they work hard, train well - good luck to them.

#121114 (and #121113 as you are clearly the same person!),

This forum is nothing if predictable. Within hours of Sturt success this kind of post comes up.

I've been around this forum long enough to know that it is pointless discussing the following topics rationally: uneven competition, pro/rel, perceived poaching, zoning or Sturt success. I do not post on these issues anymore out of self preservation.

Actions speak louder than words.

Instead of debating the above points, I offer this (as I have in the past!) to you (#121114) and anyone else who believes you, or for that matter anyone else who is interested.

Please call me (if you try really hard you can find my number!) and arrange to follow me for the next week to see how hard our players and coaches are working. You will need to commit to every session, (early mornings and late nights are included), so that you can experience it.

Hopefully you will see just how hard we (and the other so-called super clubs for that matter, because we do not have a monopoly on hard work!) are working and you may gain a greater appreciation of the effort put in by the successful compared to the not.

My guess is that, as in the past, I will get zero response and you will keep sniping at us from the hills.

I'm not a sturt supporter but would like to say good luck with ur finals games.
i would like to add that sb i would love to go and see how hard your club trains so that i could learn from ur club to help our western magic kids improve.

anon #121114 and #121113,
Time to eat a shit sandwich.

Good country kids will not make the sacrifices, do the hard yards, and travel all those miles based upon reputation.
They will see for themselves and make a valued decision based on comparisons to all available clubs. Some will choose Sturt some will choose others.
BUT they wont waste their time with a club that doesn't have the depth of coaches or good programs.
Its the SAME with kids / parents from weak clubs. If you don't want the kids to move then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Address the weaknesses in your club.
Forrestville did and in the space of a relatively short period of time have built a strong program.
Wake up and smell the coffee.

#121158
Sorry you're right - #121113 is not there.
BUT you're wrong - I'm not associated with Sturt.
Perhaps you'd like that spare sandwich.

#128815 - Since when was Sturt against zoning? question only not intended as a smart comment!I do agree though that Sturt and other large clubs should look within their own ranks and develop players - some kids havent been there since under 10's and some have a lot of talent but without opportunity and fine tuning (and with the influx of country kids to these Clubs) will be overlooked and not given the same opportunities! There may be some kids that will surprise the coaches if given the right development, training and guidance

I'm from one of the 'COUNTRY' associations that is a part of supplying the occasional player to Adelaide.

South - Lyall Gillett
South - Cameron Green
North - Lewis Johnston
North - Jenna Hoare
Norwood - Georgia Arnold
North - Abby Bishop

These are just a few of the higher named players from the Port Pirie competition who have made their way to Adelaide...... I don't seem to see Sturt on the list...... Every club looks to better their squad by sourcing the best available talent whether that be in Adelaide or in a Country town.....

I had emailed every club in Adelaide 3 years ago to come & have a look at a very talented squad of Port Pirie representatives at the Country Championships (Our current group of u18's) & 2 clubs responded - STURT & WEST ADELAIDE.

If Sturt are currently enjoying success it is obvious from the Country view point that they must be working hard for the outcome, even if it does mean they are recruiting from Country towns.

#121196 - well I hope when she jumped in the frying pan it didn't hurt daahhling. What a silly thing anyway letting them poach your daughter - you should have alerted the authorities!

I put this topic up purely because I wonderred if this had been done before. Not to bag any other club or to bag Sturt. The people that have replied saying its a great effort and left it at that are great. Why not acknowledge that it is a great feat. When completing the starting post I was merely looking at results on the Sportingpulse. Hence the alias.

Some Results

Under 12 Boys and Girls
Sturt vs West - West Winners
Sturt vs Forestville - ??

Under 14 Boys and Girls
Sturt vs Eastern - Re-Scheduled
Sturt vs Forestville - Re-scheduled

Under 16 Boys and Girls
Sturt vs West - West Winners
Sturt vs North Adelaide - North Adelaide Winners

Under 18 Boys and Girls
Sturt vs South - Sturt Winners
Sturt vs Norwood - ??

Anyone please add to the results.

