The GPA have listened to college/county players and have realised the farce that is the GAA season with overlapping competitions and various teams demanding differing levels of commitment. I'm not a GPA fan however I feel they have contributed something significant to the player welfare debate here.
https://www.gaa.ie/gaa-news-and-videos/daily-news/1/2204151153-gpa-launch-report-on-welfare-of-student-players/
The proposals are interesting and have value but for me do not go far enough. (Moving U.21 to U.20 is simply re-arranging the deck chairs on the titanic). What is needed is a reduction of grades for the 18-21 age group so the only runner for me is to scrap U.21 and minor and replace with U.19 - moving it away from the leaving cert and away from senior football.
Proposals include:
• Restructuring fixture programme between January and March to avoid overlapping competitions
• Examine changing U21 grade to U20 in football and hurling
• Removing colleges from pre-season inter-county competitions
• The establishment of GPA representation on the GAA Higher Education group to facilitate engagement with key stakeholders such as managers and educators
• Initiate education fundraising campaign to increase support for those who need it most
• Support the GAA's development of player welfare mentor position at county level to help manage training and playing commitments of student county players representing multiple teams
We'd have more lads doing the leaving cert in the year after minor than during it in recent years. Transition years in the local schools has seen them all taking on with the LC in their 19th year.
Quote from: Bingo on April 23, 2015, 12:50:41 PM
We'd have more lads doing the leaving cert in the year after minor than during it in recent years. Transition years in the local schools has seen them all taking on with the LC in their 19th year.
Disagree. TY has been done away with in many schools due to cuts and partly to do with the fact that it's a pile of sh*te.
I was involved with Sligo minors a few years back and the Leaving cert was a serious issue. Most lads were doing it and under severe pressure yet we were asking them to travel to us 3 times a week. Just not right or fair.
U.19 grade would be 1st year college students in the main.
Quote from: ck on April 23, 2015, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: Bingo on April 23, 2015, 12:50:41 PM
We'd have more lads doing the leaving cert in the year after minor than during it in recent years. Transition years in the local schools has seen them all taking on with the LC in their 19th year.
Disagree. TY has been done away with in many schools due to cuts and partly to do with the fact that it's a pile of sh*te.
I was involved with Sligo minors a few years back and the Leaving cert was a serious issue. Most lads were doing it and under severe pressure yet we were asking them to travel to us 3 times a week. Just not right or fair.
U.19 grade would be 1st year college students in the main.
Sligo isn't Blayney and I'm only telling you the way it is with us. And our schools both still have Transition year and no plans to scrap.
Maybe the problem is the expectation of minor mgt asking young lads to travel 3 times a week, week in week out for months on end to prepapre for a knockout competition? Change of dates would help these lads no end rather than changing a whole age grading.
Quote from: ck on April 23, 2015, 12:50:17 PM
Proposals include:
• Restructuring fixture programme between January and March to avoid overlapping competitions
• Examine changing U21 grade to U20 in football and hurling
• Removing colleges from pre-season inter-county competitions• The establishment of GPA representation on the GAA Higher Education group to facilitate engagement with key stakeholders such as managers and educators• Initiate education fundraising campaign to increase support for those who need it most
• Support the GAA's development of player welfare mentor position at county level to help manage training and playing commitments of student county players representing multiple teams
If you consider these proposals a debate stater, then they're great. But I don't think any of these proposals will help players in any way.
For example;
1 - Restructuring fixture programme between
January and March. - Any restructuring in these months will add pressure in later months. For e.g., move the McKenna cup to later in the year, causes more disruption and pressure to the county players in the form of club 'v' county to another part of the year
2-
Removing colleges from pre-season inter-county competitions• - The whole reason for this was to prevent college lads being pulled in two directions during Jan - March, removing the demands of the county and college by focusing on the college but playing inter county standard teams. This should have been a win win, but the county managers didn't like it
3- b]The establishment of GPA representation on the GAA Higher Education group to facilitate engagement with key stakeholders such as managers and educators[/b]• - Seriously, Seriously, F#$king jobs for the boys. In my time in college, books came first then the football, and managers managed around that fact. The big issue was county managers not caring about student demands. Why the need for GPA in Higher Education councils?
