Raising The Minimum Draft Age

[jazza 1,323]

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.

Thats right,but by lifting the afl draft age,Young men like him whether they are good enough or not,will take the option for the next sport.

[DeeSpencer 26,080]

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.

Paul Roos may be opposed to it but TAC footy is played the way it is for a reason. To let as many kids as possible show off their attacking skills and attributes. Defense can be taught and I'm sure back pockets still play similarly in TAC footy. Contested ball mids still win contested ball. It should be a huge step up from any under 18 football to the top level, I don't see that being a problem. You pay coaches to coach and you pay recruiters to notice the players who can step up.

I don't think the difficulty in recruiting or draftees not being ready is any reason to change the system. High level VFL players still struggle to step up and recruiting is just as difficult in US sports with top flight college programs.

In my mind the main reasons to raise the age is to let kids have a fair crack at finishing schooling and figure out what they'll do if they don't make it by giving them some time to start uni or training.

[Macca 17,032]

Paul Roos may be opposed to it but TAC footy is played the way it is for a reason. To let as many kids as possible show off their attacking skills and attributes. Defense can be taught and I'm sure back pockets still play similarly in TAC footy. Contested ball mids still win contested ball. It should be a huge step up from any under 18 football to the top level, I don't see that being a problem. You pay coaches to coach and you pay recruiters to notice the players who can step up.

I don't think the difficulty in recruiting or draftees not being ready is any reason to change the system. High level VFL players still struggle to step up and recruiting is just as difficult in US sports with top flight college programs.

In my mind the main reasons to raise the age is to let kids have a fair crack at finishing schooling and figure out what they'll do if they don't make it by giving them some time to start uni or training.

I agree with the sentiment of your last paragraph but I do have an issue with various draftees not being able to adapt to the modern game. Some high picks are just not up to speed and never look like getting up to speed.

I've watched bits and pieces from a number of TAC games (and the highlight packages) and whilst it may be good to watch, it concerns me that these potential draftees are playing a different style of footy.

I fully understand the reasoning behind it all but the "leap" to AFL footy is made harder because of the "relaxed" nature of the games.

As an example, I watched the Lever highlights package and to me, the games resembled suburban footy... I couldn't draw a line through it at all so therefore I have no opinion of him. The lack of pressure is obvious and the lack of numbers at the contests is another major difference.

To each his own I suppose. TAC footy doesn't do it for me - maybe if they had 36 players in one quarter of the ground for a large percentage of the games my opinion would be different

[rpfc 28,769]

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?

Well, yes, I am joking, but you have found way too much mirth in the idea...

[Jesse Christ 2,884]

So much mirth it inspired a new word! Gotta draw confidence from that!

[Gipsy Danger 1,067]

I've always liked the idea of a compulsory development year. Can still draft at 18 but not availible for AFL selection until their second year.

I don't think raising the draft age is the answer and I don't know how it would be implemented unless you pretty much had no draft for a year. Otherwise you only have the guys who didn't get picked in the previous draft to select from.

[felixdacat 459]

Well, yes, I am joking, but you have found way too much mirth in the idea...

Just the thought of any D'Lander taking the reins at AFL house fill me with mirth imagine the havoc they could wreak against all our opposition. I reckon the Essendon SAGA would have been sorted and we could get compensation for the not Tanking. Hawthorn and Collingwood would play all their games Twighlight on a Sunday.

[rpfc 28,769]

Just the thought of any D'Lander taking the reins at AFL house fill me with mirth imagine the havoc they could wreak against all our opposition. I reckon the Essendon SAGA would have been sorted and we could get compensation for the not Tanking. Hawthorn and Collingwood would play all their games Twighlight on a Sunday.

I would be a firm, yet fair, hand on the till and hide on the throne.

I will build a throne...

