There should be something like a mercy rule or they stop counting the score after a certain point or the coach should instruct his players to only shoot threes or ... well, something anyway to reduce the difference between the teams.

Looking at that competition, Sturt 3 have held two teams scoreless and two teams to a solo point. When scores like this occur, it is boring and not enjoyable for players and spectators. Without seeing the game, I suspect that Sturt would have double teamed the ball carrier in a hard full court press ALL GAME and been all over them in the back court. I suspect a one sided foul count with probably plenty of fouls not called as well as the refs get sick and tired of calling reaching fouls. Once players get to 4 fouls refs can be a little softer on them. Does anyone have access to the scoresheet? What was the foul count like?
The U12 Boys Div 3 is split between North and South. The issue is probably more related to the range of skill levels in the teams.
Once the game was in the bag, were Sturt pressing hard? Did they need to if they were? Were they aiming for the ton?

More importantly does the crowd get a free burger from HJ's if they reach the 100?

Jack,

Considering this is district and not socail, and these kids would be trying to stake a claim in the Sturt Div 2 side, why shouldn't they play hard all game?

Surely this highlights that the elite district competition structure is failing, that these kids aren't moving to other clubs and that saomething needs to be done to correctly grade teams for the winter competition.

Also that the North/South structure alongside the guarenteed div 2 positions is failing to meet the competition measure and should be changed.

Either include promotion/relegation to div 2 or cut the North/South competition break up. Preferably do both.

True Hoop, I expect that the kids would be out to impress and a big part of that is following coaches instructions. If a kid is playing Div 3, then they should be aiming for Div 2, Div 2 aiming for 1's.

Jack,

That is a little nieve dont you think. Following coaches instructions, but playing hard and scoring 30 points is going to look better than following coaches instructions and not playing hard and scoring 5 points.

Surely having such mismatched opponents is the major issue and things should be done to stop it from being an issue and allowing all player, strong or weak, to play at the level they are capable.

BSA bring this on themselves by saying there's no objective way to determine which team comes up if a club decides not to nominate a div 2 team in winter. Since no one making a decision about which team is to come up will go close to seeing any of these games, the only thing they have to go by is score sheets.

If beating a team 103-1 rather than 50-5 in a summer season game gets you the nod over the best northern based team, why wouldn't you do it? You have to give your kids the best chance of playing as high as possible right?

There is absolutely no doubt that there is a mismatch and the spread of skills in that competition is too wide. Sturt 3 and Tigers 3 are both winning by an average of over 40 ppg. Tigers 6 is losing by an average of 46. In the North pool, Woodville 3 is losing by an average of 53 ppg.

There is no denying, there is a problem with the balance of that competition. North-South was meant to reduce the travel for players (they are turning 10 and 11 this year), however, with that comes grouping of teams whose skills set range widely from Div 2 to Div 6 standard.

Looking at the teams, a div 3 team played a div 5 team. Awesome work Bball SA!!! Your grading system is terrific!!!

So Jack, whay is the answer then?

I would suggest that having promotion/relegation in div 2 and changing the North/South division until winter after teams are properly graded. And then only in competitions where there are at least 2 division of each North and South grades like in the 14 boys. Also, having an 8 team 21 round competiiton would benefit as well.

We all know what the problems are. They are the same problems we have been having for 20 years.

The issue is what are the solutions?

It's sad to think that u12s are put under this much pressure.

The emphasis should be on fun as much as possible until secondary school; otherwise, they'll burn out and stop playing (like when they leave school).

hoopie,

There are 2 main paths for players.

Particpation level at Church, school and domestic type competition. I hope we would all agree that at this level players should all participate and enjoy themselves.

At the elite level players choose to participate at a competitive level. World Championships start at age 15/16 and to compete at this level you need more than 1 or 2 years of competitive basketball.

I essence I agree with your sentiment that these type of teams who are clearly too good for div 3 should be allowed to play in div 2.

let me get something right here... "U12" means, Under 12s, right?

anon's.

Agree with what you are saying. And nobody is the winner in these games. We all believe that it is harming the sport.

And the issue really is in the competition structure that forces this to happen.

BSA actively stop these good players from playing in division 2 on the belief that they will move to other clubs. And also has divided the comeptiton to force those teams that they have forced into div 3 to compete against totally new players from other clubs, while at the same time not providing entry level comeptitions for these new players.

