Yes - i think differently.

I don't think we are in decline, i think Vic Metro is in Decline, NSW country are up slightly, and QLD is up lots.
WA Metro is up quite a bit as well.

PAsadena84 - Fair enough about your comments about WA Metro and NSW Country, but looking at results from Nationals in 2007, it doesn't support your statement that Vic Metro is in decline.
QLD have also had more players be selected to AIS over past few years. How many SA juniors made it to AIS in last few years? How many junior SA teams have won at National's in last few years??? See my point?
I just want to prompt some discussion to try and be proactive and come up with things we can do to improve SA Hoops.

Venom - i thought you meant over the prior years. Check the 'o6 nationals results and tell me how Vic Met faired.

Qld is going great guns, but SA is still getting a fair look into the tut.

In regards to how many times we've won nationals in PY's? the last time i recall we medaled was u-16 boys in around 03/04 (dodman & J.kies). There may have been a 18's G met bronze a few years back, not so sure though. But i guess my take on it is we haven't really been medalling for the past decade?

SA juniors made it to AIS in last few years?
- Dodman (granted, he didn't stay), Seebohm, Hill,
- Newley, Ingles, McMath
- Francis, Langford, Ireland, Madgen
- Martin, Newley

And i'm sure there's a couple i've missed.

National Champ success comes in waves in all places except Victoria whose fluctuations are much smaller due to having the greatest basketball population.

SA Metro for example had great success in the late 90s (Forman, Ng etc) and 02/03/04 (Newley, Kersten, Ingles etc). The current crop of AIS girls ensured success from 04 to 07 as well.

They also vary widely from bottom age to top age. SA Metro at the moment is better in the current top age that its current bottom age.

How can we dampen these fluctuations? Pro/rel to make the competition stronger and more competitive week in, week out!

As much as I'd hate to admit it, Venom is onto something. Our juniors are not as strong in comparison to other states as they used to be. We only have a couple of players at the AIS, otherwise dominated by VIC, QLD and NSW.

Magic - do the same comparision on a pro-rata or pre-head of population basis and tell what that tells us.

Should we not be aiming for Gold medals? Are we happy to be known as the "almost there" state and be happy with finishing around 4th? VIC Metro did have a bad year in 2006, but then they bounce back the year after, and from memory won just about everything on offer, with even VIC Country doing quite well at some age groups. Doesn't that then reinforce they do in fact have a strong program? QLD is only going to get stronger in my opinion.
So what do we have to do in SA to get back up to the top consistently and across all age groups?

Fair point Pasadena. But like Venom said, are we happy with these results? Do we want to do something about it? What can we do to be better?

As I said before Venom, pro/rel is the number 1. The reason behind Vic success is tough competition. While our competition rewards mediocrity we will never consistently compete with 7% of Australia's population. Ours (and Tasmania's) development programs produce the most elite basketballers on a per capita basis. These can always be improved but competition structure is number 1 in terms of raising national championship performances.

So what is stopping the promotion/relegation thing from actually happening?
Is it the clubs holding it back or is Basketball SA?

so what is Tasmania doing in their programs?

A lot of VIC Country associations are also now entering their teams in the VIC Metro competition (Eg. Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo, Shepparton, Corio Bay, Warragul etc). This helps VIC Country's development, but also helps VIC Metro as well by providing increased competition.
But the elite junior Vic competition do have a complex and thorough grading process to determine what grade or division each team plays in. No club is guaranteed to have a team at the top level - they all have to qualify and earn their place.
I think this is what Grote62 was referring to.

Who? That has never been answered!

Who should these new coaches be anonymous?

Yeah! Does anyone know who is preventing the promotion/relegation thing from happening? this is just plain silly.

There is a new Competitions Committee of 5 people that makes these decisions now. It used to be the BASA Junior Committee made up of 1 from each club and a number of BASA people. This unwieldy structure meant that nothing progressive every got through. Pro/rel is one of those progressive things that never had a chance of getting up with the old BASA system. Hopefully it has a chance with the new BSA Competitions Committee.

The clubs are holding pro/rel back.

As a Victorian, we lose plenty of talented players to AFL each year. The U18 TAC cup (AFL) steals some of the best and brightest talents we have in our junior system. Look at what happened with Scott Pendlebury (VIC Country) - he was all signed up for the AIS and then still chose footy over basketball. The list could go on, but you would not have heard of half of them.
A fair and equitable qualifying system is required for each division of juniro basketball. If a team is good enough to be there, then they deserve to play there. VIC Metro used to be the same as SA Basketball is at the moment - it is just SA basketball has not moved with the times and adopted a fair grading system.
Perhaps using the Victorian Junior Basketball League (VJBL) grading model as a starting point is worthwhile?
It is worthy to note that the Victorian's adopted this process in a less complex form around 10 years ago. Since then they have also expanded the number of teams playing top level junior basketball over the years from 10 teams, to 12, 16 and now 20. That means up to 200 kids playing at the top level of basketball at each age group. Not saying that SA should go there yet, but just explaining how the VIC's they have progressed.

It's not simply a population thing. There are 3 main factors. Population gives you the player base. Strong competition produces a pool of potentially elite players. Development programs develop this pool into players like Brett Maher, Erin Phillips or Brad Newley.

SA has reasonably low population, the 2nd best competition (but still a long way behind Vic Met) and good elite development programs.

Grote - so you are saying out of the three things required, we are only falling short on the popultion.

Well, i'm gonna go home tonight and along with my wife, try to fix that.

No, we are also falling short with our local competition. A rich tradition of basketball has given us a better competition than most States. However (as VicBaller said) the Vics have moved forward and we haven't. Our competition structure is essentially the same as 20 years ago. It could be a lot worse (eg Sydney or Brisbane) but it could be so much better (eg Melbourne).

Good to see some passion about SA hoops!
If the clubs are the problem with instigating a fair grading process for juniors, then how is this new committee going to change it? Surely it is still the club's holding the power?
Pressure has to be applied by all associations to have this changed for the future of SA basketball. I can't see a 5-person committee being able to make wholesale changes when there is likely to be opposition from the big clubs that are the ones that will be ultimately affected. I can only hope that they can initiate change as it will only strengthen basketball in this state.
I too want to see some gold medals and see SA basketball as a powerful force in Australian basketball once more.

