zoning,relegation,1 team per club per division are the tools needed to combat this downfall of quality in girls basketball.

Actually we wouldn't need relegation because clubs would have a good spread of talent among all teams if zoning was introduced. But the one team rule per div must be essential!

pro / rel across the board - get them playing at their standard - if they excel - promote.

The above post is the most sensible thing ever posted on Hoops, even if it has been said here about 1000 times already.

ringlord,

Nothing could be further from the truth. Team numbers are a product of the current market where there are lots of more options thanin the 90's when basketball rode th Michael Jordan/NBA wave. Since then football and netball have done a much better job of marketing and there is more options for kids to play different other sports.

Zoming wont make these clubs stronger. Name all the Centrals juniors that are currently playing elsewhere that would make them a stronger team. In the girls, other than Fergus who is over 23 and Cutri, who is OS, the mansfield girls are the only player that might be in that team.

If you look at the 4 bottom clubs they all have 1 thing in common. They have all contnually made the same mistake of over spending at ABA level while failing to employ someone to rectuit new players into the club. I would sugget North will be the next team in this category if they dont make a change.

During the 90's South had 50+ junior teams. But rather than employ someone to increase that as the market place changed, they spent all their money and even were in massive debt to win ABA championships. Now they still dont have a JDO and are struggling for teams.

During the 00's Eastern and Woodville both spent all their money rather than employ someone to recruit in the belief that an ABA champioship would propel them to the higher level, but neither can enter teams into all grades from U18 to U12.

Centrals have had the same cycle over the last 20 years. Spend for a couple of years than go broke, change committee, focus on juniors, improve numbers, than take all that money and spend on ABA again and go broke. It is obvious what point of the cycle they are in now. Spend.

Zoning will not change the decisions these clubs make with regards to their spending, it will only decrease the number of kids in the sport and the distort the market place which dictates what decisiosn these kids make as to WHAT sport they play.

Under pro/rel these clubs will be forced to make decisions for the better long term development of their club, or risk not having div 1 teams, which is almost always the current case anyway, so essentially nothiong will change except club will need to do what is best for their long term development.

Zoning is bad economic management.

Pro/rel is using market forces to allow smart decisions.

And please, please dont try and say that clubs will gladly employ smoeone if only they can claim all players from their zone, because they will only have a decrease incentive to do so than they do now. Not an increased incentive. Only pro/rel will increase the incentive as it will make them lose a potential div 1 spot if they fail to develop.

I think the question should be. "How do we get more girls into basketball?" (or stay)

By getting more girls into basketball, the "pyramid of talent" broadens and you'll find the players will enjoy it more.

I think everyone agrees the whole shooting match is one big "Cluster F#ck". The talent is concentrated at too few clubs. As a result the competition is not balanced and the divisions bear no relevance as to the actual standard. There are some teams in Div 1 who would get smashed in Div 2, some teams in Div 2 that would be competitive in Div 1. Same with Div 3.

Would pro/rel work? I actually doubt it very much.
Would zoning work? Possible, but could drive some girls away.

I think you find the solution actually revolves around lifting clubs up, not putting them down. Currently, when one club has more girls teams in one division than an entire club, well punters, that's the problem.

My solution, get more girls playing, the standards will stabilise.

So Jack, how do you make clubs who would rather spend all their money on ABA divert their money to a JDO?

The olde $64 question!

What's your solution V93?

South have had a JDO for several years. Money for nothing me thinks....

.... and the chicks for free.....

(sorry, showing my age)

Improve the standard of your junior coaches and the results will come.Get your ABA players coaching the young ones as part of a player/coach contract and throw some cash their way.

South has had a Coaching Director.

Never had a JDO going into schools and recruiting players, running aussie hoops and domestic competitions.

Just heard back from my mate Pat who has crunched the stats on the girls (U12 to U18)

He said that each grade has an average score, and around that there is a standard deviation (SD) (for those who aren't maths nerds, just understand that some variation is normal and standard deviation just shows how much)

Grade Ave (mean) SD
U12-1 31.4 16.6
U12-2 25.6 16.8
U12-3 23.1 12.6
U14-1 46.3 15.6
U14-2 25.5 11.6
U14-3 29.9 16.8
U16-1 48.7 8.0
U16-2 31.1 10.3
U16-3 To hard to do with pro/rel group
U18-1 49.3 11.2
U18-2 31.3 10.2

A team is measured by how far away from the mean they are and this is measured in SD units. This way, teams can be compared across grades and divisions if needed.

A game SD unit is the sum of the for and against SD units. The "worst" teams are further away one direction, the "Best" teams the other way. There is a strong correlation between SD units and win %. The equation for you poindexters is:

Win % = 50% + 15.65 x SD units (R2 = 84%)

Are you ready for the "Worst" 3 girls teams after six rounds?: (This is not meant to be an attack on any one, or any club)

U14-1 North - 4.06 SD units
U14-2 North - 4.03 SD units
U12-3 Norwood - 4.00 units

The "best" 3 teams are.....