U12 girls - Forestville
U18 girls - Norwood

gotta win when you get there
only one team wins the grand final - well done to the winners - commiseartions to losers - see you all next weekend to do it all over again

Post deleted. Try not to be such a wanker next time.

So many anonymous snipers. All I have said is see what we do for a week and make up your own minds. No us vs them, no he said she said, no my club is better than your, no conspiracy theories and no taking shots at each other from anonymity.

If you don't want to follow me around, follow Schueller, Laurie, Weekes, Mesecke or any of the hard-working coaches in successful programs to see how hard they, their players and fellow coaches work.

Talk of zoning, poaching, country players, comp structure etc are a diversion and are excuses by people who are being outworked by those who are successful. Hard work equals success, that I am sure of.

All this talk about how eggs may be cooked and a brand of mints. In the end, the kids dont really give a rats; they seem to be happy to play.

121352:

"I'm critical of Sturts country numbers as I see it as focussing on premierships above development as evidenced by Sturts under representation at state trials this weekend(considering they played off in the grand final)because of the number of country players you have"

Which state trials are you referring to - Girls? Boys? Metro? Country? Which age group?

In the U/16 Metro Boys, Sturt has four kids in the 20 man squad (as does West who won the Summer season, and Norwood has 5)- seems a pretty reasonable number dont you think?

Keith

I think you will find that a lot of sturt kids are multi talented at district cricket, u/17 footy and other activities and have commitments on saturday arvos and week nights. I know of 3 that did not go out due to this very reason, 1 kid would have made it but he has chosen another path away from bball all together.

Having to choose at this age group will always mean kids dropping out.

This is why you will find that 4 or 5 ( 3 gone already) of last years u/14 bronze winning nationals team and a couple more of the previous years gold medal team will have probably left the sport by years end. - At the age of in some instances 14.

There is not a lot you can do about this as kids start to chase their passions and hone in on their dreams.

This isn't really my topic, but I'm going to jump in here.

You took issue with someone identifying that they were providing a service. But they are. Juniors pay, right?

Then you've suggested that someone who suggests that those only in it for fun would better suit social basketball has a "problem". ('That's your problem.')

A district club and coach can have fun and provide a service - you're right that they're not mutually exclusive, but you've made no headway against the argument that a marketplace without interference will provide the best competition and drive to succeed.

I've worked in companies (OK, run my own) that must work to stay alive. I've also worked in a government organisation that provides the same service, but is propped up artificially - that government organisation stagnated, the staff were lazy and did not stay abreast of advances in their fields.

If you prop up a club with artificial support (funding, bail-outs, guaranteed number of customers [which is what zoning is partly about, surely?], etc) then they have no impetus to work hard. That doesn't mean that they won't work hard, but things can certainly drift quickly in that direction.

My first post here to this thread. I dont agree with 121389 however I also do not agree with.

"marketplace without interference will provide the best competition and drive to succeed"

I understand your point. BUT

This is not entirely accurate IMO. Purely competitive markets do not really exist in real life - perhaps they only do in some commodity, agricultural markets. They are a theoretical concept used to highlight components of various markets. Most markets have some form of interference. Why is this the case? There are many, many reasons why but quite simply purely competitive markets do not succeed especially in service type industries.

Take Pro/Rel for example. IMO if that was introduced some kind of controls would need to be introduced along with it.

Think about monopolistic competitive markets, and some of the components of those markets.

Woohooo..i have no interest nor bias in the Sturt Vs the rest discussion.

Here's my take poaching happens every day, whether its one friend says to another..hey you should play for us. It an only work if the player being poached sees a benefit in changing. If his/her current team is supplying what the player needs and is a chance at playing finals..im sure they will stay, if not..they will go.

So, build a good club and they will stay. simple?

sorry for the typo's above.

"However, if you got the same 10 farmers, and you give 3 of them 20 seeds, 3 of them 8 seeds and 4 of them 2 seeds, immediately due to economies of scale the 4 farmers with only 2 seeds will go out of business, the 3 farms with 8 will struggle, and if they are really really good farmers, they'll survive, while the 3 farmers with 20 seeds all get a free ride to a market with less competitors and no real need to compete short-term. "

- An oligopoly. Thats exactly what I think we will end up with if we are not careful. Probably already have one actually.