Are the clubs the problem? Didn't they lose all their power (to do good and evil!) with the advent of BSA and the new Competition Committee? I fail to see how the clubs could hold back the competition. If anyone can enlighten us on this, it would be much appreciated.

Well if you are right then Grote, I will stand corrected.

I moved from VIC to SA a few years ago and played in both elite competitions. The VIC Comp is way stronger and has better refs too. We had to play in grading games over a few months (bout 7 ot 8 games) to ensure we made the Vic State level. We earnt our place. When i moved here the team I was in didn't have to do nothing. We just knew we would be at the top. even tho it was hard to qualify, it makes you better I reckon.

several stadiums need replacing.

competition set up is fine needs pro / rel to fine tune.

needs more juniors playing.

social ball is absoloutely feral.

cost is about right.

more tourneys between metro / country.

36ers need more junior interaction.

lightning on the money.

club entry needs to be managed better - ie why did we get magic when woodville and west are not at capacity?

we need to hype up acheiving players more.

After sifting through the posts I think there are some really valid points and ideas worth pursuing for the better of basketball in this state.
The competition structure needs to be changed. I think the notion of implementing a qualifying process for teams across all age groups is a worthy one and warrants immediate attention. Following such a move, this can then be reviewed and further improvements on the process made each year.
It sounds like the VIC model is a good starting point for sure as it looks like just about everyone agrees it is the best at this point in time. Let's give our kids the best possible chance to shine by ensuring the best kids and teams have the opportunity of playing at the top level without having to move to one of the big clubs.
Is there anyone listening out there who can make a difference and initiate change?

Promotion/relegation isn't necesasarily the answer guys. Each season teams change, players move on, new players emerge.
Instead I like the idea of making each team, each season, play off in grading games to earn the right to play in the top division.
From what I have read in a few posts, my gut feel is that this is what VIC does best. This will always ensure that the best teams from SA are playing against each other every week, and thus making the competition stronger.

So forget about our if we are gearing up for classics / nationals around the middle of the year what about a structure like this:

Grading season runs Sept - Nov. Season then runs from Feb through August. With re-grading (taking the new age groups into effect) in Sept-Nov.

*So forget about our current seasons. If we are gearing up for classics / nationals around the middle of the year what about a structure like this:

Participation rates help, but in the end don't really rate me with. Australia is ranked No.2 in the world with a population of not much over 20mil. Now that talks to me.
If you want to see how VIC do it, check out the VJBL website:
http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=1-3911-0-0-0&sID=43435
The VJBL grading process is currently in it's second phase. There is only 2 more weeks left for the top level. Smaller clubs can qualify for the top level (known as Victorian Championships), and if you look at some of the age groups, some smaller clubs have already qualified for that level in 2008. But they have earnt the right to be there.
Anyway, check it out for yourselves.

I didn't imagine this topic would promote so much discussion. But it is good to see so many people only wanting what's best for SA basketball.
I checked out the VJBL website (thanks for the link) and noted the competition dates they work to. They have two phases of grading, starting with November/December, and then February for the second phase. The season then commences in March and runs all the way through to the end of September and the VIC school holidays. Their grading system looks very complex, and appears to start based on rankings for each club from the previous season.
That essentially means they have a 12 month season. It all then starts again in late September and October with club try-outs and pre-season games before grading starts in November for the next season.
Surely we could work on implementing something like this?

Winners are Grinners,

Under pro/rel each year teams ARE re-graded! The system proposed and voted against by your club, was based around the positives of the vic system, adding the needs of the SA system.

One of the aims of pro/rel is to stop player moving clubs, but rather giving all players the ability to play at the standard they are capable! Ya ig'nant fool!

just plain ig'nant - did all clubs vote against it? Then why was it even proposed if all clubs voted against it anyway?

How you know what club I am from, and therefore know how my club voted?
Pro/rel IMO will improve the competition somewhat, but not to the level gained by VIC. A system by which every team has to qualify for the top grade is what we need.

"Pro/rel IMO will improve the competition somewhat, but not to the level gained by VIC. A system by which every team has to qualify for the top grade is what we need."

That is what pro/rel is for Pete's sake! A system by which every team (regardless of where they are from) has to qualify for the top grade. It is also a system where teams that aren't good enough (regardless of where they are from) don't get to play top grade!

WRG,

Pro/Rel is that. Take a look at the grading map in Vic. No team is guaranteed a spot in the top grade at the beginning of grading season.

From there, any club can qualify - even the Torrens Valley's, Western Magic's etc - and we'll have the top X team playing in the top comp (X, IMO, should = 8, but I think would likely = 10).

Pro/rel IMO will improve the competition somewhat, but not to the level gained by VIC. A system by which every team has to qualify for the top grade is what we need.

WRG, have you seen the pro/rel model that was proposed a few years ago? (I'm positive a link to it was posted somewhere some years ago, but I couldn't find it anywhere). All teams did have to qualify for the top grade (which I believe was 8 teams) every year through qualifying. The pro/rel came from the moving up or down pools after each stage of qualification (as per Vic though a little more simplified). It needed some tweeks IMO, but it was a very positive thing.
Anyone still have that link?

It is generally stated here that Qld (I assume we are talking South?) have improved greatly. It should be noted that they have recently gone to a pro/rel model themselves - albeit a little bit different (and not as good as the SA model IMO). They have a grading carnival (the SA model proposed had a grading season as per Vic), and the best 8 teams from that play "Premier League" - regardless of club makeup ie no guarantee of any sides, no restraint on 2nd sides. The next lot (not sure how many) play Southern Cup (I think it's called). I think this will only improve further the standard of Qld South teams that get better competition more often.

IMO, District basketball is on the downer. Numbers in u/10's are terrible. And as we know people tend to fall out of the sport in older age groups. Therefore there needs to be a major recruitment into junior levels ASAP. Whether this is the clubs or BSA's job is another argument!

I feel district would be improved if players would stop settling for Div 2 at a "good club" and go and play div 1 somewhere else! For example, i was looking through the results of the summer season this week coming into finals. In the u/14 girls, the top team beat the 2nd place team by 30! How can players get motivated to win by at least 30 each week and how is that beneficial for their development and Basketball in SA? Further more, for the teams who havent won a game, how do they keep the motication to saty in the sport?! Clubs need to stop developing "super clubs" and start considering what is best for the player.

