Yes,

The Evil Empire has (with the assistance of numerous clubs) restored order in the junior season calander.

We are back to the same calander as for previous years.

May the FOrce be with you.

From the Sturt website....

JUNIOR COMPETITION COMMITTEE

MEMORANDUM


To: Club Secretaries, Club Presidents, Junior Competition Committee delegates


Cc: SA Country Basketball Council


From: Colin Thompson


Date: Tuesday, 29th November 2005


Re: Decision of the Executive Board of BASA

Last night the Executive Board of BASA considered the recommendation of its sub-committee investigating an appeal to the Board re-decisions previously taken by the Junior Competition Committee with respect to reorienting BASA junior competitions into a calendar year. The sub-committee looked at the issues raised by the clubs, the practical and financial ramifications of alternate proposals and the decision making processes previously undertaken by the committee.

The following recommendation was adopted by the the Executive Board:

"For 2005/2006, reducing the summer season from 18 rounds to 13 rounds, involving a corresponding earlier commencement to the winter season involving 22 rounds and 3 final rounds (excluding division one which may have 18 rounds).

It was further recommended that the proposal for "2006/2007, ending of the summer season during December and the commencement of the winter season in February" be reviewed "under the auspices of the Junior Committee but suggests involving a select subcommittee comprising: (1) of a Junior Executive member, (2) 3 representatives from the BASA clubs as chosen by those clubs, and (3) an SA Country representative."

In accord with these recommendations, the current City of Adelaide Junior season

will conclude after 13 rounds with the Semi-finals and Grand Finals on March 2-4 and March 5 respectively. The winter State League will commence thereafter and conclude with Grand Finals on September 21-24.

Further clarification of the role of the select subcommittee referred to in the second recommendation will be addressed at the Junior Competition Committee meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 6, 2005.

well thank god for that... its much more efficiant the way it has been in previous years :o)

...the world makes sense again! :o)

If this old system is to really work why not cull all divisions back to or bring teams up, the same no of teams in each div (grading is the way to go)
some div 2 and 3 teams are good enough to go up ,let clubs nominate where they want teams to be. i dont mean drop weaker clubs either.have winter set as 22 rds then have 12 teams in each grade.
Add the better teams in lower divs come up to make up especially if they match it with the lower half of the div above.

Sorry, I disagree. Personly I dont care if the season is 15 or 22 rounds. What I do care about is the totally unprofessional manner in which this has been handled. If the season is set for 22 rounds and has been posted, people make plans, arrange holidays etc around a known schedule.
If it doesn't suit it should not have been allowed to change in the first place. Once changed it should have been left untill the following year.
This complete lack of consideration for anyone beyond the div-1 stakeholders is reprehensible.

I agree with odiodinnodin. Wouldn't it be great for just one season to actually receive a program for the whole season before it starts and then not have it changed during that season. (And Santa's going to bring all the presents I want too!)

What is the big deal with whether it's 13 rounds or 18. BASA or Basketball SA just looks foolish once again for not being organised. After all this work re-scheduling the program once again, they'll probably need to raise fees again too.

Great stuff - Now be aware the GF's of B & G under 14 div 1's will be when the Nationals are held in Ulverstone and Brisbane respectively from 18 to 23 Sept 06. Means the top 3 boys and girls teams will be away. Should just make it who ever is top at end of minor round is tops - save time and let clubs concentrate on the more important part of their programs.

To anon #60885,
I have no chip, I assume we do this to suit someone, if not the div-1 comp .. then who, why disrupt the entire competion, hundreds of people if no one benifits?

Personal attacks are a convienient way of side stepping the issue that this should never have happened, well done, try pointing out the shinny ball outside the window, seems were all being treated like homer these days.
you talk about facts, like the shiny ball were all supposed to say ohh the f word he/she must know what there talking about.
spill the facts, why are they a secret ?

To anon Promotion/relegation works well for seniors but wont wash with juniors as the teams change every year (unless we drop the two year age group and go to single year age groups,
u10,u11,u12 .. and why not do that?


odin.aka: odiodinnodin

once again the shinny ball,
give me link, give me fact.

now instead of facts its the 'thousand threads' . I read every thread on junior basketball that comes up, Nothing I've read so far explains the inadequate organisation that is occurring, and seems to be getting worse.

I want to understand it, so enlighten me, don't tell me the answer is in the library, name the book.
You may be willing to accept that its all to hard, but I'm not.

OK,
I'l accept a grading system on a two year basis, I'm not against the pro/rel model.
and in fact I am in favour of the model you asposuing with domestic comps feeding the district comp.
IF your also sugestsing the domestic comp replaces div 3 and below , I'm with you 110 %

Odin

What we need is for the top 24 teams to be the district competition regardless of club, and the teams below that to move toward regonalised competitions. First North and South. This would only work in current age groups where there are move than 16 teams below the top 24 with even numbers from North and South.Promotion/relegation gives a vehicle to do this without causing a massive divide between the teams.

