Bluey's Dad

Really, really interesting. Very egalitarian. Not sure how it would work with the venues, I hear they are massive pains to negotiate with in regards to scheduling. But I like it. The fact that you only play 13-18 for picks means even at 18th, you have a good chance. So for 2012, the last 6 were Brisbane, Port, Bulldogs, Melbourne, GWS, Gold Coast. Not one of those teams would just roll over if pick #1 was at stake. Even #13 (Brisbane) vs #18 (GWS) would become a good match to watch. The middle-ranked 'conference' would also contain teams all trying their best to make finals. If they loose, they might not make it. So they won't be tanking to get pick #7-10 if it means they can make finals by playing hard. The top-ranked one of course would go hard for a top 4 bonus we currently have. Also a pretty simple system to explain to the punters.

Joined as 'Cry Babies'

I wouldn't be so sure. A lot of demons members were quite comfortable with what we were doing during the Bailey years. But yeah, it'd be a risk. I'm just trying to throw up scenarios to test the thesis and possibly make it more robust. This thread needs someone who's good at maths to do some proper modelling and look at developing those 'number of games' and 'quality of competition' modifiers we were talking about before. Probably a lot of work for a hypothetical though

Yeah but who's got the balls to tell him? eep.

Now here's a thought. What if a team who's in the start of a development cycle (ie no chance of finals whichever way you slice it), decides to 'reverse tank'. They pump all their rookies into the side in the first 10 games, causing abysmal percentage. After the mathematical limit of when they can reach finals is reached, they shift into gear and put all the seniors back in - resulting (in theory) in a huge improvement in weighted percentage.

Wouldn't touch Vardy. Leuy looks to be the goods if he's fit round 1, could be a massive steal. You need at least one premium ruck though, the Vardy/Leuy combo would be dangerous to start unless one was benched. If you already have a premo ruck, downgrade Vardy to Daw/Currie/Witts and use the cash on one of those midfielders As good a prospect as Kent is, I think there are too many mid rookies ahead of him atm. Crouch, O'Meara, Viney, Wines, Mitchell (if elevated) to name a few.

So many permutations. Damnit Nasher we were making progress here!

Yeah but then you have H_T's fixture issue. If one of those teams plays teams in the top 4 and the others don't, that's a huge disadvantage. I think the weighted percentage system is better.

After looking at that, I agree. WBD at 10 is fine considering these figures. How does it handle the PA situation though? As you said it didn't look like they were trying to 'peter out' for picks.

....but you pick you own Super Coach team....?

But then who do we get to run the AFL and media?

As long as we don't get comments like "that St Kilda player", I'm all for it

I like that the maths favourably weights towards the poorer performing teams. I'm just looking at your scenario above. Port and the Bulldogs are the ones that trouble me. There has to be some way of correcting so that a team like Carlton doesn't get a pick ahead of these two? This is where I think some form of modifier has to be in order. Maybe a simple reconciliation with ladder position after the weighted calc? So if you finish last on the ladder but the weighted calc puts you at pick 5, you are dragged up to 4 or 3 or something. Of course then the picks get tied (even in a diminished way) to ladder position and the question of tanking may come up again.

Yep, I get that it's relative. BUT - is a a weighted increase of 3.3% of the Dees equivalent to a 3.3% increase for, say, Richmond? It could be argued that it's actually HARDER for us to raise our bar, even on a weighted vs played opponents scale, than it is for them. The same for GWS, it may be more difficult for such a young team to lift in the second half of the season, but for Richmond with the likes of Cothin and Deledio, etc, have the experience to do so. Having said that, I don't think we should be correcting for a team's skill level. I think the real point in favour of a system like this is as you said, teams who are out of the finals get an incentive to play harder and better. I think if we get the maths right, this could be a winner. The ideology of lifting the back half of the ladder would benefit the game tremendously. More crowds, better quality footy and, *gasp*, cheering for your team to WIN for a draft pick.

Bah, no one understands how the AFL works now, this is nothing new! I actually think some relative modifiers would be a good idea, even if people don't get it. It may end up correcting for the AFL's flawed fixture. So the AFL can say something like "Due to a host of reasons including TV rights, derbies and grudge matches, the AFL will never be able to deliver a 100% fair fixture. However, though this new draft formula, we can correct for those irregularities where it effects the draft picks of those who don't make the 8."

Yep, I wish I had the time and ability to actually run those scenarios. It'd be really interesting. Maybe there should be some sort of modifier, call it a "number of games co-efficient" or something, where those teams who bow out early have their weighted percentage changed by a multiple (no idea what though). Could apply a similar modifier to the quality of opposition they play. Could get messy with the formula.

Yeah, but it's such an awkward price point. Plus he's never played a full season: Year Games Average 2005 16 56.9 2006 15 60.5 2007 16 63.1 2008 18 75.5 2009 17 90.5 2010 15 88.0 2011 19 96.3 2012 17 81.0 Just too much of a risk for me. I understand why others will take him though. He has the potential to be a top 10 forward. I'd go with Mark LeCras. Similar output, more reliable, $60k less. Year Games Average 2005 2 29.5 2006 3 93.7 2007 17 61.8 2008 11 59.5 2009 21 84.4 2010 21 82.2 2011 19 86.3 edit - reposted tables

I wouldn't risk Sylvia in SC. I think he's a possibility in DT because you get 2 trades a week. If he's sucking it up you can just swap him out. SC has 30 trades and even though it's more than last year I wouldn't want to burn any. He's the perennial tease in fantasy and the real game.

Wow, interesting idea. How would it apply in the following scenario: Team A has mathematically no chance of reaching finals. They therefore decide to sideline their best two players for early surgery and blood some new players in their stead. This is completely legal list management as far as I'm aware and pretty common when you have no chance of playing finals. Would the introduction of the new players and removal of the veterans mean that that team is less competitive? The team's weighted percentage increase therefore doesn't move, or actually goes backwards. So, under this system as I understand it, teams are in a position of having to choose if they should be competitive for draft picks OR rest veterans and blood rookies. They can no longer do both - ie rest veterans to blood rookies AND get a draft pick advantage. Actually after thinking about that scenario more, I think I like your idea BETTER than when I started this post. Putting clubs in that position may actually be a good thing. Ideologically speaking though, under your proposal, the team 'most in need' does not actually get the best draft pick. The best draft pick goes to the MOST IMPROVED team in the back half of the ladder. Also I'm not a mathematician, but some teams will be able to start their weighted percentage calculation much earlier than others if they happen to suck it up in the first half of the year. GWS for example probably mathematically couldn't the 8 by round 10 or something (just guessing) but Richmond were a chance right up until round 20 or so? Sorry, there's a few scattered thoughts there, but I think the idea has a lot of merit and should be dissected further. edit - spelling

Viney's a lock, Terlich is also a strong possibility since Staker is injured. Tempted by Grimes, Watts and Kent although I probably won't end up with any in SC. Grimes is definitely in DT. Pedo is too expensive Toss up between Byrnes and Varcoe. Not sure who I'm getting there.

/thread

If only we had a way of telling which AFL decisions they pulled out of their arse and which they actually consider. You'd think the whole tanking investigation after 8 months would be considered, but I'd put that firmly in the 'pulled from arse' category.

Kent's haircut.