Dont invite a player to your club when your div 1 team is already strong and has 9 players. Send them somewhere else to help another team, hence developing the competition and BAsketball in SA!

The problem with the pro/rel model as argued before on here is the system by which teams move grades.

An open slather, where either a carnival takes place or a 'grading season' so any club can qualify for the tpo grade is the way forward.

The problem occurs (and probably why your club knocked it back) is where the bottom two teams drop off and the top two teams climb up. This doesn't take into effect the shift between top and bottom agers, and will mean that a particularly strong group may have to withstand a year in a div that is no right for them, because the teams a year above were'nt up to scratch.

Leopard - that really doesn't make any sense.

At the change of season (IE - end of winter season) all the teams are re-seeded based on their standings of 2 years ago (which is the same group of players). From there, they play the grading period in their pools & are re-shuffled according to results.

So your concern is really not an issue.

Hoop Addict - i haven't looked at the Vic grading model, but you seem to be all over it.

How does the gradning season work if
*launch example*

U-16 Girls BSA:

Sturt x 4
F/Ville x 4
North x 3
West, South, Southern, x 2
Eastern, W/ville, Centrals x1

20 teams overall. How do you go about ensuring that in the grading season (which must be shorter than the regular season), each team has a fair (an equal chance would be impossible unless they all played each other an even number of times, but that would make the season too long), chance of qualifying?

Summer Season (Grading Season)
" 15 weeks + 1 week finals (currently 13 weeks)
" Groups of 6
o Qualifying Group A (1,2,3,4,5,6)
o Qualifying Group B (7,8,9,10,11,12)
o Qualifying Group C (13,14,15,16,17,18) etc.
o Lowest/ Lowest 2 groups can be:
§ 6, 7 teams (1 grade)
§ 8 (4+4), 9 (5+4), 10 (5+5), 11 (6+5)
" Seeding determination
o Results from previous age group 2 years ago
o Member clubs guaranteed Group A or Group B if requested
o First teams from non-member clubs who were not represented 2 years ago, automatically start in Group D.
" Weeks 1-5
o 6 teams (1 round, 90% of competitions will be this format)
o 4 teams (1 round, 1st v 4th /2nd v 3rd , W v W, L v L)
o 5 teams (1 round with bye game)
o 7 teams (1 round with bye game, extra round needed)
o If team pulls out, re-draw only if format changes (i.e. no re-draws for 6 teams dropping to 5 teams which would be 90% of cases)
o At end, top 2 placings are promoted to higher group, lower 2 placings are relegated to lower group, others (generally middle 2 placings) stay in the same group
o If withdrawals then every team below moves up a place for next 5 weeks
" Weeks 6-10
o Same as above
o Promotion, relegation at end
" Weeks 11-15 (new calendar year)
o Same as above
o Promotion, relegation at end
" Week 16
o 1v2, 3v4, 5v6 in each group. 1v2 games are counted as grand finals.
o Winner of Week 16 games gets the higher seeding for main season

Winter Season (Championship Season)
" 21 weeks + 3 weeks finals (currently 26 weeks)
" Groups of 8
o A Grade (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8)
o A Reserve Grade (9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16)
o B Grade (17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24) etc
o Lowest/Lowest 2 grades can be:
§ 8, 9, 10, 11 teams (1 grade)
§ 12 (6+6), 13 (7+6), 14 (7+7), 15 (8+7)
" Week 1-21
o 6 teams (4 rounds, 1 week off)
o 7 teams (3 rounds with a bye game)
o 8 teams (3 rounds. 80% of grades will be this format)
o 9 teams (2 rounds + 3 games, uneven competition with a bye game)
o 10 teams (2 rounds + 3 games, uneven competition)
o 11 teams (2 rounds with a bye game, extra Sunday game to make 22 rounds)
" Weeks 22-24
o 4 team finals system (1vs2,3vs4;L(1v2)vsW(3v4);W(1v2)vsW(Prelim Final)
o Week 23 5vs6 and 7vs8 to determine seedings for 2 years time

Advantages
" Each team will soon find its level of play. Closer games, less "blow outs" leads to better competition. Better competition leads to better retention rates (i.e. less players quitting half way through season/year)
" The best play the best. This leads to better results at National Championship level.
" The strong get stronger but the weak also get stronger through more appropriate competition levels
" The strong will not feed off the weak, because of the following by-law
o In any 12 month period, no club may accept more than # players who have transferred from other member clubs
o This may or may not be extended to include non-member clubs if so desired
" Re-draws happen only 3 times per year, and there are definite rules regarding them. This looks and is more professional administratively.
" There is no gray area with seeding at the start of the year. If teams are in wrong grade they will soon end up in the right grade through their level of play
" Teams who start as low as 24th seed may end up in A Grade if they are good enough.
" More games, more revenue may lead to lower costs?
" Able to be modified in the future to include North and South lower divisions if so decided.
" Easy determination of State Championship qualifications
" 85% or competitions will be groups of 6 and 8 which are inherently easier to program than groups of 9, 10, 11, 12. There will be far less uneven competitions than at present.

Disadvantages
" Tight timeline for re-draw at the end of week 5 and 16. However this is no different to the break between current summer and winter season.
" 1 extra week of games.
" I'm sure there are some. Write them down, and modify this proposal to solve them.

Here it is in full's post probably covers it all Pultney.

Basically, you get seeded as per your standings on the results of 2 years prior & it works from there.

And this was the exact proposal but before all clubs (around 18 months ago??) that only got 2-3 clubs approval?

Sounds like a great structure / format.

It will for-go development during the grading season, where winning is everything, but during the longer 'championship' season, should be better for development.

Yes. Going back to an earlier point, many people agree that this is a good structure. It is not perfect but solves many of the problems with our present structure.

It shows the problem with the old BASA Junior Committee that something like this couldn't fly. In fact it didn't get even out of the hangar!

Now, the question that I pose again is why could this not be treated on its obvious merits by the new BSA Competitions Committee?

I disagree. 1) Vic has a cap of two teams per club that are able to qualify for VC (their version of div 1) & 2) really, you'd find that it would be very, very rare that any club qualified more than 2 teams in a grade.

If a pro/rel model of 10 teams making div 1 were introduced, I'd be very surprised if any grade had MORE than 2 "double up" teams, so at least 8 clubs would be represented in each div 1 grade, IMO.