U14-3 Magic + 4.09 SD units
U16-1 North + 3.79 SD units
U16-2 Eagles 2 + 3.43 SD units

In Div 1, 48% of all teams are +/- 1 SD, 37% in Div 2, 28% in Div 3.
For teams +/- 2 SD's, D1: 76% of teams, D2: 63%, D3: 78%

What does all this mean? Div 2 is the issue, not Div 1.

Absolutely Jack.

Because pro/rel is not used in div 2, it will be the biggets area of issue.

As for solving the issues.

1/ Pro/rel accross the board. It will not only force clubs into alllowing better resource allocation. It will also allow clubs to develop at their own pace. And less players will quit because they are out of their depth. If a club does the work and develops a good team at U12 level. It will be more obvious if they develop over time and to therefore guage their development program.

2/ Assistance. BSA would need to set some benchmarks that clubs need to meet, quarterly, yearly and 3 yearly to receive assistance in the way of funding for a JDO/CD. I would suggest things like school visits, aussie hoops and domestic competition initiation would be the key KPI's.

Not that hard.

Intervention in decisions not the market.

Exactly Jacky T.....no "chicks" (I will forgive you, old one) nor junior girl
basketballers!!!!!
Even with zoning,for which I admit been a fan, one look at facilities, very average coaching and a terrible win/loss record, I would certainly be knocking on Contax door.
Would you deny a club on facilities alone...well hopefully not...(maybe it could be a diamond in the rough), but if you look good it's good marketing. Been surrounded by F/Ville, Sturt, and Southern in the old days may not have been a factor, but not now. In this economic climate people want value for money, a reasonable level of satisfaction and a good balance of win/loss. But competitive with good results at State Champs and Winter finals..
The option of some friendly little socialisation and a drink or two on a Friday night is a great wind downer from a tough week in "the office".

All adds up. I think South is in trouble....especially for the girls. Nothing to strive for!!! Maybe South are just happy to make up the numbers.
I admire the girls they come out every week and try their hardest.

#797 - you are looking at ladder positions half way through summer season. The ladder so far is meaningless. Having said that I agree that Norwood's girls program is not in great shape. As for the boys, you can't possibly make a judgement yet.
However I'd say that 14s will probably be favourites to win State Champs. 16s won State Champs this year, and 18s were runner-up at both State Champs and winter. Their 16 and 18 boys have been consistently successful over a long period of time, in fact I'd say only behind Sturt in terms of success.
As with a couple of other clubs, it's their girls that need to tun it around.

Also, can anyone please tell me that there is a typo in the 16 boys results for last week. I'm sure West didn't really defeat South 49-0??

16s will for sure.

18s maybe not. Nearly all first years I think.

I'm not arguing the point with you. Just saying you probably should wait until State Champs to make those decisions. The same could be said for Forestville over the last few years, but in reverse. Their girls program has been great, but the boys have been up and down, with some very good teams, and some who have been WAY off the pace. Same situation but the other way around. To be honest the concept of a big 3 is probably a load of crap anyway.

BOYS Div 1:

70% of teams +/- 2 SD's.

"Best Teams":
U12-1: Forestville + 3.17
U14-1: Norwood + 2.86
U16-1: Sturt +2.80

"Worst Teams"
U16-1: Centrals -3.31
U14-1: Centrals - 2.96
U18-1: South - 2.64

pro / rel - so what if forestville have 2 div 1 sides - if they have the talent - we should not be letting them fade away because they don't want to go and play Div 1 at a nearby club.

if you look at later clubs joining BSA in the 70s and 80s - they all worked their way up the ranks over the years - built by solid foundations.

most girls just want to play a bit of sport with their mates and be good at it.

i can tell you now the biggest way to kill junior girls basketball is put a team in the wrong grade so they get thumped - they will quit / lose interest first opportunity.

some girls want to play for the opals and lightning - dont think u10s,12s or 14s even think about ABL.

basketball has a popularity - mainly thanks to our heavily USA marketed lifestyle (top 20 songs film clips of skateboards and basketball and fashion - oversized basketball singlets) celebs at games etc.

Lot of USA made youth movies have basketball in it - name some other sports (maybe soccer) that finds it's way onto your TV screen.

As i have said before - if you don't win any games and have a % of less than 33 (ie cant get more than 1/3 of your opponents' score - go into a more relevant division.

Q. Would you play a div 3-4 player in a div 1 team ?
A. No

then why play a Div 3-4 team in Div 1 and the same in reverse.

do not play div 1 players in Div 3 - let the results speak for themselves.

