onto roost?? i herd she was moving to north if thats what your saying,
but north do have problems and its not with there players!! ill let you guys use your imagination on that one i dont want to get people in tourble

Indiana,

This "narrow view of the sport" comes from a couple of coaches who have been involved at higher levels than most State and Club coaches in Adelaide. To me that seems to be far from "narrow". Infact considering you may have never achieved anything outside of this state, you might be considered somewhat ignorant of any possible differences in philosophy and/or which is better or worse. And this very philosophy that you say is indoctrinating their members seems to have created this "lopsided competition". So which statement are you being hypocritical by making.

The competition is one sided becaus of the work some clubs do in junior development. Other clubs spend their money on their senior teams, or promoting the members in their club who have parents on various committee's.

Why would a kid from Sturt move to another club? They have good trainings! They train against good players! They enjoy playing in their current teams! If they move clubs chances are that they won't make it into other clubs senior teams because other clubs don't promote their own juniors anyway. Or somebody will be put in front of them because their parent is on the committee.

A number of Sturt juniors have moved into ABA and State teams after playing a season or 2 in division 2. It is more about the level of coaching that goes into these teams. But you wouldn't know about that because you are putting forward a view without having seen the Sturt trainings anyway.

Indiana, some good points but clearly most players in good clubs prefer a good week-in, week-out environment and games against weaker opposition to what you are suggesting. The proof is in the pudding. Players over the past few years are even transferring from higher divisions of weaker clubs to lower divisions of the Norths, Sturts and Forestvilles etc beacuse of this. What you are suggesting is the line that some of the weaker clubs in BASA have put up for years, and it simply does not cut it in the market place with the more discerning players and their parents. There is a net move towards the stronger clubs not away from them. Again, competition reform is needed to address this issue beacuse under in its present form, some of the weaker clubs are looking precarious. Remember April 30 is fast approaching!

Indiana

Hard to feel sore! Rather pitty for your ignorance.

Actually, BASA have the courts and clubs like Sturt and Forestville only use them for trainings on Sunday mornings. Which they have to pay BASA for usage. Not unlike Norwood do with thier sunday venue's. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good argument.

Sturt actually have the smallest demographic to pull from in the State. And Forestville would be the second smallest. Considering how close they are to each other and South. As well as the hills and Southern. Funnily enough, kids are willing to drive from far distances to train and play with Sturt. But they are unwilling to move to closer clubs. I guess you can draw your own comclusions from that.

Actually, we get good results at State level when we have a couple of elite level players developed by the SASI program, who have great genetics. If you look at the current U/18 Boys comp you will see a great round of finals. But that same group struggled at Nationals in U/16's. Same with the current group of U/16 Girls. Great comp with 6 close teams but we were a long way off at U/14 Nationals.

The last statment may be the one that you got most wrong. If they move they will play against them 1 time every 10 weeks. If they stay and train they get to go against them every week! If they move they get to play agianst below average competition every other week, same as if they stay! And finally, why move when the current coaching has been getting you to the point that you came dominate the competition. Surely those clubs that are being dominated are not doing the necessary work in the first place. So how will they improve? Given that once any athlete gets to the age of 14, they develop at trainings and not in games. Which is where they purely implement the development that they have done at trainings.

Again Indiana,

Why would a kid need to move clubs as a top age 16. If they are not in the top 8 or 9 at 1 club. Chances are that they will not be considered a chance for State or moving into Elite level programs.

But would actually be better off staying and earning it by U/18's. Otherwise they are being taught to 'quit' when things get tough. Which is the exact quality they will need when they move into a senior program.

Any movement to Forestville and Sturt has nothing to do with being Central. It used to be North and West that had people moving to thier clubs. And they are hardly central. It has to do with parents using their experience in the market to move where they see at better product. In this case coaching and develoipment of players.

I think that you missed the point. The U/16 comp is good. But that does not mean that we will have a good result at State. In previous years we have had a lopsided comp where North beat everybody by 40+ in this grade and the State team performed well. Again you are showing that you do not really know what is going on!

At U/14 level, Forestville actually have country players as well. But again, facts and a good story.

What we see here in U/14's is that a couple of players who have needed to move or have been in a position to choose where their child plays. Under the current struicture of junior competition, they will choose the club that has a long term succession plan. If you look the Sturt team, other than 1 player they are kids who have a link with Sturt from their family, or have been involved with sturt since U/12's. Same with the div 2 teams.

The only problems that will occur at U/16 level is due to other clubs not keeping pace. Or rather spending more time, effort and money on their senior program, than their junior. Now, understand that Sturt and Foresatville spend more money on coaching directors and Junior development officers than any other club. Hence the results.

If you are a parent looking to go to a club. Who do you choose? The club who is winning due to their focus on juniors, or the club that is not due to their focus on seniors.

Finally, until the current system changes you will only see a majority of players moving too the bigger clubs. Just like they have for the past 10 years. Making the competition worse than it has ever been. The only thing holding us back as a state is that people like you are stopping kids from being able to compete at the appropriate lvel to which they are capable by not voting for promotion/relegation. But rather are sugesting and promoting competitions which suggest that they should move to clubs who do not consider juniors important to develop.

