And thats how stupid some clubs are, they would rather ruin the chances of young talented players development than loose their spot in div 1.

it is a cultural thing here - having affiliations with vic teams - they see nothing wrong with being in metro 1, 2 or 3 - they have had their chance to prove themselves and graded accordingly

they accept that is where their game is at - in fact they strive harder to acheive - and it allows any rebuilding to happen in less competitive grades - (bit like what is going on in u10,12 and 14 girls at west)

where should the influence / benchmark be?
on our national results at interstate games? on the amount of clubs we have in adelaide?

Participant,

Your analysis neglects the possibility that a club might vote in what it perceives to be the best interests of SA basketball, rather than just in the best ineterests of their own current situation.

For example, a club which might not be immediately affected by a change to pre/rel might vote against, because they believe that pro/rel will result in too much emphasis on winning at the expense of development. Or, a club which might initially lose division 1 teams in pro/rel might vote for, because they believe it will result in a higher level of competition in future.

Interesting analysis though.

what about upping 2 more spots per div 1 grade - all current clubs maintain their div 1 teams.
so the div 1 program would be between 12 teams - balancing out the current 22 odd round season

BUT the 2 extra spots can be second teams from other clubs ie sturt 2, foretville 2.

the particular 2nd teams are selected by where they finished over summer - so it would have needed to have been a sturt v forestville div 2 summer GF

if sturt 2 wanted to stay in div 2 the third best div 2 team would get the invite to nominate ie south 2

it would stop after the 3rd best div 2 team - so we might only end up with 11 div 1 teams not 12 (or still only 9 or 10 teams)

relegation would require a play off match between the teams with a second div 1 team and the challenging team - ie sturt 2 may have finished 8th in div 1 play tigers 2 as they won the next summer GF in div 2.

so even if centrals finished 10th they would not be relegated - the relegation only can occur to the clubs with 2 div 1 teams - and only if they lose the challenge match from the contesting div 2 team

Naturally if a spot in div 1 is open no challenge game would occur , or if that clubs wants to go back to one div 1 team

this would keep both sides of the argument happy and allow for a results driven promotion relegation system for the larger clubs

I don't think Godfather is too far off in his "stupid" reference. The pro/relegation issue is not the first time clubs have been guilty of taking a short term club based approach.
How many people know whether their club channels money from juniors to fund their senior programs? As an ex-treasurer of a club I know it was common practice at several clubs and not small bickies either. These funds would have easily covered the costs of some development officers but success at the senior level was considered more important to the club.

I don't think Godfather is too far off in his "stupid" reference. The pro/relegation issue is not the first time clubs have been guilty of taking a short term club based approach.
How many people know whether their club channels money from juniors to fund their senior programs? As an ex-treasurer of a club I know it was common practice at several clubs and not small bickies either. These funds would have easily covered the costs of some development officers but success at the senior level was considered more important to the club.

Why does everyone think that pro/rel will improve competition? Most are basing it on Victoria who have 3-4 times the participation rate we do. They are better than us becuase of the sheer weight numbers.

Why not organise more interstate trips and play against the Victorians if you think playing against better opposition will help. You won't find that much better opposition in Div 2, marginally better perhaps in a few grades.

Pro/Rel will make stong clubs stronger. Weaker clubs are trying hard to improve but it will take time. I like the idea of Div 1 having 12 teams.

Mott,

To say that the weaker clubs are trying hard to improve is not true.

They think they are but they aren't, because they have no idea what is being done outside their club, let alone what is being done at the successful clubs.

The amount of work being done at the top few clubs to develop their juniors is so far in advance of what the weaker clubs are doing it doesn't even compare.

At least two of the weaker clubs don't even train twice a week or even make their kids turn up to trainings when they do train. And when they do they just muck around, it's not really training.

It gets worse, these clubs actually believe that they are working hard and scoff at suggestions they are not. One of these is on the record as saying they will not support pro/rel so they can pick off kids from the strong clubs who don't make higher division teams.

THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM!

If you want to look at SA clubs that have worked its way back through hard work, look at Forestville or West on the boy's side, so it can be done.

The weak will only get weaker if they don't put in the work. In Victoria there are many clubs thriving now that were not 10 years ago (eg McKinnon, Doncaster, Werribee) because they are putting in the work.

Pro/rel now!

That is a broad sweeping statement to say weaker clubs are not trying.

I am yet to hear a convincing arguement that pro/rel will improve the overall competition. So two weak teams will go down and two slightly stronger teams will go up - still weak. What will that acheive? Good players leaving weak clubs to play in the second Div 1 team at a strong club. How is that good?

