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.