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

[Ludwig]

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.

Completely agree. The methodology was designed to fit a desired outcome. Without curve fitting, we would see the jagged line with all its anomalies and so much of what you say would become obvious to all to see. I think the AFL should release the raw data so others can do their own statistical analysis. The Standard Deviations must be quite substantial I would think.

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.

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.

Sorry you had to do all that work 707, because the AFL published the table on this with their pdf. See last page.

You are right that the impact is particularly onerous when it just so happens that when a club is going through a successful on field period and also just so happens to have more than one top rated draft prospect in that year. I am sure that if Darcy Moore was draft eligible in a year that Collingwood expected to be a premiership contender we wouldn't be hearing a peep about such a proposal.

Another problem with the proposal is that it undermines the original intent of the academy program, which was in part an equalisation measure to offset the disadvantages of being in non traditional AFL territory. The proposal changes the academies to primarily a player development and feeder system for the AFL which is operated and paid for by the northern clubs.

[The Big Cat]

The biggest problem with the proposed system is that the "value" of an academy player is based on where the team finishes on the ladder. Finish low on the ladder and the AFL finds no problem in getting a potential gun for peanuts (maybe even earning bonus points via the discount). Finish high up and the money you spent on development is ignored. So the AFL is effectively saying "we have no problem with you having an academy, we only have a problem if you are a successful team."

[rojo]

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

Me too!

[CureTheSane]

I don't know.
I've looked at this in a few ways, and I'm not sure there's anyway that we won't be seriously disadvantaged by this proposal.
Wonder if the Swans would have bothered with the academy under these rules from the start?

This is the start of the negotiations.
The AFL has pseudo released this to gauge public sentiment.
They'll water it down a bit, the Swans will come out with big smiles and all will be well in the world again.

I don't see any outrage from the Swans about this, but that follows their recent style.
I hope the club isn't being sucked in to the 'need' for this because of short term potential stars.

[tasmania60]

Wheres the loyalty ,we cant let our champion fathers sons play for other teams, its not right i know other clubs are pressuring us ,and the AFL but its not right if hes good enough give him a game !

[Steve]

They really should have just simplified their agenda and aimed to have clubs pay a "fairer" price, rather than bow to the pressure and feel they had to come up with a scientifically precise formula which produced an "indisputably fair" one.

What was the main issue for the noisiest complainants? Clubs getting one of the top talents in the draft and only using one of the last picks in the first round? Clubs gaining a second top talent in the same year and using an even lesser pick to get that second player?

Reasonable concerns - both of which could have been solved with one of many far more simple approaches.

I actually think clubs will ultimately be conservative in their bidding anyway, meaning clubs will probably end up paying less than what a lot of informed people would judge the actual 'fair value' to be. Even more reason why over complicating the solution is not warranted.

If Mills ends up being a true contender No.1, then obviously Sydney would match any bid. So then the club with the first pick has to choose whether to make the Swans pay the highest price possible, but by doing so highlight that whoever they choose next (after their bid is matched) is not who they really want - or do they do the more positive thing and pick the second best player but talk them up as their preferred choice?

For that reason I can see players slide quite a few spots before a club actually bids on them - which would be to our absolute benefit with Mills (and probably also Dunkley).

It could be a real charade if the bids just become a case of being the first club to say "stuff it, let's put in a bid now, someone has to make them pay more than where this is heading".

[sahi]

Maybe if this change is implemented Swans and other 3 clubs with the academies should insist on financial compensation which should be provided on a similar sliding scale.

For example if Swans invested $1M a year in the academy, St Kilda uses pick #1 on Mills, St Kilda will pay compensation to Swans of $500K if Swans decide not to match the pick according to the new rules.

If Freo uses pick #58 on another Academy player that Swans nominated, Swans do not match the pick and Freo compensates Swans with $20K

[Nico]

It was only a few seasons ago that there was a heap of talk about the lack of talent in each draft and it wouldn't be too long before this affected the standard of football. So the academies start to produce footballers, and all of a sudden there appears to be "too much talent" emerging, so it has to be reeled in to prevent perceived imbalances in favour of those clubs prepared to pay to produce talent. And the acadamies were set up to grow the sport and participation at the elite level in the northern states. As has been said in another post; it is strange that this is mooted in the year that one of the strongest clubs has both a talented F/S and Academy player. We are already disadvantaged because of our continued success by continually being at the bottom of the first round in the draft.

