2015 academy discussion thread (with some FS thrown in for good measure)

[Meg]

Totally agree if the money is spent by the club and financial partners , why cant the elite talent be drafted to that club. Collingwood has been a financial powerhouse for years ,why haven't they the foursite for a academy . Or maybe their recruitment has been that good over 10 years .Carlton .Essendon Hawthorn the same, its a sham by the Victorian clubs who are really worried about the branding ,recruitment and generally a well run club .

The current AFL rules regarding the academies specify the four northern clubs allowed to have them. By exclusion, Collingwood et al cannot set them up with the associated priority bidding system (now proposed to be severely cut back).

And that is eminently reasonable.. There is no need for academies, for which from the AFL perspective the objective is to foster participation and support for Australian Rules in non-AFL States, in the traditional AFL States. It would be a waste of resources for all concerned.

[annew]

No Cookies | Fox Sports News, Live Sport, Sports | Fox Sports

Best article so far

[Doctor]

I have mixed feelings about the proposed changes which to be honest are about the best we could expect.

It's hard for us to now justify the potential benefits as opposed to the cost of the academy on a long term basis. I wouldn't be surprised to see us bank Mills and Dunkley but then largely scale back our investment, both financial and emotional, in the scheme.

It just isn't worth the huge sums when you have to pay three picks for one decent player that you produce. Sure you get access to the mid tier local players and that's great that we get more NSW kids but it's not really a huge incentive is it. For mine a fair system would be a priority pick each year and a second round local priority from the remainder pool once the first round had finished.

The Swans will be fine, we'll adapt and it does give us the occasional freak to draft but on the whole I think we'll be scaling back.

What really disappoints me is the damage to the game. The AFL have done very little to grow the game here since the Swans moved up in 1982. The academy was the best thing to happen to the game and as soon as it produced ONE, yes ONE, decent player it has been canned due to the self interest of pricks like Eddie McGuire who care nowt for the GAME and due to the fact that we have a polo playing pompous ponce as CEO of the AFL who has no interest in developing the game up here.

It's sad and it's actually a disgrace but it's nothing less than I expected....

Spot on.

[The Big Cat]

There are a lot of assumptions here. We are assuming that Mills will be in the first couple of picks. If he slipped to say number 5 or 6 then this makes a massive difference. And people are assuming we will either be premiers or runners-up or there abouts. If we finish seventh this will make Mills and Dunkley easily affordable.

This aside, the latest decisions of the Commission appear seem to have been made through the cross-hairs of a target on the Swans back. A successful side in Sydney is OK providing it is not too successful.

[liz]

I have mixed feelings about the proposed changes which to be honest are about the best we could expect.

It's hard for us to now justify the potential benefits as opposed to the cost of the academy on a long term basis. I wouldn't be surprised to see us bank Mills and Dunkley but then largely scale back our investment, both financial and emotional, in the scheme.

It just isn't worth the huge sums when you have to pay three picks for one decent player that you produce. Sure you get access to the mid tier local players and that's great that we get more NSW kids but it's not really a huge incentive is it. For mine a fair system would be a priority pick each year and a second round local priority from the remainder pool once the first round had finished.

The Swans will be fine, we'll adapt and it does give us the occasional freak to draft but on the whole I think we'll be scaling back.

What really disappoints me is the damage to the game. The AFL have done very little to grow the game here since the Swans moved up in 1982. The academy was the best thing to happen to the game and as soon as it produced ONE, yes ONE, decent player it has been canned due to the self interest of pricks like Eddie McGuire who care nowt for the GAME and due to the fact that we have a polo playing pompous ponce as CEO of the AFL who has no interest in developing the game up here.

It's sad and it's actually a disgrace but it's nothing less than I expected....

That pretty much sums up my view.

In principle I don't have a huge problem with the idea of paying something like fair value. The difficulty comes in determining what is fair value, when you look at the big picture of where these players are coming from, and where they would be had it not been for the academy.