I think this arguement is like relion and you can preach all you like but I can't see this being good for basketball.

Things have a way of going in cycles and you will find some weaker clubs will be in a stronger position in the future.

At the moment SOME of the weaker clubs blunder along and drag us all into mediocrity. Here's 7 reasons for pro/rel:

Reason 1
Pro/rel involves comps of 6 in the summer and 8 in the winter so the competition will be closer than the 10's and 12's we are running at the moment.

Reason 2
What will make it even closer will be that the top 8 will be the top 8 not 1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12,13,15 (for example) like it is at the moment.

Reason 3
Every grade will be closer because each team will settle at their own level. Less kids will drop out in winter because they are getting thumped every week. Numbers will be better, the pyramid will get wider and therefore taller.

Reason 4
Good players leave weak clubs NOW. The playing field is as un-level as it has ever been. Under pro/rel there will be limits of the numbers that a strong club can take in, in any one year. So player movements from weak to strong will actually decrease.

Reason 5
Weak clubs will be forced to lift their game and come up to the level of the strong clubs. Strong clubs will have to raise their levels to stay at the top. This can only be good for SA basketball. Pop quiz: When was the last time SA won an Aust title? (Under 20's is watered down by players leaving for college and therefore doesn't count!).

Reason 6
SOME (not all) weaker clubs ARE NOT doing the work. SOME are glorified social clubs! Club basketball at the top level is elite, not another social competition. This will force them to get serious!

Reason 7
The best junior comp (Melbourne) has used this system for many years and the proof is in the pudding. It has only been since they have become more like us that they have slipped. By the way, they are about to rectify this and when they do we will be even more screwed.

I am sure I could think of more if I had to!

Anon 42250,

Your post and points are very interesting indeed and most are probably accurate.

Its very easy to find the faults of what is currently in place. However you need to also look at the potential faults of the alternative.

With pro/rel:
Put any joe bloe as a coach of an OK team in a strong U18/U20 Div 1 competition and that team will develop at a faster rate than the kids in the Div 2 comp with a good coach, even though that club may be working harder for their players. Therefore pro/rel could potentially mean that the stronger clubs no longer have to work hard to develop their kids. The nature of the competition could ensure that this just happens anyway.

That is my view but I will let you all consider that for yourselves.

Also, you need to be careful to not put too much winning emphasis on u12s / u14s. There are some views that during these sampling years that the kids should be trying other sports. Some clubs support this and their younger age groups only train once a week and the emphasis is on enjoyment and development rather than winning. We need to ensure pro/rel does not push clubs to win at all costs at u12 level to ensure they get a higher seeding for the following year.

With the current model: The problem I see is that there are the odd 1 or 2 teams in some Div 1/2 age groups that just should not be there. They are well below OK. A pro/rel model SHOULD be looked at to improve the evenness of the competition but still challenge the top clubs to continually improve through their own efforts not just the structure of the competition.

Motts is quite right pro/rel wont work....will always have strong and weak teams....just ask Carlton right now....things go in cycles...forestville has improved their club...maybe eventually others will take note and spend some money on junior development....I just wish clubs would grade their teams more realistically and not be in Div 1 just for the sake of being in Div 1....little jonnie might be more at home in Div 2 or 3

The last time I checked div 1 is about winning and improving. If it were just about improving, why have a state champs. Winning and competitive nature is fine with juniors.

Div one is the elite division of each age group and should have the most elite players/teams there. If teams want to make it a social environment why place them in div 1 where they get beat by large amounts every week.

Godfather, you are right its about winning, improving and having fun at U12/14 level. There needs to be balance between all 3.

there should be only one div 1 team for each club if they want to play div they need to work harder or move to a worst club

Pro/rel has been an issue for a long time and is a clear-cut example of tall poppy syndrome. No sensible player would trade good coaching for a guaranteed div 1 position. This implies that the smaller clubs that hope to improve through opposition of pro/rel largely hope so in vain.

At the same time, both kids and parents are happier when games are close, and this also happens to be better for the development of young players.

It seems that the clubs that accommodate the majority of SA players would opt for pro/rel.
Would it be time that the number of club members is represented weight of the vote?

anon(#42466),

If clubs play no part in the State results why have club basketball at all. let's have church and school and pick the best kids out of that to train with State. (sarcasm, is there an emoticon for it?)

The development of players by the clubs and the competition they play in are the major factors in Nationals performance. For the last 40 years the best performed States are the ones with the toughest comps not the largest populations.