Bombertalk

As I said, this is completely hypothetical, but; if you had the power to change the draft format, what would you do? Crazy ideas can be made too.

Me, I would like to see the bottom 8 go into a draw so a club have two possible scenarios;

a) you play finals.

b) you have a 1 in 8 chance at 1st pick.

What team is going to tank with odds of only one in eight?

I haven't thought too much more about it, as you can probably guessjavascript:emoticon(':P')
Razz but I am interested in what others' ideas may be, or criticisms of my thoughts also.

Give the 9th team 1 marble, 10th 2 marbles and so on until 16th gets 8 marbles. Draw 3 marbles and they get the first 3 picks (obviously if your marble gets drawn first, you cant have a second go at the marble being drawn) and then for the remainder, you pick in your order as per normal. So say Freo gets picked first, Ess second and Richmond third. the draft order would be
Freo
Ess
Richmond
Carlton
Melbourne
WBD
Bris
St kilda.

Possibly 8 teams to many and should be restricted to last 4 and only draw 1 marble.

Walda wrote:Give the 9th team 1 marble, 10th 2 marbles and so on until 16th gets 8 marbles. Draw 3 marbles and they get the first 3 picks (obviously if your marble gets drawn first, you cant have a second go at the marble being drawn) and then for the remainder, you pick in your order as per normal. So say Freo gets picked first, Ess second and Richmond third. the draft order would be
Freo
Ess
Richmond
Carlton
Melbourne
WBD
Bris
St kilda.

Possibly 8 teams to many and should be restricted to last 4 and only draw 1 marble.

You've lost your marbles.

On a serious note, I like the idea.

The big problem is priority picks given if a club only wins 4 games.

I think once a club has lost its 10th game of the season they automatically receive a first round lottery draft pick.

all teams who lose more than 10 games put this extra pick into a barrel, this is drawn out one by one for the top X number of picks(depends on how many teams meet criteria).

After this process has been done, the picks are then allocated by ladder position.

so for example based on this years ladder:

Adelaide -> Richmond are entered into the top 9 pick ballot.
after this lottery has taken place.

the 10th pick would be Richmonds, 11th Blues, 12th Dees etc etc.

That way any team which is losing a significant amount of games a year has a crack at recruiting the best player in the draft.

Usually it is 11 wins to make the finals, meaning that a team is very unlikely to tank games to qualify for the draft picks(I base this on the fact that is better to participate in september, than have a 1/8 or 9 crack at #1 draft pick).

If a team is endemically at the bottom, they don't deserve priority picks like carlton is at the moment, rather this should trigger a review of their football department and club culture by the AFL.

I want the bottom four teams in a lottery. The reason people want a lottery is to end the reality or perseption 'tanking'. Now they way I see it, they four teams just outside the eight are too close to making finals, to even think about tanking.

Priority pciks will be removed. I'm against giving bonuses to teams that do poorly. Sure we want an even competition, but there is a difference between having 16 even teams, and placing everyone on a even playing feild.

Why should a team who could "possibly" be half a game out of the 8 be given a chance at getting number 1 pick.

You do know I said 'bottom four'?

Regardless, you will never have a system that is perfect. However I would rather leave it to chance that a team finish 13th, be half a game out of the eight and get eh first pick, then have those same bottom four be tanking to get the last pick.

You do know he was responding to Tom's post?

Hypothetically I'd have a lottery for the first 8 picks and give Essendon all the lottery balls. Collingwood, Carlton and Hawthorn would only get fourth round picks and Fremantle would be in charge of all draft pick trading.

bomberdonnie wrote:You do know he was responding to Tom's post?

Obviously I didn't. usually if you are not responding to the person directly above you, you will quote the person to avoid confusion.

Obviosuly Nomolos forgot that there was a screaming ******* moron on the boards....

nomolos wrote:Why should a team who could "possibly" be half a game out of the 8 be given a chance at getting number 1 pick.

why not?

the bottom teams still have an advantage with their second picks. I think it removes any compensation for tanking.

a mediocre team just outside the 8 gets the top draft pick, in a year or two they are winning more than 10 games a season and its someone elses turn.

Perhaps the numbers could be tweaked slightly, but I still believe in a lottery type system for the first round of picks. And if you finish with more than 10 wins, you dip out on a first rounder all together.

the point is that you can win a significant amount of games and still get good draft picks. and it has to be at a level that tanking is undesirable. eg finishing 8th if you win rather than tanking to get a first rounder.

bomberdonnie wrote:Obviosuly Nomolos forgot that there was a screaming ******* moron on the boards....

