Less clubs=less choice, less areas covered.

The weaker clubs are actually in areas that should provide them with massive recruiting power.

Regionalise parts of the competition, introduce domestic comps but don't decrease clubs, if anything increase them.

An increase Clubs is a good idea so long as it is accompanied by pro/rel.

Not a good idea to decrease an already lop sided competition.

"A simple illustration would be Sturt and Forestville's domination of the U14 girls for several years and the lack of competition these two team have thru out the home and away series". Forestville have had 2 strong groups in a row, North held a similar position in the 4 years prior. Sturt have been consistently there over a long time. It is a great recruiting carrot!!

Sturt have an unhealthy obsession with U/14 club Champs.

They recruit kids in for just that year or 2. As seen this season as in previous years they then fall away and the kids change clubs.

Many Sturt U/14.1 girls do not continue to play after u/16!

A great junior program needs to balance Basketball with Life and Education.

Travelling 3-4 hours each friday afternoon and again on Sunday, is hard to say compliments this balance.

Promoting and relegating will provide a more even competition if we still have 4 dominant clubs. Any centrally based club will derive great advantage in this environment, more distant clubs will only draw from the local area.

If I was living out of the city and needed to choose a club, it must be one of the better programs, that has consistently been, North , Norwood, Sturt and Forestville.

If it's the only solution, why hasn't it been implemented yet?

BSA (on another thread Div. 3 4 5 to stay or go)
are working on this. Travel for U16 is a problem.
District will be Div 1 and 2 and div 3 4 5 plus church social played in regions. In consultation with clubs stadiums.

I would like to hear peoples responses to the issue raised earlier with clubs being located in lower economic areas of adelaide. I'm sure there is massive potential in these areas, but until there is a way for players subs etc. to be lowered, there will continually be this huge seperation in standard.

A prediction (you heard it here first):

Zoning will reduce the number of kids playing basketball.

Why? At the moment, if a kid who wants to start playing district BB is turned away from one club, they can try another. If a zone is in place, there is no choice.

At the moment, a current player (or parent) that is sick of one club, can try another. Zoning = sick of your club, play soccer/football/netball.

The other thing about zoning is that the current strong clubs probably draw a reasonable proportion of their players from the local area. By the time you include exemptions for current players, siblings and a parent/child rule imposing a zone may have little effect.

Pro/Rel arguments always come up. The downside is, for every relegation one or two kids will quit basketball rather than play in the lower division. Any team at the top of a division is in favour of promotion, no-one is in favour of compulsory relegation when their team is the one concerned.

Voluntary relegation is already available eg Centrals U16 girls finished eighth in Div 1 in Summer, dropped to Div 2 and have been able to secure a grand final berth.

Three things need to happen to solve the woes of basketball:
1. Find a way of funding ABL teams that doesn't involve junior parents paying for it.
2. Following on from the first point, make the game cheaper to play. While people grumble about travel, cost is a deal breaker.
3. Build more courts - there aren't enough in Adelaide to satisfy demand.

If we restrict who kids can play for, surely they'll just drop out if they can't play for who they want to?

Whether that be someone moving to a stronger club or from one to a weaker club (to perhaps play div 1)? It does flow both ways.

DaddyO - you've made some excellent points.

Are there large numbers of players flocking to the stronger clubs from the weaker clubs? My guess would be that there are more clearances between the larger clubs than there are players moving from the smaller to the larger clubs, simply because of the number of players. However, the impact of losing a player is far greater in a club with one team in an age group than a club with five or more teams in an age group.

The overall numbers would suggest players are dropping out of the smaller clubs rather than moving to the larger clubs.

Does BSA publish details of player transfers?

U10's getting clearances to other Clubs - now I have heard it all - what on earth would prompt a parent to move a child from one Club to another when they are still in U10's do they think that their child has this enormous potential that the club they are at is overlooking them.

I agree with the poster above though, if you move clubs you should be put into a lower division than what you are currently in and work your way up to the higher division, with consideration after a probationary period of say 3 months. It would be fairer on the kids already at the new Club and would prove how much they really want to be at the new Club. Some I think may reconsider and stay at their existing Club. I cannot see how kids moving clubs relentlessly helps anyone. Clearances should be harder to obtain than the present system. BSA should do something about it now - they will be processing clearances all over the shop as the season draws to an end.

