The Draft Lottery

[SonofScray]

A lot of talk about the introduction of a lottery for the draft in the past few days.

I really like the system of a draft lottery, where ladder position determines any extra balls you get in the pot. It takes some incentive away from 'tanking' in terms of throwing matches, like the Kruezer Cup, but protects an element of that idea if you're battling you should get more a crack at the best talent than the top team.

What are your thoughts?


As an aside, I have no real issue with tanking. Obviously I would want our team to go out and perform to the best of its ability every week, but when we start looking at resting players, or experimenting with the system or positions when the season is shot, that sits fine with me. That isn't particularly sinister, nor is it throwing a match IMO. Not sure why it is so upsetting to people?

[bulldogtragic]

It all depends on the adopted model for my vote. I'm not sure the problem is so great a change to the draft is needed. But happy to listen to the debate.

[Twodogs]

While there is an advantage to finishing last the perception will remain that teams are tanking to gain that advantage no matter how small. And while the perception remains so will the speculation.

Personally I think we are jumping at shadows and risk breaking the draft system. What happens if team with the least balls in the lottery wins two or three years in a row? Then all the nervous nellies will be coughing and harrumphing about the integrity of the competition and how some teams are welded to the bottom.

Just leave the draft system as it is.

[Axe Man]

Tanking hardly ever works out in the long run and the number 1 pick is rarely the best player in the draft anyway. Leave it as it is.

[chef]

Leave it how it is for me.

[GVGjr]

A lot of talk about the introduction of a lottery for the draft in the past few days.

I really like the system of a draft lottery, where ladder position determines any extra balls you get in the pot. It takes some incentive away from 'tanking' in terms of throwing matches, like the Kruezer Cup, but protects an element of that idea if you're battling you should get more a crack at the best talent than the top team.

What are your thoughts?


As an aside, I have no real issue with tanking. Obviously I would want our team to go out and perform to the best of its ability every week, but when we start looking at resting players, or experimenting with the system or positions when the season is shot, that sits fine with me. That isn't particularly sinister, nor is it throwing a match IMO. Not sure why it is so upsetting to people?

I think the logic behind this is they're looking at the lottery option because there is a perception that tanking is occurring however, when they had the chance to nip this in the bud they targeted a coach not a club.

The AFL has also signed off for teams to drop multiple players in round 23 to either prepare for finals which is effectively giving the green light to tank games to as many clubs that want to for what ever reason they like to tank games. Given this point, exactly why does the AFL want to introduce a lottery for the draft? Clearly they don't have a problem with clubs tanking games or even the public or media perception that tanking occurs.

I suspect that this is driven by potential sponsors for the draft lottery rather than any meaningful effort to eradicate clubs tanking games.

I also remain to be convinced that a lottery system addresses club efforts in tanking game because the whole idea for the way the AFL set-up the draft with was for the most deserving clubs to be given the chance to have the earliest selections. Why compromise that?

For the highlight portion of SOS opening post, It's an indictment on the game that fans are comfortable with the notion that clubs should be able to tank games and I'd like to ask people would they still happily go to games where we knew the Bulldogs had no chance to win or worse still no desire to win a game? I suspect many will say yes but given attendances to games really drops during badly performed seasons I wouldn't bank on that.

I don't think I would bother to go to a round 23 game if we rested 6 players because this is a highly professional sport that should have us all demanding the club does everything in it's power to win every game during a season without exception.

[Twodogs]

I think the logic behind this is they're looking at the lottery option because there is a perception that tanking is occurring however, when they had the chance to nip this in the bud they targeted a coach not a club.

The AFL has also signed off for teams to drop multiple players in round 23 to either prepare for finals which is effectively giving the green light to tank games to as many clubs that want to for what ever reason they like to tank games. Given this point, exactly why does the AFL want to introduce a lottery for the draft? Clearly they don't have a problem with clubs tanking games or even the public or media perception that tanking occurs.

I suspect that this is driven by potential sponsors for the draft lottery rather than any meaningful effort to eradicate clubs tanking games.

I also remain to be convinced that a lottery system addresses club efforts in tanking game because the whole idea for the way the AFL set-up the draft with was for the most deserving clubs to be given the chance to have the earliest selections. Why compromise that?

For the highlight portion of SOS opening post, It's an indictment on the game that fans are comfortable with the notion that clubs should be able to tank games and I'd like to ask people would they still happily go to games where we knew the Bulldogs had no chance to win or worse still no desire to win a game? I suspect many will say yes but given attendances to games really drops during badly performed seasons I wouldn't bank on that.

I don't think I would bother to go to a round 23 game if we rested 6 players because this is a highly professional sport that should have us all demanding the club does everything in it's power to win every game during a season without exception.

