Many people who agree with Promotion/Relegation come from strong clubs where there Div 2 sides would beat the weaker Div 1 sides. I am from a weaker northern club where many good players and coaches drive past every friday night to go and play for "there" club. Promotion/Relegation is an idea that may work but let run it hand in hand with Zoning. If there was zoning who would get stronger and who would get weaker? Interesting idea!!!!

?????????

I am assuming that you understand that players drive past your club each week because you would rather try and buy an ABA Championship than work to develop your juniors. The argument that your club should maintain their position in the Association has been going on for the last 30 years and no improvement has occured. Sure in the 80's they were able to go out and buy a senior mens championship but no resources have been put into junior development. The whole reason for promotion/relegation is to improve the standard of competition between teams in each and every game. Zoneing would only mean that we have the same situation of blow outs and decreased player development. The div 1 and div 2 compeititon for BASA is an Elite competition for elite players, who will hopefully go on and represent our state at National and Internationmal Championships and then return and play in our National League teams. The sooner people start caring about SA Basketball the better. Rather than trying to bring down every other club to the lowest common dinominator. If you really want to do something. Take all the money your senior men are getting paid this year and do what Forestville and Sturt are doing and employ somebody to run and develop their junior program. Then promotion/relegation would actually benefit your club rather than hinder. And in the mean time, when kids in your club are quitting because they are getting beaten by 50 points dont come crying, because you are the one making it happen.

SA Proud you are spot on,
Let me take it a little further.
Why are we always talking about Promotion/relegation, its a good option to fix a poor structure.
The real problems:
1) Blowouts, we have all agreed this is not good for the sport or development.(Clubs entering teams that are not up to the division)
2) Un-even team numbers in age groups. Some teams playing rounds twice where other dont.Too many Clubs versus our season structure)
3) Weak Clubs/Strong Clubs. The fear that some clubs will get stronger and the others get weaker.

To me its simple
Introduce one bi-law
If a Club cannot field 36 teams in the Basa competition, that club has no voting rights or the right to enter teams in Div1.
We call this a competition, its not, its a system that allows average or poor perfomance.
Do this and all Clubs have to perform, when they have to perform they will get stronger or get absorbed. The net result is a "competition" if that means less Clubs so be it

The Real world(#24231). Are you saying the number of teams a club fields is directly related to performance. IE a club with many teams in the BASA comp will perform at Div 1 level? I cant see how your bylaw would strengthen the competition and make it stronger. On the positive side it would ensure clubs get out there and recruit lots of players to maintain their div1 status though. What about clubs with domestic programs though? Wouldnt this bylaw discourage those clubs to setup their domestic comps, which are only good. Maybe this bylaw does have a role to play but its not the answer.

SA Proud
What can i say you are right we should not be in this competition. Most of our teams are getting beaten by 50 odd against the stronger clubs but are some what competitive against the weaker ones. Our kids come out every week and train and play and some are very loyal to the club and want to improve. Do you think the club does not want to improve and get better coaches with more experence but no one wants to take on a challange like that. If our club folded most of our better players would venture to the other northern club and then you can aim you sights at the next weaker club until you have a competition of 5 or 6 "stronger" clubs then you could have 2 teams each in Div 1. and a 5 or 6 team ABA Comp or would it only be a State league then. Yes I agree with most of what your saying but I would suggest that you are with a stronger club and have not felt the struggle that this club is going through to put teams and coaches on the floor. Has zoneing touched a nerve?? As for our over paid ABA players we will still be the club that pays its players the least. Good luck to you and your club over this season and when you come all the way out to play us and beat us by 50 have a coffee at the cafe its pretty good and there wraps are to die for, at least we are ahead in that department.

?????? Dont know who you are so this is not personal BUT.

- "Good luck to you and your club over this season and when you come all the way out to play us and beat us by 50 have a coffee at the cafe its pretty good and there wraps are to die for, at least we are ahead in that department."

You sound like a victim of bad peformance rather than a participant in it. You can always help a club improve.

Dont be a poor victim mate, things arent that bad.

You do make a good point that a competition that represents all areas of the state is important.

That is not to say I am against Pro/Rel (its already been covered) it is just to say that you make a good point.

???????

My concern is for the improvement of basketball in SA. I am not interested in making clubs fold. And neither is promotion/relegation. In fact if all of your teams were to play in a competition each week where games were decided by 10 points or less, my opinion is that you would have your players improve more and have less leave. Over time your club would have more players and coaches and naturally would progress into div 1 in grades where teams are strong enough. For example in the current U14 girls. Who would easily qualify.

