west u12/14 G group are flat - so that does not surprise me.

I trust centrals are realistic about there nominations - even some of their div 2 teams have been Div 4 level (u16 G 2 last season for example)

i would like to see an opportunity for a second div 1 team to fill in when a club opts not to nominate a div 1 team (after all thats why the clubs banned it)

I think choco's daughter plays u14 Div 4 girls for west and his sister coaches?

norwood 31 boys teams !

good luck finding coaches

boosting you stats there, what the?

post #52087

There is a perfect opportunity in 14g. My group that is just going up - top ages finshed 3rd at classic, bottom ages 1st. When they were forced toplay Div 2 as 12g they had an average winning margin of 50+ points. And that was with their coach doing all the things he could to slow them down for large portions of the game. I do not know whose interests are served by this group of kids being denied the chance to play at their level with a space that is left by another club. I am sure the Forestville girls would also be more than able to compete at this level too - they have had a good group over the last 2 years.

Furthermore, Westies 12g could easily have played Div 1 this year and would have maybe made finals yet they chose not to. This caused a bye and I know that both my Div 2 team and Forestville's would have filled that bye. It is a poorly thought out rule - as has been discussed before.

spot on wayne -it should be all clubs get 1 div 1 team and 2 extra spots for relegation / promotion in div 1 - only the 2 extra spots can be relegated - so no club ever loses their div 1 spot - but the larger clubs can get their 2 div 1s as well.
I really feel long term this may retard development - what benefit is a bye or a 70 point blow out -

the stronger clubs may actually be slightly weakened by trying to run 2 div 1 teams

HAVE THEY EVER THOUGHT OF THAT?

If the kids/teams are good enough to play div 1 let them. No matter how you look at it, if you prevent teams that have to ability/skills to play div 1 from playing you're only hurting SA basketball.

Yeah good oh. Get over it! You are right but its going to change in the short term. What surprise's me is Eastern with only 15 teams. What on earth is going on there. Not many girls teams at all.

$10 says that there is a comittee that decided the issue of 1 div 1 team per club and that there would need to be another comittee to fix the mistake. But as we all know that if you don't want something done then you put a comittee in charge of it.

Would love to see it broken down into age groups.How many younger aged players into clubs
Also agree with seeing a comparison with last year.Thought petrol prices/higher fees may have affected number of new kids joining clubs
Overall team numbers looking good

the 1 div 1 per club was put to a vote - and the majority ruled.

yes the eastern scene is looking like a malaise - more players from centrals

perhaps the petrol issue is more prevelant when you play away most games

Are basa allowing two div 2 teams have heard they are trying to stop that as well does anyone know / and is it basa or the junior committee

maybe the top two teams in div 2 go up to div 1 and the bottom two drop down to div 2

(#52218) I agree with your concept, but I think your figures are flawed, but based on the teams nominated, what if BASA decision making was weighted more to the bigger clubs? It is only logical the bigger the clubs, the more money they contribute, the more talent they contribute, the more they have at stake, the more resources they contribute should get a greater say weighted in their favour:

Sturt 53 - 5 votes
Norwood 51 - 5 votes
Southern 49 - 5 votes
Forestville 48 - 5 votes
South 45 - 5 votes
North 41 - 4 votes
West 37 - 4 votes
Woodville 31 - 3 votes
Centrals 21 - 2 votes
Eastern 15 - 2 votes
Torrens V 10 - 1 vote

I don't know Paul may the force be with you.

