2016 NAB Challenge Discussion

[F'scary]

Could it go the other way though? By reducing the odds of the worst club getting the best pick from a guarantee to anything else you make the odds of the second worst club getting the best pick go from no chance to a chance, and this continues up the ladder.

So theoretically a team in 12th could decide finishing 13th or 14th would give them a much better chance of getting the best or second best pick while under the current system they'll only be one or two spots higher.

As long as there is a real benefit to finishing lower tanking is a possibility, especially when there is no reward for finishing higher.

Interesting observation. 7-12 would be fighting it out for the last 2 finals spots. If 12 felt they were no chance, even though the odds are 1/3, would they tank to get into the 13-18 band to get a higher draft pick, perhaps even the #1?

Probably deserves another thread - I wonder if there is one already on WOOF?

[F'scary]

Because it's still weighted to the worst sides; the worse your record, the more balls you get in the lottery. Having the worst record pretty much guarantees a top-3 selection in the draft, usually better than that.

The Philadelphia 76ers, a godless affront to world sport, are a perfect example of tanking's existence in a lottery system.

Which AFL Club should we dub "the 76ers"? It would have to be the Dees, wouldn't it?

[hujsh]

Interesting observation. 7-12 would be fighting it out for the last 2 finals spots. If 12 felt they were no chance, even though the odds are 1/3, would they tank to get into the 13-18 band to get a higher draft pick, perhaps even the #1?

Probably deserves another thread - I wonder if there is one already on WOOF?

I believe there has, as well as conferences and every other idea imaginable.

[F'scary]

I believe there has, as well as conferences and every other idea imaginable.

I'll do some searches, hujsh. I will leave it with that I was quite taken with the 17/5 season proposal when I first encountered it some months ago. Could be a way forward for the AFL.

[Maddog37]

Personally I say let them tank. It does more damage than good to the fabric of the club and hasn't really shown to overly benefit teams in the long run due to the number of players per team on the field.

Perhaps a monetary payment to each club based on percentage could be utilised as an incentive for teams in the bottom eight.

[Twodogs]

Personally I say let them tank. It does more damage than good to the fabric of the club and hasn't really shown to overly benefit teams in the long run due to the number of players per team on the field.

Perhaps a monetary payment to each club based on percentage could be utilised as an incentive for teams in the bottom eight.

Precisely. Let one club do it and face the approbation and disgust of their fans and the football community.

[GVGjr]

Because it's still weighted to the worst sides; the worse your record, the more balls you get in the lottery. Having the worst record pretty much guarantees a top-3 selection in the draft, usually better than that.

The Philadelphia 76ers, a godless affront to world sport, are a perfect example of tanking's existence in a lottery system.

A lottery system will not discourage tanking or even the perception of teams tanking games. The only thing it does it take away the certainty of if you finish last that you will get the first pick but you still might.

It's not a solution at all.

The solution is to fine a club that has been found to do it and remove future first round selections. I'd also consider suspending the coach and the President for 12 months. That's the only way you can drive ownership of clubs putting their best team on the ground every week.

As fans we should not accept any club putting in less than their best despite the rewards that might potentially be in front of them.

[F'scary]

A lottery system will not discourage tanking or even the perception of teams tanking games. The only thing it does it take away the certainty of if you finish last that you will get the first pick but you still might.

It's not a solution at all.

The solution is to fine a club that has been found to do it and remove future first round selections. I'd also consider suspending the coach and the President for 12 months. That's the only way you can drive ownership of clubs putting their best team on the ground every week.

As fans we should not accept any club putting in less than their best despite the rewards that might potentially be in front of them.

Agree, and that is another shortcoming with the AFL Commission, it frequently ducks making the hard decisions and in some cases, appears to give favourable treatment for pet projects.

The 17/5 season concept entails that teams have to fight to get rewards and there are just deserts. For teams 13-18, the number of home games could be allocated by ladder position in the fight to get pick #1. If you tank, you will end up with pick #6. I don't think under a well worked out system under this concept that teams will tank. The key will be to make the potential rewards of finishing as high as you can outweigh any incentive to tank, as we have seen but the AFL won't admit in the past.

[ledge]

Easy to eliminate tanking , who finished 9th gets first pick who finishes 10 gets 2nd pick and so on, sides will then fight to finish higher up the ladder, no question of tanking then.

[Yankee Hotel Foxtrot]

Easy to eliminate tanking , who finished 9th gets first pick who finishes 10 gets 2nd pick and so on, sides will then fight to finish higher up the ladder, no question of tanking then.

Except that in this set-up those that really need the top end talent will now get a pick 10, whilst a team just missing out on finals gets the chocolates. In that scenario maybe the team in 8th decides its better to miss out on 8th (who rarely progress beyond the first or second week of finals) and tank to finish 9 or 10 in order to get top end talent?

If the draft is to help poor club improve then those who finish with the worst record should be the priority beneficiaries. We just need anvAFL administration that is willing to pay more than just lip service to draft integrity to keep tanking in abeyance.

[soupman]

The best solution I've heard aside from leaving it as is and having a real AFL commission is the 6 team split mentioned last year.

Basically after everyone has played eachother once (round 17) the ladder is broken up into three sections of six. Top 6 play off for top four, middle for the last finals spots, and bottom six for better draft picks.

I would have it so that for the top two thirds their win loss record is retained, so 1st could have a 16W 1L record which would give them a three win headstart on 6th who have 13W and 4L.

The bottom 6 games record gets flipped. So if 18th has 2W 15L and 13th has 6W 11L then 18th starts these groupings with 4 wins to their name and 13th with zero. So 18th starts out on top of the draft pick race ladder. Then the ladder works as normal with the best of the bottom 6 getting pick 2, 2nd best pick 2 etc. It gives a handicap to the worst teams and encourages teams to play to win. It's still flawed but atleast it incentivises winning and teams surely wouldn't start tanking prior to round 17.

[Twodogs]

Except that in this set-up those that really need the top end talent will now get a pick 10, whilst a team just missing out on finals gets the chocolates. In that scenario maybe the team in 8th decides its better to miss out on 8th (who rarely progress beyond the first or second week of finals) and tank to finish 9 or 10 in order to get top end talent?

If the draft is to help poor club improve then those who finish with the worst record should be the priority beneficiaries. We just need anvAFL administration that is willing to pay more than just lip service to draft integrity to keep tanking in abeyance.

Precisely. Why give a club just outside the 8 a leg up? It's kind of the opposite intention to what the draft is trying to achieve.


If a club wants to tank then let 'em. Their supporters will punish them enough.

[ledge]

Actually when you look at the top pick, how many have been more successful than the 2nd best or third best in a draft.
If you look at Melbourne and what they have got from first picks I would say later picks have proved to be a lot better.
Be an interesting stat to look at, first 5 picks in each draft and what's the difference in games played and success.

[Twodogs]

Actually when you look at the top pick, how many have been more successful than the 2nd best or third best in a draft.
If you look at Melbourne and what they have got from first picks I would say later picks have proved to be a lot better.
Be an interesting stat to look at, first 5 picks in each draft and what's the difference in games played and success.

Yep. I would take Bont over that dud* who went no 1 in his draft year!










* I know, I know I was just kidding... Both will be great players and I am looking forward to the thousand or so passes Bont will send in TBoyds direction.

[Twodogs]

The kid Trealor can play a bit. He looked really good a couple of times he ran through the centre of the ground with the ball in the third quarter. He's got a bit of toe.