"Why can't the other clus simply do the same?"

Geographic positions. Socieconomic differences.

Market based misconceptions.

Difficulty in retaining good people in a challenging (loosing) environment.

For a pure competitive market to exist you need the following:

- Many buyers and sellers
- A homogenous product
- Sufficient knowledge
- Free entry

The last 3 do not exist. The 2nd one will never exist in a service based environment and the 3rd one is unlikely to exist in any sporting environment. The 4th does not exist in the current environment.

You seem to look at clubs as a static entity. IE like a company; with consistent "owners". You attack other "clubs" for not doing enough. Are you attacking the "clubs" for the work they didnt do 5 yrs ago or the work you think they are not doing now. Its non-sensical because its more than likely an entirely different set of people are now running these clubs the only common them is the clubname because the people in it are entirely different.

The thing is the people in clubs have consistently changed over the yrs. The thing that makes a club is its people and the people are always changing.

Some kind of zoning means clubs can attract people/parents/players/coaches in their area. All of a sudden you have a new set of people at the 'lesser' clubs and more of them.

121455, are we going to make it compulsory for kids to go to basketball? Is the government going to fund basketball clubs?

If so, then that question is valid.

Do you mean that some clubs dont work hard OR do you mean the people in some clubs dont work hard? What if you were to change the people in those clubs?

Its compulsory for kids to go to school, right? It is not compulsory for kids to play basketball, right? If you go to a private school in Elizabeth you don't have to travel to lessons in Pasadena or Marion do you?

Some clubs are contending with: Distance to travel, poorer socioeconomic areas, smaller recruiting numbers(IE eventhough sturt, south etc. share their recruiting area the market size is bigger. If a disgruntled player leaves sturt they are not going to move to Centrals, they may move to SOuth though) etc. etc.

Yes, the good players/families leave these clubs, players go right past the door of these clubs etc. etc. The good basketball/sporting families often go to the clubs that the "service is better". If these families were forced to go to the less successful clubs then all of a sudden you have those same families "reinventing" those clubs.

Zoning may not be a good thing to have permanently in place but if you were going to open up the markets under pro/rel perhaps zoning should also be looked at for a period of time (EG 3-5 yrs)??

Economics 104,

You have tried to introduce economic theory to mask your general inability to argue on a basketball level. I would suggest you talk a little less "Michael Porter" and a little more "Michael Jordan".

To begin with posts (#121400) , (#121417) does not at all lend any weight to the discussion on basketball.

Competitive (not purely competitive but highly competitive) markets do exist and "work" in service industries  why do you think its so much cheaper now to get a tax return done, fly to Melbourne or to hook up an internet connection than it was a few years ago.

They succeed becase companies who don't allocate their recources efficiently are forced to lift their standards and employ best practice to keep up with the competition. Those that don't, fall by the way side, and those that do stay in the industry. The benefits are ultimately returned to a) the consumer and b) the companies that are innovative and efficent.

To put this into a basketball perspective, Sturt succeed in junior basketball because they allocate the bulk of their recources to programs that are of the greatest need to the market (junior basketball programs) and don't misuse them with programs that are not sought after as highly (we spend the appropriate amount of money to fund our ABL teams, but we dont overspend in the chase to win a title that might bankrupt our club).

Why should we manufactuer an environment, where recources (either player numbers, monetary or otherwise) are continually given to those that have a proven track record of allocating them incorrectly. Isaac's right  it would just turn into a "public sector" situation where there is no "real" pressure to work efficiently.

Case in point - going back 8-9 years, all clubs recieved a development grant by BASA. Some clubs put this recource directly into their junior programs and are now seeing the benefits. Sturt used this recource as the impetus (sorry Isaac, to good a word not to use again in this thread) to start the Oz Ball program and the domestic competition. Other clubs put the recources into other areas (ABL imports) and are now paying for it through lower team numbers and poor results.

What has made this error even worse for those clubs, is that they are too proud to admit they were/are wrong and refuse to learn from the successful models where best practice methods are being used.

Its not a good situation if clubs were folding and we were left with 3-4 super clubs, but this would not be the case if the weaker clubs made a serious effort improving their systems, changing their philosophies and "living within their means".

