I have no problem at all with clubs having multiple teams per age-group. Especially in the U12 the lower teams should be about developing players, focus on fundamentals and playing as a team.

If the issue you are talking about is the commitment of individual players on improving, attending practise and being coachable then I would consider that more of an issue of the player and/or family.

I would actually contend there is far too much emphasis on developing 'elite' players usually to the detriment of their overall development and some very poor coaching mentality, especially in the junior programs.

I'm probably more interested in what you think 'what rep is' before responding further.

Depends on the attitudes of not just players but parents. Some don't understand the distinction between the two, would just be happy playing with their mates with no thought towards playing at a high level. Then there's the kids and parents that like the prestige of playing for a recognised club, even though it's a low grade.
There's always the diamond in the rough as well, especially around the under 16 level, have the commitment but just haven't fully matured physically. Seen just as many that were div 6 that played at a higher level later than same age kids that were state reps that never grew much more and just relied on being bigger than their contemporaries.
So really a balancing act, have had just as much enjoyment, if not more, coaching lower grades and them wanting to improve opposed to higher levels that thought they were God's gift.

A lot of the clubs with multiple teams use this as a source to fund senior teams,more often end up with a parent coaching,and when team 4 wins against team 3 the selections issues arise as to why little Johnny missed out and useless Billy got in,I'd love VJBL to go to under 11s 12s 13s 14s and so on and it would allow players to develop against players around the same age rather than playing against someone that maybe 18 plus months older,then development could really be measured as continuity of teams each year would happen with minimal changes to each team and selection issues would be lessened and you may only end up with 4/ 5 clubs in one age group,

I totally agree! It's 100% glorified domestic competition these days! In my opinion, anything after division 2, maybe division 3, shouldn't be in the elite/rep category. If you can't make the first 2 or 3 divisions, you're a domestic player in my opinion.

As someone who came through the older system when there was just two divisions per age group on the west coast, and has also played at high level, I can honestly say I have found the skills and fundamental levels in kids in the new system to be very sub-par. Sure, there are some great athletes around, but due to the "quantity over quality" approach, I have now found coaching under 14s and under 16s to be quite eye-opening and a bit disappointing.
I agree that after the top division, the intensity from players and commitment of the parents/kids drops considerably. Kids today also seem to play multiple sports, plus play their domestic games, plus go away every school holidays and long weekends, have school commitments...etc etc. I rarely have all 10 kids at training, and because there's not enough courts available to cater to all the teams in the system, we now only train for just over an hour which means there is little time to do a lot of teaching. Growing up, we always trained for at least 90mins - 120mins. There's also the issue of there not being nearly enough decent coaches to go around for all the teams, which is why so many players are so poorly trained and have no skills.

I do recognise the upsides in having so many more teams and players in basketball too though. There are way more kids playing basketball now compared with 15-20 years ago, and it has helped revitalise the interest in basketball nationally. There's a lot more money for NBL1 programs, which is another reason why some clubs insist on having so many teams per age group. There's also a lot of "athletic" players in the system, but are they fundamentally better basketball players? Not even close.

To me there are lots of problems and the skill level has dropped considerably. I am amazed at how weak the players are. I also don't enjoy coaching players who aren't intense at the rep level and as mentioned already, don't even seem to realise it's meant to be a higher level of commitment and competition than domestic comp.

I could go on and on but here are a few thoughts.

i think a lot don't understand the hard work and dedication required - all see the end product and want. But I get it that's the marketing.
Truly good first teams do a lot in the background.

Some lower grades are set up to fail.

Nothing is more disappointing than -

head coach takes all teh control of age group and then only immerses themselves in the first team.

first team gets the best best training facility and court with most backboards. And the best nights / timeslots.

first team gets a great coach / player ratio.

anything after first team gets 30 players on 1 training court with 2 rings and a parent coaching.

everyone pays full fees.

club media continually acknowledges first team activities.

I just feel they could get it better but this has gone on for years.

BBLAR - can't compare to the past - cities were half the population they are now and basketball did not enjoy the profile it has now. Less facilities made it harder for people to play then too.

A good club respects and educates it's volunteers > that's what the paid staff should be doing IMO.

