baby eagle
Years ago

One team per division 2011/12 season

Will clubs be allowed to field only one team per division in the upcoming 2011/12 district season?I cant find anything on the subject on Basketball SA site,so is this only a rumor spreading around or fact?Also what are your views on the subject/

Topic #26135 | Report this topic


Anonymous  
Years ago

God gave you a penis and a brain, but not enough blood to use both at the same time.

Reply #327467 | Report this post


Jack Toft  
Years ago

There's already a thread on this.

The question to answer is whether Div 1 and Div 2 is a District competition where teams represent an area (zone) of Adelaide, or whether Div 1 and Div 2 is a team based competition.

Reply #327468 | Report this post


baby eagle  
Years ago

I think your incorrect Jack in asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is does E really =MC²

Reply #327470 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Read the By Laws and the news under sportingpulse

Reply #327471 | Report this post


baby eagle  
Years ago

According to the by laws this was to be inforced in the 2009/10 season-yeah right that really happened.

Reply #327472 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

But it really did happen, open your eyes dude!

Reply #327473 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

For the coming season it will only be for the U12 and U14 grades.

Reply #327475 | Report this post


.  
Years ago

how many more times do we need to go through this ?

it is supposed to be u12 and 14s this year - but the u12 side of things did not work - u12 g div 2 comp only had 6-7 teams if eagles did not field a second.

all this is doing is killing off participation not balancing it.

and teh waffle about zoning will never happen

Reply #327477 | Report this post


.  
Years ago

and there will be very lop sided results in div 3........

Reply #327478 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I don't know what everyone is worried about. Things exist at a point in time and balances of strength always change.

Currently those teams with a second Div 2 team have a huge advantage over others. Firstly there is the attraction of having more spots available at a higher level to attract moves from other clubs (and yes it happens). Secondly clubs with two teams can have their proposed Div 1 team the following year playing basically together for one whole year at a higher level than other clubs who have to juggle their Div two teams between 2nd year players deserving to play at that level and ist year players.

These teams are always behind the 8 ball.

I know we no longer have U 17/U19 in SANFL but did they have two teams from one club in U 17 or U 19 even though we had some clubs perenially not winning games at that level. Did anyone think that Centrals would be the powerhouse of the SANFL now when STurt and Port were winning everything in the 50's and 60's. If the league was short sighted like some basketball supporters are we would not have Centrals dominating the league today.

This will always turn - I see that starting to happen already on the boys side with Sturt no longer being the unbeatables. Let the clubs compete on a level playing field for once and see what happens.

Reply #327479 | Report this post


.  
Years ago

jack - if it was district based we would have stadiums evenly balanced out across the burbs.

they are not - so it is club based.

maybe we need to change the name from "distict" to SAJBL - this will alleviate any confusion.

pro / rel across the board IMO

Reply #327480 | Report this post


anonomouse  
Years ago

anon #327479,

The problems is people like you try and corretale directly between SANFL clubs and District clubs.

SANFL club dont make money from junior membership fees and the competition does not make money from junior game fees. In basketball we do.

SANFL clubs do not recruit players into football, that is done at school and club level, they just take the better players from these teams. In basketball clubs must recruit. And some do this better than others.

Hence, some clubs dont even field teams in div 2 grades. And have other more than enough. People are concerned that dropping double div 2 teams has not moved kids from 1 club to another, but rather moved them out of the sport. If the current trend continues at U12 levels though, BSA and the clubs will be pretty much broke.

SANFL clubs recieve massive amounts of funding from television coverage. This, and pokies help them stay financially stable. Basketball has neither of these.

Finally, we are an international sport, and our teams compete directly against interstate teams. You would be better of comparing basketball to soccer which has pro/rel in all comps locally and internationally outside of the A league (our NBL/WNBL).

Reply #327489 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Why are kids returning back to there original clubs or moving onto other sports once they have shifted to a new club.

What is delivered v what is promised from the larger clubs are not necessarily the same. Some clubs cost profile dictates that they must at whatever cost to the competition have large numbers to prop up high court hire costs or other costs for running the club. They are now worried that removing another elemnet to an uneven playing field (multiple teams in a division) will impact their club, not the individuals within that club.

Every level of every sport costs parents money in some form or other. Basketball is expensive in certain areas and to simply drag kids in to prop up a cost profile for a club without providing the same level of service as given to Div 1/2 players is wrong. The removal of a second team in Div 2 is now concerning them: have they have built up their structure on shaky foundations. At some point in time parents will realise this and either:

a. Move clubs to where they receive better service
b. Move out of district basketball to cheaper forms of the game
c. Leave the sport altogether.

Should district basketball even have div 3 or 4 or 5 or should this be managed as part of a domestic competition away from district competition.