And lastly, you said  "You attack other "clubs" for not doing enough. Are you attacking the "clubs" for the work they didnt do 5 yrs ago or the work you think they are not doing now. Its non-sensical because its more than likely an entirely different set of people are now running these clubs the only common them is the clubname because the people in it are entirely different"

This is true - Sturt have had three presidents in the past ten years, so there is change in the administration at clubs. However, we have continued to keep the same focus to develop our juniors first and foremost throughouit all these different administartions and have remained at the fore front of junior basketball during this time. How does this fit with your argument?

It really is very simple.

RESULTS are a BI PRODUCT of an extremely good coaching structure - any sport, any level.

Forget about zoning or any of that crap, they are Just EXCUSES for poor programming.

STURT and Forestville get the results due to their programs.

Let SB and his hordes of merry men coach our kids anyday.

Get Rid of the crap teams and have 6 strong teams. Make the no hopers and pretenders from down south and up the hill disappear or amalgamate.

Lets see how strong the new body controlling the sport are - Change for the betterment of the game and get rid of the whingers that have made the sport go backwards and bankrupt over the past 30 years.

There is no doubt that Sturt and Forrestville are doing a great job and have some innovative hard working people involved in all areas of their club. Is it just a coincidence that they have both prospered with the advent of the 2 new 3 court facilities that certainly do give them an advantage over most other clubs. This is not their fault but there is not an even playing field and there will never be one.
There will always be a need for small clubs and there will always be success stories at these clubs, both team and individual. There will be good and bad coaching at all clubs and this can not be measured by results alone. The Sturts, Forrestvilles etc will continue to improve whilst they seek to win overall honours and there will be instances of success elsewhere. Parents will choose the club for there children based on many factors and to some big is not always best. There have and will always be stories of success against the odds and in some instances a single age chmpionship will mean as much to a small club as an overall championship to a so called super club.
Those that play administer and coach the game are in general all good people and deserve repect regardless of what club they represent.

Anon 121546
If you believe that there is no relationship between the advent of the 2 new stadiums and the improved success of Sturt and Forrestville you are in denial. This is not a critisism but a fact. Newish facilities ability to raise funds from excellent bar and canteen facilities, central location good club structure on and off court = success.

121483, I am only trying to apply economic principles to demonstrate how the principal of a purely competitive market cannot be applied to a service industry, consisting of mostly volunteers like district basketball (as 121376 beleives). Talking about purely competitive markets and basketball is like trying to say chalk and cheese are the same thing.

121522, I dont know if you would zone inner city clubs.

I think the clubs you might consider zoning would be Eastern, Southern and Centrals. If we were to consider the concept that some clubs work harder than others I would propose that its the people in some clubs that work harder.

Therefore, wouldnt the best way to effect change, along with pro/rel, be to include some kind of zoning to help effect change of personnel at the clubs that work less?

In reality I think its a case of more people in the larger clubs working harder (a kind of economies of scale effect). Could zoning effect a change in this club sizes/economies of scale as well?

The key question I have is; "do clubs work harder or the people in them?" A club doesnt work this just does not make sense it is a thing/a concept made of people which do the work etc. you speak of.

Better players = more success = better players staying longer = more players attracted = better parents staying longer = parents prepared to put in more time = attracting more coaches = new people in a club = new culture = new club.... might only take 3-5 yrs for the change to be effected.

Ever tried saying to a Southern kids' parents in U10s / U12s at trials that they will be playing at Starplex or Hillcrest? Its not an even playing field for some clubs. Its not a pure market.

(#121599) - you really have no idea of economics do you?

The two examples you pulled, Telecommunications (monopoly) and Camera (oligopoly) are among the worst examples going around.

Why?

High barriers to entry. There aren't high barrier to entry into the basketball 'market'. Try something like Farming or Furniture Making.
With furniture making, anyone with a few tools (access to a court, and a couple of moltens) and a bit of knowledge (coaches) can make and sell furniture. If they make good furniture, then they are a success. Sure you'll always have the IKEA's (sturt) and the Freedom's (norwood), with you're le Cornu's (north) then your other smaller teir furniture makers ie Bob's Furniture (West). But in this market, if you put a tax on 'making' furniture, let's say a flat rate of $100,000 a year and IKEA's selling 50 couches a year, while Trevor's furniture (Centrals) are selling only 20, of course IKEA are going to benefit. Economies of scale. Hope this clears up your confusion.

