Raising The Minimum Draft Age

[Vanilla Gorilla 204]

It's that time of the year, so thought I'd get the ball rolling on some interesting ideas to keep us pre-occupied.

With the NBA thinking of raising their draft age to 20, its begs the question whether we should do something similar here. IMO, raising the draft age to 20, or even 19, would have huge positive implications for the league.

From the perspective of clubs, they can be much more confident with the ability of young players and their capacity to take to a professional environment. If draftees can dominate against men an other talented juniors even at 20, then clubs can lock in top 5 picks knowing they have a much higher chance of drafting a superstar. Many of our own failed draft selections could have been avoided through this simple mechanism (erghmm, Jordan Gysberts and Lucas Cook, erghhm).

From perspective of draftees, it gives them time to mature and gain a better work/life balance. Many AFL players go straight into the system at 18, and when they finish 6 years later realise that they're 24 with no idea which direction to take with their lives. Having a year or 2 before entering the system gives them time to start a uni degree or part time work, allowing them a more holistic and healthy view of life as young adults.

From the perspective VFL/lower leagues, they will benefit greatly with the influx of talent from all the 19-20 year olds. Would gain popularity and potentially even a decent fan base and financial viability.

Some negatives I see would be logistical issues during implementation (who do the clubs draft the year that 18 year olds can't get drafted?). Also the AFLPA will no doubt be in uproar over the lost salaries of the new draftees while they play in the lower leagues.

However I still think these are a necessary evil to ultimately improve the function of the league as a whole.

Thoughts?

Edited October 26, 2014 by Vanilla Gorilla

[Machsy 2,858]

The idea has merit, but the AFLPA will never allow years of potential earning to be taken away from players who already have short careers on average.

[Pennant St Dee 13,370]

Should be raised IMO but as Machsy says will never get passed the AFLPA, they will always talk about the Judds, Heppell's etc that would miss out. Which is tripe because they would come through anyway.

The amount of success with Rookie listed players gives absolute merit to it

[Macca 17,102]

Great idea but ...

Young talent can and would be lost to other sports ... t20 cricket or cricket in general, soccer, union, league, basketball, baseball etc. All those sports offer great opportunities and $$$'s.

It's not just about the sport that talented sportspeople choose, it's also about the money. At 14 or 15 years old, a career path is often chosen for the talented one's ... waiting around 5 or 6 years may not appeal.

The AFL are paranoid about other sports as it is ... by rights, they would have most likely lifted the draft age by now but there's probably a good reason that they haven't.

A better way might be that draftees could not only get paid as they are now, but have limits placed on how many games they can play in their first couple of years and ... they could also be required to keep up some tertiary studies (part time?)

[Moonshadow 17,678]

I would have thought that the AFLPA would be all for something that was in the best interest of their client's health, path to success and longevity in the game? Short sightedness if they say no because of a year or two delay in earnings.

[rpfc 28,848]

One of the first things I would get going if I was in charge.

#giverpfcthekeys

[beelzebub 23,389]

Good post VG

not sure macca.

If you were to change eligibilty by say 18 mnths It would sort a few out as to real suitability to the elite level. I think theyd benefit from being more mature. 18yo are notorious as thinkers etc lol.

Theyd all be past school concerns as a bonus.

I wouldnt think many would be lost to other sports snd if a few then so be it.

We know TAC etc is a false guide as its a impure form of the game. Allowing recruitment to see them in real world footy even at sanfl wafl vfl etc will save a lot of heartache.

I like the idea. Has much merit.

[Macca 17,102]

Another alternative is to have a properly run under 21 "Australia wide" competition. Players would need to be paid (subsidised) by the AFL or perhaps a competition like this could pay for itself. Draftees could be primarily chosen from a competition like this and the draft age could be lifted as a consequence.

However, as things currently stand, the AFL may well have to raise the minimum wage for a draftee anyway ... think it currently stands at about 80k plus match payments ... I can see the minimum wage needing to be lifted to 120k or higher because of the pressure from other sports.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

Great post, couldn't agree more.