[beelzebub 23,383]

Interesting ; we all pretty much agree the age ought to be lifted. Slight variances as to quite how much and how to manage their transition from TAC kiddie ball to something looking a bit more like the 'real " game but all in all consensus

Don't fret RPFC some bloke called Andersen has despatched a Tailor to make you suitable apparel for that new Throne of yours

I wonder what it will take for the League to see sense on all of this. Is this something that needs to be driven by the coaches association ?. They after all are the ones lumped with the lads, often before they ought to be.

[DeeZee 7,445]

I think we have far too many kids playing on AFL lists.

Bodies aren't fully developed, and it's hard to tell when it's boys against boys.

The ratio is very high compared to top level sports around the world including, Gridiron, soccer, basketball etc.

I would have a draft for under 19 kids where each club can pick one player each, then 19 and over can go into the normal draft.

[RalphiusMaximus 6,088]

The big issue with raising the draft age is that there isn't a viable pathway for the players to follow. In the USA the college system is a strong and viable pathway leading to professional sport, but the standard of college leagues in Australia is far lower, so we couldn't follow that model. The state leagues aren't a development path. They are looking to win for their own sake. If you want to put 18 year olds in there, you might as well put them into the AFL where they have access to better coaching and facilities.

[grazman 7,451]

Sorry, I haven't got enough time atm to read the whole thread, but thought I'd add my 2cents worth (sorry if its been mentioned already).

Why the draft age should be raised. Because there is more certainty and less risk with draft picks (most players then become more a known quantity - with maybe the exception of a few KPP)

Why it won't be raised. The AFL believe it would allow the most promising junior talent to be poached by other sports because they won't wait around a couple more years when they can earn big dollars earlier. (not saying I believe that btw, but I think its a real concern for the administrators of our game).

[deanox 9,989]

BB, I don't agree it should be lifted.

There are plenty of 18 year olds who impact enough that a blanket ban is inappropriate.

The issue isn't the draft age (which at 18 is appropriate), it is:

-making sure the best players are on display each week

-reducing the "hit or miss" nature of the draft

These goals can be achieved without raising the draft age, which would restrain trade for adults and would deny the opportunity for some "ready to go" players.

Reducing primary list sizes would force clubs to only lost "ready" players, regardless of age.

Development listed players could include a 3 year contract combined with other personal development; uni course, trade or other life/work skills.

If a quality 2nd tier competition was established, that competition could be used to develop kids who would then be drafted into the AFL when they are ready to impact.

Edited October 27, 2014 by deanox

[beelzebub 23,383]

BB, I don't agree it should be lifted.

There are plenty of 18 year olds who impact enough that a blanket ban is inappropriate. You cant have half a dozen sets of rules here. Only one. Players, real ones will still get there.

The issue isn't the draft age (which at 18 is appropriate), it is: a)

-making sure the best players are on display each week b)

-reducing the "hit or miss" nature of the draft c)

The issue is a) Draft age, that's the whole point , surely and I don't see why delaying prevents b) in fact it ought to heighten the probability of c)

This is about maturity. 18y0 lads are notorious for being all over the shop. its reasoned its not until about 21-22 that the 'thinking processes " have matured. A lot of laws get drafted around this ideology. There are the lads who'll reach their Zenith in ability at or around 18-19 and these can then be observed and there are those who are late to the scene , sts, and they'l lbe able to present better.

In the days very few under age ( sub 18) kids got to play footy in the 1sts. There was the U19s and the Resssies. A few really shone and got through. They were the exception to the rule, the aberration if you were. Now there's no such natural process to climbing the steps. Too many kids on primary lists in the rush to sate from the buffet the AFL provides.

These goals can be achieved without raising the draft age, HOW ? which would restrain trade for adults and would deny the opportunity for some "ready to go" players. How is it a restraint..Its not a RIGHT ..They dont just get to play. Its a privileged circumstance.

Reducing primary list sizes would force clubs to only lost "ready" players, regardless of age. Who said anything about reducing the Primary List size ?