Indiana,
This state will NEVER have 10 strong clubs, simply because some clubs will put in MORE work into their junior program than others (who choose to concentrate their efforts in other areas, usually seniors/ABA). That is their choice, fine, but then to complain about the "super" clubs that do choose to put their efforts there is quite hypocritical. These players don't just rock up great players, they (the players) put in a lot of time with their clubs/programs to be developed. Then to be denied playing in an appropriate grade because of their uniform.

Quality competition and improvement for our elite level players will be gained by more quality TEAMS to play against, irrespective of what club they represent. If Forestville, Sturt, North or any other club can produce two of the top 10 teams, they should be allowed to EARN their way into the top-tier competition (as per VC).
Results of 80+ point blowouts should NEVER happen - neither team gains from it. The winner should most definitely be in a higher grade, and if not possible, the loser should most definitely not be in division 1. Esp. if a team is being blownout regualarly.
I would much rather play against a 2nd Forestville or Norwood team than a 1st team from that we knew we'd beat by heaps (or worse yet, drop OUR standards to not beat them badly).

Indiana,

Great persistance in trying to get your valid points across....the wanker blue army is out in force...BASA owns Pasadena,,,we just train there on sundays...yeah right...wondering if southern, south etc could turn up and train at Pasadena (paying the court hire costs of course)...maybe they could set up junior development sign up tables as well..or maybe they could have access to country state players or metro state players or even get some coaches there at State...yeah right...yes Sturt lower your standards...stop poaching and actually teach some kids how to play

anon #72801

Why would Southern or South want to train at Pasadena? When they have their own courts that BASA own to train at. Which is exactly the same as Sturt.

And actually, any club can go to any stadiums miniball competition to recruit junior players. Just ask the stadium managers. And Pasadena ha only just got a miniball program last year. So it would have been fruitless to have a junior sign up table their. They could ave recruited a lot of senior social players, but that is about it.

Finally, country kids go to play at Sturt because they either shop around for what they are looking for or are invited too. At the last country trials, Sturt were the only club in attendence and the only club to approach players to play for them. Perhaps if your club spent more resources on their juniors rather than all their time, money and effort on seniors some country kids might come your way.

Indiana

A 10 "super" club competition would be fantastic. But that will only happen when other clubs start doing something with their juniors rather than trying to pull down the current tall poppy, no matter who that tall poppy is.

Just wondering how we are going to make 10 'super clubs' happen. Your club has enough money to recruit ABA players from interstate, but don't have a JDO. It is easier for them to stop kids from playing div 1 at other clubs who should because of the club they play for and really showing how bad your junior development is rather than allowing kids to play div 1 on ability.

Your club would rather allow parents to coach their own kids. How does this bode for the future when the parents kids move up into higher grades. You lose a coach from U/12's and U/14's. Without a back up plan. So hence the overall development of the club goes backwards in the long term.

Why would Sturt stop moving forward. We are neither happy with the overall standard of our players, coaches or administration and are continually looking for ways to improve them. As long as we are putting more resources into our junior program than any other club we will continue to reap the benefits. Is that hard to understand. If you look at the clubs which have donimated over the past 30 years, you will see the the clubs which have been consistantly winning championships have been those which put int he time and effort. North went through a period of dominance, they then lost Dean Kinsman and where are they now. This is what happens when you don't look after your juniors. You stop improveing and hance move backwards in relation to others.

In reference to your opinion that Sturt teams can't play in the half court. Well I guess that you didn't go and see any games at the U/14 Boys championships, nor the U/14 Girls where Sturt won Gold and Silver. Either Sturt must be the best club in Australia at full court defence or they can play in the half court. Please contiune to give your input. But remember not knowing the fact is the same as ignorance. And you shouldn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

anon (#72823) - At the last country trials, Sturt were the only club in attendence and the only club to approach players to play for them.

Incorrect. They were the only club to send their JDO. I'd suggest they are the only club with a full-time JDO as well though?

As for clubs that do not put resources in development and juniors and then restrict those who do

This really is the old case of the rich v the poor. Regards of the past, it is easy for the resource rich clubs to flourish given their status quo. It is similarly difficult for struggling clubs to 'become' or 'develop' into a super club because of their lack of resources. You need money to make money. You need resources to develop resources.

Alot of people on here don't fully understand the situation, and perhaps i don't either, but i come from a resource poor club, and you cannot simply 'spend more resources on our juniors' because the resources simply arn't there!

A friend of mine from the country is playing for Sturt. Why - he was approached he looked around at other clubs as well. While there is good coaching elsewhere and different approaches to coaching you only have a very short time to assess that. First impressions are important - Sturt and Forrestville do a good job at "marketing" their brand and appear to have good courts/facilities. Doesn't matter who owns them - they have access to these facilities. These facilities did influence my mate's parents decision to go to Sturt. What would you do if you were a parent and visited Marion or Part Adelaide or North and then went to Pasadena or Forrestville. These facilties do gove an advantage to those clubs.

In addition, what benefit from bar or canteen or people attending a facility with more than two courts. More games are scheduled there. Does that mean more turnover at the bar/canteen etc - who gets that money.

anon #72872

At the moment youre club spends over $50K on your senior program. With stadium hire, players and coach payments, uniform costs etc...