121402, God and Economics 104 (or whatever other alias you want to go with)

Some of us are well versed in Economics (would you like me to draw you the graph on how the government is taxing smokers not because they want them to stop smoking, but for the profits they make because smokers would rather pay higher prices than give up?) - and believe that although you seem to have a handle on Economic concepts you dont have a clue about basketball.

You can spin econoic and market forces theory all you like to support your position (just like you can shape game stats to tell any story you like about a basketball game) - but the bottom line is you are flawed.

The fact remains it has been proven that clubs who allocate their recources effiently, effectively and innovatively and who look seek out and employ best practice rise above the crowd (regardless of market structure).

As I stated in the past, when it was a "level playing feild" a few years ago in Development funding; certain clubs abused these hand outs (because they allocated them inaffectively) and others prospered because they used the funding to their maximum advantage. I would be a huge mistake to go back down this path and try to even things up with things like zoning, player allocations etc - you are just rewarding mediocrity.

Regardless of what market structure you want to apply to the BASA district competition, some clubs have an inability to prosper because they dont know how to manage their recources effectively AND /OR refuse to accept proposals for reform that those clubs who have clearly dominated junior basketball have put forward (they dont wnat to be helped).

Therefore, they will flounder regardless of what structure is actually occuring and what benefits/restrictions are made on the competition

Why punish the clubs who do know what they are doing?

I suggest you focus less on the economics and more on the actual facts and history of the competition and clubs.

Russel, I agree with steering away from economics - its complicating the issue. I think you will find that I only entered this discussion after Isaac and an anonymous poster started trying to use economic concepts (121398) to backup their arguments.

I will keep this argument simple.

Do not blame "club's" for their success or failure. This is stupidity. A district club (especially the lesser ones) cycle through their people at least every 3 to 4 yrs. There is an entirely (bar Damian (who you could argue does not the same focus as in the 80s - 90s) and Jenny) new set of people at Norwood now than were there during the 80s and 90s.

Why do the lesser clubs consistently fail? Solve that, faciliate change and you will have a far stronger competition and it also just happens that these lesser District clubs tend to be in the more rapidly expanding populations in the state and represent the greatest opportunities to grow basketball.

"refuse to accept proposals for reform that those clubs who have clearly dominated junior basketball have put forward (they dont wnat to be helped)." these decisions were made by people in certain clubs.

Can you explain to me how zoning would not change a club (well actually the people in a club)?

I reckon pro/rel, zoning, regional comps for younger age groups could all help faciliate change. Soon the entire personnel makeup of "clubs" change. Logos may even change, colours etc. You say "clubs" do/did this, clubs do/did that it just does not make sense to me to say that. Clubs cant do anything. Its people that do things.

God,

You said - "Do not blame "club's" for their success or failure. This is stupidity. A district club (especially the lesser ones) cycle through their people at least every 3 to 4 yrs".

As I have mentioned above, Sturt has had three different presidents in 10 yrs and has still remained at the top of their game throughout all of this. The clubs that are suffering through poor results and poor numbers ARE to blame (its not "stupid" to blame them at all) - they were to blame 10 yrs ago and they are to blame now.

You said - "Why do the lesser clubs consistently fail?"

The problem is not the market structure, dynamic administration, demographic differences of their geographic area - the problem is that some clubs either dont know how to change OR dont want to change. The former problem has been addressed both formerly (with various proposals put forward by the more successful clubs at Junior Committees) and informerly (through discussion between stakeholders, including this forum). The later can only be solved by the clubs members revolting and putting in a new management and supporting change for the better of the whole comp.

Neither of these solutions will be affected by handouts or restrictions being imposed by the market (or the market facilitater in BSA). They are internal issues.

Yes I would like to know.

I look on from afar and see that nothing has changed in the land of the great white flop when it comes to administration of our great game. Absolutely nothing will be done and effect any change with your comp because of some of your flea infested self interested loser clubs that will never go anywhere.