If we as a state want to be more competative interstate we need to change the current system because as it stands at the moment while have some victories interstate we don't get enough. This can be seen as a sign that our current system is not strengthening our teams but rather weekening them.

paul is a good coach some people foget he won gold with under 15 boys at the paciffic slam at the beginning of the year...first time sa has won in about 10 years

ps.... forget... my bad

Hey Anonymous, Why don't you ring PAul and speak to him re your concerns rather than being a coward and slagging him off behind an anonymous name. If you had half a brain, you would have realised that the State team had 9 sick boys most of the week. With a fit side they wold have made top 4. And really whats that got to do with this thread?

back to my first post - whose interests are served by there being 2 less teams in 14g (Centrals and West) and denying 2 outstanding Div 2 teams in Sturt and Forestville the chance to play? What benefits are there in the situation where they thrash teams week in and out? What losses are there in denying those players the opportunity to play at their level? I would just like someone to answer those questions with something that goes beyond "the majority says so" or "it is a rule" - because those are political reasons driven by a whole range of political agendas. I would just like to hear why it is good for the sport or the kids playing to have that situation occur.

maybe the weaker clubs are hoping these kids will move to them to get the chance to play higher but over the years this hasnt happened.
IT is time for change!!!

Spot on Wayney

That wont happen either norwest and until BASA takes a serous look at this that is the okly answer you'll get I'm sorry to say Wanye. Lets hope it does happen at some stage for the sake of the game.

wayne - to answer your question:

"whose interests are served by there being 2 less teams in 14g (Centrals and West) and denying 2 outstanding Div 2 teams in Sturt and Forestville the chance to play?"

- no ones. (disagree with that situation)

"What benefits are there in the situation where they thrash teams week in and out?"

- no direct benefits (perhaps some indirect, see below)

"What losses are there in denying those players the opportunity to play at their level?"

- The losses occur when (in your u12G situation) your sturt div 2 team and Boti's are promoted, and the bottom 2 div 1 teams (for example Centrals and Eastern) are dropped to div 2.

What happens then?

A more even competition for one season, but then the best player/players from these relegated clubs leave because they can get a div one spot at the other teams.

What happens then?

The promoted clubs get stronger (picking up players from relegated clubs) and the relegated teams now go from being a top div 2 team, to being an average div 2 team, after losing a/several players.

What happens then?

We get half a dozen "super clubs" that have 80% of the players, those non-super clubs are unable to get back to the pack, because despite developing players, these players leave to go to the superclub because they can get a div 1 spot.

Wayne, its a vicious cycle that benefits a few clubs and decimates the rest. Despite the hardest efforts, this type of cycle is difficult to break, and in the long run does not benefit basketball.

"the majority says so" and "it is a rule"

- are not politically driven, but driven by old-school mentality, and a relectancy to accept change.

Perhaps wayne, you need to consider the good of the sport, rather than just the good of "your girls."

Anon, thanks for your constructive response, if i may counter-

my ... "but then the best player/players from these relegated clubs leave because they can get a div one spot at the other teams" ... is one example of the problem associated with the system Wayne is promoting.

Other problems i didn't mention include

- losing coaches. Really, who would want to coach at div 2 level when they could be at div 1. If there is no quality kids coming through, spending 2 years working with a group for a div 2 title, then losing them is hardly a perfect situation. The good coaches will gravitate to the super clubs.

- inability to attract players. If you were new to this state and had to chose a club to play/send your kids to, and were faced with the option of a club with 2 div 1 teams, 2 div 2 teams. or a club with a div 2, div 3 and 2 div 4 teams the choice is relativly simple.

for the same reason, getting new players to the game may work, but without the strong players at the top (to train against etc.), its quite difficult to get promoted.

- With decreasing numbers, the senior program suffers. Scenario, junior numbers fall, subscriptions fall, amount of money available to 'buy' abl players falls AND quality of juniors coming up falls.

but to directly rebut - while the majority of players will remain loyal and play with their friends, it happens already, good players gravitating to the strong clubs, by further strengthing clubs, the problem is going to get worse.

Ross,

Good to hear someone talking about this issue (on either side) calmly and rationally without the "emotional" factor. Some points I would make are:

- the losing coaches point. Coaches at Sturt now who are of div 1 standard are coaching div 2 due to the rotation policy. This includes previous State Assistant and Head Coaches such as Scott Butler, Paul Rigoni, Liam Flynn and Paul Harvey. I guess it depends on WHY you coach! If it is player development/improvement, how does it matter if it is div 1, div 2 or div 4?