The "past" being 10 years ago (on the west coast anyway) wasn't half the population, it just took less teams because back then the rep competition (WABL) was meant to be for the more elite players in the state. Not for every Tom, Dyck and Harry who rocked up and paid fees. There is still a massive facility shortage because there's a crazy amount of teams.

It's changed from being elite to being participatory and money making essentially. As I said before, yes there are upsides, particularly financial, but the skill level and coaching side falls short.

Regardless of the structure, the conveyer belt begins at the U12 level. A player who can crack the 1's Rep team at that level will likely remain in the 1's team in every age group up to 18's as long as they put the work in.

Some 2's team players may get their chance to move up within the same Association depending on the circumstances. However, they increase their chances of getting into a 1's team by switching to another Association.

The "elite" levels of Rep (ie 1's teams and 2's teams up to u16, 1's teams in U18) tend to also have elitist selection processes. Most of the players in those teams are usually picked before Tryouts. The Tryout process is really just to see if there is one or two other players that could fit in.

Over the years, I have seen several players in 1's and 2's teams that are not in those teams based on merit. But that's another story.

The popularity of the sport has incresed significantly over the past decade. A lot more junior players. Most Associations are taking advantage of this by accepting as many players as they can and creating a lot of Rep teams. But make no mistake ... the main agenda for doing this is to raise the money to fund the 1's Rep teams and the Big V teams. Same old story, a large pool of players dreaming of getting to elite level one day, but while they dream, their fees are being used to support a small elite group of players.

I wish Associations were forced to be transparent when it came to the money flows. You see situations where families pay several hundreds of dollars for their child to play a season of Rep and the child gets only a few minutes of game time each week. The Associations justify this by saying that the emphasis is on Training sessions. But even then, it's only the 1's and 2's teams that get funded two sessions a week. Any team lower than that only gets one.

The solution to this would be very simple. The higher the team, the higher the fees are. So a 1's player would have to fork out say $1500 to $2000 for a season, A 2's player a $1000 per season. A 3's player $300 to $500 per season. A 4's player $300 per season. Any player in a lower team, say $200 per season.

It's tough watching an U16 Div 6 team...or an U18 Div 8 team as you may as well be going to a Saturday community match.
The issue is also that there are now so many divisions and teams that on a Thursday night there aren’t enough referees (as evidenced by the number of solo referee posts).

Why should the best players get penalised with higher fees for being good??? Best way to send players to either other sports or just not play because their family can't afford it.
And why should the div 1 coaches always be expected to oversee the entire age group unless they're paid substantially to do so. They've got their own squad to look after, why use more of their time going to trainings and games, which as premised by the original post, the players are unreliable and not worth it. If lower grade coaches want to learn more, they should be able to attend the top teams trainings to learn, else most clubs have full time coaching directors or the like. But most of their time is taken up by parents whinging.

@The Phantom,

Firstly, I don't automatically agree that the BEST players always end up in the highest teams. There are quite a few associations that have 16's and 18's One's teams and even YL teams which have players that are clearly not the best. They are often there for reasons of politics or nepotism. Nothing to do with skill levels or even team composition.

Anyways, the truly Best players (or their famnilies) will happily pay the higher fees to play at the higher levels because that is part of the deal between the player and the sport. The higher fees are an investment in their development. And those that continue on into YL and beyond will often find the teams they are in get sponsored to play and to train - so they will reap an ROI.

And don't worry, the Best players and their families can usually afford to pay How do you think they got good in the first place. Usually because they are often happily paying for all the extra private training their kid is getting outside of the Association. (Or do you think the Best players don't need to do the extra work?)

Are you suggesting that it's fair for lower level players to be paying the same fees but not getting anywhere near the support? If you are, that is a surefire way to lose those players to the sport sooner rather than later.

Also explain why you think it's fair that a Rep player in a Threes or Fours team pays the same fees as a Ones or Twos player ... but usually only gets one training session a week rather than two and often with a less skilled coach?

The current cost of living crisis is impacting a lot of things including junior sports participation. Families a looking for better value for money. Basketball needs to keep ahead of the curve, because the existing business model is not seen as value for money in comparison to sports like junior football or cricket - which are often a lot less expensive to fund, and provide much better pathways and greater opportunities to play at higher levels down the track.

