17-5 Model

[LostDoggy]

Don't mind it, and taking it further, maybe the 18th team after 17 rounds gets the most entries into a draft lottery, 17th next most etc to round out the top 5 picks.

So even if they tank to be guaranteed bottom after 17 rounds, the bottom team isn't guaranteed pick 1, just the best chance at it.

I really like the idea of a draft lottery for the top 5 picks.

Yep. Good idea. I like the concept of a weighted lottery (as opposed to a guaranteed pick) for the bottom 6 at least, removes a lot of the temptation to 'tank' and speculation that goes with it, but the weaker teams will still be getting the higher picks.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Yep. Good idea. I like the concept of a weighted lottery (as opposed to a guaranteed pick) for the bottom 6 at least, removes a lot of the temptation to 'tank' and speculation that goes with it, but the weaker teams will still be getting the higher picks.

I like the idea of having the lottery sorted after 17 weeks. But for the last 5 weeks, why not give more weight in the lottery to the team who wins the group? Not more, or as much weight as the wooden spooner, but just enough to make it worth going for. It allows, say 13th, to fight for a better chance of getting a higher pick. And it would only most likely come at the expense of 14th or 15th who should be able to challenge 13th anyway

[LostDoggy]

I like the idea of having the lottery sorted after 17 weeks. But for the last 5 weeks, why not give more weight in the lottery to the team who wins the group? Not more, or as much weight as the wooden spooner, but just enough to make it worth going for. It allows, say 13th, to fight for a better chance of getting a higher pick. And it would only most likely come at the expense of 14th or 15th who should be able to challenge 13th anyway

Get the idea, but worry that it reduces the chance of the real basket case teams getting the top picks. Maybe just makes the entire thing too convoluted also. I reckon the back end of the year for the bottom 6 should primarily be about doing your best to avoid the wooden spoon, but otherwise plan for the future free of tanking accusations.

[Twodogs]

Apart from TV scheduling needs why do we have 22 rounds anyway?

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Apart from TV scheduling needs why do we have 22 rounds anyway?

Not sure when it became a 22 round season. But i'd imagine long before tv money was a priority.

Players would love a 17-week season but the fans and sponsors wouldn't. Interestingly the NFL is 17 weeks (with a bye per team and a week off before the superbowl). I've always felt the season was just too short.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

Looks like it was the 1970 season, when there were 12 teams and everybody played each other twice!

[soupman]

I really like the idea of a draft lottery for the top 5 picks.

I am strongly against the idea of a lottery for the draft. Assuming you have the draft there for equalisation purposes, a lottery just compromises it's purpose for little to no gain. I don't see why removing the guarantee but still leaving an incentive to tank fixes tanking.

Atm you either go all out to win every game to improve your culture or you go half arsed to try to benefit from the draft. This doesn't change with a lottery, but yet the teams that really need the help have a much greater chance of not getting all the help they need under a lottery.

Besides, for all the talk of tanking can we name any sides that unfairly benefitted from it? I can't think of a single example where a side that was clearly too good for the spot they finished in did so through questionable practices. Even in Melbournes "not guilty" years they were shit enough to warrant the picks they got, and subsequent years justified that stance.

[comrade]

I am strongly against the idea of a lottery for the draft. Assuming you have the draft there for equalisation purposes, a lottery just compromises it's purpose for little to no gain. I don't see why removing the guarantee but still leaving an incentive to tank fixes tanking.

Atm you either go all out to win every game to improve your culture or you go half arsed to try to benefit from the draft. This doesn't change with a lottery, but yet the teams that really need the help have a much greater chance of not getting all the help they need under a lottery.

Besides, for all the talk of tanking can we name any sides that unfairly benefitted from it? I can't think of a single example where a side that was clearly too good for the spot they finished in did so through questionable practices. Even in Melbournes "not guilty" years they were shit enough to warrant the picks they got, and subsequent years justified that stance.

It's not all about teams unfairly benefiting from tanking. It's about the spectacle and enjoyment of footy. Going to a game when 1 team has put the cue in the rack is crap. Teams also unfairly benefit through being fixtured to play tanking teams.