Explain moron, how there is no possible reason I could have been confused as to who he was referring to?

I wouldn't change it. it is doing exactly what they want. We have the most even comp in te history of the game.

How I would do it:

Eliminate priority picks.

Take the bottom 8 clubs from each year and put them in a draw for the top 8 picks. This year's bottom 8 looked like this:

St Kilda
Brisbane
Fremantle
Essendon
Western Bulldogs
Melbourne
Carlton
Richmond

The allocation would be:
St Kilda - 1 Ball
Brisbane - 2 Balls
Fremantle - 3 Balls

And so on. Obviously once a club gets a pick in the top 8, you would take their remaining balls out of the lottery, so each club would only get one pick

I took the liberty of doing a test draw. How it looks now (before trade week, of course):

Carlton
Richmond
Carlton
Melbourne
Bulldogs
Essendon
Fremantle
Brisbane
St Kilda

How it would look after my test draw

Richmond got pick 1
Melbourne got pick 2
Fremantle got pick 3
St Kilda got pick 4
Carlton got pick 5
Western Bulldogs got pick 6
Essendon got pick 7
Brisbane got pick 8

As you can see, there wasn't many surprises. Richmond were the worst team, and got the most balls in the lottery, and they ended up with the first pick. The big winners were St Kilda and Fremantle. Carlton dropped from what would have a first pick of 2 (if you forget about their priority pick) down to 5.

After the National Draft is done and dusted, each club would get the opportunity to sign two extra players that reside within their zone. Zones would be allocated as such:

Lets just say Australia's population equals 20,000,000. Each club would therefore get 1/16th of that population allocated in their zone, which works out to be 1.25 mill.

For Brisbane and Sydney, their zone would be 1.25 million of each respective city's metro area. (given that both cities have populations over 1.25 mill, the remainder area would be occupied by other clubs zones, as explained later)

For Adelaide, Port, West Coast and Fremantle, each club would each get 1.25 mill in either the "Adelaide Recruiting area" or "Perth Recruiting Area", preferably in their traditional areas (ie. Port Adelaide would occupy the West Lakes/Port Adelaide area)

If each cities population is less than 2.50 million, the recruiting zones would include areas on the outskirts of the city. Conversly, if the population was more than 2.50 million, the recruiting zone would not include certain segments of the cities metro area.

For Melbourne based clubs, each club would get allocated 4 zones which would make up their 1.25 million allocation. They would be:

300,000/club in the Melbourne CBD (assuming that Melbourne's population is 3,000,000), consisting of:
150,000 - Melbourne Primary (i.e Essendon/Keilor Park for Essendon)
150,000 - Melbourne Secondary (an area which isn't a "traditional heartland" for any club, for instance, Ringwood/Cranbourne/Frankston/Heidelberg etc)

950,000/club in other areas
475,000 - Country Primary (Gold Coast for Kangaroos, Launcestion area for Hawthorn, Bendigo area for Essendon, the ACT area for Melbourne etc)
475,000 - Country Secondary (Such as the Sydney CBD left out by the Swans, for example)

Benefits:

* It encourages clubs to lead development of football in their zones/Implement football programs/School visits etc.
*Encourages clubs to have a presence in their traditional areas, epecially clubs who have moved from those areas, such as Collingwood and Hawthorn
*Gives kids who miss out on the draft a second opportunity.
*Gives clubs a viable opportunity to grow their supporter base

Note:

*To be eligable, players must have nomitated and have been available for the national draft
*Their match payments would lie outside of the salary cap (limited to base payments), and they would not take up spots on the list (Rookie lists would be reduced by 2)

Rookie/Pre-Season draft would continue as per normal

That's fantastic Dom_105 !!! You took the thought and just ran with it. And I quite like your ideas. I have liked the idea of the bottom 8 all contending for the picks rather than just the bottom 4 because, as I said before, you're either in the finals or you're in with a chance at decent picks. I also would like to see the priority picks abolished. Anyhow, great work, you really have thought it through.

Essendon4eva wrote:

bomberdonnie wrote:You do know he was responding to Tom's post?

Obviously I didn't. usually if you are not responding to the person directly above you, you will quote the person to avoid confusion.

Obviously not everyone on here has a giant chip on their shoulder. Also obviously most people take the time to use proper spelling and grammer at most times. Obviously some people should take a hike.

dom_105 wrote:How I would do it:

Eliminate priority picks.

