Equalisation ... I don't think so

[Nascent 7,223]

Had to laugh while reading Brisbane attempts to garner support for a priority pick this year.

leppitsch-makes-plea-for-lions-priority-draft-pick

Brisbane Vs Melbourne

2010 (wins, ladder position) 7 (13th) 8 (12th)

2011 4 (15th) 8 (13th)

2012 10 (13th) 4 (16th)

2013 10 (12th) 2 (17th)

2014 7 (15th) 4 (17th)

2015 2 (18th*) 5 (15th*)

Total 40 wins 31 wins

So past 6 years they have won 9 more games to date. The last three seasons they have finished higher than us on the ladder. Go back further and while we were claiming our second wooden spoon in a row in 2009 the Lions were playing finals footy making it to the semi's.

Going by the AFL's reasoning for not giving us a priority selection because had sufficient talent on our list with promising players to return (Clark, Hogan, Toumpas), I'm not sure they can say that the Lions list of Rockliff, Redden, Hanley, Beams, Christensen, Taylor, Zorko, Aish, Martin and Rich is devoid of talent or more worse off than ours. Leppitsch also stating the AFL have taken away their "acadamy advantage" by making them pay a fairer price also riled me. If they get a priority pick I will be ropeable

Edited July 30, 2015 by Nascent

[biggestred 4,272]

They are 100% lock ins to get a PP.

[Coq au vin 754]

They'll get one for sure and there's nothing we can do about it. Also the free agency system continues to make top players walk to the top clubs.

Edited July 30, 2015 by Kali

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Since free agency was introduced: Hawthorn 2. Everyone else 0. (It'll only take a few more years for outrage to ensue)

[Je Roos Salem 661]

Remove six VIC clubs is the answer that would be found.

That would be the Dees, Saints, Dogs, and Roos for sure, but which two of the Cats, Tigers, Pies, Hawks, Blues, and Dons would go? My money would be on Blues and Cats.

The AFL is really a Melbourne-based league. That's pretty much killing the sport

[deespicable me 1,427]

I actually think Brisbane probably should get a priority pick as I thought Melbourne should have in previous years.

But let me indulge.

There is Capitalism, or no restrictions for the rich, even concessions for the rich to prosper as they then filter the money down to the workers.

There is socialism which is everyone should have access to a fair go. Even playing field.

Then there is Equalism which is where a governing body actively interferes in order to raise up the less fortunate and restrict the powerful to somewhere in the middle.

Again please bear with I am not trying to be condescending I just think for my argument it is important to establish three different styles of governing.

It is worth noting that the equalisation fund is very close to what it intends to be. The AFL have identified using a formula the poorer clubs and those clubs receive more each year than the richer clubs. For example I think we get 9 million per year where Hawthorn or West Coast get ???, I'm not sure but not as much. That is equalism.

But I have a feeling the rich clubs may have signed of on this equalisation funding model under the proviso of keeping the draft "pure".

This is where I think the AFL need to recognise that if you actively engage as a governing body to equalise the competition on field you will get a much more interesting and robust competition. The consequence being all 18 sides can and will survive.

So I'm actually all in favor of Brisbane getting a priority pick. But I'd go further.

I don't think Hawthorn should get their first pick till around 30 or so. Their second may not come in till 60 or so.

For me the way it should work is by key factors as in the equalisation fund. ie when was the last time the team played finals. When was the last time the team finished top four. How many years has the team been in the bottom four. etc

Then break up the ladder into performance indicators ie bottom 4 (18 to 15), Bottom half (10 to 14) (5 to 9) and top 4, and from there give out a sliding scale of picks.

So if Brisbane finsh bottom with 2 wins they might recieve picks 1 then pick 5 and maybe depending on other triggers a further pick before the top four teams get their first pick, say pick 17 or so. Melbourne by fact of their fantastic bottom 4 representation (go Dees) and lack of finals appearances over the last 10 years if they finish 15th with 6 wins might get as worked out by the formula picks 4 then a pick between the bottom half and the 5 to 9 group so a pick that might come in around the 13 mark. Carlton might get pick 2 then a further pick at the end of the first round before the top 4 and if they show little improvement in 2016 and finish bottom 2 they might get picks 2 and 5 etc.

