The priority picks rule

[FightingFury]

I have noticed we are divided on the issue of priority picks and whether its in our best interests to win at all costs, or when its plain to see that the finals are out of contention to 'experiment' (read dont win) in games to ensure those coveted early selections.
The current system is flawed.
The idea is right, but its open to exploitation from clubs who will see themselves better off planning for the following season and not giving there absolute best shot of winning each match which should always be the priority.
I think it was Khan who from memory came up with a lottery system of some sort to erase the chances of chucking a game as the ladder position didn't determine which selection you ended up with.
Problem in that regard is you may arm up a side whose list is much better off and not as in need as the bottom side??

Can anyone suggest a better system than the current one?
(Lets hope its not changed this year BTW!)

 

[Joshnbeks Dad]

I think the draft pick order is fine. Regarding the Priority picks I have heard suggestion of a system of averaging over three seasons which stops the situation where because of injuries you may have one bad season.

I don't know if this will happen and lets hope that if it does it is not until after we have all the young talent we need. Although thinking of our past two years and likely outcomes of this year a three year average would deliver early picks.

 

[dmx]

I have noticed we are divided on the issue of priority picks and whether its in our best interests to win at all costs, or when its plain to see that the finals are out of contention to 'experiment' (read dont win) in games to ensure those coveted early selections.
The current system is flawed.
The idea is right, but its open to exploitation from clubs who will see themselves better off planning for the following season and not giving there absolute best shot of winning each match which should always be the priority.
I think it was Khan who from memory came up with a lottery system of some sort to erase the chances of chucking a game as the ladder position didn't determine which selection you ended up with.
Problem in that regard is you may arm up a side whose list is much better off and not as in need as the bottom side??

Can anyone suggest a better system than the current one?
(Lets hope its not changed this year BTW!)

Struggle, I think what Khan was suggesting was the way the NBA work it in the USA.

Its a lottery system where there are a set amount of balls in a barrel allocated to the teams with respect to their finishing position.

I.E. the team that finishes last gets, lets say 16 balls with their name on them, and working up to the top, the top team gets 1.

This also instigates more trading bait in that teams actually trade before the lottery for more chances.

 

[Harry]

First of all the priority pick is a joke and should not be given to any team (well maybe change it after this year ;D). Having the first overall pick is a big enough advantage. Having the first 2 picks and hence the best 2 youngsters in the country is a joke.

I beleive there should be no priority picks and then the draft picks should be allocated as follows -

1) A lottery for the bottom 8 as to who gets the first pick. Picks 1-8 should be determined by lottery which will ensure that all teams that can't possibly make the 8 will still be playing to win because it is no advantage to them to lose.

2) Picks 9-16 should be given to the teams who finished in the top 8 with pick 9 given to the 8th placed team and pick 16 given to the premiers. Teams will still want to win as the premiership is at stake.

With this system teams will always play to win.

If a team is within reach of the finals then they will play to win with the aim of playing finals.

If a team is out of mathematical contention they will still play to win knowing that losing and going down the ladder won't automatically give them a better draft pick.

If a team is on the bottom of the ladder, they will not become complacent to remain there as they'll know it doesn't improve their chances of getting first pick and will want to avoid the embarrassment of winning the spoon, hence they'll want to win.

 

[Dean3]

Either a lottery for the bottom 8 as Harry suggests, or picks 1-8 go in order of ladder placement from 9th-16th. That's a much bigger incentive to keep trying to win games, if by finishing 9th you get 1st pick. Can also retain priority picks in this instance for teams that don't win 5.5 (or fewer?) games.

 

[hutstar]

These are all good ideas. Abolishing priority picks is also fine by itself. Not worth throwing a season (given the detrimental effect this has on finances) just to move from pick two to one... is it?
St Kilda has caused this debate, but in reality they have had good picks for quite a few consecutive years to build the list they have. One years priority picks does not make a good team. A good list (a good one) is the result of a 5-10 years of good list management. Even the saints have a few good players who were not No. 1 picks.

 

[jb03]

I think the priority pick is ok in theory but the problem is that 5.5 wins is too many. It should be 3.5 or even 2.5 wins or amotised over a three year period to reward the truly aweful. Melbourne had one bad year and jagged two top five picks, neither of which have been used yet they sit second at 5-1.

Brisabane also had one bad year with a reasonable list and boy, did they capitilise.

By finishing bottom you also get pick 1 in the PSD which generally nets a big name uncontracted player so finishing last with a priority pick is gold.

Agree also about positions 9-16 becoming a lottery with 16th 8 chances, 9th with 1 chance of getting first pick, something along those lines anyway.

 

[The Boss]

i posted the following last year about priority picks:


Priority picks should be given after 2-3 years of poor finishes rather then just 1.

Look at Melbourne - finalists in 2002 and then second last in 2003 with 5 wins. A middle of the road team may have a poor year due to injuries and only win 5 games and then be awarded a priority pick. This pick can make a big difference.

Should be awarded if say a team wins say less then 10 games in 2 successive seasons. I think it's then fair to say that the team is struggling and needs assistance.