- ability to attract players/new players to the state. Do any of these players go to Centrals now? No, they go to North, Sturt, Forestville, Norwood. I can think of one going to Southern, but probably most go to Forestville that I can think of. Why? Because that is who they see/know about at Classics etc. Centrals could have sent one of their teams to Classics this year to promote their brand and chose not to (for whatever reason which is their own - not a Central-bash). Yet we should be supporting them/propping them up?

- I agree with your point that players from relegated clubs may try to gravitate to the "super clubs" to play div 1 (although some would say it happens under the current system as well!!). So why not put in a "cap" or some other measure to stop this happening? Say, (and this is without thinking too hard), a club may only accept players per year (into say div 1/2). And moving players may not go into a "second" div 1 side at all ie a promoted side must remain as players from that club. Or some other rule that would stop this occuring (I'm sure someone can conjure one??). Then clubs would have to be judicious in who they accept - something that may or may not happen under the current system.

- the good of "Wayne's girls" and the Forestville girls (for example) is the good of the sport in my opinion. These bottom age players in div 2 (by the sounds of it) have their progress impeded - players who may be representing our State at future National Championships or our clubs at U14 Nats. Very few of them will leave their club, but div 2 players of the clubs they smash may become unhappy with their treatment and give the game away. Leaving these clubs depth even more stretched.

Victoria have promotion/relegation, they have their problems (such as VC being too big) but there doesn't seem to be the rampant player rotations that you seem to believe will happen here. Even if you believe it may, I believe it can be minimalised with a correct set of rules in place.

Ross
I don't have time for a detailed response right now but please do not try to publicly denigrate my motivation by saying things like

"Perhaps wayne, you need to consider the good of the sport, rather than just the good of "your girls.""

I simply asked a question about what happens when two clubs do not nominate for a Div 1 position. It would seem logical that the interests of the sport are not served by denying the opportunity to fill those spots with kids who are good enough.

If the rule is inflexible enough to be unable to deal with that situation - then it is a silly rule, poorly thought out, poorly worded or however else you would like to describe it.

If you, Ross, would then like to exrapolate from that one instance into the doom of clubs and the demise of the sport then you are welcome.

I just asked a simple question and I don't deserve to be protrayed as a self serving selfish individual with no interest in the general progress of the sport.

The main reason I chose to speak using my own players (and Forestville's) is because it is a situation I have direct & relevant knowledge about. I will not speak for other grades because I don't know them well enough. If you, Ross, have that overview then you are indeed fortunate. I was busy enough keeping up to one age group.

If there is a wider problem then I am sure that people will make decisions that are based on the interests of the sport.

I guess the the other question I have is;
Is what is happening now working?

I am also not sure that some of the things you discuss are not happening now Ross but as I say - I have a junior presentation to attend and will get back to you over the weekend. If you want to discuss this further come to Pasadena tonight and chat with me about it.

I am amazed how Sturt say their roatation policy works. Butler and Liam both have been coaching Div 1 for a couple of years haven't they? I know of Scott coaching Div 2 as well but their are other coaches at other clubs that also do this so saying he is rotated is a bit of an exaggeration. If you look at the girls side next year, apart from Wayne (Who retired) most of the div 1s will stay the same. Where's the rotation policy here?Obviously the depth on the boys sides allow them to do this but I also don't think that moving coaches from age group to age group is a great idea. I think coaches are better staying in their age group so they master it, or the simple fact that they are good at the age group.

I am not a fan of pro/rel but i do agree that if clubs can not field a div 1 side then it should be offered to the strongest club in the grade below. ie next year 12 boys Sturt, 14 boys Sturt,14 girls Sturt and Forestville, 12 girls Sturt Southern, 18 girls North?. This would be the comprimise that all clubs would agree to. In saying that it was voted against teams doing this at the last junior meeting.We could agree to disagree all day but our biggest problemis getting the junior exec. right.

vito

"I guess it depends on WHY you coach!"

- coaches coach to develop players. But its not that simple. In a perfect world (which we would all strive for) coaches would develop players to the best of their ability, and vice versa. While its all well and good having your Butlers/flynns/and other complete package caches etc rotating through div 2 roles, for the rest of us; matching coaches and teams on ability and development potential is our goal. While all coaches do so to develop players, it shouldn't be at the detrement of their own development.

