sorry - they have lost one game

haven't we been waiting for this to happen for the last 5 years or so since the decision of only 1 div 1 team was enforced?

wasn't this going to create movement and even the comp?


doesn't seemed to have made too much difference to the programmes of the "between" clubs that this was supposed to benefit - ie not quite norwood or not quite torrens valley.

Or just do what Norwood and Eastern do. Poach the players from the stronger clubs take those players and turn them into footy players.......

I know who voted "for" this restriction and why.

It seemed to make sense to a struggling club to push for this and they did.

problem is the next part of the plan has not come to fruition -

1) supposed evening up of the clubs' numbers and strengths.

2) players leaving strong clubs lower grades and heading for div 1 down the road.

What they had hoped for has not happened.

In fact clubs that might have ran 2 div 1 teams of good strength now have unbeatable div 1 and 2 teams

even if we expand the div 1 comp from 10 to 12 for the winter (longer) season with teh 2 top teams from div 2

Whilst I agree to pro/rel, absolutely NO way should the div 1 comp be expanded! The top teams play each other too little now - how would adding two more teams help develop our top div 1 teams? They'd still have blowout against the lower 1st teams.
Also, your theory would encourage the good div 2 teams to "flog" the poor teams over summer, to up their % to the max possible. How does this do either team any good? Perhaps your team could try some different things to develop your players which in turn may slow the scoring down instead of smashing the opposition.

But hey, as long as it suits YOU...

So it appears that Sid with his super team of Div 2/2s (and some parents who are keen for their children to play in Div 1), are out- playing their rivals. Ands so the super club now wants to be even more dominant. Dominance is fine, but fairness should prevail.
With such depth that Sturt have got, should they be surprised. This is a significant consequence. Too good for the comp, and no where to go.
BSA has probably already been approached about this subject and I would have thought, not surprisingly, rejected this request. If a request such as this is approved does it not open the floodgates for other clubs to request the same consideration. One cannot be biased. The dominant clubs become bigger and the smaller clubs continue to struggle. Why, would not ie Forrestville or North want the same consideration.
Sturt could easily pro/reg between Div 1 and Div 2/2. They are all 2nd years. There are players struggling in their Div 1 who could easily be relegated. There are players in their Div 2/2 who could be promoted but there are others not good enough, and the team makes them look competent.

The coach could play them differently and perhaps even teach them to be greatsports as well as great players. Absolutely flogging the opposition is one thing, to treat them with absolute contempt is another.
There are plenty of opportunities to play Div One but it may mean looking outside the club. Leaving a great club like Sturt would not be easy....who would not want to play for the best. Depends on what you want out of basketball.

i have been around for many years - before this restrictive "rule" was brought about - often - sturt, norwood, forestville would have 2 average div 1 teams finishing say 3rd and 7th in div 1.

often we would see woodville, south, tigers, mavs etc in the div 1 finals (albeit not winning them) and regularly winning div 2 grand finals.

since this rule forestville, sturt, norwood have dominated div 1 and 2

woodville, south, tigers, mavs no longer seem to be enjoying the successes they had prior

Assuming the team has dominating players (at least one or two), they should jump up an age bracket in order to better develop their game. Seems a logical solution.

Moses Guthrie- the problem with your suggestion is that most district teams are carrying 8, 9 10 players. If you add two more kids no one gets fair court time - The extra div 1 team is the best solution for the stonger clubs. Not allowing 2 teams has not worked it has not forced kids to go to other clubs, they want to stay with their mates and show loyalty to the club they are at.

