Imagine winning the premiership and picking up Harley Reid in the same year. 4% chance is good, bring the lottery in this year. 

No. I’m a believer in the current drafting rules and system. Just imv. 

I like it. Theres just too much benefit for bottom teams to finish lower…. as we did for years. Wont happen til Tassie are in and set though. 

I don't mind it, and you know the AFL will love it because it is another event for them to monetise.

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the NBA only have the lottery for the bottom 5 or so teams? 

In my opinion the lottery should only apply for bottom 4 or at most, teams that miss the 8. 

You can't have sides like the Eagles or Norf being pushed back a handful of picks due to bad luck 

I'm not opposed to a draft lottery, but I think it should be capped to the very lower end of the ladder, such as the bottom 4. 

19 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I'm not opposed to a draft lottery, but I think it should be capped to the very lower end of the ladder, such as the bottom 4. 

Agree with this. 

31 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I'm not opposed to a draft lottery, but I think it should be capped to the very lower end of the ladder, such as the bottom 4. 

And Freemantle

In the NAB system the bottom 3 (they call them seeds) all have the same % chance of getting the No1 pick. So I like the idea, but maybe it could look somethin like this instead:

Team that finish 16th-18th get a 17% chance;

15th 14%;

14th 10%;

13th 8%;

12th 7%;

11th 5%

10th 3%

9th 2%

So there's little to no incentive to finish last, while even bottom 4 has no guarantee of getting pick 1. 

They then give better odds on the top 10 picks for those teams that finish lower on the ladder, so in this example pick 2 is more like to go to a team in 15th - 18th than 9th, but it remains a lottery for all the top 10 picks.

Edited May 17, 20232 yr by Red and Blue realist

8 minutes ago, Bimbo said:

And Freemantle

Yeah a draft lottery might kill off any chance of a deathriding thread thus we lose a year's worth of free entertainment.

I'm out. 

56 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I'm not opposed to a draft lottery, but I think it should be capped to the very lower end of the ladder, such as the bottom 4. 

Yep good call. 

Only concern is teams in that 12-14 bracket who are clearly out of finals contention might start eyeing off that % chance.

Whichever system it is, clubs will try find a way to get the results they want. 

 

 

I think the issue of tanking is largely dissolved by now. The anxiety about it was always a legacy of the priority pick system which rewarded having fewer than a specific number of wins and gave a massively disproportionate benefit.

Once upon a time a difference of one additional win would cost you an additional top-3 pick in the draft. It was ludicrous. Now that the 'incentive' is just the incremental progress of the pick you already have, tanking is a very limited offer.

The ex-public-servant in me also recoils at the eternal process of 'just one more tweak added to make it all work just right'. That way lies madness and we all see it.

If I was looking for a solution, I'd point to the same thing which would solve almost all of Australian football's problems - a serious investment in the second-tier competitions.

Anyway, I'd argue that any selection in the first handful of draft picks is as likely to match pick 1 as not. Consider some pick 1s vs their best top-5 peers.

2013: Boyd vs Kelly, Billings, Bontempelli

2014: McCartin vs Petracca, Brayshaw, De Goey

2015: Weitering vs Mills, Oliver, Parish

2016: McGrath vs Taranto, McCluggage,

2017: Rayner vs Brayshaw, Davies-Uniacke, Cerra

2018: Walsh vs Rankine, Rozee, 2xKing

2019: Rowell vs Anderson, Jackson, Ash

Pick 1 is almost certainly a very good player, but is no more likely to be the best of the draft than any other pick at the top.

1 hour ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I'm not opposed to a draft lottery, but I think it should be capped to the very lower end of the ladder, such as the bottom 4. 

I like the idea, I would add a 2nd pool of 4 for teams finishing 11 to 14 to avoid any risk of "additional tanking".

Edited May 17, 20232 yr by Jibroni

2 hours ago, layzie said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the NBA only have the lottery for the bottom 5 or so teams? In my opinion the lottery should only apply for bottom 4 or at most, teams that miss the 8. 

The NBA lottery only applies for the sides missing the play-offs and then only for the Top 4 draft picks. For picks 5 onwards it's just reverse order like the AFL.

2 hours ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

I'm not opposed to a draft lottery, but I think it should be capped to the very lower end of the ladder, such as the bottom 4. 

