I think there are stills some issues that need to be resolved

This whole pro/rel stuff is fraught with danger. At Div 1 and 2 level, the teams are pretty constant, but Div 3 are kids who usually come and go and so to use the results from one season to grade the next is risky in the case where teams can change substantially.

I think it might be better just to leave it to the clubs to nominate correctly.

459,
It gets to the depth of the club, but you are bang on the money with that issue. I think you'll find those clubs affected are the smaller clubs who don't have the depth of other clubs. Now, success breeds success and so that is why some clubs tend to be stronger than others. Kids (and parents) tend to aspire to these clubs and so may bypass the nearest club to be at the stronger club.
My question for you to consider is this. Why do strong clubs continue to accept players from those areas covered by other, smaller clubs?

I don't see what your problem is with under 20's. Clubs place their teams based on expectations - some teams exceed expectations, some do not. The clubs then have the option to request promotion or demotion of a team if they think it's in the best interest of the team(s) involved, and BSA also (I believe) have ultimate power to decide whether to let a team remain in it's div, or force them to change divisions.

Hang on .. I just noticed that that team that is supposedly " ... poor (very) ..." sits 7th out of 11, with 4 wins from 11 ... dont think anyone would even CONSIDER demoting a team with a record that good !!! Pull ya head in anon ...

I'll take a stab at that Jack.

Because this is a market place. Why would clubs knock kids back? The risk is that these kids would choose another sport rather than play for their closest club due to the poor service and coaching provided!

For all clubs it will increase their revenue, improve the standard of players and therefore makes other players work harder, attend trainings or risk being dropped a team and builds a club spirit of excellence rather than acceptance.

These smaller clubs contiue to drag the sport down and complain about kids moving without addressing the issues in their own clubs. And until they do, players will continue to move.

Why?,
I am glad someone has nibbled on the worm.
Yes, clubs are a business. They provide leisure opportunities for players. As you said, basketball is just one leisure pursuit and so if clubs want to sell their product, they need to market themselves properly to attract customers.

There is nothing wrong with wanting the best kids at your club and being strong. However, the issue is concentrating kids at one or two clubs and creating a shortage of talent at other clubs. Some kids (parents) are happy to play 5 mins/game as a bench player for Div 1 at one club, rather than 30 mins/game as a starting 5 player at a different club. You cannot change human nature.

However, the issue is that of byes in Div 1. A club with 50 kids in one group means the top 8 players (16%) are usually pretty strong. For a club with 20 players in that same group, the top 8 players (40%) usually means only the top 4 are pretty strong. It gets back to depth.

Therefore, if we don't want a bye in the Div 1, then as a basketball community we probably need to look at how the "weaker" clubs can become more attractive to players and attract the players they deserve. The best competitions are those with close, hard fought wins, not boring, predictable results. I say work as a team to raise "weaker" clubs up, not pull stronger clubs down.

These same "weaker" clubs, are those that have enough money to pay ABA imports, and recruit ABA player, but don't have a full time coaching director.

Why should all clubs help these clubs when for 20 years they have continually not helped themselves?

Over the next 5 years, we will see the exact same situation, they will have some people come into their committee that are junior orientated, juiors will pick up. Their kids will go into seniors, and the senior program will try and win ABA by selling out the junios and their juniors will feel neglected and drop off. And they will be back to square 1. And it wont matter a bit what the rest of the clubs do themselves.

Until these "weaker" club put together a long term junior development plan, and stick to it. That includes putting all their resources out of ABA and into juniors they will never make any headway.

In the short term, any effort tto force kids to play at these clubs and not allow them to move will only make kids choose other sports rather than basketball. And that in no way makes basketball better.

Continue and explain,

Define weaker - stringer under your philosophy then.

I would suggest, teams numbers, success of teams (both senior and junior) wouldbe a fair indicator.

until junior players are locked into playing for a regional zone, then team numbers are the only real measure of strength.

Performance in the top junior grade can be greatly dependant upon single factors, an individual "state" coach, 2-3 players who transfer from other clubs, a parent/teacher who actively recruits athletically talented kids, these affect team performances.

But if a club is strong in numbers, say 3 x u10 teams , 4 x u12 teams and 5 x u14teams in a single sex, then that club will , over time, be "stronger" than those clubs who don't. This is something that has been clear in every state I have spent time in, Qld, Wa, Nsw , Sa.