All in all, the kids losing by 100 will get dispondent and quit. The kids winning by 100 get bored and quit. And basketball will be worse off.

I would suggest using the summer competition to grade teams and then allow all teams to play in the competetion that suits their ability leading to closer game as being in the best interest of all teams. But obviously, some other people believe otherwise even though it has been an issue for more than 20 years in the sport.

I would suggest that zoning does not change this issue as it doesnt change the competiton structure, and no matter how you zone you will get good teams and bad teams.

What about this for an idea?
Only have a Division 1 in BSA age groups - in fact, call it the Basketball SA Championship.
Then instead of Divs 2-5 or whatever, have each club run its OWN domestic competitions for kids.
The winners of the domestic comps could then play a tourney for the BSA Adelaide Comp title.
Each club regularly could review its u10, 12, 14, 16, 18 domestic comps to see who should make their BSA Championship representative team for the club.
Just a thought.

anon 350633,

I am not sure how many. The question you should be asking is not how many, but why do they move?

You allude to some form of 'myrid of pressure", can you explain what these are and why some clubs are able to use them and not others.

I would assume that at U10 and U12 level all clubs are able to recruit new players into the sport. And that they better job they do of developing those players and providing them with a 'product' they want means that they would stay.

Can you explain to me how 'zoning' would change that process?

Sorry, are you the same anon?

And can someone explain to me why the system would want any players to move clubs?

I would have though that the idea would be for all clubs to be abe to rectuir new players to the sport and for them to retain them if they provide a suitable service.

anon.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but why would you stop there?

If the principles of even competition and reward fopr results hold true for greater development. Why not open it up to all teams?

Again, at U10 and U12 level all clubs have an equal ability to introduce players into the sport. Like all economic situations, a factor in choice will always initially be ease of entry and minimalisation of travel, along with procimity.

If it is the aim of all clubs to increase participation for the benefit of the sport as a whole, I fail to see why any restrictins would benefit.

Maybe the team that lost by 100 shouldn't be playing in that division...
Also Jack Toft of course the coach would've been having the kids playing hard all game and encouraging them to do their best to thrash the other team by as much as they can. I played for Sturt as a junior and when i was in Div 3 in U12 and U14 we'd beat a lot of teams by 50+ and i was insulted that the players in the other teams were even playing in the same division as me and so was everybody else so it just made us want to thrash them more.

Edit- That was almost 10 years ago when there were still 5 divisions in each age group and no north/south shit. BASA has regressed since then.

pro / rel accross the board.

think you will find the kids just want to have a game at the level that they are at

Mike, I think you'll find that Jack was alluding to the fact that Sturt were always going to win against a much weaker opponent, so why go for the jugular?
The North-South thing is a great idea, but only works when teams are graded appropriately. Pro-Rel works well, but only when teams are stable.

SO the North/South thing 'doesnt work' because it is done in summer before teams are graded and in competitions where there are not sufficient teams to make the comeptition even in a competition where strong teams are not able to move up and out of that grade.

What sort of coach would maintain full court pressure for the whole game to win by such a margin. Coach must have a big ego.
Surely common sense would suggest that the sturt coach should have started defence from the 3 point line so the opponents could get the ball up the court.
Its U12 div 3 so why are we playing for sheep stattions

Because BSA will allow a second team into div 2 if a club fails to nominate.

But they also have North and South grades so the only possible way to choose between the two teams who are top in each grade is by total percentage.

If the coach doesn't go full court all game then his team might miss out on div 2 in winter.

It is a BSA screw up that MAKES the coach have to go full court all game. If the competition was better structured it wouldnt need to happen.

Concerned - fully agree. I doubt if it's the kids who are playing for sheep stations at that age.

You've clearly never watch 10/12 year old boys play sport then. They would love it.

Pulling kids back to the 3 point line actually makes it easier to score, cause once you steal the ball, the floor is open for a lay-up. With a margin this big, i'd say the loosing kids probably struggle running as well as trying to play bball (not trying to be harsh). The score may of been worse. The fact is a team was playing another team 2 divisions lower. The system is wrong, nothing else.

True Hoop although you make a lot of sense I have to comment on "all clubs have an equal ability to introduce players into the sport".....No they don't, the easiest example here is the western suburbs. 3 clubs sharing the same area. If they combined they'd be dominant, but its never going to happen.

Hi P and thanks.

Yes that idea is somewhat flawed by proximity, but that is the case for all clubs to some extent. But that is the case for all businesses.

