HFL Division 1 (Central)

[cracka]

Fight it as hard as you can. The SFL has a hybrid (some participating in the Saturday program, some in the Sunday separate program, some both, some none) - it is an absolute clusterf***

Yeah I know SFL folk hate their junior program being so different from the senior one. What do we do if clubs like Uraidla & Torrens Valley can't field juniors though.

I thought fielding juniors was a requirement of Division 1, where is there a problem?

I know you're just saying that to cause controversy, you know damn well the problem with it.

[Peakedinhighschool]

BB yes I believe we are the only league where juniors are considered when calculating relegation, however we are also the only league with 2 or more divisions that has juniors playing on the same day at the same venue as the seniors.
Hate to say it but HFL may have to bite the bullet & have separate programmes for juniors & seniors, which is what's been happening in Div 2 for years.

Fight it as hard as you can. The SFL has a hybrid (some participating in the Saturday program, some in the Sunday separate program, some both, some none) - it is an absolute clusterf***

Yeah I know SFL folk hate their junior program being so different from the senior one. What do we do if clubs like Uraidla & Torrens Valley can't field juniors though.

I thought fielding juniors was a requirement of Division 1, where is there a problem?

Nobody thought finals counted in the relegation battle last year either....

[Legs Man]

I think everyone knew TV & Uraidla would struggle to field all juniors this year and next.(they are not alone)
Unfortunately the stipulation to present numbers for juniors prior season start (as Echunga had to do in 2014 with a threat of fines, sanctions etc.) wasn't applied by the HFL to my knowledge for both these clubs.(all clubs in fact)
Had this occurred it would have presented the HFL with another problem - but perhaps one which highlighted the increasingly dire situation smaller clubs are facing.
Please understand I am not blaming the HFL alone on this due to the way votes are conducted and decisions made (except for allowing S/C to stay in Div 2 which was an override HFL decision)
Avoiding relegation is now taking over how clubs work and what they aim for which isn't the desired focus for any league.
Getting rid of junior points allocation towards the relegation table would be a good start - plus promotion of junior footy in the hills across ALL AREAS.

Still think a club travelling as one across all grades is the best way to grow participation though.

[Look Good In Leather]

Fight it as hard as you can. The SFL has a hybrid (some participating in the Saturday program, some in the Sunday separate program, some both, some none) - it is an absolute clusterf***

Yeah I know SFL folk hate their junior program being so different from the senior one. What do we do if clubs like Uraidla & Torrens Valley can't field juniors though.

I thought fielding juniors was a requirement of Division 1, where is there a problem?

I know you're just saying that to cause controversy, you know damn well the problem with it.

Why should Onkaparinga Valley or Echunga get relegated this year when they do the right thing and field all grades, if there are others that don't?

[cracka]

Why should Onkaparinga Valley or Echunga get relegated this year when they do the right thing and field all grades, if there are others that don't?

So are you saying Uraidla & Torrens Valley should be relegated next year if they don't have all junior sides, even if one of them wins the flag.

[Legs Man]

Why should Onkaparinga Valley or Echunga get relegated this year when they do the right thing and field all grades, if there are others that don't?

So are you saying Uraidla & Torrens Valley should be relegated next year if they don't have all junior sides, even if one of them wins the flag.

Houston - we have a problem

[Off The Wall]

Why should Onkaparinga Valley or Echunga get relegated this year when they do the right thing and field all grades, if there are others that don't?

Why should Torrens Valley or Uraidla get relegated this year when they do the right thing and do try to get junior teams running, only to suffer because of their township size and/or a generation gap of junior players in the area.

[cracka]

Why should Onkaparinga Valley or Echunga get relegated this year when they do the right thing and field all grades, if there are others that don't?

So are you saying Uraidla & Torrens Valley should be relegated next year if they don't have all junior sides, even if one of them wins the flag.

Houston - we have a problem

[Legs Man]

Why should Onkaparinga Valley or Echunga get relegated this year when they do the right thing and field all grades, if there are others that don't?

Why should Torrens Valley or Uraidla get relegated this year when they do the right thing and do try to get junior teams running, only to suffer because of their township size and/or a generation gap of junior players in the area.

Having a quick look at populations for the Div 1 areas / clubs -

1000 or less:
TV
Echunga
Uraidla
Ironbank

1500 - 2500:
Onkas
Hahndorf
Lobethal

2500 - 5000:
Blackwood
Mt Lofty

30,000 plus:
Mt Barker

These are summarized from the latest stats available.

This gives everyone a good insight into the inequity of counting junior grades in the relegation points.
Understandably the clubs surrounding Mt Barker feed off them to try and get juniors - but wow do they have an advantage over everyone else or what?
There is no way the 4 clubs with less than 1000 people can compete with clubs at the 2500 plus level - and it is impossible when that number blows out to 30+ times that.
Yet currently the less than 1000 clubs are evaluated the same with our unfair system as it stands.
And when it comes down to a club vote - you can see who wins.

