It's an ok idea in theory PeetoDell, but it would need the TAC competition to expand into something bigger for it to work imo.Just playing state league footy doesn’t really make sense to me. As others have said, if they can play state league, then they might as well play AFL.
I’m not suggesting the AFL just tells everyone to fk off for 3 more years. It would require a LOT of changes. And I think AFL, State leagues and the players would be better for it. But obviously it would never happen.
For me - without a lot of time to put into a response - it has to do with the endless over-officiation of the game on and off field.
I think you’ll find it’s over - officiousness. Or over - officiality. Or offal-licious. One of them anyway.
I think you'll find it's over - officiousness. Or over - officiality. Or offal-licious. One of them anyway.
I told you when I woke up that I was tired.
I think you'll find it's over - officiousness. Or over - officiality. Or offal-licious. One of them anyway.
What a great word invention! From this day forth, I will refer to the maggots as offal-licious.
I’d go with orificial, but don’t believe the dictionary definition, this is when a bunch of arseholes come in and take over the official positions*
*I may have just made that up. The AFL: proud to be the preferred home of the orificial
I think you'll find it's over - officiousness. Or over - officiality. Or offal-licious. One of them anyway.What a great word invention! From this day forth, I will refer to the maggots as offal-licious.
It’s what Beyoncé feeds her horses
Conscription may not be such a bad idea. Things ain't the best in Melbourne with the local lout juveniles. Its done in other countries why not here?Raising the draft age:Encourages kids to go and experience the real world rather than being chaperoned from High School straight to league footy and thinking they are superstars. Builds hunger.
Provides kids enough time to complete a Bachelors Degree, get most of an apprenticeship done (is it 4 yrs?), do a diploma or get a real (shitty when compared to AFL) job. Builds hunger and appreciation, gets them ready for life after footy and gives them something proper to do/continue to do/build on off the field during their AFL career.
Requires kids to put in 3 years of work at state level to earn their stripes and ensure commitment
Related to above (and below) would see more money in the state leagues and more development which could see us producing better players in the second tier
Related to above, could help pathways for remote, indigenous, non traditional backgrounds
Perhaps most of all would be a HUGE boon to the state leagues which are all dying a slow death (or to put it more accurately could use a boost in interest). Imagine seeing the WAFL grand final with Jesse Hogan, Jeager O’Meara and Cam McCarthy all playing as final year WAFL players wondering who was going to stamp themselves as a #1 pick? (Yes I know they were from different clubs and Jaeger is older but I’m trying to paint a picture). Attendances and TV viewership would triple straight away, it could become like the NCAA (in a good way, I am against Americanisation just as much as anyone, hi @Reboot ).That’s just off the top of my head.
I don’t know if 21 is the right age.
I haven’t considered it fully, you might allow say 10 underagers to go each year for example.
Yes we would miss out on a couple of good players in their 1st 2nd and 3rd years undoubtedly but this could be helped (see above).I just think it would be good for the state league and good for the young men who come into the system and I think they’re the most important thing here. The somewhat toxic culture that is all too pervasive these days would be mitigated and helped a lot by making sure people don’t come into the system until they’re (a lot more) ready.
So we now draft kids at 17 and take away all their rights, move them to hell holes in Perth, Adelaide, Western Sydney and Qld, and most, nearly all are happy to do it.
You want to force kids who can probably only have the skills to play footy, to do an apprenticeship or a Uni degree, so they can “experience the real world” even if they do not have the brains or aptitude.
Why don’t we put them all in the Army at 18, send them to Afghanistan, so they can experience a real shitehole in the “real world”. Those who survive and have not been turned into drug addicts or have severe mental illness, or can still run and jump, can then play footy.
Think you need to rethink your plan.
1. The corruptfl using the media as a means of big brother in order to police the players, aka "role models (what a load of excrement). This is why there's no more "fun" for them 2. Big fat cash cow bosses who only think with their wallets 3. Professionalism 4. Supporters getting progressively dumber 5. More brainwashing 6. Clubs getting more gutless 7. The corruptfl eating alive the vfl/vfa because they are a bunch of lazy tightarse c's who didn't want to start their own reserves, though happy to pump money into point number 9. 8. Favourtism of teams, including bribery and collusion with umpires 9. Souless expansion clubs with american nicknames and ■■■■■■ jumpers 10. Moronic, lieing, ■■■■■■■■ commentators who are where they are because they are good at being wankers and jobz for da boyz. 11. Rule changing 12. Political tokenism crap to pretend they careBest thing about football is this forum. Everything else can fark off.
