The draft system

[Rosy]

I wonder if we ever see the best of the kids who go first in the draft. The way the system works they almost always go to the worst performed clubs. Those clubs are usually on the bottom for a reason. Poor finances, conditions, facilities, development, coaching, support, talent etc.

It would be interesting, although it can't be done of course, to see the difference if those earliest picks went to the top clubs.

I don't follow any other sports closely. Is our draft system typical of sports like rugby, soccer and basketball for example?

 

[Total Tiger]

It's an interesting question, Rosy. I have no doubt that Lids would be more protected, therefore a better player, at Geelong than with us. And players like Jack Watts wouldn't be forced to play too early. In fact, he wouldn't have the opportunity to play yet. I don't think there's much that can be done about it though. If we didn't have a draft, clubs like the Bulldogs and North wouldn't exist any more.

 

[Rosy]

Yeah I can't imagine it being any different TT, that's why I'm interested in what other sports do.  I can't even remember how the VFL/AFL used to  work before the draft system we have now came into practice.

 

[Remember Tommy]

Rosy,

NRL do not have a draft. It is an open market for all.

Clubs are free to buy players from other clubs and to sign up youngsters they believe will make the grade.

The only stipulation is that the total player payments fit within their salary cap. This limits the wealthy clubs from dominating.

Not sure about the other sports.

RT.

 

[The_General]

Basketball in the states is a bit different Rosy.

They have the lottery before the draft, so that those who missed out on the "play offs" get randomly drawn out of a machine, to determine the draft order. The worst performed team is guaranteed a top 4 pick only.

Generally though, the players over there usually are able to step in straight away and make their mark. If you look at Shaquille O'Neal (pretty sure you'd know him), he was an all star in his first season.

They have mega millions over there, and only 12 players to spend it on. They also play all the time, so practice isn't a huge issue unless it's preseason. The other thing that happens in the USA, is players with reputations get a very easy ride with the referees. I remember speaking with one of the best Aussie refs many years ago, and he went to the NBA to learn from their referees.

Pre-game he was told that, if Michael Jordan was on 5 fouls, and looked like he had charged a player, they'd call a travel rather than a foul. That way the opposition would get the ball, but he'd stay in the game. After all, the fans had paid to come watch him play.

 

[Hypoxic]

I think that there are some fundamental flaws with the AFL Draft System that are hurting players and not allowing teams to best equip themselves with players that suit the style of play and vacancies at the club.

Firstly, a kid that has barracked for a club for his whole life has no hope of going to his desired team unless they get really lucky. While the TAC CUP level kids are happy JUST to be drafted (by any club), the kid that is deemed to be the No 1 draft pick knows that his AFL career will be starting off at a "poor" club currently on the bottom of the ladder. The kids that are not at the top end of the draft have SOME chance of going to their supported club, but its still only a 1 in 16 chance.

Who was the number one pick from a few years ago who was a keen Carlton supporter, but went to someone else because Carlton were penalised for dodging the salary cap?

Why are father/son combinations the only ones to get a chance of playing at their desired club?

How passionate would a footy club be if its entire playing list (of great skill) loved the club from the day they were born?

Maybe the AFL needs to allow the draft to be more flexible in that players can nominate which club they want to play for, for reasons other than money, and somehow bring that into the equation of determining where a player goes.

Secondly, the club's playing list does not always have vacancies for the No 1 draft pick's skill sets. This can lead to clubs trying to develop a tall running player into a winger, when he always played in the ruck or at full forward. Sure, its not that simple, but trying to teach new skills, rather than developing existing skills and experience, is more risky than giving a player his head at what he knows from his playing experience.

In the old days before the draft, clubs selected players who fitted into positions. Now they just pick the best kid available and if its fits a position then well and good. If it doesn't then they modify the player into what suits. It doesn't always work, as we are seeing at Richmond.

Thirdly, the current draft system is inhibiting the development of the game by not allowing clubs to source the players that suit the club. This does not allow a club to develop its team as successfully as is optimum, limiting the spectacle that the AFL wants to exploit.

The draft should not allow cheats to pick up a brownlow medalist from another state by "employing' him in a role outside the club, but the draft should be more flexible to allow clubs, players and the AFL to reach the potential that they determine will bring success.

