It's only for 12 2s & 14 2s right?

Ridiculous rule though, the sooner it's gone, the better.

I see it working pretty well actually.

Nah you're right Jack, West's U12 div 2 boys are totally accurately graded, having scored 40 points... for the season (14 games), and with a for & against % of 3.71%. Pretty sure that's entirely optimal for everyone involved.

Also, let's look at the 2nd teams which are in div 2 currently.

U12 div 2 boys: Sturt 2 4th (Sturt 1 3rd)
U14 div 2 boys: Sturt 2 1st (Sturt 1 4th)
U14 div 2 boys: Norwood Red 3rd (Norwood Blue 2nd)
U16 div 2 boys: Sturt 2 1st (Sturt 1 2nd)
U16 div 2 boys: Forestville Gold 4th, (Forestville Blue 3rd)
U18 div 2 boys: Forestville Gold 1st (Forestville Blue 7th)
U18 div 2 boys: Sturt 2 3rd (Sturt 1 2nd)

U12 div 2 girls: Forestville Gold 3rd (Forestville Blue 2nd)
U14 div 2 girls: Forestville Gold 3rd (Forestville Blue 1st)
U14 div 2 girls: Sturt 2 2nd (Sturt 1 9th)
U16 div 2 girls: Norwood Red 1st (Norwood Blue 9th)
U16 div 2 girls: Forestville Gold 4th, (Forestville Blue 10th)

(Have listed the teams on the basis that Sturt 2, Forestville Gold & Norwood Red are the "second" teams, even though the ladder suggests otherwise on occasion)

Haven't included U18 2 girls as it's the lowest division in the competition.

Just my humble opinion, but the vast majority of those in the "2nd" div 2 teams are worthy of a div 2 spot, and it's a shame that BSA are phasing them out. I'm convinced the majority of them will be lost to the sport, rather than moving to other clubs (which I assume is what BSA wants to happen?).

I just fail to see the logic in it. If teams can't be trusted to appropriately grade & nominate their teams (witness: West Adelaide U12 2 boys above), then BSA should do it for them, and bring in pro/rel.

Snoop, any team playing in a division should be competitive. I am not talking about the competitiveness of teams. Having ten teams in both div 1 and div 2 provides for balanced scheduling. Div 1's at home, Div 2's away etc.

Traditionally, the div 2 comp has been a 12 team comp to permit the placement of a Torrens Valley and Western Magic team with the 10 club teams. When one of those associate clubs hasn't been able to field a team, an extra team has been added.

BSA promised to drop the div 2 down to a 10 team comp, which is a promise it must keep or else it will be viewed as an inept governing body unable to provide a clear, firm direction.

Take for example a family with one player in U12 div 2 and one in U14 div 2 playing at a club without a second team. At home, U12 at 6 pm, U14 at 7 pm. Simple. Family can go to one stadium, watch both teams. But as some clubs have insufficient court space at their stadiums and the second team gets second choice, there may be a time when they are split between stadiums. Doesn't sound like much of a problem for someone only 5 mins away from a stadium, but can be for some families.

In reference to whether the second teams should be playing div 2. Many of them are strong enough to be playing div 2. A lot of clubs use their second div 2 team to play all their bottom age kids ready for div 1 next year. I see one second team who is top of their div who have stayed as a team for a while. They are the U14 div 1 girls from Winter 2010, play U16 div 2 in Winter 2011 and next Winter 2012 will be div 1 U16.

Without commenting specifically on a team, I think each club knows in their heart how competitive a team should be and should nominate them in an appropriate division.

snoop - sturt have an u16 2.2 girls team as well

so they are 2 and 5 in u16g 2s.

the idea needs to be shelved - as mentioned before - look what u12 div 2 g ended up like - around only 6 single teams - if it wasn't for second teams being allowed back - it would not be very challenging.

pro / rel across the board - best 10 teams in div 1 - next best 10 in div 2 etc etc - and then all play a balanced 2 round home and away season with top 4

I have spoken to people at BSA and while they are trying to get it down to 1 team per club, if the comp only has 9 nominations for Div 2, they will still allow 2 teams from one club.So what changes?

I think some Div 1 cpms only have 8 or 9 teams .

ALso, if they are still going to have 12 teams per comp, they MUST have an even comp for players, parents and supporters.

In Under 16 Div 2 Boys, they have 12 teams and a 18 round season, which means no one gets to play each other twice.These seems unfair and dumb.

Loss of revenue for BSA
Loss of income for clubs ( less games)


How would you go if two teams are equal at the end of the season and the split is based on a game when you had 3 players out at a school camp.

The whole Comp needs a revamp again.

As for Div 2 Men, this is not a reserve grade anymore because clubs are using U23 as this.

Finally, are BSA prepared for the massive jump in numbers for U23 in the next 7 weeks?

Most teams after under 18's wont get to play at their home courts, which will reduce clubs capacity to have volunteers involved, reduced revenue from parents who dont play at their courts, and players who will lose the club feel.

In BSA orginal paper, the move of U12 and U14 Div 2 was to have kids stay in the sport and I thought fully timed games.This hasn't happened.
U23 Div 2 was also suppose to be fully timed, but this too has fallen away.

Finally, ask the kids what they would rather do , play as a second team in Div 2 or by the first team in Div 3 , the answer is easy!