The only way clubs will become resource rich is to re-prioritise thier spending away from seniors and into juniors. And considering only 6 years ago Sturt had 32 teams and were struggling, then it should be easy for other clubs to follow the same path.

And why does it take a full time JDO to attend 1 Sunday afternoon training at country trials anyway. And don't count country coaches. They are there to select and train the teams, not to recruit.

Indiana and others

I have no problems with senior teams at all. In fact the are more than necessary. But have a look at what happens to an association (BASA) when the senior teams (36ers and lightning) spend more than they make. There is not a club in Adelaide that has an ABA program that makes money. My argument is that if your senior program is taking away from your juniors, then in the long term that club will suffer a slow death and the junior competition will become what we have today, not competitive and unproductive in providing for players. This means that we will beomce uncompetitive in the market and the sport will flounder rather than flourish. What I do disagree with is that ABA players become coaches. I would say that this is the exception rather than the norm. How many of the Sturt coaches are ex-ABA players.

I guess that you really don't understand promotion/relegation. Because it provides a situation for clubs to play in a competition where kids don't quit due to getting beaten by 100 point every oter week. This firther weakening the competition, which is what happens now.

If you look at Centrals and Eastern right now. They are really struggling for numbers and as such they have poor results in all grades. And the result of this is that kids are leaving in droves to other clubs. This leaves them "resource poor" due to lack of numbers, but also means that they are becoming even more uncompetitive. This has now become a vicious cycle and the only reason they are alive as clubs is due to a small number of very committed people in these clubs holding them afloat. How is the current competition going to help them, or any team make it back into div 1. It is only going to make things worse. And if the government steps in and says that unless you are financial you don't play a numbe of clubs will be out of the competition. Which would be devistating. If you look closely, clubs are now starting to use promotion/relegation themsleves by not nominating teams in Div 1. The problem here is that it effecfts the other clubs and the State level without filling in the gaps of players who do not have the opportunity to play Div 1.

U/14 Girls and Boys both have 8 teams in the competition. 2 clubs have rightly choosen to play div 2 or div 3 with their first team becasue they would be beaten badly in div 1 to the point where the kids that they do have, would quit. Smart move in my calculations. Within 2 years if they do a good job of coaching and a recruiting they can have a div 1 team by U/16's. nd agian if they work hard again by U/18's they will be competitive. (The Sturt girls who finished 2nd at the Classics last year were 2nd bottom in U/14's by 1 game.)

The only problem is that they don't have a JDO to do this. But hopefully they have seen the problem and are retifying it.

But in the mean time we only have 80 or less kids in div 1 and not 100 we could have. We only have 8 coaches getting experience not 10. So our comeptition in pulling us as a State down rather than pushing us up.

Everybody expects the better div 2 kids to move into these positions. But this is not happening. Look at U/16 Girls. Norwood kids will move to Nort and North kids will move to Morwood. It won't solve the problem. In fact the current system is making it worse. Time for a change.

Under promotion/relegation, the main thing clubs will understand is that if they do not do the work. If they do not appoint a JDO then they run the risk of not having a div 1 team for that season. But if the U/10 group does well then they will automatically be in div 1. One teams results does not effect any other teams position in div 1. that said if you only qualify for div 2 after under 12's. The same group of kids in U/14's has a opportunity to move into div 1 by beating the teams above them. The logic goes that again if you recruit (note not poach) and develop, within 2 year time you should be able to move up.

Using Eastern as an example. Sorry to an eastern people I offend. If next year none of their teams qualify for div 1, but their U/10 Boyss have 2 teams that finish 1st in div 1 and div 2 . In 2 years time at U/12 level these teams would be ranked 1st and 11th for the grading season. If they then do well enough for their second team to qualify for div 1 in U/12's then that would be great. For them and for basktball. I have no problem with that. that means that we will need to work harder to catch up. And basketball will be better off.

But under the current system we are nearly at breaking point where if a few more kids leave some clubs, they will not be able to field teams at all and we will head towards 8 and then 6 "super clubs anyway" without the posibility of recovery.

anon #72847

Good argument except that Sturt have only had a canteen for 1 year. Before that the school opperated the canteen and Sturt didn't get anything.

(#72848) - At the moment youre(sic) club spends over $50K on your senior program. With stadium hire, players and coach payments, uniform costs etc...

Again - incorrect.

And don't count country coaches.

I didn't, i counted myself.

The only problem is that they don't have a JDO to do this. But hopefully they have seen the problem and are retifying it.

JDO's work very hard, often for little renumeration, and with other coaching committments, ie teams. It is a truly blessed situation for the blues to have a full-time employee as their JDO. Of course its no surprise to your club that you are able to draw players from left right and centre.

Anon - (#72850)

No the recources arent there for your juniors, but they are at your club....they are just being spent on your senior teams.

incorrect. The bare minimum is being spent on seniors, only enough to field a team (court costs, team nominations. not through player payments).

I'm sure if you spoke to any of the Sturt people who are involved in development currently or who were in the past, they would be more then happy to discuss

I have, and they were. But the things suggested are ideas that require the resources that aren't available (currently).

The process of getting to where you are now is beginning with us, so why penalise the clubs that are genuinly trying to turn things around (with limited resources), by introducing Pro Rel, and creating a larger gap between the rich and poor?