I dont know if BSA publish transfers to the general basketball public but perhaps they should so we as it's "stakeholders" if that is the word they use are made fully aware of the reality of club hopping. Even if it was just numbers of kids moving into and out of clubs and age groups. They dont have to give names. Perhaps if they weren't allowed to shift mid season either, stay and work their problems out might teach the kids about problem solving rather than running away from the problem, which is what club hopping teaches.

this is THE model.

all clubs can nominate a div 1 team if they wish (keeps political peace).

Over summer the two top div 2 teams from the GF are offered to play Div 1 as second teams.(keeps the results based peace)

After winter they have to play summer again and the next top div 2s.

this could apply over all grades if desired.

--------------

one problem is I see south may have no div 1 u14gs, no centrals or ? mavs - means the comp is going to be thin - surely the stronger clubs in u14s sturt / forestville should be allowed a second team in tehse circumstances.

--------------------------

the only way to strengthen is harder competition.
regardless of how many clubs.

sorry - all member clubs can nominate div 1

The bigger problem is BURNOUT!!


If you make the summer a qualifying, pressure comes to bare on all clubs at the wrong time of the year, and compromises teaching of skills vs winning!!!

Not the right plan sorry.

Sturt two (2) teams in div 1 and 2 would solve a short term problem.

How is that?

If you are suggesting that the sturt 2 team would enhance the top teams in a grade you are wrong.

eg Sturt 14 boys would in no way beat the Sturt 1 team the West u/14 or Nwd u14, so how will it improve the results at Nationals?

1 extra game per round?
Its no panacea!!!

Needs a bit of thought, ( maybe no centrals div 1 in the short term)

Unless you are going to put juniors onto playing contracts, then they can move to which ever club they please.

Restricting this or having a "play a lower division for 1 season" rule will mean kids will look at other sports if they are not happy with their club.

The relegation rule IMO has its merits.

Why oh why cant a club that has a strong div1 & 2 team play 2 teams in div 1 if they have the talent and numbers?

At the stronger clubs a div 1 team for 1st years and one for 2nd years would be an interesting idea.

My personal opinion is that we should be seeing each stadium have its own competitions a couple of week nights after school. These to run all year round - except school holidays. Term 1 & 2 being a season and then Term 3 & 4 being a second season. These would be "social" competitions and could be school teams or a team of friends etc. From the competitions in their own stadium they then pick 20 of the best players per age group and we have a championship competition for each age group and a reserves competition for each age group.

Something like that

I think that 2 Sturt teams in Div 1 is a great idea. It guarantees that at least half the Sturt Div 1 players will not win!

Multiple teams for one club weakens the competition, it doesn't strengthen it. A game between two teams from the same club is a scrimmage, even if it's on a Friday night with refs in uniform. Without other strong clubs you don't have any competition, and a championship win is meaningless.

To take it to the absurd, what if the eight strongest teams in an age divsion all come from the same club? Would you bother running a championship at all?

why should the sturt players have to split up just because the other clubs arnt as strong.. thats seems unfair, just because they have lots of good players doesnt mean that half of them should have a championship taken away.

"One problem I see here is that when teams in div. 1 realise they will not make the div.1 finals for Summer, they will drop players down to bolster their div.2 side. They will then qualify for the div. 2 final and get another team into div. 1 for the winter season."

good point - then make it that the div 1 team must finish in top 5/6 if 8 team comp or top 6/7 if a 10 team div 1 comp before any div 2 teams from their club are placed as second div 1 teams.

if not it will be offered to the 3rd placed div 2 summer finisher.

if it doesnt work from there no more offers lower than 3rd in div 2 and it is capped

they would have to "core" existing div 1 players so this dropping business would not happen...

(#148134) Saying that "it is a rule some of the stronger clubs need to implement for their own well being" Is all well and good; however I can say that it does not seem to happen at the club my child is at (one of the bigger clubs) Most of the girls in the age groups in question have played together for some years.

Yes they have recruted some girls, who hasnt?; however tell me the difference between recruting for the future and recruting for the Nationals, State champs, ect? If a club is not activly recruting, then someone isnt doing their job.

148349 , Yea recruiting 15 yr old kids is kewl. Im for it because it will cover for our clubs coaching deficiencies and lets us pickup the benefits of the hard work of other clubs and coaches. Our Div 2 players who have been loyal and earnestly working for years for a spot, well... stuffem.