I know this us getting away from the point, but:

It's not really an equal competition though is it? Not everyone plays one another twice so we begin from a compromised position anyway.

You are given a draw and the idea is to finish in the best position possible. If you have sewn up that position by round 23 then that round is effectively a dead rubber. Why advantage the other competitors by not giving yourself tge best chance to advance through the next stage of the competition by playing a full strength team in an inconsequential game?

If it was a proper fixture then I could understand that all games would have more integrity. But it's not so I don't really have a problem with it.


And I agree. This is more about the AFL having a draft lottery to televise than it is fixing a problem.

[SonofScray]

While there is an advantage to finishing last the perception will remain that teams are tanking to gain that advantage no matter how small. And while the perception remains so will the speculation.

Personally I think we are jumping at shadows and risk breaking the draft system. What happens if team with the least balls in the lottery wins two or three years in a row? Then all the nervous nellies will be coughing and harrumphing about the integrity of the competition and how some teams are welded to the bottom.

Just leave the draft system as it is.

Edmonton Oilers in the NHL won the 1st pick a number of years in the row. I believe they ended up with 5 number 1 picks in quick succession. With the way players and get flipped in that system and how teams manage salary caps etc it probably hasn't cemented them as a powerhouse like it potentially could if things remained equal here.

As a caveat, I'd support a draft lottery in a package deal that looks like this:

36 game season, playing everyone at home and away.
Draft Lottery
Shared Revenue
No fixed blockbuster matches.

[Flamethrower]

The draft lottery does not stop teams tanking. There is still incentive for teams to finish as low as possible to increase their chances of winning the lottery.

[F'scary]

I am all for a 17/5 season. I put together a spreadsheet which outlined what the 3 groups of six are playing for, including draft picks. It is not perfect and could be improved upon (probably there are better models already). But it shows how there can be a mix of rewards such that the bottom team after the round of 5 still gets a draft package that is as good as the last of the 7-12 group (who had the opportunity to play for 2 finals spots). I'll see if I can dig it up - it's not on this pc.

[soupman]

The lottery idea is idiotic imo.

If you want a draft for equalisation leave it as is. The worst clubs get the best picks and the best clubs get the worst picks. It makes sense.

The premise that removing the current system because it incentivises tanking too much in order to introduce a system that still rewards tanking (albeit, marginally less so) and claiming that's the solution is stupid.

If you want a lottery to determine draft order then give everyone equal odds and do it properly. The best club may get the best pick and the worst club might get the worst pick but that's just luck. That's how a lottery works. You completely remove the possibility of tanking for draft picks. Problem fixed.

I see two viable arguments with this topic.

You are either in favour of giving the worst clubs the most help in the name of equalisation, or you are in favour of everyone getting an equal chance in the name of equality.

I would suggest that if the sole motivation for a change is to address the tanking problem then you look for a better solution as you clearly have a cultural issue in your competition that won't be addressed by a heavily weighted lottery system that actually compromises one of the key "pillars of equalisation" the AFL is built around.

[bornadog]

To add to this discussion and to help teams lower down the ladder, free agents should not be allowed to go to any of the top four clubs.

I would leave the draft itself alone. I donot like tanking one bit and agree with GVGjr

[Ghost Dog]

The lottery idea is idiotic imo.

If you want a draft for equalisation leave it as is. The worst clubs get the best picks and the best clubs get the worst picks. It makes sense.

The premise that removing the current system because it incentivises tanking too much in order to introduce a system that still rewards tanking (albeit, marginally less so) and claiming that's the solution is stupid.

If you want a lottery to determine draft order then give everyone equal odds and do it properly. The best club may get the best pick and the worst club might get the worst pick but that's just luck. That's how a lottery works. You completely remove the possibility of tanking for draft picks. Problem fixed.

I see two viable arguments with this topic.

You are either in favour of giving the worst clubs the most help in the name of equalisation, or you are in favour of everyone getting an equal chance in the name of equality.

I would suggest that if the sole motivation for a change is to address the tanking problem then you look for a better solution as you clearly have a cultural issue in your competition that won't be addressed by a heavily weighted lottery system that actually compromises one of the key "pillars of equalisation" the AFL is built around.

Most clubs have seen the cultural damage tanking did to Melbourne. Combine this with the fact getting high draft picks is absolutely no guarantee of working out. Melbourne's Trengrove is about to play his first game of footy shortly, since 2014. Jack Watts, another example of that. It's a very risky strategy.

[Twodogs]

Edmonton Oilers in the NHL won the 1st pick a number of years in the row. I believe they ended up with 5 number 1 picks in quick succession. With the way players and get flipped in that system and how teams manage salary caps etc it probably hasn't cemented them as a powerhouse like it potentially could if things remained equal here.