Not too keen on the media policing senior AFL officials when it concerns a wristwatch and a prostitute.
Probably because the military are professionals, not baby sitters and shouldn't be forced to deal with every 18yo with sh*t for brains and an attitude to match who doesn't want to be there.Conscription may not be such a bad idea. Things ain't the best in Melbourne with the local lout juveniles. Its done in other countries why not here?Raising the draft age:Encourages kids to go and experience the real world rather than being chaperoned from High School straight to league footy and thinking they are superstars. Builds hunger.
Provides kids enough time to complete a Bachelors Degree, get most of an apprenticeship done (is it 4 yrs?), do a diploma or get a real (shitty when compared to AFL) job. Builds hunger and appreciation, gets them ready for life after footy and gives them something proper to do/continue to do/build on off the field during their AFL career.
Requires kids to put in 3 years of work at state level to earn their stripes and ensure commitment
Related to above (and below) would see more money in the state leagues and more development which could see us producing better players in the second tier
Related to above, could help pathways for remote, indigenous, non traditional backgrounds
Perhaps most of all would be a HUGE boon to the state leagues which are all dying a slow death (or to put it more accurately could use a boost in interest). Imagine seeing the WAFL grand final with Jesse Hogan, Jeager O’Meara and Cam McCarthy all playing as final year WAFL players wondering who was going to stamp themselves as a #1 pick? (Yes I know they were from different clubs and Jaeger is older but I’m trying to paint a picture). Attendances and TV viewership would triple straight away, it could become like the NCAA (in a good way, I am against Americanisation just as much as anyone, hi @Reboot ).That’s just off the top of my head.
I don’t know if 21 is the right age.
I haven’t considered it fully, you might allow say 10 underagers to go each year for example.
Yes we would miss out on a couple of good players in their 1st 2nd and 3rd years undoubtedly but this could be helped (see above).I just think it would be good for the state league and good for the young men who come into the system and I think they’re the most important thing here. The somewhat toxic culture that is all too pervasive these days would be mitigated and helped a lot by making sure people don’t come into the system until they’re (a lot more) ready.
So we now draft kids at 17 and take away all their rights, move them to hell holes in Perth, Adelaide, Western Sydney and Qld, and most, nearly all are happy to do it.
You want to force kids who can probably only have the skills to play footy, to do an apprenticeship or a Uni degree, so they can “experience the real world” even if they do not have the brains or aptitude.
Why don’t we put them all in the Army at 18, send them to Afghanistan, so they can experience a real shitehole in the “real world”. Those who survive and have not been turned into drug addicts or have severe mental illness, or can still run and jump, can then play footy.
Think you need to rethink your plan.
Raising the draft age: I don't know if 21 is the right age. I haven't considered it fully, you might allow say 10 underagers to go each year for example. Yes we would miss out on a couple of good players in their 1st 2nd and 3rd years undoubtedly but this could be helped (see above).I just think it would be good for the state league and good for the young men who come into the system and I think they’re the most important thing here. The somewhat toxic culture that is all too pervasive these days would be mitigated and helped a lot by making sure people don’t come into the system until they’re (a lot more) ready.
Under the current system Tim Watson would have missed the first three years of his career, a draft age at 21 would have seen him miss 6 years.
As for allowing 10 underagers, which players would be selected and using what criteria. I could see masses of lawsuits for restraint of trade.
Probably because the military are professionals, not baby sitters and shouldn't be forced to deal with every 18yo with sh*t for brains and an attitude to match who doesn't want to be there.Conscription may not be such a bad idea. Things ain't the best in Melbourne with the local lout juveniles. Its done in other countries why not here?Raising the draft age:Encourages kids to go and experience the real world rather than being chaperoned from High School straight to league footy and thinking they are superstars. Builds hunger.
Provides kids enough time to complete a Bachelors Degree, get most of an apprenticeship done (is it 4 yrs?), do a diploma or get a real (shitty when compared to AFL) job. Builds hunger and appreciation, gets them ready for life after footy and gives them something proper to do/continue to do/build on off the field during their AFL career.