Tell them how good they are, boost their ego so they want to move. They can then focus on their basketball instead of school, develop a massive ego that makes them uncoachable they then fail school and by the time they get to 20 yrs of age they suck at basketball. You reckon that's good?

If you put the feeder teams into social ball you miss the chance to have them play for your club.What is to stop another club coming out to the social games to get players if they have an injury or player quit.If these players are playing Div 3 or lower you can bring them up into your club team without the risk of loosing them to another club.If you scrap the lower divs there goes basketball from this state and we will never have a chance of competing on a national level.This needs a big rethink just look at local Footy since both Adelaide and Port have entered teams.You could say pre Adelaide that our SANFL was strong but now its not,crowds are down meberships suffer ETC take a wake up call BSA and dont do this.

If you put the feeder teams into social ball you miss the chance to have them play for your club.What is to stop another club coming out to the social games to get players if they have an injury or player quit.If these players are playing Div 3 or lower you can bring them up into your club team without the risk of loosing them to another club.If you scrap the lower divs there goes basketball from this state and we will never have a chance of competing on a national level.This needs a big rethink just look at local Footy since both Adelaide and Port have entered teams.You could say pre Adelaide that our SANFL was strong but now its not,crowds are down memberships suffer ETC take a wake up call BSA and dont do this.

you have a stutter me 3

I certainly would take my son to another club if he ends up playing div 3 or below ball, he has too much potential talent not be playing district He plays social ball now anyway.
The risk of losing potential players is put at risk with this proposed system. a lot of kids (boys mainly) are late developers which means they may not grow/develop until they are 2nd year U16's. By this time the kids might have given up playing ball and move onto something else. Other side of the coin - the stronger clubs will have Div 1 kids that are burnt out or just had enough by the time they are U16's second year.
Perhaps the potential here is that the stronger clubs will suffer if this system is proposed, because the late developers may get into Div 1 at another club and may not have fully developed and had been overlooked by current club who are hell-bent on promoting the same kids from Div 1 year in year out but do not take into consideration attitude and work ethic at trainings and games.

not a stutter its a post sponsered by Burbon (hic)

socio-economic = bullshit excuses
just visit Dandenong.

Zoning ? is wrong on so many levels I won't even start.

Here's an idea teach junior players U14 and below BASIC FUNDAMENTALS. Don't be Phil Jackson and have ten different half court sets, when you players can't catch or dribble left handed.

All players leaving u14 should have a core set of skills including.

R\L layup footwork
R\L hand finish
the ability to dribble with both hands make dribble moves and not have to look at the ball.
R\L hand passing
the ability to play in stance in O and D.
ie, defend on ball, deny and open stance of ball
or, offensively catch and play out of a strong stance and use pivots/footwork to create passing lanes.
1 and 2 dribble jump shots.

When ALL your team has these skills it is then time to implement more structured basketball.

thoughts?

The number of u16's and u18's playing DISTRICT basketball with NO SKILLS WHATSOEVER! Could be the reason junior comps aren't strong.

Way too many div 2 quality players playing div 1 ball.

Anon,
I didn't realise there was a point, apologies if I missed it again.

Teaching juniors fundamentals is a fairly basic way to strengthen the comp. As is promotion and relegation .. fairly basic stuff... like coming in out of the rain... which a few people do not want to do.

Are coaches more likely or less likely to teach fundamentals if they are facing relegation Camel 31?

These relegation clubs are the ones who are the problem!!! They are the ones who nees to spend the extra time on fundamentals...but they won't if faced with relegation in dec /Jan.They will be treating oct/november as a finals period IMO

"Norwood has probably the most teams in the comp yet they significantly underachieve at Div 1 level because numbers alone dont give you quality."

No-one ever said this at Norwood.
These to facets are mutually exclusive, take Eastern Mavericks as an example. 2 years ago they were treated as a joke. Next year they will have competant teams from u12- u16 at the least, and they only have 17 teams!!
Norwood have that many teams because that is the number of children in the area that wish to play.
It is also the only income stream for the Club.

Try improvement as a KPI and you may find part of the reason for so many kids playing at Norwood

The Aust.football league are able to strengthen bottom teams with a player draft system. We can't have a draft in junior basketball. That is why I am pro relegation. And..I think if a team is bottom and facing relegation and their basic skills were not good,then I would give more time,at training,on the basic stuff. And if I were div.3, in the new system, I would love to have a crack at the bottom div2 team, under a pro/rel. system.