|
|
Post by Oops on Feb 6, 2017 15:26:49 GMT
What so if there was a world championship in basketball anyone other than USA would win? Of course not- silly argument There have been 4 different Olympic winners and 6 different winners of the world cup. Compared to Netball's 0 and 3 respectively. The difference here IMO is that there have been 16 medal winners in basketball compared to the 6 for netball. This would indicate a greater range of countries of quality participating. I don't think anyone would dare to argue that USA aren't significantly better than the rest but their league is a multi billion dollar industry and it's ingrained in their culture; something that can't be said about any other country. The point here really is that the second tier of basketball is significantly more competitive than the near non-existent one for netball. I was beaten quite comprehensively to the stats and it looks like I've miscounted my countries as well. Oh well... |
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 6, 2017 16:15:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by Mrs J on Feb 6, 2017 16:15:52 GMT
All of which highlights how rubbish the people who run basketball in this country really are.
Kids love playing basketball.
The league is poor and poorly supported
GB basketball is very poor and poorly supported
Coaching system is terrible
Events like midnight madness are embarrassing
John Amaechi just moans but does nothing about it
NBA is not tv here so no one watches it so there is no interest
A decent governing body would turn this around.
Netball is a great game to play (I play in a local league- even boys come and play) but not to watch.
Basketball is both (well the last quarter anyway)
No point them moanibg about lack of funding because when they had funding they did nothing with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Facts on Feb 6, 2017 17:22:29 GMT
Good to see the old adversary between basketball and netball shows no sign of slowing!!
Reality it is apples and pears. Netball is played, in the main, in three countries and the Caribbean whereas basketball is probably second only to football as far as team sports go globally. Now this has it's benefits and drawbacks for both.
Basketball offers far more opportunity for both men and women to play professionally, but GB struggle on the world stage because of the depth in global talent. Whereas netball is virtually guaranteed to be in the top 4 in every tournament, but the national team have only just gone full-time. Also because it's a small sport generally only played by one gender, netball can't get into the Olympics where it would gain a much higher profile (and presumably more funding).
The funding is the interesting thing as they are very similar sized sports in participation size, more young people play basketball than netball, but more adults play netball than basketball. Which then makes it look odd that netball gets more than 3x the money basketball gets in today's announcement - something which has been consistent for decades.
Now you can argue about the quality of governance and all of that, and some fair points have been made here, but in reality that just lets Sport England off the hook because there job is about supporting grass roots, something they have patently failed to do in basketball.
Why netball gets that money - gender demographics? It's a great way of getting women playing sport which is a good thing and something many sports struggle with. Historical British sport? Old girls network? Who knows, and to be fair who really cares?
I don't have a problem with netball getting £16m, but given the metrics of participation I think basketball should be at least close to it in funding terms - it would be better for all if basketball got the same as netball rather than the other way around.
|
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 6, 2017 18:07:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by Mrs J on Feb 6, 2017 18:07:13 GMT
Good to see the old adversary between basketball and netball shows no sign of slowing!! Reality it is apples and pears. Netball is played, in the main, in three countries and the Caribbean whereas basketball is probably second only to football as far as team sports go globally. Now this has it's benefits and drawbacks for both. Basketball offers far more opportunity for both men and women to play professionally, but GB struggle on the world stage because of the depth in global talent. Whereas netball is virtually guaranteed to be in the top 4 in every tournament, but the national team have only just gone full-time. Also because it's a small sport generally only played by one gender, netball can't get into the Olympics where it would gain a much higher profile (and presumably more funding). The funding is the interesting thing as they are very similar sized sports in participation size, more young people play basketball than netball, but more adults play netball than basketball. Which then makes it look odd that netball gets more than 3x the money basketball gets in today's announcement - something which has been consistent for decades. Now you can argue about the quality of governance and all of that, and some fair points have been made here, but in reality that just lets Sport England off the hook because there job is about supporting grass roots, something they have patently failed to do in basketball. Why netball gets that money - gender demographics? It's a great way of getting women playing sport which is a good thing and something many sports struggle with. Historical British sport? Old girls network? Who knows, and to be fair who really cares? I don't have a problem with netball getting £16m, but given the metrics of participation I think basketball should be at least close to it in funding terms - it would be better for all if basketball got the same as netball rather than the other way around. But what would basketball England do with the money? |
|
|
|
Post by notoriousbigz on Feb 6, 2017 18:17:43 GMT