VIC clubs can qalify no more than 2 team in the top division. Maybe one or two clubs get this to happen in an age group, but more often than not you have at least 18 clubs out of 20 possible teams represented. It usually only ends up being the really big clubs like Dandenong, Knox, Nunawading or Kilsyth that ever qualify two teams.

I have taken a bit of time to review everything that has been said in this thread.
Overall, I do personally think SA basketball is definitely in decline. However we do have enough passionate and knowledgable people to turn it around.
The competition is not improving and whilst we have a few players still make it to the AIS and national league teams, overall it is but a ripple in the ocean.
Action is needed:
- Overhaul the junior comp structure similar to VIC
- SA basketball to help/do more with getting younger kids into basketball. More marketing, more clinics in schools. Clubs can help by starting up U8 district comps like they already have in VIC and other states etc.
- 36ers to be more active in the community. More clinics at schools etc
- Use our strengths to overcome our weaknesses
Lets all make a difference!!!!

Let's face it - Sturt are the best and will contionue to be the best despite any changes made!
Make us qualify and we will - always!

all that would happen under the 'here it is in full' proposal would be that forestville and sturt would field 3 or 4 teams each and the smaller clubs would fold.

Completely disagree anonymous.

In the proposal, only the top 8 qualifiers play div 1/A grade. That would mean the best 2nd teams would not have to beat the worst 1st teams (which I believe would happen in a fair few of the grades), but the 8th best. And I can't imagine a scenario were a 3rd team beats a 8th seeded team at the moment (note: I know very little about the girls grades so am basing this on the boys grades, may be close in U12 boys).

For example, the 8th seed in U16 boys is Centrals. They would EASILY handle Sturt, Norwoods and Forestvilles 3rd sides by 30+. I also believe they would quite handily defeat Sturts 2nd side, and Torrens Valley's 1st side (the top two in div 2). I think Southern (9th seed) would also beat both of them. Woodville (10th seed) would probably be a close game. So, I believe that if the above model was implemented in this grade, there would be 8 teams represented in the 8 spots.

In the 14 boys, it'd be a bit closer. I think Sturt 2nd side would def beat South (ranked 9), and would push West (8th). Torrens Valley and Forestville's 2nd side would be around the mark too. Forestville (7th seed) is a fair bit better than that group. So again, at worst, there would be 7 clubs represented out of the 8 spots in this grade I'd say.
(of course, these are purely my opinion and others may disagree)

There is NO reason why hardworking clubs would fold - this would only happen at clubs that didn't work at both getting players at young grades and then developing them. I'd also say that more players would quit from getting smashed by 60+ every week (as happens in a couple div 1 grades) than from playing competitive matches in div 2 (again, purely my opinion). In Victoria, relatively young and previously tiny clubs like McKinnon have thrived in this system, because they work hard at increasing numbers, and then spend time developing them. They regularly qualify for VC in most boys grades now, and have one grade that could push for the State Championship (16 boys). Previously "solid" clubs like Hawthorn (girls) and Sandringham (boys) have also seen results increase. Whilst some of the "bigger" clubs seem to be on the slide a bit.

#172977 - It's a pity that transfer number aren't publicly available, because in the U14/U16 girls Sturt and Forestville probably are transferring as many or more Div 2/3 players to other clubs as they are recruiting.

Sturt Champs - you're right, the clubs with the best programs will succeed under any system, but the success of Sturt at the national level (or Forestville in the girls) is limited by the standard of competition they get locally every week. The stronger the other clubs get, the better it is for the dominant clubs.

Toot - you make some great points.
As long as the best teams in each age group make Div 1 that is what we need.
The recruit and development philosophy in Melb is very evident as you have outlined.
there are other once small clubs such as Corio Bay, Darebin and now Warrandyte are really stepping it up -and doing sio from the younger groups and working from that as a platform to build on.
In fact clubs like Darebin Giants and Warrandyte Venom have gone from relatve obscurity and having just a handful of rep ball teams to now sporting 3 or more teams across every age group - boys and girls.

The strong clubs like Sturt will always do well. However if we get the competition structure right, there is no reason why smaller clubs now can further develop and become larger and more successful too. Hard work and talented people help too.
Success breeds success.

Altona is another club beginning to grow as well.

The more healthy & thriving clubs there are, the better. This system allows for these teams to play in an appropriate grade, rather than BSA restricting access to the top grade to only the member clubs. There is a chance a Torrens Valley club or two could sneak in to our top grade over here (depending on whether we go with an 8 or 10 team model). I would rather see them play div 1 (if that's their appropriate level) than smack teams in div 2.

Agree with Toot in that you'll find there are very few div 2 sides who would crack a top 8. It's probably the case in U12's, very borderline in U14's & U16's (though these are grades where Torrens Valley have been very strong in recent years, and IMO have had teams capable of playing div 1) and may be the case in U18's (this is boys, BTW). But in each instance, I couldn't see more than 1 team cracking the top grade.

I really don't think Sturt & Forestville (or even the "big 4" including North & Norwood) would have a monopoly on the competition like some people think.

what happens in year two. When gun player John from 'small club' (finishing 9 or 10 now) get's sick of playing in the 2nd tier division and transfers to "big club". Now "big club" has the talent to field two teams in the top division and 'small club' is middle field of 2nd tier. How can they attract, retain players and coaches?

Anon,

That doesn't seem to happen in Victoria now. Or else the McKinnons, Altona's, Corio Bays, Warrandytes etc. would not have become better - the top tier players at these clubs would just of left and gone to the Dandenongs and Nunawadings.

Having said that...
There was a couple of proposals put (on this site) the last time this came up that made sense:
- a "cap" of the total number of players any club can accept from other clubs (whether that be per age group, sex or jut plain total could be discussed). This way, clubs would have to be more selective, and not just take anyone they could to bolster numbers.
- a rule where a player from a club leaves (in your case Johnny), cannot leave after qualification (ie after they've been found to be 9 or 10 and not 8) and go into a lower team at another club to play in a higher grade. So if Johnny left say Centrals 1st team, he could NOT go to Forestville's 2nd side that qualified for div 1. He could go into another div 2 side (if they accept him per rule above) or a teams 1st team only.

