Tanking

[Griff]

I don't believe it's happening. But I also don't like the fact that there's an incentive to tank.

The principle of giving the first draft picks to the bottom teams is right, and it's given us a great, relatively even competition. But it's got to be changed.

Here's my suggestion. Apologies if it's been suggested before by anyone.

At the end of the year, the ladder should be divided up into 4 groups of 4 teams.

The bottom four get the first four draft picks, but the exact order should be decided by lottery.

Ditto the next four up the ladder, and so on.

The weakest teams get assistance, but the incentive to lose games to end up below another team is either eliminated, or severely reduced.

What do people think?

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

If Carlton were currently 13th, do you think they'd be any more deperate to win a game under that system?

 

[Griff]

Winning games at the end of the season matters if you want to sign up members for the next year, and keep up the morale and confidence of your players.

The marginal value of getting a better pick is nothing compared with the marginal value of winning extra games at the end of a bad season. No-one has ever won a premiership with draft picks; you do it with a never say die culture at every level of the club.

But the incentive is there, the perception is there, and the AFL needs to do something to deal with it.

 

[Pezza]

I think that idea has more merit than a lottery system, but I would add $$$$ incentives for each of the four groupings eg $250, 000 difference from 12th to 13th. Clubs that are struggling for money after a poor season ie gate takings etc. would be keen to win.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

No-one has ever won a premiership with draft picks

That was Demetriou's argument the other week, but Chris Judd was a priority pick.

Agree with your sentiments though, don't like the current guaranteed reward system at all.

 

[Tigerfan]

sure about Judd? They would have taken him at 3 anyway. The priority (bonus) pick to them would have been pick 6.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

sure about Judd? They would have taken him at 3 anyway. The priority (bonus) pick to them would have been pick 6.

Freo actually had #1 which was a PP but traded it to Hawthorn. Can't remember the draft talk from back then and don't know if Judd would've still ended up at WC but he was definitely a PP.

 

[the claw]

sure about Judd? They would have taken him at 3 anyway. The priority (bonus) pick to them would have been pick 6.

Freo actually had #1 which was a PP but traded it to Hawthorn. Can't remember the draft talk from back then and don't know if Judd would've still ended up at WC but he was definitely a PP.

judd was inded a priority pick. wce didnt win more than 5 games that was the rule back then.fremantle traded pp 1 pick 20 and pick 36 for croad and mcpharlin who was out of contract and wanted to go home. pick 1 was hodge 36 was mitchell.fremantle still had pick 4 which they used on polak funny thing is they ended up without both croad and polak. stkilda used pp2 on ball pick 5 on xav clarke pick 13 on delsanto and pick 21 on mcguire. chalk and cheese when you compare tthe way the two teams went about the draft. wce failed to make the finals for only the third time in their history they used pp 3 on judd pick 6 on sampi 22 on seaby and 36 on hansen sampi has hurt them and to this day i still cant fathom how a bloke with so much raw potential talent could not make the grade. to finish wce have made the finals every yr since 2001 and have still only missed finals 3 times in their history.

 

[Talon]

sure about Judd? They would have taken him at 3 anyway. The priority (bonus) pick to them would have been pick 6.

Freo actually had #1 which was a PP but traded it to Hawthorn. Can't remember the draft talk from back then and don't know if Judd would've still ended up at WC but he was definitely a PP.

judd was inded a priority pick. wce didnt win more than 5 games that was the rule back then.fremantle traded pp 1 pick 20 and pick 36 for croad and mcpharlin who was out of contract and wanted to go home. pick 1 was hodge 36 was mitchell.fremantle still had pick 4 which they used on polak funny thing is they ended up without both croad and polak. stkilda used pp2 on ball pick 5 on xav clarke pick 13 on delsanto and pick 21 on mcguire. chalk and cheese when you compare tthe way the two teams went about the draft. wce failed to make the finals for only the third time in their history they used pp 3 on judd pick 6 on sampi 22 on seaby and 36 on hansen sampi has hurt them and to this day i still cant fathom how a bloke with so much raw potential talent could not make the grade. to finish wce have made the finals every yr since 2001 and have still only missed finals 3 times in their history.

