How do you have a fair draw with 22 rounds in a 10 team competition? What determines who you play 3 times instead of twice??

The flyer looks great and clearly states intent and purpose. New ideas, new concepts, more choices. Exciting changes!

We've had 22 (or was it 23?) rounds in the past, I reckon about 8 or so years ago. The uneven draw cost a team a spot in finals that year, pretty sure it was in the women's side. Maybe Norwood?
Talk about going backwards...

What are the eligibility requirements for finals now?

the old format was not bringing in crowds, you could almost walk into a game mid way through first qtr of mens and get a good seat in almost any stadium. Years ago if you weren't there well before tip off you missed out or stood. this way with games on wednesday and sunday's as showcase games will give other coaches and players a chance to scout, gives the specator many games to watch and may whet their appetite for more and bring them out to home and away games. new branding etc, is often hard to please everyone and these days everyone is a critic. 3 man referees IMO is the way to go, and shouldn't be the case of diluting the pool I'd see it as strengthing the refeeing pool and keep some of the older referees still in the game and perhaps bring some back.

Look at the positives people at least it is being reworked and not allowing it to die a slow and painful death.

well it is novel but why not make them pay, the players that is? they used to many years ago and then it became they didn't have to pay. Can we afford that still? and I believe refs are taking a pay cut to get 3 man cause yes clubs won't pay more.

"Really" has pretty much nailed it. Change for changes sake really serves no purpose.

My experience with 3-man ref panels generally see games over-called, as each ref "gets his calls in". You see many games at junior nationals with 3-man crews often give out 50-60 fouls - 18s this year was a debacle with 3-man panels every game.

Who is going to absorb the costs of the Wed/Sun Dome games? I am pretty sure they won't breakeven on these games.

As mentioned before .......who is playing who three times?It will be an uneven comp .

Draft draw has been sent to Clubs. From what the looks of it its randomly assigned.

As a player I think it's great. For a league that needed a big shake up, the direction they have mapped out is clear, now time for some action. Playing extra games is obviously a plus for a player but I think the midweek games will be worth it.

Isaac, IIRC didnt Hoops have all the boxscores on the homepage, along with the top 10 for each stat category? That was an easy way to follow the league and get to know players etc. Lets be honest, this site would have more traffic and popularity in the bball community than the Basketball SA website, so any promotion on here would be beneficial. And how could you forget DCs What's Hot/What's Not thread after each round, a funny take on the games each week!

this is typical of how BSA works....floated the idea out to all the clubs, Every club Emphatically rejected it...So they implemented it anyway.

i suppose someone can add the whole "project" to their next resume/job application!

maybe they can subsidise the clubs costs from that little 1.3M nest egg !

'Every club Emphatically rejected it' is just not true.

knowing how clubs work and have been on management before and seen the results, some answer, some ignore, some answer a question not asked or some reply far too late. and I don't believe all clubs rejected it I heard only two replied.

All clubs replied, not all rejected it. One club was pro 27 games.

'Again'...very good. That is a draw which is fair. The new program is not...not by a country mile.

I heard every club rejected it. Wanting 27 games is not accepting 22 games.
As usual, BSA do their own thing regardless of it's constituents wishes.

Who plays who 3 times
Centrals v Eastern, North, Sturt & Woodville
Eastern v Centrals, North, Southern & West
Forestville v Norwood, South, Southern & Sturt
North v Centrals, Eastern, South & Woodville
Norwood v Forestville, South, Southern & West
South v Forestville, North, Norwood & Woodville
Sturt v Centrals, Forestville, Southern & West
West v Eastern, Norwood, Sturt & Woodville
Woodville v Centrals, North, South & West

It looks like the footy draw. If you finish in the top 4 your get to play the top 4 3 times. I think you will see the the top 4 play each other 3 times and it is worked out down the ladder from there.

I would stop playing if there was a conference system. I don't care if I play some teams 2 times and others three. If we are good enough we will be in the GF. To fall into the finals because of a perceived soft draw doesn't mean much as we wont go to far.

It is difficult to get a split based on the previous year's results as the Women's and Men's side could finish at opposite ends of the table. If it is good enough for a multi million business like the AFL it's ok for Basketball.

All these people with the facts - I guess to know the facts you are on the inner sanctum of a club or you are hearing things second or third hand. After speaking to a couple of member's of our club's management group I am led to believe:

1. All clubs except one responded to an initial paper which included 27 games and 9 mid week games
2. The clubs as a collective also gave input to BSA
3. Clubs did say they were unhappy with the number of rounds and timing of games
4. Clubs were proactive and made alternative suggestions
5. This was considered and many of the ideas are based on what clubs had proposed as suggestions
6. Not every one agrees
7. People are in roles to make decisions
8. Unfer review in a year's time - let's give it a go

'If it is good enough for a multi million business like the AFL it's ok for Basketball.'
No it's not ok, and that is the one great flaw for AFL that makes it mickey mouse in world sports. I'm sure Collingwood supporters would disagree but I'll rest my case there.
A fair and equitable draw has to be the first priority. Extra games based on previous results is no basis for scheduling the current. Go to 27 games or leave it at 18. Meeting in the middle is not the answer.

I just wonder where they think the spectators will come from on a Wednesday night. Juniors will be either training; doing homework or going to bed. A lot of current spectators at weekend ABL games play div 3 games and lower and those games I believe will still be played on those nights. Another thought is what about volunteers for Wednesday nights - quite a few of those are also involved in junior basketball and div 3 and below.

Would have been better keeping it to 18 games and condensing the season as its far too drawn out. College kids will not be able to play despite them saying this new format will allow that to happen. It's the same start/finish date so if it didn't before I don't see how it will now. You can still add your 'trinket' (Anzac Day) games and would've been better served adding a best of three grandfinal series. Go the whole hog to 27 games or leave it at 18. 22 muddys the home/away order and just watch it get exploited.

Where does it say in the announcement that this change will allow college kids to play. Can you give me a page number on the introduction document which says that?

It's lame enough soccer leagues around the world all rename themselves to Premier League now and then CABL go and do it... smh

Rock - sorry you are wrong