Why? Why is bottom 4 somehow indicative of a poor team whilst 5th bottom somehow means you are so much better than 4th bottom that you have no access to the lottery? The only reason to have a lottery is to stop tanking and, with reduced priority picks at the pointy end of the draft and increased AFL/media scrutiny, tanking is a thing of the past. In fact I would argue that having a lottery and limiting it to say the bottom 4 clubs encourages tanking as it'sa lot easier to tank for 4th bottom than for absolute bottom!

should've been brought in years ago

8 minutes ago, Sydney_Demon said:

 

Why? Why is bottom 4 somehow indicative of a poor team whilst 5th bottom somehow means you are so much better than 4th bottom that you have no access to the lottery? The only reason to have a lottery is to stop tanking and, with reduced priority picks at the pointy end of the draft and increased AFL/media scrutiny, tanking is a thing of the past. In fact I would argue that having a lottery and limiting it to say the bottom 4 clubs encourages tanking as it'sa lot easier to tank for 4th bottom than for absolute bottom!

That's the exact reason I think bottom 4 is a good compromise.

If you finish 5th last it is highly unlikely you are involved in any form of tanking, granted the same probably applied to 4th last but you have to draw a line somewhere.

Was just giving an opinion on an option as you wouldn't want 9th getting lucky and pulling the number 1 pick.

1 hour ago, Red and Blue realist said:

In the NAB system the bottom 3 (they call them seeds) all have the same % chance of getting the No1 pick. So I like the idea, but maybe it could look somethin like this instead:

Team that finish 16th-18th get a 17% chance;

15th 14%;

14th 10%;

13th 8%;

12th 7%;

11th 5%

10th 3%

9th 2%

So there's little to no incentive to finish last, while even bottom 4 has no guarantee of getting pick 1. 

They then give better odds on the top 10 picks for those teams that finish lower on the ladder, so in this example pick 2 is more like to go to a team in 15th - 18th than 9th, but it remains a lottery for all the top 10 picks.

The lottery is a proposed solution to a non-existent problem. The whole point of having reverse order draft is to even up the competition, so in conjunction with the salary cap, any team can win. This has largely worked. The AFL is such a better competition for fans than say the Premier League because of this. Having a lottery just diminishes the process. IMV tanking in AFL is not an issue and if it is there are much better processes to tackle that than a lottery that has unintended consequences.

5 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

That's the exact reason I think bottom 4 is a good compromise.

If you finish 5th last it is highly unlikely you are involved in any form of tanking, granted the same probably applied to 4th last but you have to draw a line somewhere.

Was just giving an opinion on an option as you wouldn't want 9th getting lucky and pulling the number 1 pick.

Sorry DistrACTION but as I said tanking is not an issue in AFL IMV. So why have a lottery at all applying to the bottom 4, 5 or even all 18 teams? Having a sliding scale discourages tanking for a particular position as there is no major cut-off. Funnily enough, that's exactly what we have now. Unless the No. 1 draft pick is always superior to No. 2 there is no massive incentive to finish bottom in the AFL. What used to encourage tanking was the way priority picks were awarded but that has been tightened up, refer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priority_draft_pick

NFL doesn’t have the lottery because their games are almost events in and of themselves - you get 9 max home games and you want to win even when you’re awful.

Tanking isn’t an issue, it is an issue in the NBA and in the AFL. The lottery isn’t a panacea, but at least it will make people think twice before ‘putting your team into a position to lose’ as the season draws to a close as there is no guarantee that they’ll get that pick. 

One of the things in the NBA that has positively impacted tanking is the ‘play in’ tournament as it provides an opportunity for more teams to be ‘within reach’ of the finals and keep their season alive for longer. 

There is no panacea and bad teams should be rewarded for being terrible - welcome to a socialistic set up where those in need get help - what we want to do is not incentivise it and I think both the lottery and the play in can do that. 

i hate the idea of a lottery. finish 9th and get pick 1? no thanks.

id combine the ladders over a 2 or 3 year period. total wins etc. 
that way, north who have been no good for 3 years get pick one even if they win a couple more games this year. and you cant do a west coast 2007 and go finals, 2nd last, finals and get pick 2. 
would also provide more certainty around trading of future picks.

 

4 hours ago, layzie said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the NBA only have the lottery for the bottom 5 or so teams? 

In my opinion the lottery should only apply for bottom 4 or at most, teams that miss the 8. 

I love the NBA lottery system. NBA is my second favorite sport and I love how its run (besides the excessive player movement)

So 14 teams miss playoffs and they all get lottery balls. The bottom 3 all have a 14% chance at pick 1 and the worst they can get is pick 5. (I have attached this years lottery odds)

This is what happened to Detroit this year, They had the worst record (17-65) and they slipped back to pick 5 in the lottery.
Spurs who had an equal % chance at pick 1 won it
Rockets also had equal % chance but slipped to 4th
Hornets come up and grabbed 2nd Trailblazers grabbed 3rd. 