If you are going to have pro/rel you cannot bring it in immediately without a period of time to allow for changing cycles in club fortunes or for clubs to redress the way they manage their clubs. If this was to be brought in we need to restrict (not stop) movements of players in some form or other for a period of time and that Div 1 and 2 is limited to one team per club unless spots are not taken up. To be granted such a concession for say 5 years clubs must meet certain criteria to ensure they stay as one of the 10 main district clubs. If they can't do that these privileges disappear until they can aka what has happened in netball.

What are these conditions - one would be that every club must have a full time JDM in some form or other. There may be others.

What is needed is longer term planning as to a way of making district basketball once again an elite level of competition and try to make it more competitive week in and week out. Short term knee jerk reactions often lead to bigger issues arising.

Reply #327493 | Report this post


Former Eagle  
Years ago

"."

In fact the stadiums are pretty much as balanced as they can be around this fine city. There's a certain resemblance to SANFL Footy locations + Mavs.

Let's have a look.

Mavs: Based at Mt Barker, 34.8 km from CBD. Feed from the Local Council Area (LCA) of Adelaide Hills; Mt Barker; Strath; Murray Bridge. Population Base of around 90,000 with plenty of young families. (No real SANFL equivalent)
Tigers: In City of Onkaparinga. 27 km from CBD. CofO with Population of 152,000. Growing area. (SANFL equivalent of South?)
Lions: Based at Gawler, 38.7 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of Gawler, Playford, Light, Barossa + Northern Country. Population base of 150,000 (SANFL equivalent of Centrals)
West: Pt Adelaide, 14 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of Pt Adelaide/Enfield; Part of Salisbury. Population to draw from 143,000. (SANFL equivalent of Port)
North: Hillcrest, 11 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of TTG; Prospect; Parts of PtA/E, AHC & Playford. Population draw 135,000. (SANFL equivalent of North)
Woodville: St Clair, 8 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of Charles Sturt; part West Torrens. Population of 125,000. (SANFL equivalent of WWT/West)
Norwood: 7 km from CBD. Feed from LCA of Campbeltown; Norwood; Walkerville; Burnside. Population draw of 120,000. (SANFL equivalent of Norwood)
South: 13 km from CBD, Draw from LCA of Holdfast Bay; Marion. Population of 114,000. (SANFL equivalent of South/West)
Sturt: 8 km from CBD, but 6 km from South. Draw from LCA of Mitcham. Population of 60,000. (SANFL equivalent of Sturt)
Forestville. 3 km from CBD. Draw from Unley and assume West Torrens. Population of 88,000. (SANFL equivalent of Sturt + West?)

There has been a lot of talk about West and Woodville being too close together, yet no-one talks about Port and WWT being too close. If anything, Sturt/Forestville are the ones too close. Forestville used to be West Torrens when I played for them and today, a kid living at Underdale like me would probably play for West or Woodville rather than Forestville.

I think my old club is actually the odd ones out here!

Reply #327494 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

The other issue with that analysis is that Norwood is very close to North and draw players from TTG as well. We need a club based more in the Eastern suburbs - Norwood is North East with its current key bases at Mars and St Bernards

Reply #327495 | Report this post


anonomouse  
Years ago

So you are saying that Sturt would have the smallest boundry.

a/ because their council is the smallest, and

b/ becasue Forestville are encroaching on their area.

But yet they have the bast results fo any club.

This surely shows that zones arent the answer, bacuse Sturt and Forestville have more eams than other clubs and they sit ontop of each other.

Reply #327496 | Report this post


Ex JDO  
Years ago

In fact it just shows how critical zoning is. How many Sturt players live in their area?

Reply #327500 | Report this post


anonomouse  
Years ago

That would depend on whether zones would be considered equal. Most of Sturt players come from close by.

But like all clubs, due to friendships, past affiliation and market forces, some players come from outisde what would be their zone.

Surely your not advocating that some clubs should have smaller zones than others?

If they went by current football zones, most of Easten and half of Forestville would be playing at Sturt.

Reply #327501 | Report this post


Hanging Round  
Years ago

Looking at population in each area is one thing, but surely a better indication would be the number of schools and how many attendees these have.
After all, I can't see too many recruits coming from the local retirement village, or the nearby nursing home.

Mention is made of the close SANFL proximity of Port Adelaide and WWT, but don't forget where WWT originated from (2 clubs with a close proximity to each other). The merger worked for WWT resulting in a competitive club and a premiership, bit Port Magpies have suffered for quite awhile before having some better results this year. They also rely strongly on their country recruiting "zones" --there goes that word again!

Reply #327502 | Report this post


anonomouse  
Years ago

They dont recruit players into the sport. THey just recruit from their zone. Basketball cant do that because we dont have school and domestic comeptitions underpinning our district competition.

And they dont have to have junior players fee to pay for their senior players like basketball do.

Reply #327505 | Report this post


Ceres 73  
Years ago

It will make players move in the age group affected. Like the best player in Australia moving to Centrals.

Reply #327508 | Report this post


perplexed  
Years ago

former eagle your geography is out if you think satdiums are evenly balanced over metro / fringe adelaide.