As a caveat, I'd support a draft lottery in a package deal that looks like this:

36 game season, playing everyone at home and away.
Draft Lottery
Shared Revenue
No fixed blockbuster matches.

I'm in.

I think if the players want a fixed percentage of revenue then give it to them but some fundamental problems in the game have to be addressed. The first one is the fixture. There's no real reason we play a 22 game season except that's what the VFL was playing when it had 12 clubs and everyone could play each other twice. The 22 game season is just a leftover from the distant past.

Cut preseason in half for a start and play matches from the start of the year or start a bit later and keep going through to the end of the year. Having preseason training periods that last longer than the actual season is just an indulgence. If we had tge will to have a 36 game season we could do it. Nearly every other football comp around tge world manages it.

[bulldogtragic]

Ok, here goes my attempt to address this on fact and data. Here's the bottom few sides from 1994 and the aim should be to easily identify tanking issues or irregularities that show the current system of equalisation isn't working. So here goes the seasons:

I'm taking out Fitzroy and Brisbane because of the 'merger' and concessions.

1994 - Sydney (GF 1996), St Kilda (GF 1997)
1995 - St Kilda (GF 1997)
1996 - Melbourne (GF 2000) Footscray (Prelims 1997/98)
1997 - Melbourne (GF 2000), Hawthorn, Essendon (GF & Premiers 2000)
1998 - Fremantle (finals 2003), Collingwood (GFs 2002/03)
1999 - Collingwood (GFs 2002/03), Fremantle (finals 2003), Melbourne (GF 2000)
2000 - Collingwood (GFs 2002/03), St Kilda, Port Adelaide (GF & Premiers 2004)
2001 - Fremantle (finals 2003), WCE (GF 2005 & Premiers 2006), St Kilda (Prelims & GF 2009/10)
2002 - Richmond, St Kilda (Prelims & GF 2009/10), Carlton
2003 - WBFC (prelims 3 years running), Carlton, Melbourne
2004 - Richmond, WBFC (prelims 3 years running), Hawks (GF & Premiership 2008)
2005 - Carlton, Collingwood (Prelims & GFs & Premiership 2010), Hawks (GF & Premiership 2008)
2006 - Carlton, Essendon, North (finals 2007)
2007 - Melbourne, Carlton, Richmond
2008 - Fremantle (GF 2013), WCE (GF 2015), Melbourne
2009 - Fremantle (GF 2013), Richmond, Melbourne
2010 - Essendon, Richmond, WCE (GF 2015)
2011 - Brisbane, Port Adeliade (prelim 2013) (GCS)
2012 - Melbourne (GCS) (GWS)
2013 - Melbourne, St Kilda (rising), WBFC (finals 2015) (GWS)
2014 - Melbourne, St Kilda (rising), WBFC (finals 2015), Brisbane (GWS)


Now leave aside GCS & GWS at the bottom as expansion clubs. The above draft as we know it is working very well. The vast majority of clubs who finish down the bottom finish in the top 4 sides (prelims & GFs) within 5 years or less.

Now, the main 4 clubs who Buck this trend have been Melbourne, Richmond, Carlton & Essendon (big clubs are so great!). I argue the failure of these clubs to use the draft to rebound are because of their own failings not a system of draft failure. Carlton tanked ( Libba Snr is on the record) and they cheated the salary cap, Melbourne tanked, Essendon are WADA doping cheats and bans stopped their rise and Richmond methodically stuffed up every draft pick they had for years and have recently confessed to trying to get mediocre success because their fans were inpatient.

In 21 years of the draft, it's working very well. The aim is for equalisation to allow the least successful teams the chance to draft to become more successful. And it works if you don't cheat, don't tank, don't get draft sanctions from salary cap cheating or doping cheating. Or generally mismanage years of draft picks year in and year our like Richmond and Melbourne done. Club mismanagement is hurting Brisbane currently and will likely continue to, but again that's not a system or draft problem.

The system and the draft is working for well managed clubs who responsibly go to the draft and employ sensible recruiters. The draft and the methodology is about equalisation and to attack the core of this purpose because a team rests players in round 23 or perceptions of tanking lacks any real appreciation for the totality of the circumstances. It's not great, but the facts are if you tank you don't recover. So if clubs want to do that then they do it facing the wrong side of history. If anything needs tinkering with address the individual matches and not the draft which gives every side the chance to compete for premierships within about 5 years if they recruit well and are well coaches and governed.

As far as the last 90 minutes of my life goes, the draft is working very, very well in my opinion. The big clubs and the power they wield of a spineless AFEL should not change the draft and it's a cop out. The hard reality should be For these big, proud clubs to accept their own culpability and responsibility in where they find themselves. To potentially punish the entire competition who are given the draft to rebuild in lieu of a lottery which fails to address the round 23 issues or have any basis in logic to assist rebuilding sides is inane. Put in a rule about round 23 and punish tankers if you want to find them. The draft is working well for its purpose, leave it alone.

