DRAFT Value Index, bidding, northern academies, father-sons, discounts – what does it all MEAN?
As reported by AFL.com.au on Tuesday night, the AFL has introduced a raft of changes ahead of the 2026 Telstra AFL Draft, and the bare bones of it are enough to make eyes glaze over for all but the truly number-driven among us.
We've made it our task to simplify the jargon, and bring it into real-world examples.
The changes
All of this will be explained in detail below, but the main changes introduced this week are:
* Clubs can now only use two picks to match a bid, up to and including pick No.36
* A discount or loading will be applied when clubs match a bid, depending on where that club finishes on the ladder
* Clubs that finish in the bottom five on the ladder and have their top pick pushed back due to a matched bid will be compensated with an extra pick in the second round
The Draft Value Index
Long-time followers of the draft will know that each pick has an assigned Draft Value Index, which assigns a numerical value to each selection in the draft. This assists with trading picks and matching bids, and helps ensure fair deals are done.
Do you need to know the DVI or each pick? Not really.
Last year's DVI is here, if you're really keen to read it. But essentially, the No.1 pick last year was worth 3000 points, pick No.2 was 2481, and so on.
Those numbers have changed slightly this year to accommodate for Tasmania coming into the mix, because there are now 19 clubs involved in trading (and drafting from next year).
Northern Academies and Next Generation Academies
Read here for a full rundown on what these are, if you're just catching up.
Example 1: Dan Annable
In the good old days of last year's draft, Richmond placed a bid on Brisbane's academy player, Dan Annable, with pick No.6.
The Lions were keen on keeping Annable to themselves and were able to match the bid with a variety of picks (22, 23 and 39) that added up to an equivalent value to 1659 - the DVI of pick No.6 - with a 10 per cent discount slapped on the top, which was the rule at the time.
So what if Brisbane wanted to match Richmond's bid under the new rules?
Given clubs can now only use a maximum of two picks to match bids, the Lions would have to cough up picks 14 and 15 (the equivalent in DVI to Pick 6) to avoid going into a points deficit.
Example 2: Gold Coast's academy haul
Last year, Gold Coast stockpiled selections in the 30s, 40s and 50s in order to have the points required to match bids on four academy first-round propects – Zeke Uwland, Dylan Patterson, Jai Murray and Beau Addinsall.
The canny Suns even managed to trade in Melbourne superstar Christian Petracca, given they didn't really need top-end picks and could simply match bids on their academy players with a mass of late selections.
Under the new rules, it's likely the Suns would be able to land only two of their four academy players as well as Petracca, or get all four academy boys but not Petracca.
Example 3: Brisbane's father-son crop
Already in a dominant window, Brisbane has lucked into a generational group of players with the addition of father-sons Jaspa Fletcher as well as Will and Levi Ashcroft, adding quality to an already stacked list by picking up the three young guns but parting only with picks in the 30s and 40s.
The timing has been golden for the Lions, because they would not be able to do so under the new rules.
Depending on the finishing position of the team matching the bid, a loading or a discount will be applied.
Finished first or second? You'll have to cough up an additional 20 per cent on bids placed between picks 1-18.
Made a preliminary final (third or fourth)? That'll be an additional 10 per cent whack.
A mid-range side that made finals but finished 5-10? There's no loading or discount.
Missed finals and you really, really need that son of gun or academy kid who's been tearing up the track? Congrats, you've got 10 per cent discount.
Example 4: The Isaac Heeney hypothetical
Let's look at the case of Sydney, who is currently in first place.
Say, for argument's sake, that they've got another Isaac Heeney-type academy kid on the rise, but they've finished the season at the top after taking out a breakthrough flag.
Heeney attracted a bid at Pick 2 back in 2014. In this scenario under the new rules, the flag-winning Swans (with the 20 per cent loading for finishing first) would have to cough up picks No.7 and 8 to match the bid and avoid going into a points deficit.
To do so, they would have to get very, very busy at the trade table and let go of at least one quality player to get some top picks through the door, or they simply could not match the bid.
Compensation for the bottom teams
Richmond dropped down the ladder and started their rebuild at an inopportune time, with four of the top six draftees last year tied to clubs through the academies or father-son.
It meant the Picks 3 and 4 the Tigers had for finishing low on the ladder were pushed out to 7 and 8, far from ideal for a rebuilding club.
If the same thing was to happen this year – which is likely given the talented Cody Walker (Carlton father-son) and Dougie Cochrane (Port Adelaide NGA) are predicted to go early in the draft – Richmond will be compensated with an extra pick.
Any team that finishes in the bottom five on the ladder and whose pick is pushed back by a spot due to a matched bid will be handed an extra pick at the start of the second round of the draft.
Why now?
Having seen clubs pick up players for a relative steal in recent years, there's been agitation for some time for the rules to change to force clubs to pay a fairer price for top talent at the draft.
Clubs like Carlton and Port Adelaide have been vocal in their opposition to the changes being made now, given they have tied players in the drafts coming up, and they will be now forced to pay a bigger price for them. The likes of Brisbane and Gold Coast, on the other hand, have benefitted from the old rules.
The AFL's EGM of Football Performance, Greg Swann, said on Wednesday that the bullet would have had to be bitten at some point, and that some clubs were always going to be more unhappy than others.
"We ended up coming to the conclusion that there's never a good time," Swann said.
"There's always someone's that got a dog in the fight. They won't all be happy.
"This change got raised at the CEOs conference in July last year, so it's a bit disingenuous to say they didn't know it was coming.
"The detail they didn't know what was coming, but it was flagged that there was going to be a change."
A few other things ...
With clubs now forced to use more high-end picks to match bids, we should have a shorter first round, with previous years stretching out to 25 and 27 picks. However, the second round could be longer due to the compensation picks mentioned above.
Specifically on the father-son rule, Swann said there was no consideration given to changing the qualifying criteria, which currently requires a player's father to have played 100 games or more at one club to be eligible for that club.
Possible free agency compensation changes – which has also affected the top end of drafts, with Oscar Allen (pick No.2) and Tom De Koning (No.9) attracting hefty recompense last year – also weren't looked at closely. Free agency ruled enshrined in the Collective Bargaining Agreement with the players' association, and any change would require the support of the AFLPA.