Our comp is ridiculously uneven....

[jnrmac 20,302]

With the talk of PPs and the leg-up given to the expansion teams it is worth re-visiting the even-ness of our competition. It is fatally compromised in my view by the fixture, the stadium deals, the TV times slots and the non-salary cap spending. The expansion teams like GWS have stockpiled top talent to trade out and this is distorting the market beyond the compromised draft years.

Add to this the free agency schemozle which was supposed to help discarded players like Daniel Cross move to the teams like Melbourne but has really aided teams like Geelong and Hawthorn because older players want a shot at playing finals.

Demetriou said a few years back that he saw the competition as even because every team in the preceding 10ys had played in a preliminary final. This was pre the expansion clubs existence and has become a disaster zone now with 7 teams not making a preliom in a decade.

In the past 10yrs the following teams have played in prelim finals:

St K 4

Syd 5

Freo 2

PA 2

Haw 5

Coll 5

Geel 6

WB 3

Adel 3

NM 2

WCE 3

This leaves teams that haven't played in a preliminary final as follows:

Ess

Carl

Melb

GWS

GC

Bris

Rich

As for GFs in the last 10ys

Haw has 3

Geel has 3

Syd has 2

WCE has 1

Coll has 1

The latest call for PPs from Bris and Carl are a joke. Carl got 3 number 1 draft picks and played finals in 2013. Bris have butchered their list going for Fevola, Beams and getting rid of other key players. But bigger than that is the fact the bigger teams are getting bigger, richer, more powerful in terms of sponsorship, TV deals, stadium deals, supporters etc

The competition is unequal in so many ways and HQ has no idea there is a problem or how to fix it.

I have zero interest in finals. I won't be watching and I won't be going. It's boring seeing the same teams compete year after year. The AFL has a real problem.

What can they do?

[Chris 2,892]

With the talk of PPs and the leg-up given to the expansion teams it is worth re-visiting the even-ness of our competition. It is fatally compromised in my view by the fixture, the stadium deals, the TV times slots and the non-salary cap spending. The expansion teams like GWS have stockpiled top talent to trade out and this is distorting the market beyond the compromised draft years.

Add to this the free agency schemozle which was supposed to help discarded players like Daniel Cross move to the teams like Melbourne but has really aided teams like Geelong and Hawthorn because older players want a shot at playing finals.

Demetriou said a few years back that he saw the competition as even because every team in the preceding 10ys had played in a preliminary final. This was pre the expansion clubs existence and has become a disaster zone now with 7 teams not making a preliom in a decade.

In the past 10yrs the following teams have played in prelim finals:

St K 4

Syd 5

Freo 2

PA 2

Haw 5

Coll 5

Geel 6

WB 3

Adel 3

NM 2

WCE 3

This leaves teams that haven't played in a preliminary final as follows:

Ess

Carl

Melb

GWS

GC

Bris

Rich

As for GFs in the last 10ys

Haw has 3

Geel has 3

Syd has 2

WCE has 1

Coll has 1

The latest call for PPs from Bris and Carl are a joke. Carl got 3 number 1 draft picks and played finals in 2013. Bris have butchered their list going for Fevola, Beams and getting rid of other key players. But bigger than that is the fact the bigger teams are getting bigger, richer, more powerful in terms of sponsorship, TV deals, stadium deals, supporters etc

The competition is unequal in so many ways and HQ has no idea there is a problem or how to fix it.

I have zero interest in finals. I won't be watching and I won't be going. It's boring seeing the same teams compete year after year. The AFL has a real problem.

What can they do?

I think the list of teams not to have made a prelim is very symptomatic of the compromised drafts, with out those years it may look very different and I don't think the AFL envisioned the effect it would have. This will even out over time but can the league wait that long.

The AFL's mistakes in all this are many but here are my top few:

- Bought in 2 new expansions teams far too close together so the draft issues were compounded, this would have been alleviated significantly if there was a 5 year gap between the two new teams introduction.

- Bought in free agency at the worst possible time as the clubs hit hardest by the draft issues above have been hit again by this. Again I think a gap between the introduction would have worked far better.

- The free agency rules do not mix with the current trade rules because as it currently stands any player, regardless of contract status, can effectively nominate a club they want to go to and the trade generally happens. They either need to remove the clause in trades that says the player must agree or scrap free agency. Having it both ways means the players can walk and the clubs have little or no control over their list going forward, far too many questions for effective management. I don't think the AFL though about this enough (not surprising)

By bunching everything together the AFL have effectively made the pain (for a few clubs and the league as a whole) worse than in needed to be, but they may also have made it shorter for the rest of the league. Essentially they have asked, without asking, for the bottom clubs to bare the weight of the change while the top clubs flourish. This will correct it self but it will take time. Hopefully the AFL see the damage they have done and continue to help those who bore the pain, but I am not holding my breath.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Chris

[jnrmac 20,302]

I think the list of teams not to have made a prelim is very symptomatic of the compromised drafts, with out those years it may look very different and I don't think the AFL envisioned the effect it would have. This will even out over time but can the league wait that long.