[TRIGON 4,792]

Another alternative is to have a properly run under 21 "Australia wide" competition. Players would need to be paid (subsidised) by the AFL or perhaps a competition like this could pay for itself. Draftees could be primarily chosen from a competition like this and the draft age could be lifted as a consequence.

However, as things currently stand, the AFL may well have to raise the minimum wage for a draftee anyway ... think it currently stands at about 80k plus match payments ... I can see the minimum wage needing to be lifted to 120k or higher because of the pressure from other sports.

And wouldn't it be great if these matches could be played as curtain raisers to AFL games

#justlikethereservesusedtobe

[Macca 17,102]

Good post VG

not sure macca.

If you were to change eligibilty by say 18 mnths It would sort a few out as to real suitability to the elite level. I think theyd benefit from being more mature. 18yo are notorious as thinkers etc lol.

Theyd all be past school concerns as a bonus.

I wouldnt think many would be lost to other sports snd if a few then so be it.

We know TAC etc is a false guide as its a impure form of the game. Allowing recruitment to see them in real world footy even at sanfl wafl vfl etc will save a lot of heartache.

I like the idea. Has much merit.

I'm just looking at things from a practical viewpoint

I've been an advocate of lifting the minimum draft age for a long time but ... there are consequences in doing so.

Young people these days are no longer footy centric ... the talented one's try their hand at all sorts of sports and they know where the money is too. I know that doesn't sound all that palatable but it's the truth.

Glenn Maxwell (the cricketer) was a multi millionaire at age 23. The A-League now offers an excellent pathway for a sportsman to make a colossal living out of playing soccer (considering there are hundreds of leagues throughout the world)

And don't worry, the AFL are fully aware of their competition - it's not just the people attending the games that they would be concerned with.

[DeeSpencer 26,110]

I was a fan of raising it. At least to 19 so kids can finish school and start uni/technical training and then have something to fall back on. Although the top kids would only do the minimum of part time stuff around football. They'd be doing a lot of training for the draft and for playing well in a presumably under 19 champs.

The main reasons I wouldn't change it are:

1. Some AFL clubs develop talent far better than the existent talent pathway

- See how many tall undeveloped kids are taken each year

- See how many well the northern club academies are doing compared to the old system

2. I don't think VFL clubs would be well suited to player development

- They don't have the resources and giving them top juniors might just burden them

3. Some AFL clubs develop 18 year olds in to men better than other clubs

4. It robs the league of Bontempelli's, Viney's, Wines etc who can play from day one, from a selfish point of view with 18 clubs we need those guys

But I feel really bad for poor kids in year 12 who are committing 20+ hours a week to footy training with absolutely no guarantee and must be either sacrificing school work or sacrificing their social lives (which are somewhat important for young guys development).

Edited October 26, 2014 by Georgiou R.R. Martin

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

I'm just looking at things from a practical viewpoint

I've been an advocate of lifting the minimum draft age for a long time but ... there are consequences in doing so.

Young people these days are no longer footy centric ... the talented one's try their hand at all sorts of sports and they know where the money is too. I know that doesn't sound all that palatable but it's the truth.

Glenn Maxwell (the cricketer) was a multi millionaire at age 23. The A-League now offers an excellent pathway for a sportsman to make a colossal living out of playing soccer (considering there are hundreds of leagues throughout the world)

And don't worry, the AFL are fully aware of their competition - it's not just the people attending the games that they would be concerned with.

There is more chance of making money playing in the AFL than other sports in Australia and there is still a lot of love for the sport.

I wouldn't think that losing players to other sports is a reason not to increase the draft age. If anything, it filters out those who may have the talent but not the full desire to succeed in the AFL.

[deanox 10,033]

While I like the premise (I think the quality of the competition is reduced by having so many played each week picked based on "potential"), I'm not sure raising the draft age is the BEST option. Players like Wines, Rich, Hogan, Jager etc are ready to go age 18, and shouldn't be restricted.

I think that reducing the primary list size, adding a supplementary/development list, running a true "2nd tier" competition with a mix of the next best players in Australia and the developing players.

Details of movement between development and primary lists including upgrading, injuries etc. would need to be worked out but this way the clubs can only afford to have "ready to go" players on their primary lists, and the young pays can get development in the right environment.

