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.

rpfc do you have any thoughts on my previous post?

I agree there is a problem but really feel that a blanket raising of the draft age is a poor way to fix it.

Edited April 13, 201510 yr by deanox

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.

What TAFEs? They've gone down the same path as the thylacine, Earl.

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.

Bottom clubs shouldn't rise on the back of 18 year olds. The entire ladder is set up for regression to the mean.

Top clubs should have to overspend on the pieces needed to win it all and be older, they should fall back as the Saints and Pies have.

Scully and Trengove helped but the 2010 demons compared to the 2007-2009 demons were improved on the back of Jamar, Rivers, Moloney, Davey, Warnock reaching peak form after getting the responsibility as the Daniher year senior types were cleared out whilst guys like Grimes, Petterd, Frawley, Garland, Bate, Dunn who had been drafted earlier played a number of games together and matured as a team. The high picks were just cream that were then meant to stabilise the gains made and take the team further.

The idea is the team finished last already has a jump up the ladder the next year by preplanning and being able to get games in to a side that will work together. Plus it should be noted that the sides who finish top 4 have had great injury runs and will likely drop back a bit if their luck changes and the bottom sides are hoping to be healthier the next year. Same thing goes with booking players in early for surgeries and starting preseason earlier.

Not to mention if number 1 picks become the panacea then clubs will have more incentive to drop down and tank instead of fighting out the season.

I don't see how changing the draft age at all will suddenly make top 5 picks infallible, picks 5-10 solid and so on down the line. It's not at all that way in the NBA or NFL. The idea that it will ever be is ridiculous.

I'd like to see clubs run a scholarship squad, adding Four 17 Yr olds per year to train with their AFL club, & play in the U-18s competition, & continue their schooling.... but ineligible to play at AFL level until placed on the senior list...

At the same time raise the draft age to 19Yrs. but allow clubs up to 2 places per year to add 18Yr olds onto their rookie list.

17 & 18 Yr olds should be allowed to play in the VFL competition, if they're good enough.

rpfc do you have any thoughts on my previous post?

I agree there is a problem but really feel that a blanket raising of the draft age is a poor way to fix it.

I will have a look at it below, but I am not fixing equalisation by fixing the draft age. I just want to fix the draft age, the fact it is a plus to equalisation is a peripheral advantage.

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.

They are great examples of players that are ready right away - but they are not examples of players that will be tempted to other sports. They will be the ones pampered and singled out early to make money in this industry. One year or even a two year wait, while dominating a revamped TAC Comp or State League, to hit the AFL is not going to see them leave for another sport.

The State Leagues have more ability than you think - Ainslie plays in what everyone would consider a 'third' tier league and yet delivered a bloke straight into the AFL at 23 to perform. No doubt an AFL environment is more beneficial to ones development but that isn't really what we are arguing here - we are arguing that the wrong teenagers are chosen for development by being picked in the AFL draft at such an immature age.

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 an interesting idea but who is running these teams? And paying for them? Is it an extension of the TAC Cup, or an extension on what the NEAFL attempts to be, or are the AFL clubs expected to run these teams as their reserves?

I think something like this is fine, if you can find the funding for it. But it isn't a mitigation for the teens that get selected in the AFL - it can happen with a older draft minimum age - it would in fact help those 19 year olds prepare for their jump.

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.

If you are worried about losing players to other codes then reducing list sizes and opportunities in AFL is not helping in that regard. If these 18 year olds become 20 year olds on the cusp - perhaps they will choose a different sport, or continue their studies instead of sport. That isn't bad thing for making the draft a more exact science but reducing opportunity at AFL level by a quarter is more damaging to keeping athletes in the sport than raising the minimum draft age.

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.

Would the best be on display? Or would there be a bunch of 25 year olds? Would these teams want to win or would they want to develop? What happens to the kids on an AFL list in this environment? And if they want to develop kids then is the level of footy going to that great? And can the game afford to develop only 10-20% lower than AFL level?

Does the draft hit rate increase? Or do bigger bodies get selected? Leaving talented sticks like Fyfe for the better teams down the ladder?

I really don't see the gap closing simply because of your reforms - I can see it having the unintended consequences of clubs looking past talent and drafting bigger bodies, thus leaving talent for those teams at the top of the ladder that will 'arrive' a year or two later.

There will, of course, be unintended consequences to raising the draft age but it will raise the value of draft picks, begin to filter kids who are not suited to AFL, and push back a life decision for teenagers just out of (or still in) school.

Edited April 14, 201510 yr by rpfc

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.

Perhaps they could base these sides at regional level to utilise improved facilities and broaden coaching and support resources while improving transition practice.

Perhaps they could base these sides at regional level to utilise improved facilities and broaden coaching and support resources while improving transition practice.

Good idea. The second tier comps would be strengthed by having the best kids in them. Afl clubs would also have an incentive to assist these clubs to enhance their development programs. The product would be more attractive to TV stations. Also like the idea of a national under 23 state of origin carnival which would showcase the best 18-19 year olds and give those overlooked in a draft or late developers to show their wares. The best Under 23 year olds (excluding afl players) playing proper matches with something on the line would be great to watch and probably of interest to TV (whereas under 18s probably isn't). It might revive state of origin as well

Edited April 14, 201510 yr by binman