Good to see the old adversary between basketball and netball shows no sign of slowing!! Reality it is apples and pears. Netball is played, in the main, in three countries and the Caribbean whereas basketball is probably second only to football as far as team sports go globally. Now this has it's benefits and drawbacks for both. Basketball offers far more opportunity for both men and women to play professionally, but GB struggle on the world stage because of the depth in global talent. Whereas netball is virtually guaranteed to be in the top 4 in every tournament, but the national team have only just gone full-time. Also because it's a small sport generally only played by one gender, netball can't get into the Olympics where it would gain a much higher profile (and presumably more funding). The funding is the interesting thing as they are very similar sized sports in participation size, more young people play basketball than netball, but more adults play netball than basketball. Which then makes it look odd that netball gets more than 3x the money basketball gets in today's announcement - something which has been consistent for decades. Now you can argue about the quality of governance and all of that, and some fair points have been made here, but in reality that just lets Sport England off the hook because there job is about supporting grass roots, something they have patently failed to do in basketball. Why netball gets that money - gender demographics? It's a great way of getting women playing sport which is a good thing and something many sports struggle with. Historical British sport? Old girls network? Who knows, and to be fair who really cares? I don't have a problem with netball getting £16m, but given the metrics of participation I think basketball should be at least close to it in funding terms - it would be better for all if basketball got the same as netball rather than the other way around. But what would basketball England do with the money? MORE JOBS FOR THE BOYS! WOOOOOO!!!!! |
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 6, 2017 19:54:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by Guest on Feb 6, 2017 19:54:11 GMT
Good to see the old adversary between basketball and netball shows no sign of slowing!! Reality it is apples and pears. Netball is played, in the main, in three countries and the Caribbean whereas basketball is probably second only to football as far as team sports go globally. Now this has it's benefits and drawbacks for both. Basketball offers far more opportunity for both men and women to play professionally, but GB struggle on the world stage because of the depth in global talent. Whereas netball is virtually guaranteed to be in the top 4 in every tournament, but the national team have only just gone full-time. Also because it's a small sport generally only played by one gender, netball can't get into the Olympics where it would gain a much higher profile (and presumably more funding). The funding is the interesting thing as they are very similar sized sports in participation size, more young people play basketball than netball, but more adults play netball than basketball. Which then makes it look odd that netball gets more than 3x the money basketball gets in today's announcement - something which has been consistent for decades. Now you can argue about the quality of governance and all of that, and some fair points have been made here, but in reality that just lets Sport England off the hook because there job is about supporting grass roots, something they have patently failed to do in basketball. Why netball gets that money - gender demographics? It's a great way of getting women playing sport which is a good thing and something many sports struggle with. Historical British sport? Old girls network? Who knows, and to be fair who really cares? I don't have a problem with netball getting £16m, but given the metrics of participation I think basketball should be at least close to it in funding terms - it would be better for all if basketball got the same as netball rather than the other way around. But what would basketball England do with the money? Well given they have the same participation numbers as netball on a third of the money, maybe provide some much needed facilities to allow post school age participation to flourish??? Maybe you could flip the question and ask why netball has so few participants given the 10s of millions invested in it by SE? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 6, 2017 21:07:27 GMT
I would like to see a proper justification from Sport England explaining why netball receives three times the funding basketball does. The participation numbers don't support such a discrepancy and while boys can play netball, they don't.
I find it utterly incredible (and I'm not easily shocked) that the head of Sport England is allowed to so blatantly reward her sport with public money
|
|
|
|
Post by fogleg on Feb 6, 2017 21:19:25 GMT
agreed hersey, a thorough explaination is necessary i believe, if for no other reason than to help gb basketball improve and enable them to achieve a similar level of funding as netball.
|
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 6, 2017 23:42:34 GMT
via mobile
Post by Question on Feb 6, 2017 23:42:34 GMT
agreed hersey, a thorough explaination is necessary i believe, if for no other reason than to help gb basketball improve and enable them to achieve a similar level of funding as netball. Question though- How would more money make GB team better? Better head coach? Training camps abroad? (Pointless as basketball is indoor) Genuinely don't know how GB team would improve in one Olympic funding cycle |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 7:29:43 GMT
As much as I would like to see basketball receive more funding, I'm not sure what it would achieve.
The people "running" the game are a bunch of wallopers who couldn't run a bath.
It's about using the money and resources you've got to best effect. Have we ever really done that? If we receive more money all we're going to do is piss more money against the wall.
|
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 8:44:58 GMT
via mobile
Post by youngrocks on Feb 7, 2017 8:44:58 GMT
sport england have a big push to get more females into sport. unfortunately netball is seen as the easiest team sport to get into i feel. there league set up and sell out games are majority freebies not to disimilar to bbl finals.
also they have an international team who regularly wins medals at commonwelath games. thats the factor in this. they get a bronze medal every four years where as basketball isn't a commy games sport (core sport) and we are unlikely to qualify for another olympics in the next few cycles? so unfortunately where is the benefit of investing?