The AFL that, only a few years ago, seemed to finally show some understanding of what was required to support developing players in NSW and Queensland and had the vision to set up this scheme, is now allowing itself to be bullied by blatant factionalism to largely removing the incentive required to support the scheme, a scheme that has barely put down its roots. The scheme was never intended to be about a Heeney or Mills. It was about what the state of junior (and local) football might look like in a decade's time, or two decades' time, in the two most populous states in the country. We shouldn't be that surprised really. The AFL has shown itself woefully unable to look at long term in so many aspects of the game, from the continual tinkering of the rules because of perceived issues that don't exist and a lack of patience to let the effect of new rules work through, to the complete watering down of the financial changes aimed to address the financial inequalities that exist in the game before those rules had even become effective, all because a certain fat loud mouthed president whelped and whined. The same fat, loud mouthed president who espouses that Collingwood have a god given right to keep, in perpetuity, the most financial lucrative fixture on the calendar, moans whenever his club gets a timeslot he doesn't like, ignoring the fact that the Saints, Dogs, etc get these timeslots pretty much every other week, and then patronisingly gives his blessing to a club like Port being "allowed" to wear its traditional black and white once in a blue moon.

My personal view is that the benefit of very occasionally picking up a player at a perceived discount (and these discounts are just that, perceived) is well over stated. Yes, the top rated players in each draft year do stand a slightly better chance of becoming a good player, but it is indisputable fact that excellent players emerge from throughout the draft each and every year. If we were drafting players at age 21, physically developed and having been through a semi-professional college system, the advantage of top draft picks would be significantly greater. But we don't. The 2008 draft is a great illustration. Yes, Stephen Hill and Jack Ziebull are good standard players. Naitanui is arguably still the most valuable player drafted that year, given what he could yet become (and probably will, if his body permits). But the best performed players thus far from that draft are undoubtedly Beams, Hannebery, Sloane and Rockliff.

I remember taking a colleague to a game a couple of seasons ago at the SCG against Melbourne. It might have been the very first game I took him to. (He remains a work in progress but is slowly becoming indoctrinated!). It was the game where we completely blew the Dees away in the first quarter (and where Howe later took that mark over Grundy to provide the only highlight of the game for Melbourne). At quarter time he was completely bemused as to how there could be such a difference in performance between the two sides. Slightly mischievously, I opened the Record at the team lists for the two sides and pointed out how many top 10 draft picks there were playing for each side. I think we had just McVeigh and Bolton (neither drafted within the past decade). I lost count of how many Dees top 10 picks there were. I think there might have only been a small handful of Dees players in that game who hadn't been drafted in the top 20. It was ludicrous. But they were still crap. I realise that the Dees have been a basket case for many seasons now, but they are a perfect illustration of how relatively irrelevant top draft picks are, compared to all the other factors that contribute to a successful team. I probably went on to ram the point home further by identifying all the Swans players in that game who had started life on a rookie list somewhere.

[Meg]

If you took the proposed value table and scaled it from 2000 points at pick 1 instead 3000, down to 1025 at pick 17, it wouldn't seem so unbalanced. The biggest problem with the system is that it is so costly, in terms of draft picks, to retain a top rated academy player that a club may have invested years in training and support. For example, if Mills turns out to be the best player in the draft and becomes the number 1 pick, I think it is more than fair enough for the Swans to pay their first 2 draft picks for him, but to have to use the first 3 picks and cut into next year's draft as well is really onerous.

I agree. The credibility of the proposed bidding system is crucially dependent on the points scale. In the AFL article it says: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-01-27/better-bidding

"Under the new system, draft picks from 1-74 would be allocated points to indicate their respective values, with pick No.1 being worth 3000 points, pick No.2 worth 2517 and so on in a sliding scale. This scale is based on data relating to the average player salaries of each pick from the year 2000 onwards.

The decision to use average salary as the data point for determining the value attached to each draft was sensible and logical. It threw up a result that was intuitive but also scientific."

But is it? When they say 'average salaries' have they used average for each pick in the same year of contract following the pick? For example, Year 3 or Year 4 (as player salaries are set in the first 2 years). How much difference would it make to look at different years of contract? Do all players mature and develop at the same rate after their pick and what does that mean for their 'value' at the time of the pick? And have they used real salaries by adjusting for salary inflation with general salary increases over the period?