Also anon, don't you think that your scenario happens now anyway? Johnny is sick of getting smashed by 40+ each week in div 1, he is not improving as his teammates aren't at a competitive level for div 1, so he bails to go to a more successful club in that grade. This club then pushes down a player to their 2s who become stronger. It happens now regularly - just look at all the posts about poaching/recruiting.

In *my* personal experience, I've seen more div 1 players leave clubs because they're getting whooped each week & head to clubs who can put them in a grade more appropriate to their skills. Plus there are numerous kids who don't want to get whooped each week, so the sport loses them altogether.

I just don't see it happening the other way *all that often* and I'd doubt it'd be any more than what currently happens.

Besides, I'm sure in the model proposed, there's a transfer limit on each club, so player movement would be restricted to more of a degree than it is now.

I would like to point out that it is DISTRICT basketball in a decline. Mini-ball competitions are strong, so is church and SA Country have come ahead in leaps and bounds!

MMM...so if a ratified District club has a team in a junior age group in Div 1 that is consistently at the lower end of the ladder, does that mean they may not get to play Div 1...instead be relegated to Div 2?
And then Div 2 to Div 3 and so on. Great if you have depth in numbers like the super clubs...(I am just looking at the girls comp as an example)
And..if you do not have a current Div 2 side how then does the promotion/relegation process work.

Can a Club be involved in a Division without a Div 1 team, particularly in the winter comp.?

I would love to see more kids from the Div 2 comp come into and strengthen some current Div 1 sides, it means leaving their clubs though. I know that there are parents out there that would rather their kids play Div 2 for their current club than move to Div 1 in an other club. I think the feeling is that at any moment they just may get the opportunity...but sometimes that moment never comes and the kids never get the chance or opportunity to play at higher division. Then eventually they leave, left wondering about those missed opportunities.

anon,

The current competition structure is designed to do exactly what you are talking about. By limiting the number of teams from a club into div 1 the aim is too have the best div 2 players move to other club. This has not happened in the past, and in fact, more players have moved from the weaker clubs to the stronger clubs.

Essentially, what parents are saying buy their decision to stay put is that they value a high standard of training and opportunity, over playing div 1.

Until clubs decide to put more resources into juniors, rather than wasting money in seniors which loses clubs money without any returns. Those weaker clubs will never improve. 2 case points.

1/ West were the dominant junior club in the 70's/80's. QUESTION If success is merely an extention of being successful, why are West not the dominant clubs now. ANSWER They spent all there money on NBL and WNBL programs without focussing on juniors.

2/ Dandenong were a small insignificant club in the 70's/80's. QUESTION Can a samll club increase it's position relative to oter clubs. ANSWER Yes, if they concentrate on improved coaching and infrastructure.

anon,

The current competition structure is designed to do exactly what you are talking about. By limiting the number of teams from a club into div 1 the aim is too have the best div 2 players move to other club. This has not happened in the past, and in fact, more players have moved from the weaker clubs to the stronger clubs.

Essentially, what parents are saying buy their decision to stay put is that they value a high standard of training and opportunity, over playing div 1.

Until clubs decide to put more resources into juniors, rather than wasting money in seniors which loses clubs money without any returns. Those weaker clubs will never improve. 2 case points.

1/ West were the dominant junior club in the 70's/80's. QUESTION If success is merely an extention of being successful, why are West not the dominant clubs now. ANSWER They spent all there money on NBL and WNBL programs without focussing on juniors.

2/ Dandenong were a small insignificant club in the 70's/80's. QUESTION Can a samll club increase it's position relative to oter clubs. ANSWER Yes, if they concentrate on improved coaching and infrastructure.

so what needs to happen for this model to be adopted.

I'm convinced that it's the best thing for SA district basketball.

Another benefit yet to be mentioned (or maybe it was, i lose count of the number and posts of pro/rel threads) would be for country teams.

If Limestone coast, or an Iron triangle had a strong group (even a weak group) of committed kids that wanted weekly competition above their local comp, they could come into the qualifying process, smash a few div 3 teams, move into the second tier and fight it out for a spot that suits their team.

So who makes the decision on the overhual?

Mark Hubbard?
Paul Arnott?
Clubs presidents?
the '5-member committee'?

Review the age limits for all levels, that is make the comp for under 16's, for 16 years old and below.

That means our comp will fall out of line with every other state and messes with state team selections for Nationals.

Coming from Sturt, I would love to see a better competition implemented as our teams will only benefit - just not sure if our governing heirarchy will see it this way as they are too much unto themselves.

Pretty much everyone agrees on a change to competition structure - but can anyone on this forum initiate the necessary and much desired change?

#173135, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this discussion board is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

I think everyone who is in agreeance on the competition restructure changes needs to go back to their own clubs and voice their opinions. Gain more support from others and then force your clubs to instigate action. The more support you can gather at each club, the more likely change can take place - for the better too.
Lets get a fair and equitable qualification system going and scrap the summer comp. 2 months worth of hard fought competition for places in divisions can only help the competitiveness of our junior comps.

anon #173135,

Time and again zoning has been put up as a cure. Time and again it has been suggested, that like those who promote pro/rel, somebody show how and equiltable disbursment of players can be guarenteed for clubs, over time and under changing demographics.

Could you please answer this question?

And can you also make the rest of Australia, nay the rest of the world conform to your age groupings!

And the reason that power clubs have numerous SASI and State coaches is that they are the ones producing the suggesful teams and players!

Again, go talk to Dandenong or Knox and ask them what they did 20 years ago when they were no more than a starter club with minimal VC teams.

Better still go ask Altona, Warrandyte and Sandringham, how they are improving in a pro/rel system!

Zoning doesn't work.
Using Melb again as an example, in the Eastern suburbs you have all these big clubs such as Knox, Kilsyth, Bulleen, Eltham, Nunawading and Hawthorn. In amongst them you have Blackburn, Ringwood, Camberwell, Doncaster, Collingwood and Warrandyte. They all survive and clubs such as Blackburn and more recently Warrandyte are in fact thriving.
Look at Altona's revival. Corio Bay are now holding their own and retaining players they once lost to Geelong.
Let's stay well clear of zoning thanks.
An open slather qualifying system in place of a summer competition seems to be a fair way to go.

anon #173185,

1/ A player playing in a competition where games are close will improve more than playing in a 40 + point loss each week. If you have a standout player in a 9th or 10th placed team that can't win against a div 2 team. a) how good are they really. b) why should they stay at a club that is unable to produce a team of their ability. c) each week they play a div 2 team and play in a competitive game they will improve because they will eed to play to their best to win.