I love the game. But if another parent ever asks me what sport I think their young kid should pursue, I would suggest Australian Rules Football and Cricket are clearly the best value for money junior participation sports on the table ... and by quite some way. Those two sports teach kids a lot more life lessons than Basketball does. The kid has a much better chance of making it to a Pro or Semi-Pro level if they harbour that dream. And the costs are much more reasonable for families.

Gee, someones got their panties in a bunch.
Yes, there is always nepotism, but it still doesn't answer why all top division players have to pay higher fees.
So what about the players from lower socio-economic families do genius? Not all players suddenly become good because they make the top teams. Some are blessed with natural athletic ability or physical characteristics. Won't mention certain groups, but there are people that come from traditionally low income groups that excel in sport. Or how about a single parent family, their child excels at sports but because of your idea they'll have to play a lower grade.
So a player has the ability to play div 1 but will have to decline it and play div 3 or even div 5 based on your sliding scale idea. Bit of discrimination there when a demographic is forced to play lower based on certain factors, never mind the embarrassment that it'd cause.
So it will just create a further divide in the haves and have nots. Buy your way into a higher grade or be dropped because mum can't pay the higher fees.
Parents have become terrible in trying to live their sporting careers through their kids, but what about those that don't care or simply can't afford extra fees? Oh yeah, the kid suffers because of your bright idea. I've seen kids beg, borrow and steal just to pay their weekly game fee, catch multiple buses and trains to get to games and trainings because they have no-one else to help them or they have too much pride to accept it. Have seen a kid have to catch 3 buses to get to training on a weeknight and then do the same thing at 930 at night to get home.
All it will do is make clubs subsidise talented kids anyway and pay for a winning team and it doesn't solve the problem at at.

@The Phantom,

My response is the last sentence of your post.

A simple solution ... Talented kids that are financially hamstrung would be funded by the Association either partially or fully in the form of scholarships. Happens in a lot of other junior sports and is done in a completely transparent manner.

I'd much rather see fees being directed to those kids rather than the way they are usually directed - to the Associations' Big V and NBL1 teams.

I suggested that the fees for higher teams be higher. I did not suggest that the player's themselves (or their families) would automatically be the ones to pay them. (However, I did say that many could probably afford to pay and would be happy to do so)

So you think it's fair that a Rep player in a Threes or Fours team pays the same fees as a Ones or Twos player ... but usually only gets one training session a week rather than two and often with a less skilled coach ???

And you think its fair that the fees those Threes, Fours and lower teams players pay are directed to Big V and NBL1 teams?

Hmmm. I wonder what many of those players / parents would think about that - because many of them don't realise that is what happens in a lot of Associations.

Paying higher fees for playing the highest division is a dumb idea.

Equally as dumb is saying that "Anyways, the truly Best players (or their famnilies) will happily pay the higher fees to play at the higher levels because that is part of the deal between the player and the sport. " They would not be happy paying extra. With game fees that comes to about $45 a game. No way is that fair and no way would they be happy with that.

I don't know why people can't understand that the fee structure is the same because the money goes towards court hire. It doesn't go towards coaches. Some Anecdotal evidence that the lower teams train less or that their facilities are less is not the norm.

Why are you trying to reinvent the wheel Lakers33?
Don't know where you are located but lower divs train the same amount of times as higher grades, only difference is higher grades are fully timed. If they train less then obviously they should pay less, but would think the norm is twice a week in most states. Could argue about the difference in some training venues as top teams would get the best spots.
So your next solution is clubs pay the higher fees to themselves? That makes sense. Clubs I've been involved with have helped out struggling families with volunteer roles at the club reducing fees etc. And as for teams participating at tournaments interstate there is nearly always fundraisers, raffles or the good old Bunnings sausage sizzle.
Yes, clubs use money from juniors to spend on their senior teams despite denials it all comes from sponsorship. But I think that applies to AFL, netball, soccer etc, so basketball isn't the only one. Can always attend the AGM and ask these questions or nominate to go on the board and make a difference in reducing junior fees being funneled into senior's. But the success of a club often translates to how the senior teams perform, maybe those not interested in sport don't even know there's a senior team in a semi professional league, but most do and even pop along and cheer them on for "club pride". So your platform in nominating for the board to reduce the budgets might be a short lived one. But you seem passionate about changing it all, so go for it tiger!
And FFS, of course the top teams will attract the best coaches, as they also attract the best players. Do you want the best coaches doing the low grades whilst a mum or dad does div 1? The top coaches start of in lower grades and build themselves up, exactly like players. There's a massive shortage of coaches anyway, I can't see any of your solutions helping the situation, unless another of your bright ideas is to subsidise coaches? Thereby raising the fees some more to attract better coaches to come over.
You seriously have got no idea, it's actually kind of impressive how dumb you are.

