I think thats why the school based programs with rles such as the 20 point rule (no defence outside the 3 point circle if your up by 20+) are great.

I guess in district its a different story, but surely they could have something similair to save the kids some dignity.

If the rules dont call for it, I dont beleive a coach should be telling the kids to ease up and take it easy, it can easily set bad habits for later down the track, kids suddenly playing Under 16's, and up by 15, decide to ease up....

I can recall a one very time, when i was filling in a particular Under 21 Division 1 team of div 2/3 standard playing a mostly full of ABL players and state players Division 1 side at Pasadena losing by 110 points.
The victorious team were not only taller, faster, wiser, and 100 times better but disgraceful in their sportswomanship on the court by disgracing the other team and disallowing them to even get past the half way line. And just to add, the defeated girls many of them wanted to quit after the game feeling a loss of confidence, self-esteem and the love of basketball.
And i know of many other teams that do the same, just for the sake of percentage. Not to name any though.

At under 10s in particular it comes down to the character of the coach. I remember one coach who called a time-out early in the second half after it was clear he was going to win. (only 25 points up). The instructions to the kids were:
- LHS - dribble LH and vice versa
- LHS - LH lay-up and cive versa

if LHS and using LH and make a mistake; no problems as were trying to do the right thing

but

if LHS and use right hand andmake basket you were benched or if you switched sides to "beat" the instruction benched.

I remember the coach for congratulating a player after missing a LH lay-up because he tried to do the right thing and he in fact benched players who didn't.

In the end they still won, possibly not as well as they could; it didn't come across as if they were demeaning to the opposition. A great display of initiative by the coach.

I don't think you can dictate how these things are policed in games. Good coaches at that level are the key.

With regards to older teams in Div 1 i say dont put them in the comp if they are going to be thrashed.

This is a tough one, especially for kids at say U10's and U12's. Unfortunately for many reasons, some teams cannot compete at Div 1 in particular but do need to have a team in as high a division as possible (not sure if it is a rule), but sometimes having enough kids sufficiently capable is impossible. I believe that it is up to the coach, who if he/she has any real interest in the game (of basketball as a whole) needs to give their kids some different goals. I have seen games where teams cannot get the ball over half way. What is the point for either team. We all need to take a "big picture" view and consider the benefit to both teams in a thrashing. The winners get "cocky" to the point of being painful and the losers get to the point where they question their involvement in the game. Parents especially (of the losing team) wonder why they spend the money they do ? No easy answer to this except to ask coaches to consider the overall effect.

as a coach of a unda tens tem who experienced a big thrashing a this season, i do feel that some thing should be done. our boys felt humiliated and disheartened after the game. it was hard to tell them after the game that it was ok to loose because they all felt sooooo bad. they had lost alot of self confidense and were embarresed because the otha team played full court man, not letting our boys even get a touch of the ball. as a coach, if my boys were up by a great deal i would ease up on our defence and try to work on some of our skills that need polishing, like left hand dribbling and so on. i think it is hard on little kids to understant that a loss is a loss, and they take it out on themselves. i personally think that one of the hardest things to do is look at a young team who have just experienced a major thrashing because they take it to heart.

I coach and BASA relegated us to a lower grade that what we wanted - so we have been giving out some thrashings...

it points agood point forward for some form of relegation / promotion

my kids played - from the bottom up - they got thrashed some weeks - but now have learned and compete

if you want airy fairy rules regarding balancing teams - have a draft or play social - weve earnt our right to dominate !

oh...

and by the way - next time i am in melbourne or club championships - i'll ask eltham or Knox to play wrong handed -----

YEAH SURE......

1 hand , 1 bounce.... maybe ?

I think the wrong handed idea is good.


A) if done the right way, not demeaning to the losing side

b) also teaches the kids to be able to shoot from both hands, and play at the hoop from both sides, therefore developing their skills for further down the track. Well done to whatever coach employed that thinking.

district is not even stevens it is where the big boys play - if you want mercy - go play in a domestic comp or school stuff.

district is about being the best - becoming the best - moving up and playing with the state's ball elite

if you want to scale things down go elsewhere - kids are competitive - a big thrash only made mine street hardened and fight more

even the philosophy of only 1 div 1 team per club has back fired - and should be dropped - the weaker clubs that wanted / hoped for discards have picked at the scraps and it is time for a reset

I am not involved with junior district (or any junior programs at all for that matter), but I personally cannot see how scrapping the 1 Div 1 rule will be good for basketball in general.

If that is scrapped, teams who have a larger group of juniors in their region are going to be able to field 2-3 top quality sides, whereas areas who may be zoned with a less populated junior region, struggle to get enough quality Div 1 players for that 1 side. End result is those teams who cant field teams stop putting teams in altogether, and the district compeition is reduced to 2 or 3 clubs. How can that be good for anyone involved at all???

Although this has been discussed in other threads (and will no doubt be discussed again), I thought I'd answer one part of Yogee's question.

The current structure, in which clubs can only have 1 division 1 team, and all 10 member clubs are automatically guaranteed a spot in division 1, is resulting in massive blowouts, because some clubs are stronger than others. These thrashings provide nothing positive for the winners or the losers.

Without arguing for or against double div 1s, or promotion/relegation, unless all clubs can agree that the current structure is not conducive to positive junior development, then we will not progress.

'Yogee if you don't know anything about something then DON'T POST.'

Jirachi and I actually thought we lived in a democratic society where everyone is entitled to a voice and an opinion.

there are lots on here who know didly squat yet post and post to their hearts content - let them - or is only your opinion important

Actually, I didnt post comment about anyones eleseopinion (please point out where I did).

I made a comment, based on a life experience point of view, and based on my knowledge and experience within the secular world of basketball as well.

In answer to Jurachi's point about players going to these "stronger"clubs....so then what happens to these lesser clubs, who under your 8 team model, would never even be able to make it to Div 1??

Let's see...my U14 daughter wants to play District. She can either join Club XYZ's second Div 1 team, as a benchie, or be a starter for Club ABC's Div 2 team, knowing that Club ABC have not been able to get into Div 1 for the least 4 seasons.

Of course she would go to XYZ, therefore denying ABC another player, and placing a nail in the coffin of Club ABC. Not to mention, if she only gets to play Div 2, if she actually is any good (assuming she is), how would she get noticed by state coaches, SASI etc, who tend to only look at the Div 1 players.

Therefore, less players into club ABC, therefore less money to spend, hence the junior programs end up abolished, before the club folds altogether.

The perfect model of this is the old Woodville Woodpeckers Footy club. Perennial wooden spooners, could not attract juniors because of this (not to mention the area was (and still is) does/did not have that many kids, and ended up having to merge with West Torrens, who was facing a similair fate. This reduced the SANFL to 9 teams.

As I said, having a district comp with maybe 3 or 4 teams, how is that benedicial to anyone at all?

As for "if you dont know anything, dont post"...I am sorry, but thiese are democratic forums, and anyone is entitled to post an opinion, as long as it confirms with the terms and conditions.

Clueless : the comment was made AT me. by Jirachi.

Jirachi,

I haven't posted for a while, so I guess I missed the thread where you were annointed 'forum opinion moderator'. Yogee can have an opinion on Junior ball, just like I, you, any body can have one on it. The beauty of this forum is that you can post your opinion on anything, whether you are an 'expert' or not. If someone agrees or disgrees they can post for or against your view. Its called 'conversation' and makes this site interesting.

For example, I have never coached or played for the 36ers, nor has anyone else on site (unless Ken Cole has got himself a computer or Dunlap is posting from Colorado!) but we are all allowed (and encouraged) to voice our opinion on what the 36ers players are doing well and what they need to improve on. Phil isnt jumping on here and ripping anyone to shreads for it, because that isn't the nature of this place.

Lighten up! If you dont agree with his post just say why, but dont make it personal or we wont have other people with opinions wanting to come forward and post.