[Elmer J Thudpucker]

This gives everyone a good insight into the inequity of counting junior grades in the relegation points.
Understandably the clubs surrounding Mt Barker feed off them to try and get juniors - but wow do they have an advantage over everyone else or what?
There is no way the 4 clubs with less than 1000 people can compete with clubs at the 2500 plus level - and it is impossible when that number blows out to 30+ times that.
Yet currently the less than 1000 clubs are evaluated the same with our unfair system as it stands.
And when it comes down to a club vote - you can see who wins.

Yes, but every club, including TV, Echunga, Ironbank and Uraidla voted for this system. When there last a vote to change the points for senior colts win (to 5), it was unanimously carried.

The HFL is the 20 clubs. They control the by-laws and can pass a motion to change if they want. The 'big clubs" certainly don't have a majority voting block. Sometimes it's easy to blame the HFL for the relegation system, but it's they system the clubs voted for. We should only be blaming them when they compromise the system by giving some clubs an unfair advantage.

[The realist]

The problem with clubs being unable to field junior teams has evolved since the introduction of the under 13s premiership competition. A solution would involve the reversion to only two junior premiership competitions in Divison 2 coupled with the allocation of clubs to divisions based on junior numbers. Unfortunately, far too few people involved with running the clubs have an interest in the greater good... Just what is good for their own club in the short term. To any independent person looking in at our league, it would seem obvious that Nairne and Bridgewater should be in Division 1 and Torrens Valley in Division 2. The difficulty is in deciding what administrative structure to put in place to allow this to happen.

[cracka]

The problem with clubs being unable to field junior teams has evolved since the introduction of the under 13s premiership competition. A solution would involve the reversion to only two junior premiership competitions in Divison 2 coupled with the allocation of clubs to divisions based on junior numbers. Unfortunately, far too few people involved with running the clubs have an interest in the greater good... Just what is good for their own club in the short term. To any independent person looking in at our league, it would seem obvious that Nairne and Bridgewater should be in Division 1 and Torrens Valley in Division 2. The difficulty is in deciding what administrative structure to put in place to allow this to happen.

The CFL (and their insurance provider) have approved 3 year age gaps for country leagues so maybe going back to 2 junior grades is an option.

[running defender]

I think its about time we clubs have some input to what changes this cfl make because some off there decisions our down right ludicrous.

[The Gimp]

Why should Onkaparinga Valley or Echunga get relegated this year when they do the right thing and field all grades, if there are others that don't?

Why should Torrens Valley or Uraidla get relegated this year when they do the right thing and do try to get junior teams running, only to suffer because of their township size and/or a generation gap of junior players in the area.

Having a quick look at populations for the Div 1 areas / clubs -

1000 or less:
TV
Echunga
Uraidla
Ironbank

1500 - 2500:
Onkas
Hahndorf
Lobethal

2500 - 5000:
Blackwood
Mt Lofty

30,000 plus:
Mt Barker

These are summarized from the latest stats available.

This gives everyone a good insight into the inequity of counting junior grades in the relegation points.
Understandably the clubs surrounding Mt Barker feed off them to try and get juniors - but wow do they have an advantage over everyone else or what?
There is no way the 4 clubs with less than 1000 people can compete with clubs at the 2500 plus level - and it is impossible when that number blows out to 30+ times that.
Yet currently the less than 1000 clubs are evaluated the same with our unfair system as it stands.
And when it comes down to a club vote - you can see who wins.

So then play in div 2 against other same size clubs in a more sustainable league for you club/town!

As you can see from your figures - there are 6 clubs that are "staple" div 1 clubs and will 9.5 times out of 10 fill all grades with no problem. If you made div 1 eight teams, that then allows 2 remaining spots for the likes of Echunga, TV, Uraidla, Nairne, Ironbank, Bridgy for when they have a great few years in the seniors to try it in the "big" league.
Reduce the size of div 2 and make sure all clubs in div 1 or 2 must have at least 2 of the 3 junior grades.
I still don't understand why it's good enough for there to be gaps in the div 2 draw but not in the div 1 draw???
What makes the league think that Mt Barker is such a more important club than Kersbrook/Birdwood??

In regards to the junior numbers dropping off. It's about time the AFL and SANFL clubs got of their @sses and started doing more visits to the grassroots level (clubs and schools). I'm unsure about the other clubs but in the last 10 or so years, I can't remember any AFL team coming to Birdwood for a training and have only seen a couple of SANFL players 4-5 times.
If AFL players want more $$ from us (general public/supporters), then they need to start putting more back and work harder at growing the game against soccer etc.

[Armytank]

I have an idea that I want to put forward for people to discuss, shoot down, what ever. As long as we are talking about it, ideas will surface.

My idea is this:

Division 1 MUST field U13 U15 and U17 sides. NO PERMITS allowed at all.

Division 2 MUST field U14 and U16 sides. Permits can be allowed to encourage clubs to field sides.

Any junior player who wants to play at another club in a different division is instantly given a 1 year permit - they remain registered to their home club.