The lack of quality second tier competition is hurting the game imo.

Edited October 26, 2014 by deanox

[Sir Why You Little 37,248]

As has been stated above. The AFL should look towars a "College" competition and promote it. Rookie wages...

Draft age of 20. Clubs need to draft players who have stopped growing!!

Far too much of a lottery as it is.

We have Picks 2-3 in this years draft...guarantees us absolutely nothing.

[DeeSpencer 26,110]

Another alternative is to have a properly run under 21 "Australia wide" competition. Players would need to be paid (subsidised) by the AFL or perhaps a competition like this could pay for itself. Draftees could be primarily chosen from a competition like this and the draft age could be lifted as a consequence.

However, as things currently stand, the AFL may well have to raise the minimum wage for a draftee anyway ... think it currently stands at about 80k plus match payments ... I can see the minimum wage needing to be lifted to 120k or higher because of the pressure from other sports.

Which of course leads us to the obvious end point Macca!

College football!

Maybe just a small 8-10 team league: Melbourne (VISY park) , Monash, Deakin (base the team in Geel), Latrobe, Sydney uni, UQ, University of Adelaide, UWA. Make it happen. Ballarat or Bendigo would work as well as it could be the peak sport in those towns.

Of course it would probably just compete with AFL. Would cripple state leagues and could be very hard to make financially viable especially in non football states. But it's not impossible and would solve the development pathway by having just a small number of elite programs. Players get free uni scholarships plus a small stipend so it's still attractive enough for most athletes and after maybe 2 years can enter the AFL draft.

[jazza 1,323]

Great idea but ...

Young talent can and would be lost to other sports ... t20 cricket or cricket in general, soccer, union, league, basketball, baseball etc. All those sports offer great opportunities and $$$'s.

It's not just about the sport that talented sportspeople choose, it's also about the money. At 14 or 15 years old, a career path is often chosen for the talented one's ... waiting around 5 or 6 years may not appeal.

The AFL are paranoid about other sports as it is ... by rights, they would have most likely lifted the draft age by now but there's probably a good reason that they haven't.

A better way might be that draftees could not only get paid as they are now, but have limits placed on how many games they can play in their first couple of years and ... they could also be required to keep up some tertiary studies (part time?)

Spot on.Identification of future sports people starts at an earlier age and all parents and kids are aware of this.

Young Keath? from vic cricket can attest to this.Lost to footy because crivic offered a better deal.

[Macca 17,102]

There is more chance of making money playing in the AFL than other sports in Australia and there is still a lot of love for the sport.

I wouldn't think that losing players to other sports is a reason not to increase the draft age. If anything, it filters out those who may have the talent but not the full desire to succeed in the AFL.

Well, CA are talking about having a draft of their own ... Cricket Australia contemplates player draft in bid to spread the wealth

"We're not after all athletes but we want to make sure we keep the cricketers. I'm open to things like drafts," Howard said on Monday. "We're going to throw a whole heap of things on the table."

"We introduced BBL rookies last year to give those talented kids an opportunity at the back end of squad. We think that was a good start but we think we've got to have a mechanism there for when a kid is 17, 18, 19 and maybe getting a draft offer and a contract from another sport that we've got something equally as compelling.

Despite all that, I see the biggest threat coming from soccer. The participation rates at junior level is extremely high and the pathway to a professional career in soccer is more feasible than it's ever been.

You have to ask yourself why the AFL have never lifted the draft age since it's inception (1986?) ... it wouldn't be because it hasn't been discussed ... on the contrary, I believe it has been discussed and the status quo has been maintained for good reason.

Just playing devils advocate here as if it were up to me, I'd take the risk and lift the draft age but ... I'd also want a properly run, Australia wide, under 21 competition.

[beelzebub 23,389]

The NFL doesnt oay for the College syytem or its football . Why should the AFL ?

A separate u21 is also a folly for mine as youre still essentially drafting all the same kids...its just a peculiar incubation for them...and for what ? Im not sure nor convinced of and meaningful benefit.

There alrwady exists a suitable structural level. As noted before...the VFL..SANFL..WAFL are all fine for the purposes of seeing these same kids but playing real footy..I.e tagging and heavier accountability.

