Draft age 21

[dockers_bengals]

I believe the draft age should be 21yo because
1.Teams would be more competitive when they get injuries and when they lose players at the end of season
2.Players would be more phyisically and mentally ready for AFL taking away a lot of time and money teams put into the developement of players.
3.Would lift the standard of the games making them closer rather than 2 or 3 teams dominating then the rest going from good to average to bad down to the bottom 2 or 3 crap teams.
4.Would mean more money could flow down to the lower grades so they can spend more time and have better facilities to teach and developing new talent
5.Would lift the standard of the next level down WAFL,VFL etc.....which could increase crowd numbers and profit.
6.Would take pressure off the young players so they can do studies,go out and basically have some kind of life.
You will always have some teams better than others but at the moment the gap from 1st to last is way too large.

 

[wang poon]

That would pretty much prevent any chance of a player playing 300 games.

The real problem is strict list sizes. 38 is too few. Back in the old days teams had over 50 on their list and players had the chance to develop in the twos before they were ready.

 

[dockers_bengals]

Maybe it would but it isnt about how many 300 gamers play it's about lifting the standard overall and you would still keep the lists at 45 with no rookies.

 

[dominguez]

You'd risk losing kids to other sports. The 16-17 year olds that are good at multiple sports usually choose footy, and part of that would be that there's increased opportunities since there are around 700 players making a living out of playing footy in Australia while the number making a good income from soccer, cricket and basketball would be far less. But 4 years is a life time to a 17 year old, so you'll get some kids choosing to focus on cricket/soccer if they excel at both and the ones that are 200cm+ may go with basketball.

One option is to push back the draft age after the first round. So that the likes of Rich, Hasleby and Judd still get to play at 18 but make the draft age minimum 19 from the 2nd round onwards.

 

[NoobHunter15]

Rather extend the list another 10 players.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

If an 18 year old gets drafted and is physically not up to AFL standard, then the club will leave them in the 2's for a few years to develop.

Imposing an increased minimum draft age will just punish those that are ready to play AFL football.

Life wont be on pause while they get drafted either. Many of these kids will have to drop football, in order to work to pay the bills. This is going to lower the overall standard of football nationally.

The longer a kid is learning their trade in a professional environment, the better they will be. Restricting the potential for growth in these environments is'nt good for anyone.

 

[The Night Shift]

Maybe it would but it isnt about how many 300 gamers play it's about lifting the standard overall and you would still keep the lists at 45 with no rookies.

This /\/\

 

[footybeat]

s**t thread. This would be Joel Selwoods first year if that was the case. Players like Hilly, Subs etc would have to wait another year when they are clearly able to contribute. There are too many good young players that able play before the age of 21

 

[Undertaker]

You'd risk losing kids to other sports. The 16-17 year olds that are good at multiple sports usually choose footy, and part of that would be that there's increased opportunities since there are around 700 players making a living out of playing footy in Australia while the number making a good income from soccer, cricket and basketball would be far less. But 4 years is a life time to a 17 year old, so you'll get some kids choosing to focus on cricket/soccer if they excel at both and the ones that are 200cm+ may go with basketball.

One option is to push back the draft age after the first round. So that the likes of Rich, Hasleby and Judd still get to play at 18 but make the draft age minimum 19 from the 2nd round onwards.

I agree entirely with this philosophy with the addition of expanding the list to 55 with no Rookies.

 

[ballanFYNE]

That would pretty much prevent any chance of a player playing 300 games.

The real problem is strict list sizes. 38 is too few. Back in the old days teams had over 50 on their list and players had the chance to develop in the twos before they were ready.

yeah i agree. Allow 45 senior players and 5 rookies.

 

[brose]

I think a lot of kids would get on with their lives and do other things if they had to wait till they were 21 to get an income from footy. imagine dedicating years 17-21 on developing your football and then not getting drafted.

 

[inferno66]

Rather extend the list another 10 players.

Agreed

 

[The Purple Sox]

If list size were increased then the salary cap would have to be raised accordingly.
That could lead to further money problems for Melbourne based clubs.
and we couldn't possibly make things harder for the Vics...

 

[dockers_bengals]

You'd risk losing kids to other sports. The 16-17 year olds that are good at multiple sports usually choose footy, and part of that would be that there's increased opportunities since there are around 700 players making a living out of playing footy in Australia while the number making a good income from soccer, cricket and basketball would be far less. But 4 years is a life time to a 17 year old, so you'll get some kids choosing to focus on cricket/soccer if they excel at both and the ones that are 200cm+ may go with basketball.

One option is to push back the draft age after the first round. So that the likes of Rich, Hasleby and Judd still get to play at 18 but make the draft age minimum 19 from the 2nd round onwards.

They would have to lift the WAFL,VFL,etc... to keep them from choosing other sports although you could be right but I would of thought they were more likely to choose the one they enjoy most regardless of the money
If all the kids under 20/21 were playing in the WAFL etc..and they had similar teaching it would be a better comp and easier to promote therefore drawing larger crowds and money.

 

[Sigwald]

I do think that the draft age is too low at the moment. Coming from a cycling back ground there were restrictions on which gears we could use in youth races to protect our knees. I know it's a different sport, but cyclists often debut in their early twenties and have careers that last until their late thirties.

I don't know how big the impact would be of losing kids to other sports, but I do believe that it would protect them for some injuries, thanks to doing work their bodies are not ready for, that might not affect their immediate future, but hurt them later in life. I think that might haved prolonged quite a few careers as wel (JLo's perhaps?).

Increasing the list size is another option that I would support, and I believe a lot of players would benefit from it, either in recovery time, under injury cloud, or whatever.

Both give us something all footy fans like, opportunity to see their heroes for a longer period, and healthier. Let the kids develop in the WAFL.

Imagine how strong, and thereby interesting and exciting, that comp would be if it had guys like Hill and Rich running around in it every week.