Once again the so called experts that control the game here in SA have got it terribly wrong - I agree with you Pas96 - they are bck to front AGAIN. Clowns would run the place better.

At least they recognize that change is needed - that is step 1. Step 2 and the most decisive would be to get rid of themselves and put competent people in place capable of running the show with out fear or vested interest.

Then and only then will you get common sense decisions made in the best interests of the game and kids.

At least the ABL has come to its senses and centralized its venues. Do the same for all. SA quite simply does not have the population that the eastern sea board has. Wake up sleepy hollow.

Thank you Victorian...never thought I would say that.


If you disagree say so !!


Now is NOT the time to sit on your hands, this change is immanent!!!!

It´s is easy to come up with ideas. That not the hard part. How do you fund or put them in place. For example:
"3. Employ full time development/ administration in each club."
Super idea.
Where does the money come from?

Doddobird,

PA

1. BSA development officer budget. $10K per club.
2. Club contribution/sponsor contribution. $15-$20K
3. Development officer can run their own holiday programs and keep profits. $10 K
4. Individual training sessions. $15 K
5. School clinics through Federal Govt after school program. $5K
6. Comission for domestic program KPIs. $10 K

Up to $60-$65 K and I would say these figures are conservative. Surely this is possible?

Doddobird

That what I mean, the order that we do things is vital.
BSA must develop model for Dev off first not after.

ThankMeVeryLittle is right, it can be done it needs the security of venues, leases etc plus a plan and help from the governing body, then they can step back and modify the competition.

$10k for holiday programs??? 15K for individual training sessions?? Is that for each club or for all the clubs together? I am asking because I spent some time in WA and funded a development program with the help of the government. The easy part was someone like yourself writing down these ideas. Above is a classic example. The money is already in the bank. Let us advertise the jobs. Does this Basketball Dev Officer do the individual trainings? How does that develop the structure and help div 3 to 5.

I am not knocking what you are saying. Give me some more details on point 1 to 6.

For example how does a club that doesn´t have much free courtspace or a stadium make money of individual training?

Ah ha problem number 1.

This what BSA must do first, get court and security so that the clubs can generate income to run the programs bsa wont be running ie community basketball.


This why the model is flawed.

You will not get someone working full time for 10k a year. Dont know where you got that from, but 25-35k a year would be considered cheap labour for anyone these days. And they should not be making div 1 and 2 elitist and separate from the 3, 4, 5 as it does nothing to promote the competition, nor help build the strength of the competition. If they do that, clubs are showing they do not like dealing with lesser skilled players and dont want to waste time with developing them. They are using them for an income stream only and couldnt care much more about them.

For some clubs the gap between div 2 and 3 in the same age group is huge, based on the amount of attention given to them. This is not right. They do not help those lesser players improve where they might have a chance at making a better team. Clubs need to pay more attention to their majority of players in div 3,4,5 to build their strength up, and not cut them, and make the 1's and 2's all high and mighty.

This is a really good thought provoking thread, with great consideration and respect to everyone's opinion.
I know this has been covered in other threads but could I please get an opinion on the grass root effect on the players in Div 3,4,5 etc
Clubs with enormous depth eg Forrestville /Sturt/North, have players that are certainly talented enough to be in Div 2 but due to numbers, are relegated to Div 3.
So that these juniors are not left out of the "elite mix" what will be put in place to protect them.? How will they be progressed.? What if you are a first year Div 3, and then a 2nd year Div 2. Does that mean that he or she will potentially be an elite player one season and then a "regional/social" player the next, and so on.
Some of these clubs cannot guarantee coaches now in Div 3. Will going Regional make it even harder for clubs to secure coaches?
The lower divisions provide clubs with valuable finacial support which in turn assists the elite level. Will fees be increased for Div 1/2?.

Is there the potential for clubs to be allowed to have 2 teams in Division One, some have two teams already in Div 2.
What strategies will be put into place to prevent juniors, who may not get the chance to progress, from leaving clubs and going to other sports.

"Will fees be increased for Div 1/2?"

My oath they will, the base to run clubs could be smaller, unless you are able to get a Domestic(social of Feeder comp going)

This will be fine for some areas, but in the eastern suburbs there is a critical shortage of court space.
Even and audit by BSA discovered this. But demand on the eastern side is very strong.
Sturt should be in a great position with Pasadena, Unley and Urrbrae as feeders.
Total of 10 courts in the geographical area.
Compare that to Woodville /South and North/ Norwood.
Wont have 10 courts between them!

Once again you guys do not have the numbers to run feeder comps.

Centralize your local comp at 1 or 2 stadia and go back to basics- it is pure economics. We cannot afford for the game to die in your state.

Logical

We need a 6 court stadium at Wayville and the same at Mars. That would centralize nicely.

Dr Damage,

Sturt do not HAVE Unley.

But it is good to see that while some clubs have been out cultivating interest in social programs. Other clubs have been spending their money flying in ABA players.