Currently the weaker clubs are making an assumption that players and coaches will leave existing clubs or begin at weaker clubs just to play div 1. In fact the exact opposite has been occuring for the last 25 years. If you can come up with a reason to support this theory against 25 years of proof to change the put it up.

incognito

I believe the answer is competition.
Within the larger clubs you have kids in the lower divisions always pushing for the spots of players in div 1 and 2. This is a healthy enviroment. Take the complete opposite extreme, a club that only has two or three teams in a age group, there is little pressure on the div 1 and 2 kids to keep there spots.
My bi-law would force clubs to get focused on development, and long term increase internal competition and eventually the whole competiion.
Maybe it may force a few weaker clubs to combine.
As for the domestic structure, Forestville, Sturt and Tigers still have about 50 teams each in Basa as well as running domestic.
I think the real threat is when these clubs domestic comps reach a similar standard of the lower div Basa comp, then we might see them reduce team numbers in the Basa comp. Imagine a low cost local comp at similar standard without the travel. Why would you play div5 in the Basa comp?

The Real World I understand your point but wouldnt the domestic comps be able to manage more kids than the 1 or 2 teams they might have in Div 5. Wouldnt the domestic comp be a good cheaper, easier option for parents and kids that only want to put in the effort to play at this level.

I think the domestic comps are all about getting more kids to participate but still enabling the clubs to be involved in developing them up to the top level of competition.

So therefore what would be the downside of losing div 4 and 5 BASA Comps to offer parents / kids a similar standard without the travel and cost if it also meant more kids could participate?

what we need is equal starting levels - ie every club gets a chance to run a div 1, 2,3 team etc.
then after a grading season the lower 2 or 3 in the higher grade play the top 2 or 3 in the next lower grade for a spot in the higher grade.
otherwise you get the question of who gets the right for 2 teams in higher grade.
By the teams playing it is settled quick smart who has the right.
If a club only fields one team - they must start in the lowest grade and work up over a seaon or two - if the kids move up and age group - they retain their prior grading.

this will bring about the most competitive results on the court, however it is obvious some clubs may loose grading status - however the will have the right to regain by continually challening lower teams in higher grades.
staronger clubs continually loose fringe players to better offers at smaller clubs.

It depends - I favour the 1 team per club in div 1 to start the grading season - but the better div 2 teams should have the right to player the lower div 1 teams for a place - so after the grading season - you could have 2 div 1 teams.

give it a go !!!!

incognito

agreed, domestic will eventually replace the lower division Basa games. This is good for Basketball and will encourage more players to the sport.
The problem is that tightly strung finalcial organisation called Basa.
The loss of revenue to Basa with less teams in the Basa comp will cripple it.
This is a tough position, the transition from a system that over charges and relies on the cashflow of all the lower division players, to low cost/low travel domestic.
The domestic comps will also threaten weaker clubs, thats why it is a must that all the clubs get involved in recruitment/development/domestic.
Offer a better product, get a lot more people playing, and somehow dont break the string.
My point is that if we remove the security from all clubs, they must survive, they must do something about it.
SA Proud, I dont want to see any clubs fold either, however, if we maintain the current protection, what is going to wake a few people up??

Would zoning or stopping players moving clubs be illegal? Discrimination based on place of residence?

The strong clubs have even suggested doing zoning or having restrictions on player movement. All they want is for each of their teams to play in an appropriate grade where they can have good competition. They don't want to be a Black hole of all the best players in the comp (ie all good players are drawn to it, I am not suggesting that they are crushed into a singularity).

In summary: I am sure that restrictions on player movement will allay the fears of the weaker clubs but it might not be possible...

Pegs - football does it, successfully, I don't see how it would be illegal. A transfer fee in the range of $3000 has to be paid for a club (ie North Roosters) to get a kid who plays for Golden Grove but lives in Norwood to play for their U17 side instead of Norwood/Sturt.

I will try again !!!
For those with a literary bent (and those who can read and think at the same time) regarding this topic you should read a short story by Kurt Vonnegut called "Harrison Bergeron" - it says it all about our current situation.
If you want a copy email me but you will have to promise to delete it once read.

forget that idea / bylaw of zoning that ties you to a certain club for all your junior life.

You will always get someone ready to outplay the system.

look at the parents that get a PO box or rent a flat in a certain suburb - just to get their kids in a certain state school - ie Norwood / Morialta, Marryatville or Adelaide High.

I believe in shopping around - but reality will always step in - if i live at Plympton and can only get Div 2.2 at Sturt - but Centrals offer me Div 1 and my folks want to drive me to Starplex - why not?

what if I live at ----- and can only get a game with a group of scrubbers at ----- , surely that is not fair.

one of the biggest grizzles is younger juniors not getting a crack at higher grades - larger clubs can't get 2 div 1 teams

why not break the age groups down a bit more - add an u13 and u15 grade to div 1
so we have
u10
u12
u13
u14
u15
u16
u18
u20/21

this is how they do it in the states - for the clubs that smaller numbers of players - allow a by law that allows the next group down ie u12 can play next group up u13