Requires kids to put in 3 years of work at state level to earn their stripes and ensure commitment
Related to above (and below) would see more money in the state leagues and more development which could see us producing better players in the second tier
Related to above, could help pathways for remote, indigenous, non traditional backgrounds
Perhaps most of all would be a HUGE boon to the state leagues which are all dying a slow death (or to put it more accurately could use a boost in interest). Imagine seeing the WAFL grand final with Jesse Hogan, Jeager O’Meara and Cam McCarthy all playing as final year WAFL players wondering who was going to stamp themselves as a #1 pick? (Yes I know they were from different clubs and Jaeger is older but I’m trying to paint a picture). Attendances and TV viewership would triple straight away, it could become like the NCAA (in a good way, I am against Americanisation just as much as anyone, hi @Reboot ).That’s just off the top of my head.
I don’t know if 21 is the right age.
I haven’t considered it fully, you might allow say 10 underagers to go each year for example.
Yes we would miss out on a couple of good players in their 1st 2nd and 3rd years undoubtedly but this could be helped (see above).I just think it would be good for the state league and good for the young men who come into the system and I think they’re the most important thing here. The somewhat toxic culture that is all too pervasive these days would be mitigated and helped a lot by making sure people don’t come into the system until they’re (a lot more) ready.
So we now draft kids at 17 and take away all their rights, move them to hell holes in Perth, Adelaide, Western Sydney and Qld, and most, nearly all are happy to do it.
You want to force kids who can probably only have the skills to play footy, to do an apprenticeship or a Uni degree, so they can “experience the real world” even if they do not have the brains or aptitude.
Why don’t we put them all in the Army at 18, send them to Afghanistan, so they can experience a real shitehole in the “real world”. Those who survive and have not been turned into drug addicts or have severe mental illness, or can still run and jump, can then play footy.
Think you need to rethink your plan.
Sounds like the military need to HTFU if they are intimidated by a bunch of disaffected teenagers. 
Gilligan
Raising the draft age:Encourages kids to go and experience the real world rather than being chaperoned from High School straight to league footy and thinking they are superstars. Builds hunger.
Provides kids enough time to complete a Bachelors Degree, get most of an apprenticeship done (is it 4 yrs?), do a diploma or get a real (shitty when compared to AFL) job. Builds hunger and appreciation, gets them ready for life after footy and gives them something proper to do/continue to do/build on off the field during their AFL career.
Requires kids to put in 3 years of work at state level to earn their stripes and ensure commitment
Related to above (and below) would see more money in the state leagues and more development which could see us producing better players in the second tier
Related to above, could help pathways for remote, indigenous, non traditional backgrounds
Perhaps most of all would be a HUGE boon to the state leagues which are all dying a slow death (or to put it more accurately could use a boost in interest). Imagine seeing the WAFL grand final with Jesse Hogan, Jeager O’Meara and Cam McCarthy all playing as final year WAFL players wondering who was going to stamp themselves as a #1 pick? (Yes I know they were from different clubs and Jaeger is older but I’m trying to paint a picture). Attendances and TV viewership would triple straight away, it could become like the NCAA (in a good way, I am against Americanisation just as much as anyone, hi @Reboot ).That’s just off the top of my head.
I don’t know if 21 is the right age.
I haven’t considered it fully, you might allow say 10 underagers to go each year for example.
Yes we would miss out on a couple of good players in their 1st 2nd and 3rd years undoubtedly but this could be helped (see above).I just think it would be good for the state league and good for the young men who come into the system and I think they’re the most important thing here. The somewhat toxic culture that is all too pervasive these days would be mitigated and helped a lot by making sure people don’t come into the system until they’re (a lot more) ready.
So we now draft kids at 17 and take away all their rights, move them to hell holes in Perth, Adelaide, Western Sydney and Qld, and most, nearly all are happy to do it.
You want to force kids who can probably only have the skills to play footy, to do an apprenticeship or a Uni degree, so they can “experience the real world” even if they do not have the brains or aptitude.
Why don’t we put them all in the Army at 18, send them to Afghanistan, so they can experience a real shitehole in the “real world”. Those who survive and have not been turned into drug addicts or have severe mental illness, or can still run and jump, can then play footy.
Think you need to rethink your plan.
So in all seriousness, how do you feel about the fact players are required to be 18 and finish year 12 before they can be taken in the draft? Given the completion rate of year 12 hovers around 70%, wouldn’t it be better to allow teams to draft from those 30% of 16 year olds who just aren’t interested in school any more?
