Anonymous
Years ago

More or Less clubs-Whats the best?

Several clubs are full to busting while others are struggling-why?
Many clubs can't fill their coaching roster and mums and dads are filling in.
Kids don't want to play for lower ranked teams and clubs so they're choking the hot clubs to death and turning district basketball into a church comp with sides going down to div X.
How do we solve it and raise the standard ,get coaches and make district, overall a real district level?
Would zones equal out numbers or make the problem worse by punishing proactive clubs?
Is a more equitible player numbers base a worthwhile proposition?
Do we need to rationalize the present club structure by reducing/merging the number of clubs? Is it possible under the present founding member agreement?
Do we need to increase the number of clubs and spread the load?
What is the BSA restructuring policy?
Is it in SA basketball's interests to have only 3 or 4 clubs that a truly competitive?
What part can we all play in strengthening the present structure?
How could we sell a basketball stadium to an anyone but moreso an interstater for a mere 3 million and how did the mega million owed disappear and why didnt the SA gov simply waive the debt and pave the way for the new BSA to develop basketball with a home stadium?
Surely if BSA is going to work now with the restructure it would have worked better with a base stadium to operate its junior program?
Redbacks stuffed by poor management.
#36ers by poor management.
Mitzubishi by who knows who.
The state bank, The Rams, The Grand Prix, the one way southern freeway, the trams, the Brittania roundabout--is there anything we can get right?
Are the member clubs glued to promoting basketball or club image as a priority and what ever the answer should it be basketball first?
Have you seen any tangible difference to basketball in SA since the sale ?
How the South Australian government could sell basketball's show piece stadium for such a paltry sum rather than see the larger picture as to what was best for SA overall, beggars belief. The gov should have taken it over and absorbed the debt, leased it back and at least had a capital value as such, plus really have saved basketball in this state.
Its late I rave, forgive me!

Topic #9781 | Report this topic


Axeman  
Years ago

You raise some good points but I have to say your negative comments at the end about what we have stuffed up in this state is a pretty negative approach.

What about the things that we do in SA that are brilliant.

Clipsal 500, Wine industry (one of the best in the world) Crows, Power have both won premierships on a national scale, the tram extension, sorry, some people like me think it is a brilliant idea, Tour Down Under, Christmas pageant (sydney tried to organise one a few years back, but couldnt found it all to difficult), our defence industry is world class ect, ect.......

You get the picture?

Regarding people flocking to a few clubs, thats human nature; you want to be associated with the best. Those clubs should not be penalised for being the best.

I have not seen any change in B/ball since the sale either. We all hear that things are being worked out, lets hope it is sooner than later.

Rave on, thats what makes this site so interesting; differing opinions.

Reply #111691 | Report this post


Sturty6ers  
Years ago

I think we should limit the teams to two. (Makes programming easier)

The two best stadiums around at the moment are The Dome (Woodville) and Don Stadium (Forestville). All the current teams are then affiliated with one of the Stadiums.

First look at Forestville. So South then becomes Forestville South, Southern becomes Forestville even further South, and Sturt becomes Forestville South Central. (Do you think Sturt would like to have 'Central' in their name?)

Next up is Woodville. West are now known as Woodville West, North are known as North Woodville, and Centrals are known as Outback Woodville.

Flames and Eastern become Woodville and Forestville East respectively.

F v W
FS v WW
FEFS v NW
FSC v OW
FE v WE

Reply #111702 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Just another dumb rehash of a

thread that's been flogged to death.

The only clever thing is Sturty6ers

response

Reply #111824 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

i beleve that for starters transfers are being cleared way to easily and that is playing a major problem with the competition or the'stacking of clubs'. It is not teaching the younger kids anything - they simply say i want to play for them and they go. They last at that club for a while, then they dont play div 1 one season or start losing so they change again.
i know of many players that come and go between clubs - its more or less a load of crap there should be tougher laws and transfers. Which isnt helped by the enticing offers from other clubs i.e. we'll give u free subs and a free uniform or whatever. Loyalty, and repect to one club needs to be shown unless a damn good reason warrants a change.

Reply #112205 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

On what grounds would you allow transfers then?
I'd suggest there are numerous reasons kids leave clubs apart from Div 1 spots and if you want to talk about loyalty as a factor then you need to zone and develop regional pride where kids play in the area they live in.

Reply #112212 | Report this post


FM  
Years ago

Div 1 this, Div 1 that. How many stars were found playing div 2 or 3 during their junior years to finally pop out as super stars in u18's?

Reply #112226 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I dont know, FM, how many?