 

[om21]

Yeah I gotta agree with the lottery so that there isnt any throwing of matches. I mean teams need to play to win for not only pride but members want to see the team playing well and they will always demand improvement otherwise they will start with the 'its ok we will get picks'.

Bring on the lottery......

 

[Khan]

My sugestion was still a draft system however it worked in reverse for the first eight picks then progress as normal. THis would reward the team that is just outside the eight and maybe one player short of a shot at the finals with a decent pick up.

To explain

Position 9 gets pick 1, 10 pick 2 , 11 - 3, 12 -4, 13-5, 14 - 6 , 15 - 7, 16 - 8 , 16 - 9 , 15 - 10, 14 - 11, 13 -12 , 12 - 13, 11 - 14, 10 - 15 , 9 -16 and so on up the ladder

Teams wouldn't attempt to loose games, they would still be rewarded with mulitple low picks before the top eight even get a show in.

The other option could be to ban the trading of players/picks that gme in the first say ten. This would mean that this picks become untradable for a short period (say first contract).


I dont really know that this would fix it but

What the hey its only an idea

Lets Roar

Khan

 

[Dean3]

Similar to my suggestion for pick 1-9 Khan, but by continuing on that way, you could finish 8th on percentage from 9th, but your first pick in the draft is 17. That's harsh, considering the team that finished one spot below you on percentage gets pick 1 and 16.

I reckon it's better to have picks 1-8 go to 9th-16th, then pick 9 to 8th, 10 to 7th and so on. And still have priority picks for the lowest clubs, but make it 12 games over 2 years, instead of 5.5 games in one year.

 

[Harry]

Khan - this is way too unfair on the top 8. Considering that a kick can seperate 8th from 9th - under this system 9th would get first pick and pick 16 - whereas the 8th placed team would only get pick 17 - way too unfair if I'm reading it corretly.

 

[Harry]

After reading all the suggestions I think the fairest way is -

A) Have a lottery between the bottom 8 for picks 1-8,

B) Picks 9-16 be given to the teams who finished in the top 8 in reversing order,

C) Picks 17 onwards to be given in the order from the last team to the premiers, and so on, and

D) a priority pick to be given to a team that fails to win 15 games in 3 years.

 

[seven]

What about paper, Scissors , rock?

 

[Khan]

But what you have missed Harry is that eight is playing a final, get the finacial reward for that and has a chance to continue playing in the finals. Ninth is gone.

Playing in the finals should not be devalued as being not as good as a low pick. Team experince like that can not be bought.


Something has to be done, there is no way should teams be encouraged to go through a year with no effert and get rewarded for it. Just have a look at the best three teams this year Brissie, spent lots of time in the cellar, Sainters the same, and freo (only two years ago we called them the shockers). There has to be something for almost getting there. I'm not saying this is the answer but rewarding the bottom team with priority picks can push the middl;e teams further into the middle.

Eg This year as Doggies and the Blues both had PPicks Eight recicieved pick 12 instead of eighth. What reward ?



Khan

 

[Harry]

A kick, an injury or 2, or pure luck can seperate 8th from 9th. They both could possibly have similar lists but rewarding 9th with pick 1 and 16 and rewarding 8th with pick 17 is a big difference in terms of future development of the respective lists.

By having a lottery for the top 8 picks, teams would not be encouraged to throw in the towel because they all have an equal chance of getting the top pick. Once this is realised, teams would want to win for the pure fact that it is a football match, and that there are no other influencing factors.

At the present there are other factors involved when it comes to winning and losing, and as a fan it is quite disturbing when you want your team to lose as the rewards for losing are far to great to ignore.

 

[Khan]

That Harry , I'll agree with you on.

I cant understand anyone wanting us to lose to rpve a point or so we qualify fro priority picks. If it came out that we through games I would quite likely drop my membership then and there.

However as it is there is no incentive to a team to actrually play out the later games once the finals are out of contention. The only thing that could be used would be pride.


Lets Roar

Khan

 

[Hanno]

I think the lottery idea has merit, but I'm not so sure the bottom eight should participate. What if they had a lottery for the top five draft picks between the bottom five sides only?

Teams who finish 9-11 are usually only half a game to two games out of the finals, and in better shape list-wise that those closer to the bottom rung. Giving the ninth team a chance to walk away with the first pick could be dangerous, especially when the side that finishes 16th may end up having their first selection at number 8.

And I agree with the priority picks being decided over a longer period than a single season. It is an absolute joke that a side like Melbourne can play a socker every second year and, potentially, walk away with a free high draft pick (not picking on Melbourne there, per se, but they are the best recent example).

 

[Pomsta]

I believe that the draft should stay exactly the same except the priority picks should be at the start of the second round and not the first.

 

[the claw]

i for one would be throwing games left right and centreif i were miller.the only way forward for struggling clubs like us is the ASTUTE drafting of kids. the more the merrier.
a lot of people here bag melb and daniher, but for mine they are one of the smartest clubs in the comp over the last 4 or5 yrs, when it comes to manipulating the draft.