Take the bottom 8 clubs from each year and put them in a draw for the top 8 picks. This year's bottom 8 looked like this:

St Kilda
Brisbane
Fremantle
Essendon
Western Bulldogs
Melbourne
Carlton
Richmond

The allocation would be:
St Kilda - 1 Ball
Brisbane - 2 Balls
Fremantle - 3 Balls

And so on. Obviously once a club gets a pick in the top 8, you would take their remaining balls out of the lottery, so each club would only get one pick

I took the liberty of doing a test draw. How it looks now (before trade week, of course):

Carlton
Richmond
Carlton
Melbourne
Bulldogs
Essendon
Fremantle
Brisbane
St Kilda

How it would look after my test draw

Richmond got pick 1
Melbourne got pick 2
Fremantle got pick 3
St Kilda got pick 4
Carlton got pick 5
Western Bulldogs got pick 6
Essendon got pick 7
Brisbane got pick 8

As you can see, there wasn't many surprises. Richmond were the worst team, and got the most balls in the lottery, and they ended up with the first pick. The big winners were St Kilda and Fremantle. Carlton dropped from what would have a first pick of 2 (if you forget about their priority pick) down to 5.

After the National Draft is done and dusted, each club would get the opportunity to sign two extra players that reside within their zone. Zones would be allocated as such:

Lets just say Australia's population equals 20,000,000. Each club would therefore get 1/16th of that population allocated in their zone, which works out to be 1.25 mill.

For Brisbane and Sydney, their zone would be 1.25 million of each respective city's metro area. (given that both cities have populations over 1.25 mill, the remainder area would be occupied by other clubs zones, as explained later)

For Adelaide, Port, West Coast and Fremantle, each club would each get 1.25 mill in either the "Adelaide Recruiting area" or "Perth Recruiting Area", preferably in their traditional areas (ie. Port Adelaide would occupy the West Lakes/Port Adelaide area)

If each cities population is less than 2.50 million, the recruiting zones would include areas on the outskirts of the city. Conversly, if the population was more than 2.50 million, the recruiting zone would not include certain segments of the cities metro area.

For Melbourne based clubs, each club would get allocated 4 zones which would make up their 1.25 million allocation. They would be:

300,000/club in the Melbourne CBD (assuming that Melbourne's population is 3,000,000), consisting of:
150,000 - Melbourne Primary (i.e Essendon/Keilor Park for Essendon)
150,000 - Melbourne Secondary (an area which isn't a "traditional heartland" for any club, for instance, Ringwood/Cranbourne/Frankston/Heidelberg etc)

950,000/club in other areas
475,000 - Country Primary (Gold Coast for Kangaroos, Launcestion area for Hawthorn, Bendigo area for Essendon, the ACT area for Melbourne etc)
475,000 - Country Secondary (Such as the Sydney CBD left out by the Swans, for example)

Benefits:

* It encourages clubs to lead development of football in their zones/Implement football programs/School visits etc.
*Encourages clubs to have a presence in their traditional areas, epecially clubs who have moved from those areas, such as Collingwood and Hawthorn
*Gives kids who miss out on the draft a second opportunity.
*Gives clubs a viable opportunity to grow their supporter base

Note:

*To be eligable, players must have nomitated and have been available for the national draft
*Their match payments would lie outside of the salary cap (limited to base payments), and they would not take up spots on the list (Rookie lists would be reduced by 2)

Rookie/Pre-Season draft would continue as per normal

I'm not so sure about the zones, for example I think WA and SA with the number of kids playing footy versus the number of teams they have a huge advantage.

compared to sydney/brisbane which does not have such an AFL culture. you can't just draw something up based on population...

priority picks based on winning only 4 games of footy a year is IMO the only thing drastically wrong with the current system. it jeopardises the actual footy.

i like the lottery idea of the first round of picks. its a lottery picking the best kid in the draft often anyway.

no team should have the opportunity to 'play' for the #1 draft pick. it is anti-competitive and against the spirit of the game.

I think the draft should be based on how quickly a player from a club can run around the tan. No wait no Bolton.... new idea....

tom9779 wrote: I'm not so sure about the zones, for example I think WA and SA with the number of kids playing footy versus the number of teams they have a huge advantage.

compared to sydney/brisbane which does not have such an AFL culture. you can't just draw something up based on population...

True, but the best 80 kids each year would be snapped up in the National draft, so the impact of a "poorer zone" under this system would be far less than it would be under the old metro zoning system (which lead to its downfall.)