Using U/16 G as an example, 3 clubs have a second side in Div. 2 (Forestville, Norwood & Sturt) while South Adelaide don't have a Div. 1 team and their top team is 11th out of 12 teams in Div. 2. and Woodville don't have a Div 2 team. Cutting Div. 2 back to 10 teams is a good idea as it may make some of those players that go to the so called bigger clubs look at clubs like South or Woodville. If you are playing Div. 3 at Sturt and get offered a Div. 1 spot at South would you take it if you aren't guaranteed a Div. 1 spot as a top age ? I've seen a lot of situations where players/parents would rather sit on the bench and play 2 minutes a game in Div. 1 than be a starter in Div. 2. Does it really come down to the coaches at each club ? or does the stadiums have something to do with why players would rather be at Sturt or Forestville ?

The biggest issue with basketball in Adelaide is that the relative strength of the clubs is too far apart. With everything if life you expect variation and there will always be a strong club and a weak club, but the issue is that there is too much extreme between the two at the moment.

Using the standard deviation approach and looking at the teams in div 2, the following can be said that most teams are +/- 2.5 sigma of what is expected at that level. There are some teams outside this that should not be in that division.

Anon touched on zoning and this has been done to death before.

Clubs should pick teams correctly. If the third team is top of div 2 and second team is out of the 4 then teams haven't been selected correctly which leads to lopsided competition, frustrated kids and pissed off parents

anon.

Sturt dont fail on the biggest stage.

If you used a similar points system to State Champs. Sturt have the best boys results, and a top 4 overall result against all the victorian clubs. They have won both U12 and U14 Gold medals in resent years, plus numerous other medals.

Div 1's?

Sure they have!
They have contacted anonomous to move to an anonomous club.
If stopping double div 2 is going to make players move from 'bigger' clubs to 'smaller' ones, why are there only 7 clubs represented in U12 girls and 9 in U12 boys?
Surely the bigger clubs aren't poaching them out of U10's?

Jack, so your agrgument for streamlined div 2 comp is logistics? Really? How do you think families in VJBL survive with no "home and away" nights, pro/rel & games in places such as Maffra, Bendigo, Ballarat, Geelong.

Personally, and again, this is just my opinion, get the competition right (IE - make it the absolute most competitive it can be, with the appropriate kids playing in an appropriate grade, regardless of club), and the parents will be happy to sacrifice the "convenience" of having games at the same place every week. FWIW, that is only the case if families happen to have kids in the same division, so I really don't see it being a huge deal.

That is a valid point. Each team should play once at home and once away.

Jack,

What happens logistcally if a family has a div 1 and div 2 kid?

But Jack,

Some clubs have so many teams that they cant. Sturt's U18 Div 3 boys have had 1 home game this 18 round season.

How would pro/rel stop each team from playing home and away any different from what happens now? It has more to do with teams numbers and avaiable home time slots.

I can tell you now - the families will quit rather than go and play in a higher div for a lower performing club.

This is evidence based - look at what has happened already.

The odd desperate and dateless will jump at this opportunity - usually to disappear into basketball oblivion in a year or two.

And it may be what they want from district basketball - so good on them.

Did the masses rush to struggling u12 teams when that was resticted....

No - in fact the team nomination numbers dropped and second team nominations were allowed back.

pro / rel across the board -
10 teams per div - top 10 in div 1 then next 10 in div 2 then next 10 in div 3. etc

kids are happiest playing in a comp where they feel they fit - usually the parents or club that has the problems about Div.

OK so let the one team per club in a division go on,but lets mix it up and get the top 4 teams in div1 & div2 at the end of the season enter the play offs and face each other for the age group championship.If we cant get pro-rel then lets do something not to lose players to other sports,in this way teams from the same clubs dont get bored of facing each other week after week but how exiting would the finals be!

ringlord that is a pro / rel system that you speak of and what we have been on about.

it is a fact - players will move clubs regardless - all for a plethora of reasons.

Like people moving jobs, schools, houses etc - just what people do.

I am just saying the concept of u12 div2 was one team per club this year and it did not work (evidence based on the competition numbers)and the 2 teams per some clubs for a 12 teams comp in other grades has thrived / kept the status quo.

let the Div 1 and Div 2 teams play off against eachother. May suprise some people!!
great idea Ringlord

re: Change in teams for Div 2
Clubs should pick teams correctly. If the third team is top of div 2 and second team is out of the 4 then teams haven't been selected correctly which leads to lopsided competition, frustrated kids and pissed off parents


i bloody agree with you Tiger Man
I wished these coaches would pick these teams correctly :|

Some clubs that have 2 teams in Div. 2 will have one team full of bottom age players that they expect to play Div. 1 as top age players, the other team will be the best top age players not in Div. 2 and maybe some players just outside that other Div. 2 group. Some coaches are told to pick the sides this way by their clubs, some want to do it, either way I think it is a good idea, if you have two Div 2 teams why wouldn't you have one full of the girls that you expect to play Div. 1 the following year ?
Also, just because a team is Forestville Gold and not Blue for example doesn't mean that they are the third team. It could be that the team full of bottom age players has to be the alternative colour and the team with the top age players is the primary colour so the top age players feel like they are the number 1 Div. 2 team.

anon,

Dominant results at State Champs and Classics suggest otherwise.

More than happy for you to go on sticking your head in the sand.

I have seen a lot of players in the second team in division 2 that should be playing in the so called better team.By keeping all older players of an age group together just for that is stupid-you never end up with the strongest team representing your club.But lets keep the friends together, wouldn't want to separate them!

anon #326361,

Kilsyth are the largest association in Victoria, but sheer weight of numbers does not help them perform well at calssics.

Dandenong and Knox are bigger the BSA, but Sturts boys have had better results at classics than both.

Weight of numbers is an 'idea' that doesn't necessarily translate into results, when you look at head to head.

Otherwise, China would be the best at every sport.

saw a player move from a chair to the canteen then back again recently

Is the purpose of this to get more people to go to Woodville, Mavs and Centrals? Will Western be allowed a Div 2 team?