"Yet we should be supporting them/propping them up?"

- i am not for a moment suggesting we 'prop up' struggling clubs, but lets at least ensure there is a level playing field for pro-active clubs to achieve success (ala F/ville and Sturt)

"gravitate to the "super clubs" to play div 1 (although some would say it happens under the current system as well!!)"

- yes, it does. Let's not make it worse.

"rampant player rotations"

is one end of a spectrum, however the other end is more troublesome, that of not being able to get players in the first place. With more div one teams, comes more subscribtions, more resources, and more ability to get kids (and turn them into players). Vice versa for the non-super clubs.

Alot of what your saying is short term, consider the long-term ramifications of a system overhaul before jumping head first into it.

Wayne - i'm not intentionally trying to denigrate you, but please back up your example with a sport related denominator, rather then just your grade. I would estimate i know 1/4 (or less) of what you do, but i dont profess to having a solution for the future of the sport in this state by relating it to two teams in an Association (BASA) of hundreds.

I've never professed the current system to be perfect, however do not think the system you are proclaiming is the solution.

Perhaps you have a problem in thinking by extrapolating the problems your squad (and boti's) have faced into the entire competition you can reach a solution.

ive never claimed you to be "a self serving selfish individual with no interest in the general progress of the sport." but would like to see how your views on the u12 G competition relate to the entire BASA competition?

I look forward to your response, i can wait over the weekend.

so anon - why would you create a system where by in the future it is impossible for a currently struggling club to reach the upper echoleons of the norths and f/vills?

I realise the strong clubs do a better job of developing their juniors, doesn't mean the other clubs aren't trying or won't find success in a few years, but the suggested system rules out any chance of this!

Next?

52687, the insinuations you make about centrals are wrong. Been following this discussion with interest though. Please continue.

I think people who keep refering to f/vlle as a 'super' club must realsie that 6-7 years ago, f/ville was stuggling to get juniors to the club and was probably due to the inconsistent coaching the kids were recieving. The club went through a cleanout when Jerry was appointed as coaching director, and a basketball philosophy was introduced. This was later emphasized by Paul when he took over and the quality of coaching these kids recieve from Div 1 to Div 5 is why kids play, have fun, want to play for them, and also stay with the club through to seniors.

Its unfortunate that a handful of clubs have not realsied that quality coaching wil attract kids. Winning takes care of itself!

Just look at the kids who have gone on to the AIS...which clubs have they come from...why?, because these clubs put more than 5min into teaching their kids long term basketball skills as opposed to short term, short sighted, goals that are geared towards winning at all costs.

If the clubs put as much time into setting up a structure and a basketball philosophy, basketball would become the dominant sport in the state (at the junior level).

There was a time when central district fc and woodville fc were both the laughing stock of the sanfl with little supporter base and even less on-field success. They continually lost their better players to the super clubs and struggled to recruit because of poor results. Fortunately they were able to maintain their voting rights and were encouraged by the executive of the league to continue to work hard. They are now (woodville with the benefit of a merger) the powerhouses of the competition and play off in the gf again on Sunday. Will this last forever?? not likely, lets hope a south adelaide climb to new hights or the once powerfull glenelg return to prominance, who knows what is in store in sport.
The sturts and forrestvilles of our competition are doing a great job,
but to suggest that the smaller clubs
want to hold them back would be far from the truth, i'm sure the not so priveledged are striving to match it with the best, this may be unrealistic, but try and tell that to the kid with a ball the coach with a passion and the many hardworking volunteers. There is now,and will always be room for clubs of many differing dynamics.
Big may be best but not necessarilly for everyone. Perhaps in some cases a little less ego and little more understanding would benifit all.

i'm not associated with forestville, just an interested onlooker.

may you should be slightly less short sighted and see the bigger picture.