And isnt it the case the Forestville, South and Sturt are all in a relatively close area. And 2 of those would be the biggest and strongest clubs and U10/12 level.

I am sure that each area has its own issues with regards to recruitment of players such a socially, financially and practically.

But essentially, all clubs have that opportunity. I would think that either West or Woodville have the ability to employ someone or hire an organisation that would be able to target all schools in their area, and therefore maximise their new memberships.

Surely people aren't suggesting that clubs like Forestville, Norwood and Sturt aren't recruiting players new to the sport from this area?

Or is that not the case?

Hopefully someone in Management from all clubs or BSA reads that part about hiring someone True Hoop. Then if it happened bball may get bigger, better and stronger in this state.

Coming from my background it is worrying that a lot of these issues have not been resolved in the restructuring and that a number of concners aren't adequately back by best practice decisions.

I stil have not had a valid argument put forward with regards to the 'zoning' debate. Just that it would stop 'pocahing'.

I am not sure that this stops clubs going out a recruiting new players into their club, and that if a Woodville (sorry Warrior people for using you as an example) were to recruit a very large and therefore potentially strong group of U10 and U12 teams that won games consistantly why people would just up and move.

And then if you are providing a satifying coaching program that links with SASI and State team, that gets result, why would a member leave and move to a club that they are unsure can provide a similar service.

Could Jack Toft or anon above respond and explain how 'zoning' of players entering the sport do anything to increase participation for any club and more importantly improve the sport.

Considering the dominance of Central District Football club in the SANFL I would have thought that there are other factors that have a greater inpact on the success of clubs.

"Coming from my background" True Hoops, what is your background? Are you from Sturt? You seem very wound up on this topic.

anon #350765

Thanks for your input, those are the things read about with regards to zoning, but there is little reasoning behind why it would actually work.

How does zoning do all those things you claim.

For example;
1/ Why cant the recruiters focus near their club now? Surely all clubs should be doing that to increase growth and therefore produce good teams who would stay involved with a club due to success. All new entries into the sport would consider proximity when selecting a club, like in all markets
2/ Target school would always be those closest for all clubs. That would not change under either.
3/ How would zoning stop players from moving clubs? Are you suggesting that players who are dissatisfied with their current club should be lost to the sport rather than being allowed to move to another club? This would a) decrease the need for clubs to improve their service and b) stop players from moving to all clubs and decreae participation rates.
4/ How would talent be evenly spread? Some club who are doing a better job in their area would have more talent than others.
5/ How would they be placed into ability groups? If club A has a number of good players and club B does not, this cannot change through market forces, nor time. if you only get 7 players, you would only have 7 players and grading them would have similar difficulties.
6/ How does zoning develop club and player identity? Our clubs aren't really alligned with SANFL football area's and if they were you would have players actually travelling longer for games and trainings. And most people entering the sport would not know of clubs unless they already had an affiliation.
7/ Why do you need zoning for leagues? Again disrupting market forcus would decrease the ability to setup competition due to 'critical mass' being potentially bigger than the zoned area allows in the short term while also decreasing incentive to provide a marketable product.
8/ What is the benefit of linking to country area's? Unlike football that has millions of dollars from television at AFL level, clubs would be unable to similarly service these areas, negating the need for country areas to have metro based clubs.
9/ If zoning stops all players moving, all it does in decrease participation rates. If player movement is allowed then player recruitment will occur. The only way to stop players from moving is to provide a better level service and keep customers happy.
10/ How does it equalise clubs? If one clubs does nothing in its zone, that club will not improve compared to another club. That will be the same without zoning.
11/ How does it provide the foundation for success, what economic principles does this come from? What examples do yuo have of this occurring?
12/ Why cant club focus development officers/recruitment officers from their current junior program funds?
13/ How would zoning end the farce that is the current junior competition? Just saying it does not make it so.

If club A works hard and puts their resources into recruitment and development, under either process they will exprience success. If club B does not they will struggle.

Example; (sorry to South this time)
If South have 21 U10 girls enter the club next year. They are well tained and likely would have success and the club provides good admin and coach development for these teams. Then they are unlikely to move. If at U12 level in 2 years time, the club continues to provide an improved program of coaching and the team is again successful, can someone please explain why these players would not have a deep rooted club affiliation and would consider moving to another club?

However if they provide substandard admin and coaching, in all likely hood, they would consider moving to a better run and more professional organisation. And this is how clubs know that they are not doing a good job and that there is a need for a change in product.