And they don’t have to complete year 12, they just have to be old enough for it to be possible.
Raising the draft age:Encourages kids to go and experience the real world rather than being chaperoned from High School straight to league footy and thinking they are superstars. Builds hunger.
Provides kids enough time to complete a Bachelors Degree, get most of an apprenticeship done (is it 4 yrs?), do a diploma or get a real (shitty when compared to AFL) job. Builds hunger and appreciation, gets them ready for life after footy and gives them something proper to do/continue to do/build on off the field during their AFL career.
Requires kids to put in 3 years of work at state level to earn their stripes and ensure commitment
Related to above (and below) would see more money in the state leagues and more development which could see us producing better players in the second tier
Related to above, could help pathways for remote, indigenous, non traditional backgrounds
Perhaps most of all would be a HUGE boon to the state leagues which are all dying a slow death (or to put it more accurately could use a boost in interest). Imagine seeing the WAFL grand final with Jesse Hogan, Jeager O’Meara and Cam McCarthy all playing as final year WAFL players wondering who was going to stamp themselves as a #1 pick? (Yes I know they were from different clubs and Jaeger is older but I’m trying to paint a picture). Attendances and TV viewership would triple straight away, it could become like the NCAA (in a good way, I am against Americanisation just as much as anyone, hi @Reboot ).That’s just off the top of my head.
I don’t know if 21 is the right age.
I haven’t considered it fully, you might allow say 10 underagers to go each year for example.
Yes we would miss out on a couple of good players in their 1st 2nd and 3rd years undoubtedly but this could be helped (see above).I just think it would be good for the state league and good for the young men who come into the system and I think they’re the most important thing here. The somewhat toxic culture that is all too pervasive these days would be mitigated and helped a lot by making sure people don’t come into the system until they’re (a lot more) ready.
So we now draft kids at 17 and take away all their rights, move them to hell holes in Perth, Adelaide, Western Sydney and Qld, and most, nearly all are happy to do it.
You want to force kids who can probably only have the skills to play footy, to do an apprenticeship or a Uni degree, so they can “experience the real world” even if they do not have the brains or aptitude.
Why don’t we put them all in the Army at 18, send them to Afghanistan, so they can experience a real shitehole in the “real world”. Those who survive and have not been turned into drug addicts or have severe mental illness, or can still run and jump, can then play footy.
Think you need to rethink your plan.
So in all seriousness, how do you feel about the fact players are required to be 18 and finish year 12 before they can be taken in the draft? Given the completion rate of year 12 hovers around 70%, wouldn’t it be better to allow teams to draft from those 30% of 16 year olds who just aren’t interested in school any more?
Because firstly, footy only lasts 10- 15 years or so, and secondly what aspiring footballer wouldn’t want to drop out of school to play AFL? It would be irresponsible of the AFL to encourage kids to leave school early with the dream of being a professional athlete, especially as many of them won’t end up with a sustainable career out of footy.And they don’t have to complete year 12, they just have to be old enough for it to be possible.
more like 2-3 for the average draftee
So in all seriousness, how do you feel about the fact players are required to be 18 and finish year 12 before they can be taken in the draft? Given the completion rate of year 12 hovers around 70%, wouldn't it be better to allow teams to draft from those 30% of 16 year olds who just aren't interested in school any more?
Is that true that you have to finish year 12 to enter the draft?
I just want the Bombers to get the best players, don’t care if they cannot read or write.
He may well be right but p*ss off, Grant.
Why do you say that? Pity none of the accredited media are prepared to tell it like it is as regularly as Thomas
He may well be right but p*ss off, Grant.Why do you say that? Pity none of the accredited media are prepared to tell it like it is as regularly as Thomas
He may well be right but p*ss off, Grant.Why do you say that? Pity none of the accredited media are prepared to tell it like it is as regularly as Thomas
Because he’s a professional contrarian. Says the opposite just because. He’s a fringe dweller for good reason.
Perhaps there’s so much wrong with every farkin thing, that it’s hard to express it all through a coherent and appreciable persona.
He may well be right but p*ss off, Grant.Why do you say that? Pity none of the accredited media are prepared to tell it like it is as regularly as Thomas
Because he’s a professional contrarian. Says the opposite just because. He’s a fringe dweller for good reason.Perhaps there’s so much wrong with every farkin thing, that it’s hard to express it all through a coherent and appreciable persona.