I don't see the world in two colors, and don't want to see it painted that way either.

"I don't see the world in two colors"

Lie - you see grey & moroon, nothing else.

"I didn't, i counted myself."

... who is a country coach.

(#72875) - ... who is a country coach.

I can't make it any more plain that this...

I am not a SAC coach! I went to the SAC trials and asked several players to join my district club.

Lie - you see grey & moroon, nothing else

If that's your answer to my argument thus far, it makes it quite obvious i'm talking to a brick wall. A blue and blue one at that! (hint: that last line was a joke)

*silence*

So anon #72877

Why was it that none of thesde players came to play for your club. Perhaps it is that you are not able to provide them with the required service that they are looking for.

And what you fail to understand is that if you do not change the culture at your club, (and by that I mean their understanding of the market place) very soon there will not be a club. The longer that you put teams into grades where they are uncompetitive, the longer you will lose players to other clubs who grade them appropriately. The only answer is promotion/relegation. That way your team will be graded according to their ability. That way the will be held accountable for their efforts.

Or do you not yet see that your club is about to fall into irrelevence. We are about to have the State government come in with sweeping changes. And if you need to be financial to play you may not be allowed to enter the competition at all. And before you know it the world will have turned a litle more blue and you will be at falt for not seeing the forest for the tree's.

Indiana,

Again go back and look at the previous threads on promotion/relegation. It has been put before that kids will move clubs to play div 1. Does that happen now? No! They are moving from div 1, to other clubs to play div 2? So why is this happening? At is about providing a service, not offering an inducment!

Under promotion/relegation two suggestion have been made that would stop things like this from happening.

1. Only allow 5 players into a club in any one year that came play div 1.

and/or

2. Allow players to move clubs only into grades that they have moved from. ie Using your example if a kid from southern plays in a team that qualifies for div 2 then they can only move into another club at div 2 standard. And before you scrteem about this kids not making State or SASI. That simply is not the case, Victorian kids have made State in the past from div 2.

Now, if we saw a competition where 3 North and 3 Sturt teams where playing, what in the hell would the other clubs be doing to let that happen. IMO that would need to have a good hard look at themselves and what they are doing. Whereas right now they can cling to the hope that players will move TOO their club to play div 1.

(#72884) you must be trying to think of who i am. Whoever you have in mind, your wrong.

Why was it that none of thesde(sic) players came to play for your club. Perhaps it is that you are not able to provide them with the required service that they are looking for.

Four players approached, 2 secured, two not playing district at all.

And what you fail to understand is that if you do not change the culture at your club, (and by that I mean their understanding of the market place) very soon there will not be a club.

Fair call, i do understand, but refuse to use smoke and mirror tactics and pretend to be something i'm not. Most of the their understanding of the market place is deeply engrained in the minds of established figures, and hence difficult to change.

The only answer is promotion/relegation.

WOW. I disagree.

the will be held accountable for their efforts.

This can happen other ways.

Or do you not yet see that your club is about to fall into irrelevence. We are about to have the State government come in with sweeping changes. And if you need to be financial to play you may not be allowed to enter the competition at all. And before you know it the world will have turned a litle more blue and you will be at falt for not seeing the forest for the tree's.

The world must look starkly different from all the way up there on your high horse.

There is only one club that is financial. One. That's it
!

Mission accomplished. The world will be blue, if what you suggest is true.

Here's a thought, find out which club spends the most on their senior program, that same club has the largest debt the BASA.

But of course that makes sense.... so why fight the clubs making the effort?

Indiana,

Well the 2 Sturt Div 2 teams would struggle against the top 5, but might pull the odd upset. Going on Div 2 results this season it would be line ball between them and Centrals and Woodville 1's (playing 2's) and 6, 7 and 8 in 1's. So it is possible that we would have 3 teams in D1, but not likely.

But doesn't this show exactly why the present system is not working! And, it seems to be worse now than 5 years ago. So what will it be like in 5 years if we do nothing?

Again pro/rel solves (or improves)the following problems (go to the mountain of discussion already existing for detail):

1. Uneven competition (ie less blowouts, closer games = more fun and less drop-out)
2. Byes all but eliminated (except possible in lowest division)
3. Re-scheduling games reduced dramatically and schedules able to be done earlier.
4. Kids play at their level of competition regardless of the uniform they own.

It may exascerbate:
1. Kids moving to stronger clubs/teams for higher Div games (but the opposite is happening now so this is debateable, see above). Rules can be put in place to prevent this as in Victoria, and some have already been proposed as part of the model.

It is hard for the bottom clubs either way, but with the present system some will fold or be forced into mergers before too long. Remember a few years ago when Fville was no better than the bottom clubs are now. They prioritised correctly, raised and developed resources, worked hard and got results. IT CAN BE DONE!

PS And the Victorian experience shows that the Pro/rel model has led to an increase in the number of super-clubs (Werribee for example) and an increase (not a decrease) in the total number of clubs, McKinnon being the shining light for emerging clubs.

Do we have the population base? Not the same but we have enough.

Remember that we punch well above our weight in terms of players produced / team results per head of population on a national level, because we are one of the original basketball cultures in Australia.

Do we have the domestic competitions? No! However these comps are building and will be the norm in 10 years time if not sooner.