Development listed players could include a 3 year contract combined with other personal development; uni course, trade or other life/work skills. This whole kids to footy thing is so skewed now its ridiculous. Footy is a a career choice. There NO guarantees etc. What we have today is the mess caused by the AFL in an attempt to sow up the young talent. But many of them arent suited , really , to the rigors of Elite Sport. That goes for many sports. The lure of the dollar etc has given many a false ideal as to where they sit in the grand scheme. A lot of kids are now inducted into the machine only to be spat out 5 mins latter. This ought to be avoided. It can be if the moment of entrance is delayed and many can be better sorted and effecteively graded as to 'real' suitability for AFL.

If a quality 2nd tier competition was established, that competition could be used to develop kids who would then be drafted into the AFL when they are ready to impact. A 2nd Tier comps already exist..Its where many of these kids are anyway...its called the Magoos !! A lot of heartache , let alone wasted resources could be avoided by waiting ....even just a short 18 months or so. The problem with some kids is they effectively peak at or around 1 year after currently entering the system. They get fond out as it were and ...bump...back out on the street. Where they have to pick up again. Could be avoided as I say if little more patience were employed.

Those destined to make their mark in footy still will.

[rpfc 28,769]

Picks are not as meaningful as they could be if the draft age was 20.

Some 18 year olds are suited to play footy - great, well done to them - they will be selected very high when they are 20.

At the moment, TAC footy is getting further and further away from AFL footy that picking the best teens is as treacherous as it ever has been.

They should be made to play 2 years at their local SANFL, WAFL, VFL, etc. club and enter the AFL after two seasons of footy.

No other mechanism is as effective as clubs having a better idea of who they are recruiting.

This will provide some help to local comps - give kids a better introduction to AFL and allow them to better juggle uni and footy in the first couple years.

They will lose some players to other codes - boo hoo - the AFL isn't League; there isn't a great exodus history to be scared of - it's fear mongering.

[beelzebub 23,383]

Picks are not as meaningful as they could be if the draft age was 20.

Some 18 year olds are suited to play footy - great, well done to them - they will be selected very high when they are 20.

At the moment, TAC footy is getting further and further away from AFL footy that picking the best teens is as treacherous as it ever has been.

They should be made to play 2 years at their local SANFL, WAFL, VFL, etc. club and enter the AFL after two seasons of footy.

No other mechanism is as effective as clubs having a better idea of who they are recruiting.

This will provide some help to local comps - give kids a better introduction to AFL and allow them to better juggle uni and footy in the first couple years.

They will lose some players to other codes - boo hoo - the AFL isn't League; there isn't a great exodus history to be scared of - it's fear mongering.

yep !!!

[Trisul 664]

Under consideration

[Fat Tony 5,262]

This is a bad idea. Why should players have to wait? If they are old enough to go to war, they should be allowed to play footy.

This is not the answer to the equalisation debate.

[Straight Sets Simon 23,113]

This is a bad idea. Why should players have to wait? If they are old enough to go to war, they should be allowed to play footy.

This is not the answer to the equalisation debate.

This is a great idea.

It will make drafting more accurate as more kids will have a year to play in a senior side in the a state league. I think you will find that it will become less of a lottery as a result. This is beneficial for players and clubs.

It will force them to work or study (whilst not earning an AFL income) meaning it help them in their personal development and give them greater perspective on life.

Finally, it will give a greater opportunity for those who are late developers to catch up, again improving draft accuracy.

Edited April 13, 2015 by Clint Bizkit

[Fat Tony 5,262]

This is a great idea.

It will make drafting more accurate as more kids will have a year to play in a senior side in the a state league. I think you will find that it will become less of a lottery as a result. This is benefical for players and clubs.

It will force them to work or study (whilst not eanring an AFL income) meaning it help them in their personal development and give them greater perspective on life.

Finally, it will give a greater opportunity for those who are late developers to catch up, again improving draft accuracy.