And just to clarify, I actually had a reasonable amount of junior experience, umpiring Saturday mornings in a school program, which as been the breeding ground for quite a few juniors into district programs, so I do know something about juniors.

If I was a parent of a player new to district basketball, and I had a choice between clubs XYZ and ABC, I'd make my decision on the following:
a) which club will provide an environment in which my child can develop?
b) which club will be able place my child in a team such that they play in a competition suitable to their standard?

Whether that meant playing in division 1, 5, or 5000 would be irrelevant to me.

One problem with the current structure is that it doesn't allow most clubs (mine included) to provide b), in every age group because there are blowouts in most divisions.

Another problem with the current structure is that it forces no clubs to provide enough resources for a) to occur. Clubs are guaranteed of having a division 1 team, so figure they might as well spend their money elsewhere.

As a State and SASI coach, I can guarantee that you would come under consideration for both programs regardless of which division you were playing in. These days, most players who join the SASI program in Under 15s are actually playing division 2, and State trials are open to players in all divisions.

Standard disclaimer: I'm not convinced about double div 1s or promotion/relegation. I just know that the current structure ain't working.

It's good to see some good healthy discussions here and varying points of view, but I think some people are getting off track slightly.
My belief is their should only be one div.1 team per grade,and no Anne, in club championships you play your hardest but if your smart and thrashing someone there you rest your main players and run your second tier, and no we don't want airy fairy rules,and karate kid yes I agree District basketball is about playing at the highest level and giving kids something to aspire to.
But the point I am trying to get across is at an age when kids are experimenting with sport and we want to attract people to our sport,are there some coaches doing harm by not dropping back to half court defence etc.
Like I said previously use these opportunities to experiment with the team, develop their none natural side eg left hand etc.
Also I am predominately refering to U/10 lower divs and possiblely some low U12's where people are experiencing the sport for a first time.
Most coaches I believe also do do the right thing but for the few that don't, should the umpire at his discretion be able to ask the offending coach to get his players to drop back to 1/2 court or whatever is required, because I'm sure it would be boring to umpire a game,be a non spectacle game to watch and disheartening to the kids involved if they can't even pass the ball to a mate on the court.
After all isn't it about encouraging,and developing kids for both the benefit of the sport and the individuals themselves!
Yes anonymous sport is extremely important in todays society it builds,character,self esteem,discipline and a sense of belonging,all of these attributes are important to the development of our children and I believe most kids who develop these from playing in club sports grow up to be responsible and successful people in life! there is no need to turn off the score boards!

So....your posting an opinion differing to mine emans you are degrading my opinion, the very thing you criticised me for??

I QUITE CLEARLY stated that I have no current junior experience (something I hope to change in the future, would like to get into coaching some time down the track....need to explore how I can do this)...and that the opinion I posted was purely a personal one, on how I think things should run, and what I considered the potential downside to what other people have offered.

You have offered wonsides, and alternatives to my suggestions, and thats fine, at the end of the day, as far as I am concerned, junior basketball should be about one thing, and one thing only....ensuring the juniors are enjoying their time in their basketball world.

If they arent enjoying it, then the club is failing, regardless of how many teams they have.

If the current situation isnt working (taking guidance from what Paul and Liam have said), then yeah, sure fix it. I just dont think stopping every member club from being able to field a Div 1 side would be healthy for the overall scope of basketball.

Yogee,

The point put forward by parents and coaches here is that juniors getting thrashed are not enjoying their basketball.

And the other important point is that a potential change wouldn't stop any clubs from fielding a Div 1 side, that right would remain but just wouldn't necessarily be guaranteed -- it would reduce complacency which is important.

we wanted a higher grade - but BASA said no (not div 1)- but they said "if you win well, and show you are good enough - you can have your desired grade"

hence our team causing huge blow outs in our grade, hopefully only for summer.

this is just presenting another slant on why blow outs are happening

as a junior i played games that were 92-2 and the team i played for were the 2 - admittedly in those days there was only one division per age group

i survived jirachi and continue some 35 years later not only have i enjoyed the sport participating as a player - i made district women (bench player) from such lowly beginnings, i played div 2 for many years.

my enjoyment of the game was not put off by such trashings after all i came to the game in u18s and i played games against people like ilsa blicavs (nagy) and jan graham (stirling) they were far far better than me but i learnt something new each week.

the game has brought me great enjoyment, many friends and many rewards - if i had walked away from 92-2 thrashings i wouldn't be a life member of basa, stop and woodville today. i wouldn't have the many friends and acquaintances i have thru the game. i wouldn't have had national league scoretable experience and i wouldn't have attended the sydney olympics and paralympics as a technical official.

my son nathan now makes his own contribution to the sport - basketball like anything in life is about enjoyment. if you don't enjoy something you don't do it but not giving up at the first sign of adversity is character building.

the sport is littered by many players who have been in winning sides and been very talented yet walked away from the sport at a young age. it is also has its fair share of players who are not as gifted and who have had to work long and hard at their game to make it and they are still around.

personally and totally my own opinion i don't think pro/rel is the way to go. personally i have faith in the junior committees to work in the best interest of the sport and the clubs.

but as i started this post my early career was often humilating to say least - the rewards are there if you love the game and want to put the extra time in.

you have to earn your stripes in district

in an ideal world all would be even

well said lyn

learn from the school of hard knocks - build character and be a better player

listen to the people that know, yoyr old school stars, paul arnotts, liam flynns

they all seem to lean towards a grading / promotion relegation system

this many key personalities can't be wrong.

most of us want a game and don't give too much what grade - it is only our egos that say " i'm div 1" - but i can tell you - if you command respect in div 5 with a good game - people are happy

how an 80 - 10 walloping could be good for anyone - is beyond me !

actually jirachi i was 14 cause norwood who i played for then couldn't field an under 16 and a under 18 so they fielded on side in u18s some girls were too old to play 16s

you seem to forget that as i have been involved in the game for so long i've seen the whole gammut of teams thrashings

i've also seen kids bereft and or berated by parents for losing by a point

i've seen kids beaten week after week after week who are now playing and starting in abl

and thank you for calling me inconsiderate

just my opinion

every club deserves the right to develop its junior squads in div 1 in under 10's and 12's.
BUT
Considering div one basketball is an elite sport
U14 division one district basketball should be for the 8 most compeditive teams.
Seriously
In 1 or 2 years time these players could be at u16 nationals.
A quality competition should be more important than the three weaker teams in the grade.
What I mean is the three lowest placed(after summer season) u14 div 1 teams should play crossover promotion/relegation games against the top three div 2 teams.

3rd last- 3rd
2nd last- 2nd
last - 1st

The winning teams will have earned the right to play div 1.

To anyone who thinks this would be un-fair.

Each club would have 5 years
2 u10
2 u12
u14 bottom age

and the summer season to develop each age level to a point were they can earn a spot in div one.

I think all clubs would have the tools and ability to EVERY YEAR produce a division 1 side capable of beating the division two(crossover) oponent IF it was a necessity.

But because it isnt.

Teams that don't play division one standard basketball just get given a spot, thats not fair!

Some players are div 1 standard but may be at a strong club, is it fair that they miss out playing the highest standard because they show loyalty to club and team mates and don't leave.

Making teams earn a div one spot by u14's would force clubs to...
-shift focus to development of younger agegroups.
-Make the most of its 'given' div one spots in u10 and 12.
-Work harder to get younger players in (domestic comp)

Pro/Relegation would result in closer u14 div 1 and 2 games

Two years later the same age group would start pro/rel in u16's, and the system would flow through

The current system isn't producing strong competitions.

BASA nominates an agegroup say this years bottom age under tens (born 97) and rules when this agegroup hits u14 top age they will have to EARN a div one spot.

Everything would have to change and fast.

