GAA Discussion Paper

[Captain Obvious]

Yeah, I don't get when they'd abolish the football and not the hurling. I don't think they even want to abolish the football, probably their starting position to be negotiated back to any U21 player becoming ineligible once they have played a senior match.

That would only dilute the competition and you are as well to scrap it if the best players aren't allowed to play in it.

Why? The correct solution is to tackle the cause of the problem - players being eligible for too many teams. Don't allow dual IC players or multiple IC representation, you play with one IC team in a year and the problem is largely solved. If you did that you could (theoretically) play 16 IC minor, 16 U21, 16 junior, 16 intermediate and 16 senior competitive games in both codes for all teams in 4 months and have 8 months for the clubs. I know you wouldn't play 16 games in 16 weeks but our IC minor and U21 competitions are developmental and there's no reason why we can't offer 6-10 competitive games to these players if that is the only IC team they play for. More IC games and more club games and a very simple solution.

Underage competitions are about developing players however not playing with or against the best U21s e.g U21s on the senior panel would dilute the competition and those non seniors would miss out on playing against the best at their grade.

U21 football championship is a popular grade for supporters it would soon lose it's appeal if the competition was diluted.

It may also lose its appeal if it is scrapped.

Once any competition loses its appeal it won't take much convincing to vote it to be scrapped.

[Syferus]

Yeah, I don't get when they'd abolish the football and not the hurling. I don't think they even want to abolish the football, probably their starting position to be negotiated back to any U21 player becoming ineligible once they have played a senior match.

That would only dilute the competition and you are as well to scrap it if the best players aren't allowed to play in it.

Yeah. It's only less daft because the optics of scraping underage IC over the age of 17 in the most popular sport in Ireland because the GAA has created a mangled calendar is so bad. Both ideas non-runners. Sigerson league needs to disappear into oblivion so the Sigerson can be played in Sept-Dec. And a bonus would there would be absolutely no reason for colleges to be in the IC January competitions because their season would already be over.

[Zulu]

Yeah, I don't get when they'd abolish the football and not the hurling. I don't think they even want to abolish the football, probably their starting position to be negotiated back to any U21 player becoming ineligible once they have played a senior match.

That would only dilute the competition and you are as well to scrap it if the best players aren't allowed to play in it.

Why? The correct solution is to tackle the cause of the problem - players being eligible for too many teams. Don't allow dual IC players or multiple IC representation, you play with one IC team in a year and the problem is largely solved. If you did that you could (theoretically) play 16 IC minor, 16 U21, 16 junior, 16 intermediate and 16 senior competitive games in both codes for all teams in 4 months and have 8 months for the clubs. I know you wouldn't play 16 games in 16 weeks but our IC minor and U21 competitions are developmental and there's no reason why we can't offer 6-10 competitive games to these players if that is the only IC team they play for. More IC games and more club games and a very simple solution.

Underage competitions are about developing players however not playing with or against the best U21s e.g U21s on the senior panel would dilute the competition and those non seniors would miss out on playing against the best at their grade.

U21 football championship is a popular grade for supporters it would soon lose it's appeal if the competition was diluted.

I don't think the U21 does much for players as you don't get to play enough competitive games and I think having more lads playing IC U21 while those good enough for senior will only help bring lads on more. In addition, good lads can step up and take more responsibility if senior IC players were unable to play. I think you can have just as good games without a few senior IC players on the pitch.

[Throw ball]

Yeah, I don't get when they'd abolish the football and not the hurling. I don't think they even want to abolish the football, probably their starting position to be negotiated back to any U21 player becoming ineligible once they have played a senior match.

That would only dilute the competition and you are as well to scrap it if the best players aren't allowed to play in it.

Yeah. It's only less daft because the optics of scraping underage IC over the age of 17 in the most popular sport in Ireland because the GAA has created a mangled calendar is so bad. Both ideas non-runners. Sigerson league needs to disappear into oblivion so the Sigerson can be played in Sept-Dec. And a bonus would there would be absolutely no reason for colleges to be in the IC January competitions because their season would already be over.

I would have to agree with Croi here. The problem is that the elite players are playing too much. I do not feel it would reduce the standard. In fact by making younger elite players have fewer commitments at that age group it should make them less prone to injury and may improve the standard at senior level in the long term. Other players who may not have fully developed may get a chance at under 21 and improve too.

I would suggest also that a rule could simply state that an under 21 player cannot play senior football in any year until the under 21 championship is over., or if he plays senior in that time he is ineligible for under 21.

