I agree. However in some cases a D1/D2 team does go down a division.

I spoke to a guy involved with a D1 team that kept getting smashed every week and I said they should move down. His reply is that they need to stay so they can improve more. A bit of strange logic.

BSAs argument can be that even that it is lopsided the girls have been doing great against other states.

If a club doesn't offer d1 then players just move to stronger clubs that have multiple teams in the division. It is a tough situation

totally agree - some grades it's the worst I've seen it. Team numbers are up but they won't be for long with some of the thrashings going on.

Some year groups of players have known nothing but losing.

I am aware of one club that sacrificed a year group so another year group could play Div 1 earlier so when they were second years they would dominate.

Felt for the year group that the club did not attempt develop or encourage.

Should be pro/rel in all grades.

Enforcing the Div 1 rule for NBL 1 is not helping.

A big difference between the haves and have nots.

How is winning by 50 points helping long term ? you want challenges !

I think this topic is raised nearly every year with the disparity between teams. And everytime a solution about how players that are in a strong div 2 or even 3 should transfer to a struggling div 1 program to get an opportunity. It just never happens. If they do decide to transfer they'd rather go to a team that's, for example fifth, so they make div 1 but aren't getting smashed every week still, especially if they're a first year and they have a decent group coming up the next year.
The whole fantasy about nbl1 teams having to have competitive div 1 junior teams is not true. Woodville and central's for years never had a decent junior program apart from a handful of teams, yet they stay in the competition. Sure, Central's won it all this year but how many of its juniors contributed? Nbl1 is just about buying wins now.
BSA just have to be honest as well as the clubs. Forcing kids to play in a division where they have no hope is terrible, just let them be where they can be competitive rather than all this rubbish they spin. They have a grading system for lower teams so they can find a level where it's fair, why are div 1 and 2 exempt?
Anyway, looking forward to seeing this topic around the same time next year.

This is mostly on the clubs.
The clubs fear if they drop their teams from 1s to 2s they will lose players due to the "prestige" of playing div 1.
Some stubborn coaches believe, well the only way we improve is by playing the best. well if you cant get the ball over half court, your ability to shoot wont improve, your half court D wont improve, your PnR coverages wont improve.

How BSA can improve the situation.
Make Div 1 a 8 team comp.
Summer is grading, top 8 teams make the cut bottom 2 down to div 2.

This takes the decision out of the clubs hands and with the new player movement rules, it will limit huge losses of talent.

The long term issue.
Some clubs like southern, eastern, centrals... have catchment areas that are massive. there needs to be some oversight to what these clubs are doing and why they seem to fluctuate so much in participation and competitiveness on the girls side.
It would make sense if Forestville and South, fluctuated the club congestion in these areas are high. Sturt, South, Forestville all within a 14 min drive of each other. But Eagles seem to somehow be strong every year on the girls side. West have to compete with Woodville, some might argue this isnt a competition, but again they are close and if something is "off" or "wrong" the girl and her family can drive down the road and get a new uniform in less than 15 mins.
When more than 50% of the competition is competing just to get girls in the door but 3 clubs who have no competition struggle to fill teams, there is something wrong with the club.

So the 3 "outside" clubs need to be looked into as to why they cant put together 2 teams of competent basketballers vs clubs that have to compete just to get girls in the door.

Agree with above that the south western, western and north western clubs are too crowded. Forestville always a benefactor due to being the most central and now the SBC connection.

Forestville have always been very aggressive with their recruiting of girls and I'd think the majority of their talent would have been recruited. New BSA transfer rules may change this but will remain to be seen.

Southern are a big concern and agree with above that there needs to be some scrutiny on their program, why with such a big area are they so uncompetitive? Centrals splashed plenty of cash to win the NBL1 title yet their girls program is completely broken

Some of those new metro fringe growth areas are huge and BSA / BA should be 100% working on promoting the game in these areas - a huge market waiting to be tapped into.
IMO I feel centrals have made some inroads in this area.
No physical district club between - Evanston, Port and Lightsview is a huge area - not asking for a new club but say if I lived Salisbury Downs - it's go to one of these.