Any club that isn't in the process of developing a domestic competition.
Any club that spends more on senior players than on its junior program

Ask yourself, do you deserve a div one side if the other teams are getting nothing out of thrashing you.
Should the quality of basketball in the state stagnate for your sake, so you can keep your precious div one spot.
Spend a whole year teaching your players how to minimise a beating just so you don't have to swallow your pride.
When another team is in div 2 and can't get any competition.
IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!!!

Just my opinion!

Out of

96 u10 and u12 teams boys/girls

41 teams come from Fville, Sturt and southern

55 teams come from the remaining eight clubs

All three of those clubs that run domestic competitions have large squads.
(should mention that Norwood has as many teams as Sturt and Fville)

Pro/Relegation aside

I can only see a few clubs monopolising success for years to come.
BECAUSE THEY HAVE EARNED IT

At the moment do you think the bottom three sides in u14 div 1 would stand a chance against the top div 2 teams.
I'd be suprised!!

I'll leave you all to it. I have had my say as purely what MY opinion is, I am not trying to say it should become gospel, or that any of it would work. Just purely an opinion. Somethign I thought we were allowed to have. According to some, we arent, so I wont offer mine any more.

yogee - i appreciate and respect your point of view - you can say what you like - do not give in to bullies - this is a forum and debates is what we thrive on - as long as they stay objective and not personal slander.

why don't you take on a junior team to coach at woodville - a div 3 or 4 team ?

you will get plenty of support - it is obvious you love the game - like us.


all for one, 07/11/04

I wouldnt even have the first clue about coaching, I dont even know the drills!!

I have never played, my love for basketball only came through watching the sport, then grew into umpiring, my reporting, and now my stats work as well.

My plans had been when I move inot coaching is maybe assistsing for a couple of seasons, then going from there, when I have a knowledge base.

I enjoy reading everyone's points of view on this subject and hope you will take a few moments to read mine on this subject - again.

The gaps in various age groups are far wider now than it was 4-5 yrs ago and the junior grades were even more competitive 10 - 15 yrs ago. Sorry Lynne but my junior experiences were not of any thrashings but of a competitive game each and every week.

Have the competition become far less close??? Can someone perhaps tell me why this is??? What is been done wrong now versus then??? Each club had 1 team in Div 1 back in the day and the comps were pretty even.

Pro/Rel in the current model (I am sure most would have seen it) is what could be called "Pro/Rel in its purest form". IE you perform, you earn the spot in div 1 by winning. Therefore the age groups would be more competitive and therefore players develop against better competition each week. True, but is this going to help what Pro/Rel actually wants to achieve as highlighted in detail by Montezuma.

If Pro/Rel came in tomorrow we might have 1 club in U16 Div 1 boys that would be able to get 2, maybe 3 (sturt) teams in div 1 and another club that could probably get 2 (north) and the rest of the clubs would probably fill 1 of the remaining spots. If Pro/Rel in its purest form had been in place for this age group from U10s and they had exactly the same quality of coaching that these players have throughout their divisions then it is more than likely that these clubs would be able to field a few FAR more teams in Div 1 because:
1. their 2nd tier players would be more numerous from U10s /U12s/U14s

2. their players would be playing against better competition week in and week out.

The system has now enabled the same playing group and coaches to get to Div 1 rather than actual player development. So what if we then end up with a more even competition, with less quality, but with the "top" clubs gain success because of the system rather than quality of program. Even competition but without the quality of players and their development that is trying to be achieved. So Montezumas arguments for Pro/Rel can also be used against it in my opinion.

Also, while we need to emphasise recruitment at U10 / U12 level you may have a club that has great recruiting skills at U10/U12 level but bad at developing players to play in older age groups, just maintaining their positions because of the fact they have more teams in Div 1 / 2 from a younger age group. Now you could argue the other clubs could then take their spots but this is easier said than done. You play at Div 1 level with a poor coaching you are still going to be better than a Div 2 team with a good coaching. So therefore all our Div 1 teams could be getting poor coaching in u18s but they are there because of the level competition they play against week in and week out so we end up with a more even but less of a quality competition.

We should have either:
- Pro / Rel with more controls and restrictions in place than the proposed model.
OR
- Where a club has a group of players that are far ahead then they should be able (upon them justifying it to a nominations committee who has a set of criteria to allow this) to nominate 1- 2 teams in Div 1.

However dont bring in a system that enables clubs to build success by virtue of the system rather than the actual quality of their development program.

Anon,
I am sorry for not been clear. I am hoping ppl involved in the previous discussion would understand where I am coming from.

If this sturt team did move into div 1 it would be hard for a 2nd division team to take their spot away in future years because you develop at div 1 level by virtue you are playing at that level. So then Sturt could concentrate on getting their 3rd team up to the div 1 level, all the while sturt are advantaged at getting their third team in over another club with only a div 2 team because:
+ Easiier to recruit players/coaches because you have more div 1 teams.
+ Easier to develop players because you have more div 1 teams and players develop because they are at a higher level than lower division clubs.
+ Better trainings - the div 3 team could train with one of the div 1 teams on a regular basis to ensure stronger trainings.
Etc. etc.
So the system could end up taking care of some of the development rather than the actual work done.

An idea put forward previously in a discussion was that Pro/Rel should include some kind of consideration for how many teams in that age group already in div 1 (or any single div) and how many teams in a single div in a particular part of the city (you dont want an age group with all your div 1 teams in the north or vice versa). That is make it harder for clubs with more div 1 teams to qualify to get more teams in div 1 in that age group. The more they get into div 1 the harder it gets.

let me put it like this, if you cant stand the heat get out the kitchen. if you get u get pumped and decide you dont wana play anymore because of that then you shouldnt be on the court, infact your a joke and a disgrace to basketball. no rules should be made to help a losing side, it makes them look even worse infact because they need special rules.
if your team is getting thrashed, go down a division, or take it on the chin, you made the decision to play that division and your gona have to live with it for the rest of the season, so stop being babys all you massive losers.

I think this is an arguement that will go on forever. There's no way to fix it.

I reckon...district basketball and higher, no rules to help losing teams.
Other comps... good idea. otherwise the kiddies won't learn to play.

If your child wants to quit coz their team is losing, you'd better be teaching them to change their attitude coz that's a pretty cruddy one to have

I've been part of teams who have thrashed and been thrashed. Wost loss: 98 points. Best win: 111 points. It's part of the game. If you win every game how are you going to imrove, if you're losing at least you can work to get better.

Agreed. I can't believe how soft 7 year olds are these days.

Anon,

"this assumes people leave clubs to play Div 1 - very debatable. I know personally of four examples where players have left Div 1 spots in other clubs to play Div 2 in a better program. One of those examples then improved so much they made SASI and a state team in the new club."

Not so much talking about players leaving clubs am talking about recruiting players. Parents are going to pick clubs with 3or4 teams in div 1/2 before the other clubs.

"the whole point of this situation and issue is that the Div does not take care of development because there are examples across clubs and time where Div 2 teams have been better than Div 1 teams so it is always about coaching and inherent talent."

It does not entirely take care of development but goes a long way to support it. If you take a bench player for cairns and send them to scrimmage, without a coach, with NBA players for 6 months do you think they would come back a better player or worse player than if they had stayed here.

"teams do this now at many clubs, the current situation would pose no difference than the suggested one"

Its alot easier to organise more competitive if you have more teams playing at higher levels.

"being beaten by 80pts in Div 1 does nothing for the sport and for development - that is what the current system encourages - change it by looking after the interests of the kids and the sport - not unearned rights"

Agreed. Bring in some kind of Pro/Rel to even up the comp but with some rules to prevent the issues, keep some balance and make the clubs with 2,3,4 teams at higher levels to have to work even harder to get more and more up there.

To summarise the whole arguments for and against thrashings....


Isn't the whole purpose of the Summer 'grading' season to prevent this happening in Winter?