Sorry Claw, they have missed the finals 4 times, 87,89,00,01. Still not a bad record, the record sugests there's less chance of West Coast missing the finals than Richmond actually making them!

 

[Mac]

It is a slightly flawed system, but you can't really change it much if you want the even comp as well.

I think it's a bit of a storm in a tea cup that gives the media something else to waffle on about on slow days.

If we were on top of the ladder, we might not care half as much about getting the first pick over the 16th. Where was Dal Santo picked again....13?

If every aspect of the game was perfectly even, you'd be gauranteed a GF every 16 years. The inequitable draw is more of a problem than tanking. No-one really wants to be remembered as the wooden spooners. Carlton are in an unusual situation that they've been ordinary for two years....but there just happens to be a team that's worse this year (as far as win/loss at least). So they have the unusual luxury of "tanking" (if that's what you want to call facing a lost season realistically and preparing for the future) and not getting the Spoon. Shame on us for putting ourselves in that position.

When we got Deledio, there seemed to be an air of expectation among some that a savior could be coming. He hasn't he made the difference for us in playing finals. Niether has Richo. Or Brown. When you pin you hopes on one player instead of managing the whole playing list properly, you're bound for let-down.

 

[ranger]

The priority pick system as it is needs to go. Carlton doesn't deserve two of the top three picks just because they were crap last season and are possibly tanking this season. Priority pick should be for getting consecutive wooden spoons, if they have it at all.

I'd actually prefer no priority picks and for there to be cash incentives to encourage teams to win as many games as possible. If you finish last, you get the top pick but you get the smallest share of TV revenue (which makes sense because people are less likely to want to watch your games) as well as the humiliation of the spoon.

 

[IanG]

The priority pick system as it is needs to go. Carlton doesn't deserve two of the top three picks just because they were crap last season and are possibly tanking this season. Priority pick should be for getting consecutive wooden spoons, if they have it at all.

Spot on, all this talk about a lottery etc misses the point, simply do away with the priority picks entirely and the system will be fair and reasonable, no need to go to the extent of a lottery like basketball. AFL is different from basketball in that in basketball 1 player can drag a whole team up whereas the teams in AFL are too large for that.

 

[Nico]

I'm a bit torn on this issue. It is definitely in Carlton's best interest not to win another game, as they will pick up Kruezer (who at this stage seems to be a standout No. 1), and pick 3 or 4. If there's a definite standout in the draft, "tanking" will continue under the present system, as the "tanking" team knows who they will pick up if the "tank" is successful. Let's take this known quantity out of the system.

A lottery with teams finishing 9th - 16th would take the "tank" out. No team would deliberately set out to "tank" under this system, especially if there is also a cash incentive whereby the higher you finish on the ladder, the more cash you receive.

Every team in the bottom 8 would be trying to win every game, and if, god forbid, a team finishes 8th and misses out on the chance of the No. 1 pick, well...they play finals football.

In regards to a priority pick, if under this system a team finishes with 4 or less wins in 2 consecutive years, then they are definitely a basket case and need some assistance. Give them 2 balls in the lottery, so they are assured of 2 top 9 selections. The 8th place team will then get pick 10, 7th pick 11 etc.

Under this system, every fan who goes to see their team play will know they are playing to win.

 

[RemoteTiger]

I'm a bit torn on this issue. It is definitely in Carlton's best interest not to win another game, as they will pick up Kruezer (who at this stage seems to be a standout No. 1), and pick 3 or 4. If there's a definite standout in the draft, "tanking" will continue under the present system, as the "tanking" team knows who they will pick up if the "tank" is successful. Let's take this known quantity out of the system.

A lottery with teams finishing 9th - 16th would take the "tank" out. No team would deliberately set out to "tank" under this system, especially if there is also a cash incentive whereby the higher you finish on the ladder, the more cash you receive.