So again, go ask your club how much money the senior programs takes to run, and demand that they put all that money into a junior development officer.

2/ So because some club has focused on development at junior level and therefore had success, this sucess will continue. Please read my above post. Success has nothing to do with current success. West and North were the 2 most successful clubs in the 80's. QUESTION If what you are saying is true, then why aren't they more successful now? ANSWER Because cubs like Sturt and Forestville have had a push of resources into juniors. Both financial as well as philisohical.

Dandenong has become arguably to most successful club in Australia, yet 20+ years ago they didn't have hardly any VC teams. In a pro/rel competition, sorry, but blows your theory out of the water.

And in some grades you would have a div 2 team that is better than the 8th ranked div 1 team. In these gradesa the overall compeititon would be improved because teams would need to play at a higher standard to beat this team, hence improving the competition.

3/ If by serious challenges with zoning you mean impossible then I agree. Basketball is not other sports, find another Olympic sport that has a club system, who's players have a National pathway, which includes International competition for teams and individuals. Add current club positioning as well as past patronage in regards to being able to play for the club your parents play for. Plus people moving house mid season.

Finally, a majority of players move clubs because they are unhappy with the standard of service.

anon #173187,

What has population got to do with anything? The fact is that using this system, Victoria has been able to increase participation rates. This would be due to players being able to play in a system where their games are equal in standard to match their ability.

173194 - I know the full names of virtually every player on every other team in the grade, but I am not looking to "recruit" any of them. And what earlier email? This is a discussion board. Go have a lie down.

I'm with sameolsameol on this matter.
By ensuring players and teams play against appropriate levels of competition through an equitable and fair grading system, VIC has not only managed to strengthen their competition, but drawn even more players to it. Participation rates have never been higher - and country clubs are bneing drawn to it in droves as well - all despite petrol prices rising.

Under 12's up. The current grading for Under 10's is not as strict as all the other grades anyway. Leave it the way it is.

Read the above explanation.

U10's would opperate in the current format, ie each club having a guarenteed 1 team in div 1. And 1 team in div 1

At the end of U10's teams are ranked 1 - x (what ever is the number of teams)

When this group start U12's, they start the grading season with these rankings. ie each club has a team in the top 10.

In Vic under 12's this year, clubs have as young as 1999 kids playing - that means these kids have 3 x season at under 12 level. Obviously they start off in the lower grades, but they do get a head start

173194 - There is an obvious reason why the coach knows the opposition players' names: The coach gets a copy of the score sheet each week with the opposition players' names on it. It's not that hard to work out.

Time for an overhaul!
I'm sold on the proposed changes listed in this thread. Our comp and teams will only get better as a result. Time for change is now!

Yes "time for change" - so basketball in this state can move forward and not backwards.

All the opposing clubs should take a long hard look at themselves and ask why their motivation is to keep SA basketball in the "dark ages" and not agree to vote yes to the proposal because of own self serving interests.

The kids are the ones being punished due to narrow-minded points of view. Perhaps the Club committees that oppose this model should ask your whole Club how they feel, without prejudice and not just rely on the biased opinions of your Club Executive.

Change is a good thing people - lets embrace it!
Lets get these changes through so we can move forward like anon said.

U12 - U20 competition boys and girls, with a comprehensive, fair and equitable grading system.
Let the best teams play off in the Div 1 and so on through the divisions.
Scrap the summer comp as it is and replace it with grading, and extend the season through the year much like what is done in Melb. I think 10 teams in Div 1, 10 teams in Div 2 and so on should be the starting point though - maybe review after 1 year and then 3 years.
Get your club to push for this - or at least a version of it!!!! Don't sit on your hands!!!
Let's get SA basketball back up with the times!

The clubs used to have a say in things like this during BASA. Now with BSA these decisions are made by the Competitions Committee. Who is on this committee? Can we lobby the members of this committee?

The committee comprises of:

David Durant
Mike Gibson
Helen Gleeson
Ricky Simpson
Marcus Wong
Paul Arnott (ex-officio)

I reckon this is the first time I've seen people on the forum embrace the ideas of pro/rel. It's a good & positive step. BSA shouldn't be afraid to change the system - it's not like we're doing anything revolutionary here, we're just trying emulate what other states have done (with proven success). T

his needs to happen in the near future IMO, and hopefully those on the committee understand why this has to happen for SA basketball to move forward. If they can't see it and/or don't implement it in the near future, then they too are holding basketball back in this state as the clubs did for so long.

I think you will find that most will agree with the concept but its the mechanics/logistics are what concerns them.

When this concept moves forward finally, I personally hope that consideration is given to clubs in Eastern, Southern, Northern areas who, provide a valuable access point to many, in rapidly expanding areas, but are disadvantaged by distance. IE :
1. When a good player does leave Sturt, Norwood etc. they are going to typically pick one of the 5 or 6 clubs that's closer than these outer clubs.
2. Its more difficult (not saying its impossible but more difficult) to grow your all important U10/U12 programs that kick start your pro/rel seedings in following yrs.

I don't think under pro/rel, it would neccessarily be an even playing field due to the geographic distribution of outer clubs.

I'm sure a committee like this would be able to spend time nutting out the detail in conjunction with those (PM and SB I think) who initially proposed it.

The risks of changing to pro/rel outweighs the risks of maintaining the status quo though and I hope something changes soon.

"If the aim is to rationalise clubs and promote mergers then it should be done prior to pro/rel."

Wouldn't make business sense to do this. Your most rapidly growing markets and demographics are in areas that the club's that you would probably want to rationalise are based in.

It's got to be an 8 team competition if is to have any impact.

If we simply go to a 10 team foramt, the disparity in competition will still be there, however under an 8 team competition, those teams that are getting flogged in div 1 will have a chance to compete and improve.

Don't worry Baron, that is just scare-mongering of someone who'd rather maintain their laziness and guaranteed spot rather than put in the actaul work to build and improve their club.

It's of someone who only cares about themselves rather than basketball in SA overall. As pointed out, this hasn't happened in Victoria (eg McKinnon, Altona etc) or Sthn Qld.