Then a City South type competition needs to be set up by North and Norwood, West and Woodville and South and Southern, running on a Saturday afternoon. If Forestville and Sturt can get along and do ti surely oter clubs can. Eventually the excess teams could move into these competitions. Again promotion/relegation alows this to happen by grading.

Vader,
I think maintiating the one club one div 1 & 2 spot,is a good idea going forward.
Consider that the best players would all get a spot, but they may need to move to another club to get it. It would balance the teams accross all the clubs, perhaps you could argue non-deservedly, but would enable a diversity of coaching styles & approaches that would get stiffled if a few clubs dominated the competetion with more than one team each.
That said, and in slight contradiction to what I just said, how about this for an idea there are 10 clubs, that makes 20 teams accounted for, I reckon top two of div 2 (regardless of who they are) go up to div 1, next season the bottom 2 in div 1 and top2 in div 2 swap divsions.
The bottom 4 spots in div 2 are initially awarded to the winners of the 4 regional comps (NORTH,WEST,SOUTH,CITY)
each year after that they play a competeion against the 4 bottom div 2 teams. The first 4 get to play div 2 the next 4 go back to regional basketball.
Now that isn't as harsh as it seems as the regional competetions are primarily joint club based anyway. it become interesting when independant clubs (like western magic for instance) play in the regional comps, to get a div2 birth.
so the first tier of the regional comp needs to be on its toes, cuase they will ultimateley be playing for a div 2 district spot.
Just an Idea....

Odin,

You don't make a lot of sence so forgive me if I argue against your concept without getting your idea's correct.

A 10 team competition does not work. Under the current 10 teams comp with guarentee's of div 1 spots, large numbers of players leave lower teams to go to higher teams. This is probably for percieved better training. So by guarenteeing a div 1 spot you are actually decreasing the chance of keeping kids in weaker teams.

Also pro/rel allows for a better way of restricting kids from moving. By stopping them from moving from div 2 to div 1. This allays concerns that it will lead to clubs using a second div 1 spot to recruit kids from other clubs.

So problems.

1/ How do you decide who is the top 2 teams from div2 without having a grading season.

2/ We don't have enough teams to set up and run local comps.

3/ The concept needs to provide the ability to set up and run domestic comps.

Vader,
Were probably not as much at odd as it would appear. I suggested 2 x 12 team comps div 1 & 2, with 20 initial places taken by 1/club and 4 remaining.
then take the top 4 of the final div 3 comp and thers is 24 teams.
thereafter the positions are taken as the ladder standing at the end of the minor rounds.

the following year the last 2 teams at the end of the minor round in div 1 can play for there positions against the top two in div 2, winners ake the div 1 spot.
the bottom 4 div 2 place getters, play against the domestic conference winners (a tornament maybe?) for 4 places in the div 2 comp.
over- time the competetion will balance itself.
isn't this what promotion/relegation is about ... or have I missed something:)
And it may end up with clubs not having any div 1/2 teams.. but I think a far stronger competition (domestic & distrcit) overall.

odin,

you cant work on the way teams finished the previous year since the teams will change and the coresponding team may not be as strong or as weak as the previous one.

And again a 12 team competition does not work since we will never have enough teams to be competitive in a 12 teams competition and it will not fit into the calander if you plan on having challenge matches since we have already lost a weekends worht of games due to State Championships

OK, and once again this is just a suggestion, rather than having 2 divisions go to the specific age group U18',u17's,u16's etc..
then each team remains the same year after year. same number of teams ...
or alternate ages between years,
ie: one year U18,U16, etc
The next year its U19,u17,u15 etc. keeps the teams togeter but disadvantages the lower year as they are always the youngest.

Where this falls down is of course state & National championships whic have specifc age groupings.
is this too radical a change ?

I'm also a bit confused by your statement : re not enough teams for a competetive 12 team comp ? regardless, it would work the same for 10 team comps, with the bottom two 1's and the bottom 4 2's competing to remain in their district comp

lets add this to the thought pool.
say we have 2 10 team divisions, take the placings over the main season, (or the year before's) and create 3 summer comps of 8 teams eachs.
comp 1 - first 8 in div 1.
comp 2 - last 2 in div 1 top 6 in div 2 .. first & second play div 1 in the next main season, next 6 play div 2.
comp 3 - last 4 in div 2 play top 4 from domestic comp. top of this comp play district div 2.

run that through a few iterations and see how it turns out, every team has the chance to play in whatever division they deserve, **any** team can end up in div 1, any club can ultimatley have any number of teams in the top division. but nothing is certain and every year the right has to be won.

just some thoughts to comment on

odin,

Yes we cannot have U/19, and U/17 competition since the aim of our elite comapetition is to produce Natioanl and State players.

again you haven't answered the main questions?

1/ We do not have 11 or even 9 teams in this state that can have competitive games against the best team in any competition. We will have closer and more competitive games for all players and teams with an 8 team competition.