I'm a supporter of pro/reg - but the one drawback is what happens when say the top 5 teams out of the top 8 are blatantly superior to the next 11 - and say the next three teams were from these clubs already in division 1, having beaten the other 5ish (+extra) teams, who legitimately would have had a prior chance to play in division 1, by small tiny margins.

1pt could be the difference between playing in a division 1 side coming 8th who get pummelled every week by 20+ then playing in a tightly-knit, competitive division 2.

I also await arguments that kids playing against division 1 opposition will improve slowly to their level over the course of a year. I've hardly seen this in my time playing division 1 every year bar 2 out of a 10year junior career. The bottom sides from two years before were almost always the bottom sides two years later (Brad Newley's Forestville a big exception). The same top 4 in 2nd year - North, NCT, Woodville, Norwood - existed from U14-U18, and even in U20 the top 3 was North, Norwood, Woodville. In U12 even, North, NCT, Norwood were there, South rounding out the top 4.

Ultimately, the purpose of pro/reg is noble - to produce better competition, better quality basketball and better quality basketballers.

Aren't we expecting a bit too much of a 'scope for improvement' though?

They didn't have 2004 coaches - just 4.

To All,

There seems to be a number of mis-conceptions surrounding pro/rel.

Yogee, Pro/rel does not mean that a club will not be able to get a team in div 1. Who told you this?

Incog, It also does not mean that 1 or 2 clubs will dominate. Unles of course other clubs continue to put their resources in to seniors rather than juniors. And perhaps we should get away with coaches all together and just have our seniors come out and train with the juniors to make them better.

Por/rel is currently a theory which needs to be suited to the clubs needs.

But it can provide closer competiiton for all teams and players. Greater opportunity for all players and teams and most importantly IMO it will make clubs reasses their priorities as to how much resources they take from their juniors and give to their seniors.

I believe that the coaching directors from each club will be getting together soon to discuss this and other issues, so let us hope that the junior committee will listen to their conclusions.

Thanks Big. Everyone agrees with the concept lets hope the outcome gets the results that trying to be achieved.

Incog and all other,

My concerns is that everybody does not agree that we need to change, or more so,that if we do change that they will themselves be worse off even if the overall good of basketball is better off.

With the current basketball and more importantly market for recreational sport, we the members of the basketball community need to call for a movement forward so that our sport does not drop further back on the sporting landscape. In the last 10 years from the mid 90's basketball in this country has steadily declined in it's populatity. And in fact it has only been this year that junior distrcit numbers have increased when compared to the previous year since the mid 90's.

IMO our biggest problem as an association lies in exactly what everybody argures agaisnt pro/rel, in that the fear that somebody will be better off while we will worse off. It is this kind of thinking which has held us back and continues to decide votes against making basketball better for the future. Let the best kids play against each other and let the others play in compeittion which is suited to their ability. If clubs dont do the right thing and focus on their juniors then they dont deserve a div 1 junior spot.

"that if we do change that they will themselves be worse off even if the overall good of basketball is better off."

I beleive some of the stronger clubs that this would advantage dont agree with the model, because they beleive it would create an uneven competition with the stronger clubs able to maintain success whilst decreasing effort while the other clubs are up against it, effectively locked out for years at getting into the higher levels.

"If clubs dont do the right thing and focus on their juniors then they dont deserve a div 1 junior spot."

I would get out to speak to some of the clubs that you beleive dont emphasise the development of juniors. You may find out this is not exactly the case. They are very quickly getting on track and in some cases may be doing more than the stronger clubs as they have so much catching up to do.

Yes, something should be done. I just hope they make sure the model has protections in place to protect for 2-3 clubs becoming dominant at the higher levels. Even if the stronger clubs were doing the work it surely cannot be a good thing for basketball for a club to have 3,4 or 5 teams in a division and in doing so locking out the weaker clubs who are pushing just to get one team up there. Pro/rel, if brought in, should also seek to protect against this scenario.

What could be more uneven that the competition we have at the moment? It is the most uneven in history. It is absolutely impossible to get any more uneven than it is already. Change, now!

"its time to go.." I dont think you will get any arguments from 95% of people.

Jirachi, I am sure you have been tracking along.

Again: Even the poorly coached players in the bottom teams playing at the higher level will get stronger than the top teams that may be well coached in the lower divisions. That is fine if a club has this advantage once or twice, with 2 teams in div 1. But for a club to be allowed to get this advantage for 3, 4 or 5 teams is not good for competition or basketball.

If pro/rel is to come in there has to be some factors to mitigate against the outcome. I dont mind it been possible for a club to get 3, 4 or 5 teams into div 1 or a higher level but the system should make it should be increasingly difficult for each team to get up there.

No problems with any of that Jirachi I dont doubt you are right.

Would this situation be the same had pro/rel been in place 5 years ago even if all the clubs had the same coaching and programs in place. It would not. THerefore some clubs are advantaged by pro/rel so bring in pro/rel but with some rules to mitigate against these clubs becoming successful.

Re: 12799.

Jirachi the more teams you get in div 1 the easier it is to maintain success. Based on you disagreeing with me that clubs that get more and more and the more and more players in Div 1/2 level will develop players regardless the quality of coaching I can understand why you would support open slather on pro/rel.

Jirachi, you keep missing my points and I refuse to just argue with you for the sake of it.

Ive had my two bobs worth and I will leave this issue to the experts and just hope they get it right.

incog - it is not that people miss your points. The premise that a player playing in a higher division will get better by simply playing in that Div is WRONG - FALSE - ILLOGICAL - INCORRECT. Close competition leads to improved effort and skill development under pressure - combine that with appropriate coaching and you have a model for improvement.

Playing in Div 1 and picking the ball out of the net against vastly superior opposition is not a recipe for improvement, never has been and never will be. Playing at your level and striving to improve and attempt new skills is. Forcing players to play at a level way below their ability is not a solution that will see the sport develop.

There is a new wave of enthusiasm towards sport in general as a result of the Olympics and this will continue with the Melbourne Commonwealth games. Basketball has made some appalling decisions in this state and in Oz generally over the last 7 - 8 years; it has cost us a great deal of momentum. Sports like Volleyball and Tennis are a real and significant threat to our status as a second tier sport.

The last thing we want to do is force the current mismatches upon a group of very young children and new parents making assessments about what sport their child will choose.

Like everything there must be incentive to improve and all that has happened by not allowing more than 1 Div 1 team per club is that the leaders have been hobbled and the sport is stumbling (yes despite the increased numbers).

I am concerned incog that you operate out of fear rather than rationality and your decisions are more about denying those that have worked hardest their due rewards and rewarding those that do little or nothing to improve the sport.

I hope i am wrong in this premise as you are in yours.

John, you and many people talking on this subject are obviously extremely knowledgeable and I appreciate you taking time to address my points even if you believe they are illogical I would be happy to discuss them with anyone. Some of these points are just made behind closed doors and not directly to the proponents of unabated pro/rel.

I agree with most of your points especially: Close competition leads to improved effort and skill development under pressure - combine that with appropriate coaching and you have a model for improvement. Although, clubs with 2, 3 or 4 teams in div 1 could maintain their position, with average coaching compared to a weaker club with no teams in div 1 or even div 2 who may have good coaching.

Surely 2 or 3 clubs in a division playing off in a division or worse still having the monopoly on the top 2 divisions cannot be a good thing. It would be even more ridiculous if they were not somewhat evenly distributed throughout the city. Do these teams train together as well? As a club if your two teams play off in a GF is this a good thing for competitiveness?

I'm saying is bring in pro/rel with some rules or policies to mitigate against a club having 2, 3 or 4 teams in a division. If despite these rules they still achieve it then they must have worked hard, against the odds to earn this right.

Pro/Rel DOES favour the stronger clubs and you seem to acknowledge this. In my view they don't even have to put in the "hard work" as you put it. All you need to do is get great U12/U14 teams and you can then pretty much sit back.

Worse still the effects can last for year as the perception will be created that you are a "div 1 club".