Ostrich; Do you mean teams in each group or clubs? If you mean clubs, why couldn't you have 50 clubs in some form of pro/rel?

I guess it would make sense to have 8 teams in each division for the main season, but in the grading season why have a limit for how many clubs can fight it out? If "Jo's Dunking Fleas" want to nominate in U16s shouldn't they be able to? pro/rel can take care of where they end up.

Baron,

I'm confident Ostrich means the number of TEAMS in each grade/competition, not 8 clubs supplying all the teams. All our current clubs should be able to survive and each of their teams play at the level of their competency.

BaronBrown - not sure that any particular number of teams in a division makes more sense. 12 teams has each team playing each other team twice in 22 rounds. 8 teams play each other three times in 21 rounds. 10 teams play twice in 18 rounds.

The number of competitive teams varys significantly between age groups depending on the strength of the top Div 2 teams, but to get this sort of proposal up, you may need to start with a slightly larger number than 8.

Teams likely to move up will support the proposal, teams likely to move down will oppose it.

I think for the sake of control and to provide a clear development pathway from district basketball to rep-ball, you can't have your "Jo's Dunking Fleas" or whoever take part.
I know for a fact that only affiliated associations with Basketball VIC can take part in VIC's competition. they also have far more divisions that us.
They have a 20 team top level competition split into two conferences, and then from there on have 4 separate divisions of 10 teams known as Metro 1, 2, 3 & 4 (country teams can still take part of they qualify as part of grading). Once these divisions are filled, they then provide two regional competitions - one for the Eastern side of Melb and one for the North-Western side. They can end up 10 or even more divisions for each age group overall. Now I know we won't get that many - but what's to stop us have more divisions if kids want to play and improve their basketball? That's why they have these regional comps in Melb and from there many good players are then provided with the chance to develop and some make the transition to the top level too. thisa also therefore helps with the bottom-age/top-age thing too.
Anyway, more food for thought.

Everyone keeps talking about these Sturt & Forestville super clubs being formed & I just don't see it happening. 1) there will be a restriction on the amount of kids clubs can transfer in each year. 2) There will (or should) be a stipulation that a player cannot move from club X's top team (that is playing div 2) into club Y's 2nd team (which is playing div 1).

I can't see how rationalisation will improve the competition and thus the standard of play.
People have continually referred to Melb as an example of where more and more clubs are thriving despite being surrounded by larger associations.
the fact is, to become successful, you have to work hard at it. A lot of the those posting cons about a pro-rel system on this thread appear to be more worried about the big clubs getting bigger. Fact is this has nto happened in Melb, and fact is if you want to do well and get stronger - you have to work hard at it!!!
Work hard over time will get you results. Are there too many lazy people in SA basketball? Is that our problem?

DFTT and Baron, of course i meant teams in each group.
You could have infinite clubs, thats irrelevant. What is relevant in this structure is ranking the teams to ensure a more even competition.

DFTT - it's defensive attitudes like yours that has meant this hasn't got off the ground.

DaddyO - if you have 12 teams, that puts us in a worse position that we already are! There will be more floggings and less competitive games. Think about the effects of what you are proposing there.

anon #173306,

Again, zoning is immpossible and impractical, especialy over time. Basketball is not other sports, find another Olympic sport that has a club system, who's players have a National pathway, which includes International competition for teams and individuals. Add current club positioning as well as past patronage in regards to being able to play for the club your parents play for. Plus people moving house mid season, and demographics changing over time.

GIVE US A MODEL WHICH CAN ACCOUNT FOR THIS! When you do we all will agree that it is great!

Pro/rel will account for this and allow for growth over time. If a club like Centrals have a good U12 team, they will qualify now for div 1. If for the next 5 years they dont, they wont. If in 5 years they have a flood of good players because of demographic grwoth they might qualify 2 teams. Now why would these kids up and move to Forestville?

And who is to say that merging clubs now will be the best thing for the competition in 25 years time? I am sure that you are no clairvoyant and neither am I. Under pro/rel, if over time Centrals or Eastern do what Dandenong or Knox have done and get their act together, have massive demographic growth, they can become the dominant club. And rightly so. but only time will tell. Why through out the baby with the bath water now? Why not give them time to grow? Who says that if we restructure the competition with an easy access, low cost start up and consumer friendly regonalised competition in each area, that we can't double the number of players in the competition? I hope we can, and that ALL clubs can benefit and then nominate their best couple of teams for the pro/rel Elite competiton structure.

If players only move to centrally located clubs, why do Vic players move to Dandenong who play way out of town, from Melbourne who play centrally? And conversely, if a Sturt or Forestville don't do a good job, don't continue to develop competitions for young players to start in, and fail to work on getting young kids into the spot, they could find themselves in a position where they don't have teams qualifying for div 1.

If you provide the service people are looking for then they will a) continue to use your service (ie stay) and b) choose your service over others (ie move to you.)

Also if you had bothered to read the above posts thoroughly, you would see that you can stop players moving to get into higher grades with stronger clubs. ( ie 1) limit numbers of players moving into a club in any given period. 2) don't allow somebody who has played in a team that qualified for div 2 to move into a team in div 1. They can move club, but must play the remainder of that season in div 2)

Until you consider outside of your own little box, you won't be able to think about helping the sport in the LONG term.

Here here sameolsameol

Check out this link - this is the kind of thing that can draw players to your club through providing quality service and look after them. It is refreshing to hearv someone come out and say it! It is also from one of the up and coming VIC clubs as identified in earlier posts and could help explain why they are starting to do so well.

http://www.warrandyte.basketball.net.au/fs_newsitem.asp?id=76951&orgID=204&Oname=Warrandyte+Basketball+Association&O1c=6&O10c=16

wasn't that posted on OzHoops about a week ago?

That's where I got it from.

I fully agree with implementing of rules to stop kids moving to stronger clubs to play Div 1 if they are in Div 2 - quite frankly I believe that if any kids (including country kids) transfer clubs they should be made to play in a lower division and prove themselves before rising to the top.

