The SDP process is broken. Another example is that kids already in the programme are asked to wear their FDP uniform, presumably to make it easier for selectors. Good for those that stand out in u12. Not so good for later developers.

not related to your state but fringe metro "country" associations - when was the last time boundaries were reviewed - urban sprawl etc poses the question - what exactly makes a country association ? clearly their traditional affiliation. Also I've always wondered how basketball WA country handles the logistics of distance in that state. Qld has north and south but not WA in a far bigger expanse.

The SDP program doesn't have a fixed number of kids they can take in each age group, so its not a zero sum game where a kid getting in means another misses out, if people game the system for their kids its not worth worrying about. The bigger issue is the assessment and selection process.

Talent identification is a tough job. If kids are wearing FDP/SDP uniforms because they were in those programs last year, then that's a valid data point to consider. Tryouts are usually about 5 hours, not a lot of time to evaluate hundreds of kids, including many new faces at the younger ages.

Kids do get added and dropped to SDP/NPP throughout the year, so if a kid fluffs the tryout, it's not the end of the world. If they are consistently over-performing in VJBL and feel they were unfortunately overlooked in the high performance pathways, their DOC should be making the case for them to be reconsidered.

Re +

I have wondered why/why not in regards to WA have a split in nth and sth. Density in the further out areas and not the split? I'm not sure of the population in those areas so is that a factor maybe?

Re: Manders agree however I also don’t like this for rep tryouts either and believe kids should be turning up in their domestic uniforms or generic reversible.

Vic State teams will always be strong based purely on the numbers of kids playing the game in this state. But the FDP/SDP selection process is missing too many good kids. I've seen this now across multiple clubs and age groups where you are just left scratching your head with some of the selections. I understand that it can be difficult and subjective but it needs to improve if you want to keep the best kids in the sport.

should vic country split - east / west ?

I have wondered why/why not in regards to WA have a split in nth and sth. Density in the further out areas and not the split? I'm not sure of the population in those areas so is that a factor maybe?

Agree Hoops 89. Basic issue that it is easiest to get into the system at u12 level, when kids who develop early stand out, and then it's really hard to break in. DOCs should stand up for their kids, but often don’t sometimes because they don’t want to rock the boat for their own reasons or are just a bit ineffective. So trick for DOCs is to exert as much influence as they can in the selection of FDP.

They shouldn’t wear SDP / FDP uniforms. That is just a bit lazy, and you can always after the fact look at that info. It also puts the other kids off in a way that’s a bit rubbish, when you think about it. During trial you should focus on what’s in front of you. List needs to be looked at each year, and we should use info from who is performing on Fridays, but we don’t seem to.

People complaining about the selections are forgetting one thing.
The very people at the head of development for Metro have never coached an actual basketball team.
Then the coaches at the hubs and selection trials are only valued enough to be a 3/4/5s coach for their clubs, and again, multiple hub leads have never actually coached a team themselves.
The quality coaches around Victoria don't even get involved in the state program anymore because of the entitlement from those at the head.

To paraphrase something I heard in teacher training
"Those who CAN, coach. Those who CANNOT coach, coach coaches. Those who cannot coach coaches, go into management."

I think you'll find that the best coaches don’t have time for the workload and the politics at state level for minimal pay. (At least at the national level, there’s some financial reward.)

But that's just a ridiculous, incorrect generalisation.

Yeah, ok, it was tongue in cheek.

(But I'd be happy to see examples of top coaches who then took on coaching the state sides, to prove me wrong.)

Should go both ways. Country based kids trying out for Metro teams should also be discouraged. Few in recent times ended up missing out on both due to listening to coaches.

To say the high performance coaches aren't good/experienced coaches is flat out wrong. The VIC HPCs have long coaching records and are currently coaching the Crocs and Vic U20 Navy between them in the boys.

They are undoubtedly good coaches. Results show that.

The quality of the coaches in SDP is fine. I think where they get it wrong is having so many younger kids, and at too young an age with FDP and so few older kids. They seem to do a lot of competitive drills which is great, but quality of training partners for the u18's isn't there and it clearly reduces the quality of training for the older kids. I'd like to seem them run more camps for the younger kids and something like the D League they have in Sydney, so they get to see the better kids play against each other more often in a proper competitive environment.

Kids should only be able to try out for one area, if they miss out that year bad luck, that how it used to be, and anyone caught cheating the system double dipping by using a false address should be banned for the following year, a deterrent could be what's needed.

Kids should only be able to try out for one area either metro OR country not both , if they miss out that year bad luck, that how it used to be, and anyone caught cheating the system double dipping by using a false address should be banned for the following year, a deterrent is what's needed to stop it.
And parents need to remember the sport is for the kids not for mum and dads ego

BIGD where did you get this info from? "Then the coaches at the hubs and selection trials are only valued enough to be a 3/4/5s coach for their clubs, and again, multiple hub leads have never actually coached a team themselves."