You guys are completely missing the point and throwing strawmen arguments into the discussion.

Elite players don't appear out of nowhere. They are the product of a range of factors.

So you both seem to think it is fair for players at lower levels, who do not get access to the same resources should be paying the same fees?

And spare me the Court Hire argument please - if that is an issue, then the Associations should not be taking on so many teams. But that won't happen will it? The power of the $$$ is too strong.

@Sixers Fan .. Raising an elite level junior in any sport involves a lot of resources. Like it or not, elite juniors have a lot more money spent on them to get to those levels. Families make a lot of sacrifices in many different ways to support the development of an elite junior. That is a fact of life.

There will always be issues with finding coaches etc. Of course, the best coaches should be allocated to the higher level teams. But if you are telling me that it is reasonable for lower level teams to be expected to pay the same fees when they are getting a parent coach, then I disagree. They are not getting the same deal.

As for getting on a Board. LOL. I've been involved in several sports over the journey. And imho, Basketball - especially junior Basketball - is one of the most insular political and agenda driven sports I have witnessed. It's every person for themselves. If many of those in senior positions spent half the time focusing on the sport itself than they do in protecting their positions and those of their supporters, the sport would be a lot healthier than it is.

As for being dumb? Indeed, abusing others who do not share the same opinion seems to be a common trait amongst many in the basketball fraternity. That is a big part of the problem. And a major reason why the sport is so slow to change.

Anyway nice talking to you guys. It's clear the conservative view of the sport is alive and well ... The more things change the more they stay the same.

Cheers.

If we are excluding court hire I'm curious what you mean by resources?

If you mean coaching i think that's been covered above.

Is there other resources you feel that a club gives div 1 players that are not offered or provided to lower divisions.

I have noticed a slow trend towards two tiered fees. At least 3 clubs in Adelaide have tiered fees in place, likely a few more.

often the first squad gets some more trainings due to commitments - i.e. Div 3,4,5,6, etc have some big gaps around Easter - whilst squad 1 trains through. Also if they are going to U14 clubs they have weeks of extra court hire.

Also some clubs will put 3 teams on a single court with 2 rings whilst a squad 1 will get 2 teams on anything up to a 6 court ring.

Squad 1 usually has the best choice of venues, training nights and times.

This all spoken from experience.

@Nightwing, the OP was referencing Victoria (VJBL) which is where I have witnessed many of the issues being discussed here.

The Ones teams always get the most resources. They get the most training court time on the best courts with the best coaches.

The Twos teams usually get similar resources to the Ones teams mainly because the Twos players are often used to support the development of the Ones players.

The Ones Teams and Twos Teams are often getting access to similar resources. Most training time, access to the best courts, and access to the best coaches.

Teams in lower groups Threes, Fours, etc. usually only get one training session per week, on the second, third, or lower designated court, usually with volunteer junior coaches, or parent coaches.

As "+" has mentioned, it is not unusual for higher level teams to continue to train during periods where the lower level teams take a break.

Many Associations treat their Ones players as the serious ones - the future of the Association, etc. And as such, they get preferential treatment. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't spend enough time at their local Assocation.

There is a clear difference between the two distinct groups. The "product" being purchased by the player / family is clearly different.

So imho, the fees that Associations should charge Representative Competition players should be primarily a function of Court Hire for training, and the cost of Coaching. Since lower level players don't get access to the same court time and coaching (in fact most lower level teams have volunteer coaches), it is reasonable to expect their fees should be lower than players in higher level teams.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that higher level player fees should increase! I am suggesting that lower level player fees should be reduced.

I'm puzzled as to why some of the posters here take issue with that. Why do they expect that players in lower level teams should be paying the same for lesser support? Doesn't make sense to me.

@Nightwing, the OP was referencing Victoria (VJBL) which is where I have witnessed many of the issues being discussed here.

