Man Dee this is one of the worst clips I have ever seen. Ah you might want to consider deleting it. I was half way through a sandwich and this has put me right OFF!

Man Dee this is one of the worst clips I have ever seen. Ah you might want to consider deleting it. I was half way through a sandwich and this has put me right OFF!

Sorry to upset your lunch. I have changed it to an exploding alien head, I hope that is OK

Bring it back - it was very apt.

Picket - that's an early lunch?

Good luck working that out live on the night. They will obviously have a live draft board up for all to see as it constantly changes.

according to the hun the afl has commissioned champion data to provide a computer program for just that purpose on draft day

(if they are smart they could provide an app for the public including the ability to do what-ifs in advance of a bid)

Edit : Removed scanners exploding head on request.

Terrible way to go.

Man Dee this is one of the worst clips I have ever seen. Ah you might want to consider deleting it. I was half way through a sandwich and this has put me right OFF!

Harden TFU Fence!

Sorry to upset your lunch. I have changed it to an exploding alien head, I hope that is OK

I have to say I preferred the exploding watermelon from Scanners.

I have to say I preferred the exploding watermelon from Scanners.

http://giphy.com/gifs/history-head-exploding-oaPcDncoLfgjK

Edit:- Do not open if your name is Picket Fence

The bidding psychology is an interesting one. Basically bidding teams in the top 10 know the Academy player teams will put up whatever they have to,

I think you're overcomplicating it. I reckon what will happen is all AFL clubs will rate all players including the academy players and F/S in draft order. If it's your pick and it's an academy player then you nominate them. If they are taken by the other club you just move onto the next selection. If they aren't you've got the next best player you rated.

Imagine what would happen if you tried to force another clubs hand by nominating a player you didn't rate as the best available and they didn't match you. You'd end up with a player who was not your first choice.

Fairly simple strategy really.

I just don't understand it the previous drafting rules with FS was a piece of cake there obviously bought in a point system because of the influx of a academy kids

my brain hurts

my brain hurts

not alone

I just don't understand it the previous drafting rules with FS was a piece of cake there obviously bought in a point system because of the influx of a academy kids

True. But at the same time Melbourne getting Viney for a cheap price, the Dogs getting both Wallis and Libba in the same draft and Essendon getting Daniher at pick 10 were a bit of a joke.

I don't mind the points system.

Where I think the farce has come in is letting the academy teams stock pile points by trading out high end picks for a collection of crap picks. That goes against the intended aim.

It helped the clubs who did the trades with them (namely Melbourne, Essendon, Carlton) but it's a bit of BS.

True. But at the same time Melbourne getting Viney for a cheap price, the Dogs getting both Wallis and Libba in the same draft and Essendon getting Daniher at pick 10 were a bit of a joke.

I don't mind the points system.

Where I think the farce has come in is letting the academy teams stock pile points by trading out high end picks for a collection of crap picks. That goes against the intended aim.

It helped the clubs who did the trades with them (namely Melbourne, Essendon, Carlton) but it's a bit of BS.

Yeah it's an undesirable side effect (that we have really taken advantage of). The primary aim is achieved, Academy clubs have still had to pay with higher draft picks. It's hard to think of a better solution.

True. But at the same time Melbourne getting Viney for a cheap price, the Dogs getting both Wallis and Libba in the same draft and Essendon getting Daniher at pick 10 were a bit of a joke.

I don't mind the points system.

Where I think the farce has come in is letting the academy teams stock pile points by trading out high end picks for a collection of crap picks. That goes against the intended aim.

It helped the clubs who did the trades with them (namely Melbourne, Essendon, Carlton) but it's a bit of BS.

Yeah it's an undesirable side effect (that we have really taken advantage of). The primary aim is achieved, Academy clubs have still had to pay with higher draft picks. It's hard to think of a better solution.

I don't have an issue with it - they are trying to maximise points and some clubs benefitted. It loosened up trade week.

It also meant that players that really wanted to go to other teams - did.

I don't have an issue with it - they are trying to maximise points and some clubs benefitted. It loosened up trade week.

It also meant that players that really wanted to go to other teams - did.

And I think too many overvalue draft picks anyway.

I think I saw somewhere that the chances of picking up a good player were about the same at 20 and 40. Having said that, I can see where others are coming from.