And in any case, is the simple arithmetic mean the right data to use - as they are likely to be skewed upwards by outlier highly paid players. Did they also look at the median salaries for each pick and how would the use of those influence the points scale? (My guess is that it might compress the points scale compared to the one used, but that might be wrong.)

There is so little information provided on which to judge if the points scale is 'scientific' and yet it is critical to the outcome. I hope the club has been provided with all the background assumptions and data and is getting these rigorously examined by a statistical expert.

[Meg]

I note the glaring omission (yet again) from the group which came up with this proposal (quote below from same article as quoted above). Only club with an academy that was represented was Gold Coast - so not much inherent understanding on the importance of the academies to the development and support for AFL code in NSW and Queensland and the longer term benefits to all clubs.

"With a working party consisting of Adelaide's David Noble, Fremantle's Brad Lloyd, St Kilda's Ameet Bains, Hawthorn's Graham Wright, Gold Coast's Scott Clayton and former Western Bulldogs CEO Simon Garlick and AFL representatives Andrew Dillon, Brett Clothier, Mark Evans, Ken Wood and AFL strategists, the process has been consultative and rigorous, albeit taking a little longer than many clubs hoped."

[Meg]

I laughed, but was not surprised, when I read that some clubs without academies claim they deserve the same discount for father/son picks. No Cookies | Herald Sun

'The AFL is considering applying a 25 per cent discount to academy players and either a 25 or 15 per cent on father-sons.'

'Some recruiters yesterday said they would lobby the AFL to keep the father-son and academy discounts in line. ?We invest a lot of time and effort (in father-son programs), so it should be the same. No doubt about that, it must be consistent,? one chief scout said.'

I know some clubs do run father/son training programs, but to suggest these involve anything like the resource commitment invested into the academies is a joke.

[Untamed Snark]

No Cookies | Fox Sports News, Live Sport, Sports | Fox Sports

Best article so far

Once again, the traditional clubs, led by perennial victim Eddie McGuire, are whingeing about a so-called unfair advantage while overlooking the fact that everything about the competition is stacked in their favour.

Love it

[liz]

How they can possibly think they have sufficient data to use any single measure to determine differentials between individual picks is beyond me. Most would accept that the last two or three years (at least) draftees are too early in their careers for their relative value to be determined. And go back to the 1990s and the draft was even less scientific than now and arguably irrelevant.

With barely 10 data points for any given draft pick, how do they account for:

- the effect of the draft pre-selections for two seasons while the Suns and Giants were established
- the players drafted as mini-draft selections
- injuries - do you retrospectively devalue players like Trengove and Gumbleton (both no 2 picks) because injuries have not been kind to them
- the fact that a top flight key forward will command a higher salary than even the best tier of midfielders (unless they are Ablett and assisted by a new club wanting to throw bucket loads at them)

[satchmopugdog]

How they can possibly think they have sufficient data to use any single measure to determine differentials between individual picks is beyond me. Most would accept that the last two or three years (at least) draftees are too early in their careers for their relative value to be determined. And go back to the 1990s and the draft was even less scientific than now and arguably irrelevant.

With barely 10 data points for any given draft pick, how do they account for:

- the effect of the draft pre-selections for two seasons while the Suns and Giants were established
- the players drafted as mini-draft selections
- injuries - do you retrospectively devalue players like Trengove and Gumbleton (both no 2 picks) because injuries have not been kind to them
- the fact that a top flight key forward will command a higher salary than even the best tier of midfielders (unless they are Ablett and assisted by a new club wanting to throw bucket loads at them)

Yet again the voice of reason Liz

[707]

Just plugged in the numbers on a spreadsheet, as expected the value of the discount is minimal at both ends of the draft and flat across the 11-41 pick range at an upgrade of 7 draft positions. Here's what it says about the value of the 25% discount.

Pick 1 can be drafted for the value of pick 3, an upgrade of 2 places
Pick 2 can be drafted for the value of pick 5, an upgrade of 3 places
Pick 3 can be drafted for the value of pick 7, an upgrade of 4 places
Pick 4 can be drafted for the value of pick 9, an upgrade of 5 places
Pick 5 can be drafted for the value of pick 10, an upgrade of 5 places
Pick 6 can be drafted for the value of pick 12, an upgrade of 6 places
Pick 7 can be drafted for the value of pick 13, an upgrade of 6 places
Pick 8, 9, 10 can be drafted for the value of pick 14, 15, 16, an upgrade of 6 places
Pick 11, 12 through to pick 41 etc can be drafted for the value of pick 18, 19 etc an upgrade of 7 places

We get a 7 pick upgrade on players bid on between 11 and 41, diminishing after that. The Premier has pick 18 of course.