Perhaps if Norwood would work togther with Campbeltown rec centre to run competitoins it would be more beneficial than complaining about other clubs working in the best interests of improvement. Or Woodville with St. Clair, our SOuth with Marion Leisure Cente, Or Notrh with Turamurra and Golden Grove.

Yes.. if there is a shortage of stadiums??.. Woodville would have St.Clair,underdale,woodville highschool stadiums that can be used.

Firefox

Easy tiger.

I am am not hanging sh%t on Sturt , far from it.
Yes I am sorry, they do not HAVE Unley.
But the situation is good for them at this juncture, as other clubs it is not!! eg Woodville and Norwood and to a lesser extent South. This is a pivotal time for the sport, but thanks for the cheap shot, it helps.

Not going to pound that path re 10 healthy clubs again.
Not only do we need venues we need to own the competitions, which we all are a long way from.

Dr Damage,

Cheap shot? Rather a statment of fact. Rather than pay for a development officer. Norwood spent money flying 2 players in from interstate to play ABA. And now you want to complan about how Sturt are in a good position under a changing structure. All clubs have known about the structure Sturt has in place, but rather than follow it they have decided other structures are better.

Is it Sturts problem that they have been forward thinking in developing their own competition in association with another club while other clubs have been sitting on their backsides. All clubs were told to do the same 2 years ago.

Why hasn't Norwood been spending their money on a develoment officer rather than on ABA?

Why is it that we ned to stop a club from improving rather than expect other clubs to do the same?

It is plainly obvious, most clubs do not want to put in the hard yards. That a majority of people like yourself would rather sit back and expect BSA to solve their problems.

I think that proposal is good as it means that all clubs will now become accountable for their decisions.

Not interested in the state, just your club.

Enjoy a competition beating yourself!
Thats what you'll have.

Enjoy




The budget or both Sturt ABA and Norwood would be within 10% of each other, so forget the hyperbole what is needed is security of tenancies, which should be negotiated by the peak body.

As I understand it, Sturt currently has no lease agreement with BSA for Pasedena ?

The office was moved at the whim of BSA!

So perhaps you are in need of the support of other clubs as well, and why shouldn't we all help each other?

Where can one get access to the written proposal/draft re the changes to the current structure?.
If it is to be implemented( supposedly) at the end of the 2008 Summer season, then there must be a hard copy somewhere?
Is it in an accessable website.....

Dr Damage,

If being interested in being the best you can be is a problem, then sure. If you and your club does not have the same goal, go back to being a social club.

If the competition becomes one in which Sturt is beating Sturt in Div 1, then you and your club will need to rethink it's priorities and practices. Otherwise we will consistantly have a poor competition, which is exactly what we have now.

I feel that rather than having the top being dragged down, we should have the bottom build it self up. Rather than cutting down the tall poppy, have the rest of the garden grow. Look at Dandenong, Knox and Sandringham, when you were a junior these clubs were nowhere. But in a tough, cut throat competition, they have improved, while other clubs have dropped. I am sure that planning, cultivating relationships with the coucil etc, and utilising members has been a big part of that. But firstly a priority of hard work towards excellence was probably the catalyst.


And if you think that the ABA budgets Sturt and Norwood have had over the past 5 years is even close, you are kidding youself.

And yes BSA can kick all the clubs out of their stadiums whenever they want, not just Sturt. But so can any of the stadiums that your teams train at. Whether you have a 1 year of 0 year deal doesn't matter. The working relationsip between Sturt and the Stadium Manager is strong and positive. Sturt are helping BSA increase Stadium usage, running competitions and increaseing revenue for BSA. So what exactly is your point.

What would it achieve if BSA kicked the clubs out? What would replace them? The clubs generate massive revenue for BSA. They fill stadiums. They have a large amount of the structure BSA needs to recruit players, coaches and referee's. If the clubs got kicked out, it would not meet BSA's goals and therefore will not happen. And, as you know, in the meantime, Sturt are doing something about.

Finally, Sturt are moving away from needing other clubs help. Look at what the MEBA was doing back in the 70's and 80's. It forced all the other clubs to change their structures and priorites. Under the new system, clubs need not worry about what is happening at a governance level, which they have no control over. Rather, be concerned about making themselves better, and then the best. Not just in SA, but in Australia. That may not happen in a long time, if ever, but unless it is the goal, you might never see the sun for the poppies.

"But firstly a priority of hard work towards excellence was probably the catalyst."

This comment suggests and the preceding paragraph suggests that we( the other clubs) are not working hard. Maybe we could work harder.
But you cannot consider Adelaide to be the same as Melbourne. The numbers suggest that Knox association is around the same size as all of BSA.Hence we will not be able to create associtions of this magnitude unless the critical infrastructure is done first.

That is secure venues properly, so the playing field for each club can not be changed.