Infrastructure is a big one. NSW tried to emulate the Vic model (by far and away the most successful in Australia in terms of facility quantity and quality) and failed and almost went belly up. This is the great unknown of SA basketball!

Eastern:
"Four players approached, 2 secured, two not playing district at all."

If these players are U16 girls or boys, you better hope they are geared up for getting thrashed week in week out.
Neither team are of div 1 standard, and what's worse, when they get belted people moan that they (the opposition) don't ease up on them....when they are the people exposing these poor kids to a standard of competition they are not equipped for.

(#72906)

again, trying to guess who i am.

I know its difficult, me being annonymous, but just accept what i am saying without trying to make inferences or assumptions.

but i guess that's what separates those who argue with open ears and eyes, and those who don't.

with a big blue paint brush

anon #72888

anon #72888

It must be tough being the eternal struggler and not having the resources to pay a JDO.

We should all bow down to you and feel sorry for you and your strugles.

And our competition should be built around how we can make you guys better. Never mind that you have a club who is it's own worse enemy. (insert sarcasm here)

Indiana

Could not agree more. The thing that I like the most about pro/rel is that it holds clubs accountable for coach and player development.

Janx

I would think that anything would need to be discussed after April 30th when the State government hands down it's verdict on the debt and restructuring of basketball in SA.

(#72919)

We should all bow down to you and feel sorry for you and your strugles.

There-in lies the problem.

We don't need or want your sympathy, just some time and space to develop, grow and acheive.

And our competition should be built around how we can make you guys better.

Again, just some stability to our sh!t together. Leave it how it is. Instead of trying to change everything to suits yourselves, let the system in place do its work, and we'll adapt and grow into that.

anon #72923

Leaving it how it is will not help you get you s**t together. It is the current competition which has put you in the position you are in. You will only continue to lose players who are unhappy with the results of their team and your club will always feel the need to play in Div 1. Until your club understand the market place they are in you will be destined to continue the current trend.

Hence the vicious cycle. And in the mean time the rest of the compeittion be dammed, we need to support a couple of clubs. But anyway, we may not have a choice.

We all agree that 10 "super clubs" is ideal. But why whould the elite suffer when history proves that it wil never happen. Purely because if you went around to clubs and asked then to pay $0 to their ABA players they would laugh at you and think your crazy. Just look at Centrals and Southern. The 2 biggest debts and the 2 biggest recruiters.

#72860,

Thanks, I don't know all the ins and outs of costs and revenues. The point I am trying to get across is that the starting point is not a level playing field and some clubs are getting some benefit be it recruitment of juniors or revenue that other clubs do not and these items are not wihthin the control of those clubs i.e. building new infrastructures or being aligned with a "basketball" designated school.

At the end of the day, a good junior program will eventually lead to a good senior program. Some clubs don't want to wait around that long, so they throw all this money at seniors and their junior teams are the ones who lose out.

Clubs need to get priorities right! How much money does a senior program generate, compared with how much some clubs shell out for seniors?

How many kids go to sturt because of their senior program? None, cause nobody cares if they have a good seniors or not.

(#72926)

Until your club understand the market place they are in you will be destined to continue the current trend.

Marketplace? I don't even need to respond that!

As for destined to continue the current trend.

Its not about knowing where you are. Its about knowing where you want to be, and putting things in place to acheive that.

Its a process that doesn't happen overnight, you've just been blessed to either:
- have worked hard over the last half dozen years to be where you are now.
or
- come into a club that has put in the ground work for you to inherit.

recognise that.

Hoop Addict

I would bet a pineapple that you are a Sturt Coach, based purely on that one post.

I also don't think you understand that it's in the best interests of the better clubs in SA for the weaker clubs to get stronger.

Do you mean clubs or teams?

I've been reading all the past pro/rel debates, and you've told me nothing new.

(#72942) heard of the Ng's?

(#72944) Yeah I have. Those two were already classed as seniors when they left Woodville.

My point is that some little tacker doesn't go to sturt because of their seniors. They go because sturt have put the time in to go find this child. Some clubs don't take juniors all that seriously. They say they do, but have a look at how much resources are put into their juniors. They wait for that child to come to them. While your better clubs actually go out to get kids & don't sit & wait.

anon #72943

Market place. That is the most importatn thing you need to answer!

For years we have been hearing about how much growth is occuring in the Hills and Northern area's. So why can you not provide teams into the competition. Each 4 or 5 years we hear that things are changing, you are doing this and doing that. And in that time things have only gone backwards.

And yes some clubs have worked hard over the last 6 years. Not individuals. They have put their resources into juniors rather than seniors. Tehy would be Fortestville and Sturt. And lok where they are today. And your club has not. And will not. Becasue it is easier to cheer for your ABA team that wins a championship even if those players who won you the games were developed by other clubs.

Eastern Hills Basketball Association

The second largest country association in SA behind Whyalla.

They have close to 1000 members. They have been established since 1950 (thereabouts).

Here's the problem: getting those kids who play and pay $100 a year, to now start paying $400 (or whatever it is) a year and to have to travel to pt adel, starplex, morphett vale, etc (yes i know they are the extreme's, but you get my point).

Your right, there's a great base of players, but how do you convince them to pay more, travel more, just to do something they could do in their backyard.