This may require some hardwork for all involved - but I can tell you there is more sense of achievement rather than spoon fed.

clubs will peak and trough - I recall west being light on for juniors in a couple of age groups around 5 years ago and appeared to have turned it around - they are to be commended on this.

It also appears to snowball once a negative trend starts - you seem to have to wait til it passes naturally (usually an influx new people with the right attitude)

being involved in the sport for a long time here - being good / successful is not something you can always just pick up.

Do the hard yards and earn your stripes.

"so what if forestville have 2 div 1 sides - if they have the talent - we should not be letting them fade away because they don't want to go and play Div 1 at a nearby club."

We are centrally located and the hub between all other clubs. BSA look after us, so why should we not have as many div 1 sides as we can find coaches for.

What's wrong with getting cheap court hire?

If a club is smart enough to exploit BSA, why not?

The 10 district clubs contribute over $1M to BSA.

Some clubs would contribute more the $150k which is more than Country and Church combined.

Social ball would contribute a similar amount.

But the district clubs and association model is where BSA stands to increase their revenue from the most.

Without clubs BSA doesn't exist.

Without Church and Country BSA runs along just as smoothly.

But Sturt and Forestville, and Norwood actually give BSA more revenue, due to their large numbers of teams. Southern not so much even though they probably have had the most spent on their stadium. Surely that is the pay off for their benefits.

PS BSA dont own Pasadena or Wayville. DECS owns Pas and The show grounds owns Wayville. BSA just holds a lease.

I'm glad of what BSA does for my club, thanks!

careful not to confuse a belief / myth with reality.

belief / myth = all equal

reality = not, everyone is on their own

everyone says 'nobody should go hungry" yet it doesn't matter at the local supermarket - if you don't have the $100 for groceries, you walk out empty handed.

Everyone "should have shelter" yet if I don't find my $800 a fortnight rent - the land lord will put us on the street without blinking an eyelid.

Some of the better set up arrangements are because of previous people working very hard to get things this way in years gone by.

some people may rather pay extra fees and not have to volunteer at the canteen.

Some can not pay extra fees and would be happy to volunteer at the club to compensate.

Everyone is different.

They are basketball clubs nothing more or less.

I just wanted to answer this question from above:

Q. Would you play a div 3-4 player in a div 1 team ?


Yes, beacuse sometimes you have too.....Even though i'd rather not, i did not have the numbers to choose from, so to get the kids involved they had to play in div 1 as it was the only team.

BSA makes around $100 per gameafter paying ref's and door.

Doesn't include court hire. Which they account as $44 for BSA stadiums and less for most others in actual payments.

Sturt actually is larger than Forestville.

Forestville has 68 teams

Strt has 54 teams + 15 Domestic teams = 69 teams.

Norwood has 55

Southern have 52

South have 50

North have 46

Not getting any school Gym sharing agreement with all the stimulus money that was thrown around is a real shame for basketball SA ,look at Woodville highs Gym what a dump -surely if the government was approached and told that 60 teams from 2 clubs would rent out the facility something could have been worked on.North could have struck an agreement with the new super school at Gepps cross instead of the shed they are at now.

#879 - I'm a Norwood person, and you're really not helping. Let the boys do their thing, and come back after State Champs/Classics.

Actually one of the things I like about that Norwood u14 group, and the reason in my opinion that the TEAM will be successful, is that they DON'T have a standout. A good balanced team in my opinion, which makes them hard to match up against.

#879 obviously just talking up his own kid.

Or maybe one that has seen this kids of stupidity acted out by paretns over numerous year enabling kids to the point where they dont work hard enough to reach their goals. Kids who find that down the road they reach a point where they are that good and just give the game away.

Someones dad got on here proclaiming his kid was the best U12 basketballer in the country.

A lot of us felt very sorry for the kid.

Seriously Norwood people. Stick to the topic...it's not always about you. It's a bit like a game plan...if you deviate you will loose credibility.

So far we have votes for pro-rel,but that just might get big clubs with 3 teams per division-not really a good outcome.I agree all clubs should ideally see what they are doing wrong & develop young players better but in the real world that is still a bit off.Then again with zoning the big clubs wouldn't be so big , maybe a big number of kids wouldn't play anywhere else but where they are now.I think zoning (if introduced ever) should start with the new generation of players starting from year 0 and let existing ones stay where they are.

Just noticed that South Adelaide no longer have a Div 1 team in U18G ( draw has just been revised) or U16 girls.
Their U23G Div 1 has won one game this summer and they are not running a Women's Div 2 at all.
No depth, no attraction. What is happening?

Just a question for all those in favour of zoning...

How would you go about zoning West, Woodville and Magic, especially given that two of them have the same home base?

If zoning was introduced Warriors & Magic must come to an agreement.

yes, lets have Woodville and Magic come to an agreement - just like last time yes yes yes we will agree to all your requests and then come the crunch no no no we will just absorb you and you will be Warriors.