The Ones teams always get the most resources. They get the most training court time on the best courts with the best coaches.

The Twos teams usually get similar resources to the Ones teams mainly because the Twos players are often used to support the development of the Ones players.

The Ones Teams and Twos Teams are often getting access to similar resources. Most training time, access to the best courts, and access to the best coaches.

Teams in lower groups Threes, Fours, etc. usually only get one training session per week, on the second, third, or lower designated court, usually with volunteer junior coaches, or parent coaches.

As "+" has mentioned, it is not unusual for higher level teams to continue to train during periods where the lower level teams take a break.

Many Associations treat their Ones players as the serious ones - the future of the Association, etc. And as such, they get preferential treatment. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't spend enough time at their local Assocation.

There is a clear difference between the two distinct groups. The "product" being purchased by the player / family is clearly different.

So imho, the fees that Associations should charge Representative Competition players should be primarily a function of Court Hire for training, and the cost of Coaching. Since lower level players don't get access to the same court time and coaching (in fact most lower level teams have volunteer coaches), it is reasonable to expect their fees should be lower than players in higher level teams.

BTW, I'm not suggesting that higher level player fees should increase! I am suggesting that lower level player fees should be reduced.

I'm puzzled as to why some of the posters here take issue with that. Why do they expect that players in lower level teams should be paying the same for lesser support? Doesn't make sense to me.

Not sure of the association where there is such a difference between ones to the lower teams but that's sad to hear it’s the case.
I’d agree in potentially the 1-2s getting more attention early on for grading purposes and ranking as high as possible but once grading is done the love should be shared equally.

I agree though Lakers33, if there’s a difference in the amount of training sessions then there should be a difference in fee’s but I’m not sure of any association around my area where that’s the case in the VJBL!

Ok, I'm going to keep playing.
I understand your point that if they only have one training session compared to 2 or more that they should definitely pay less. Just speaking about South Australia all teams train twice, normally Sunday then midweek. Some Youth league lower grades sometimes just do one and that's reflected in fees. So in that case players/families should shop around and it's their own fault they're disadvantaged.
As for less experienced coaches and/or parents doing lower grades, it's always going to be the case due to shortage of volunteers. But how are you going to implement a payment tier. I've seen div 1 coaches, ex NBL and nbl1 players taking lower teams with their kids in them because they're either not very good at that age or just doing it for fun. Are those teams going to have their fees raised for having a good coach going by your system.
I agree with junior fees going towards senior payments. Why not go to these players and cut their pay giving the reasons you outlined. Players will leave, juniors won't support a losing club and a vicious cycle begins.
As for top teams getting better resources, that's the way the cookie crumbles. And speaking again about Sa basketball, virtually every coach is a volunteer and doesn't get paid.
So as I said, go to your AGM, raise your concerns and suggestions. If lower grades want to waste their money it's there choice, but unless there's a revolution then no club will reduce their fees, will be like asking Coles and Woolies to drop their prices or banks reducing fees.

Not my VJBL experience so I'm surprised to hear that some VJBL teams only train once a week.

I would expect lower fees in any situation where I don't get the standard weekly on court training time.

I know of at least 1 SA club which does this for its lower end district teams, not 3s or 4s though from memory. Some sessions can be 3 teams to a court not 2. In my experience this is more due to the lack of commitment of the players.

Coaches are volunteers. All of them. You don't pay for coaches so I won't buy in to thay argument.

Good courts/bad courts. Some bad courts cost more than good ones. Should we make families pay for their specific venue. Some clubs in Vic and SA used to do this for their 2nd training.

The only issue I think is fair is the different weekly hours of training, if that is the case at your club, sounds like you have a genuine reason to pay less.

@Nightwig,

I'm aware of three Associations in the Melb. Metro region where Three's teams and below only train one time a week - normally on a Sunday morning. And at at least two of those Associations, Three's teams decide early in a season whether to organise and pay for an extra training session out of their own pockets. Those sessions are often at venues that are not used by the Association. (Eg. School courts, community courts etc.)

Coaches are Volunteers? I know several coaches at both VJBL level and at Domestic level. They are all paid a fee to coach.

Courts!, the Associations that I have been involved with .. the Ones always train on Court 1 / Stadium Courts. The Twos also do so if they are training with the Ones. Three's teams and below never train on Court 1 / Stadium Courts.

