14 page document for picks? Blergh.

6 of those pages are examples...

And, really? Document length?

I like the new system. As highlighted in the articles, if clubs have two highly rated f/s or academy players they will either have to trade for additional picks or have a points deficit in the next draft.

eg. This year (2015) Sydney have Callum Mills (rated top 5) as an academy prospect and Josh Dunkley (possible top 10) as a father son.

Based on current ladder position if Melbourne were to bid pick 4 for Mills Sydney would have to pay 1,627 points (pick 4 worth 2,034, less 20% discount). Sydney's pick 16 is worth 1,067 points, their pick 34 is worth 542, which leaves 18 points to be subtracted off their next pick, bumping their pick 52 back to pick 53. Sydney's pick 16 is upgraded to pick 4 and they take Mills, Sydney's pick 34 is downgraded to the last pick in the draft and pick 52 is downgraded to pick 53. Essentially they traded pick 16, 34 and 52 for pick 4 (Mills) and 53.

Melbourne then get to pick again with pick 5 and choose Dunkley. If Sydney decide to match it they would have to pay 1,502 (pick 5 worth 1,878, less 20% discount). Sydney now only have pick 53 worth 228 points and pick 70 worth 39 points. Pick 74 and after do not have any points assigned to them, which would leave Sydney with a points deficit of 1,235 at the end of the draft, this deficit is then transferred to the next draft. 1,235 points is the equivalent of pick 12. Essentially they would have traded pick 12 (in the next draft), 53 and 70 for pick 5.

In the 2016 draft Sydney would then start with -1,235 to be subtracted from their picks (in order of first to last):

If Sydney finish 13th their pick 6 (1,751 points) would be downgraded to pick 36 (516 points).

If Sydney finish 7th their pick 12 (1,268 points) would be downgraded to pick 71 (33 points).

If Sydney finish 2nd their pick 17 (1,025 points) is downgraded to the last pick in the draft and their pick 35 (522 points) is downgraded to pick 48 (312 points).

Alternatively, if Sydney do not want to take a deficit in to the next draft they will need to trade in additional picks. This is where it gets tricky for recruiters and list management as the trade period happens before the draft, meaning they need to know where they rate the academy + f/s prospects ahead of the draft. They would then have to trade for picks worth more than where they rate the player, in case another team rates that player higher.

Under this system you can't get an advantage like we did with Viney - port bid pick 7 (they also bid pick 7 on Daniher and ironically, they ended up picking Wines with it) for Viney, worth 1,644 and we got him with our 2nd round pick 26, worth 729 points, resulting in us being 570 points ahead under the new system ((1,644*0.8)-729=570). Under the new system that means we would have to have paid pick 26 and the equivalent of pick 32 for Viney.

One potential benefit is through the 20% discount when your f/s pick is rated highly (eg top 5). If your f/s is rated at pick 2 (as Heeney was), the discount applied (20% of 2,517 points = 503 points) is the equivalent of being given pick 36 for free. IMO that's not a huge benefit.

Is there really a major problem with the father - son situation as it stands? Big deal if some players fall a few spots lower than they would on an open market. I think the romance of watching sons come through the system and ultimately playing for their father's club is well worth keeping.

The system that delivered Hawkins and Ablett for third round picks is long gone. I would hate to think we would have overlooked Jack Viney because some stupid arbitrary system forced us to give up 2nd and 3rd round picks, when we felt that he was only worth a 2nd round pick.

The academy situation is much different, and there definitely needs to be safeguards in place to stop successful sides such as Sydney from stockpiling some of the country's best talent at little or no cost.

Clubs will try to start hiding players and refusing to let them play in state teams etc in order to get their 'cost' down. Or create media stories a la Jack Darling. The smart clubs will be all over this and ususally takes the also-rans 5yrs to catch up on the smart tactics.

I like the new system. As highlighted in the articles, if clubs have two highly rated f/s or academy players they will either have to trade for additional picks or have a points deficit in the next draft.

eg. This year (2015) Sydney have Callum Mills (rated top 5) as an academy prospect and Josh Dunkley (possible top 10) as a father son.