I don't think it is a marketplace because its sport, and its meant to be fun, not a business. But i guess that's just shades of blue grey.

Hoop Addict -

Explain to me how pro/rel would be bad for your club.

You've been around this site for alot longer than most, and you've (no doubt) read all that's been said on pro/rel. As you can't give me anything new, i doubt whether i could provide you with anything i haven't already said in previous posts.

2) why pro/rel won't get off the ground.

That comes down to a majoirty of votes. You've obviously got alot more than just me to convince...

You are proving my point exactly.

No clue whatsoever about the market we opperate in. And that is the exact reason why your club will not change. And will continue to hold the sport back.

The market place is putting into place a program where people feel like that are receiving a benefit for the money that they are spending. Right now you can play in the Eastern compeittion for $100 per year. For a training and a game fee? Then you expect them to come and play for $400 with the same coaching and more travel. Do you wonder why it is that they don't take you up on it.

If you live at Pasadena you can go and play for $30 per year and $5 per week at Unley Sport for All, or Church at Pasadena/Wayville or miniball at any of the local stadiums including Wayville and Marion, or even at Blackwood. S why do they come and play for Sturt?

The market is giving the players (and more importantly the parents) the opportunity to develop as players as well as people. By showing them that 2 trainings with commited coaches in a program where they will improve and possibly move into elite level sport if they have the right level of commitment and talent. Then, understanding that the benefit they get from this effort is actually more beneficial in their future lives than on the court, becasue only a few will every move onto elite levels.

Behind this, is that if you create and enviroment where people come together and share common goals and beliefs, developing a culture of success and enjoyment, you will create a club which benefits society as a whole because of the assistance and joy people take out of being inviolved with it.

Yes my sky maybe blue. But I am more worried that yours is so grey.

"Eastern Hills Basketball Association

The second largest country association in SA behind Whyalla.

They have close to 1000 members. They have been established since 1950 (thereabouts).

Here's the problem: getting those kids who play and pay $100 a year, to now start paying $400 (or whatever it is) a year and to have to travel to pt adel, starplex, morphett vale, etc (yes i know they are the extreme's, but you get my point)."

Focus on quality rather than quantity. Give the best of those 1000 members a good rep program, instead of giving them one training a week with questionable coaching! If you only have 2 teams in an age group and make it competitive to get in then that is all you need.


"Your right, there's a great base of players, but how do you convince them to pay more, travel more, just to do something they could do in their backyard."

Only those who will benefit from it (eg your elite) will need to do that. You have what everybody else wants, a thriving domestic comp!

"I don't think it is a marketplace because its sport, and its meant to be fun, not a business. But i guess that's just shades of blue grey."

That's your problem. Domestic basketball is about participation, district basketball is about excellence. If you don't run it as a business and provide something which is more than "just fun" (which is what you have with domestic) then you may as well not do it and concentrate on domestic. The best kids will go to town and play with clubs that do.

If it is about excellence then why so many divisions and why so many multi teams in those divisions.

I don't see the AFL having 5 divisions! I know who is more successful!

"I don't think it is a marketplace because its sport, and its meant to be fun"

Okay Dr D....err Anon, so I don't know how to use the cool italics thing, but do you seriously think your U16 girls and boys have fun being embarrassed each week?
Wouldn't they have more fun being competitive each and every week, and get more than a combined one win? I'm fairly sure they would. But people like you expose them to a standard they are not ready for.

No clue whatsoever about the market we opperate in.

My point exactly.

We don't operate in the same market.

You've built a great domestic program around your current district competition, while we've joined a district competition, around a successful domestic competition (i use the word successful quite loosly there).

At u-10 level, what parent can differentiate between the 'superior program' of a domestic v distric comp? Parents at that level honestly don't give a hoot, they just want their kid to be happy, and play ball amongst friends. That is our issue that we need to overcome. Its a snowball effect. Lucky for you, you've built the domestic around the district, not the other way around...


do you seriously think your U16 girls and boys have fun being embarrassed each week?

Too be honest, with the time i spend split between the basketball program's i am associated with, i don't often get a chance to ask.

(hint: those italics aren't difficult at all. < i > no space , then < / i > to end it.)

Anon #72965

Then maybe you can go play football and see how close you get to playing in an olympics or internationally. And don't count playing Gaelic becuse that is actually a different sport.

Anon #73004 or should we say the good Dr.

Yes we do operate in the same market. We are all involved in providing a sporting service to junior players.

We are competeing with football, cricket, netball and leisure activities such as skate boarding etc.

We are all providing a service for money. We all have the oportunity to recruit the same kids. Why is it that country kids do not want to come and play for you guys anymore. And Mt. Barker kids are leaving to play for "Metro" clubs in drioves. That they drive straight past your stadium and drive into Adelaide to play for us. How is that not the same market?

And you couldn't me more wrong and I'll informed. Eastern Mav's have nothing to do with the Eastern Hills domestic program. You do not recieve any income from it. Nor have any real decision making about the running of it. That some people are involved in both is like saying that Sturt has an influence on the Church and Unley compeititons because some of our members come from these. We have only had a local comp for the last year. How do you explain our position of strength for the 5 years prior. We didn't have a canteen or bar for 4 or 5 years. We didn't even have a home stadium for 18 months.