The AFL's mistakes in all this are many but here are my top few:

- Bought in 2 new expansions teams far too close together so the draft issues were compounded, this would have been alleviated significantly if there was a 5 year gap between the two new teams introduction.

- Bought in free agency at the worst possible time as the clubs hit hardest by the draft issues above have been hit again by this. Again I think a gap between the introduction would have worked far better.

- The free agency rules do not mix with the current trade rules because as it currently stands any player, regardless of contract status, can effectively nominate a club they want to go to and the trade generally happens. They either need to remove the clause in trades that says the player must agree or scrap free agency. Having it both ways means the players can walk and the clubs have little or no control over their list going forward, far too many questions for effective management. I don't think the AFL though about this enough (not surprising)

By bunching everything together the AFL have effectively made the pain (for a few clubs and the league as a whole) worse than in needed to be, but they may also have made it shorter for the rest of the league. Essentially they have asked, without asking, for the bottom clubs to bare the weight of the change while the top clubs flourish. This will correct it self but it will take time. Hopefully the AFL see the damage they have done and continue to help those who bore the pain, but I am not holding my breath.

You make some goood points but I don't believe it will even itself out:

1 WCE and Coll spend $300k per week more than us on their football departments. That spending will benefit them for years to come and widen the gap between rich and poor.

2 The TV fixturing is appalling. If I was a sponsor I would be sponsoring Coll because they get more TV exposure in prime time than we do. (And the argument against that - ie performance is a factor - has been forever banished by the fact that Carlton had 6 Friday night games and 2 Sat night games.

3. FA players will mostly always want to go to a team playing finals. This perpetuates or entrenches the top teams in the top of the ladder.

[rjay 25,345]

You make some goood points but I don't believe it will even itself out:

1 WCE and Coll spend $300k per week more than us on their football departments. That spending will benefit them for years to come and widen the gap between rich and poor.

2 The TV fixturing is appalling. If I was a sponsor I would be sponsoring Coll because they get more TV exposure in prime time than we do. (And the argument against that - ie performance is a factor - has been forever banished by the fact that Carlton had 6 Friday night games and 2 Sat night games.

3. FA players will mostly always want to go to a team playing finals. This perpetuates or entrenches the top teams in the top of the ladder.

I agree and think point 3 is the real big one here and it links in with a point you made earlier about the expansion clubs.

The clubs that were lucky enough to win at 'musical chairs' because of their luck with the timing and locked a spot in the finals during the compromised draft years are now the clubs getting the benefit from free agency. They got the double whammy.

[Sir Why You Little 37,341]

I agree with all the above and add that the previous regime recruitment program failed completely thus compounding the situation tenfold

If we had recruited properly i think we would have been a lot better a la Footscray.

A lot of this was bought on from within...

[deanox 10,052]

jnrmac in 100% with you on this.

The best way i can see to fix this is:

A) All teams in the bottom 6/8/10 get a priority pick at the start of the second round every year as standard (and get rid of all other pp's). This enables faster list regeneration for the bottom sides. Teams will get up quicker and sustained success will really be earnt.

B) allow clubs to play below the minimum cap. Work another mechanism to ensure the players ask get their entitlements as per the CBA (collective pooling and distribution of the remaining money or similar). This will show lower clubs to actually target quality free agents with cash.

C) In a pipe dream, even the fixture for exposure (won't happen because of $$$).

I think the top two will go a long way to solving the problem.

[Chris 2,892]

You make some goood points but I don't believe it will even itself out:

1 WCE and Coll spend $300k per week more than us on their football departments. That spending will benefit them for years to come and widen the gap between rich and poor.

2 The TV fixturing is appalling. If I was a sponsor I would be sponsoring Coll because they get more TV exposure in prime time than we do. (And the argument against that - ie performance is a factor - has been forever banished by the fact that Carlton had 6 Friday night games and 2 Sat night games.

3. FA players will mostly always want to go to a team playing finals. This perpetuates or entrenches the top teams in the top of the ladder.

The fixture is whole other animal and it is disgraceful how it is handled and I don't disagree at all. Teams can get near the top without that help though, but it is harder to sustain or make money from.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

The salary cap and the draft are actually making the competition very even.

Melbourne and Carlton are two examples of teams who should be playing finals now if they were any good at drafting talent with top picks.

[jnrmac 20,302]

The salary cap and the draft are actually making the competition very even.