I know it sounds a bit complicated but thats because every extra pick you give out pushes everyone down the list but to give an example

Brisbane 18th 2 wins, second year bottom 4, last played finals 2002 receive picks 1,5* 17* 31, 61 etc

Melbourne 15th 6 wins, fifth year bottom 4, last played finals 2000 recieve picks 4, 13*, 18*, 35,65 etc

St Kilda finish 11th 8 wins, haven't played finals since whenever recieve normal picks with an extra pick end of first round or maybe a second round pick straight after their pick in the second round.

Geelong say they finish 10th, because of their recent successes obviously don't get any assistance and just take their place in the queue for draft picks

Hawthorn blah,blah end up with picks after priorities have been given out approx pick 30, 60, 78 etc

This I think distributes talent from the draft reasonably fairly for an equalised system.

Hawthorn who have a superb culture and can turn stones into diamonds are challenged to work with their picks to get them up to their high standards. Also due to the extra picks given to the lower clubs and their desire to look for a mix of kids and experience, all of a sudden a player like Shoenmakers (25 man bun) who was a fair player would be more chance to be traded out to a lesser club rather than winning a premiership with Box Hill Hawks.

Well I hope that makes sense. it's what I believe.

Just like the "equalisation funding model" does fairly well for clubs off field fortunes, I think a similar system for the draft would work to equalise clubs fortunes on-field.

Edited July 31, 2015 by deespicable me

[titan_uranus 22,237]

On the basis that Melbourne in 2014 didn't get a PP, there is no way anyone can convince me that Brisbane in 2015 deserves a PP.

Even if we'd got one last year, I still don't think Brisbane should get one. The talent on their list is obvious, their year has been wrecked by injuries (as well as being crap of course, but it's not like they've had their first choice side out there much).

Despite this, because they're in Queensland, I'm a lot more confident in Brisbane's chances than I was in ours last year.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,404]

Interesting thread on BF for those who want to have a read

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/a-more-accurate-comparison-of-victorian-crowds.1105052/

I have taken the average home crowds of Victorian clubs against non-Victorian opposition over the period of 2000-2014 (2000 being when Docklands Stadium was opened, and the new expansion clubs of Fremantle and Port Adelaide had established themselves in the competition somewhat).

----------------

8. Melbourne

1,617,044 (1,342,445)

78 (61)

20,731 (22,007)

Melbourne has played home games against non-Victorian opposition more than any other Victorian club. Since its last finals appearance in 2006, Melbourne has been a basket case on field, with the worst winning record of any Victorian club, which has no doubt adversely affected their crowds. Melbourne does, however, have the advantage of playing a large majority of its Victorian home games at the MCG.

[ManDee 7,073]

I am happy for Brisbane to get a priority pick at the start of the second round if we get one at the start of the first round.

[daisycutter 28,481]

I am happy for Brisbane to get a priority pick at the start of the second round if we get one at the start of the first round.

i'd even settle for one at end of 1st round and they can have one end of 2nd round

[Dr. Gonzo 22,404]

So with the AFL's current fixture formula we will be in the same bracket as Gold Coast, Carlton, Brisbane, Essendon and St. Kilda. This means we will get double up games against 2-3 of these clubs.

No doubt one will be St. Kilda. Any chance we may finally get a home game against Essendon or Carlton? I know asking for both is too much but surely we get at least one of them.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

So with the AFL's current fixture formula we will be in the same bracket as Gold Coast, Carlton, Brisbane, Essendon and St. Kilda. This means we will get double up games against 2-3 of these clubs.

No doubt one will be St. Kilda. Any chance we may finally get a home game against Essendon or Carlton? I know asking for both is too much but surely we get at least one of them.

We'll get Essendon after half of them have been done for doping and none of their fans show up to games any more.