I dont know why there is this fear of allowing it by the weaker clubs and/or BSA. If the stronger clubs were allowed an extra Div 1 team they would not dominate as they have been with kids that are good enough to play Div 1 playing Div 2. Most of these larger clubs have 2 x Div 2 teams anyway with the second named team in most cases being weaker. The outcome would be that these Div 2 second named teams would then not dominate in Div 2 and it would give the other Clubs the opportunity of performing higher on the ladder. It may also promote loyalty to the weaker clubs because it contributes to a feeling of success if they are not being "flogged" by the first named Div 2 team again

Also the Clubs would more than likely look at putting their stronger players in the second Div 1 team - so you may find that they take the strongest out of the 2 x Div 2 teams to make 1 stronger Div 1 team. Therefore leaving a weaker but developing Div 2 team


The benefit would be enormous to the kids being allowed into the second Div 1 team and that is what everyone is missing here - it appears that there are too many worried about their "own backyards" and because these clubs air their disapproval of having 2 div 1 teams they are punishing the kids and blocking development of all kids that want to play ball in this state.

When will commonsense prevail and people realise that the majority of the kids are NOT going to leave their clubs. And that the stance of blocking a second div 1 team is being selfish and narrow-minded. And right through these threads on pro/rel and allowing a second Div 1 team - a message is sent that people with more developed Div 2 kids should go elsewhere. Well guess what - IT AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN! so your kids will continue to get "flogged" by the stronger Div 2 team and NO-ONE WINS - not the kids playing the game, not the clubs and certainly not the development of basketball in this state.

Kids should be allowed to perform at the highest level that they are physically and mentally able, this is not exclusive to basketball it is to other sports, academically, musically whatever they choose the opportunity should be made available, otherwise we will not be able to compete on a world stage.

This is why the other thread "Basketball Popularity at all-time Low" sums it up in a nutshell as to the narrow-minded decisions being made or not changed to appease the outspoken few. The kids will lose interest and drop out If they are not allowed to at their Club of choice able to play at the highest level that they are able.

Sturt, you created this problem. Get the JDO to fix it without expecting everyone else to change to meet your needs.
Kids are not your priority. Winning is, at all cost.

#163586 - when there were 2 div 1 teams it was not a problem, it is a problem now because parents/clubs like yourself moaned and whinged about them having 2 div 1 teams - the kids won't come to your club and that has been proved, and it is not about winning at all costs. They win because they can and it is not about increasing percentage through summer the Sturt teams do their best and only their best will do come winter or summer.

So you will continue to get flogged summer and winter until another Div 1 team is allowed and commonsense wins out over this pettiness. You have no clue how to develop kids in sport, you have put no thought into your comment - how can it be the JDO's problem to fix, what would you suggest as an answer? oh thats easy ....allow another Div 1 team. Are you seeing the solution yet?

And for the record Sturt is not the only Club with potential to have 2 div 1 teams. Perhaps your club has some age groups that they could enter 2 teams into Div 1 - have you ever thought about that? would you deny your child or his/her team that opportunity if they were on the cusp of playing Div 1 but held back because of the whingers. My guess is then you would change your tune, and you would be all for the second Div 1 team - oh and for the record I dont have a kid on the cusp of playing div 1.....it just makes sense and I can see the frustation of the teams that go out week after week and continually beat the opposition. But then thats another thread...isn't it! another chance to bash the strong teams for not having the foresight to "take it easy" on the opposition.

If you or your kids are not up to the challenge they shouldn't be playing - District as it should be is for the strong, the competitive and the elite. And the idea of having just a Div 1 and 2 competition with only the strongest teams in these competitions makes sense and the rest can have their own competition.

In the case of u16 div 1 girls playing an 8 team comp, it would be beneficial for Forestville and Sturts div 2 teams to play div 1. Melboune club teams, if good enough, have 2 teams in the div 1 or championship pool! At the Classics this year one of the clubs filled two teams in the u16 girls!!! Obviosly they were strong enough to qualify...yes they put another team out......but why hold these girls back because they are the second team? Is this what SA is doing? Holding back the div 2 teams in eg u16 Forestville and Sturt because they do not want to move clubs. The girls competition does need reveiw. As I remember the last time there was 2 teams from the same club in div 1 was approx 2003 when North had 2 tems in u16 1. They finished 1st and 4th on the ladder. The 2nd team would not of benefited in div 2. Some of these players were involved in State selection process. Would they if they were playing div 2?