Whenever the AFL brings a new side into the competition they modify the draft rules to make them competitive.

The AFL should modify the draft rules to allow clubs and players to play at their optimum levels, not to keep the competition even. IT AINT EVEN NOW.

 

[johnson2richo2003]

Came up with this 2-3 yrs ago when Carltank were in full swing.

16 teams split into groups of 4.[Those 4 sides stay in their group forever]
EG:Going on this years ladder:
Group 1:
Melbourne
Fremantle ...........................>Get picks 1-4
Richmond
North

Group 2:
West Coast
Sydney ..........................>Get picks 5-8
Port
Hawthorn

Group 3:
Carl
Ess
Adel ............................>Get picks 9-12
Bris

Group 4:
Coll
Dogs ............................>Get picks 13-16
Geel
STK

The following year Group 1 goes to picks 5-8,Group 4 goes to pick 1-4,etc etc etc.
To work out the order within a group a lottery system is done after the season
The above senerio is only for the first Round only.2nd rnd onwards goes back to current system.

 

[RemoteTiger]

I think that there are some fundamental flaws with the AFL Draft System that are hurting players and not allowing teams to best equip themselves with players that suit the style of play and vacancies at the club.

Firstly, a kid that has barracked for a club for his whole life has no hope of going to his desired team unless they get really lucky. While the TAC CUP level kids are happy JUST to be drafted (by any club), the kid that is deemed to be the No 1 draft pick knows that his AFL career will be starting off at a "poor" club currently on the bottom of the ladder. The kids that are not at the top end of the draft have SOME chance of going to their supported club, but its still only a 1 in 16 chance.

Who was the number one pick from a few years ago who was a keen Carlton supporter, but went to someone else because Carlton were penalised for dodging the salary cap?

Why are father/son combinations the only ones to get a chance of playing at their desired club?

How passionate would a footy club be if its entire playing list (of great skill) loved the club from the day they were born?

Maybe the AFL needs to allow the draft to be more flexible in that players can nominate which club they want to play for, for reasons other than money, and somehow bring that into the equation of determining where a player goes.

Secondly, the club's playing list does not always have vacancies for the No 1 draft pick's skill sets. This can lead to clubs trying to develop a tall running player into a winger, when he always played in the ruck or at full forward. Sure, its not that simple, but trying to teach new skills, rather than developing existing skills and experience, is more risky than giving a player his head at what he knows from his playing experience.

In the old days before the draft, clubs selected players who fitted into positions. Now they just pick the best kid available and if its fits a position then well and good. If it doesn't then they modify the player into what suits. It doesn't always work, as we are seeing at Richmond.

Thirdly, the current draft system is inhibiting the development of the game by not allowing clubs to source the players that suit the club. This does not allow a club to develop its team as successfully as is optimum, limiting the spectacle that the AFL wants to exploit.

The draft should not allow cheats to pick up a brownlow medalist from another state by "employing' him in a role outside the club, but the draft should be more flexible to allow clubs, players and the AFL to reach the potential that they determine will bring success.

Whenever the AFL brings a new side into the competition they modify the draft rules to make them competitive.

The AFL should modify the draft rules to allow clubs and players to play at their optimum levels, not to keep the competition even. IT AINT EVEN NOW.

I gather you are not a fan of the draft!

To me it with the salary cap are the only instruments that are enabling some clubs including Richmond to survive. Imagine if the draft and salary caps did not exist over the last 20 years - the Tigers along with the Demons, Bulldogs, Kangaroos, and possibly the Cats would have folded due to financial difficulties or at best have been propped up by the AFL. Clubs such as Carlton, Collingwood and the rich interstate clubs would have dominated the finals.

As far as clubs picking the best kid available rather than the kid that suits their game style or need - well surely that is up to the club at the time of picking. Some clubs will develop this skill over the next few years.

As far as a kid playing for who he barracked for - well before the draft - you were at the mercy of the individual clubs selections process or the area you grew up in (which was allocated to a particular club) anyway and if they didn't want you - you sold yourself to the next highest bidder. Many mates during my late teenage years (early 70s) followed teams that were not interested in them and they finished up playing for other clubs - even bloody Collingwood who were hated! So it is not the draft that is causing this - it happened long before the draft was implemented.

