13 hours ago, Stiff Arm said:

So according to The Age article, an academy or f/s would need to use a pick in the round a bid is placed to be matched, either current year or a future pick.

Not next year, of course, because picks have already been traded.

But guess what?... just in time for Kalani White in 2025 draft! Once again the goal posts are shifted and we come out losers

Coll, GCS and WB must be howling with laughter at the thought of this, given their great hauls under previous rules

Does that mean the point system is gone?

What happens if the bid comes after your pick in that round, do you the need to use your future, example Croft, would the bulldogs loose future first?

Sounds like the old system and they're getting rid of the bundling of cheap lower round picks.

On 30/11/2023 at 09:31, drdrake said:

Does that mean the point system is gone?

What happens if the bid comes after your pick in that round, do you the need to use your future, example Croft, would the bulldogs loose future first?

This is where it's tricky.. is it that round or the next pick. If it's that round the lower clubs would scream blue murder. You could in theory have the premier with pick 18 saying to the bottom club... use pick 1 or we will take your F/S. In the old days the bottom club is allowed to use pick 19.

TBH it's time for F/S to go. The comp is simply too close to allow this advantage.

Academy choices are perhaps harder but the present system certainly doesn't work unless you accept that non footballing States should get an advantage.

And then there's North.... Enough said

Mentioned this before:

but what about all academy first round products require the associated club to match points  plus 40%. Then Academy 2nd round plus 20%.  

It still provides opportunity to reward clubs academy efforts, but not provide a free hit. Other clubs potentially benefit from the deals required to accumulate the necessary points!

And of course, AFL gets more media coverage from the speculation.

Also for every northern academy player picked up by those clubs, then this means theres one more Vic/Sa/Wa player available for the rest.

Having/had kids in GWS academy I can verify that they do a lot of work, and are constantly behind the 8 ball; as they can't find any decent (high standard) games for these kids to play. They get 4 games in the Coates league at the start of the year, then beat up on weaker players till the championships! That's not great for development. 

Oh and the Father/Son should stay the same. Love seeing familiar names running around at their father's club. I'd even go further and introduce a grandfather/som for 200 gamers (along the academy bidding system suggested above).

On 02/12/2023 at 19:27, Ungarieboy said:

Mentioned this before:

but what about all academy first round products require the associated club to match points  plus 40%. Then Academy 2nd round plus 20%.  

It still provides opportunity to reward clubs academy efforts, but not provide a free hit. Other clubs potentially benefit from the deals required to accumulate the necessary points!

And of course, AFL gets more media coverage from the speculation.

I don’t think it has to be plus points, purely removing the discount and restructuring the points system so early picks are worth their true value would go a long way. And some kind of rule that says early picks require at least a pick inside 9 of the bid to start the matching, or the 2 picks max to match a bid rule. A design that makes it harder for teams at the top of the ladder to grab early picks is vital too. The Lions will have performed a heist with the Ashcrofts.

A lot of ways to fix a flawed system that remained flawed for far too long. 

There’s so many smart data analyst people working in the afl system. To design something that allowed a pick 9 to be matched with some late 40’s picks doesn’t stand up to basic scrutiny. 

In a draft-based professional code we should not be relying on club’s to nurture talent (and protect talent from other codes) at the grass-roots level. 

 

The AFL should have been investing more of their growing pool of funds on a meaningful, centralised grass-roots system across the country, rather than lining the pockets of its executive.

 

As a junior footy coach in Melbourne’s west, my first-hand experience is the AFL is completely asleep at the wheel, and completely absent. I’ve never spoken to or sighted anyone  from the league (nor has my club actively sought feedback) on the risks to our game, the first one being kids (who fall into an ‘nga bracket’ and also those who don’t) fleeing en masse to both soccer and basketball. We know why but I have a good feeling the AFL don’t. 

Fix this and we’re not sitting here arguing about rules around academy picks.  Over to you Dillon. 

Thanks for the insight @The Jackson FIX.
 

Have a couple of kids playing junior footy in the West and my observation has been the AFL will happily make recommendations about club officials wearing bibs and clubs providing umpire escorts, but too often leave clubs on the vine on other matters of substance (e.g. protocols or action on concussion in junior footy).

On 29/11/2023 at 20:15, Stiff Arm said:

So according to The Age article, an academy or f/s would need to use a pick in the round a bid is placed to be matched, either current year or a future pick.

Not next year, of course, because picks have already been traded.

But guess what?... just in time for Kalani White in 2025 draft! Once again the goal posts are shifted and we come out losers

Coll, GCS and WB must be howling with laughter at the thought of this, given their great hauls under previous rules

Don't forget Brisbane as well, who will likely snare Ashcroft #2 which is another top 5 pick. 

However I am for all the F/S and academy changes. They were completely out of touch and have given many sides an incredibly unfair advantage. In some cases i don't actually think its enough. Situations like Ashcroft / Darcy where they are high end talent need to be treated as special case. The nominated clubs should get first dibs to preserve the unique aspect of our game but for a top 4 team (in the respective draft year) to get a free hit is just not right. 

Perhaps a special clause in addition to a pick in the same round for clubs in the top 4/8 accessing players in the top 10 or 1st round to make it a bit fairer. For example a premier matching a bid for a F/S at pick 1 would require two first round picks to match instead of the purported 1 pick. 

19 minutes ago, ChaserJ said:

my observation has been the AFL will happily make recommendations about club officials wearing bibs and clubs providing umpire escorts, but too often leave clubs on the vine on other matters of substance (e.g. protocols or action on concussion in junior footy).

Yeah 100%.  There is no shortage of generic, faceless governance (including more ‘digital resources’ than anyone needs) but an absolute drought of meaningful engagement.  
 

I’ve never seen anyone from the AFL at any match I’ve been involved in (nor heard of their presence at others) - would’ve thought a few more heads out and about in the community would aid them better in the long term than the white-collar head office types revising academy drafting rules on an annual basis.

 

The reason they leave the academy development stuff to the clubs is that they’re unwilling to solve the problem themselves.