Based on current ladder position if Melbourne were to bid pick 4 for Mills Sydney would have to pay 1,627 points (pick 4 worth 2,034, less 20% discount). Sydney's pick 16 is worth 1,067 points, their pick 34 is worth 542, which leaves 18 points to be subtracted off their next pick, bumping their pick 52 back to pick 53. Sydney's pick 16 is upgraded to pick 4 and they take Mills, Sydney's pick 34 is downgraded to the last pick in the draft and pick 52 is downgraded to pick 53. Essentially they traded pick 16, 34 and 52 for pick 4 (Mills) and 53.

Melbourne then get to pick again with pick 5 and choose Dunkley. If Sydney decide to match it they would have to pay 1,502 (pick 5 worth 1,878, less 20% discount). Sydney now only have pick 53 worth 228 points and pick 70 worth 39 points. Pick 74 and after do not have any points assigned to them, which would leave Sydney with a points deficit of 1,235 at the end of the draft, this deficit is then transferred to the next draft. 1,235 points is the equivalent of pick 12. Essentially they would have traded pick 12 (in the next draft), 53 and 70 for pick 5.

In the 2016 draft Sydney would then start with -1,235 to be subtracted from their picks (in order of first to last):

If Sydney finish 13th their pick 6 (1,751 points) would be downgraded to pick 36 (516 points).

If Sydney finish 7th their pick 12 (1,268 points) would be downgraded to pick 71 (33 points).

If Sydney finish 2nd their pick 17 (1,025 points) is downgraded to the last pick in the draft and their pick 35 (522 points) is downgraded to pick 48 (312 points).

Alternatively, if Sydney do not want to take a deficit in to the next draft they will need to trade in additional picks. This is where it gets tricky for recruiters and list management as the trade period happens before the draft, meaning they need to know where they rate the academy + f/s prospects ahead of the draft. They would then have to trade for picks worth more than where they rate the player, in case another team rates that player higher.

Under this system you can't get an advantage like we did with Viney - port bid pick 7 (they also bid pick 7 on Daniher and ironically, they ended up picking Wines with it) for Viney, worth 1,644 and we got him with our 2nd round pick 26, worth 729 points, resulting in us being 570 points ahead under the new system ((1,644*0.8)-729=570). Under the new system that means we would have to have paid pick 26 and the equivalent of pick 32 for Viney.

One potential benefit is through the 20% discount when your f/s pick is rated highly (eg top 5). If your f/s is rated at pick 2 (as Heeney was), the discount applied (20% of 2,517 points = 503 points) is the equivalent of being given pick 36 for free. IMO that's not a huge benefit.

You re now officially the DLand expert on the F/S draft.

Saves me having to bother learning how the new system works.

COngrats

Is there really a major problem with the father - son situation as it stands? Big deal if some players fall a few spots lower than they would on an open market. I think the romance of watching sons come through the system and ultimately playing for their father's club is well worth keeping.

The system that delivered Hawkins and Ablett for third round picks is long gone. I would hate to think we would have overlooked Jack Viney because some stupid arbitrary system forced us to give up 2nd and 3rd round picks, when we felt that he was only worth a 2nd round pick.

The academy situation is much different, and there definitely needs to be safeguards in place to stop successful sides such as Sydney from stockpiling some of the country's best talent at little or no cost.

The new system makes top end talent more available for all teams - it's a better system.

Applying the maths to your Viney example:

Based on current ladder position our 2nd and 3rd round picks are 22 (845 points) and 40 (429 points). For us to give up those 2 picks a club would have to bid for him at pick 7.

A club bidding pick 7 is the equivalent of pick 12 after the 20% discount is applied. If a club bid pick 7 we would have to rate him lower than pick 12 (which is pick 7 with a 20% points discount) not to take him.

If a club are willing to give up pick 7 for him and we rate him as being worth less than pick 22 and 40 (the equivalent value of pick 12) then they deserve to have him.

I wonder if you could apply a similar system rate the club's list of 40 players as a way of providing draft assistance to clubs that need it?

I wonder if you could apply a similar system rate the club's list of 40 players as a way of providing draft assistance to clubs that need it?

I'm sure they use such a system for ranking a current players worth, I'm not sure it'd be a standardised system though, which is the issue as each club could rate differently due to the way that they'd fit in to the game plan etc. They wouldn't be able to use it for draft assistance as you'd have to estimate each players potential worth (which is constantly changing and highly subjective - for eg petracca, who knows how well he'll come back), rather than their current worth, making it too difficult to do.

