Finalists deserve draft reward: Roos

[ScottH]

I got the feeling he was just taking pot shots at the idiots in media, and the nutters that run this circus we follow.

[liz]

I don't think it's about rewarding consistent teams and I suspect that's not what Roos was talking about. I think it is more about not penalising them by denying them access to the best talent in the land.

The AFL's view is that it wants an even competition and it does that, in part, by using the draft to let the poor teams get better. That way every fan thinks they might see their team win a premiership - eventually. But there is another concept of an even competition - one where most years every single club is competitive. So fans go to games believing they might be a chance.

Melbourne were a blight on the game this year, and West Coast not much better. To be fair to Melbourne I don't think they tried to be this bad. I am less convinced about West Coast. I am certain that the Hawks deliberately spent a couple of years down the bottom knowing they would get rewarded for being crap. Meanwhile, clubs like Sydney and Adelaide (and probably the Roos) who do their darnedest to be the best they can each year not only have no access to those elite few players at the top of the draft, they spend year after year having the media rub it in their faces and tell them they will soon be rubbish unless they accept the inevitable and agree to be uncompetitive for a year or two.

Unlock the draft order from ladder position, or at least find some other tangible way to induce clubs to be as competitive as they can every single year. You'd be surprised how many of them would manage to field competitive teams if they knew there was no long term benefit of accepting their crapness in the short term.

There probably is still a place for the odd priority pick when a club falls so far down that it can't climb up. Carlton were probably in that position for a while, but gifting them 3 consecutive first picks is OTT. A better solution would be to give them better access to mid-aged, decent players via free agency and a deeper pre-season draft. Players who can come in and shore up a team while allowing youngsters to develop in a competitive environment.

[Darren Thomson]

Well, this is a load of something. Roosy took a list that ALL the "experts" said would finish last, and won a flag with the same list. The afl, in it's infinite wisdom, has changed the rules to try to change our style of play, and we have to adapt, which means getting some leg speed into the team, as well as quick thinkers. The draft is almost irrelevant. The Bryce Gibbs cup hasn't produced a flag for Carlton, and by the time he hits his peak years, a;long with the other draft picks, Judd and Fev will be in wheelchairs at the old folks home. List management folks. I understand Roos' point of view, he's a smart bugger, but he knows this will never happen, must have been a swipe at someone. I saw mentioned that Brett Ratten had a go at us earlier in the year. Well, the years not over yet, and the blokes who run our club have done wonders with a list that, on paper, does not compare with other GREAT teams who finished - where? Keep talking Roosy, luv every word

[BSA5]

In order to reduce the temptation to tank, how about a lottery, with weighted chances for each side?

This is how it might work:

Basically, it is done like a raffle. For each round (1-16, 17-32, etc), each team has a chance of winning the first, then second, then third, etc pick. How likely they were to win depended on where they finished on the ladder.

1. 7
2. 7
3. 8
4. 8
5. 9
6. 9
7. 10
8. 10
9. 11
10. 11
11. 12
12. 12
13. 13
14. 13
15. 14
16. 14

The red numbers are the number of entries into the draw each team has for each round. After each pick is drawn, the team that won is no longer in the draw, meaning that each team is guaranteed one pick from each round. The picks are drawn in order (from 1st to 16th in round 1), so that the team with the most entries is the most likely to get pick 1. If you're wondering why I chose 7 as the lowest, it's because if you go up by one every second team down, you end up with 14, meaning that the lowest two teams are exactly twice as likely to get pick 1 as the top two teams. It's just neater that way.

So, doing the maths and getting the probabilities for the first pick:

Pick 1:

1st and 2nd: 7/168 = 1/24 chance.
3rd and 4th: 8/168 = 1/21 chance.
5th and 6th: 9/168 ~ 1/18.67 chance.
7th and 8th: 10/168 = 1/16.8 chance.
9th and 10th: 11/168 ~ 1/15.27 chance.
11th and 12th: 12/168 = 1/14 chance.
13th and 14th: 13/168 ~ 1/12.92 chance.
15th and 16th: 14/168 = 1/12 chance.

So you can see that the lower the team, the higher the chance, so the system still helps the worse teams. However, it doesn't help them so much that they might be tempted to tank.

I could continue on and do the probabilities for each draft pick for the first round, but given I'd have to 8 different scenarios for pick 2, depending on who won pick 1, 64 different scenarios for pick 3 depending on who won the first two, 512 scenarios for pick 4, etc, etc, and then have to merge these scenarios to find out the overall probability, and I don't have a spare three weeks on my hands, I won't. But you get the idea.

Then, if a team makes finals 5 years in a row or something, they then get an extra second rounder or something like that.

[Nico]

Well, this is a load of something. Roosy took a list that ALL the "experts" said would finish last, and won a flag with the same list. The afl, in it's infinite wisdom, has changed the rules to try to change our style of play, and we have to adapt, which means getting some leg speed into the team, as well as quick thinkers. The draft is almost irrelevant. The Bryce Gibbs cup hasn't produced a flag for Carlton, and by the time he hits his peak years, a;long with the other draft picks, Judd and Fev will be in wheelchairs at the old folks home. List management folks. I understand Roos' point of view, he's a smart bugger, but he knows this will never happen, must have been a swipe at someone. I saw mentioned that Brett Ratten had a go at us earlier in the year. Well, the years not over yet, and the blokes who run our club have done wonders with a list that, on paper, does not compare with other GREAT teams who finished - where? Keep talking Roosy, luv every word

Well said Thommo. Hey did you know there is a Thommo in every crowd just like there is a Nico and a Smiddy and a Brownie and a Jonesy and Greenie etc.etc.etc. It was only a matter of time before a Thommo lobbed.