My daughter's team would get continually thrashed by a Forestville Div 2 team last season - as most of the kids were clearly Div 1 standard, we did not look forward to playing this team as clearly they were too good for the Div 2 comp and subsequently took out the premiership. The competiton would have been more even had this team been allowed to play Div 1. Did we get on here and moan about the thrashings served up to us and the unsportsmanlike behaviour of the Forestville team, and that they should have dribbled with their left hand and not their right, and should have passed it umpteen times before they could shoot etc etc etc.

NO - because they were not unsportsmanlike they were just better, playing to the best of their ability in Div 2. as it should be.

Now, had they been allowed to enter the Div 1 comp, what a benefit to all concerned, the rest of the teams in Div 2 and the development of those Forestville girls, and a benefit to basketball in SA, as there would be less chance that they will quit for other sports as they are now playing opposition that match their ability and are improving their skills as they should.

163604 - have you even read the points above - your comments are ill-informed and lack any depth of knowledge as to what is really happening - you need to read the fors and against and then make an informed decision - there are more than a few kids in Div 2 better than Div 2 - but perhaps not at your Club - that is why you are ill-informed.

Sorry, but these teams would not flounder in Div 1 - last years Norwood carnival proved that point where some clubs entered extra Div 1 team's And guess what - they were very competitive even beating the current Div 1 teams, also matching some quite strong Melbourne teams. Oh and from memory one team only went down by about 10 to the Div 1 premiers from last season - so do you need any more proof about the talent at the stronger Clubs that aren't going to leave and will continue to outperform in the Div 2 comp.

It would be okay if the teams had two Div

anon #163884,

Sturt openly claim to develop a div 2 team of bottom age players. But, if you think that they wouldn't put their best 2 teams into div 1 then you are kidding yourself.

IMHO it would be better to go the other way. The top 8 teams in div 1 and have the bottom 2 div 1 teams play the top 6 from div 2.

The Div 2/2 team from Sturt are second year players.
Under 14 Div 2 teams in general this season are are no where near as strong as last season, and these girls are playing quite a few 1st year players from other clubs. This lack of strength does make them look good. Next season the Div 2 comp will be really strong.
Hypothetically, if these girls were promoted to Div 1 for winter, what would the repercussions be next in years Under 16s. How would it work?. U16 Div 2/1 becomes Div 1, the 2 U14's become U 16 Div 2/1 and 2/2. Whate happens to the existing other U 16 Div 2. Do they get shafted? Get undervalued? Leave basketball.
What would be the expectations of other clubs if Sturt have permission for 2 Div 1's in U14. What are the long term ramifications?

Are BSA still planning to regulate Div 3 and under to a more "social" basketball comp? Then there will be a lot of competition in gaining a Div 2 spot.
I suggest Sturt are held off until everything is ratified and settled.

The existing U16 div 2 - who are mainly second years would go to U18's in the new summer season - or if there are a few that are now coming into their second year as U16's surely they should be given a shot at the second year U16 Div 1 team, if there is to be one the following winter. Strength and height is what is needed in U16's Div 1 along with skill, with the late developers having growth spurts in their 13-14th year.

Long term ramifications - what could there if the guidelines are clear - except for kids being able to play to a level which is appropriate to their skill and to be challenged which is not happening at present.

- Not all Sturt Div 2.2 teams are made up of only second year players there are exceptions. and if you go to sportingpulse you will see this situation of dominating the ladder with 2 teams in Div 2 is not unique though to the U14 girls and perhaps more mixing of second and first years may be more appropriate to success anyway.

this is where the summer grading season tests the water.

clearly at present their results would indciate enough talent for a second u14g div 1.

as second years they would go back to a summer grading season as bottom age u16s in div 2 - this way it is purely results based - if you are good enough you will be promoted for the winter season.

if looks like a long winter for those taht cant match this team.

"if looks like a long winter for those taht cant match this team." and 7 or so other Div 2 grades as well!!

