List Mgmt. Adelaide Crows 2021 List Management thread

[Concussion test]

The AFL has a social conscience but not when it threatens their business model.
The present system is working perfectly for them and the clubs at the moment.
It's hard enough tracking all the young talent now, without potentially scattering them to the four winds.

 

[1970crow]

Again, a fifteen year old is also still legally a child.

An 18 year old is an adult, and have finished any schooling expectations.

It seems a pretty reasonable line currently.

Why? Footy is no different to any other job and you can leave school at 15 to embark on most other careers. You can join the army at 16.5, you don't need to have finished school to do that. Adding that as a requirement for a career as a footballer seems a bit arbitrary. It's hard to find any logic in your line of thinking.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Again, a fifteen year old is also still legally a child.

An 18 year old is an adult, and have finished any schooling expectations.

It seems a pretty reasonable line currently.

I can see both sides of the age debate .....no-one is right or wrong

Clubs currently spend a lot of money on Drafted Players, because they're forced to Draft 3 players each year .....then pay them for 2 years and then delist a big % .....basically money down the drain
Many of these players at 18 are still immature physically, mentally, and in life experiences

But we also don't want to exclude the obvious Champion future players, who are ready

So here's my Draft outline .....still using the 3 x minimum Draft picks ....how a Club uses those 3 x Draft picks is up to them

1. A Club is able to Draft one 17 YO ...who can train at the club, but not play ....so a preparational year in all facets. This system was in briefly, which saw the likes of Hird, Crouch, and Tex drafted under that system

2. Each Club can Draft one U18 player ...the first round, ensuring the best players are Drafted

3. From the 2nd round onwards Draftees must be 20 YO ....this ensures fringe players previously lost by being Drafted too early, have a better chance of making it in the AFL ....it will also help clubs selecting KPP and Rucks, as they will be more physically mature

Currently most 18 YO Rucks don't see any AFL in the 1st 2 years anyway

Each Club can choose from the 3 options to complete their 3 Draft picks .....it would increase the odds in drafting, and also ensure stars are not precluded from the game

The State Leagues would also benefit from having more 18-20 YO players for an extra 2 years ....as these players still strive to get Drafted

 

[AFC979810]

Correct, or they can get another job and learn what a privilege it is to play AFL on big bucks, not an entitlement.

Maybe it'll stop some of the behavioural issues with afl players.

Damn straight. Damn entitled youths.

Maybe they could get a better haircut too. And get off of that damn Bookface or clock tock or whatever it is they waste their time doing.

If you have a few minutes I would like to tell ya about how things were better in my day.

 

[hey shorty]

Why is that a benefit?

You're kidding right ??

Your football career can be over in an instant, and that could leave you with nothing. 3 years of further education or a trade, and seeing how the real world works is a great thing.

 

[feenix67]

Why?

There's almost zero upside to what you're proposing - I mean, seriously? 21?

The talent drain to other sports would be extraordinarily, and the AFL would have clubs, managers, and young players all looking at the option of legal action.

That's even putting aside that you're assuming players will somehow keep developing in a positive way between 18 and 21 in solely amateur environments.

You just don't seem to understand that the rule you're proposing would cost a player like Sam Walsh around $500k, and that would trigger legal action the day it was signed.

This is just beyond foolish - it's really not even worth discussing.

Aside from the hilarious notion that an arbitrary entry point somehow equates to restraint of trade for those who don't qualify, I find it interesting that that is your sole focus in this debate.

Let's not forget that the draft is an equalisation mechanism. In conjunction with TPP and list size numbers, it is primarily a means to level the playing field. Nothing about it's implementation serves the purpose of the individual player. The player can't choose where they go and, as we have seen countless times, where they go can have a huge influence on their subsequent career. The only choice they have is to participate by way of nomination.