The only area of the draft I do not like is the fact that some kids have to leave their home state to gain a game. This for some kids is too difficult and they do not get a real chance to live their dream. Further where the AFL is in very tight competiton for talented sports kids like Brisbane and Sydney against the NRL and Australian Rugby and Soccer the talented sports kid is likely to go for the sport that will allow him to live near or at home - rather than a sport that has a draft that could force him to live on the other side of the country. If the AFL was truely wanting to gain a strong foothold in Sydney, Brisbane, Gold Coast and West Sydney they would ensure that kids who grow up in that area can exempt themselves from the draft and thus can only be picked up by a club in their city or state.

Other than that the draft is ok - it is just that Richmond suck big time at the draft and player development that makes it sad for us Tiger fans...........

 

[Hypoxic]

I don't have any issues with the Salary Cap.

 

[IanG]

Who was the number one pick from a few years ago who was a keen Carlton supporter, but went to someone else because Carlton were penalised for dodging the salary cap?

Goddard.

To me it with the salary cap are the only instruments that are enabling some clubs including Richmond to survive. Imagine if the draft and salary caps did not exist over the last 20 years - the Tigers along with the Demons, Bulldogs, Kangaroos, and possibly the Cats would have folded due to financial difficulties or at best have been propped up by the AFL. Clubs such as Carlton, Collingwood and the rich interstate clubs would have dominated the finals.

Given Richmond have traditionally sucked at the draft I actually think we would have done better.

 

[TOT70]

I would revamp the whole Priority Pick system for a start. Encouraging teams to lose is unhealthy for the competition, it directly challenges the integrity of the game and it sets up conditions that can allow corruption to flourish.

On the other hand, the intention of the PP system is to give a boost to perennial cellar-dwellers, allowing them access to the next generation of stars. The only way this can happen is if the priority pick is right at the beginning of the draft, not at pick 20 or whatever.

The criteria for qualifying for these picks should be less dependent on winning games but more dependent on performance over a long period of time.
As an example, what if a Priority pick was given to EVERY team that missed the final eight in any given season, providing that they were not disqualified through recent success?

Winning a Premiership should disqualify a team from eligibility for, say, five years. Winning a second premiership shortly afterwards should increase this to seven years.

Making the Grand Final should disqualify that team for four years. A top 4 finish means no Priority Pick for three years, a top eight finish for two years.
To see how this would work, let’s look at what happened last season. The bottom eight were Richmond, Brisbane, Carlton, Essendon, Port Adelaide, Freo, West Coast and Melbourne.

This is how they would have fared under this system.

Richmond: no finals appearances since 2001: PP.

Carlton: same: PP

Brisbane: third premiership in 2003, disqualified from PP, until 2010. Played in Grand Final 2004, disqualified until 2008. They will not qualify for a PP until 2010, possibly longer if they make this year’s finals.

Essendon: Their last Top 8 finish was in 2004. PP

Port Adelaide: Premiers 2004. Disqualified until 2009. Grand Final 2007: Disqualified until 2011. Cannot receive a PP until 2011 at the earliest.
Freo: Top 4, 2006. No PP until 2009.

WC: Premier 2006, five years. GF, 2005, 4 years. No PP until 2011.

Melbourne: finals 2006: no PP until 2009.

So first three picks (PPs) would have gone to Essendon, Carlton and Richmond, the three clubs that have missed the finals for the longest period, decided by reverse ladder position. It actually has very little to do with how many games were won during the season.

For the 2009 season under this system, the only clubs that could qualify for a PP are Melbourne, Richmond, Freo, Carlton and Essendon. These clubs will either make finals or get a PP. Every other team is ruled out by a recent finals appearance. Looks like it will be Melbourne, Freo and Richmond. If Carlton or Essendon miss finals, they will get one too. Those two teams won’t be tanking for a pick, that’s for sure.

I think this is much fairer than allowing anomalies like Melbourne yo-yoing up and down the ladder in the early 2000s and picking up PPs every second year, or allowing WC and PA to qualify for PPs after recent Grand Final appearances.

