So, the AFL wants to change the F/S process with weightings and values and numbers and activation points and offence levels and ... oops... Anyway, that should work out fine.

So, the AFL wants to change the F/S process with weightings and values and numbers and activation points and offence levels and ... oops... Anyway, that should work out fine.

It's all Chris Judd's fault. As a Visy ambassador he's convinced the AFL not to be so wasteful and to recycle all the MRP material so it doesn't go into landfill.

where does it end? e.g. hypothetical nd

afl: pick no 4, brisbane

brisbane: player no 1046 jack mctaggert

afl: we have a bid of 2034 points for player no.1046. do we have any higher offers?

geelong: we bid pick no 6 and pick no 49

afl: the bidding is now with geelong on 2038 points. do we have any advance on 2038?

etc

Firstly the points for picks system has most likely been used by recruiters for years. It's a well known concept for sports such as the NFL - http://www.mynfldraft.com/points.php

I like it - it allows supporters to gain an understanding of how clubs value trades.

In regards to trading future picks, could someone give me an idea if a range is applied to it in other codes? Say we trade for someone's first pick next year, what happens if they go significantly better or worse than anticipated? Would it be a trade for a pick between 10-15 for example? Or would it be set at first round, like it or leave it?

It screws everyone equally, not just the teams that finish top of the ladder.

Jack Viney situation for example:

We have pick 4 and take Jimmy Toumpas. Pick 5 is bid for Jack Viney, we're then left with the choice of passing on him or scrounging together the equivalent of 3 top 30 picks.

They would be part of it, this bidding would be live on draft night after all other trades have been completed. In an open draft (such as this years) it's a good thing. If a player your team may rate head and shoulders above a f/s slides through to a locked in pick you can't take them now. Under this system you could take that player and the f/s.

It did, but it went through quite late and potentially held up quite a lot of trades. Every year we have 4 days of waiting for the "biggest" trade to go through and then there's a flurry of activity as everyone knows how things sit.

Allowing this would see the Beams trade go through day 1, there's no frenzy to get all the remaining trades in and most likely there will be more trades as those lesser trades would spawn their own subsequent trades.

Father son bidding used to be a 3rd round pick. Geelong ruined that when they got Hawkins for a pick in the 40's when he was rated as a top 3 (and quite probably #1).

I like the every team gets an academy idea, but it doesn't work in Victoria with 10 teams.

FWIW, Jack Viney was pick 26, not 'in the 30's'. FWIW port bid pick 7 on him.

It's an advantage because they have priority over the player. Not sure how you can't see that as an advantage?

Yes the most talented kids in the state now have the opportunity to receive coaching equivalent (if not significantly better.) to TAC sides.

Without intimate knowledge of the academies I'd argue that all they do is cherry pick the top athletes/ talents and that their effect at growing the game at a grass roots level is minimal.

We paid pick 26 for Viney (port bid pick 7) and we paid 42 for Stretch (adelaide bid pick 29).

Without applying discounts, under the proposed points system we ended up 915 point ahead with Viney (equivalent to pick 20) and 258 points ahead for stretch (equivalent to pick 51).

yes it does, as there is more kids playing the game here than other lesser afl states.

& the state needs us to develop the young kids & teens, & give back to the regions. I'm not talking about melbourne suburbs...

Each club should be allowed an academy. In Victoria it could go back to the old zoning style based on each clubs location. Players who then play within this zone are then eligible for that clubs academy and when drafting they then get access to that player based on the weightings.

Though I think that possibly they should put some rules in place such as, a team can only draft one academy player each year.

where does it end? e.g. hypothetical nd

afl: pick no 4, brisbane

brisbane: player no 1046 jack mctaggert

afl: we have a bid of 2034 points for player no.1046. do we have any higher offers?

geelong: we bid pick no 6 and pick no 49

afl: the bidding is now with geelong on 2038 points. do we have any advance on 2038?

etc

That won't happen.

The F/S-Academy pick is done by going through each eligible player starting with the club with Pick 1. As soon as the a club says "I would forfeit this pick for this player" the club that has a 'right' to that player can either let him go to that team or 'pay' the requisite amount of draft pick(s).

It is just looking to make the steals into slight bargains.