In the past I was involved with norwood and we saw a strong group of U14s go through Norwood. It would have been great to get those 2 teams in div 1 and possibly they should have been there. It would have meant the div 2s were playing in div 1 making retaining, developing these players easier because they were in div 1. However, what I am saying is that to get this 2nd team in div 1 should have been harder for norwood than another club with no div 1 team. It should not be a matter that we were lucky enough to get strong u12/u14 group that we got 2 teams in div 1 it should be that we had to work to get them into div 1.

Peronally I can assure you, john, fear does not come into it for me. I love the idea of a challenge and this aspect of pro/rel excites me. I just dont want to feel like it is an insurmountable challenge to get a team into div 1.

Pro/Rel is about making people work hard. Well, push the limits harder. Make the strong clubs with knowledgeable, talented, skilled people work even harder to acheive success. Make it realistic for lesser clubs to hit the goal of moving up a div and recruiting good players not totally unrealistic as pro/rel widens the gaps.

Don't enable the stronger clubs to work less, teach poorly and achieve.

Jirachi,

"Your opinion is based on a system which NO ONE is in support of or for that matter has even brought up." Im not entirely sure what this means.

I understand what u are getting at now. I would be more for your idea than unabated pro/rel. Your idea supports evening the competition without throwing the balance out.

However I would still think it should be realistic for those teams that perform to get into div 1 even if it was difficult. I am all for performers achieving and effort been rewarded. I am not for a system that just perpetuates success and makes the competition between clubs less uneven.

Im not soooo sure jirachi. I do think clubs should be able to get 2 teams into div 1 but the conditions of them qualifying is tougher than a club that has no teams in there.

What I am suggesting is simple. Exactly the proposed grading model as proposed by sturt people with input from state coaches (i have been told that this was first proposed 3-5 yrs ago). At the end of the grading season you end up with your table.

Now you have some kind of system for coming up with a multiplier to take into account:
- The number of teams each club has playing in a higher level for that age group.
- The number of teams in a quadrant of the adelaide area.
That multiplier is applied throuhout the teams and their pro/rel grading is based upon the result. Therefore strong clubs could get 2,3 or 4 teams into div 1 but it is increasingly difficult to do so. This forces these clubs that are already advantaged by having more teams than another club in div 1 to "work harder" to get their next teams up there.

I wonder how clubs get great Under 12/14 teams? They fall out of the sky??? I have coached all age groups - I have coached teams that have won 1 game in a year and teams that have lost no games in a year. All of them required hard work because the expectations are not about simply winning - they are always about doing the best you can and are proportionate to ability and skill.

I don't think the Pro/Rel system favours the stronger clubs - it favours the harder working clubs.

There is a perception that some of those stronger clubs go out of thier way to recruit players from weaker clubs - I used to have that perception - it is incorrect.

"Surely 2 or 3 clubs in a division playing off in a division or worse still having the monopoly on the top 2 divisions cannot be a good thing." I agree entirely which is why the current system needs to change - if you do not think your statement fits the current system then take a look at the grand finals and state championships from last year.

However I think your idea is better than unabated pro/rel.

If i had a kid that i wanted to play basketball. Would I take them out to a club where they can try out for 30 div 1 / 2 spots or 20 div 3 / 4 spots and no div 1 / 2 sports? Of course it favours the strong clubs that have initially worked hard to recruit U12/U14s.

Of course even, stronger competition widens the gaps between clubs with a number of teams in div 1 and a club with maybe one team in div 2 and can hide poor coaching / player development because teams that are in div 1 from U12/U14s just maintain their position by the nature of the new and improved competition pro /rel brings.

Therefore something has to even things up.

"Therefore something has to even things up."

You keep coming back to this - it is based upon a false premise where the evil stronger clubs hide their pathetic coaching and development programs by luring the poor innocent children and parents into a life of servitude from a young age. They can also dominate the whole af Adelaide ..... tomorrow the delta quadrant ..... I only hope this thinking is not the basis of the current status quo.

speaking of quadrants - would you decide them based upon geography, demography, economic status, gender balance, academic results, parentage? Would there be father/son rules? Mother /daughter rules? Any other restrictions to prevent a group of children from reaching their potential because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time?
All people deserve the same opportunity - not the restrictive practice that is currently apparent.

Jirachi, its perception. I will pick that club just because there are more spots available than a club that has NO spots available. It would be a no brainer for me. This seems elementry, obvious and straight forword. Again no problems with pro/rel just dont let it be unabated.

hhaha no its simple. Geography. Imagine if Southern, Sturt and Forestville had all the div 1 teams. You could just call it the northern conference. If this was earnt then OK. BUT there should be some rules to make this difficult.

I dont think the big clubs are evil or their coaches pathetic. Quite to the contrary. The current results speak for themselves. We need to stop making these kind of emotive statements because they do nothing to help anyone.

Jirachi and Incog,

You both are arguing aganist yourselves. You agree that we need more even competition, yet yuo want to stop even competition.

I feelt that neither of you have looked closely at the Sturt Model. Inside it , it will be easy to make it hard for clubs to have a majorit of div 1 teams simply by allowing weach club a team in the top 10 to start the grading season. Then having all of the lower teams start in the positions in which they finished previously 2 years ago.

Plus there are controls not allowing players to transfer into a team in a higher grade after the grading season as well as during rounds inside the grading season to stop teams stacknig during the grading.

I think you both need to have all the facts before spreading flase rumours to destabilise a concept which can massively benefit the state of basketball in SA.

"I feel that neither of you have looked closely at the Sturt Model. Inside it , it will be easy to make it hard for clubs to have a majorit of div 1 teams simply by allowing weach club a team in the top 10 to start the grading season"

I have looked at it. I had not seen this in the sturt model when I first saw it around 2 yrs ago. So in the grading season there is 1 team from each club in each div guaranteed? I believe that should satisfy the opponents of pro/rel.

I apologise if I am spreading false rumours. That is the last thing I am trying to do. By raising these concerns I am looking into the facts.

"it favours the strong clubs that have initially worked hard to recruit U12/U14s." - Incog

What's wrong with this? These clubs put in the hard work, why shouldn't they be rewarded over "lazy" clubs who sit back and wait for players to come to them. Maybe this can act as a kick in the pants to ALL clubs to get out and generate Under 10/12 players to their clubs instead of using the vast majority of it's resources on ABL.

Incog,

The sturt model has never been claimed to be the super fix. Rather a peice of information which needs input from all clubs and over the last 3-4 years has undergone different changes.

Perhaps it is better that we leave it to those people who know basketball better and clubs delegates to decide it's relative merits. Or better still I hope that people like yourself or jirachi are in these positions and can be involvesd in the decisions

I have been away from my computer for a while and started reading this thread and thought I must be Bill Murray in Ground Hog Day.

There has been much debate about this topic and consensus will never be achieved. I like the words of Paul Arnott he continues to offer the disclaimer "I'm not convinced about double div 1s or promotion/relegation. I just know that the current structure ain't working." If a person of this calibre is not sure, how can we state with such conviction what the solution is?

Many of the arguments thrown up are not necessarily based on fact but on assumptions. The Big A, can you support your claim of "....other clubs continue to put their resources in to seniors rather than juniors" by naming those clubs and let them respond to your assertions.

In my opinion a solution can not be determined until we have clearly identified the root causes of why we have such uneven competitions. In fact we need to start with a clear problem statement of what we are trying to address. Pro/Rel may only be a patch to cover a more underlying problem which should be tackled.

SAW, there is no underlying problem. The problem is we are using the same elite competition structure as we did 30 years ago.

The argument for pro/rel is based upon fact. The fact that the Vics kick our ass from pillar to post year in and year out. Every now and then we have the odd team that beats them. Over there you have to scrap and fight every week. Here you can coast or worse still you don't even have to work hard.

I am not advocating that we blindly do what the Vics do, but a pro/rel system taliored to SA needs is the answer, now!