I gotta get this one in quickly - I am an avid doggies supporter of 40 years. It is interesting anon #52715 that you use these clubs as an example. Woodville has merged - says it all really, and the dogs used to be one of those clubs who believed in the "evil empire" of Pt Adelaide etc etc (sounds familiar).

Towards the end of the 90's they examined and learned from the "evil empire" and duplicated and modified what they had learned and applied it to the club.

The rest .... as they say .... is history.

Ross I am getting there, bit slow this morning as my parents spoiled me rotten with some very delicious red wines until about 2am this morning. We had a great night - very positive end to a very good season.

Oh and BTW not 'retired' - 'resting' ...... hate to say it but I am missing it a little already LOL.

tsk tsk tsk anon.

If only it were that simple.

Still waiting Wayne...

Area Zones. The SANFL clubs have them, they might even out the numbers.

Although i don't beleive in area zones, this would even the competition out and make clubs develop what is in their area. I will use the under 12 girls as an example. If two of Sturt and Forestville best players went back to their original club then you find that the Under 12 comp would be very even. In saying that, if some clubs cannot provide good coaching players will look elsewhere to get this and the zoneing wouldn't work.

OK Ross - here goes

Firstly I will say I am not proposing any system - it was just a question about my old grade. I do not profess to have the solutions for all the sport. It just seems very silly to me that we have these restrictions that are so inflexible.

Secondly I will say that I have been involved in basketball in all capacities, coach, player, committee member, referee etc etc in associations such as KI (small) through to BASA (huge). I have been racking what is left of my brain to find a time when a restrictive rule like this one worked - despite its best intentions - I couldn't remember one.

"What benefits are there in the situation where they thrash teams week in and out?"

- no direct benefits (perhaps some indirect, see below)

*This is all I was asking - the solution would seem to be then to make some changes.


"What losses are there in denying those players the opportunity to play at their level?"

- The losses occur when (in your u12G situation) your sturt div 2 team and Boti's are promoted, and the bottom 2 div 1 teams (for example Centrals and Eastern) are dropped to div 2.

* You forgot to mention that the other losses are that these kids go and play something else and are lost to the sport at this level. Under 12 kids rarely move clubs for a Div 1 spot. They will move for better coaching. It has been my experience over the last 4 years that some players have left Div 1 spots at other clubs to play Div 2 with our group ....

What happens then?

* Currently in the question of these 2 clubs one does not have a DIv 1 team and the other is really struggling for numbers - the problems are there anyway despite the restrictions. A more practical solution is needed for those 2 clubs, something that supports their development.

A more even competition for one season, but then the best player/players from these relegated clubs leave because they can get a div one spot at the other teams.

What happens then?

* Take a look - this happens now because sport at this level is not about playing for your "local" team. It is about buying a product - just like schools.

The promoted clubs get stronger (picking up players from relegated clubs) and the relegated teams now go from being a top div 2 team, to being an average div 2 team, after losing a/several players.

What happens then?

* They may fold, they may improve - it depends upon their response and the response of the rest of the clubs who are involved. I know that in the past many people from differing clubs have shared resources and methodologies. I am not sure that the current restrictions help in this respect.

We get half a dozen "super clubs" that have 80% of the players, those non-super clubs are unable to get back to the pack, because despite developing players, these players leave to go to the superclub because they can get a div 1 spot.

* Again - this happens now - being restrictive will not solve this situation. It will provide other sports with a great base of athletic kids. Take a look at how Volleyball has grown over the last 10 years.

Wayne, its a vicious cycle that benefits a few clubs and decimates the rest. Despite the hardest efforts, this type of cycle is difficult to break, and in the long run does not benefit basketball.

* Then something needs to be done to improve the struggling clubs - restricting the others will not help - the evidence is there to see already.

"the majority says so" and "it is a rule"

- are not politically driven, but driven by old-school mentality, and a relectancy to accept change.

* not sure where you are going here - doesn't really matter anyway.

Perhaps wayne, you need to consider the good of the sport, rather than just the good of "your girls."

* still think this is a cheap shot - lol - however as a 'resting' coach my care factor is 0

Dunno if this helps Ross but it was nice to chat.