Teach them to be greatsports and be treated with absolute contempt. PM what are you on about????

We've been trialing single div 1 teams per club for five odd years now. Few junior players moved from larger, stronger clubs. The majority of these moved to larger, stronger clubs.

Reason for movement? By and largeone of:
they didn't feel valued or they thought they would develop better at their new club. Mostly not whether or not they'd be in Div 1.

In the balance over the last 5 years, weaker clubs got weaker, stroger clubs got stronger. Try to see some reality and try something new!

Kylie, maybe it refers to laughing at and ridiculing the opposition after a big win by a few players, hence the need for a tad more sportmanship.....but when you have a coach encouraging a flogging..what could one expect.
This behaviour was very notable in some earlier games in the season.
( Read the post properly and place it into context.)

I am sure no individual or team would appreciate that kind of response to a game that is meant to be for the enjoyment and development of all juniors.
Of course shake hands but leave the "sniggering' way off court. Parents also should take heed!!!!
The Sturt team is a good team, granted. But winning with a little more grace would make this team just that little bit better.
Perhaps it would be better for this team to go up, maybe to U16s. Although they do have some smalls, probably not tall enough or strong enough for that age group. I suspect though they will stay Under 14 2/2s and continue to flog. I also suspect that they will learn very little in the process.
It is not that they are extrordinary...the opposition is just not as strong in Div 2 as it has been in previous years.
Perhaps, as someone else has already aluded, some of the current Div 1's, who are not as strong ( particularly 2 of them, although I am sure that in this instance Sturt are trying to cultivate height), could be relegated and some of the Div 2s could be promoted. That may even out the comp for the winter season.
Next year Under16 Div 2 will be very strong as it will be full of very good first year players. Maybe a little patience is required.

Perhaps PM should make it clear which Div they are talking about they jump from talking about div 1 to div 2 it is hard to follow. Perhaps should just worry about their own team and not what everyone else is doing........... I have never seen any of what you are talking about I think you may be reading it wrong. To be talking about u16's already is a joke!!!!! stop living in the future and think more about NOW.......

Well said #164516

A large numbr of players and families stay at a club because they have no reason to leave. ie they are happy and the kids have friendship groups and enjoy the trainings.

But it's good to see that you have brushed up on your 'skill aquisition' basics before making a bold statment.

Current reseach shows that improvement of skills goes through 3 common phases.

1/ Demonstration: being shown the skill

2/ Practice: practicing the drill, with correct correcting until the skill is able to done in isolation.

3/ Game: being able to practice the skill in a game situation.

If you do not get correctly demonstrated and corrected, you will not be able to learn the skill.

If you would consider shooting, if a person was never demonstrated the skill, they would probably not shoot the ball well.

By like thinking, a player who is trained better in shooting would have a higher chance of being a 'better' shooter than somebody who is taught poorly.

You don't learn a skill from playing, otherwise training would be useless. And if you did, playing against the best players in thec ompetition twice a week, would have to be better than playing against them twice every 6 months.

Kylie, in five years this will not matter. BUT there has always been opportunities for kids to be promoted or relegated between all divisions of an age group, especially between Div 1 and 2. It is an option that the club could use especially if a Div 2 has demonstrated great improvement and a Div 1 has fallen behind.
I think what has been meant is if BSA does not approve extra Div One teams across the board ( they are hardly going to do it for one division) then the club has to come up with other creative options for the girls ( see opening thread)
After the winter season, all these second year U 14's will be U 16's. Nothing wrong with forward thinking, good planning, and cultivating players. I am sure that has been one of Sturts' strengths.

Kylie, I note that you agree with thread 164516 in which basically states "enjoy the thrashing" or "move". I am sure some would prefer neither, thats where you have to think ahead, and decide what is best. Ultimately that decision may have to come from the girls. We all have choices.

OOPS, clarification: pro/reg between individual players, not between the whole team.

"Commonsense & BSA" Sorry, I cant make the connection with the two!

"Commonsense & BSA" Sorry, I cant make the connection with the two!