The real solution should focus on scheduling. We need one master schedule for the entire country that eliminates county 'v' club, and students 'v' county or club commitments.
Break the calender year out into seasons, and identify what sport / competition has priority during the season.
For example -
Adult
club adult football priority from Feb - May for league
Intercounty football June to August - League and championship to be run off simultaneously
Club Championship- Sept - November (through to All Ireland)
The same approach for youth, identify school / college period and club periods
But one group needs to align fixture making for the entire country, and aline all the club, county, college and school programs. If this means eliminating certain competitions at club, college, county, then so be it, but lets set out a framework that everybody has to ad-hear too.
remove pre season intercounty competitions (mckenna, fbd etc.)
no senior county panelists to play sigerson
remove county u21 competition
no stress, no worry, no need for big old report.
The Under 21 Championship is one of the best championships there is for quality of football and development of players. Why should we abandon it?
Quote from: sheamy on April 23, 2015, 02:44:13 PM
remove pre season intercounty competitions (mckenna, fbd etc.)
no senior county panelists to play sigerson
remove county u21 competition
no stress, no worry, no need for big old report.
Plus One.
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 23, 2015, 02:51:08 PM
The Under 21 Championship is one of the best championships there is for quality of football and development of players. Why should we abandon it?
lads train 3-4 months for maybe one game which is played midweek and they have to travel for 2-3 hours to get there which requires a half day from college or work. I don't see the development opportunities there. far better imo that the best 12-13 most promising lads are brought within an enlarged senior panel and the rest play with unis and/or pre season with clubs.
the sigerson is now a complete farce with incentives offered right, left and centre to players to move to an institution or stay in one. and the games are watched by about 350 people, most of whom are students. it could be a real development competition if senior county panelists weren't involved. asking players to peak for sigerson and then senior championship is total and utter lunacy. Niall Moyna has spoken on this previously (http://www1.skysports.com/gaelic-football/news/12040/9643902/gaa-dr-niall-moyna-backs-calls-for-county-players-to-be-barred-from-college-competitions).
Quote from: sheamy on April 23, 2015, 03:03:36 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on April 23, 2015, 02:51:08 PM
The Under 21 Championship is one of the best championships there is for quality of football and development of players. Why should we abandon it?
lads train 3-4 months for maybe one game which is played midweek and they have to travel for 2-3 hours to get there which requires a half day from college or work. I don't see the development opportunities there. far better imo that the best 12-13 most promising lads are brought within an enlarged senior panel and the rest play with unis and/or pre season with clubs.
the sigerson is now a complete farce with incentives offered right, left and centre to players to move to an institution or stay in one. and the games are watched by about 350 people, most of whom are students. it could be a real development competition if senior county panelists weren't involved. asking players to peak for sigerson and then senior championship is total and utter lunacy. Niall Moyna has spoken on this previously (http://www1.skysports.com/gaelic-football/news/12040/9643902/gaa-dr-niall-moyna-backs-calls-for-county-players-to-be-barred-from-college-competitions).
Development opportunities in that they play several Hastings Cup or other games, and continue to develop as county players and be exposed to county level coaching and remain in the fold.
Adding them to a 40+ man senior panel without having any real chance for games wouldn't be any better for development. Although I should say that several county set ups I know train the U21s and Seniors together.
I agree about the senior county men on Sigerson teams. Remove that and a lot of the problems are taken care of. Is Niall Moyna DCU? Would his college not be among the biggest proponents of recruiting well known senior players to play for the college?
Quote from: Bingo on April 23, 2015, 01:04:47 PM
Quote from: ck on April 23, 2015, 12:57:45 PM
Quote from: Bingo on April 23, 2015, 12:50:41 PM
We'd have more lads doing the leaving cert in the year after minor than during it in recent years. Transition years in the local schools has seen them all taking on with the LC in their 19th year.