1 mil per a year is better than nothing however to support age groups and the top teams it wont go too far. i hope we see some commercial revenue on show. all it tskes is a few years of stability, proper sold out games, proper options for fans and the machine begins to roll forward
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 11:12:36 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 11:12:36 GMT
I doubt a million to run eight national teams goes that far. Certainly not as far 3 mill would
|
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 11:54:28 GMT
via mobile
Post by Amaechi on Feb 7, 2017 11:54:28 GMT
Make John Amaechi the boss of British /England Basketball.
He's the only man capable of driving the game forwards in the UK
|
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 12:14:10 GMT
via mobile
Post by Guest on Feb 7, 2017 12:14:10 GMT
Well they have just advertised for an Independent chair.
Nothing to stop him applying.
|
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 12:38:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by r33 on Feb 7, 2017 12:38:55 GMT
The best thing about the funding might be that to some degree it may remove the in-built excuse for non-performance the current GB federation has.
|
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 7, 2017 12:44:19 GMT
Make John Amaechi the boss of British /England Basketball. He's the only man capable of driving the game forwards in the UK He was on the board at EB, don't remember their being a massive spike in their performance then. He's a brick thrower, not a builder |
|
|
|
Post by ko25 on Feb 7, 2017 12:57:25 GMT
Regarding selling out crowds it's easier to fill seats when there's less games in the NSL and clearly it's not going to cost you loads they play 18 games from Feb to June. Also I don't know the ins and outs but I'm guessing they must have a minimum operating standard to be in the league as Yorkshire Jets had their franchise withdrawn and yet they play in the same place as Leeds Force.
|
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 14:08:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by Guest on Feb 7, 2017 14:08:24 GMT
Team Northumbria get crowds of 3-400. They don't even set out the whole show court at sports central
Newcastle eagles get 2000 in same gym.
No comparison.
|
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 15:00:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by rideralex on Feb 7, 2017 15:00:20 GMT
Make John Amaechi the boss of British /England Basketball. He's the only man capable of driving the game forwards in the UK Honestly he seems more interested in raising the profile of John Amaechi than anything else and that's not the kind of person that is needed to build. It needs someone who actually has the motivation and ability to do stuff not just the ego to speak about things they have no real intention of doing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 17:17:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 17:17:27 GMT
There really is no point talking about Amaechi. It won't happen
|
|
|
|
Post by ballerman on Feb 7, 2017 17:22:47 GMT
Seems to be two separate discussions in one.
85% of all primary school teachers are female. Therefore PE teaching of games played handling a ball will be netball. They get all the athletic girls at a very early age and it's very hard to get them away from that. Netball is actually quite aggressive about keeping girls away from basketball because they are afraid of losing them. I have a mate who coaches girls and some of his players miss training sessions because they are put under pressure by netball.
Then is the subject of money. Do you think basketball deserves huge funding? Do you truly believe we can justify anything that has been done in recent years as showing genuine improvement. GB failed at the 2012 Olympics (no, we were never going to get a medal) but we needed one of the teams to get to the quarter finals. The age group teams started to make progress but now they are all in the B Division. The so-called pathway system doesn't work and the clubs I know, certainly don't feel part of the programme.
Hate all you want but we just don't help ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Facts on Feb 7, 2017 18:07:29 GMT
Seems to be two separate discussions in one. 85% of all primary school teachers are female. Therefore PE teaching of games played handling a ball will be netball. They get all the athletic girls at a very early age and it's very hard to get them away from that. Netball is actually quite aggressive about keeping girls away from basketball because they are afraid of losing them. I have a mate who coaches girls and some of his players miss training sessions because they are put under pressure by netball. Then is the subject of money. Do you think basketball deserves huge funding? Do you truly believe we can justify anything that has been done in recent years as showing genuine improvement. GB failed at the 2012 Olympics (no, we were never going to get a medal) but we needed one of the teams to get to the quarter finals. The age group teams started to make progress but now they are all in the B Division. The so-called pathway system doesn't work and the clubs I know, certainly don't feel part of the programme. Hate all you want but we just don't help ourselves. Ballerman you've confused the two bits of funding together, when in fact they are quite separate albeit Sport England is providing both. The first is £1m for the GB team. Do we deserve that? Absolutely, the senior men have qualified for EuroBasket and this is probably the absolute minimum it will require to run the programme. If a team qualifies for a continental competition it should be appropriately supported by the government mechanisms, so of course they deserve that. I'd argue it's coming from the wrong place, but not that it shouldn't come. The second is £4.7m for grassroots and development. Does basketball deserve that? No, it deserves much, much more than that, but because basketball has been starved of funding for decades we seem to be grateful for this meagre offering. The reality is it is Sport England's job to drive participation, help provide pathways for young people, keep the nation active and promote healthy lifestyles. Based purely on participation they have consistently and persistently failed to support