If zoning occurs, what mechanism can be used to explain why a club is not doing well, has a lack of numbers, and what can be done to improve them, the only answer is increasing their zone size, while decision and effort are the only real answer. So even if you increase their zoned area, all it will do is decrease particiaption rates, decrease standard, and therefore the over level of basketball in clubs the State.

Sorry no. Just a background in government management in understanding econometrics.

Thats been exactly the thinking for 20 years.

Why would it happen now after 20 years of evidence to the contrary.

econometrics, sounds complicated.

I am correct in assuming you are a coach and/or committee member?

anon #350795,

Couldnt agree more. What I actually do is show them how badly they are spending their money and how they could have more broadly benefited the state though other decisions by measuring the outcome of decisions.

anon #350776,

What statistical evidence do you have of this happening? What are being used as incentives for players to move?

And what information is being sort from these clubs to assertain why players move. It seems very easy for a club to say someone got 'poached' when really they left due to being unhappy with the product.

Looking at the current situation it seems that Woodville and West players move between clubs. That North and Norwood players move between clubs and that South, Sturt and Forestville players move between club.

Outside of that, the number of movements would be minimal. Yes they would occur, but minimal.

Again the question I have is; What are those clubs who players are moving from doing about improving their product and developing strategies to stop it happening in the future.

Sure all clubs are run by volunteers, but in essence, this should be all clubs main odjective.

Improve their product!

For those that like zoning, look at this way. I know of a 9 year boy who lives closer to the 2 biggest and successful clubs but prefers to play were he is, in a smaller battling club, where he travels a bit futher to play for(would be a walk up starter in any team). He has been approached by one of these clubs. He does not want to move and his reasoning in his words "i do not want to play for them, i'd rather work hard and beat the best, than have it easy in their teams".

In this case: zoning would make a dominate team even better if he were to move and a struggling team even worse.

Perhaps if more kids had this attitute there may be more movement, these div 3 players may move to another club and the talent may be more evenly spread. But its up to these kids to what they want to do, they may be happy were they are, playing with their mates, and have no care factor about div 1. Remember not everyone plays club bball to be in div1 or make ABA, they just play cause they enjoy it.

What I find funny is that those people who are claim that zoning is the seviour are the same ones that dont want double div 1 and 2 so that kids omve their clubs.

Somewhat hypercritical.

877......why would i bother making it up? what gain would i have in making in up? Care factor = Zero if you dont believe.

#877, you have your head in the clouds if you don't think this happens, and yes, even with nine year olds. It is absolutely happening with kids that young, and this is fact.

Yeah sure,

Cause I'm sure your club has a 15 team domestic program devoted to particpation like Sturt.

I'm sure your club has a youth development program that had a club junior in every National junior squad.

And I'm sure that your club isn't sitting around moaning about other peoples success and getting on with your work rather that aimlessly bitching on the internet.

What important issues are you actually disucussing rather than trying to cut down the tall poppy that is Sturt?

anon,

Has your club not recruited from another? Let yeah who has not sinned cast the first stone. All clubs recruit, some are just better at it.

Let me know what club you are from and I will happily point out your recruits.

As for our ABA team. 1 of those boys is playing college in Canada and trained in the U19 National squad and played for GB's U20 team in europe. 2 others will player major roles in ABA this year, and 3 other players are doing well in football.

Our ABA issue is not if we are producing players, but rather we are producing players that are too good to go stay.

If all the Sturt Senior mens were not so good they needed to play at a higher level than ABA you would have a line up of;

Tom Dalt - NBl development
Corey Maynard - Div 1 college
Claybrin McMath - Div 1 college
Oscar Foreman - NBL
Jacob Holmes - NBL
Brad Hill - NDL
Drew WIlliamson - NBL
Jan Warbout - NBL development player
Josh Owen-Thomas - Div1 College Canada

How much fun would that be for everyone else?

wow anon,

Talk about a chip on your shoulder. I will now go and cry a little tear for you. :(

But that stereo typing you might as wll suggest all West Adelaide players are born to whafies and Mavs players are farmers. Clearly non-sensicle and plainly stupid. But hay, whatever you need to do.

If haters didnt hate, defenders wouldnt need to defend like a sturt full court press.

Well actually, I seem to recall one of them started games last year and the other will play more this year. While the one in college played U12's at Sturt and was hardly poached, considering his father played at North and not Norwood.