Disagree. TY has been done away with in many schools due to cuts and partly to do with the fact that it's a pile of sh*te.
I was involved with Sligo minors a few years back and the Leaving cert was a serious issue. Most lads were doing it and under severe pressure yet we were asking them to travel to us 3 times a week. Just not right or fair.
U.19 grade would be 1st year college students in the main.
Sligo isn't Blayney and I'm only telling you the way it is with us. And our schools both still have Transition year and no plans to scrap.
Maybe the problem is the expectation of minor mgt asking young lads to travel 3 times a week, week in week out for months on end to prepapre for a knockout competition? Change of dates would help these lads no end rather than changing a whole age grading.
Surely it should be roughly 50/50 as the cutoff point for Gaelic games is 31st Dec/1st Jan and schools is 30th June/1st July. Or am I missing something?
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gaelic-games/why-its-high-time-to-ditch-u21-grade-once-and-for-all-31137250.html
the u21 grade at club level is nothing but an irritation in most counties. in ulster we compound it by playing a provincial club competition so lads can be asked to play or train for club u21, county u21, senior and sigerson all at the one time.
....and we'll not even go near the effects the grade has on the dual player!
at county the u21 grades prevents club leagues starting sooner
look what is happening on the tyrone thread at present for evidence.
Read in one of the papers the schedule for Jack Guiney at DIT and playing intercounty for Wexford, a serious bit of training and traveling by anyones standards.
It seems he's on a scholarship and tied to playing for the college as part of that, so if there's a ban on intercouty players taking part in Sigerson or Fitzgibbon then I'd presume they'd stop offering scholarships to intercounty players!
Quote from: johnneycool on April 23, 2015, 04:11:13 PM
Read in one of the papers the schedule for Jack Guiney at DIT and playing intercounty for Wexford, a serious bit of training and traveling by anyones standards.
It seems he's on a scholarship and tied to playing for the college as part of that, so if there's a ban on intercouty players taking part in Sigerson or Fitzgibbon then I'd presume they'd stop offering scholarships to intercounty players!
orrrr, that if an inter county player has a scholarship, then he fully commits to the college, and neither plays or trains for the county until the college season is over.
If an intercounty player doesn't have a scholarship, then he plays for the county only.
and, should we not limit the amount of scholarships that each college can award.... max of 8 / 9 per year
Quote from: CSC on April 23, 2015, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: johnneycool on April 23, 2015, 04:11:13 PM
Read in one of the papers the schedule for Jack Guiney at DIT and playing intercounty for Wexford, a serious bit of training and traveling by anyones standards.
It seems he's on a scholarship and tied to playing for the college as part of that, so if there's a ban on intercouty players taking part in Sigerson or Fitzgibbon then I'd presume they'd stop offering scholarships to intercounty players!
orrrr, that if an inter county player has a scholarship, then he fully commits to the college, and neither plays or trains for the county until the college season is over.
If an intercounty player doesn't have a scholarship, then he plays for the county only.
and, should we not limit the amount of scholarships that each college can award.... max of 8 / 9 per year
How many intercounty managers are going to buy into that one?
Correct! It's a joke and won't happen.
The only way forward in my view is to scrap Sigerson and Fitzgibbon or only allow non county players play college football. it would stop the usual colleges chasing county players too to the detriment of college player development.
Quote from: ck on April 24, 2015, 01:45:53 PM
Correct! It's a joke and won't happen.
The only way forward in my view is to scrap Sigerson and Fitzgibbon or only allow non county players play college football. it would stop the usual colleges chasing county players too to the detriment of college player development.
Imagine for a minute the GAA pass a motion at Congress scraping the Sigerson and Fitzgibbon competition.
I'd imagine the universities and colleges would simply shrug their shoulders and continue holding inter-university GAA competitions anyway under their own aegis. They have their own pitches, arranging insurance would probably be relatively easy as would sourcing refs.