We also have and U/10 program where parents have the oportunity to play with their friends in local Church domestic and miniball comps, for far less cost. But we are active in recruiting and developing links to competitoins. You have 1000 kids under your nose and can't prove to these people that it is worth their time and effort to play for your club.

And that you do not have the time to ask a bunch of parents and kids how they are feeling about losing by 50 each week, but have time to spend on the computer all day showing how little you really know about the sport is indicative af the systemic problem in the sport.

Everybody can blow hot air about how hard it is to develop programs and and recruit players. Well if you guys want to be a part of the competition, the get with the program. If not be ready to to continue to fall out of it. Oter clubs have done it, and are doing it.

Don't come sooking when all your members want more than a training and a game. When they want some real opportunity to develop and you fail to provide it. Becasue then you come out looking like the boy who cried wolf.

This is turning into a silly argument. Why dont you keep it on topic and if you watn to get personal email, ring or better yet just talk to each other.

I agree, stick to the topic and cut the name calling!

The Victorian model of pro/rel has not only seen the rise of the now "big clubs" such as Dandy, Eltham etc., but has also seen the rise far more recently (say 5 years) of previously tiny clubs.
Hawthorn, for example, have become a club with regular VC appearances, and of course then there is the shining light of McKinnon, a tiny club, with a 1-court home stadium (last I heard) which has come from nowhere to have multiple VC teams (and maybe their first rep to U14 Nationals with their boys this year). They worked their way up the system, and put resources into their junior development, and have thrived in pro/rel, not been hindered by it.

Dr d, your club seems to not care that your U16 girls and boys get routinely embarrassed (do you really need to ask if they enjoy it???), or your club would have done something about it - hey, at least they can tell their friends they play in div 1!
And your team numbers are dropping noticably, despite having a huge area to draw talent from.

"(#73054)

your club seems to not care that your

and you base this on...?

Sure they struggle, but thanks for not mentioning our u14 boys. "

I base this on the fact that they are embarrassed by far superior opposition a vast majority of the time and your club does nothing to rectify it. Do you think these 13/14/15 year olds should be subjected to such beatings just so your club can claim it's 'right' to a div 1 spot? If your club truly cared about these girls and boys, they would put them in a standard of competition that they are suited for, can develop under and can gain enjoyment from the occassional victory even.

Why would I mention your under 14 boys? They have CLEARLY shown to be of standard! They are in their correct division, they get quality games week in week out against Sturt, West, South, Norwood etc. and they won U12s 2 years ago. The same with your U12 boys, who are a very competitive unit. But your 16 girls and boys are way off the mark. That comment proves to me you see this as a Sturt v Eastern thing - or at least an us v them thing. I don't. I see this as a bunch of girls and boys being lost to basketball because they are at a club that won't put them into a grade that matches their abilities.

Dr Punk Kid,

I think that you gave yourself away a while ago. And I'm more interested in the discussion than who it is with.

Although I do that opinions are important, opions are not all that relevent when they come from somebody who does not have sufficied overall knowledge and understanding of the situaition. But we will let others decide on their own opinions.

Going on from my brother anon above, under pro/rel these kids would both probably be playing div 1. And the U/16's would also be playing in grades where they would also be competitive.

What has profit got to do with whether we are providing a serive? Are non-profit organizations like INCEF not provide a serviec of aid?

The commitment Sturt made 7 years ago was to put their resource into juniors. And it has resulted in an increase of 25 teams including Domestic teams. What exactly are you and your club doing to make this kind of progress.

#73054 - the Mavs U/14 boys may not be of the same standard this season as one of their best players has defected to Sturt.

Indiana and a number of anons. You need to get over this April 30. This report will have nothing to do with Pro/Rel, funds for paid coaching positions or any other of these issues. This will more than likely address:

- Ownership of 36ers
- Labour inefficiencies with BSA
- Identification of BSA's core business
- Reporting procedures
- Budgeting and financial control
- Reduction in number of clubs
- Partnerships with Government and Education Institutions
- Ownership of fixed cost assets IE stadiums
- Corporate and Board Structure

Pro/Rel and other minor issues will not be on the radar of administrators and auditors.

If you look at the current Sturt U/20 men's. They were actually bottom in U/14's. So they haven't really changed.

Indiana,

Might want to check with the Australian junior coaches on what they are looking for in their players.

And it is full court pressure, not always a trap.

That and the fact that Dodman doesn't play due to Sixers, State, ABL etc. They actually have improved significantly since Under 14's when they were embarassing. They lost one game by over 100.

April 30 will lead to reduction in clubs and BSA leased/owned stadiums amongst other things.

Pro/Rel will become a non-issue after the elimination of the real issues in basketball.

"#73054 - the Mavs U/14 boys may not be of the same standard this season as one of their best players has defected to Sturt."

Ummm, not sure what this has to do with my post?
But, as I said lower down, the Mavs U14 boys (and U12 boys) would EASILY qualify for div 1 in a pro/rel format. And I haven't written off the 14s being able to beat Sturt for the title yet (or any of the other teams I mentioned).
That was not my point. My point was Dr d. trying to divert attention away from teams that his club has put into a division that they cannot compete in (and not have fun in, one of his aims) by talking up one of their good teams - which has no relevance.