The draft age is an arbitrary number that ignores any analysis about whether 18 is an appropriate age for a footballer to enter the system successfully. It's a number arrived at by the AFL to provide school age kids a direct pathway, thus minimising leakage to other sports. It doesn't consider developmental factors and the unique physical qualities required to play our sport. It also doesn't consider the broad cross section of body types that can be successful, and how some body types need longer to mature. There is no science behind the number, it's purely there to maximise participation.

70% of picks outside of the top 10 don't make it to 100 games. Only 50% of top 10 picks make it to 100 games. When you consider that the yearly intake is usually around 50 players (out of a few hundred nominees), less than 10% forge any sort of meaningful AFL career.

It would take a much broader study to identify the reasons why, but I'm willing to bet that draft age is one of the main factors. Not only because 18 is such a crap shoot to predict longevity, but also because those who miss out on getting drafted often would have made good AFL players, had they stayed in the development system longer. Many point to the lack of mature agers being drafted to debunk this point, failing to recognize that many kids stop playing top level football if they miss the draft, thus reducing the appropriate mature age talent pool substantially.

You've also focussed on my suggested age and dropped the context of that suggestion. Talent identification in AFL is stone age, compared to other professional sports. Our junior pathways are amateurish and haphazard, there is little data and plenty of leakage. It's a lottery, not a science.

The Sam Walshes of the world will make their money. Hell, if there wasn't such a cost sink at the front end, maybe TPP could be increased to offset the later start. Given that your concern about lost earnings affects maybe 3-5 players each season, it's a low priority consideration in comparison to the huge financial losses incurred by clubs in terms of salaries and development.

 

[Vader]

1. A Club is able to Draft one 17 YO ...who can train at the club, but not play ....so a preparational year in all facets. This system was in briefly, which saw the likes of Hird, Crouch, and Tex drafted under that system

Umm... no.

Brad Crouch I will give you. He was selected under special mini-draft rules, which were much as you described. Hird & Tex were not.

They did trial this 1x 17yo rule, once, in 1998. Adelaide famously, or infamously, selected Ken McGregor ahead of Matthew Pavlich. McGregor may not have had the career Pavlich did, but he was comfortably in the top-2 17yo kids drafted that year. Most were complete busts, who barely played a game.

The reason the draft age was set at 18 (and it was increased by 3 months in 2010) is to limit the impact on players' schooling, and the degree of improvement shown by players in that 18th year. Changing the draft age to 17, even for one player per club, would negate this - and there's no benefit to balance the damage done.

 

[LiquidCrow]

You're kidding right ??

Your football career can be over in an instant, and that could leave you with nothing. 3 years of further education or a trade, and seeing how the real world works is a great thing.

Definitely a benefit, but I thought that the AFL already encourages players to pursue further tertiary educational opportunities at uni/TAFE etc for exactly those reasons.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

If you are old enough to vote, you are old enough to play AFL.

The key for me was increasing the age so we didn't have kids drafted when they were still completing school.

Ideal time for drafting is once school is completed, as that is when most embark on university & or job... or another professional sport.

The AFL already supports players undertaking further education, so there is no need to wait until a player is 21. Will lose too much talent of forced so wait.

 

[Mego Red]

You're kidding right ??

Your football career can be over in an instant, and that could leave you with nothing. 3 years of further education or a trade, and seeing how the real world works is a great thing.

Their football career could be over before it starts, if someone drops a paver on their foot on a building site, or they do a knee in the ammos.

What IS true is you're costing them their first two contracts as a professional, which would be roughly $80k for the first two years and $300k+ after.

That IS what happens.

And for what end? So they can train to be a sparky? They can do that during or following their AFL career if they're so inspired.

They gain NOTHING out of delaying their career. You just get to be judgey about young people and how footballers misbehave - which of course tradies and uni students do as well ...

 

[hey shorty]

Their football career could be over before it starts, if someone drops a paver on their foot on a building site, or they do a knee in the ammos.