Agreed the old well they will play Div 1 elsewhere is a very small % correct and now with transfer rules restricting - makes it even more complex.

People know where the good coaches and good people are. Some see playing in the 2nd, 3rd,4th team at a good club with good coaches and team mates more appealing than the "div 1 badge".

Maybe don't look at where people are going but where they are leaving and ask why ?

All clubs have to be built from the ground up and no shortcuts - I've often seen many wanting all the rewards of the good clubs - but they haven't done the hard work of volunteer hours, building culture / friendships, working 6 days a week on the court. Worse still when others have moved into a great club and enjoyed the benefits of others hard work and destroyed it all back to very poor.

pro rel all grades no more than 2 teams per club per division post grading season.

can be 8 or 10 teams per Div - if 8 teams shortens championship season but this style puts more emphasis on the grading season - years ago the "summer" season was often spoken of as 'insignificant" and some took time off.

If you go to a stadium - most kids just want a fair game with enjoyment and not to be pummelled - they just want to play - many reflect parental attitudes of divisions etc - good treatment of the players and families are more important that "divisions" if your club emphasises breaking policy and just on "what division you are in" as their benchmark - you'll end up missing some critical points of a successful club.

Grote 12 - You're wrong. It's BSA with their by-laws that force clubs to put in teams where they are uncompetitive. It's a huge issue on the girls side of the program where it is rare to have ten teams who are competitive with one another. Teams lose by large margins, players leave to play other sports.

Also the whole idea of players leaving division 2 to go play division 1 elsewhere. Happens very rarely. In fact on the girls side it's way more common to see a player leave division 1 to go play division 2 or even division 3 so they can have a competitive game!

The whole idea of kids moving to where the coaching is better. Great in theory, but most parents wouldn't know what good coaching is until they find their daughter lose the love of the game and realize what it isn't. The reality is they see a winning team and think "must be good have to move there." Sometimes the coaching is good in winning teams, sometimes it's not. But the end effect is success breeds success and it becomes a pile on for players to move to winning sides making the competitive balance even worse.

It's time BSA change the by-laws and do what actually drives up girls particpation and that is have the players in a competitive environment.

Most defintely tiers in div 1. BSA did a split div 1 a few years ago half way through the season and i think this worked well. maybe something to do again? top 5 and bottom 5 gets you more competitive games.

Why not just get rid of under 10 and 12 district girls and make the clubs run a domestic comp based out of their stadiums or nearby stadiums. The main commitments are money and travel/time. The sport is year long without a break, especially tournaments etc. it's a big commitment buying uniforms, fees, going to trainings twice a week then games that could be an hour away. Maybe have a training on the sunday, perhaps skill work training before games as part of the package. Uniforms could be t-shirts for the under 10s, don't need numbers because games can just be done on scoreboard, no scoresheet. Then in 12s introduce a cheap playing singlet and make the games more realistic. I'm sure schools would start to join up, even if just for a term for 10s. That way fees are kept really low, minimal travel apart from close country schools eg Barossa way to go to starplex or Tanunda rec centre which central's can run. Yes, I think most clubs run domestic programs but some not very well. Make it consistent.
But make it fun for the kids and easy for the parents. If they show promise or want to join up for district, make it under 14s minimum. Then even look at conferences to stop 12 year Olds from Gawler having to travel to Morphett vale in peak hour.
BSA need to get clubs to setup the framework and assist if necessary. If clubs are slack then there's the reason to say bye, and take your senior programs as well.

Such a complex problem, with no easy solution. Potentially one the most difficult apsects is for clubs to agree on any change moving forward, and not upsetting BSA by-laws, or diminish any grip on the success across their standings in a Division No easy task. CLubs work in complex and different ways to the point where a JDO can not possibly oversee any true development for players, below (and lets be honest here) Div 3. And as previously mentioned, parents are going to move their children to successful clubs, the BSA new rules address some of that, however there needs to be be blueprint moving forward. TBH is there going to be a solution that can successfully see a competition that is close throughout a season, sadly this is unlikely in the current climate. There are some great things going on at clubs, but not enough support from BSA, the Female Participation program produced disappointing results. Some clubs, not all, give great support to female programs. I do agree that some change needs to happen, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Here's to a great 24/25 season.