And why did this player (as you put it) "defect" to Sturt?

Indiana, I saw Josh OT and the 2 bigs just destroy teams 5 on 5 in the half court to win the Nationals, not by defending full court! Did you actually see any of these games?

Everything talks about the Sturt system and coaching as being the reason why Sturt performs so well. If that is the case then why are the U14BD1 not performing as well as the previous year's U14BD1 and the same for the U12 Girls. It must be more than just coaching and system - you can't make a cart hourse a race horse. If you don't attract the talent it doesn't matter how good the system or coaching is - it might ensure a person performs at their best but it doesn't mean their best is always the competitions best!

Ummm...yeah.
Tangent left.

Indiana,

Where do you think Sturt try to force-feed us that their system is the only way to win and develop?
I see people from Sturt talking about competition reform, but not really about how to play or teach basketball. I can't see anywhere they say that playing half-court, or whatever it is, is wrong.

Other than that, I think you've made some insightful points that I hadn't previously thought about - but I'm stumped with this one.

"What about the other 30 or so teams ?"

Have they recently divided some states or is pro/rel coming into play at Nationals?

Sturt U14BD1 not performing as well as last years team? They've just won the Summer GF by almost doubling their opponents score. No one got near them in any of the minor round games. Last year's group didn't win the State champs - I can't see that happening this year.

If Sturt were so confident in their system and coaches to deliver the end product, and also require a closer competition so all clubs as a whole can improve then the altruistic approach would be to not accept the best talent from other teams when approached!

But, #73166, I don't think anyone will be able to push this years Sturt U14BD1.

anon #73159

If other club were so confident of there's, then players would not want to move.

I guess Sturt see giving all kid's the opportunity to reach their potential as part of what they do. Any club that does not continually improve will fall behind.

And again I don't see Sturt claiming that anything other than hard work and commitment of resources as the result of their success.

Indiana,

I guess that you didn't see the U/14 Girls in Darwin then and theri half court execution. Give Peter Lohnagan, The ITC Head coach a call. And that you didn't watch the U/16 Girls a look either. Their half court game was pretty good as well.

And if you had of seen the U/12 Girls finals at the classic's last year, you would have seen a team playing beyond their years in term of half court.

But I guess that you have the results to say otherwise.

(#73192) Paul - no one is arguing with you on those points.

These other posters are now just giving the Blue Marketing team a large horn to blow.

... and 30 years.

Indiana,

Last year at State Champs Sturt won 18 out of 28 Finals. This summer season Sturt had more teams in finals than any other club as well as a higher percentage of teams in the finals that play for the club.

Sturt 34 teams in finals / or 66% of their teams
North 25 teams in finals / 54% of their teams
Forestville 26 teams in finals / 53% of their teams
Norwood 23 teams in finals / 43% of their teams

Build it and they will come.

And I guess if you recruit the best team, regardless of whether you are able to provide coaches for ALL players in an age group, those who eventually feel insignificant as they don't have a recognised coach (ie they have the last parent to step backwards) will move to other clubs and then your "weaker" players become somebody elses problem!

yeah so that they can go to a differnet club and be coached by an unrecognised coach (ie the last parnet to step back)...

I think all clubs have troubles filling the lower teams in the age group. Some even have trouble filling the higher division teams!

Indiana, are you comparing yourself with Don Bradman now? If so, I hope you are being sarcastic!

Indiana,

We agee on something.

No I do not believe that these things go in cycles. They go according to who put's in the best effort. And I hope that others will increase their efforts and therefore increase the level of competition.

PS just proving your opinions wrong!

Save yourself some time. Come to Pasadena tonight and discuss it with us. We all know who you are anyway! Nothing sinister, we love philosophical debate, especially when there is no right or wrong answer.

PS I'll bring my cricket bat so you can sign it!

Indiana,

Taking it easy on teams, goes against the philosophy of full court pressure. It is a habit. A state of mind.

You of all people would understand (as you have pointed out above) that to be successful at playing pressure defence it needs to be a consist in it's approach. We at Sturt feel that we are hursting our players when we stop them from playing with that philosophy.

The place and time is in the elite level. If clubs are concerned with teams being beaten by large margins then they can grade their tems into a division which is closer to their skill level.

Settle down Wotfam. Are you talking u14 Club Championships. Have they even qualified yet? Last I checked it was club championships not Nationals.

After West Boys missed out in last yers State Champs, I don't think anybody can be assurred of a position. Although with 3 teams going instead of 2, that makes the Semi Finals less imp[ortnatn and the 3/4 playoff ultra-important.

Girls only two. Forestville and Sturt. Adelaide the year after, so there will be three teams. If Sturt and forestville win this year SA will get 4 teams.

The boys are guarenteed 3 teams due to Sturt winning the tournament last year.

The top three will qualify.
sturt......then it will be between mavs/south/norwood.

Indiana

Good to see, somebody of your quality of opinion doesn't even understand how many teams we get to qualify.

Indiana,

Where were you on Friday night. I thought you were coming to the Pas bar to talk up pro/rel?

Indiana,
Why are you yelling!

Indiana,

There were Sturt coaches in the Bar until closing time. As per usual. Obviously you had an early night or an important date.