This couldn't be further from the truth. I happen to know of many a hub lead that coach at 1s level in different age groups as well.

Agree - don't think that’s right, particularly for hub coaches. Not sure about the coaches at trials though - that’s a bit unclear and there will of course be variability. DOCs really should stand up if they think someone has missed out because the trials can be hit and miss. Many won’t though, because of the culture - don’t want to be seen as rocking the boat. It’s a shame.

So, in summary:
- Kids (parents!) should either choose Metro or Country, and actually live the in the right area - seems fair.
- Need to reassess boundaries - some areas in Country are no longer country areas.
- Because selections start at under 12, as kids get older there is a bias towards kids who get into the programme early / develop early
- Kids should not wear their FDP / SDP uniforms, because it exacerbates above bias
- Coaches are clearly good, getting great results, but they only have limited time to assess (few hours)
- Given above, not enough say given to DOCs, or they are willing to put forward views
- Not enough emphasis on what happens on Friday nights during season, meaning that selectors have to rely on limited

It's a really good programme getting good results and the above is all very fixable, if these perceived concerns are real.

My AFL recruiting friend just shared a list of the overlap between AFL pathways and SDP. Unsurprisingly for people on this forum there is significant overlap - something like 20-25% of SPD kids are on an AFL pathway / being watched. AFL are smart - they know where the talent is! And basketball accommodates this nicely by developing their talent.

I don't know the numbers, but I figure there is a significantly higher chance of a tall athletic kid getting paid at least something to play AFL than it is to play basketball. Obviously young ballers dream of the riches of the NBA, but I assume that’s about 0.0001% of kids that make it from junior basketball.

Is the AFL really luring kids away from basketball that were ever going to make it to at least a basketball semi-pro level? Or are they giving some of those kids a chance to at least be a semi-pro AFL player instead? My gut feel it’s the latter, and those kids that realistically don’t have a chance of winning one of the few paid spots in basketball that come up in Australia each year for rookies are better served on the AFL pathway.

Just talking about the "elite junior but not future pro" kids here. I hope at a grassroots level the participation in basketball keeps growing and growing and we keep our truly elite kids like Zikarsky on the basketball pathway.

The impact on the women's game is going to be massive. With the new AFLW collective bargaining agreement setting average pay rates at over $80k, it is going to be a simple choice for a lot of girls who are after a professional sporting career.

Well considering that WNBL players are the lowest paid female professional athletes in the country right now...
Here are the minimum salaries:
Netball - 43k
Soccer - 17k
Basketball - 15k
AFLW - approx. 50k

Think you are spot on DeepWombat. Trick for basketball is to ensure the resources go into kids that are actually going to keep playing beyond u16/18. Reality is that they just keep picking kids who are athletic but are highly likely (if not a certainly) to not continue to play, whether at college or semi-pro. I'd weed them out at u16 / u18 as they just take up space. Not hard to check against AFL pathways.

AFL is the biggest issue facing women’s basketball. The next pay deal will at least double the pay again, so within a decade we will have a significant number of athletic girls being diverted (like the boys, after being trained by basketball!).

Totally agree Manders. With the AFLW pathway being a much safer bet, I'd say 19 out of 20 dual code kids will choose the AFLW pathway over basketball. As the AFLW standard improves, the ability to cross over or play both will diminish so I think it makes sense for the AFL state basketball bodies to start prioritising single code girls over the dual code girls.

Tough call to make...

The vast majority of girls who are good at basketball have or still do play footy. Kids don't think about money, we lose so many because footy is far better run and kids who perform well are invariably mostly provided with opportunities to progress through their pathway. Even if they miss out they have the opportunity to change the selectors minds during the season. This is from club level up to the Talent League.

you can't compare an amateur basketball players to a semi pro AFLW player - compare a semi pro basketballer i.e. better options Europe O/S etc to AFLW.
Just remember there are amateur female football teams that don't pay.

Agree that money won't be the key driver but the money is what allows the AFLW to offer a pathway to a full time, professional sporting career. With 18 clubs with lists extending to ~40 players in the future, the opportunities will just be so much deeper in the AFLW.

Just run a check on PlayHQ of the kids in SDP and their football affiliations. Huge overlap between these kids and Coates League or AFL Metro rep. Waste of resources, but unfortunately junior basketball needs kids who matured by the time they are 14/15 as opposed to picking kids to develop for the future. This is because the KPIs of coaches are related to how the age group performs, not how they go in terms of developing future talent. And because many of the kids in the programme were picked when they were 12/13 and were bigger than the others then. This was evident again at the few try-outs I observed on the weekend.