Because they may just not have the talent to be in a higher div at a stronger club. Kids come to our club that played Div 1 at weaker clubs then get carte-blanche entry to our div 1 sides at the expense of the Div 1 who will now be dropped or the Div 2 that could be developed who has been at the Club for years. And the resultant effect is that it then catapults all the way down the divisions with kids being dropped all the way to the lower divs. It is wrong and anything that keeps kids at their own clubs and makes clubs look within their own pool to develop gets a big tick in my book.

So go with pro/rel BUT have rules set in place to stop kids transferring at a whim, and have guidelines that do not make it attractive to transfer.

I think it's pretty much that Forestville see themselves on the same level as Sturt. They have all the swagger, arrogance & talk the talk like Sturt, but never really achieve much in the way of results (especially the boys!!!). Their girls program has at least been looking up the last couple years.

But that's a different topic.

Ostrich,
I wasn't referring to your post at all - rather the anon 173296. My attitude to it has nothing to do with whether it gets off the ground or not - rather it's the lazy club-centred attitudes such as the anon post has.

Anon (note: this is also NOT directed at you Ostrich...)

"If such a system came about it would be imperative zones were introduced to get as level a playing field as possible. "

Further proof that you are only concerned with your club, and not basketball as a whole. Your only concern is: How can my club remain competitve whilst doing the minimal possible amount of work. How about you work those zones now to generate players, instead of hoping they fall into your lap? I hope you and I are at different clubs, if my club endorses your attitude, we are going nowhere.

The problem with basketball in SA anon - is too many people are like you - only care about YOUR club and it's place in it, not what's best for our competition, and our players, as a whole.

The person who logged that last anonymous post has their head in the sand and isn't prepared to do the work to ensure their club is successful.
Have you not read posts about what happens in VIC, and for that matter QLD South? They are successful comps and do not work to zoned areas as you would like to implement here in SA. It is attitude's like yours that continue to hold SA basketball back.
VIC clubs do their utmost in order to attract and retain players - and in a far more competitive environment that we are faced with. VIC have poaching rules in place, and yet clubs still achieve. Smaller clubs are rising to the top, and the bigger clubs are still doing well. Are you afraid of some competition for your own club? work hard at attracting, developing and retaininmg players and your club will prosper.
And for your info I am someone from one of the smaller SA clubs after moving across from VIC a few years back. We don't have enough people willing to work their backsides off, but I still see this pro/rel system as being the way to go.
Stop being so self-centered and do what is best for SA basketball!

anon,

Can you please name your clubs Junior Development Officer!

I mean post 173332

Try again: 173330

173335 - name yours

I'm from Sturt, so Paul Mesecke

(mod: best you spell his name right, sir)

Sorry,

Hood 45, name yours!

I'm not anon.

Sorry,

Hood 45, name yours!

why is that of any relevance, you've clearly got beef with someone else. what point are you trying to make/prove?

Doub't that your club would have one.

If by recruiting you mean 'explaining the merits of the program to those parents that call the club when they are unhappy with their current club', then I certainly hope so. Thats what happened when I was looking to move clubs.

It is easy for clubs without JDO's to accuse other clubs of recruiting. Does your club have a JDO that runs Aussie Hoops, that organises City South and that promotes coach development within the club? As well as developing coaching philosophy for individual players along National and International trends.

If not, why not?

And therefore, shouldn't any parent looking to help their child look for this in a club. If some clubs are offering this, and other aren't. Where was I meant to go?

Take this matter up with your clubs everyone and lets improve SA basketball throuhg the juniors.

ok Yah clubs need to develop players and bring more players and thats the job of the JDO however if the club does not have the coach's to do it then they will fall short. It come down to getting a development program for coach's up and running and then pushing through any player who is interested or parents even.

Look at the leveling system at the moment if you go and talk you get your level up. no test no practical side, nothing. so how are coach's meant to develop players when coach's aren't being developed?

To anon #173415,

In my case and the others that I know about first hand, my current JDO didn't contact me first. But after I contacted the club, yes I was actiuvely recruited. ie spoke about individual and club philosophy, shown trainings and given individual attention. And, actually told to look at other clubs I was interested in, after the first training my child was absolutely sure that they would be happy and given the direction needed.

Come now ppl. We have to work together to solve SA Basketball's woes...fighting will get us nowhere.
So how do we go about restructuring the comp?

I think like some of the posts said - we need to take it up at club level or even approach one of the committee members - if you know them.

To anon #173557,

Just saying that in my situation, which would be like the majority. The move to another club came from our initiative, same as the other people that I know who have moved.

From my understanding, 1 club has written letters signed by their president, and another club has had their ABA coach send text messages to juniors.

I have not heard nor seen anything but innuendo about my JDO, if you want to name your club, I am sure that somebody can be accused of recruiting. But I am sure that you will hide behind annonomous sniping.

SA Men got spanked by Vic Metro at U20 Nationals to the tune of 51 points.
Whilst the women got up in a close one, this is some cause for alarm.

Think depth. SA Women ran with just 7 players, VIC Metro ran their entire roster, and in fact in the men's game, Vic Metro ran the bench in the second half.

174257, fundamentals. Duh!

:)Isaac. 51 points is a concern in anyones language. Biggest losing margin to the Vics. up to date. Maybe some old scores being settled?

Hopefully others can take value from your comment and reply as you would hope, but my post was just a joke based on the "WNBL players have better fundamentals" meme that hits "Why don't more people watch the Lightning?" topics.

I haven't been reading this thread much, but aren't you discussing the results of just two games, speaked by LC's comment #174253 and the immediate reply to it? Or are the results, generally speaking, also similarly weighted? (I don't follow junior basketball, so wouldn't know.)

Can anyone provide insight into any differences between the training habits of the SA men versus their female counterparts? Perhaps the difference in performance lies within the different approaches taken to coaching them for elite basketball.

Are you for real surely someone can take a loss without blaming the refs. The games I observed were hardly influenced by refs more so they were generally good games with the best teams winning. Go play golf you idiot and stop living your life through your childs.

2 years on and not much has changed, Stagnant is how i would describe SA bball. Same player drift to the dominant clubs, same lopsided competition, same coaches at both state and club level, samebrains trust overseeing everything. Progressive is how i would describe other state based competitions. We are not in decline, we just dont move forward, satisfied with our lot in life? Any other views?

Can you explain why those clubs are still able to go out and recruit imports for their senior teams if they are struggling in juniors so much.

Expecially considerig it is those same juniors who fund the club.