One's Teams usually train at the Home Venue. Three's teams and below will often train at alternative venues. But that depends on the number of available courts at the Home venue and the number of teams the Association has decided to field.

But I do agree with you ... ultimately it is difficult to evaluate coaching quality and court quality when establishing fees. So the volume of training time is probably the best quantitative measure of how fees should be set. At the end of the day, regardless of the level, most of the value of any Rep fee is in the training time that is provided to the player.

And it seems that a few posters here appreciate the merit in setting fees on that basis to some extent - at Rep level anyway.

Cheers.

Well simply don't play at those associations unless they're happy with only one session.
And my answer stands, basic economics. Don't pay the seniors so much then if a revenue stream is reduced.
As for 3 teams on a court I've only seen it done on a regular basis where there's an uneven number of teams per age group and numbers aren't high. Or occasionally due to availability such as hot weather or venues having something on short term, teams are put together so they don't miss out. Or coaches want to see how a div 3 team fares against the ones or twos.
Lakers33, you're listing some examples that are specific to your situation, not generally in practice to other competitions. I know a northern Adelaide club paying petrol money because of the distance, some imports as part of their contracts will receive money for coaching a junior team, but again the vast majority do not get paid.
You're arguing specific situations you are personally involved with, not the norm. If that's the status quo and teams do it, then it's on them. Again, join the board and argue your points there not on a forum that isn't just based on your experiences, because it's not the norm.
Generally teams pay the same as ones for 2 trainings, ones do get perks and better coaches. That is worldwide. Junior coaches as a majority do not get paid apart from maybe a stipend, else there'd be tax ramifications, superannuation etc. Yes, junior teams prop up seniors, again a worldwide problem.
Bleating about your personal experience is for you to sort out, it doesn't apply to the majority, hope that clarifies it a bit. Notice that you're the only one arguing about this, that might be an indication.

Paid to coach domestic?!
Now I've heard it all!!

@The Phantom, examples ...

"specific to my situation",
"specific situations that I am poersonally involved in",
"not generally in practice to other competitions".

I am talking about VJBL - Victorian Junior Basketball League. Hundreds of teams.

Specifically, personal experience with three Associations in Melbourne, fielding dozens of teams and hundreds of players from U12 through to U20.

Don't worry, more and more parents are getting vocal about this. And in a couple of instances there have already been changes to fees for lower level Rep teams at a couple of the Associations I am aware of. People in high places do listen if enough people comment on it.

Obviously different in SA. But I have no experience of Junior Basketball in SA. I suspect though, that it is a much smaller cohort than Victoria.

And I'm not arguing anything. Some of the posters here have already commented that it makes sense to adjust fees on the basis of training time. Again, if you didn't agree with that - why do you think different levels of "service" should attract the same fees?

As for payment to coach domestic teams. I have direct experience of it myself. Family members and close friends who have coached local domestic teams for entire domestic seasons and received payment for doing so.

A stipend is still payment for services rendered. It is income for the person doing the coaching ... and they declare it as income when they do their tax returns.

If the coach is U18, superannuation is only paid if they coach more than 30 hours per week - coaching a team will be more like 2 to 3 hours a week, so no issue. If the coach is older than 18yo, still no issue, most of them will already have part time jobs and I super fund to pay into.

Been there done that. It happens, and it happens a lot in Victoria - mainly because there are dozens of junior domestic teams ... especially younger ones, crying out for coaches. The fees that a healthy Domestic Club attracts from players more than covers a small regular payment to a coach.

Would love to know where anyone is getting paid to coach domestic, that's bloody hilarious!

Are you counting the usual end of season gift that usually gets chipped in by parents (voucher or something) or are you saying regular weekly payments?

A lot of parents already take domestic way to seriously, imagine throwing paid coaches into the mix!!!

I've been paid by various Melbourne clubs whenever I’ve coached domestic, 'petrol money’ kind of thing.

Good if you can get it Hoopie I'm not bagging anyone who gets it but any clubs paying a domestic coach are a joke. It’s bad enough dealing with parents who think domestic is serious, can’t imagine how bad it must get when the coaches are getting paid.

Hope you declared it on your tax return, ATO might be after you.