It's Time to go....,

But why do they kick our ass year in year out? (And I don't think this is limited to Basketball!)

When we discover the why then we work on the solution. And by the way, when I look at some Vic scores there are also blowouts.

How much of team success at the lower age groups is based on the skill of the coach working with the team v physical size/strength/speed differences due to the different rate of physical development of kids at that age or due to one or two standout kids in a team that can dominate other teams. How often do we hear that "x" team will struggle because they have lost a certain player. People assert that that team had good development because of their results but when a certain player is unavailable they struggle does not seem to support that case.

Whether what I have said above is factually correct or not is beside the point. They are all plausible reasons and their merit can be argued well. What I am trying to point out is that there probably is multiple reasons why we have concerns with team thrashings and we really need to understand the underlying causes before embarking on a couse of action. I am not sure this analysis has occurred or if so not been sufficiently thorough.

Big,
Agreed. I am not in a position to make a decision on this.

I hope that those that are get it right. I constantly see posts by you and others supporting pro/rel - I assumed these were supporting in the format that I had seen. When I see those posts here from people like you I am just responding to highlight the issues I beleive exist with the model that I have seen. If you want to leave it to the decision makers then do so. If that is the case then maybe it is best for the decision makers (or supporters of the sturt model) not to initiate such discussions. Having said that I enjoy discussing it and will always be happy to respond.

I do get concerned with some of the emotive statements I have seen, by you, that could be used to influence a group of decision makers. I would hope that using statements such as "I am concerned incog that you operate out of fear rather than rationality and your decisions are more about denying those that have worked hardest their due rewards and rewarding those that do little or nothing to improve the sport." etc. that those decision makers see through this kind of emotive statement and just look at the core outcomes pro/rel is meant to bring and the model to ENSURE it does bring those outcomes.

Saw, you make alot of sense to me but unfortunately I think they are beyond starting from scratch again.

Incog,

Show me that the current system has the ability to work to those outcomes that you want. Even though I commend Centrals for their efforts in putting in division 1 teams in every grade, after watching the Sturt/Centrals night at Pasadena, I have to ask other than in the U/14 girls and U/18 boys, how many of those Centrals players will still be playing basketball this time next year.

Or will Centrals do their own pro/rel and only enter teams nito div 2 for the winter season and create more bye's in the competition. Or will other clubs be blamed for recruiting players when instead of goin to play soccer/football/netball players moev to other clubs where they don't get pumped by 50+ each week.

The current system does not have the ability to work. The pro/rel concept is right.

Big As points re: Centrals. Centrals are going to get better. I am sure that certainly all the players in U16 boys will be playing next year and will improve significantly over the next 12 months.

Big A, I would even go as far as to say that some of the measures Centrals are taking are more advanced than some other clubs that I have been involved with. You are obviously involved at some level and seem to know my involvement. Maybe you should see for yourself. It is true that playing and / or been mentored as a coach in a successful program helps you know how to go into coaching successfully but this takes time for a struggling club to develop. Some protections have to exist in pro/rel to allow for this time. Success self perpetuates in many ways and in my view pro/rel supports this. I am dissapointed that, whoever you people are (because you seem to know what youre on about), that you dont agree with this so lets not go there again.

Again Im not a decision maker and I dont doubt that those that are do know more than myself. I would hope that before they make any decisions or statements about my motives or a clubs programs they get out and look at what a club like Centrals or at least find out in more detail some of the measures Centrals are taking to improve. For example some of your assumptions may not be exactly correct; Maybe there is an emphasis on their senior program at the moment but they are also putting measures in place for it to be successful at this level and where do you think they are planning to get their next generation of junior coaches from?

Surely some measures such as the ones in #12895 or similar would go along way to alleviating these concerns.

Incog,

I don't doubt that the u/16 Boys will improve over the next 12 months. However, you cannot guarentee that they will all be playing next year, or that they will develop faster than if they were playing div 2 where they would have better contests each week and actually have the feeling when they turn up each week that they can win the game.

But at what cost? The team that they played have 4 or 5 players who may be playing at the U/16 Nationals Championships in June next year. All they learned on Friday night was to be lazy, to play poorly without consequence and that it's OK to miss because we can just rebound. How does this help the state of basketball for SA? But I guess that we just play happy campers with everybody having a div 1 go. Or are you opposed to pro/rel because your team may not be in div 1.

I agree with this. You keep using these arguments I keep agreeing.

This is why pro/rel should be brought in. If my team missed out on div 1 under a fair pro/rel system then that would be OK.

The U16s are an extreme example. If this group had unabated pro/rel from U12/U14s this u16 group should have 4 or 5 sturt teams in div 1 by the time they reach U18s. Good for competition? Good for elite athlete identification (look at the geographics of where SA elite athletes have been coming from)? Does the system hamper players at lesser clubs? Good for keeping players in the game if they have just NO chance of ever playing at a higher level because of the fact their club has no div 1 teams and they cant transfer to a club that does? and all the other arguments that has been used.

Pro/Rel with measures discussed in #12895, or a multiplier or Jirachis 8 team comp, 1 team from each member club would achieve the outcome WE are looking for. More even, stronger competition but alleviate the concerns that I and perhaps others have.

stating that you are operating out of fear is not emotive - it is a statement that looks at your rationale and makes a logical judgement. You are scared of the competition being dominated by a few clubs - you have stated this on numerous occasions. You have an underlying false premise that leads you in an incorrect direction.

In terms of quadrants it is as unfair to use geography as a basis as any other method you are proposing or deposing.

I am now of the opinon that you have no real idea of what this is about and that you are "blocking" true progress.

What have I actually suggested that would block progress?

I have an opinion, you have an opinion. As I have said I am not a decision maker so I am not in a position to block progress. Stating that adequately puts my points in perspective.

Geographic regionilsm or zoning is standard in many sports. By me suggesting this, does not demonstrate an underlying false premise. If it did then many sports and associations at many levels have got it wrong.

Pro/Rel is an improvement. You acknowledge there needs to be more work done to the model and I agree. Aristotle has acknowledged that it would not be good for basketball for a club to dominate the competition, as happens now, and I agree. I have put forward ideas to develop a pro/rel model that protects against this issue. Its that simple. It has nothing to do with blocking progress, not wanting to develop elite talent, not rewarding those that work hard or me being irrational and scared.

I hope that those that do make this decision are not influenced by such accusations as some of those made here and those that developed the plan do not resort making such accusations just because people disagree with them. I can assure you I understand pro/rel in its current format and admire the people who introduced it and their motives. The current situation does not work. Pro / rel is an exciting concept that would be great to see become reality. I just hope it has protections and controls in place.

I am sure people that read this are smart enough to make their own judgements on how to best move forward with pro/rel.

I do enjoy a good "argument on the Internet" but have pushed my limited time to the limit as you people probably have. As this discussion seems to be turning more and more to baseless, emotive and somewhat personal points and accusations on your part there is little point in continuing this discussion. Knowing of most Coaching Directors I am sure as Big A stated that those that make the decisions are smart enough to make the right ones in the interest of basketball as whole.

Incog,

I agree that the pure pro/rel model needs work to stop 1 club dominating through virtue of recruiting. I do not how ever think that it should stop a club from dominating from hard work and best practice management.

And does zoning improve the sport or restrict it. Just ask the Woodville football club about their zone. I will guarantee that their zone was actually the reason that they failed, no mater the work they put in. All it can do is stop kids from playing becasue the club in their zone doesn't need to work, sort of like what we have with guaranteed div 1 spots.

The pro/rel system allows for each club to have the chance to have a div 1 team, but the main focus needs to be even competition for all teams and players.

You state that it restricts players from non-div 1 clubs the ability to make SASI and State teams. This is simply not true. In fact it is a lie. SASI squads are selected from TI Camps. TI camps give every member club the opportunity to send players to the div 1 camp no matter where their team is playing. Infact previously 2 Southern Suns play made SASI squads from div 2. And one year 2 Sturt players made the SASI squad even though they were in div 2 as top age players.