So the key things to remember here are that the four northern clubs get an advantage in the draft over their southern rivals by being able to lock in Academy players if they choose, they get players who are local and who are thoroughly committed to their team, they get a discount of 7 draft positions on the bulk of the most important part of the draft, they get a discount of 2-6 positions on the top 10.

Our problem comes because we have multiple top enders available this year and are expected to finish high on the ladder. So the higher up the draft board Mills and Dunkley go during the year and the higher we go on the ladder, the pain rachets up. Conversely, if Mills and or Dunkley slip down the rankings and god forbid we don't end up playing the last day in September the less the pain.

Not ideal but probably the best we could expect from the McGuire hit team.

[Auntie.Gerald]

I dont think we will want to add Dunkley to the list

I think we will take Mills only based on the depth of our inside talent and considering we need to keep developing and attracting one or two more outside mids

We have Parker, Mitchell, Kennedy, Bird, Heeney plus Mills that is 6 genuine and high quality inside players............then you have McGlynn, Jack, Hannes, Macca who match up parts of the game inside and Robinson developing........even Marsh, Jones and Rampe may find more time in the middle for match ups

[S.S. Bleeder]

I agree. The credibility of the proposed bidding system is crucially dependent on the points scale. In the AFL article it says: Will the AFL's new bidding system be fairer? - AFL.com.au

"Under the new system, draft picks from 1-74 would be allocated points to indicate their respective values, with pick No.1 being worth 3000 points, pick No.2 worth 2517 and so on in a sliding scale. This scale is based on data relating to the average player salaries of each pick from the year 2000 onwards.

The decision to use average salary as the data point for determining the value attached to each draft was sensible and logical. It threw up a result that was intuitive but also scientific."

But is it? When they say 'average salaries' have they used average for each pick in the same year of contract following the pick? For example, Year 3 or Year 4 (as player salaries are set in the first 2 years). How much difference would it make to look at different years of contract? Do all players mature and develop at the same rate after their pick and what does that mean for their 'value' at the time of the pick? And have they used real salaries by adjusting for salary inflation with general salary increases over the period?

And in any case, is the simple arithmetic mean the right data to use - as they are likely to be skewed upwards by outlier highly paid players. Did they also look at the median salaries for each pick and how would the use of those influence the points scale? (My guess is that it might compress the points scale compared to the one used, but that might be wrong.)

There is so little information provided on which to judge if the points scale is 'scientific' and yet it is critical to the outcome. I hope the club has been provided with all the background assumptions and data and is getting these rigorously examined by a statistical expert.

Great points Meg.

It is important to note as well that the high draft picks, ie. picks 1-5, generally go to the poorer performing sides (ie. Melb, Saints & Dogs). These sides usually have less top performers on big salaries in their sides and as a result can afford to pay these players more (or more accurately, they have to pay these players more to reach the 90% of the salary cap) thus increasing the points of these selections.

I wonder if this has been taken into account? I bet it hasn't.

[S.S. Bleeder]

I laughed, but was not surprised, when I read that some clubs without academies claim they deserve the same discount for father/son picks. No Cookies | Herald Sun

'The AFL is considering applying a 25 per cent discount to academy players and either a 25 or 15 per cent on father-sons.'

'Some recruiters yesterday said they would lobby the AFL to keep the father-son and academy discounts in line. ?We invest a lot of time and effort (in father-son programs), so it should be the same. No doubt about that, it must be consistent,? one chief scout said.'

I know some clubs do run father/son training programs, but to suggest these involve anything like the resource commitment invested into the academies is a joke.

I'd be happy if they applied a 25% discount to F/S selections but the academy discount should always be higher than F/S discount because of the financial investment. I'd like to see a 25% discount for F/S and 40% for academies.