What IS true is you're costing them their first two contracts as a professional, which would be roughly $80k for the first two years and $300k+ after.

That IS what happens.

And for what end? So they can train to be a sparky? They can do that during or following their AFL career if they're so inspired.

They gain NOTHING out of delaying their career. You just get to be judgey about young people and how footballers misbehave - which of course tradies and uni students do as well ...

Your last point is quite right, which is another very good reason they should up the draft age. Let people enjoy their lives before the ridiculous bubble they live in will consume them.

Your argument is ridiculous, but that's nothing unusual

 

[Dudersaurus]

Again, a fifteen year old is also still legally a child.

An 18 year old is an adult, and have finished any schooling expectations.

It seems a pretty reasonable line currently.

So a 17 yo who gets drafted in the current system, turning 18 on 31 Dec 2021 is totally reasonable, but a kid who turns 18 on 1 January 2022, 17 as well at the time of the draft, and 18 before the season starts and ineligible, is totally not restraint of trade under your made-up legal system?

 

[rabidcrow]

So a 17 yo who gets drafted in the current system, turning 18 on 31 Dec 2021 is totally reasonable, but a kid who turns 18 on 1 January 2022, 17 as well at the time of the draft, and 18 before the season starts and ineligible, is totally not restraint of trade under your made-up legal system?

Just a p1ssing contest now. Pretty well every player is studying or getting a trade while playing - the argument is irrelevant

Any draft who makes it to a second contract is going to earn ridiculously good money so why deny them.

The reason many don’t make it is with 40 on a list 8-10 aren’t going to get a game most years so they don’t get a chance to develop


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Sanders]

Thats pretty silly really. An 18 year old can join the "footy workforce". Doesn't mean they have to earn big dollars. Plenty of "jobs" in the state leagues.

You’re not serious. you are saying as long as a man can earn some dollars he can’t complain if it’s less than what he would have done otherwise

that’s not how the law works and it’s certainly not how this part of the law works

a pretty bizarre take

 

[Sanders]

Correct, or they can get another job and learn what a privilege it is to play AFL on big bucks, not an entitlement.

Maybe it'll stop some of the behavioural issues with afl players.

Correct? Based on your personal moral ethics or your understanding of restraint of trade law?

 

[Sanders]

People are legally allowed to work from, I think, 15 in most states. The AFL surely must still be reeling from the lawsuits when they raised the draft age previously. Tim Watson definitely would have sued.

Tim Watson debuted at 15

the AFLPA have a very big stake in this and are very involved around these matters

 

[Sanders]

Youve gone from silly to ridiculous now.

Maybe you should invite someone from the AFLPA onto your show?

 

[Sanders]

The following is taken from the "Major Leage Baseball draft" Wikipedia page:

Make of that what you will...

My take is that players mature at different rates. Those who are prodigies are able to perform from young ages, while those who mature more slowly perform better when drafted later.

Maybe the lesson should be that the AFL clubs need to look more closely at drafting mature aged players, rather than speculating on less physically prepared youngsters? They may achieve better results by leaving these kids to mature in the state leagues, before drafting them when they mature.

Major League Baseball teams have an active roster of 26 players, and an extended roster of 40. Teams consist of 9 starting players, plus an indeterminate (I can't find the answer) number of replacements. MLB teams play 162 games per year (plus finals), a massive increase on the AFL's 22 H&A games. This means that they are forced to rotate players far more than the AFL teams do, so draftees probably have more opportunities to impress than their AFL counterparts. Even so, they still have a large team list relative to the actual team size, so you'd expect that a high percentage of players will never make the grade - just as happens in the AFL.

dear god save us from Wikipedia

 

[Sanders]

Damn straight. Damn entitled youths.

Maybe they could get a better haircut too. And get off of that damn Bookface or clock tock or whatever it is they waste their time doing.