Melbourne deliberately lost games which screwed with their culture and in turn made them even worse and lose more games. A lottery may have incentivised Melbourne to actually try to win more and improve their culture.

A lottery may have also prevented a team like Essendon from unfairly benefiting from their illegal injection program by receiving an unearned prized #1 pick. The way it's set up now, Brisbane were crazy for actually trying to compete in the last round. Because they did, they missed out on the chance to draft the best kid in the land. A lottery would still have given them a chance at the best kid as well as not penalising them for actually making the game a contest.

[soupman]

It's about the spectacle and enjoyment of footy. Going to a game when 1 team has put the cue in the rack is crap. Teams also unfairly benefit through being fixtured to play tanking teams.

I agree, a lottery however doesn;t fix that. I posted a solution to this within the 17-5 model a couple of pages back. Basically the best side of the bottom 6 playoffs gets pick 1, however the ladder position and wins leading into the final 5 games are both taken into account.

Melbourne deliberately lost games which screwed with their culture and in turn made them even worse and lose more games. A lottery may have incentivised Melbourne to actually try to win more and improve their culture.

How? How does something which rewards you for finishing lower incentivise you to finish higher? Yes the guarantee is gone but you still have a much better chance of getting a better pick.

A lottery may have also prevented a team like Essendon from unfairly benefiting from their illegal injection program by receiving an unearned prized #1 pick.

Thats got nothing to do with the way the draft is setup and everything to do with the AFL not stepping in to stop this. A lottery doesn't fix this, in fact it means Richmond would also be rewarded for being a good squad with poor form and a shit coach if they were to draw the number one pick.

The way it's set up now, Brisbane were crazy for actually trying to compete in the last round. Because they did, they missed out on the chance to draft the best kid in the land. A lottery would still have given them a chance at the best kid as well as not penalising them for actually making the game a contest.

Yep, but a lottery also gives them a chance of finishing last and walking away with pick 6, or 10, or 18. The priority pick (which they received) is what they get to compensate them for being atrocious.

A weighted lottery does not fix tanking. It's a half arsed solution that will only punish clubs in need more than benefit them. It still incentivises tanking, but now with the added benefit of potentially allowing teams that don't need or deserve top 5 picks getting them, and teams that are absolute crap ending up with crap picks as well.

A lottery is not the solution, and just like tanking (which at most has made a difference of 1 spot in the draft, has never really rewarded a club, is definitely bad for your culture and also doesn't officially exist) it is potentially corruptable, just look at the FIFA hot/cold balls thing.

The only way you disincentivise tanking completely is by making there no advantage to a lower ladder spot, which means either you have a rolling draft where every club gets every pick over an 18 year period, or it's a fair lottery where 1st and 18th have an equal chance of getting every pick.

Besides blaming the draft system as the problem for clubs tanking is looking at the problem arse about. The issue isn't the sensible and fair method of allocating the best picks to the worst teams, but rather clubs supposed willingness to sacrifice wins for a minor and often inconsequential benefit in the future stars market (a market where maybe 20% of the players go on to play enough games to have a career and a pick 4 and 6 are worth Geelongs first rounder in 2017 and a couple of worthless picks in the 40's two years later).

[hujsh]

Yep, but a lottery also gives them a chance of finishing last and walking away with pick 6, or 10, or 18. The priority pick (which they received) is what they get to compensate them for being atrocious.

Say's who? I'm sure it could be tweaked to avoid such a situation if that was desired

[soupman]

Say's who? I'm sure it could be tweaked to avoid such a situation if that was desired

So why create a system to fix a "broken" system that needs fixes immediately to stop it being broken too?

The more you tweak it away from a pure lottery the less it fixes the issue.

Under the proposed lottery system you are incentivised to finish lower so that you can get more lottery tickets. If those lottery tickets also contain further guarantees that your pick couldn't possibly be as bad as the team that finished one spot above you then that even more incentive to finish lower.

Whats the point of replacing a system that encourages finishing lower with another system that also encourages you to finish lower, but now you might also get punished if you are genuinely worse than other teams because someone may have tanked in the past and didn't even benefit from it?