2/ You cannot have a system which uses the previous year as a grading system. This will mean that teams are making competitions based not on what they are capable but rather what the players 1 year older than them are capable of.

3/ We do not have domestic competitions. Therefore we cannot have teams move up from this grade to fill spots.

The concept we need must have the ability to have both domestic and non domestic competition iin the one until we have enough teams over time to fill all domestic competitions. Promotion/relegation does this.

Vader,
1/ if we only have 8 teams capable of being competetive, we need a 10 or 12 team comp or we will only ever have 8 teams at that level.
IMHO once players get to a certain stage of development, they learn more from being beaten by 'better' teams than playing aginst teams at there own level.
If may not be much fun loosing most weeks, but forces teams to improve.
As to the 'better' teams, they still have the 7 other teams to play most weeks, and when they play a weaker team it gives .
a: the bench some much needed court time,
b: A lower risk game to try-out new plays etc, in full game conditios.
I think this is a win all round.

2/ If you going to use the summer competition as a grading season, why persist in calling it promotion/relegation. My understanding of Promotio/relegation is that teams would get promoted/demoted based on performance. Otherwise who decides who goes up and who goes down? the final ladder from two years ago is objective, and should be used as the starting point.
If clubs opt to drop to a lower grade then the option goes to the next in line. No arguments, no discussion, simple and straight forward.If they want to go up.. too bad they need to earn their way up.
Maybe the challange matchs I discussed earlier can occur before the new season?

Also as the members of each division are set 2 years ahead. (ie: reults from 05 determine the 07 teams) clubs have about 18 months to prepare for it.

3/ we dont have domestic comps because we choose not to. As if said before div 3 and below could move to domestic competitions. using this as the basis we should have enough teams. where certain age groups are deficient, teams can play in an alternetive domestic comp other than there own

So explain to me how you see promotion/relegation working , it looks like your talking about a grading season maybe I'm missing something but your not telling me what the promotion/relegation decision is based on.

until someone posts the way its is supposed to work. I'm going on my understanding of the british soccer model. lowest teams in a division get RELEGATED, highest teams get PROMOTED based on position after minor rounds/finals.
What model are you talking about all Ive seen so far is a proposal to have grading matches each year, thats not prom/rel its pre-season grading.
I want to understand what is being proposed but the term pormotion/relegation is being bandied about as it its some well know term that every one should know, sorry I don't.
that means 1 of two things either
1. I'v missed the post where its explained in detail. or
2 the concept has no substance in which case no matter what idea is discussed posting's like

"How many times do you need to be told 'your understanding' of promotion/relegation is WRONG!?"

Can be used to defer any reasonable discussion and maintain the status quo.

Looks to me like the desire to change and improve is outweighed by the desire to stand still and stagnate, while pretending to be concerned and progressive.

Once again give me the detail, not arrogant BS about it being all my fault cause I dont know what your thinking about.

odin,

Here is how it works.

At the begining of a year teams are numbered according to how they finished 2 years previous. ie for U/12's where they finished in U/10's, for u/16's where they finished in U/14's.

Each club gets an opportunity to have a team int he top 10 and their second team in the second 10. Then teams are ranked according to their finish. If two clubs or more want to enter an extra team which will happen then these teams go on the end of the rankings, with the club with the highest teams in the higher position.

Teams are then split into groups of 6. ie 1 - 6, 7-12, 13-18, etc until all teams have a grade. Games begin in October. They play 5 games which is 1 round. At the end of this round the top two teams move up and the bottom two teams move down. You now regrade the teams. They play another 5 rounds and promotion relegation occurs again. They play a final 5 rounds and have finals. At the end of this you have a new ranking for all teams and through promotion and relegation you would have teams in the position where the teams above and below them would be about the same in ability.

For the main season you take the top 8 and make them div 1. The next 8 become's div 2. and so on down to the bottom 8. What you are then able to do if there are sufficient teams you are able to have a North and South confernece. Then as the comp grows you are able to have a North, South, East and West conferenec which would be run by the clubs after the promotion and relegation rounds.

Is that understood.

What needs to actually occur for this to happen?

Which clubs do you KNOW are supportive of the concept?

What logistics / planning issues would be involved?

When this is discussed with BASA admin what do they see as the main issues that need to be overcome?

Vader,

Thank you, for you patienceand explanation. Now I understand what the proposal is and I like it.

baron,

For it to occur would need to have the junior committee accept and ratify it. Or for the BASA Board to decide that it is the preferred option for the State of basketball to grow. Both are unlikely.

I would sat that some people in some clubs support it, but generally not their committee's.

Not too many logistical problems. One would be that you would need a redraw after the first 5 rounds for the following 5 rounds. Which would need to happen within a week.

The main concern is that the strong get stronger and the week get weaker. However the development at Dandenong shows this to not be true. When Victoria used a similarly philisophical model through the 80's and 90's Dandenong went from being a relatively small weak club to the power club of the late 90's.

Would need to have cheques and balances that stop players from moving from teams and clubs that do not make top 8.