Some good ideas here though I for one would keep the U 21 grade as it is a vital feeder for keeping lads in football/hurling who might otherwise never play again and is a bridge to senior level for many late developers. As someone pointed out it is generally a very good standard of football too.
Stopping Senior IC players playing Sig/Fitz seems reasonable.
The IC season is much too long and needs to be seriously telescoped by playing more than one IC match per province per week and looking really hard at the pre-season provinccial tournaments as well.
Quote from: Keyser soze on April 24, 2015, 02:47:03 PM
The IC season is much too long and needs to be seriously telescoped by playing more than one IC match per province per week and looking really hard at the pre-season provinccial tournaments as well.
Ulster has 4 quarter-finals on 4 consecutive weekends this year and the 2 semi-finals are on 2 different weekends.
Think of how much the fixtures chaos could be alleviated if all the quarter-finals were all on the one weekend and the semi-finals on another.
In terms of the notion of scrapping competitions I think it would be a worthwhile idea to look at re-aging 2 competitions and doing away with one. I believe that from u 16 to u 21 should only have 2 competitions, an u17 and u20 competition. Whoever plays in the u17 cannot play in the u20 and whoever plays in the u20 can play above themselves to senior. I think with the amount of schools competitions and college ones there needs to be a culling of something and with too many other vested interests out there this might be a decent compromise.
Quote from: ck on April 24, 2015, 01:45:53 PM
Correct! It's a joke and won't happen.
The only way forward in my view is to scrap Sigerson and Fitzgibbon or only allow non county players play college football. it would stop the usual colleges chasing county players too to the detriment of college player development.
But is this not the real issue that needs to be addressed. The county managers are a law onto themselves. They are only interested in short term win at all costs and not really interested in the long term best interests of players.
Regarding county students, can someone answer the following question? What is in the student's best interests, Managing the pressure of studying / exams combined with significant travelling to county training (in some cases, combined 3-4 hr travelling and 2 hrs training )and financial issues. Verses getting a scholarship, managing the pressures of exam / studying and training on campus, which usually means 2 hrs training and back to the books?
If we were being honest, the answer is clear, a player with a scholarship, without the strain of significant travelling, is far better off.
But we put the interests of a county manager before a student?
Regarding the amount of scholarships offered, and the benefits provided, this needs to be regulated by Croke Park to ensure there is a level playing field.
Regarding other points
The county season needs to be condensed,
The amount of competitions needs to be optimized and aligned between club, county and schools
Real rules need to be drawn up and adhered too
An a serious attempt to provide a clear rules for training for youth right up to senior to prevent over use injuries.
I live in the states now, and one sport that impresses me with training / playing rules is baseball. They have youth match and weekly pitch count rules for pitchers as well as progressive pitch selection rules through the age groups. The rule is enforced, and if a coach is found breaking the rules, then serious punishments are handed out. What they have in place is a structure for development for pitchers. The result, a system which is designed to manage player development and prevent overuse. Logical and effective.
The GAA need a top down governance process. Mandate the type, timing and amount of competitions that are run in each county provinces, and the rules for players availability etc. Then enforce them
Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on April 24, 2015, 03:20:32 PM
In terms of the notion of scrapping competitions I think it would be a worthwhile idea to look at re-aging 2 competitions and doing away with one. I believe that from u 16 to u 21 should only have 2 competitions, an u17 and u20 competition. Whoever plays in the u17 cannot play in the u20 and whoever plays in the u20 can play above themselves to senior. I think with the amount of schools competitions and college ones there needs to be a culling of something and with too many other vested interests out there this might be a decent compromise.
Thought of this but I'd feel that you'd risk losing an awful lot of players after U17. It can be hard to keep them to minor and beyond, if they left U17, and lets face it, they are very physically and mentally immature at a time when other distractions are very obvious, they could drift very easily away altogether. Only the really good players would come true and many players who would be decent club players will disappear elsewhere.
If anything in our own county the U21 is a competition long past its sell by date. We have clubs struggling to field Reserve teams never mind anything else.
In a lot of counties the focus needs to be on getting players playing all the way up from underage to minor and then staying to play senior. Be that in some sort of U20 or reserve team structure.
