It was enough to make the phone of a grumpy old Tasmanian start ringing.

Someone said to me recently that on the AFL's treatment of the smallest state, I've become what Neil Harvey once was to the Australian cricket team.

When the Aussies lost, or behaved badly, 'Harv' was the media's go-to man. I once heard him say, 'It's just that I tell the bloody truth.'

So, bear with me as I measure out the long run.

If there was a ringing sound at AFL headquarters following the recent confluence of Tasmanian events, one would hope it was that of alarm bells. For the latest draft result isn't a one-off accident; it's the culmination of years of administrative neglect and failure.

Tassie has always been too hard for the AFL.

What initiatives it has put into effect have never gone beyond what is convenient for the league and its clubs. The needs of Tasmania itself have scarcely been a secondary priority.

Football in the state has been in a downward spiral for years.

In addressing this subject, it has always been tempting to make comparisons with the 1950s and '60s: the state's golden era.

For that time provides the starkest of comparisons with today's circumstances. But the salad days of more than 50-years past are now for the misty and/or rheumy-eyed only, bearing no relevance to modern football followers.

There is, though, a more modern point of comparison that is compelling. It's the history of the AFL draft, which began in 1986. Happily for those who might find themselves researching the subject it's concisely packaged in the AFL's excellent annual season guide.

As one or two people were quick to observe recently, the 2016 draft is the first-ever in which a Tasmanian has not been selected.

But is this simply a quirk? Years of feast and famine have affected humanity since the Old Testament. There have been lean years along the way in which only one young Tasmanian has been among the chosen.

The answer is no, it's not a quirk.

What emerges unmistakably from the draft's history is that Tasmania has steadily diminished as a source of outstanding players. Whereas in the early years it invariably produced a supply of stalwarts, even champions, today's flow isn't what it was.

Going back to the draft's beginnings, in the first seven years Tasmania delivered 10 players who would rack up 200 AFL games.

Two of them, Alastair Lynch and Paul Williams, went on to 300. Matthew Richardson was a generational champion who played 282 games, while his fellow-Devonian, Matthew Febey, chalked up 258. Brendon Gale, Graham Wright, and Andrew Dunkley were 200-game players whose influence is still felt today.

Where is this density of productivity now?

For maximum contrast, it's worth dividing the era of the draft into two halves. This is best done by setting those halves at 14 years' duration: thus, from 1986 to 1999, and from 2000 to 2013. The most recent years are excluded because players from 'the now' remain works in progress.

And the findings?

The first 14-year epoch produced two 300-game players, three who topped 250, nine who played more than 200 games, and six who made more than 150 senior appearances. That's a total of 20 who played upwards of 150 games.

The second half of Tasmania's draft history, while yet to play out to completion, appears significantly less fruitful. Grant Birchall may eventually reach 300 games and Jack Riewoldt also might. Perhaps it's fairest to allocate one to the 300-game category and the other to the '250 club'.

Jeremy Howe, Mitch Robinson, Maverick Weller, and Kade Kolodjashnij may reach 200. Colin Garland, Jesse Lonergan, Luke Russell, Jackson Thurlow, and Jake Kolodjashnij might make it to 150. Let's be generous and include four of the five.

This gives a notional total of 10 150-game players drafted from the period 2000-2013.

So, as measured by the number of players achieving extended high performance, Tasmania's productivity has fallen by half since 2000.

This has occurred precisely while Victorian teams have played regular matches in the island state and, supposedly, promoted the game there.

Why is it so?

Well, preparatory pathways have been lost to Tasmania's youngsters due to the demise of the Mariners in the TAC Cup and the dire state of local senior football.

But it should not be overlooked that young Tassie football aspirants now have few heroes to inspire them.

The local competitions don't offer inspiration anymore as few really care about them. Meanwhile, at the top end, only a minority of Tasmanian kids barrack for Hawthorn and North Melbourne.

The only team a majority of Tasmania's young – and old, for that matter – would support is Tasmania. That's the only solution to 'the Tasmanian problem'.

The AFL remains in denial about this for a variety of reasons. Foremost among them is that setting up a new team is just too hard.

It would lead to a 19-team competition or would require a 20th to be formed or would cause one club to disappear.

More recently, of course, it's emerged that the least affluent state in the nation is a good source of funds for a smaller club like North Melbourne. Include Tassie in the competition and there'll be trouble elsewhere.

None of this is particularly palatable. Yet neither is the idea of Tasmania – a grass-roots football state – steadily ceasing to be heartland. An elite-level soccer team that fans can get behind might provide the tipping point.

Of all the unpalatable possibilities for the AFL to consider, surely that's the worst.