I am not a great fan of the under 17 idea. Most championship matches in Ulster anyway take place when exams are over and any that go to university cannot play Sigerson in first year. A big gap.

[Cunny Funt]

Yeah, I don't get when they'd abolish the football and not the hurling. I don't think they even want to abolish the football, probably their starting position to be negotiated back to any U21 player becoming ineligible once they have played a senior match.

That would only dilute the competition and you are as well to scrap it if the best players aren't allowed to play in it.

Yeah. It's only less daft because the optics of scraping underage IC over the age of 17 in the most popular sport in Ireland because the GAA has created a mangled calendar is so bad. Both ideas non-runners. Sigerson league needs to disappear into oblivion so the Sigerson can be played in Sept-Dec. And a bonus would there would be absolutely no reason for colleges to be in the IC January competitions because their season would already be over.

I would have to agree with Croi here. The problem is that the elite players are playing too much. I do not feel it would reduce the standard. In fact by making younger elite players have fewer commitments at that age group it should make them less prone to injury and may improve the standard at senior level in the long term. Other players who may not have fully developed may get a chance at under 21 and improve too.

I would suggest also that a rule could simply state that an under 21 player cannot play senior football in any year until the under 21 championship is over., or if he plays senior in that time he is ineligible for under 21.

I am not a great fan of the under 17 idea. Most championship matches in Ulster anyway take place when exams are over and any that go to university cannot play Sigerson in first year. A big gap.

You could have a situation where a U-21 is ineligible as he brought on in a senior game with 5 minutes to go and for the rest of the year he could be warming the senior bench. The same player if allowed to play for his U-21s could be the difference between his side winning or losing.

[Throw ball]

Yeah, I don't get when they'd abolish the football and not the hurling. I don't think they even want to abolish the football, probably their starting position to be negotiated back to any U21 player becoming ineligible once they have played a senior match.

That would only dilute the competition and you are as well to scrap it if the best players aren't allowed to play in it.

Yeah. It's only less daft because the optics of scraping underage IC over the age of 17 in the most popular sport in Ireland because the GAA has created a mangled calendar is so bad. Both ideas non-runners. Sigerson league needs to disappear into oblivion so the Sigerson can be played in Sept-Dec. And a bonus would there would be absolutely no reason for colleges to be in the IC January competitions because their season would already be over.

I would have to agree with Croi here. The problem is that the elite players are playing too much. I do not feel it would reduce the standard. In fact by making younger elite players have fewer commitments at that age group it should make them less prone to injury and may improve the standard at senior level in the long term. Other players who may not have fully developed may get a chance at under 21 and improve too.

I would suggest also that a rule could simply state that an under 21 player cannot play senior football in any year until the under 21 championship is over., or if he plays senior in that time he is ineligible for under 21.

I am not a great fan of the under 17 idea. Most championship matches in Ulster anyway take place when exams are over and any that go to university cannot play Sigerson in first year. A big gap.

You could have a situation where a U-21 is ineligible as he brought on in a senior game with 5 minutes to go and for the rest of the year he could be warming the senior bench. The same player if allowed to play for his U-21s could be the difference between his side winning or losing.

Yep but counties and managers have to start taking some responsibility for looking after their players. It is in their long term interest. Far be it from me to praise Tyrone but I cannot think of too many of their under 21s who played in this year's league during the under 21 championship. It did not stop them playing senior later in the year.

[Rossfan]

If U21 was to become U20 instead there would be less cross over to Senior.
Be very simple to make it the rule that you can only be on one IC panel at a time.
Anyway most U21 teams play 1 championship game while 24 are gone by end of March so it wouldn't have too much effect.
Was it Captain Obvious said once a competition loses its appeal ( to whom?) it won't be long before they vote to scrap it?
Obviously they've forgotten about the JFC and the Railway Cup

[Captain Obvious]

If U21 was to become U20 instead there would be less cross over to Senior.
Be very simple to make it the rule that you can only be on one IC panel at a time.
Anyway most U21 teams play 1 championship game while 24 are gone by end of March so it wouldn't have too much effect.
Was it Captain Obvious said once a competition loses its appeal ( to whom?) it won't be long before they vote to scrap it?
Obviously they've forgotten about the JFC and the Railway Cup

Were those competitions ever proposed to be scrapped? P Duffy has been trying to scrap the U21 football championship for years and my point is he is unlikely to get his wish until that competition loses its appeal.

