THe age groups are great. If he doesnt like he can play in a lower division. That way he doesnt have to play with the big, scarey boys.

Fourteen year olds do not play against seventeen year olds. Same old bs. from the ill informed.

no but 17 yr olds do play against 22 year olds. they need to bring back U20 then into youth U23.

14 year old born in November or december sure does!!!

You always play against kids either a year older and than a years younger the next, what's the issue? Once you hit youth league if you are good enough as a 17-18 year old you should be able to compete against the older kids a lot of kids just out of 18s or still in are doing more than find in youth league, players like spear, Thomas, Clark, daly, burns and johns to name a few. If you aren't good enough you play in a lower div 1st couple yl seasons against not so good and scary guys.
I don't see any problem.

Few grammar errors but I'm half asleep and made a quick post before bed, apologies!

worst possible scenario

Player 1 is a first year born on December 31

Player 2 is a second year born on January 1

Season starts in October, Player 1 is 14, Player 2 is 16.

That's the biggest age gap possible.

At no stage does a player 14 play against someone who is 17.

Youth league is not juniors. If you are good enough at 17 like the above examples, you play. As for the other age groups, what's the problem? It's a two year age group, just like many other sport. Eg all players about to play u18 will be born in 96 or 97. Fourteen year olds do not and can not possibly play against seventeen year olds.

So you dont want to play against someone two years older... So when you get a chance to play ABA at 18 you dont want to play against 23 - 25 year olds???

So did you inform them that 14 year olds cannot possibly play against 17 year olds (who aren't eligible for U/18s next year), or aren't you smart enough to work it out either?

Parents give me the shits

So sorry to ask you to reconfirm details, but is there ever an advantage depending on when you were born?

Are you better off being born end of December, or start of Jan or are some of the above posts indicating that when you are born is irrelevant and there is no advantage or disadvantage associated?

Mantis if a player is 14 in October, turns 15 this December that makes him 16 in December 2013 meaning at the start of the summer season which begins in October he will be 14 and playing Under 18s

I'm not wrong

You have to unwrap the cotton wool sooner or later and let them HTFU in 12 months time he will be the bigger one and the next little jonny will have the same thing.....

Go play footy and this happens

http://m.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/st-peters-college-and-prince-alfred-college-in-off-field-stoush-over-footy-game-violence/story-e6frea83-1226457337729

Junjo I understand its hard to track but I never said they would Mantis claimed a 14 year old would still be in Under 16s. He's wrong. A 14 year could, as of the start of the Summer Season be playing under 18s.

As I've posted above and re posted below the worst case scenario is a 14 year old playing against a 16 year old.

"worst possible scenario

Player 1 is a first year born on December 31

Player 2 is a second year born on January 1

Season starts in October, Player 1 is 14, Player 2 is 16.

That's the biggest age gap possible.

At no stage does a player 14 play against someone who is 17."

1 year and 364 days actually.

for the top players moving to U23's is not so much of an issue if they stay div 1-2, but for the good but not outstanding playing U23 div 3-4 with the monsters that use strength and Umps are not as skilled it is very intimidating. I know a lot, and I mean a lot, of kids who just stop playing at this point. It would be interesting if the stats were taken of how many leave the sport at district level when U18's is finished and U23 starts.
My older lad is at the cross roads now, he's always been on the edge of the div1 squad and he's thinking of giving it away which would be a shame as he's just starting to fill out and hasn't given his body the chance to reach potential, but it's his choice not mine.
I personally feel they should have U20's and introduced the U23's as new div. It would help keep kids playing BBall at district level, which means membership and fees for clubs, which in turn should flow on to BASA and facilities. It also gives older teenagers an outlet other than repeating the mistakes dad made at his age.

Under 20s was dropped due to lack of court space. That's all. Once again the lack of basketball facilities holds back the sport.

Lol I wonder where it flows on from BSA? Are their books even open to public scrutiny?