Besides, what issue are we fixing?

Who tanked this year? Essendon didn't, Brisbane didn't. What about last year? Carlton were just shit. So were Brisbane.

The aim should be to have every team trying their hardest to win at all times, but instead of trying to lessen the reward to not do so we need to reward them for finishing higher/winning games. A 17-5 model where the last 5 rounds they play to win draft picks maybe helps this, but a lottery fixes nothing.

[bulldogsthru&thru]

It's not all about teams unfairly benefiting from tanking. It's about the spectacle and enjoyment of footy. Going to a game when 1 team has put the cue in the rack is crap. Teams also unfairly benefit through being fixtured to play tanking teams.

Melbourne deliberately lost games which screwed with their culture and in turn made them even worse and lose more games. A lottery may have incentivised Melbourne to actually try to win more and improve their culture.

A lottery may have also prevented a team like Essendon from unfairly benefiting from their illegal injection program by receiving an unearned prized #1 pick. The way it's set up now, Brisbane were crazy for actually trying to compete in the last round. Because they did, they missed out on the chance to draft the best kid in the land. A lottery would still have given them a chance at the best kid as well as not penalising them for actually making the game a contest.

Unfortunately, in sports where a lottery exists like the NBA, the lottery hasn't done anything to stop teams from tanking. It still exists. Just look at the 76ers and how similar a situation they are in to Melbourne.

I agree Essendon getting the no 1 pick was absolutely ridiculous. Their best players were suspended for cheating, as a result their team sucks for a year without those players, they are awarded the no 1 pick and then all their best players return the next season. I can't believe this was so easily accepted. It's a complete joke.

[hujsh]

So why create a system to fix a "broken" system that needs fixes immediately to stop it being broken too?

The more you tweak it away from a pure lottery the less it fixes the issue.

Under the proposed lottery system you are incentivised to finish lower so that you can get more lottery tickets. If those lottery tickets also contain further guarantees that your pick couldn't possibly be as bad as the team that finished one spot above you then that even more incentive to finish lower.

Whats the point of replacing a system that encourages finishing lower with another system that also encourages you to finish lower, but now you might also get punished if you are genuinely worse than other teams because someone may have tanked in the past and didn't even benefit from it?

Besides, what issue are we fixing?

Who tanked this year? Essendon didn't, Brisbane didn't. What about last year? Carlton were just shit. So were Brisbane.

The aim should be to have every team trying their hardest to win at all times, but instead of trying to lessen the reward to not do so we need to reward them for finishing higher/winning games. A 17-5 model where the last 5 rounds they play to win draft picks maybe helps this, but a lottery fixes nothing.

The temptation to tank for pick one over two is less than the temptation to tank to guarantee you get pick 5 minimum instead of 6 (as an example).

If someone really wanted a lottery I don't see why it can't be altered to find a happy medium between helping the worst teams and providing the proper motivations. That's not applying 'fixes immediately to stop it being broken too' BTW, it's trying to find a compromise then introducing that as a new system.

I think pick 1 is over rated sometimes. You often can get as good or better players in the top 5 (Hi Bont, hi Jarred Roughead)

[Twodogs]

Looks like it was the 1970 season, when there were 12 teams and everybody played each other twice!

So for 45 years they operated a 12 team competition with the original 18 rounds? That means the fixture has been compromised for far longer than it has been fair. It was only a 12 team and 22 round season from 1970 1970 until 1987 when the competition went to 14 teams.

I wonder if they spent ages talking about it and what the players had to say about expanding the season by 4 weeks in 1970?

[Twodogs]

With a 17-5 model is there a danger of sides picking and choosing the divisions they finish in? If you're having a so-so season and you've just lost your best player for the rest of the season in R13. You aren't going anywhere, maybe tenth if things fall your way but there us a clear and outstanding #1 pick they are saying is a once in a generation player. Why not rest a few, get yourself down into that bottom division before bringing your players back rested and ready to compete for that #1 choice.


There is always going to be a perception of clubs doing what is best for them under the rules of the competition,