One thing I have been witnessing a lot over the years is coaches picking bottom agers in the 1s but giving them zero court time. The main feedback being "they have to wait for their time" or “we are getting them ready for next year”. I fail to understand the logic behind this as court time is paramount to development.

Tend to agree with you - game time is important for development. The counter would be that you spend more time training than playing and so a year of training with higher grade would be beneficial. But giving zero or v limited minutes is an issue and on balance if that's the case then better for a bottom age kid to be in a lower team and perhaps leading that team.

OP you come across as a parent that is bitter that your child isn't automatically given that position when the reality is they shouldn't necessarily be given it.

There should be no blanket rule. Each situation is different and should be decided on a case by case basis.

A Div 2 opportunity is usually better for the last 1 to 2 bottom age players. They will get more court time (assuming they earn it), more responsibility and at training they will go up against the Div 1's. This gives them the opportunity to develop naturally.

No junior team should be tanking at the start of the season. If a bottom age is of similar skill level or physical ability that is fine to take them but if there is a huge gap then the top age remains. It is unfair to the rest of the players in the team to just say "Well we aren't going to make finals this year so we aren't going to bother even being competitive so we will just put bottom ages in"

Life will go on if your child doesn't make the top team (You will not be removed from social circles). If you and he/she stays positive and makes the most of the opportunities in the second team then they can become a better player. The other side to it is the player comes out to training and games unmotivated due to the parent and their entitled attitude, they struggle in games and their minutes drop. The parent and child then blames the Div 1 coach for their poor performance for not putting them on the bench of Div 1..... Don't be that parent, take accountability and sell the opportunity in Div 2 to your child instead of taking the negative approach.

OP is a coach dude

See this a lot. Clubs and coaches love talking about development. Then they go and put 9-10 players in a team. That is the opposite of development. I believe 10 players should be an absolute no-no in junior basketball. Even 9 players should be discouraged, but clubs love having as many players as possible to get the fees.
If a child is playing in a team of 9-10 players and lucky to get much court time every week, probably the best thing the parents could do is get them moved down a division.

It's the clubs who list and make the teams. Coaches have a say, but it’s the clubs who determine team sizes and can put a limit or stop to this.

Have single age age groups and this isn't an issue.

Having been involved in club administration and coaching it in both domestic, junior and senior representative programmes I see there is often a misunderstanding regarding development opportunities, programme revenue and player numbers.

There are several comments in this forum string that suggest larger player numbers in junior representative teams are a revenue-generating activity.

From my experience, multiple years as a club treasurer, this is not true.

Over the last 15 years that I have been involved as a coach, the limiting factor has been the availability of good coaches. Year on year, there are always more players trying out than there are positions available and this is due to the availability of a quality coach. Most clubs simply cannot get the number of volunteers to coach.

Most junior representative programmes train three to four hours a week, plus play on a Friday evening. Therefore it is training that makes up 75 to 80% of the development opportunity and the Friday night game only being 20 to 25% of the weekly activity.

At the club, I'm involved in the squad's train as a large group for the first 20 to 30 minutes of the training session. This is to ensure consistency of development for the entire age group. The individual teams then train for the remaining time as individual teams.

As a coach, individual skills training is important, but, so too is teamplay and concepts of team offence and defence. therefore as the skill level in the programme improves the need to have ten players, 5 offence 5 defence, becomes more and more important. This is why junior programmes take 10 players per team it is not about revenue raising and it is not about fear of cutting players.

Addressing the original post. How to balance teams between top age players and bottom age development opportunities.

Assuming that the programme you coaching is sufficiently large enough that the top two teams will be predominantly top age and the bottom two teams would be predominantly bottom age.

If the skill gap is so large that you believe your 7th to 10 players will not get more than 10 minutes of court time per game then I would suggest you put the bottom age player down a team so they can continue to gain game experience. Personally, I would suggest you should never pick a player to who you are not prepared to give at least 15 minutes of court time to per game.

Now I do understand this can be extremely difficult for a coach in their first VC opportunity. My suggestion would be to remember you are dealing with children and you are having a bigger impact on them than you realise. Do what is best for the player long term.

@Ando

Two-year age groups versus single-year age groups.

Effectively in the larger associations, the first and second teams are predominantly top age players and compete in VC or VC reserve. Now on occasion, there are some exceptionally talented bottom age players who play in the top team but for the most, it is normally top age players in the first and some bottom age players in the seconds and a major of bottom age players in the 3rd and 4th teams. Effectively creating the single-year experience in most cases already.

This actually does provide the opportunity for a bottom age player to play in the higher competition with the top age players within an age group. And if the coaches are mature enough it provides good flexibility to balance teams according to their level of player development.

In my opinion, the two year age grouping with top age and bottom age players provides flexibility and development opportunities don't really see this as broken and don't see a need for it to change

100% better for a bottom age player to be advanced if they can hang with the team, even if they get 25-40% game time. Training is the key, and stepping up to the level. Invaluable, so long as they are mature, want it and can make the most of the training and are ready for the minutes that come. As a coach, I have seen this work very well.

https://www.hoops.com.au/forum/49432-try-outs-and-development-prospects/