Melbourne and Carlton are two examples of teams who should be playing finals now if they were any good at drafting talent with top picks.

When you finish last you only get a decent pick ahead of the top team. If you fluff that you are cooked. You don't progress relative to the top team. And if the top team gets free agents you get further behind.

[What 18,810]

You mean you dont enjoy Hawthorn, Freo and Sydney in the top 4 every single year? After Geelong just won 3 flags in 6 years.

Edited September 11, 2015 by hogans_heroes

[jnrmac 20,302]

You mean you dont enjoy Hawthorn, Freo and Sydney in the top 4 every single year? After Geelong just won 3 flags in 6 years.

Agree

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

When you finish last you only get a decent pick ahead of the top team. If you fluff that you are cooked. You don't progress relative to the top team. And if the top team gets free agents you get further behind.

So don't fluff the picks.

[Adzman 2,154]

1) Bring in draft lottery.Gets rid of tanking, and still allocates top talent to bottom clubs.

2) Replace compo picks with draft credits which can be used for upgrading picks, bidding for f/s and academy players. Credits can also be stored and traded, but can never be added together to create an additional pick.

3) Evenly distribute Friday and Saturday night games amongst all clubs. This will help the less desirable clubs to gain exposure and get new fans from televised games.

[dee-luded 2,959]

With the talk of PPs and the leg-up given to the expansion teams it is worth re-visiting the even-ness of our competition. It is fatally compromised in my view by the fixture, the stadium deals, the TV times slots and the non-salary cap spending. The expansion teams like GWS have stockpiled top talent to trade out and this is distorting the market beyond the compromised draft years.

Add to this the free agency schemozle which was supposed to help discarded players like Daniel Cross move to the teams like Melbourne but has really aided teams like Geelong and Hawthorn because older players want a shot at playing finals.

Demetriou said a few years back that he saw the competition as even because every team in the preceding 10ys had played in a preliminary final. This was pre the expansion clubs existence and has become a disaster zone now with 7 teams not making a preliom in a decade.

In the past 10yrs the following teams have played in prelim finals:

St K 4

Syd 5

Freo 2

PA 2

Haw 5

Coll 5

Geel 6

WB 3

Adel 3

NM 2

WCE 3

This leaves teams that haven't played in a preliminary final as follows:

Ess

Carl

Melb

GWS

GC

Bris

Rich

As for GFs in the last 10ys

Haw has 3

Geel has 3

Syd has 2

WCE has 1

Coll has 1

The latest call for PPs from Bris and Carl are a joke. Carl got 3 number 1 draft picks and played finals in 2013. Bris have butchered their list going for Fevola, Beams and getting rid of other key players. But bigger than that is the fact the bigger teams are getting bigger, richer, more powerful in terms of sponsorship, TV deals, stadium deals, supporters etc

The competition is unequal in so many ways and HQ has no idea there is a problem or how to fix it.

I have zero interest in finals. I won't be watching and I won't be going. It's boring seeing the same teams compete year after year. The AFL has a real problem.

What can they do?

I doubt, I'll even bother watching any of it on TV as well.

[Sir Why You Little 37,341]

You shall miss some awesome Football

[dee-luded 2,959]

You shall miss some awesome Football

I won't miss it, but your right, I won't see it. probably.

i miss the games of the 80's, the 90's, our games when Lyon & Sean Smith last flew, the days of Lockett banging heads & kicking sausage rolls, when pigs ran on the field, & laughter was the biggest Grinner.

the aussie rules game was the winner, back in those days...

[Sir Why You Little 37,341]

Pressure is up about 20%

[Little Goffy 14,791]

Uneven competition!? Bah humbug.

I mean seriously, the bottom five teams managed almost one win (or draw) each against teams in the top half of the ladder.

Just because almost 1/3rd of the teams in the competition are bordering on irrelevant for an entire season...

I remember doing a bit of counting a few years back, which teams had played how many finals.

I think I worked out that there were six teams who each individually had more 'finals per year' in the last decade than the bottom ten teams combined.

[Biffen 12,949]

Boo-hoo.

We will get there if we stop believing in the words fair/fairness/even.

Nothing is.

it will not be given to us.

We will have to take it off them.

[Demonsone 2,050]

Its a compromised comp with not playing each other twice & a fixturing based around TV ratings etc....

Bottom line the you reap what you sew..... MFC has itself to blame with poor mgt & diabolical recruiting, culture & development....

[leucopogon 1,519]

Agree with OP, as an idea to try and even up what the Free Agency debacle has quickly become, I propse that the AFL incentivise movement of players from top clubs to bottom clubs by paying a top-up bonus to that isn't included in the TPP (salary cap). This bonus could be a sliding scale with the top-up bonus getting larger the lower down the ladder the destination club sits.