[Twodogs]

To add to this discussion and to help teams lower down the ladder, free agents should not be allowed to go to any of the top four clubs.

I would leave the draft itself alone. I donot like tanking one bit and agree with GVGjr


That Free Agent rule makes sense to me. Other wise a club could sit at the top of the ladder bringing in prime talent and the AFL pays the bill with the stupid picks they give out to compensate. They made a rod for their back with the grading system.

There shouldn't be compensation for losing a FA. Getting a FA of your own should tge compensation.

[bulldogtragic]

Also, a team with father sons coming up could be disadvantaged even more. everything gets thrown up of balance. The draft isn't the problem, yet the solution to another set of problems is attack the draft.

[bulldogtragic]

So I was wondering why some big clubs want a lottery hearing that Buckley is in favour, and working out why. This is my conclusion...

The best way to rebuild at the moment is to bottom out and get a number 1 or 2 pick player. Even more so if you let a free agent walk like Melbourne did with Frawley. My previous post showed that this method is the best way to have a genuine crack at a premiership. It's the stark opposite of Richmond & Carlton recently of not wanting to bottom out for fear of a membership drops. So they fall in the middle of the ladder, never getting top picks (until falling right down), recruiting hacks and mature agers from other clubs and not drafting always the best option.

But the draft lottery allows big clubs concerned with a membership or sponsorship falls to play for mediocrity. Hypothetically, say Collingwood's CFO projects what happens to their profits, memberships and sponsorships by sitting at the bottom of the ladder for two years to rebuild for success. Say Eddie says 'that's not happening'. Currently, if they finish 10th and get pick 9. They are zero % of getting pick 1 or 2. But with the lottery they may rise to 20%. That's a huge increase and rewards clubs like Malthouses's last two years of list managing for mediocrity (See Jaksch, Tutt, Jones etc). So I think clubs concerned about dropping down the ladder for financial loss will recruit Hampsons, Jones, Petterds etc and just try to keep their heads above the water and now get a decent chance at being rewarded. Essentially, they're climbing the premiership mountain from base camp two and not the bottom. At the expense of teams who need the most incoming talent to rebuild and have a respectable and fair sporting competition. Those teams go from a 100% chance at top end talent to 80% for example which is a huge loss.

If the dichotomy for the best competition is rewarding bottom teams who may or may not artificially lower their spots, versus rewarding mid level teams from big clubs and enabling them to field a team of hacks as a stop gap and give them top end talent then I know which is the greater danger in my mind. I don't care whether Freo & Essendon out tank each other for one game or teams rest in round 23. I do care greatly if deliberately mismanaged team lists done with the purpose of financial returns are rewarded with the greatest opportunity the game has, see Richmond recruiting inferior players because of their impatient fans. If Carlton got given the rights to Tom Boyd or Marcus Bontempelli or Paddy McCartin or Christian Petracca after Malthouse stuffed that list to save his job and to stop money from bleeding Carlton's bank account I'd spew myself to death. The lottery makes this possible and the status quo does not. I never thought I'd say this, by Ross Lyon is right (on this issue).

And... Trading future draft picks becomes redundant. If you could be giving up pick 1 then you can't risk it, surely. It stuffs up the bidding system too if you wind up with 500 points less than you thought which impacts F/S and academies. I hate the lottery idea after looking at it for a day.

[hujsh]

I think there should be min and max barriers with this. EG if you finish in the top 8 (maybe ten) you should not be able to get a top 5 pick. And the bottom team should get pick 3 at a minimum. Maybe there's some more incentive to tank but its fairer then a straight up weighted lottery.

[The Bulldogs Bite]

No to the lottery.

It punishes teams who are just quite simply, no good. Hujsh's idea above might work better, but I think it should be left as it is. Teams down the bottom of the ladder are there for a reason and it's typically a long process back up the ladder. Given draft concessions we've all had to deal with and GWS having 26 first round picks or some BS, I find it ridiculous we're worried about a bottom side getting an earlier draft pick. GWS have almost been handed a guaranteed Premiership and the AFL had an opportunity to stamp down on "tanking" and didn't with Melbourne.

If you're last, you get the first pick. If you tank, your culture is stuffed (see Melbourne).

[Ghost Dog]

Maybe they want to bring in a lottery because Essendon and Richmond keep stuffing up their list management.

[comrade]

Very unlikely that the AFL stops free agents going to a top 4 team. I can see the merit in it as an equalisation measure but the AFLPA would go to war over such a restriction in player movement.

[bornadog]

If you tank, your culture is stuffed (see Melbourne).

A couple of coaches have come out and said exactly the same thing - Lyon, Bolton.