What if Mills says; "ok, this rule deliberately disadvantages me therefore I will not nominate for this year's draft. I'll sit it out until next year and hone my skills in the NEAFL". What if QBE then says; "ok son you apply for employment at QBE like any other person can at your age, and we will pay you a wage commensurate with the standard rate of a first year AFL draftee".

What gets me, academy aside, is that they are as good as making the F/S rule redundant for the northern states.

I thought AD got a bad rap from some people for the way he ran the comp. Now I know he got a bad rap.

[Nico]

And another point. What if Brisbane produces 5 top quality players worthy of being drafted? Answer; 17 other clubs benefit by the chance of drafting 4 players produced by the dollars of Brisbane. As it is, in most cases the top academy player will be retained by the club running it and the rest are available to the other clubs. Why should that change. No one wanted Hiscox or Davis so we were still able to pick them up.

It appears every person on the commission is in favour of "change" for the sake of it. All I can say is heaven help our game.

[CureTheSane]

Maybe if this change is implemented Swans and other 3 clubs with the academies should insist on financial compensation which should be provided on a similar sliding scale.

For example if Swans invested $1M a year in the academy, St Kilda uses pick #1 on Mills, St Kilda will pay compensation to Swans of $500K if Swans decide not to match the pick according to the new rules.

If Freo uses pick #58 on another Academy player that Swans nominated, Swans do not match the pick and Freo compensates Swans with $20K

Well damn... I like that idea.
Swans train up the good players.
AFL won't let the Swans have them all reasonable.
make the clubs compensate the Swans financially for all the training of their new players

[Nico]

Well damn... I like that idea.
Swans train up the good players.
AFL won't let the Swans have them all reasonable.
make the clubs compensate the Swans financially for all the training of their new players

And send the Saints down the drain. No way they could pay the $500,000. Unless of course the 500 large finds its way into the back door via the Commission

[sahi]

And send the Saints down the drain. No way they could pay the $500,000. Unless of course the 500 large finds its way into the back door via the Commission

This is exactly the reason why Saints will think twice before bidding for Mills instead of picking a player of similar quality not tied to any academy

[Ludwig]

Maybe if this change is implemented Swans and other 3 clubs with the academies should insist on financial compensation which should be provided on a similar sliding scale.

For example if Swans invested $1M a year in the academy, St Kilda uses pick #1 on Mills, St Kilda will pay compensation to Swans of $500K if Swans decide not to match the pick according to the new rules.

If Freo uses pick #58 on another Academy player that Swans nominated, Swans do not match the pick and Freo compensates Swans with $20K

I like this idea. In fact, I think it's a fantastic idea. And one that deserves a public airing. I think someone should write to the Swans management with this proposal, just in case they don't think of it themselves.

It only seems fair that other clubs should have to pay a 'development fee' for the years of expenses put into getting a few players up to AFL standard. It also deals with the issue of the opportunity cost of having the academies in the first place. A club like the Swans couldn't complain if they got reimbursed for the cost of developing a player that found unable to draft due to AFL 'value' system.

It puts a lot more flexibility into the system and deals with the issue of financial support for the academies, as it lets the club that actually benefits from an academy player pay for his year of development. As suggested, every value point associated with draft bid could be pegged at something around $200. So for the 2014 draft, Melbourne would have to give us 600k for Heeney and Freo 116,800 for Hiscox if we decided not to match the offers.

It also would put a check on spurious bidding, just to jack up the price for an academy player.

[sahi]

It also would put a check on spurious bidding, just to jack up the price for an academy player.

Indeed, if we take the example of Hiscox, if Swans value him as pick 35 and Freo bids pick 20, under AFL sliding scale system, it is a loose/loose fro the club that invested in the academy player - either loose him and investment for nothing or pay overs in picks.

Under the financial compensation system, Freo will pay penalty for the "unreasonable" pick and Swans will get well compensated.

[sahi]

I think someone should write to the Swans management with this proposal, just in case they don't think of it themselves.

I can do it myself if someone can PM me the details of Tom Harley or someone other relevant in the club. Alternatively, if one of the RWO's does, it would be great