Thoughts: Go Away!

QWON,

Our age groups are dictated by competitions across Australia. ie U/14 Natioanls, Classics, natioanls Chapionships. And considering the number of teams in some club, how many clubs would be able to put that menay teams on the floor.

Damage and Sector 7G,

Under Pro/rel what you would probably find is that Sturt and Forestville would have run their team differently. Rather than playing 9 or 10 in div 1 they would have choosen they best 8 and their second best 8. This woul probably have lead to both these teams playing div 1.

Considering the pro/rel model would only have had 8 teams maximum in div 1, Southern, Eastern, Sturt 2 and Forestville 2 would have been playing for the last 2 spots in div 1, the other 2 would have played in div 2 with Sturt 3, Forestville 3, Norwood 2, North 2, South 2, and Centrals.

This would also mean that div 2 would be a better competition.

*awaiting the arrival of the blue paintbrush*

Damage

Yes. The probelm with putting Forestville 2 and Sturt 2 in div 1, is that the top teams will actually be worse off. Currently they get to play each other more times. Thus play more good games. Adding 2 teams into div 1 that would not be much more competitive then the bottom 2 teams would not really be an improvement. In U/14 girls it would mean that Southern and Eastern would have more close games, but they would still get smacked each other weeks.
If you look through most grades, outside the top 8 teams, the 9th and 10th teams are not that competitive. SO what IMHO is best if is Southern and Eastern have to play Sturt 2 and Forestville 2 for those posititons.

By having the competition at 8 teams comps, you would generally have a competitions which would allow 3 rounds. A 10 team competition only allows for 2 rounds plusa teams playing some teams a couple of extra times. I think this gives fore an uneven competition. If your team had to play both Foresatville and Sturt 3 times whereas sombody else plays Southern and Eastern 3 times, your team is disadvantaged to making the finals. Also, what it would do is make div 2 a much better standards of competition. In most grades you would have the bottom 2 teams from div 1 playing with the top 6 teams in div 2. I feel that this would promote players to stay at their current club rather than moving to div 1 clubs. And I would even suggest that a by-law be intraodued to either limit the numbers of players a club can take into div 1 in any 1 year, or to allow players that move after the summer grading season to only play in an equal of lower grade if they choose to move clubs. ie a kid playing for Southern in U/14 girls that didn't make div 1 cannot move to Forestville or Sturt to play in their 2nd div 1 team, but is allowed to move to either club to play in their div 2 team. This way families can decide to move due to issue's such as clashes in philosophy, but clubs can't use extra div 1 spots to 'recruit;.

Finally, I feel that this model works to force clubs to redefine their resource allocation into juniors. If your club did not have the guarentee to play in div 1 each year they would look at improving their service delivery and standards. And all club would be directly accountabe is to their efforts. And that if a club choses to change their philosophy, pro/rel actually would work in their advantage. If a lower club has a good group of U/10's, this group is more likely to do well in U/12's and wqoukld easily make div 1 even if their U/16's were in div 2.

And there is the blue paint

How would the spots be determined at the start of the grading season?

Is it from that clubs position 2 yrs prior, in the younger age group or can each district nominate a team for each division?

How does regionalisation fit into pro/rel?

Over the grading season there would be 6 team grades. With the top 2 teams moving up a grade and the bottom two teams moving down a grade. At the end of the 3 round grading season teams would be put into 8 team competitions.

The starting positions would be determined by teams finishing posititons from 2 years prior. ie For the U/14's, where they finished 2 years prior in U/12's. Plus each club would have 1 spot in the top 10 and 1 spot in the 2nd 10. Thus each season a club has the chance to move up if they have improved. ie This year in U/14 girls. West are not in div 2. In 2 years time. They would start in 10th spot with Centrals in 9th and Eastern in 8th, etc.

Pro/rel actually fits into regonalisation better than the current format being proposed. Under a 2x 10 team competition, it would mean that realistiaclly, in U/14 girls, the team that is 3rd on the ladder in div 2 would be playing in div 3. Against teams from div 3 only from the southern area. They might therefore play against div 4 teams. This would lead to even larger blowouts, decreased development and more disgruntled players IMHO. Under pro/rel, you would have 3 grades of 8. Meaning that 24 rather than 20 teams would be in the district competition. Plus these would be the top 24 teams on ability, leaving the other teams to play in their local area, ie North/South to start.

more blue paint as we missed a few spots

Blue or not, it seems to make sense. Esp. with the 'rule' forbiding players to change clubs and move up into div 1.

Damage,

The proposal is based on the over development for basketball in SA, both elite and particiaption. In order for this to happen IMHO clubs need the safety net of guarenteed div 1 positions taken away. I would hope that all clubs put more resources into div 1 and therefore we have 8 out of the 10 clubs in div 1 each year.

I agree that the midrange clubs have the most to gain. Especially the top div 2 teams, who would most often get to play against better competition. This is where I think the worst blow outs happen.

I think the 14 girls at the moment is a 2 horse race and probably it will be difficult for pro/rel or any other competition format to make for a more even overall competition in this grade. But in most grades, an 8 team format would work well.

Try not think of it as 2 clubs missing out, but rather as the best 8 teams making it. And then the next 8 best teams making it into a grade where they have a good close games each week.

Agree that if you are top there will always be teams below you. But it is whether or not you are not being challenged at all, that it what matters. BLow outs lower the overall standard of basketball as well as produce players who are disinterested in continuing playing.

Now you only have to convince the rest of your club Dr D!!

Actually hessian bag,

that might depend on the change in set up of Metro basketbll. If a governing council of the like is set up to take control of the competition club may have their voting rights taken away. I wuold say that most people here would agree that the decisions made by the clubs,(who will alway make decisions to benefit themsleves) are largely responsoible for basketball becoming stagnant in this state.

We all agree that a large number of clubs are struggling. But the question to ask yourself is how much is the current system to blame? Under pro/rel the Melbourne competition has become larger and increased the number of clubs. AS has basketball in NSW.

Out of curiousity does anyone have a feel for the cost of a junior to play basketball for a year in SA v Vic v NSW: annual fees, match + spectator fees, travel within Adelaide, interstae comps, state cha,ps costs etc. I can't help but think that Pro/Rel will not have any real impact on the size of basketball participation in SA - it is just too expensive for many families particularly if more than one is involved. To me it is becoming an elitist sport.

This is where regonalisation is supposed to help. A lower cost and lower travel competition where training expectations are decreased will decrease the cost and increase numbers.