Currently clubs could be using the AFL player rankings or other systems developed by Champion data. There were articles at the end of last year about a company that did similar systems for Baseball that were starting to do it for AFL. They could potentially use models for player ratings like they do in the FIFA games as well.

The new system makes top end talent more available for all teams - it's a better system.

Applying the maths to your Viney example:

Based on current ladder position our 2nd and 3rd round picks are 22 (845 points) and 40 (429 points). For us to give up those 2 picks a club would have to bid for him at pick 7.

A club bidding pick 7 is the equivalent of pick 12 after the 20% discount is applied. If a club bid pick 7 we would have to rate him lower than pick 12 (which is pick 7 with a 20% points discount) not to take him.

If a club are willing to give up pick 7 for him and we rate him as being worth less than pick 22 and 40 (the equivalent value of pick 12) then they deserve to have him.

Applying the maths to Viney's actual draft:

Port bid pick 7 (1,644 points), with a 20% discount that's 1,315 points. We would have had to pay picks 26 (729 points), pick 48 (302 points), pick 52 (246 points) and pick 68 (59 points) for pick (Viney) and pick 72.

Essentially we would have walked away from the draft with Toumpas, Viney and Terlich rather than Toumpas, Viney, Terlich, Kent and Matt Jones. If we wanted to pick Kent at 48 we would have to have traded for pick 31 (the equivalent value of picks 48, 52 and 68) or higher.

i wonder if it will make other clubs back off a little on what they bid, now that the f/s, academy club has more incentive to not match bid

the gambling/risk stakes certainly go up

promises to draftees may not be so definitive or broken

I agree that it’s a fairer system.

Part of the reason academy’s exist is the noted lack of father son opportunities that are reasonably available to interstate clubs under current rules.

Sydney have a longer history, so at the moment are an anomaly in that they have both the benefit of Academy access (in a ‘developing’ market) as well as highly rated father son’s coming through. To use a recently oft mentioned term, they have double dipped lately to gain priority access to Mitchell, Perris, Heeney in separate drafts, and this year stand to profit from Mills and Dunkley (first time they could get a highly rated academy kid and father son in the same draft).

Also important to note what recruiting zones Sydney and GWS have access to as well. Interesting to see this raised as a discussion point: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-05-22/afl-may-consider-reintroducing-recruiting-zones-for-all-18-clubs

Something had to be done, and I think this is as good a solution as they could have come up with. Getting Champion Data to help with the formula was a smart move from the AFL.

I like the new system. As highlighted in the articles, if clubs have two highly rated f/s or academy players they will either have to trade for additional picks or have a points deficit in the next draft.

eg. This year (2015) Sydney have Callum Mills (rated top 5) as an academy prospect and Josh Dunkley (possible top 10) as a father son.

Based on current ladder position if Melbourne were to bid pick 4 for Mills Sydney would have to pay 1,627 points (pick 4 worth 2,034, less 20% discount). Sydney's pick 16 is worth 1,067 points, their pick 34 is worth 542, which leaves 18 points to be subtracted off their next pick, bumping their pick 52 back to pick 53. Sydney's pick 16 is upgraded to pick 4 and they take Mills, Sydney's pick 34 is downgraded to the last pick in the draft and pick 52 is downgraded to pick 53. Essentially they traded pick 16, 34 and 52 for pick 4 (Mills) and 53.

Melbourne then get to pick again with pick 5 and choose Dunkley. If Sydney decide to match it they would have to pay 1,502 (pick 5 worth 1,878, less 20% discount). Sydney now only have pick 53 worth 228 points and pick 70 worth 39 points. Pick 74 and after do not have any points assigned to them, which would leave Sydney with a points deficit of 1,235 at the end of the draft, this deficit is then transferred to the next draft. 1,235 points is the equivalent of pick 12. Essentially they would have traded pick 12 (in the next draft), 53 and 70 for pick 5.

In the 2016 draft Sydney would then start with -1,235 to be subtracted from their picks (in order of first to last):

If Sydney finish 13th their pick 6 (1,751 points) would be downgraded to pick 36 (516 points).