Good to see you are unwilling to name your club because you know that there are recruits in Div 1 and senior level.

I have no problem with it because everyone is doing it, even your club, just some are better at it than others, like all things basketball.

Feel free to name your club and allow me to retort.

Obviously all clubs have 'poached' at some point, your silence is testiment to your guilt.

OT was not poach, his family approached Sturt, feel free to ask his father.

Oh and by the way, are you claiming that his development was compete by the age of 9 years, and that he didnt learn to play at Sturt? Which was the argument. That seems rather odd.

Isnt that what elite competition is about, competeing.

Do you tell your U10 div 1 players that no matter what you will be in div 1 in U18's.

Just name your club and make it easy!

I am more happy to not name those clubs that choose to not hate!

I'm sick of these precious parents who think recruiting is wrong. It's just a part of sport. I'd love to see an Adelaide 36ers team full of only Adelaide players .. but i'd rather see them recruit talent and win than see that.
Every club recruits to some degree. I don't think sturt do it more than other clubs... they just do it better. Both their ABA teams are filled with thorough bred sturt juniors so their is no doubt they are loyal to their junior players.

haha anon,

you are clearly not from Norwood.

Try again and be a bit more truthful.

Nobody can claim that!

Which is why you wont tell you clubs name.

Because you will be seen as a hypocrite.

You mean except for the U18 girls tam that Boti recruited over the last 2 years.

Sorry, try again! You are merely hiding behind your own hypocrocy.

You mean except for the U18 girls tam that Boti recruited over the last 2 years.

Sorry, try again! You are merely hiding behind your own hypocrocy.

half full or half empty ?

So you expect clubs like Sturt Norwood and Forestville to NOT want to get bigger and compete with the Victorian/NSW/WA/QLD clubs.

Surely thats some kind of joke.

The reason basketball cant move forward is that most clubs lack any real growth vision and people like you want it to be happy campers and wait for those clubs who have no idea to work it which will probably be never.

Clubs either need to work it out, or go under like in every other place.

Sooo, they should turn players away? Not gonna happen. If clubs did a better job, they wouldn't leave.

Except that you will see more people leave the weaker clubs due to being unhappy than you will see move to then just to play div 1/2.

No it wont.

It will be the same, the good kids from smaller clubs who are unhappy to lose each week, and see their U16/18 doing worse as time goes on will move to bigger clubs.

Why would someone leave success? It hasnt happened for 20 years, isn't about to start now.

If you were happy with your mobile carrier would you swap? if your moble carrier were doing a poor job, would you swap?

"Why would someone leave success?" That is the bottom line.

There is a "cycle of doom" with anything, be it sport, business, life etc. When you are successful, success breeds success. When you're struggling, morale goes down and then people get itchy feet and aspire to surround themselves with success. Only the strongest moves from a position of success to create success elsewhere. It's easier to stay and be a passenger than be a leader. That's no a go at anyone, that's just human nature.

That is why the challenge is not the weaken the strong, but to strengthen the weak.

Well put Jack,

It is human nature. So to expect people to move from success is a philosophical dilema that BSA cant get their head around.

I feel that the way to do it is from the bottom up. If a club gets a bunch of U10 and U12 players in who have success, then they wont leave. In their minds the other clubs would be the weak and there would no reason to change. For the same reason that works for bigger stronger clubs at higher levels currently. Remember these kids from the 'bigger clubs' have had success each year they have played.

Then if clubs do a good job in servicing them and providing coaching that contiues success, not only will their current players not leave, but they might have good players come knocking on their door.

The issue as I see it is, weaker clubs are looking for quick fixes like ABA programs where you can buy championsips and intervention from BSA through zoning and assistance. However, the more assistance people get, the less they think that hard work and effort are important to success, and therefore the less success they will have.

I would suggest that the bigger/better clubs (see Forestville and Sturt) activley recruit at U10/12 level from their local area and have success in these are groups. I actually cant remember when someone else won U10 boys or girs though Im sure it has happened at some point like back when Noarlunga had good success.

So the issue is not zoning or assitance, but rather priorities and putting more resources into U10 and U12 recruitment and development. Each time a club spends $1 on their ABA program they are not spending it on their U10/12 recruitment and development. Each time a coach wants to do U16/18's they are not really helping the club in the future, changing that mentality is the key to success. Because the rewards for doing it are long term and not there for the individual.