Again you are using the emotive reasoning to back up yuor own argument then accusing others of it. Please contiue to argue the facts.

I keep reading everyone's opinion on what is fact and what is fiction. Perhaps we need to have a look at some facts and ask ourselves will pro/rel change this situation significantly.

I have looked at the current results after four games and at tables etc and make the following observations. (I also used to look at last year's winter results and got a similar pattern)

1. U12B1. Two teams are undefeated with % in excess of 230%. The 2nd team has beaten the third team by 28 points. The third team has beaten the 4th & 5th team already.

2. U14B1. Three stand out teams based on % with all three in excess of 350%. One other team is undefeated but has not played any of the top teams.

Perhaps we need to face up to the fact that in grades from time to time we do have stand out teams that dominate and they often dominate teams from as high as 3rd-4th downwards. Will pro/rel make a marked difference in these circumstances or not? If we reduce to 8 teams in a division it might mean the top teams play each other more often but it also means the lower teams do which means they have less games against similar level teams and more against the "gun" teams. And by the way, it is not the same clubs here from one age group to another age group so I don't know how that sits with clubs efforts v achievements.

Finally, for The Big A on the Sturt v Centrals U16B1 game. While Centrals sit near the bottom currently it appears due to the teams they have already played. Their victory was against the 5th team who has beaten teams from 6th down. I know these are limited stats but if you had a problem with Centrals you going to have bigger problems later on.

PS. The variation seems less pronounced in the older age groups which may indicate that physical development in the early years does have an impact on team's results. This levels out as kids approach the end of their own physical development/maturity.

You're right about one thing. Blowouts are part of sport at every level. Even with 8 teams or pro/reg they will happen.

The only answer to that would be a mass draft at the start of each season and to spread all the most talented kids around. Not something that will ever happen.

saw,
Under the pro / rel model as I have seen it each team would play two rounds against each other in the main season. There would be no byes or uneven rounds.

Pro / Rel would make a difference to the blowouts. For example the U16 boys would possibly have 2 or 3 stronger teams from the same club qualify for the top 8 for the main season. These teams would have qualified for the top 8 by playing in a grading season so by nature the competition would closer and more competitive.

I do beleive clubs that are able to get more teams in div 1 under pro/rel are at an advantage to develop their players regardless of best management, effort or coaching and those pushing to get to get a single team in there are at a disadvantage. The resaons for this disadvantage include:
- trainings are more competitive the more top 8 teams you have.
- Clubs can place more weaker bottom age players strategically in their top 8 teams to develop them for their 2nd year, but still maintain their top 8 position by ensuring all their teams are equally strong. The more top 8 teams you have the more opportunity you have to spread more bottom age players.
- Players getting dropped are still getting dropped into the same level and are less lightly drop out than a player from a weaker club been dropped or not making the cut.
- Not only do their players develop, so do their coaches developing a greater level of depth of div 1 coaches.
- Clubs that had 2, 3 or 4 teams in div 1 (top 8) in the previous 2 years retain their spots for the commencement of the grading season 2 years after, regardless of what player movements, development or retirements there have been.
- clubs with 2 teams that will easily make the top 8, due to the fact they have consistently played at this level, may rotate their stronger coach into their third team
- etc. etc. and there are more.

Pro/Rel will bring huge gains.

However I do think the model has to acknowledge the advantages a club with more than 1 team in div 1 gains. I dont think a clubs third team finishing 8th at the end of the grading season should automatically make div 1 as opposed to a club trying to get its first team in div 1 and finnishing in 9th or 10th position. Saw, I beleive the top team in a club finnishing 10th would have had to work far harder than the third team finishing in 8th position to get to there.

In terms of the U16 Div boys you refer to I would not get too excited. The boys have a long and very challenging road ahead. Making the step into div 1 is significant for some of them. Many of them have come from U16 Div 3 or U14 div 2 and they know they have a huge challenge ahead of them. Lets hope they become competitive and maybe even make the finals come the winter season (and yes Big A if they are not competitive or looking like they are going to be competitive i would hope my club self relegates them).

I'm sure the model will have strict controls on player movement to prevent people being dropped from one division 1 team to another?

Well if you, me, Paul Arnott and others all suddenly inherit club president positions, then I say it's got a shot! :P

Incoq,

I agree with several things you have mentioned. I have mentioned before that clubs with more Div 1 teams are at an inherent advantage over those who have none or only one for some of the reasons you mentioned. In addition is the issue of what attracts the children to a club.

You talk about the flexibility of developing 1st year players and the greater flexibility of integrating those children into div 1 if there is more than one team in Div 1. How do clubs view Div 2 teams? Is it the 2nd best team available in the club or can team performances sometimes be slightly compromised by playing primarily 1st year players with the view that this is the best way to progress the future Div 1 teams. If Pro/Rel was introduced through all grades would this then force a change of direction in team selections which some people believe is not in the best interests of the longer term develop of their players. I am not saying this approach occurs where you would be sending the 1st years out like lambs to be slaughtered but perhaps a slightly better team is available if it were stacked with 2nd year players.

Saw, I beleive some clubs may select there 1st year players ahead of 2nd years if the 1st year is equally or almost as strong as the 2nd year player constesting the same spot. Obviously if you were able to field 2,3,4 or more teams at higher levels there would be more opportunity to slip these players in across more teams.

Im not so sure that rule could work Libertine. The only way that would work would be for clubs were evening out their teams that were likely to make the top 8 (div 1), 2nd 8 (div 2), 3rd 8(div 3) etc. etc. First of all you could not guarantee where your teams could finish up at the end of the grading season you could only predict. The summer season involves small brackets of teams in terms of teams playing in "sub divisions" to sort out their positions for the main season so the clubs dont know until the end what teams will end up where.

If the teams were not even it would be unfair to bring in a rule that could mean you get dropped from, say, the top team down to the 3rd or 4th team because that team had qualified for Div 2.

I would think a pro/rel model would allow for clubs to move there players based on their own policies and practices as happens now.

Again, I am not a decision maker or pretending to have the experience of those that are. This is not a complex basketball issue of State Team selections, Club coach selections (sorry Jirachi), a clubs merger, better coaching philosophies etc. This is an issue that the wider basketball community can have equally knowledgable input into without damaging people personally. Perfect fodder for this forum.

Incog,

Again you have mislead the public on this forum by telling them lies about the pro/rel format. I find it reprehensable that you contiue to state the same things that you have already been corrected on. You claim that you are pro the development of basketball in this State but you continue to spread mis-truths.

1/ The format for the competition will be 3 rounds for 8 teams ie 21 games then finals.

2/ In the latest model all district clubs will be able to start with a team in the top 10 for the grading season. you have already been told this.

3/ Don't all div 2 teams already train with the div 1 teams. How can you honestly claim that their being in div 1 changes the trainings. In fact some clubs train both div 2 teams with the div 1 team.

4/ If clubs put their weaker bottom age players in teams then the teams would not qualify for div 1. If they used the top age kids to qualify their second team and then dropped them for the main season then IMHO you would have all of those kids that qualified in the first place up and leave the club. PLus their will be controls over kids changing teams.

You won't need to change as often because if a kid wants a div 1 spot all they need to do is win games rather than change teams.

So yes Saw, I hope that it would allow clubs to put in teams of first year players, and through grading, allow them to play in a compeititon which is suited too their level of ability.

5/ If clubs rotate their strongest coach into their third team then they are just asking for trouble as no team is guaranteed a spot. And at the begining of the season nobody will know how the second team is going to do anyway.