I am visiting your lovely state and staying at my hillbilly mates place, but reading topic on a great site makes one wonder how the sturts and forestvilles of your comp continually put up with the diatribe that eminates obviously from the northern and southern regions of your wonderful metropolis.

I would tell you now our top clubs would not even think about coming here if sturt weren't around or whats his name, butler, mesecke and co weren't involved.

There is a saying when you fly into Adelaide - not only do you fly back 30 minutes on the clock but 30 years in time. Unfortunately some of your clubs are still back there.

By the way who are this Western Magnets crowd ? Pinched our Darebin tops and Colours.

By the way enjoy your Grand Prix this weekend and thanx again Hillbilly for some great hospitality.

(#121617)

Your post is all nerd-talk and text books

The fact remains it has been proven that clubs who allocate their recources effiently, effectively and innovatively and who look seek out and employ best practice rise above the crowd

a few years ago in Development funding; certain clubs abused these hand outs

Regardless of what market structure you want to apply to the BASA district competition, some clubs have an inability to prosper because they dont know how to manage their recources effectively

121402,

You Said - "That smoking graph you'd like to draw would be incorrect, the graph representing smoking and taxing would be showing the elastisity of the product" - YOU'RE Incorect. The "product" is not elastic, the "demand" is elastic. I'm quite aware what "PED" is but thought it irrelevent to sprout off about just so the rest of the forum readers could see I new some "basic" economics. You see that brings the topic off track - Nice try though.

You said - " But understand that not all clubs receive the same resources, and this isn't through their own doing" - Could you put forward which recources that Sturt are recieving that other clubs are not. We dont have a stadium (we pay for our training times), we are in a small geographic area faced with multiple competitors, we dont have a canteen bringing in money. Any recources we have at our disposal were aquired from our own business savvy and relationship building - the deal negotiaited with the school for use of the weights room, the numerous Aussie Hoops programs we run to draw players from, the JDC who we have put in place with money that we are saving by not paying imports for our ABA team.

The recources we do have, we allocate efficiently and tactically and have many times offered to pass this knowledge on to other clubs (to which we are chasticised because those clubs cant see past their pride and envy).

You said - "But at least BSA should provide all clubs with a chance" - They do, they provide them (member clubs) with the opportunity to enter teams in all divisions, provide venues and officiating for their games to be held.

121617, yes some of your economic discussion confuses the issue although I do think your basic economic ideas are excellent. I also realise that the anonymous poster and Isaac initiated attempted to apply false economic theories to this discussion. BUt on the smoking excise impacting elasticity. Economic theory is not consistent with taxes impacting elasticity. It has no impact on elasticity because an excise shifts the demand curve down and to the left, not the angle of it.

After this. Im going to try to step out of this, because its probably as far as the discussion will go, but I will say:

My suggestion for zoning is not about giving "clubs" a handout. Its about effecting cultural change and growth in basketball. You say clubs make decisions, are lazy etc. etc. I see clubs as mere representations of a geographic area. You change the people, increase the numbers of people restructure the competition and clubs have a very different makeup (names and logos may change even) and it just happens that the regions that would be most effected are key potential, opportunistic markets for basketball.

121709, The questions you ask are about people in clubs and not the clubs. I would dispute that struggling clubs are not putting the same effort as strong clubs. I can easily provide evidence from my experience to prove otherwise. Clubs are merely an entity representing a geographic region. With the right controls in place we can establish a monopolistic competitive market (rather than an oligopoly) where all clubs are slightly differentiated but the competition is more even and each geographic region has the same opportunity to grow and succeed.

Thankyou, for the discussion.

Actually it would shift the supply curve up and to the left, not demand. Sorry, still no impact on demand elasticity though. See what happens when we get over complicated.

congratulations sturt on being if not now but in future the best club in the worst mainland state. remember sa was one or two and had too much nbl talent it could cater for. ironically most other clubs have exactly the same small mindedness.note the competition is outside of basketball and the real success is its contribution to society especially youth in which it is grossly under achieving.the answers are simple if the mind is open.condolences to sturt as the enviroment it helps create will reduce its real contribution.