basketball when compared to sports with similar participation (netball, rugby union, cricket) or with much smaller participation levels (rugby league). Also the demographic of people who play basketball is precisely the sort that the Government is currently trying to target to be more active, but Sport England again has failed to do so. Whilst its easy to take potshots at the governance of basketball in this country (and perfectly acceptable to do so) we cannot allow this to shift blame away from Sport England who have patently and consistently failed the sport, when in fact it should have been one of their highest priorities based on the evidence that their own data provides. It is a minor miracle that basketball has the participation numbers it does compared to other sports given the huge disparity in funding since basically forever. The amount invested in basketball per person who plays it is in the pence compared to pounds for other sports, that is not only inequitable, it is indefensible for an organisation that is supposed to be driven by participation. So yes basketball needs to improve it's governance but that is NOT a reason to say everything is ok with Sport England and that basketball doesn't deserve any funding. In fact perhaps the opposite is true and if SE had done what they should have done in funding terms a decade ago, we might have better governance now because they would have spent more time focusing on development and less time on just trying to make the ends meet. |
|
Eurobasket don't make me larf
Guest
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 18:31:38 GMT
via mobile
Post by Eurobasket don't make me larf on Feb 7, 2017 18:31:38 GMT
Seems to be two separate discussions in one. 85% of all primary school teachers are female. Therefore PE teaching of games played handling a ball will be netball. They get all the athletic girls at a very early age and it's very hard to get them away from that. Netball is actually quite aggressive about keeping girls away from basketball because they are afraid of losing them. I have a mate who coaches girls and some of his players miss training sessions because they are put under pressure by netball. Then is the subject of money. Do you think basketball deserves huge funding? Do you truly believe we can justify anything that has been done in recent years as showing genuine improvement. GB failed at the 2012 Olympics (no, we were never going to get a medal) but we needed one of the teams to get to the quarter finals. The age group teams started to make progress but now they are all in the B Division. The so-called pathway system doesn't work and the clubs I know, certainly don't feel part of the programme. Hate all you want but we just don't help ourselves. Ballerman you've confused the two bits of funding together, when in fact they are quite separate albeit Sport England is providing both. The first is £1m for the GB team. Do we deserve that? Absolutely, the senior men have qualified for EuroBasket and this is probably the absolute minimum it will require to run the programme. If a team qualifies for a continental competition it should be appropriately supported by the government mechanisms, so of course they deserve that. I'd argue it's coming from the wrong place, but not that it shouldn't come. The second is £4.7m for grassroots and development. Does basketball deserve that? No, it deserves much, much more than that, but because basketball has been starved of funding for decades we seem to be grateful for this meagre offering. The reality is it is Sport England's job to drive participation, help provide pathways for young people, keep the nation active and promote healthy lifestyles. Based purely on participation they have consistently and persistently failed to support basketball when compared to sports with similar participation (netball, rugby union, cricket) or with much smaller participation levels (rugby league). Also the demographic of people who play basketball is precisely the sort that the Government is currently trying to target to be more active, but Sport England again has failed to do so. Whilst its easy to take potshots at the governance of basketball in this country (and perfectly acceptable to do so) we cannot allow this to shift blame away from Sport England who have patently and consistently failed the sport, when in fact it should have been one of their highest priorities based on the evidence that their own data provides. It is a minor miracle that basketball has the participation numbers it does compared to other sports given the huge disparity in funding since basically forever. The amount invested in basketball per person who plays it is in the pence compared to pounds for other sports, that is not only inequitable, it is indefensible for an organisation that is supposed to be driven by participation. So yes basketball needs to improve it's governance but that is NOT a reason to say everything is ok with Sport England and that basketball doesn't deserve any funding. In fact perhaps the opposite is true and if SE had done what they should have done in funding terms a decade ago, we might have better governance now because they would have spent more time focusing on development and less time on just trying to make the ends meet. To qualify for Eurobasket GB scraped through against the powerhouses of Luxembourg , Macedonia and Hungary. Our 4 Countries in GB against a total population of about 20 million in the countries we played. If we hadn't made Eurobasket the GB team would have very probably been disbanded. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2017 19:09:37 GMT
We get a load of funding and all you guys do is moan that another sport gets more? I can't even finish reading this thread! Be happy we're being funded again!
|
|
|
|
Netball
Feb 7, 2017 23:19:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by Guest on Feb 7, 2017 23:19:06 GMT
Our 4 Countries in GB against a total population of about 20 million in the countries we played. If we hadn't made Eurobasket the GB team would have very probably been disbanded. C'mon now, Luxembourg was a scrub team, but both Macedonia and Hungary are pretty decent. Hanga was probably the best player in the group and Macedonia are not that far removed from a team that finished 4th in EuroBasket, ok they didn't have a McCalebb level player but they are decent. |
|