6/ You say that playing div 1 helps players, again you are misleading people. The same teams that stuggle in U/14's are almost always bottom in U/18's. Players get better from training, not playing. Go and read Silvia and Stevens "Childrens involvment in Sport. A development perspective" pg 484-502. Quote During the Specializing years trainnigs become the key ingrediant to development for a player to reach the investment years rather than games as used in the sampling years." The sampling years are those from 5 - 12. The specializing years are from 12 -17 and the investment years are only for the elite athlete starting at age 17. ie those that go to the Institue or Naitonal league where trainings become the whole development. Same with coaches, coaches don't get better from coachnig in div 1. They get better through education and from takling and listening to other coaches.

Finally, I still don't think that you get the point. It is not about clubs. It is about kids and doing the best thing for all kids. Not just the one's at your club. Stopping kids from playing at the level they are capable is the main reason our state cannot and willnot produce most National Championship and International players. That some clubs dont think that this is important and that maintaining a competition which tries to pull down the better kids shows why we are only treading water. I hope that your club does NOT allow you to cop-out with the U/16 Boys team to be placed in div 2 causing a bye. But rather they make good to their commitment to div 1 teams in all grades, otherwise their demanding the opportunity for div 1 teams in all grades is a joke. Then we will see more closely the merits of pro/rel in relation to the current system.

Big A,

You are accusing me of lying about a system that does not currently exist. Are we not all gazing into a crystal ball?

After reading your point 6 and others I now have a fairly good idea who you are. I understand why you feel so passionate about this issue. The model that has been developed is far better than many other models. It is easy for someone like me to come in and make suggestions for improvement after the fact, even if those suggestions are pointless in the point of view of others. I am glad that we are fortunate enough to have people that have developed the skills and capabilities to develop such a model.

If we continue this, please cease the accusations of lying, trying to block progress etc. These kinds of accusations could be levelled back at those that don't agree with my view of the crystal ball. They are unfair and I do get concerned they would be used to influence those with different views on an issue that is perfect for a forum debate as opposed to some other threads I have read. I would encourage Libertine, SAW, Jirachi, Big A, Scott Butler along with the Schmos such as myself with an interest in this issue to post away their opinions and ideas without fear of these accusations.

Your points.

1. Yes I could be accused of showing a lack of understanding or lying on this point. Thankyou for correcting and I apologise to the forum audience that bothered reading my post.
2. I thought you post was saying that the model could ALLOW for this. I did not know it was actually included. If the model allowed for a guaranteed spot for each member club in the each segment of 10 or 12 for other grades at the commencement of the grading season it would, I think, allay my concerns. Infact I would do everything in my limited powers to influence my club decision makers to support it.
3  5. These points are all crystal ball type issues. They could be argued and argued. I only think they cause confusion and disagreement. I don't think anyone can be accused of lying for having different views on these subjects.
6. I will certainly try and locate that research. I don't think it takes a sports scientist or 200 + ABL games to understand or contribute to THIS issue. While some of us (and I do acknowledge we would not have the same level of knowledge of the proponents of unabated pro/rel) have logged into WebCT, written papers on the subject of skil acquisition and read papers by Morrison, Knudson, Reeve, Farrow and others and formed our views based on this learning, it is important we review this research critically and collectively and make our own assessments. There are no right or wrong answers. I WOULD say that the core of my argument is that extrinsic environmental factors do play a far greater significant role in the development of skills than the quality of the coach. I am not sure who said this (and don't have the time to trawl through Motor Learning, Concepts and Applications) but it does make a lot of sense and goes to the core of why I think pro/rel should be both enabled, but controlled.

Incog,

My point is that you have had feedback regarding those issues and yet you continue to argue those points as the root of not implementing pro/rel. Please do not take my jibes as personal as they are not. Merely stringly pointing out your incorect facts. Well done, I agree with controls. Not so much to stop clubs from dominating as with them recruiting or more importantly using the system as it is not meant. Ideally, players would not need to move teams or clubs. But we would all agree that this is not going to happen. SO some controls need to be put in place to stop individuals using the system for they own agenda's or personal gain. I much enjoy your posts as arguig to points give us a better nisight into the direction needed for the idea of pro/rel.

I'm not terribly interested in the details of what ways people could rort the system for the betterment of their own personal benefit. Let's assume this is in the minority and how it is controlled/monitored will be adequate. This is only the fine details of how one proposal works.

What is the main question is not how but should we have pro/rel. I am not convinced one way or the other even though my posts may suggest that I am against it. To get buy in from any clubs/people whatever change may be is to walk them through the issues, discuss what are the causes for those, discuss the pro and cons of possible solutions and seek their input at that time. Unless everyone believes they have some ownership of a problem and a solution you are unlikely to get their support for various reasons. Objectivity is required not subjectivity.

While posting I thought I should raise this with The Big A. Being an uneducated individual I don't quite see the relevance of your quoting from Silvia and Stevens "Childrens involvment in Sport. A development perspective" Here it states that training not playing is they area for development in 12-17 year olds to reach their maximum potential. If this is so why the big concern regarding the evenness of games?

Saw

The eveness of games is important so that all players receive the maximum of benefit. ie to stop blow outs. As this is a major causes in players who get beaten each week to lose self confidence and eventualy leave the sport. The most important goal of our competition should be to recruit as many new players into it. Which is easier over summer. As teams can be added and withdrawn every 5 weeks. As well as maintain as many players in the sport as possible. Again even competition will help this. Finally, the set up will minimise the number of game changes, ease programming for BASA and minimise bye's. All benefits

Plus it allows for players to see the results of their hard work. Also it shows clubs where they need to work harder, ie better trainings rather than accepting that no matter how little effotr they put in the are guaranteed a div 1 spot. Finally, close games are better for all players (not just div 1) to improve through, because they cant coast, or rely on poor technique due to vast differences in the teams abilities. In fact each week they will be challenged to produce their best and thus we will force them to develop other things like mental toughness, consistancy and the ability to deal with adversity more. The team who gets beaten easily each week will gain non of these as they will enter the game with a negative attitude not condusive to improvement.

Incog, it's sport psych actually.

I agree with everything in the above post.

I am not convinced that clubs with age groups with more than 1 team in the top 8 the year before, the two years before, at the commencement of the grading season or for the main season would not be advantaged.

The answer: recruit stronger players and more of them at U10 / U12 level. Easier said than done for some clubs. This process can take years to setup (some clubs are now getting 2nd generation players coming through. IE Sons/ Daughters of former players/coaches who have a belief on which clubs are stronger or weaker to get their kids to play at) and implement. Some socia-economic areas may be difficult to get players to play until U14/U16 level. The only thing these clubs can do is do their best to get as many numbers as possible at a young age and then develop them as they move up the age groups as opposed to "working hard" and recruiting.

Based on this discussion I can acknowlege that the idea Big A put forward to ensure all clubs are guaranteed a position in the top 10 for the grading season would negate the need to introduce any multiplier as I have suggested. The multiplier would just add complexity and dissapoint players in teams at the stronger clubs that actually finished high enough to make it but missed out because of the multiplier.

My understanding, and correct me if Im wrong, is that it is possible for a team to effectively move from position 17 to position 8 in the grading season.

If you guaranteed all member clubs a spot in the top 10 for the grading season then why couldnt you do this for each group of 10 at the start of the season? I think this would negate any concerns I have whether they are infact right or wrong. It also creates a different perception as to goals of the model, whether that perception is right or wrong.

I dont understand why more people dont post on this topic?? Cant be bothered with the long, verbose posts I have made?? Are they sick of it?? Are they lost in all the rhertoric etc.?? Do they fear the recriminations etc.?? It is probably one of the few topics that everyone can make interesting, knowledgable, impersonal posts about.

This would be the most significant change for junior basketball in years.

For those seeking close results check out U16B1 from last Friday. One draw, 3 games won by 2 points and a blow out in the other (by 12 points)

Won't there need to be a new schedule made every 5 weeks? Logistical nightmare anyone?

i havent read all the posts above but just going on what the title reads as, my first game of ball involved our team losin 110 - 4 lol way to kick start a career!