If you want a good competition honestly, then you want Woodville in a 3 court stadium that they own the lease. They run the school comp in the area and employ a manger/development officer to organise and facilitate the program.
They would have canteen and Bar facilities providing an income not related to the court time.

But you don't, you just slag off the rest of the basketball community in a manner that demeans others. Firefox really only want a new comp in which you can dominate.

You might be getting it, and it won't matter a damn how hard other cubs work, because they don't have income producing models without venues.

Until you guys stop the bickering and realise you do not have the population to run feeder comps like vic - you wont go anywhere except back down the pooh shoot. Step away and look back in the squaller you call a competition and be realistic. Go back to the 70's - forget this home and away crap and centralize the bloody comp. Who cares what div plays where - just do it !!!

The next thing you can argue about is what 2 stadiums to use.

Absolutely pathetic - good to see the new BSA is working well. Thank god for other sports

so who do you agree with anon?

That is unblabl

Is this the one that PM has been trying to recruit all year?
south should hold her clearance as long as possible!!

I have just seen the people in the Competitions committee.



Yes sir, no sir, 3 bags full sir.
I give up.

Shallow promises and lies from people who should be trusted but can't.

Most punters see stars when approached by another club!!

#148976, I would agree with you to a certain degree. Our junior competition was the second best in the country evidenced by the strong results at Australian Championships. This can no longer be said and I wonder if the decline coincides with the structure change that basketball went through. Basketball got popular, non basketball people got involved and bad decisions made. Revisiting the past wouldn't be a bad thing.

Junior Competition Committee was ratified last night. Who is on it?

Dr Damage,

All clubs need to work harder. But more importantly they need to put resources into juniors like Sturt do. STutr do not run an income producing stadium. May I remind you that in the lasy 8 year Sturt have not had a stadium for 4 of those years to even play home games at, but have managed to have 6 Overall Club Championships.

Why does your club not have somebody to run Aussie Hoops, miniball and a domestic competition?

Mars does not ave a full stadium after school. Why can't Norwood work with them to improve this? Why arn't Norwood looking to use Magill campus to run competitions for a domestic level.

Do that and you are working hard enough.

If some clubs such as Sturt are going to be able to run stadiums like Pasadena, surely, profits from the stadium need to go back into providing other venues for clubs that BSA cannot initially provide for. Otherwise basketball in this state will not move forward

And I would hope that all clubs could have a 3 court stadium to work out of. Not just Woodville, but South and North as well as Norwood and Sturt. The difference is that you expect BSA to do it. I expect the clubs to get out and do it themselves. Why is this so hard?

Sturt are not going to continue to sit back and allow itself to be pulled back to relative mediocraty becasue other clubs have failed to put in the necessary steps to improve.

And the kind of competition that BSA decide upon is irrelevent as to wheter Sturt want to dominate it or not. We will continue to do our best to improve the players we have so that they can be successful.

"We will continue to do our best to improve the players we have so that they can be successful" For how many players? At what cost to your other players and the rest of basketball in SA?

There needs to be, as close to level playing field as possibe before anything like a competition exists. Unless a BSA led directive instigates real changes to 'recruiting'. zoning or pro/rel larger clubs will pilfer players in pursuit of club glory at the expense of National success.
Sturt and forestville have a mortgage on the 14's and club championship thru targetted recruiting for that specific purpose although their girls dominance at this level hasnt neccessarily translated to 16, 18 and 21 success.
Perhaps its time to limit the number of div 2 teams to one, in girls age groups, in each club but what really matters is a wider spread of the talent to promote competition muust be achieved.
Kids lanquishing in multiple Div 2 teams within certain clubs never seem to progress and join the growing drop out rate in girls basketball.
There can be little doubt weighted clubs contribute to such loss.
If the clubs keep self interest as their creed BSA needs to convince clubs to merge, remove or delete the number of clubs, introduce pro/rel and or Zone.

accounting,

So you are saying that Sturt should tell their players to move to other clubs because ...? Or that Sturt should not try as hard as they are to improve players because other clubs can't be as successful?

How exactly do you consider Sturt doing a worse job will in any way improve the standard of basketball in SA. Just plain rediculous. Is it any wonder some clubs are not improving with that attitude!

Back in 1997 Sturt had 32 teams. Minimal double div 2 teams and struggled at State Champs. The following year their home stadium burnt down. Whilst they could easily have bitched and moaned about the hard work Dean Kinsman was doing at Notrh leading them to consecutive State Overall Champs, asked BASA to stop North from beating veery body. Moaned about how they didn't have a home stadium or rvenue loss, they reassessed their priorities and changed their direction.

Over the past 10 years, they have been the only clubs to continuously run Aussie Hoops programs, set up a domstic competition, seek out and improve their coaching philosophies according to those which the AIS, ITC and SASI programs follow.

That people are jealous of the success shows why some club will never get it. Which is exactly the reason why Sturt should not be concerned with other clubs struggling. If the shoe was on the other foot, Sturt would not be bitching, and other clubs would not be offering help. Simple.