Re: The 2020 Rolling Draft Points 'Gap' Thread
I think they should do an aggregate ladder over the last 5 years and base the draft order on that. In fact that's probably a better system all round. Just keep doing it after each year. That way you won't have 'anomalies' like the bombers getting the number 1 pick after being punished for drug cheating. A team can't just have one bad year and scoop up the number 1 pick. And there's less incentive to tank. Who's gonna tank for 5 years?
Re: The 2020 Rolling Draft Points 'Gap' Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mjp
I think if there is no draft this year then the indigenous portion of the NGA is D-O-N-E.
If there is a 2020 draft, the rules will remain in place...
I would hope they would be 'grandfathering' any change to indigenous NGA rules. That is existing participants already aligned, would still be able to join, but no new indigenous entrants into the NGA allowed.
That would be the most equitable exit arrangement.
Re: The 2020 Rolling Draft Points 'Gap' Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dancin' Douggy
I think they should do an aggregate ladder over the last 5 years and base the draft order on that. In fact that's probably a better system all round. Just keep doing it after each year. That way you won't have 'anomalies' like the bombers getting the number 1 pick after being punished for drug cheating. A team can't just have one bad year and scoop up the number 1 pick. And there's less incentive to tank. Who's gonna tank for 5 years?
Not the worst idea at all DD. Worth thinking about a little deeper.
My initial thoughts to this are;
1) How many clubs have actually tanked and rebounded strongly to make a PF or win a Premiership? Carlton, Melbourne, GC etc. were/have been crap for years after those periods of time. There was a stat for a few years running when a bottom 4 team would make the 8 the following year but I don't think that was related to any kind of 'tank'.
2) If we were to implement the suggested system above, it would mean that rebuilds would (likely) take a hell of a lot longer than they currently do. The current system does allow for clubs to bounce back quickly which can be a good thing for an even competition. Ultimately what we don't want is to have 'cycles' where we see the same top 4-5 teams compete for a period of time, then a new top 4-5 take over for a few years thereafter.
I don't mind your suggestion as playing the 'averages game' makes sense. I wonder if it would make much of a difference though, as a club tanking in any given year would still result them in receiving a lower draft pick regardless.