts you at pick 5, you are dragged up to 4 or 3 or something.

Of course then the picks get tied (even in a diminished way) to ladder position and the question of tanking may come up again.

The best way to cure tanking is to not talk about it in team meetings.