I think that there is too much football not been played to allow a few play in various formats/age groups/competitions.
Not unusually for a GAA debate, there's a lot of suggestions on here that are nice ideas in theory, but that simply don't work.
Are we really going to go to third level institutions and say that we're going to disband the Sigerson and Fitzgibbon, and remove Gaelic Games from all of our third level institutions?
Or to those who would suggest that county players aren't allowed to take part, what does that say about our ideals on player welfare that we're going to take away the chance of giving a subsidised third level education to some of our players? After all, there's never going to be a shortage of players to play county - and while county managers will whinge, because they're in the business of getting paid to get results and so will be sure to get their excuses in good and early, I've never seen a National League game go unplayed because of a shortage of players. And if county A is heavily depleted one year, then county B benefits when they play them - and that'll all balance out in the long run.
For me, the issue is under-21, and the heavy concentration of training and games in the period from January to March, but I would look on it very differently to some others - as a competition, under-21 was designed as a stepping stone - yet there are players who have already passed out the need for it. At county level, the competition is a great one - but to use the Offaly vs Kildare game this year as an example, there were certain young lads that went well in it, and there were others (Niall Kelly, Peter Cunningham) who are already proven senior players and who don't gain from being involved. To my mind it should be the case that we make it U22 or U23, but say that once you've played senior intercounty championship, then you're ineligible for the grade. Equally, you can only play one of U23 or National League during the spring. Separate panels, so lads aren't expected to play and train for all of them. Then senior players can play senior, and the last underage grade can serve the purpose for which it was originally intended.
There are plenty of other quick wins as well - run off the summer intercounty championships a lot quicker, leaving August/September/October for club, and above all, it should be the case that players are limited to playing a certain amount of times in a year. Every GAA member has a unique ID, it shouldn't be hard to measure how many times that player played matches, and restrict them to a certain amount which would be the upper limit advised medically, say something like no more than 60 games per annum, no more than 6 in any 30 day period, and no more than 6 in month, and no more than 2 in any seven day period. (By the way I'm not a doctor or a sports scientist, those are merely guesswork suggested numbers).
I was talking to a teacher and well-known Cork football coach this morning and he related a story that I thought illustrated an admirable attitude and a sound appreciation of priorities.
He was coaching his school's Munster championship team some years back and they were training for the semi-final. One of the players approached him and said, "I can't train on Tuesday - I have a grind." To which the coach replied, "Listen carefully. I want to see you here on Tuesday evening as usual. You can always repeat the Leaving, but you'll be overage for the football next year."
Quote from: Hardy on April 26, 2015, 12:20:39 PM
I was talking to a teacher and well-known Cork football coach this morning and he related a story that I thought illustrated an admirable attitude and a sound appreciation of priorities.
He was coaching his school's Munster championship team some years back and they were training for the semi-final. One of the players approached him and said, "I can't train on Tuesday - I have a grind." To which the coach replied, "Listen carefully. I want to see you here on Tuesday evening as usual. You can always repeat the Leaving, but you'll be overage for the football next year."
That is no joke. In the 1980s I played on a team with lads who repeated 'for the football'. If they were overage for Hogan Cup football they wouldn't have been back.
Quote from: muppet on April 26, 2015, 01:52:57 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 26, 2015, 12:20:39 PM
I was talking to a teacher and well-known Cork football coach this morning and he related a story that I thought illustrated an admirable attitude and a sound appreciation of priorities.
He was coaching his school's Munster championship team some years back and they were training for the semi-final. One of the players approached him and said, "I can't train on Tuesday - I have a grind." To which the coach replied, "Listen carefully. I want to see you here on Tuesday evening as usual. You can always repeat the Leaving, but you'll be overage for the football next year."
That is no joke. In the 1980s I played on a team with lads who repeated 'for the football'. If they were overage for Hogan Cup football they wouldn't have been back.
This is common place, did exactly the same myself just to play for my school as we thought we had a good team if a few of us repeated.