Viney for 26 was a steal, because he was bid on at ND9 - if we got him for 26, 45, and 50 (in the next draft) that would still be good value; remembering that those picks will effectively be pushed back to the end of the draft. ND9 for 26, 45, and 50 looks a solid bit of business to me...

Has a club (Club A) ever nominated a player as father-son and then let him go to a club (Club B) which offers a draft pick higher than Club A was prepared to part with?

Has a club (Club A) ever nominated a player as father-son and then let him go to a club (Club B) which offers a draft pick higher than Club A was prepared to part with?

No. 2 reasons:

1) Acting logically, Club B isn't going to bid a high pick on the hope that Club A calls their bluff.

2) Under the most recent system you only had to match it with your next pick - eg you're not paying the value someone else has assigned to the player. As such you don't have to match Club B, only pay your next pick.

Each club should be allowed an academy. In Victoria it could go back to the old zoning style based on each clubs location. Players who then play within this zone are then eligible for that clubs academy and when drafting they then get access to that player based on the weightings.

Though I think that possibly they should put some rules in place such as, a team can only draft one academy player each year.

Because recruiting zones worked out so well for us in the past

Because recruiting zones worked out so well for us in the past

Totally different system, can't base it around that.

Roos has his say on Father Son: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/melbourne-coach-paul-roos-says-fatherson-plan-is-too-complicated-20150208-138gn7.html

He basically says go back to the original system of they being outside the draft or scrap the concept altogether.

Also, says the Academy argument is all to do with Sydney success and not much to do with the concept or its virtues.

His commentary is very thoughtful, simple but sage...very statesmen like. His commentary is so far removed from that of Eddie who comes across as totally self-serving while claiming 'the good of the game'.

Finally, someone who calls out the elephant in the room!

Great, more confusion. More points systems. More A+B=C, just to get a bloody recruit.

The current system gets FS players to the club, confuse/diminish it and we could loose that. I reckon it is one of the better parts of the game, seeing a son of a gun (and hopefully become a gun) creates feel good stories and positive press.

Take that away and it'll just push fans away.

Great, more confusion. More points systems. More A+B=C, just to get a bloody recruit.

The current system gets FS players to the club, confuse/diminish it and we could loose that. I reckon it is one of the better parts of the game, seeing a son of a gun (and hopefully become a gun) creates feel good stories and positive press.

Take that away and it'll just push fans away.

Not taking it away, just making people pay.

Gary Ablett Jnr for a Third Round Pick?

How is that a good model?

Not taking it away, just making people pay.

Gary Ablett Jnr for a Third Round Pick?

How is that a good model?

what was his estimated draft position back then rpfc

i don't remember him being too high, but could be bad memory

hawkins might be a more obvious example, rated top 3 if not 1 and picked up for pick 41

Not taking it away, just making people pay.

Gary Ablett Jnr for a Third Round Pick?

How is that a good model?

Not everything has to be about the business model 'rpfc', sometimes there is still a little romance in sport that makes it more than business, makes it something special. I don't like the idea of barracking for a business or business model even though I realise more and more this is so. This is where I and I think most fans are delusional and I for one would like to hold this delusion a little longer.

I agree with Roos, we either embrace father/son or give it away all together. Keep the romance or stop kidding ourselves and go full on business.

what was his estimated draft position back then rpfc

i don't remember him being too high, but could be bad memory

hawkins might be a more obvious example, rated top 3 if not 1 and picked up for pick 41

You make a good point but the fact is that the competition wasn't allowed to act on his estimated draft position. And even this means that they would have paid more for the son of the best player I have ever seen then they did, but nothing that would be too much for the player he has become.

Not everything has to be about the business model 'rpfc', sometimes there is still a little romance in sport that makes it more than business, makes it something special. I don't like the idea of barracking for a business or business model even though I realise more and more this is so. This is where I and I think most fans are delusional and I for one would like to hold this delusion a little longer.

I agree with Roos, we either embrace father/son or give it away all together. Keep the romance or stop kidding ourselves and go full on business.

Business model?

I am talking about the model for recruitment and drafting in a draft regulated league. I am sure they were romantic reasons behind those that wanted to keep the old zones that delivered player to teams back in the day. We scrapped those as a progressive move toward a more equitable system (if you don't like the word 'model'). I love the F/S system we have, and the Academies are important for clubs to find and nourish players (and get a ROI) in non-AFL areas of the country.