Reply #112242 | Report this post


Anon  
Years ago

#112212 - "zone and develop regional pride"? IMHO zoning would only affect about a quarter of current junior district players - the vast majority play for a club that isn't too far away. Clubs try to recruit locally - some people choose to travel further. A strict zone would result in some player swaps between clubs with adjoining areas but would have little effect on the number of teams fielded by clubs nor the relative standard of the teams.

What does vary is the participation rate in basketball between different areas. Centrals and Eastern are in growth areas, but have small populations within 10km of their home stadium.

We could restrict each club to say, 40 junior teams, but it may mean a reasonable number of kids choosing another local sport rather than travel to another district basketball club.

As for transfers, my kids are open to free uniforms & subs - I don't think it is going to cause a problem because there aren't too many of them going around. By the time someone requests a transfer you've already lost their loyalty - let them go. Chances are they won't be playing in a couple of years anyway.

Reply #112244 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Why not just amalgamate every team into one !

a super team, that can play against itself.

It might just work.

Reply #112378 | Report this post


Call it  
Years ago

The reason kids can transfer between clubs so easily is that there are no contracts. Contracting a 10 year old kid probably is not the way to go. If kids that want to swap clubs still owe subs, then they dont get the green light to move.

The only way to stop the current climate of swapping is to have zones.

Of course any zone would have to allow kids at current clubs to stay. You would also need to have a brother sister rule that allows siblings to play at the same club.

A lot of clubs would have to get their act together in order for zoning to work. Details such as venues, canteens, bars ect, need to be sorted before a zone was ever introduced so that every team could start on a level playing field.

This would be the reson that it wont happen, organization.

Reply #112674 | Report this post


warney  
Years ago

There are many reasons but one of the main reasons is money.

The strong clubs at the moment are from higher socio-economical areas (eg sturt, forestville). The clubs not doing so well are clubs from a lower socio-economical area (centrals, west, tigers). I realise this a generalisation but having been inolved with a club in a lower socioeconomical area I know that there are many kids who don't play district basketball cos it is too expensive.

I realise there are many other factors eg better coaching, pro active recruiting etc but money talks!!!

Reply #112793 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Tougher transfers, zones, regional pride?
Are we seriously talking about junior sport here?
#2205 - I can't agree that, 'they simply say i want to play for them and they go'. Players will change clubs because it is not working for whatever reason and as juniors they should not be made to stay where they are not happy and end up leaving the sport. I don't reckon too many will simply leave a club just because...if they are happy there.
The socio-economic factor has a huge effect on this game - in fact everytime some kid gets a little too engrossed in their ego about just what a great player they are, someone should be on hand to remind them that there are many more players so much better than them out there, who for reasons often out of the kids control, who just can't afford to play districts.

Reply #112809 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

No doubt about basketball being expensive to play and watch and get too especially as its played for such a long time over the year. Maybe BSA will look at this in its much vaunted but as yet silent restructure.
In what ways can we make it cheaper for everyone to be able to participate-any ideas?

Reply #112810 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

It cuts deeper than just getting some money together, although that is a start. As sponsorship is gettign tougher to gain and keep, it can only be via a levy system for each and every player but once again heaps of issues:

Who is going to allocate funds by determining criteria / club / location?
Say a club is allocated funds for kids that otherwise couldn't afford to play but are real keen - who is going to keep the interest level up when a kid has no role modelling / parent(s) that couldn't give a...?
Who is going to take on the 'parenting role' to get these kids to trainings and games?
OK - funds are levied and allocated = say enough for two kids in lower Soc Ec areas and one in other (it is true, not everyone in the near Adelaide club catchment is wealthy)areas - Who is going to determine the recipients at the risk of missing out on an equal talent who with a crystal ball could have been a more dedicated choice?

See how hard it gets?
Don't get me wrong, I am all for some form of fund set up to give kids a go at this sport who would otherwise miss out but I wouldn't be offering to administer it.

Alternatively, let's see commitment from our professionally paid team to running clinics two days a week - 12 players, 2 clinics a day with 2 players at each = 24 schools a week would see about 200+ schools visited. Then each club follows up with a weekend or after school skills clinic with their own u16 and above Div 1 players assisting. ?

Reply #112813 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I'd get the best and have the lighning players hitting the schools. Nothing like winners to sell the game to the kids.
Less clubs and zoned areas might help.

Reply #112845 | Report this post




You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.



Close ads
Little Streaks - The fun and interactive good-habits app designed especially for kids.
Serio: Tourism photography and videography

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 11:02 pm, Fri 29 Mar 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754