Make it they need to be 19 yo at say the end of june of the year of the draft. Itd add 18 months to the current cutoff..

could be all anyone needs.

[DeeSpencer 26,110]

Spot on.Identification of future sports people starts at an earlier age and all parents and kids are aware of this.

Young Keath? from vic cricket can attest to this.Lost to footy because crivic offered a better deal.

After this year he'll be lost to cricket. He's no good. And he'll then be long odds to rebuild his footy career. He chose cricket because it was his favourite sport. Cricket Vic offered him a better deal than the base AFL contract but neither guaranteed much. It was more cricket stepped up to the mark. T20 definitely offers a chance of big earnings for state based cricketers. But it's not every one.

[DeeSpencer 26,110]

The NFL doesnt oay for the College syytem or its football . Why should the AFL ?

A separate u21 is also a folly for mine as youre still essentially drafting all the same kids...its just a peculiar incubation for them...and for what ? Im not sure nor convinced of and meaningful benefit.

There alrwady exists a suitable structural level. As noted before...the VFL..SANFL..WAFL are all fine for the purposes of seeing these same kids but playing real footy..I.e tagging and heavier accountability.

Make it they need to be 19 yo at say the end of june of the year of the draft. Itd add 18 months to the current cutoff..

could be all anyone needs.

I don't think you can trust crucial development years to state league clubs though. They don't have the coaching, development coaching, sports science or medical support. I mean to make it to AFL as a current state league player you have to play brilliantly but also seek out a lot of things by yourself as well. Obviously putting more kids in would put more resources in, but it might not bridge the gap. Too many kids might go the way of the wandering junior tennis player who hits the senior circuit without support and struggles and crashes out.

A standalone comp would counter against that to a degree. But you're right if the AFL is paying for it then it's a heavy expense. If it's a college system then it's competing with the AFL and so that means the AFL are paying for it in a different way!

[Machsy 2,858]

The American college system has it's own drawbacks, with the NCAA comin under a lot of scrutiny for exploitation of the kids playing in their competitions.

[felixdacat 459]

One of the first things I would get going if I was in charge.

#giverpfcthekeys

I apologies if you were serious rpfc but that post cracked me up. I even though of inventing a new acronym NTFF! - Now thats Fckn Funny!. I might even take it for a spin on Twitter with #NTFF!

Oh and love the idea of raising the age where do I sign?

Edited October 26, 2014 by felixdacat

[beelzebub 23,389]

But GRRM arent nearly all state league clubs affiliated ? Just saying.. I.e some mentoring and involvement possible but a little arms length id agree. But youd tighten up your recruitment by a mile.

I'm not sure as to perfect ideal but I think a finessing of something existing would be better and more workable rather than another competition with its associated vagaries teething and admin problems.

Lifting the age is the goal...the rest a road to design.

[Macca 17,102]

The NFL doesnt oay for the College syytem or its football . Why should the AFL ?

A separate u21 is also a folly for mine as youre still essentially drafting all the same kids...its just a peculiar incubation for them...and for what ? Im not sure nor convinced of and meaningful benefit.

There alrwady exists a suitable structural level. As noted before...the VFL..SANFL..WAFL are all fine for the purposes of seeing these same kids but playing real footy..I.e tagging and heavier accountability.

Make it they need to be 19 yo at say the end of june of the year of the draft. Itd add 18 months to the current cutoff..

could be all anyone needs.

What's at the base of any possible change is that most or many agree that the drafting age is too young because (A) it's difficult for those making the choices to make an accurate appraisal and (B) often the draftees are just not ready anyway

The system is flawed and more and more people are viewing the draft as a lottery for all sorts of reasons ... one of those reasons being that under 18 footy is now played in a vastly different way to AFL (tagging, flooding and the forward press are not practised at anywhere near the levels of AFL footy) Defensive aspects of the game are at way different levels as well.

Many of the draftees are required to learn too much when they are drafted. Instead of just slotting in to how it all works at the next level, they've got a lot to learn.

'VG' makes some excellent points with the OP and there are definitely some issues that need to be addressed by the AFL ... the sport at junior level should reflect the sport at senior level and there lies the problem in my opinion.