The Phantom - SA also has to keep in step with interstate counterparts as part of a national framework.

thats why we have u12 classics

drop all that for a domestic comp - that area will suffer with SA falling behind national benchmarks at U12 level

So politics will continue to keep participation levels low just so kids that are big for 10 year olds can go to a useless national competition?
So what are the national benchmarks for under 12s? Who really cares about under 12 basketball apart from parents and bragging rights from state associations? The topic is dealing with variation of skill levels at district level, obviously the more kids that play will result in a bigger pool to choose from and better overall talen spread out. So I suggest increasing participation levels at the youngest grades, and hopefully the kids will continue playing as they get older. For those concerned about bragging rights for 10 year olds, then have a domestic league tournament and pick a rep team to play in state champs, or even have a tryouts for those parents who want to spend thousands to go interstate for a meaningless trophy.
Why are kids, especially girls, dropping out of district? Imo it's financial and travel. So imagine losing by 50 points every week, paying thousands of dollars for the privilege and driving hours across town every week, especially if there's multiple kids. Get them in early, get them to enjoy the game and build it up from there. Clearly the current model isn't working because it's discussed every year.
I'm still scratching my head concerning these benchmarks. Most under 10 and 12 games are really dominated by the bigger athletic kids most of the time. Based on the age structure, a kid born in early January will have a years advantage over a December kid, so will usually be bigger and stronger. It's not till late teens when things are on a level playing field, you see kids that used to have the advantage in younger grades suddenly being eclipsed by late bloomers.
So go for it and have the waste of time under 12 classics, it doesn't mean Sa has to select the team based on the current club framework. Just rework it a bit instead of the terrible words, oh it's just how we've always done it.

The Phantom, its not politics, its partly that we are part of a National Program. Under 12 rep basketball is how it works.

It's also partly that you're proposing a major change to the basketball model but provided no detail, and more importantly no data to back up that your thought bubble would be better.

How about Clubs do both? Elite kids play rep basketball and Clubs also develop girls domestic programs for Under 10s and Under 12s.

I'm not saying it's a great idea, just trying to think outside the box a little to keep girls involved, because what's been going on for years hasn't solved that problem. And referring to politics is really a dig at basketball Australia and their high performance and other programs etc. I still can't see the point of under 12 classics and no-one has answered the benchmark question. What are the benchmarks in 10 year old kids, Victoria and the populous states will always have a larger pool, but there's always going to be outliers in each state.
Yes it's a thought bubble, but my main points are what prevents the retention of kids, especially girls? Could go on about social media, lack of facilities etc.
Last comment talked about elite kids playing rep, isn't that the whole point of the thread. We're not getting enough elite kids to fill 10 div 1 teams, especially the older age groups. As brought up, there's not enough elite talent playing currently. They're out there, more often than not playing netball, now Aussie rules and Soccer because of Matildas are in the mix even more. So these girls are normally getting a taste of basketball, but either moving to another sport or stopping entirely. So how can that be stopped.
Ok, I haven't fleshed out the idea and it'll never happen. Some suggestions are to reduce number of div 1 teams. Great idea, totally on board with that. Now back to politics, clubs will more often than not prefer the prestige of having a div 1 team rather than the best interests and development of kids. Coaches and some parents as well. BSA needs to establish the framework then, take the decision out of clubs hands.
So anyone have other thoughts as to why numbers are always down in district instead of saying it's just the way it's always been, u12 rep basketball. There will always be a drop off in numbers from domestic to higher levels of sports, that's just the way it is. I'm just floating an idea about how the slightly increase numbers, especially the talented kids that miss out on a number of factors, either financial or having to choose another sport. And with Aussie rules and the Mathilda effect, those options are even bigger.
Anyway, it's just an idea, but let's just do it the way it's always been because there's a framework and the mysterious under 12 benchmarks need to be met.