If you have a few minutes I would like to tell ya about how things were better in my day.

then he can tell you about how if his lot in life is good enough for him, then it’s good enough for them too

 

[feenix67]

You’re not serious. you are saying as long as a man can earn some dollars he can’t complain if it’s less than what he would have done otherwise

that’s not how the law works and it’s certainly not how this part of the law works

a pretty bizarre take

Please hahaha

Given it's not a contractual matter, the AFL could easily defend any action on the basis of protecting the financial position of itself and the clubs, as well as citing a mountain of evidence in relation to the success rate of 18 year old draftees and the negative impact of being spat out of the system a couple of years later, after a relocation away from family, friends and support networks.

Citing restraint of trade as a reason not to increase the draft age is maybe the funniest thing I've seen written on these boards.

 

[Dudersaurus]

Tim Watson debuted at 15

the AFLPA have a very big stake in this and are very involved around these matters

At the risk of engaging with you, that was my point. I know Watson debuted young. He wasn't a random player I picked from a hat to use as an example.

 

[Golumless]

Please hahaha

Given it's not a contractual matter, the AFL could easily defend any action on the basis of protecting the financial position of itself and the clubs, as well as citing a mountain of evidence in relation to the success rate of 18 year old draftees and the negative impact of being spat out of the system a couple of years later, after a relocation away from family, friends and support networks.

Citing restraint of trade as a reason not to increase the draft age is maybe the funniest thing I've seen written on these boards.

A) how on earth is potentially losing access to talented players to either other codes, other jobs or plain rotten luck "protecting the financial position of itself and the club"? That's actively harming it.

B) That's certainly a take. Raise the draft age to 20-21, and I can guarantee you most will fail. The entire league is geared to most people entering the AFL system being chewed and spat out with only the select few elevating itself above the meat grinder. The negative impacts are going to be at best the exact same, after all it's having your dream crushed for those who don't make it. Likely it might be worse seeing the extra work put in to even get that shot, as well as removing kids from a semi-professional environment for a few years.

The only way to raising the draft age to 20-21 is to completely follow the US model and have universities cover that gap between 18-21, and keeping footballers playing football in a professional environment. Considering how horrific the college system can be, seeing how they weaselled their way out of paying their athletes, it's certainly not desirable for the Australian game; as much as it'd solve a whole lot of issues with university funding.

 

[feenix67]

A) how on earth is potentially losing access to talented players to either other codes, other jobs or plain rotten luck "protecting the financial position of itself and the club"? That's actively harming it.

B) That's certainly a take. Raise the draft age to 20-21, and I can guarantee you most will fail. The entire league is geared to most people entering the AFL system being chewed and spat out with only the select few elevating itself above the meat grinder. The negative impacts are going to be at best the exact same, after all it's having your dream crushed for those who don't make it. Likely it might be worse seeing the extra work put in to even get that shot, as well as removing kids from a semi-professional environment for a few years.

The only way that raising the draft age to 20-21 is to completely follow the US model and have universities cover that gap between 18-21, and keeping footballers playing football in a professional environment. Considering how horrific the college system can, seeing how they weaselled their way out of paying their athletes, it's certainly not desirable for the Australian game; as much as it'd solve a whole lot of issues with university funding.

Sorry, I prefer fact based debates.

There's no doubt the pathway needs work. That was actually part of my original post. It's only the select few hand wringers focussing on one aspect of it.

 

[Sanders]

Please hahaha

Given it's not a contractual matter, the AFL could easily defend any action on the basis of protecting the financial position of itself and the clubs, as well as citing a mountain of evidence in relation to the success rate of 18 year old draftees and the negative impact of being spat out of the system a couple of years later, after a relocation away from family, friends and support networks.

Citing restraint of trade as a reason not to increase the draft age is maybe the funniest thing I've seen written on these boards.

oh you’re one of those. “Phil from the pub LLP”

 

[Golumless]

Sorry, I prefer fact based debates.

Evidently not considering the position you've taken.