Every team in the bottom 8 would be trying to win every game, and if, god forbid, a team finishes 8th and misses out on the chance of the No. 1 pick, well...they play finals football.

In regards to a priority pick, if under this system a team finishes with 4 or less wins in 2 consecutive years, then they are definitely a basket case and need some assistance. Give them 2 balls in the lottery, so they are assured of 2 top 9 selections. The 8th place team will then get pick 10, 7th pick 11 etc.

Under this system, every fan who goes to see their team play will know they are playing to win.

Your idea holds a lot of water - reckon you should send it to AFL H/Q............................

 

[IanG]

I'm a bit torn on this issue. It is definitely in Carlton's best interest not to win another game, as they will pick up Kruezer (who at this stage seems to be a standout No. 1), and pick 3 or 4. If there's a definite standout in the draft, "tanking" will continue under the present system, as the "tanking" team knows who they will pick up if the "tank" is successful. Let's take this known quantity out of the system.

A lottery with teams finishing 9th - 16th would take the "tank" out. No team would deliberately set out to "tank" under this system, especially if there is also a cash incentive whereby the higher you finish on the ladder, the more cash you receive.

Every team in the bottom 8 would be trying to win every game, and if, god forbid, a team finishes 8th and misses out on the chance of the No. 1 pick, well...they play finals football.

In regards to a priority pick, if under this system a team finishes with 4 or less wins in 2 consecutive years, then they are definitely a basket case and need some assistance. Give them 2 balls in the lottery, so they are assured of 2 top 9 selections. The 8th place team will then get pick 10, 7th pick 11 etc.

Teams tank to pick up the priority pick, not to get the no. 1 pick, so take the priority pick out and they won't tank.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

I'm a bit torn on this issue. It is definitely in Carlton's best interest not to win another game, as they will pick up Kruezer (who at this stage seems to be a standout No. 1), and pick 3 or 4. If there's a definite standout in the draft, "tanking" will continue under the present system, as the "tanking" team knows who they will pick up if the "tank" is successful. Let's take this known quantity out of the system.

A lottery with teams finishing 9th - 16th would take the "tank" out. No team would deliberately set out to "tank" under this system, especially if there is also a cash incentive whereby the higher you finish on the ladder, the more cash you receive.

Every team in the bottom 8 would be trying to win every game, and if, god forbid, a team finishes 8th and misses out on the chance of the No. 1 pick, well...they play finals football.

In regards to a priority pick, if under this system a team finishes with 4 or less wins in 2 consecutive years, then they are definitely a basket case and need some assistance. Give them 2 balls in the lottery, so they are assured of 2 top 9 selections. The 8th place team will then get pick 10, 7th pick 11 etc.

Under this system, every fan who goes to see their team play will know they are playing to win.

I like the lottery idea, (especially the extra balls idea) but the problem I see is that the whole point of the draft is to equalise the competition. Giving a team that finished 9th (possibly on percentage alone) the chance at a number one pick is against the spirit of the draft.

I don't know the solution. A lottery for the bottom four, or six, might be better.

 

[ranger]

I used to think a lottery was the way to go, but I've gone off the idea. Like Ian said, a number one selection isn't going to turn a whole club around in football. In basketball, you draft a Michael Jordan or a Tim Duncan and it can have a huge and immediate impact on your fortunes. Not so in footy as most players take at least a few years to become stars and even then they are just one of eighteen guys on the ground.

Just eliminate the priority pick, or at the most give an extra pick at the beginning of the second round for a team that collects consecutive spoons. Give cash incentives for each position on the ladder to ensure that teams will fight out every position right up to the end of the season. That way Carlton and Melbourne would both have a reason to win in round 22 rather than one team having a reason to lose and the other having no reason to do anything.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

Give cash incentives for each position on the ladder to ensure that teams will fight out every position right up to the end of the season. That way Carlton and Melbourne would both have a reason to win in round 22 rather than one team having a reason to lose and the other having no reason to do anything.

TW suggested something similar last year - offer $100,000 prizemoney for all matches in the second half of the h&a season.