[hot potato]

In order to reduce the temptation to tank, how about a lottery, with weighted chances for each side?

This is how it might work:

Basically, it is done like a raffle. For each round (1-16, 17-32, etc), each team has a chance of winning the first, then second, then third, etc pick. How likely they were to win depended on where they finished on the ladder.

1. 7
2. 7
3. 8
4. 8
5. 9
6. 9
7. 10
8. 10
9. 11
10. 11
11. 12
12. 12
13. 13
14. 13
15. 14
16. 14

The red numbers are the number of entries into the draw each team has for each round. After each pick is drawn, the team that won is no longer in the draw, meaning that each team is guaranteed one pick from each round. The picks are drawn in order (from 1st to 16th in round 1), so that the team with the most entries is the most likely to get pick 1. If you're wondering why I chose 7 as the lowest, it's because if you go up by one every second team down, you end up with 14, meaning that the lowest two teams are exactly twice as likely to get pick 1 as the top two teams. It's just neater that way.

So, doing the maths and getting the probabilities for the first pick:

Pick 1:

1st and 2nd: 7/168 = 1/24 chance.
3rd and 4th: 8/168 = 1/21 chance.
5th and 6th: 9/168 ~ 1/18.67 chance.
7th and 8th: 10/168 = 1/16.8 chance.
9th and 10th: 11/168 ~ 1/15.27 chance.
11th and 12th: 12/168 = 1/14 chance.
13th and 14th: 13/168 ~ 1/12.92 chance.
15th and 16th: 14/168 = 1/12 chance.

So you can see that the lower the team, the higher the chance, so the system still helps the worse teams. However, it doesn't help them so much that they might be tempted to tank.

I could continue on and do the probabilities for each draft pick for the first round, but given I'd have to 8 different scenarios for pick 2, depending on who won pick 1, 64 different scenarios for pick 3 depending on who won the first two, 512 scenarios for pick 4, etc, etc, and then have to merge these scenarios to find out the overall probability, and I don't have a spare three weeks on my hands, I won't. But you get the idea.

Then, if a team makes finals 5 years in a row or something, they then get an extra second rounder or something like that.

Works for me BSA number 5, wot does that stand for? Bloody Smart (with) Arithmetic??

Have you got a trouble and strife, kids , morgage, job etc or do you have a backer and time to meditate.??

[Legs Akimbo]

What you're suggesting is that maybe if a club gets an extra pick say in the 20's out of whack with the rotaional system they have now, is tantamount to cheque book recruiting that kept Carlton at the top for decades.

The man thinks outside the square and perhaps that has a bit to do with us winning a flag and staying near the top.

Perhaps an IQ comparison between you and he might settle the argument as to his intellect.

In the vein of Liz's earlier post, the system may be defunct and encourage tanking, which is not a good thing, however, suggesting teams that perform well get rewarded in the draft is nonsense. For what it is worth, I think Roos knows that and is making a different point entirely, which is more about himself. In any case, he sounds shrill.

Oh and Nico, I guess being an ex AFL player and current coach, he must be really smart huh. Good on you for defending him though.

[ernie koala]

In order to reduce the temptation to tank, how about a lottery, with weighted chances for each side?

This is how it might work:

Basically, it is done like a raffle. For each round (1-16, 17-32, etc), each team has a chance of winning the first, then second, then third, etc pick. How likely they were to win depended on where they finished on the ladder.

1. 7
2. 7
3. 8
4. 8
5. 9
6. 9
7. 10
8. 10
9. 11
10. 11
11. 12
12. 12
13. 13
14. 13
15. 14
16. 14

The red numbers are the number of entries into the draw each team has for each round. After each pick is drawn, the team that won is no longer in the draw, meaning that each team is guaranteed one pick from each round. The picks are drawn in order (from 1st to 16th in round 1), so that the team with the most entries is the most likely to get pick 1. If you're wondering why I chose 7 as the lowest, it's because if you go up by one every second team down, you end up with 14, meaning that the lowest two teams are exactly twice as likely to get pick 1 as the top two teams. It's just neater that way.

So, doing the maths and getting the probabilities for the first pick:

Pick 1:

1st and 2nd: 7/168 = 1/24 chance.
3rd and 4th: 8/168 = 1/21 chance.
5th and 6th: 9/168 ~ 1/18.67 chance.
7th and 8th: 10/168 = 1/16.8 chance.
9th and 10th: 11/168 ~ 1/15.27 chance.
11th and 12th: 12/168 = 1/14 chance.
13th and 14th: 13/168 ~ 1/12.92 chance.
15th and 16th: 14/168 = 1/12 chance.

So you can see that the lower the team, the higher the chance, so the system still helps the worse teams. However, it doesn't help them so much that they might be tempted to tank.

I could continue on and do the probabilities for each draft pick for the first round, but given I'd have to 8 different scenarios for pick 2, depending on who won pick 1, 64 different scenarios for pick 3 depending on who won the first two, 512 scenarios for pick 4, etc, etc, and then have to merge these scenarios to find out the overall probability, and I don't have a spare three weeks on my hands, I won't. But you get the idea.

Then, if a team makes finals 5 years in a row or something, they then get an extra second rounder or something like that.

Talk about convoluted...I agree with Matt10....take chance out of it, and don't reward performance, good or bad...it only muddies the waters.