And I think too many overvalue draft picks anyway.

I think I saw somewhere that the chances of picking up a good player were about the same at 20 and 40. Having said that, I can see where others are coming from.

I saw reported that to pick up a Judd was a 0.03% chance and I think that related to top 10 picks.

Also that the amount of top 10 pick players who got to 100 games, was actually very low.

I saw reported that to pick up a Judd was a 0.03% chance and I think that related to top 10 picks.

Also that the amount of top 10 pick players who got to 100 games, was actually very low.

You can't get away with that Red. Proof source?

Edit:- Judd drafted in 2001. 14 years times 10 top tens = 140 players =approx .72% chance and a lot of other good players have been picked up in top ten picks since 2001 So i think the report was wrong.

On the second point from Judd 2001 until 2008 76% of the top ten have played over 100 games.

I really have no idea what any of you are on about.

can there a new tread that explains this for idiots?

I really have no idea what any of you are on about.

can there a new tread that explains this for idiots?

A team that 'bids' on a Northern State Academy player, or a Father/Son player, will make the team that wants to keep that player pay a certain price through draft picks rather than just be allowed to use their next available pick.

All the picks in the draft up to 72 have points attached to them to determine how many picks they must 'give up' to take that player.

For example, if Sydney had a player that was worth Pick 1 - Carlton would bid on him with Pick 1. Sydney would then have to surrender all the picks they have to meet the equivalent amount of points as Pick 1.

How's that?

A team that 'bids' on a Northern State Academy player, or a Father/Son player, will make the team that wants to keep that player pay a certain price through draft picks rather than just be allowed to use their next available pick.

All the picks in the draft up to 72 have points attached to them to determine how many picks they must 'give up' to take that player.

For example, if Sydney had a player that was worth Pick 1 - Carlton would bid on him with Pick 1. Sydney would then have to surrender all the picks they have to meet the equivalent amount of points as Pick 1.

How's that?

well you left out the (very) important discounting

well you left out the (very) important discounting

Yeah, well, baby steps.

If the following kids go in these spots; Hopper (GWS) at 4, Mills (SYD) 5, Kennedy (GWS) 11, Hipwood (BL) 15 and Keays (BL) 18 (pulled from a phantom on Big Footy) then the draft will look like this:

Hopper burns through 10 and moves 34 to 42 for GWS.

Mills burns through 33, 36, and 37 moves to 61 for Syd.

Kennedy burns through 42, 43, and 53 moves to 72 for GWS.

Hipwood burns through 38 and moves 39 to 72 for BL.

Keays burns through 40 and moves 41 to 64.

This needs to be cleaned up when I know how it functions in a bit more clarity but essentially, our pick at 46 is now 35 and 50 is 39.

So people feel better with 3, 7, 35, and 39?

Actually, this is wrong, the discount is 20%, not 25% which is the assumption above. It was changed to 20% mid year. I will give it another go when I have time.

Yeah it's an undesirable side effect (that we have really taken advantage of). The primary aim is achieved, Academy clubs have still had to pay with higher draft picks. It's hard to think of a better solution.

Sydney were meant to pay more than the pick 18 they used last year for Heeney to get Mills this year. That's the point of it.

Yet with pick 14 plus Craig Bird, Sydney traded for extra points in a deal that still went against them to get 25 and 44 or whatever it was.

Now as Sydney can match up to pick 5 just by using those points. So if for some reason we don't bid on Mills with pick 3 it's very likely that Sydney will get Mills for picks 14 and Craig Bird.

That's a bit ridiculous and not how the system was designed to work. To get an elite junior they were meant to give up a lot more than pick 14 and a steak knives player. It was meant to cost them their entire draft if they didn't have a high pick.

I think if you want a player in the first round then you should at least have to keep a first round pick to form part of your bid. You can manipulate the points after that but at least give up the value as it stands of the first round pick without double dipping by moving it back in the draft for extra points.

Are we able to bid on more than one academy player? For example, we put a bid in for Mills with pick 3. Sydney match our bid. Can we then go again with Hopper, and Kennedy potentially, before we finally take Parish?

I would hate for some of these guys to slip through to 7 or 8 before someone puts a bid in, and Sydney get more freebies.

It seems as though Carlton and Brisbane are both set on their picks, so we might be the first club that can stir up some trouble for other clubs.