But just because something is convoluted and complicated we push it away and call it a farce. I admire the attempt to quantify the price of ND picks by the AFL. You can't keep a game equal (and get it to be equal...) by ignoring the roots of inequality that are hard to get to, and difficult to deal with - they will continue to cause issues.

The clubs that were to get a fantastic deal will now only get a adequate deal - they will still recruit the player, should they want him, for his market worth. If not, then the kid can go to the club that does.

You make a good point but the fact is that the competition wasn't allowed to act on his estimated draft position. And even this means that they would have paid more for the son of the best player I have ever seen then they did, but nothing that would be too much for the player he has become.

Business model?

I am talking about the model for recruitment and drafting in a draft regulated league. I am sure they were romantic reasons behind those that wanted to keep the old zones that delivered player to teams back in the day. We scrapped those as a progressive move toward a more equitable system (if you don't like the word 'model'). I love the F/S system we have, and the Academies are important for clubs to find and nourish players (and get a ROI) in non-AFL areas of the country.

But just because something is convoluted and complicated we push it away and call it a farce. I admire the attempt to quantify the price of ND picks by the AFL. You can't keep a game equal (and get it to be equal...) by ignoring the roots of inequality that are hard to get to, and difficult to deal with - they will continue to cause issues.

The clubs that were to get a fantastic deal will now only get a adequate deal - they will still recruit the player, should they want him, for his market worth. If not, then the kid can go to the club that does.

On the whole I think this is right although I'm not as sure on the current F/S bidding system, definitely don't like the proposed system convoluted or not.

Not everything has to be about the business model 'rpfc', sometimes there is still a little romance in sport that makes it more than business, makes it something special. I don't like the idea of barracking for a business or business model even though I realise more and more this is so. This is where I and I think most fans are delusional and I for one would like to hold this delusion a little longer.

I agree with Roos, we either embrace father/son or give it away all together. Keep the romance or stop kidding ourselves and go full on business.

I enjoy watching father sons. But I didn't enjoy Geelong winning 3 flags in 5 years largely due to Scarlett, Ablett, Nablett, Blake and Hawkins.

Essendon will have 15 years of Joe Daniher as a key forward, all for the price of pick 10 when he was a gun junior. There's no harm in making them cough up a fair price for a blue chip prospect. You can see how much the Dogs had to give up to get Tom Boyd.

Too many people are worried about the equations and the calculations. And yes there are lots of permeations. But that's why clubs hire recruiting staff and list management staff. And if they have to hire a statistician then so be it.

At the end of the day if the player is worth it they'll take him.

Roosy is just looking after us knowing that Jake Lovett is coming! And looking after Sydney knowing when he's done in Melbourne he still wants to be invited to the parties up there!

Not taking it away, just making people pay.

Gary Ablett Jnr for a Third Round Pick?

How is that a good model?

so what, its the luck of the draw,,, anyway, should be father sons go thru a sponsored academy system one year prior to draft age; & have Clubs elevate not more than One father-son per year taken prior to & seperate from the draft.

After the first F/S choice, other father sons that draft year should be bid on as we do now, & the fathers club can then take the F/S applicant with their next pick available.

I like the idea of every club having an U-17 sponsored academy, & see no reason why potential father/son picks shouldn't be a part of that academy.

so what, its the luck of the draw,,, anyway, should be father sons go thru a sponsored academy system one year prior to draft age; & have Clubs elevate not more than One father-son per year taken prior to & seperate from the draft.

After the first F/S choice, other father sons that draft year should be bid on as we do now, & the fathers club can then take the F/S applicant with their next pick available.

I like the idea of every club having an U-17 sponsored academy, & see no reason why potential father/son picks shouldn't be a part of that academy.

Utterly ridiculous idea.

Who do you think will benefit if all clubs can have their own 'academy'?

A ruinous idea.

Incongruous to the era of the draft - something that has worked well, if you pick well.

Bump.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-21/new-bidding-system-introduced-for-fatherson-and-northern-academy-players

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL%20Tenant/AFL/Files/Father-son-bidding-system.pdf

Every pick has a value and players will be selected by clubs more in line with their talents.

It may be more complex but will mean that there will no more 'steals' from the Northern clubs with their academies.

are there any predictions for where Jake Lovett will fall in the draft, and what does the new system mean we will be spending to get him?

14 page document for picks? Blergh.

Seems pretty fair to me.