Funny thing is... in VJBL it's better to shine at your own club than to join another team full of stars. Winning VJBL has no impact on anything .. not state, not college nothing.. the only lure of so called super teams is making the classic. But you lose your spotlight going to a team like that. You also get better playing vs those teams than playing with them.

I agree that it can be counter-productive for the mid-level players, I doesn't look like it's worked out that way for the top players who have moved to form super clubs. They seem to have upped their exposure, if anything. Instagram exposure is a very inexact science here in Australia, but they do concentrate on the top performing clubs and if you've just joined as one of the best players on that club you're going to get exposure.

But yes, if you're a mid-level player on a super club, you're probably better off remaining as the top player on your 2nd tier club, if exposure is your thing.

It's pay to play and of course clubs are going to do it to boost their reputation.

Make receiving clubs pay larger and substantial transfer fees, allow that payment go to the sending clubs so they can be rewarded for their early work on development based on the years they played before moving. - won't stop it completely but I'm sure it will limit it some.

Do what some football associations do at the club and make player ineligible for higher selections for an 18 month window. So if it was association to association then make them ineligible for high performance programs and state teams.

Oh wait they won't do that it means less money.

We all need more dumb ideas.

Why should legitimate people looking to transfer from clubs that they are unhappy with be penalised.

This mean that if someone moves to a lesser club for opportunity they will also be financially penalised. And for some families, this would push them out of the game altogether.

Like in Europe, clubs need to accept that there are big/strong clubs and smaller/weak clubs. And the move from one to the other occurs, not through stopping transfers, but through proving to members the benefits of staying.

Otherwise we are rewarding mediocrity and penalising clubs looking to make changes for the better and getting results for their changes. Be they the bigger clubs or those smaller clubs looking to improve.

Agree that we shouldn't be stopping transfers of individuals who aren’t happy with their existing clubs but I think BV should set the rules that allow for optimal player development over the longer term.

In my opinion, that is achieved in an even competition where the top end talent is reasonably evenly distributed between clubs.

It’s easy for kids to look good when then get silver service in a super team but I don’t think they are necessarily developing all the skills that they might if they were in a weaker team and had to take more responsibility. For example, you might have a forward putting 20 points on every week in put ins playing with a great passing guard, but they never develop their shooting and driving skills as these weren’t required to score and win.

Always an interesting conversation this one, and it depends which side of the fence you sit on !

Its risky for any league/association to have a one sided competition as it doesn't help the better teams or the struggling teams.

Its my understanding that SA are changing their clearance rules ( and if true ) i like them.

Only 2 Div 1 players can transfer from clubs per age group in one season. If they are nationals players only 1 player can transfer to that club. so 1 nationals player and 1 D1 player, or 2 D1 players. Cant have 2 nationals players in one season.

I can see this stopping clubs building a super team so they qualify for classics/nationals etc

I think domestic is where the money is made. In my estimation on average it costs around $800 for a child to play Rep.

30 Game season
- Training Court Hire $50 half Court - full $75 and hour 2x a week
- *Team sheet (Refs,Court hire)+ Entry. $340/Player for the season
- Some coaches get paid. On average it's $50/player a season some are more
- Uniform $125 every 3 or 4 years

Won't add tournaments those are paid as they come.

Not a lot of money to be made on Rep teams. Not enough to warrant decisions being made because of money in Rep. if you're paying between $700 and $900 its probably breaking even.

* Not sure of the accuracy of the team sheets, it may be a few bucks lower or higher.

In this world of NBA hype and meme's it has become fashionable to think that the reason why a team is successful is because of the presence of a "star player". Often a "star" will arise because of the ground work that has been laid - the systems employed are well thought out and executed; there are team mates who are unselfish, do the hard things off the ball that provide time and space; efforts which don't appear on a score sheet. Having come from NSW and viewing Vic metro teams, what strikes me is that individual players in Vic metro demand more from their clubs - more time, more shot opportunities - so that they can shine for college selection or whatever. And some well known clubs appear more willing than others to cater to these demands.

cantshoot3s - does that risk a player going backwards if they are restricted into a group that is not good. I'm more in favour of no more than 2 per receiving club - but if another 2 want to go - that's fine but elsewhere. PS also can't control parents if they want to move within by laws > let them go. Nothing that says they are 100% bound. Loyalty at our club used to mean a lot not now > they get rid of loyal players & parents for the flashy ones that'll be gone in 12 months. But that's what they want.......

I like the SĄ approach.

Sensible rules would be:

- No two State or National players can transfer to the one club in same age group

- If a club has one or more State or National player in an age group, they cannot recruit / accept another in the same age group

- If a club has a State or National coach in an age group or at DOC level, they cannot bring in any new State or National players

But of course certain clubs that have in recent years built or are planning in the future to build super teams are unlikely to support that for obvious reasons. No need to name them ...

Those seem sensible rules. Not sure why they wouldn't be adopted.

Think what happens is that kids meet each other at state training and the coaches encourage them to play together. Think the coaches should keep out of it and I also think clubs should be wary of their players leaving once they start getting involved in state programs. End of the day the best thing to do is make sure the club is developing a team and culture where it is hard to leave. If they leave, they leave, and that probably reflects on a few people in the process, including parents. Also, as a club, be wary of creating too much noise about a player - often it is noise that leads to an inflated opinion that leads to a player thinking they are bigger than the club and their team and results in them thinking they should be on a better team etc.

Blocking families from being able to choose where their children are safe and best to play is fair?

Limiting movement also means rewarding bad programs. Any restriction is unfair. Parents should be free to choose where their children are best playing. What program suits their family situation.

What if they move house and the local club can't accept them because they already have hit their limit? Or are hoping to recruit a better player? We lose that kid from the sport?

What happens if a low level program instills a HP coach. Works hard on their overall program set up. Employs a new full time JDO. Sorry can't come here for more opportunity we've hit our div 2 quota.

These rules are short sighted and work against everyone. Petty backlash from a couple of clubs upset that someone else is doing what they have done for years.

There will always be super teams. It will always be a part of basketball wherever and at any level. College hoops in the US has the 1 year eligibility rule to make transfering a high risk decision for players. But it still does not eliminate super teams.

Having said that, I think super teams are only beneficial for development if you are player 1-5 as most of the games will be loopsided. Competitive games will be far and few between. And players 6-10 wont likely play the crucial minutes of those few games. Winning is fun and addictive but if you value player development, being 6-10 in a super team for a year might not be the best option.

Players 1-5 doesn't necessarily mean the best 5 players as the position they play in is also a factor plus clubs and coaches have their own personal biases as well.

The rules that are in place are there to protect the clubs, not the players. But IMO, players should be allowed to do what they think is in their best interest as clubs often do.