[The Trap]

Everyone talking about the elite players and how they can be helped.........what about the Portlaois lads who had to play a county final on a Saturday and a Leinster club game on Sunday? How can the Gaa top brass allow this to happen yet a county player can't play for his club 2 weeks before a championship game or in  Armaghs case 2 months!!!!!!!! Do these proposals really mean that situations like this will be averted? How can the power be wrestled back from county managers? Something more radical is required.......OIsin MCConville had some great ideas on this..........

[Bingo]

Why scrap the football U-21 Championship, but not the hurling one?

Are hurlers immune to burnout?

I think they scrap the U21 Football, but replace with U19. I don't like this as it is too big a jump from U19 to senior, for development purposes.

I think this whole idea is arseways.

There is certainly a problem with burnout for a small number of elite players. But that is because every 3rd level institution, club and county (all doubled for a dual players) insists it is their right to play their best players without any consideration given to his health or progression.

But behind every elite 19 year old player playing 3 times a week, is a bench full of lads, who train very hard and are eager to play, who are very close to dropping out of the game. That is worse to me.

The solution is to limit the demands on the small number of players that are the issue, not scrap competitions.

Came in to say this. I'd add by saying that if U17 would be last age category before senior football, your average 17 year old is nowhere close to been ready to play senior football or even train at the level club players are. Will be a run of 17 year olds from the game.

[rrhf]

Why do we only talk about elite athletes these days. Is it for grants or something?

[LeoMc]

Why do we only talk about elite athletes these days. Is it for grants or something?

They are one side of the coin. We need less games / less training for them but we need more games / less training for the other 98(!)%. In trying to get more games for the 98% we have to look at ensuring the 2% do not end up with increased demands.

[Hound]

Why do we only talk about elite athletes these days. Is it for grants or something?

They are one side of the coin. We need less games / less training for them but we need more games / less training for the other 98(!)%. In trying to get more games for the 98% we have to look at ensuring the 2% do not end up with increased demands.

The obvious answer is one player / one panel at a time, at intercounty level anyway.

If you look at the FA Youth Cup in soccer, its a very presitigous competition taken seriously by all the clubs - recent winners being Chelsea, ManU, ManC, Arsenal, Liverpool. But also smaller clubs like Norwich and Ipswich have won it and others like Fulham, Sheff Utd, Blackburn have got to finals. But if a young player is a star and makes the first team squad, he's removed from the youth team panel. Because the clubs care for their players (now its completely protecting their investment rather than actually caring, but even if for the wrong reason its the right outcome, i.e. doing their best to prevent player burnout, while letting the rest of the young players get on with playing.)

Removing competitions is not the answer, removing the players at risk is.

In saying that a blanket ban on all senior intercounty players playing U21 would hurt the smaller counties more than bigger counties. So the answer is to play the U21 at the same time as the business end of the senior championship - i.e. start it at around the same time as the provincial finals and go from there, with the rule being if you are on the senior panel, then you're off the U21 panel.

So if Carlow play Dublin at U21, it will likely be a full strength Carlow team against a not so full strength Dublin team - and the same in the other provinces. You will have the "win at all cost" people bleating about unfairness, but the important thing is it takes account of the players. It will benefit the players who come in to replace the senior lads, and in the long run it will benefit the senior players who have to miss out.

[Zulu]

I agree with all of that Hound except the necessity to start it at the business end of the senior season. U21 or minor shouldn't be played on provincial lines in a knockout format. Without getting into another competition structures discussion both minor and U21 teams need at least six competitive games and not training three months for one or two. The likes of Carlow can always select their best U21's and not have them field at senior level until they are beyond U21. If their U21 players were guaranteed six or more proper games then they would develop better than playing with the seniors 6 or 7 times in a year.

If a player can only play with one IC team per year then you could have them all running simultaneously which would allow for more games, more players getting exposure to IC level and more time for club games. The only sacrifices we would have to make are dual players and lads on more than one IC team in the same code.

[blewuporstuffed]

I agree with all of that Hound except the necessity to start it at the business end of the senior season. U21 or minor shouldn't be played on provincial lines in a knockout format. Without getting into another competition structures discussion both minor and U21 teams need at least six competitive games and not training three months for one or two. The likes of Carlow can always select their best U21's and not have them field at senior level until they are beyond U21. If their U21 players were guaranteed six or more proper games then they would develop better than playing with the seniors 6 or 7 times in a year.

If a player can only play with one IC team per year then you could have them all running simultaneously which would allow for more games, more players getting exposure to IC level and more time for club games. The only sacrifices we would have to make are dual players and lads on more than one IC team in the same code.

That's a very small group given the advantages to players in the GAA as a whole