So in the example of Patrick Dangerfield, he leaves as a Free Agent for three hypothetical destinations

For simplicity sake lets say all three potential destination clubs are offering the same base contract of $850K/year

1) Geelong (finished 10th) no top-up bonus allocated for teams finishing (9th to 11th) to discourage teams from yo-yoing in and out of the 8 each year. Contract offer = $850k / year

2) Melbourne (finished 13th) top-up bonus of 20% allocated to teams finishing (12th to 14th). Contract offer = $850k + $170k (top-up) = $1.02M/year

3) Carlton (finished 18th) top-up bonus of 30% allocated to teams finishing (15th to 18th). Contract offer = $850k + $255k (top-up) = $1.105M/year

If decent players from top clubs are looking to set themselves up financially this could catalyse movement to clubs near the bottom, obviously the sliding scale needs to be tweaked in order to entice the movement of players.

[KingDingAling 3,758]

Agree with OP, as an idea to try and even up what the Free Agency debacle has quickly become, I propse that the AFL incentivise movement of players from top clubs to bottom clubs by paying a top-up bonus to that isn't included in the TPP (salary cap). This bonus could be a sliding scale with the top-up bonus getting larger the lower down the ladder the destination club sits.

So in the example of Patrick Dangerfield, he leaves as a Free Agent for three hypothetical destinations

For simplicity sake lets say all three potential destination clubs are offering the same base contract of $850K/year

1) Geelong (finished 10th) no top-up bonus allocated for teams finishing (9th to 11th) to discourage teams from yo-yoing in and out of the 8 each year. Contract offer = $850k / year

2) Melbourne (finished 13th) top-up bonus of 20% allocated to teams finishing (12th to 14th). Contract offer = $850k + $170k (top-up) = $1.02M/year

3) Carlton (finished 18th) top-up bonus of 30% allocated to teams finishing (15th to 18th). Contract offer = $850k + $255k (top-up) = $1.105M/year

If decent players from top clubs are looking to set themselves up financially this could catalyse movement to clubs near the bottom, obviously the sliding scale needs to be tweaked in order to entice the movement of players.

Nah, no hand outs to bottom sides, definitely not. Bottom teams need to build good cultures and create environments wherein top players want to reside. This is largely where Brisbane have failed, and failured miserably. They drafted Yeo, Polec, Crisp and Longer, all of who can seriously play. But Brisbane failed to create an enjoyable environment. These players up and left, now Brisbane want a PP. This issue is largely their own doing, and no amount of draft picks are going to fix that. Now they even have near veteran players leaving (Redden). The answer for bottom teams isn't a sliding scale, and it isn't draft picks. The answer is to create a place where individuals want to play. Look at Collingwood as a good example, they have the best facilities in the competition, they emphasize professionalism, and that pays off. Even in the face of a few off field issues, Collingwood is still a place where individuals want to play footy.

Edited September 11, 2015 by KingDingAling

[deespicable me 1,578]

Interesting discussion.

I think because the top teams are generally tweaking their lists and trying to get age demographics right and maybe trading for a certain type of player almost as depth or insurance etc yet bottom teams are looking at big gaps in their lists and cleanouts and total list reconstructions etc (what were we on last year, our third list rebuild or something), then the bottom teams should get the means to do this, ie good draft picks. Gives those weaker clubs a bit of extra leverage and bargaining power around this time of year, helps them rebuild quicker, makes it a touch harder for the stronger teams to stay near the top, and you get a more robust competition.

I may be wrong, Bullies being an example of good recruiting and getting the right personnel on board to coach and develop talent.

Even Richmond who have been patient in holding and developing their talent over a period of years without assistance are both examples that would go against the call for extra assistance for lowly teams and sets the example for those posters suggesting we do it ourselves.

I don't know, its a good discussion, I just wish it was our turn to rise, or as some may say we make it our turn to rise.

[Jara 1,153]

Boo-hoo.

We will get there if we stop believing in the words fair/fairness/even.

Nothing is.

it will not be given to us.

We will have to take it off them.

The Tea Party argument.

[autocol 448]

You mean you dont enjoy Hawthorn, Freo and Sydney in the top 4 every single year? After Geelong just won 3 flags in 6 years.

Rewind to the 1950's and you'd still be complaining?

The fact is, teams take 5 or 6 years to get good, spend 5 or 6 years being good, and then drop away. Geelong is done. They're finished. Hawks look like they're about to drop off the perch, too. The fact that our administration and football departments have been absolutely deplorable for ten years is not the fault of the AFL. We've had PLENTY of opportunities to climb the ladder and failed. That's not the fault of the AFL. That's the fault of the peanuts who were running our club.