The real problem is with SOME Div 1 coaches who think that they are Gods and can dictate to the whole club who should be where.

They believe:-

- coaches shouldn't coach their own children
- new players to the club must go up through the lower divisions
- coaches shouldn't coach the same grade too long
- in Div 1, it is ok for a player to only get 2 minutes a game because they will develop on the bench
- a Div 1 coach can speak to anybody at the club, parents and players how ever they like
- yelling at a young girl and making them cry is cool
- the club only exists to support Div 1

The above rules exist only where a Div 1 coach think it should apply. I think that some people forget that junior district basketball is ALL about the kids and not about the coach. Until that gets sorted, it doesn't really matter what rules are introduced to try and make an even playing field in junior sport.

That's my 2 cents worth!!!

if people are dedicated to the game - div 3 will just get better.

if people got out of the negative mindset of div 3 being below them and just played - it's reputation will improve and they will wear the badge with pride.

the good will rise regardless of what grade they are in.

99% of the time the kids only reflect what goes on around the dining table at home and in the car to and from the game.

the one team only per member club only starts with u12 and 18s this year - is that correct ?

magic won u12 div 2 - back to div 3 or off to west and woodville? - where they should be anyway.

Your comp is screwed, when will people wake up and realise that the better players will go to where they can get better coaching. Why not make your weaker clubs fight to be on the top division; it would make them lift their standards!

You don't improve sport by pandering to the lower echelons.

Mexican do you have any idea what the competition in Adelaide is like?

The system is built for the stronger clubs to poach and hoard all the best basketballers they can get their hands on.

Shame for them it didn't work too well. Under 18 Boys and Under 16 Girls for example are competitions where one club in particular has recruited and poached the best talent it could.

One team lost a Grand Final to a supposedly lesser coaches, lesser skilled team, while the other didn't even make the Grand Final.

Your right Mexican, our system is flawed but only because the clubs with the best Propaganda can poach the best talent.

yet local, of all the states over many years, yours (SA) has probably produced the best numbers of national and international level players. SA has a remarkable record given its base.

Maybe having only one div 1 and 2 team per club will be a positive move. Some of the kids who expect to play div 1 or 2 but don't make those teams, may go to a weaker club to achieve their personal goal and make that club stronger.


HOWEVER, the talk of limiting clubs to div 1and 2 teams only has no positives that I can see.
Clubs need lower division teams to give them strength of nos and finances.
You also have to consider the players themselves. It is difficult enough for a lot of kids to cope with being dropped, let alone being told that they have to hand in their singlet and go to a social club to play where they may not know anyone.
Modeling our system on other states that have 3 to 4 times our population will not work.

Unbelievable, I am agreeing with Victorians.

You are stupid to think restricting the strong Clubs will strengthen the sport....just a pathetic mind set!
Lets tell every kid in a school class that you cannot learn any more, you have to wait until Billy catches up, but that wont happen, because he doesnt do any homework or study. Anyway, we have to stop, because he will get behind. Poor Billy!!

Wake up people

Hmm - not a lot on topic is there ? - coaches coaching their own children ?? - pretty clear that just like any lawyer who represents themselves, clearly has a total fool for a client, its not a real good idea to coach your own children - particularly at a young age. The kids are often not able to understand that being disciplined at the court is not the same as being disciplined at home. at least when a coach gets displeased with them they have a "safe" home to go back to, when its the parent/coach who has criticised them-- well life at home is no different then life on the court is it ? Just here can they go to ? - which is why Lindsay never coached Andrew in the Melbourne juniors.

anyway - back on topic - is it only in the 12s ??, I understood that there were to be no duplicated club teams in u14 div 2 next season - probably have that wrong - anyone confirm ?

Using U16 girls as an example..if, after the 10 member club's nominate their Div 2's, how does BSA then decide which Club can then field a second Div 2 team?. What if 4 Clubs ie Sturt, F/Ville, Norwood and North wish to enter an extra team but here is only 2 spots on offer, who gets priority?

Local,

Poaching happens everywhere and it's hard to poach from a club that looks after its players. We had a boy poached from us in under 14s who went on to play state. We didn't have a good enough coach for his age group to get him there, so no hard feelings, he made a good choice. We had a girl poached from us who came back a year later because the grass wasn't greener and promises were broken.

My club had to lift its game to stop other clubs poaching and it's been win-win. Our teams are better and we've kept our players.

Making vc is a huge honour in Vic, imagine if we started giving away spots for free!

Where's the honour in SA bball? Even if good players leave the good coaching they were getting at the stronger clubs to take up a div one spot at a weaker club, who benefits? Not the player, sure they'll be playing div one but will they get the coaching they were getting before?

How honourable for the weaker clubs, picking up players not because they're seeking better coaching, but so they get to play against better teams! What a crude way to even out a competition.

Again you don't understand the system. Adelaide is not Victoria.

Good coaching is not the problem here. The problem is that one club has an uneven balance of power due to many many factors but superior coaching across the board is not one of them.

In the girls that balance of power is less effective and therefore we have 3 clubs now vying for championships. Much healthier than the current state of play on the boys side. In Under 16s two of the top three teams boast more than 5 players from other clubs. The third is not far behind. Do you really not see that as an issue?

The girls side of the competition is now fought between three clubs due to the structure of basketball in Adelaide. Are you saying that's healthy?

VJBL is not all it's claiming to be. The quality of your competition week in week out has drastically dropped since expanding to two pools and 20 teams. Your best teams don't even face each other until the final in a lot of cases. I'm glad we don't have a model like that one.

Mexican, Adelaide junior basketball is so different from any other state I'm sorry to say that you simply can't understand the issues here until you're part of the system.

There are many many issues with our structure but I do not believe we have the ability to apply a Victorian type model to basketball here.

Local, I don't have the time to drive a Mack truck through the gaping holes in your arguments one by one, so I won't.

You did get one thing right and that SA junior basketball is so different from everywhere else. That's precisely the problem it's basically the same competition structure from the 1980s. These proposed changes take it further back in time to the 1960s. In economic terms they are moving further away from the "free market" Victorian model, which is clearly the best in the country if not the world.

The Knox area has one of the highest densities of basketballers in the world. Have you seen some of the players coming out of there, it's scary! We could be like that.

But no we move back in time instead of moving forward. The irony is that these changes will hurt the chances of struggling clubs to improve their fortunes as it gives them more incentive to do nothing.