If the AFL want to equalise the competition they should reorder the draft to give more picks to the bottom sides. But I don't see why grown adults should be denied the chance to play AFL footy.

[deanox 9,989]

Again, while I agree with the premise of "getting the best players on display", I don't agree this is the way to do it.

Why not?

a) raising the draft age will probably see some potential players move to other sports. Some players who are ready to impact won't be able to (Hogan and Brayshaw are great examples).

b) the state leagues aren't very good. The standard is much lower, training 2 nights a week isn't enough, the standard of coaching and immersion isn't there. Young players are more likely to stagnate for a year than develop like they can in the AFL system.

If we want the best players on display, another option is needed. The best option I can see is a combination:

Have a genuine 2nd tier competition which means these young kids can get development at a level on 10-20% below AFL, rather than at 30-50% below AFL. This competition would consist of the next best in the country, they get paid to be part time players (20 hours a week), rather than be full time something else and train twice a week. It will consist of the next best players and the best up and coming kids who are ready at that level. Large squads to enable development, and selection based on performance (i.e. teams can bring talent in and out during the year from any level if it deserves selection), allowing cream to rise to the top.

This is combined with reducing primary list sizes. This means means clubs won't be able to draft 5-10 players each year, and they won't be able to pick speculative kids and develop them for 3-5 years, hoping they turn good. The draft age will raise naturally as clubs are forced to pick guaranteed players, not potential players. With a list size of say 33-35 you need to have only players ready to perform at AFL level, this means an 18 yo midfield gun or a Hogan type forward, gets drafted age 18. But a Watts plays 2nd tier for 2 years, despite potential. Any LTI can be replaced with a temporary signing from the other leagues.

In this way players get drafted only when they are ready to hit the ground running. The best are on display each week. Drafting hit rate increases for all clubs. "Development" is less of an issue. Clubs that take a punt on young kids will really take a risk, and due to the reduced list sizes, the difference between the best clubs and worst clubs will close, as the good clubs won't be able to top up with young developing talent while still having a dominating best 22.

[george_on_the_outer 7,696]

Under consideration

If GM can explain how a bottom side with a solitary pick which is ahead of the reigning premiers pick by 17 places can lift them from cellar dweller status....then do it.

But to achieve the desired result you need to stop the wholesale exploitation of bottom clubs by the free agent process, not by changing the draft age.

All we will see is even more developed and capable players heading to the top clubs.

[rpfc 28,769]

I would welcome it for the reasons stipulated earlier.

18 is too young.

One year, a gap year of sorts, is not going to lose the next Natinui to Union or Rioli to soccer.

It is far more likely to remove the Cooks and Gysberts from being selected with 1st round picks or maybe at all as they are exposed playing in a semi professional environment.

I would have them 2 years removed from school but will take the 1 year if that is what is on offer.

The gap for high draft picks to play AFL is becoming so wide that the have diminished the value of high draft picks - and that hurts the competition.

[Macca 17,032]

I've always been in favour of lifting the draft age but didn't think the AFL would address what is an obvious issue ... however, just lifting the age by 1 year means they'll need to possibly re-structure the next tier down.

Perhaps the newly named (if it happens) under 19 or under 20 championships could involve a lot more games - all the states and territories could play for the one championship title (each team would then play 7-8 games, plus finals)

Also, the AFL might decide to incorporate a transitional period (allow clubs to still draft 1 or 2 eighteen year old's for a couple/few years)

Raising the draft age by 2 years should fix a lot of the problems but 1 year would do for starters. Lifting the draft age by 2 years to age 20 carries with it the unknown risk of young sportsmen possibly choosing other sports. Maybe the AFL could introduce a rookie wage to offset that obstacle ... for the better players perhaps - a scholarship type scheme or such like.

[Earl Hood 6,101]

I think if we lifted the draft age to 26 we would have a good idea whether a particular draft prospect is up to it. Of course by then the kid you are after my have given up and be doing a TAFE course.