Generally the poor teams still get decent draft picks but you won't get the first. 
This year 7"5 freak athlete Victor Wembanyama is probably the best prospect since Lebron in the draft and those 3 teams were all trying to give themselves the best chance to get him. 

There have been some miracles in drafting where teams with less than a 3% chance have won the lottery. 
https://www.nbcsports.com/chicago/chicago-bulls/top-5-nba-draft-lottery-miracles 

IMG_1426.avif

And heres the results of the 2023 NBA lottery

Please note that the Chicago pick in the lottery odds picture became the Orlando Pick at 11 because it was a traded pick with Top 10 protection but it fell to 11 so Orlando get it. 

IMG_1426.avif

Edited May 18, 20232 yr by FritschyBusiness
Chicago

2 hours ago, rpfc said:

NFL doesn’t have the lottery because their games are almost events in and of themselves - you get 9 max home games and you want to win even when you’re awful.

Tanking isn’t an issue, it is an issue in the NBA and in the AFL. The lottery isn’t a panacea, but at least it will make people think twice before ‘putting your team into a position to lose’ as the season draws to a close as there is no guarantee that they’ll get that pick. 

One of the things in the NBA that has positively impacted tanking is the ‘play in’ tournament as it provides an opportunity for more teams to be ‘within reach’ of the finals and keep their season alive for longer. 

There is no panacea and bad teams should be rewarded for being terrible - welcome to a socialistic set up where those in need get help - what we want to do is not incentivise it and I think both the lottery and the play in can do that. 

I don't know about the NBA but do you have any evidence that tanking is an issue in the AFL? I think most of the stuff is made up by disgruntled supporters who don't like to see their competition having easy percentage-boosting wins against the bottom teams. 

Personally I hate the play-in tournament in the NBA and that it has been introduced in the VFL this year. I like basketball and obviously the standard in the NBA is elite. But you have a ridiculous situation where they play 82 games to eliminate 10 teams out of 30. Then, and let's forget the play-in tournament for a moment, you have an elimination tournament where the only advantage of finishing higher up the table is you get a marginal home court advantage of 4 games to 3. The NBA system is totally unfair to the top teams, and because they play so many games there are numerous games that have meaningless results, whole starting 5s are rested etc. etc. The play-in tournament IMO has nothing to do with stopping tanking and everything to do with maximising revenue. 

1 hour ago, biggestred said:

i hate the idea of a lottery. finish 9th and get pick 1? no thanks.

id combine the ladders over a 2 or 3 year period. total wins etc. 
that way, north who have been no good for 3 years get pick one even if they win a couple more games this year. and you cant do a west coast 2007 and go finals, 2nd last, finals and get pick 2. 
would also provide more certainty around trading of future picks.

This is what happens now. Priority picks are allocated based on performance over multiple years. This works in conjunction with the annual reverse-order draft. The system works and doesn't need changing IMO.

1 hour ago, FritschyBusiness said:

I love the NBA lottery system. NBA is my second favorite sport and I love how its run (besides the excessive player movement)

So 14 teams miss playoffs and they all get lottery balls. The bottom 3 all have a 14% chance at pick 1 and the worst they can get is pick 5. (I have attached this years lottery odds)

This is what happened to Detroit this year, They had the worst record (17-65) and they slipped back to pick 5 in the lottery.
Spurs who had an equal % chance at pick 1 won it
Rockets also had equal % chance but slipped to 4th
Hornets come up and grabbed 2nd Trailblazers grabbed 3rd. 

Generally the poor teams still get decent draft picks but you won't get the first. 
This year 7"5 freak athlete Victor Wembanyama is probably the best prospect since Lebron in the draft and those 3 teams were all trying to give themselves the best chance to get him. 

There have been some miracles in drafting where teams with less than a 3% chance have won the lottery. 

Why is this good? I'm sure Spurs fans are ecstatic and Detroit due to bad luck miss out on the top 4 picks despite having the worst record in the NBA. Why do they deserve this result? Did they actually tank more than San Antonio? What do you like about the way the NBA is run? You like lots of meaningless games, with only 1/3 of the teams eliminated. Miami finish 8th, lose to Atlanta (7th) in the play-in tournament, beat Chicage (10th), then go on a streak that could see them win the whole thing. They beat Milwaukee despite winning 14 less games during the season. Jimmy Butler only turns up when the finals start. This is all very exciting but any system when the entire pre-finals is largely irrelevant seems to be something we shouldn't be talking up. 

I do agree with you about excessive player movement, but this is the route people want to go down for the AFL. Of course none of the so-called experts provide any in-depth analysis supporting thir arguments.

Edited May 18, 20232 yr by Sydney_Demon
Accidentally posted before including my comments