If Sydney finish 7th their pick 12 (1,268 points) would be downgraded to pick 71 (33 points).

If Sydney finish 2nd their pick 17 (1,025 points) is downgraded to the last pick in the draft and their pick 35 (522 points) is downgraded to pick 48 (312 points).

Alternatively, if Sydney do not want to take a deficit in to the next draft they will need to trade in additional picks. This is where it gets tricky for recruiters and list management as the trade period happens before the draft, meaning they need to know where they rate the academy + f/s prospects ahead of the draft. They would then have to trade for picks worth more than where they rate the player, in case another team rates that player higher.

Under this system you can't get an advantage like we did with Viney - port bid pick 7 (they also bid pick 7 on Daniher and ironically, they ended up picking Wines with it) for Viney, worth 1,644 and we got him with our 2nd round pick 26, worth 729 points, resulting in us being 570 points ahead under the new system ((1,644*0.8)-729=570). Under the new system that means we would have to have paid pick 26 and the equivalent of pick 32 for Viney.

One potential benefit is through the 20% discount when your f/s pick is rated highly (eg top 5). If your f/s is rated at pick 2 (as Heeney was), the discount applied (20% of 2,517 points = 503 points) is the equivalent of being given pick 36 for free. IMO that's not a huge benefit.

Excellent analysis Beats, thanks, that is a much better explanation than has been given in the press, or at least the press I read.

Makes perfect sense. It will apply only in rare cases where the kid is rated near the very top. The Heeney case is the most extreme as he was rated pick 2, and their first pick wasn't until 18, so the gap was very wide.

6 of those pages are examples...

And, really? Document length?

Well when you replace 'Club A bids and then must match any other clubs bids with their next pick' and academy rules with 8 pages of ins and outs that seem to require 6 pages of examples, the 'length' question has to asked. It also implies more, such as the simple fact that the more complexities that are defined the easier it is to work 'the system'.

Club Z has no intention of claiming player A, but knows that club A will move 5 draft places to match their bid. Club Z really wants player Z, who was likely to be taken with the second pick of club A, but that second pic is now 10 places later To get player A, Club A has been gamed out of getting player Z.

Oh, but they could use one of their future picks to.. blergh.

Club Z has no intention of claiming player A, but knows that club A will move 5 draft places to match their bid. Club Z really wants player Z, who was likely to be taken with the second pick of club A, but that second pic is now 10 places later To get player A, Club A has been gamed out of getting player Z.

Let's apply numbers and names to this Scenario - Melbourne has no intention of claiming Callum Mills, but knows that Sydney will move up 10 draft places to take that player, so they bid pick 4 on him. Melbourne really wants RP, who may or may not be there at Sydney's 2nd pick in the mid 30's, but now Sydney don't have that pick in the mid 30's so Sydney have been gamed out of their pick in the mid 30's. Melbourne gets little to no benefit because RP was taken in the mid 20's anyway so what a pointless example this is.

The points thing looks very complicated. After all, they did such a good job with the MRP points system - not.

I am sure that there will be spreadsheets and algorithms for the mathematically inclined to simplify it.

The points thing looks very complicated. After all, they did such a good job with the MRP points system - not.

I am sure that there will be spreadsheets and algorithms for the mathematically inclined to simplify it.

just more jobs for the boys

each club's recruiting team will now have to employ an actuary

Let's apply numbers and names to this Scenario - Melbourne has no intention of claiming Callum Mills, but knows that Sydney will move up 10 draft places to take that player, so they bid pick 4 on him. Melbourne really wants RP, who may or may not be there at Sydney's 2nd pick in the mid 30's, but now Sydney don't have that pick in the mid 30's so Sydney have been gamed out of their pick in the mid 30's. Melbourne gets little to no benefit because RP was taken in the mid 20's anyway so what a pointless example this is.

So there are two possible outcomes. One where Melbourne doesn't get benefit and loses nothing, or one where Melbourne does get benefit, and loses nothing.

Roos view.

"“I’m supportive of the father/son [concept] and I think it should stay, but I don’t think [it should be] such a complicated system now. Maybe they’re better just to scrap it – you’re either all in or all out,” he said."

"Roos said he could understand why the AFL was attempting to make the competition as even as possible, but questioned why the father/son rule needed to be altered yet again."