2 in NW corner , 2 in NE corner, 1 far metro north, 1 central, one inner south, 1 sw and one deep south.

big gaps around gepps cross / salisbury / greenwith, mid west, east.

we seem to have stadiums clumped west/ wood, norwood / north, fville / sturt / south.

Which 20-30 years ago may have been a bit more better located........

Reply #327516 | Report this post


Hanging Round  
Years ago

When did West move to Port Adelaide? Was it less than 20 years ago and saw an opportunity in a new area?
Where was Woodville 20 years? Did they exist or was there just Cheltenham BC running Social teams from St Clair?
We certainly know that there was no Magic at that time, but the North west seems cluttered now.

Reply #327529 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

One team in each div per club would be great for many clubs i believe a lot of players would leave Sturt/Forrestville/Norwood and go to weaker clubs now to play in higher divisions closer to their place of residence,as many travel across town to play in a second div 2 team.Woodville/South hell even Magic would have enough good players to fill top squads if allowed to go to top divs.Equality in player pool is the key to the future not a few super clubs look at the German soccer Bundesliga and then look at the Italian serieA how boring having the same clubs take the title every year.ZONING ROCKS !

Reply #327557 | Report this post


Dirty  
Years ago

So anon,

why hasnt this happened in U12's, where only 6 clubs nominated girls teams and 9 clubs boys.

all it is doing is decreasing the number of players in the sport. and therefore the overall standard of the players

obviously there isnt that many U12's travelling across the state to play.

that tends to happen in U16s and U18s. for all clubs.

the sooner people accept that zoning and single div 1 doesnt work the better. it is an unsound theory.

all it will do is decrease the level of the competition and the number of participants

Reply #327561 | Report this post


perplexed  
Years ago

if you are going to get on the equality bandwagon - why not have pro / rel across the board ?

that way always the best teams regardless of club make the most competitive grade.

Reply #327566 | Report this post


...  
Years ago

so what's the pt in only 1 div2 per club - trying to get everyone to go play for Woodville???

Reply #327645 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I'm not a fan of the idea. Let's look at the situation practically. Assume U16 Sturt has 2 div 1 teams and 2 div 2 teams that's 4 teams right there. Than they probably have another 2 teams fielded in either div 3 or 4 plus a div 5 team. So all up there's 5 divisions but 8 teams.
Out of Div 1 they'll chose their best players in Div 1 and form a team. The leftovers will than form in Div 2 even though most of them are Div 1 standard and should really be playing Div 1. As a result of the Div 1 team being moved to Div 2 all the former Div 2 players get relegated down to Div 3 and half of them even down into Div 4. The former Div 3 team is than playing Div 5.
As for the Div 4 and 5 teams they are no longer able to play for Sturt so they have to find other clubs. They can't play for Forrestville because a similiar situation would've happened there. Maybe they can't even secure a spot at Souths. Remember their only U16s so they can't drive or anything and have to rely on their parents. Their parents might not be willing to take them across the other side of town and back 2x a week for training plus games. Thus, some of them will quit and basketball has lower participation rates. Even if nobody quits and they all move to other clubs it hasn't solved anything because the other clubs are only getting the leftovers. Thus, the strong get stronger whilst the weak get weaker and basketball participation rates throughout the state diminish.

Reply #327756 | Report this post


witnessed it  
Years ago

I can tell you right now when sturt had 2 div 1 teams a few years ago - it was the only time we could beat them regularly in Div 1 comp - they were around 2-3rd and 5th-6th.

since it has gone to one team - forget it.

pro / rel across the board.

it wont hurt for the teams to earn their spots in higher divs


Reply #327763 | Report this post


Nug  
Years ago

I'm not familiar with all the grades, but am currently involved in the under 14 div 2 boys. Looking at who will be making finals, sturt 2, Norwood blue, Norwood red, and the last sport looking like going to south, sturt 1 missing out due to head to head comparrison, even though they have a higher percentage. I hate to think about how skewed div 3 is going to be next year if both sturt and Norwood have to drop their second div 2 team to div 3.... Especially when some teams in the div 2 grade have struggled to get a percentage of 30+ by season end. I'm for pro/rel across the board.

Reply #328231 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Nug how many of Norwood and Sturts Div 1s/2s will be Under 16's next year?

Those teams won't be playing Div 3

Reply #328300 | Report this post


Nug  
Years ago

I'm not sure on either clubs numbers, but you would think they would be able to have a similar outcome next year... Either that or the problem just moves to the 16s age group. Competitive games are the best ones, in terms of keeping kids interest in the sport as well as encouraging their development. I just hope we don't see competitions develop next year which lack a competitive edge- especially in an age group which tends to have such a high level of participation.

Reply #328305 | Report this post


............  
Years ago

u16s will still be 2 div 2 teams in 2011/12

Reply #328311 | Report this post




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



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

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: 2:18 am, Sat 30 Mar 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754