How to fix the Next Generation Academy system

I actually support the Next Generation Academy and I think the debate leading to its removal has been heavily influenced by recency bias. The programs have been incredible for migrants and children of migrants, as well as boosting the participation of indigenous players in the AFL. At the very top of the draft, some clubs have benefited from getting lucky with a highly talented NGA kid. Perhaps no more so than the Bulldogs getting access to Jamarra Ugle-Hagan. The new rules mean that any NGA players taken in the first round can't have their bids matched is harsh but fair given that players in the draft have to be willing to travel great distances for AFL. It also means that clubs can't get two NGA kids in the second round, needing to wait until the 3rd round to get their second NGA kid or be unable to match the second bid if it comes before pick 41. The AFLW draft is ten times more compromised than even the current AFLM draft. For example, players nominating in the draft also nominate the State they want to play in. Then there's States like QLD and WA that have 2 teams and each one has their own womens' academy. The Suns picked in this draft before the Lions, whose Academy star, Zimmorlei Farquarson, was touted as the best talent in the country. At pick 7, the Suns chose one of their own players, leaving the Lions to collect their player with the next pick. Then the Lions overlooked all the rest of their own Academy players and the Suns didn't touch any of them despite having 7 more picks. I think the very American idea of sending young players to all corners of the country is unsustainable. I dread to think of the number of players to wash out of the system with their education incomplete and football careers tainted, all because a blokey culture of toughen up, cupcake mentality. What is clearly missing is a unified system of of junior talent identification and development. In Victoria, junior regional clubs have sprung up to form NAB League, 6 Metro and 6 Country, which will next year be joined by NT Thunder, Gold Coast suns, Brisbane Lions, Sydney Swans, GWS Giants having already been joined last year by the Tassie Devils. These 18 teams then contribute players to Vic Metro, Vic Country and the Allies. Meanwhile, wealthy private schools and public schools with sporting excellence programs compete to grant scholarships to the actual players, leading to kids playing upward of 40 games in their Senior years, which simply isn't a sustainable model. Conversely, the WAFL and SANFL clubs simply have traditional senior, reserves and colts competitions and their very best are chosen for their States, but most are then sent all over the country at the draft. None of this comes as a surprise to those reading it, but it is clearly a mess and the academy system overlaying it all just makes it more complicated.

Ron Barassi Senior played 58 games in 5 seasons for the Demons. He left his pregnant wife in Melbourne and went to war in 1941, where he was killed in Tobruk. However, because his widow brought up their son outside of Melbourne's zone, the VFL brought in the father-son rule. It was 50 games and should have remained 50 games. Then you have kids who bypass their father's VFL club altogether, such as Bryan Cousins, who played 67 games for Geelong in the middle of stints in the WAFL where he played 240 games, so Ben Cousins chose West Coast and they didn't part with even a pick. Ross Gibbs played 253 games for Glenelg, but only 191 of them were in the 20 year period the AFL imposed at that time, which was ridiculous given that WAFL father-sons had no such restriction. Marc Murphy colluded with Carlton to get out of being drafted to Brisbane, despite his father being a Fitzroy legend. It seems the more the AFL tinker with the rule, the more they stuff it up.

Not really. If there is an advantage it is very small. Look at carlton who has basically been the worst team over the past 15 years. They have 100 game players Murphy, Judd, Gibbs, Kruezer, Betts, Fevola, Simpson, Cripps, Carrazzo, Thornton, Waite, Walker, Houlihan, Curnow, Casbolt, Scotland, Jamison, Arnfield, Tuohy, Yarran, Wiggins, Russel, Garlett, Steven, Thomas Robinson and Henderson in that time Docherty, Petrevski-seton, Weitering, Plowman are in the 90s and will join them early next year. Even Gold Coast already have 14 x 100 gamers with some famous family names like Ablett and Matera Bad teams get the top picks and top picks are more likely to get to 100 games. They are also given a bit more rope before being cut because the club used a high pick on them.