 

[TigerFurious]

Franklin, Judd, Cooney, Reiwoldt, Roughhead to name a few have all done alright.

Just because draft doesn't work for Richmond doesn't mean the draft doesn't work.

 

[Tigerbob]

Franklin, Judd, Cooney, Reiwoldt, Roughhead to name a few have all done alright.

Just because draft doesn't work for Richmond doesn't mean the draft doesn't work.

Well said.

 

[TigersYellowAndBlack]

Without question keep the salary cap. It does help teams who have down years like our beloved richmond stay alive and re-build. We have taken longer than most.

The draft has it's flaws however. What most want to avoid is tanking. The draft is reason the word tanking exists in modern footy and must be changed so each and every week footy is played - TO WIN.

But - A lottery is a mockery. I will give you an example of what could happen with a lottery.
Hawthorn win the flag last year - do not make the finals this year and end up winning the lottery to select the best player in the draft. That situation stinks for less talent blessed teams like fremantle.

The draft is meant to help the worst teams re-build quicker. Whilst teams like richmond should not blame anyone but themselves, there is a fairer draft system.

Here is how I think the draft should work. It is the fairest thing I can think of now anyway :

The first 8 picks to go to the bottom 8 sides.

Picks 1 - 3 to be worked out on a weighted average of the three worst sides over the last three years. Current year to be 50%, last year 30% previous year 20%. Sum the wins and times by that percenage to determine how many wins.

In the event that the average games won is within a game then it is randomly drawn from a hat.

Rest of the picks (1-8) in order.

Any extra help for poor teams is given with second round priority picks. The amount of second round picks is dependant on how long you have not made the finals for. E.g. 3 years for 1 extra priority pick. 5 years for two priority second rounders.

 

[TheUmpire]

The AFL salary cap and draft system are based on the American NFL system. It is worth noting that there are no such rules as priority picks or father son in the NFL. These are just stupid draft compromises that the AFL have invented. I mean who truely thinks that an extra 17 year old (regardless of how highly rated) is seriously going to effect the oputcome of a match. The joke of the Priority Pick (PP) is that it helps the team 3 - 4 years down the track, not the next year. It also leads to teams tanking.

Without the PP, teams would not tank. Image the scenario, Round 22 Richmond v Carlton, both teams are equal last on the ladder with 4 wins. Whoever wins avoids the wooden spoon and receives the second pick in the draft. The loser gets the first pick in the draft and the ignomany of the spoon over the off season. This is the outcome when there are no PP. On the other hand, with PPs in play, the winner would get the third pick in the draft, whilst the loser would get the spoon along with the first two picks in the draft. Well worth the loss one would think.

The simple solution to the current situation is to get rid of both PPs and the father-son rule. Simple , yet Fonzi won't do it as he would have to admit that he was wrong.

 

[TigersYellowAndBlack]

I mean who truely thinks that an extra 17 year old (regardless of how highly rated) is seriously going to effect the oputcome of a match. The joke of the Priority Pick (PP) is that it helps the team 3 - 4 years down the track, not the next year. It also leads to teams tanking.

Without the PP, teams would not tank.The simple solution to the current situation is to get rid of both PPs and the father-son rule. Simple , yet Fonzi won't do it as he would have to admit that he was wrong.

I agree there should not be priority first round picks full stop. But I would help out perenial battlers with priority seconds. E.g. a rance here and there is not going to make us even contemplate tanking, but will help our club re-build.

The wooden spoon is now a silver spoon. Ninth is generally the wooden spoon now.

 

[TheUmpire]

I agree there should not be priority first round picks full stop. But I would help out perenial battlers with priority seconds. E.g. a rance here and there is not going to make us even contemplate tanking, but will help our club re-build.

Disagree. Teams will tank in order to get an extra pick. Remove the extra picks and clubs will not tank.
It's simple really, the worst team gets the first pick, second worst get the second pick and so on, repeated round after round.

If you want to give habitual strugglers (read Richmond) a leg up, then give them the first two picks in the Preseason draft, then they can identify some existing players that WILL make a difference the following year.