This enables any kid to make single year progressions through their junior football, potentially retaining a number of kids who drop out from 13s to 15s and 15s to 17s.

Any Div 2 club who wants to be promoted to Div 1 simply needs to retain all of their U14's (who will become U15's) and all of their U16's (who will become U17's) and then work to field a U13's side. If they cannot field the U13's side then no promotion. Their ability to field a U13 side should be evident by their modified football participation eg, how many U11's or U12's that they currently have.

Please, think about it.

[The Gimp]

I have an idea that I want to put forward for people to discuss, shoot down, what ever. As long as we are talking about it, ideas will surface.

My idea is this:

Division 1 MUST field U13 U15 and U17 sides. NO PERMITS allowed at all.

Division 2 MUST field U14 and U16 sides. Permits can be allowed to encourage clubs to field sides.

Any junior player who wants to play at another club in a different division is instantly given a 1 year permit - they remain registered to their home club.

This enables any kid to make single year progressions through their junior football, potentially retaining a number of kids who drop out from 13s to 15s and 15s to 17s.

Any Div 2 club who wants to be promoted to Div 1 simply needs to retain all of their U14's (who will become U15's) and all of their U16's (who will become U17's) and then work to field a U13's side. If they cannot field the U13's side then no promotion. Their ability to field a U13 side should be evident by their modified football participation eg, how many U11's or U12's that they currently have.

Please, think about it.

I don't mind your thinking but generally smaller town/clubs (div 2 mainly) have the biggest trouble with fielding senior colts which this proposal would make it even harder as they would lose those 17yo's to div 1 that aren't ready to play senior footy yet.
If you were to make it U14/15 and U18 for div 2, they would find it much easier to fill all 4 sides.

[Armytank]

Do you think that you would get may 17 year olds playing B grade in div 2?

Genuine question as I don't know enough about the B grade comp in Div 2. But would this aid numbers with the B grade comp?

[the wonder elephant]

@legsman these numbers are intresting . Blackwood 5000 please they tap in to a much wider area than just blackwood alone and would be drawing from a similar or bigger pond than mt barker .
The key is where schools are based kids want to play with there mates .
teams such as mt lofty ,blackwood ,mt barker ,birdwood ,and onkas are always to a certian leg up regarding senior colts and to a certian extent jr colts from the schools location .
At the end of the day its comes down to 2 things
1 the environment you provide to jrs throughout all grades to make them want to stay and follow through to senior footy.
2 bloody hard work from voulenteers and players to get to the local primary schools and run aus kick clinics etc.

not all kids are just going to roll in the door !
If you build it they will come

[Amateur Footy]

If you haven't read Gimp's post please read and if you don't agree keep reading it until you do!

The Div 1 / Div 2 structure should pit clubs of similar strength against one another yet many of you only care about senior football which would be at the expense of competitive junior football. Generally big towns = Div 1, small towns = Div 2 simple! Also move any clubs not filling juniors into a C Grade comp. Why fight so hard to change to league so you can play in a comp that you can't ever seriously compete in across all grades.

I would add to Gimps post that it is not only the AFL/SANFL that could do more. Each club can just about always do more to get into schools in the surrounding area. Schools can be 15km away, but if you are prepared to put the work in, the kids will come. You just need to find some parents willing to help (that's the hard part).

[batmanbegins]

Agree with most of that ArmyTank, I prefer Gimps thought of DIv 2 have under 14/15 and under 18 though as I think that allows them more opportunity for numbers. I think Nairne should eventually come into Div 1 as they are a growing community and have a much bigger population than most div 2 clubs. TV are a Div 2 club as we all know but I'd be interested to see what happens to them if they got relegated because if Hughes took away the cash 3 quarters of their A's would leave and they would struggle to fill 2 senior sides especially with a few regular B grade locals leaving this year. Personally i think it should just be smaller towns Div 2 and Bigger towns div 2, but with Money involved some of those Div 2 clubs would get smashed by TV and Echunga. It should be as follows I reckon;

Div 1

Barker
Blackwood
Hahndorf
Lofty
Lobethal
Onkas
Lofty
Nairne

Div 2

Bridgy
Ironbank
TV
Kangarilla- I know they struggle seniors wise but they do have all Junior sides
Echunga
Kersbrook
Birdwood
Uraidla

Div 3
Maccy
Gums
S/C
Milang
Any other 3rd team for another club

Funny that that would lead to the top 3 teams in the As playing Div 2 but it would even out the Juniors big time and maybe see less money spent as clubs would be happy to just play locals without the stress of relegation. Maybe I'm old fashioned but the beauty of country footy was playing with your mates on a saturday, the majority of which you grew up playing juniors with but now footy clubs are a small business with numerous clubs having wasted money on guys that got them nowhere and you never see them again (apart from Uris who have recruited incredibly well).
I mean TV have 7 players that are locals, Echunga have a few more and Uris would be around the same (Most have been there for years now tho) , to me it's not what country footy is about. This is rich coming from a guy from IB as we obviously spend a lot of money but i've never liked it and most likely never will.