The eligibility limit was only added in a failed attempt to curb rorting. The bidding process has been far more successfull, and no-one gets a free hit any more. But the AFL never revoked the earlier unsuccessful rule change. I'd suggest 50 games or 5 years service. The latter for those poor buggers whose injury woes blighted their careers.

Mark! Mark! Mark! Rohan!

The father son rules should be an ornament to the game. Unfortunately the father son rules are skewed in favour of the more successful clubs. The addition of the 100 game requirement may have been well intentioned, but hIstorically less successful clubs simply have less 100 game players than successfull ones. Just as an example 4/5 of the Swans father sons selections would be ineligible under this new rule, where as only 3 of Collingwoods 16 f/s picks would be ineligible.

You didn't reply to a pertinent question re your article?

Strongly agree on 1 and 3, disagree on 2 and 4. Number 2 is too unfair. Adelaide would likely have been premiers in 2017 if they were a Victorian team playing on their home ground and they just won the spoon 3 years later. Likewise St Kilda were extremely unlucky to lose both 2009 and 2010 yet have been at the bottom ever since. Number 4 free agency is rubbish. It is good for players personally and that is it. It’s terrible for fans and will only make the rich clubs more successful. Especially in our sport where players start to peak in their 6th year and key position players their 8th. Don’t make any rules to make free agency easier for players to switch teams, having fans favourite players stay loyal to a club is one of the best things about our sport which almost doesn’t exist in other free agency sports around the world now. Number 1 is very good. Reduce the amount for academy players but definitely keep the father son rule as is. The 10 percent discount is probably spot on, but even a 5 percent discount or just the chance to be able to match another clubs bid is enough of an advantage. The father son rule is awesome and should never be scrapped, it’s so exciting for us fans to see the sons of stars come out and play. I literally follow every players children to see who could potentially play for our club in the future. It’s an awesome rule that other sports should be adopting. Loyalty is so important to fans, we never like seeing our favourite players going to other clubs

The major anomalies seem to be the indigenous kids who have been playing footy their entire lives. I'm not really sure why the NGAs include them as it's not like they're underrepresented. The contrary, indigenous kids are many times overrepresented given share of the population. In the end the dogs just got lucky and will likely get one of the best kids in the draft at a discount.

The first two names you mention are Heeney and Mills, the two players most legitimately drafted through the academy system. The Swans have spent millions with the support of QBE on their academy. Thousands of kids and hundreds of adult volunteers have benefitted or contributed. The national game has been hugely promoted in the biggest market in the country, a rusted on rugby league desert. Unlike the southern states, kids haven't grown up with nor been developed by school-based programs. Heeney and Mills would have not played AFL without the Swans Academy. The aim is to generate sufficient AFL players who won't want to go home and, indeed, may feed AFL states one day too. Without a reasonable incentive, why would the Swans and its major sponsor QBE pour time and money into an academy?

Private schools have definitely benefitted from the current structure. Where I live the TAC team is based 2 hours away in Ballarat and then a lot of games seem to be played down at Casey which would be roughly 4 hours away - tough for kids to have to travel so they end up boarding at one of the 3 schools in Ballarat. I still think they would be better off playing senior major league football locally but recruiters simply don't travel out these days.

Good idea except the AFL has no real interest in people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Have a look at there own NAB U18 comp. they tier it so interstate teal cup is one then 2 is the elite private school comp the nab comp third. This absolutely kills the kids from the western suburbs or country as they have no idea what level they need to be at to get draftes. Why would the AFL do that? Because that’s were all players, coaches and club staff kids go to school.

Yeah this is the area that needs fixing, the fact the Pies could pick up life long Collingwood supporter and eastern suburbs resident Isaac Quaynor simply because his Dad was born in Africa is ridiculous. The clubs at a minimum need to demonstrate the actually did more than hold a couple of clinics and invite the top end talent down to the club for a couple of training sessions to get access to this sort of top end talent. Dow anyone really think Ugle Hagan would have been lost to football if the Bulldogs didn't nurture his talent?

Exactly, take it off the clubs. Some clubs have zones where footy is hardly played so no chance of getting players