PDA

View Full Version : New format for Asian Championships in 2013?



Mojado
09-15-2011, 01:31 PM
How about a new format like the one in Europe where you have also a "B" and a "C" Championship for developing countries.

I would propose a 12-team "A" and the rest in "B" Championship.

After witnessing this year's and the past games, blow-out victories over pretty weak opponents don't help to grow but are demoralizing for players.

Nations like Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan and so on, could learn how to build up without the fear of getting blown-out.

Also, the level of play in "A" would be by far better and more challenging.

What do you think?

mavrick_h
09-15-2011, 02:05 PM
How about a new format like the one in Europe where you have also a "B" and a "C" Championship for developing countries.

I would propose a 12-team "A" and the rest in "B" Championship.

After witnessing this year's and the past games, blow-out victories over pretty weak opponents don't help to grow but are demoralizing for players.

Nations like Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan and so on, could learn how to build up without the fear of getting blown-out.

Also, the level of play in "A" would be by far better and more challenging.

What do you think?

yup i support the idea just like the women's Championship

babdelkader
09-15-2011, 04:28 PM
yup i support the idea just like the women's Championship

BTW, which level are we now ;)

Khalid80
09-15-2011, 07:20 PM
BTW, which level are we now ;)

Level 1 ;) Don't you remember just a few weeks ago our Lebanese women NT beat India and then Kazakhstan to stay in level 1

Mojado
09-23-2011, 01:43 PM
After watching a lot of the games this year, I would even allow only 8 to ten teams to play for the Asian Championships. Blowouts do not help countries like Uzebkistan,Malaysia or Indonesia to grow.

mavrick_h
09-23-2011, 02:25 PM
After watching a lot of the games this year, I would even allow only 8 to ten teams to play for the Asian Championships. Blowouts do not help countries like Uzebkistan,Malaysia or Indonesia to grow.

fair point but do you think they will execute this plan in the near future ? i personally doubt that

Mojado
09-23-2011, 03:24 PM
fair point but do you think they will execute this plan in the near future ? i personally doubt that

No, but it would be more interesting to see back to back games between the bigger basketball nations and certainly more rivalries that could be good for marketing purposes and so on.

kerouac82
09-23-2011, 03:57 PM
If this includes a system of promotion and relegation and was implemented this year, I believe Qatar would not have even dared pull that stunt they did. After all, it would be such a disgrace to be relegated to a lower group due to dick moves made by the coaches.

mavrick_h
09-23-2011, 08:25 PM
If this includes a system of promotion and relegation and was implemented this year, I believe Qatar would not have even dared pull that stunt they did. After all, it would be such a disgrace to be relegated to a lower group due to dick moves made by the coaches.

yup it is one of the reasons AC needs a new format :)

JGX
09-24-2011, 01:27 AM
A few blowouts never hurt anyone. How will you set up a multi-level tournament? Who will host the lower levels? Would the total number of teams be capped like with the women?

lovejones
09-24-2011, 01:32 AM
How about a new format like the one in Europe where you have also a "B" and a "C" Championship for developing countries.

I would propose a 12-team "A" and the rest in "B" Championship.

After witnessing this year's and the past games, blow-out victories over pretty weak opponents don't help to grow but are demoralizing for players.

Nations like Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan and so on, could learn how to build up without the fear of getting blown-out.

Also, the level of play in "A" would be by far better and more challenging.

What do you think?

So what would happen to the champions or the top two finishers of the "B" or "C" categories? Would they be given slots to the next higher category in the next tourney or would this be an end in itself?

Eaglefan97
09-24-2011, 03:01 AM
It seems interesting.

For the purposes of discussion though, I wanted to ask: Isn't that theoretically why we have the regional championships? The Western Asia Champions, the South Asia Champions, The Southeast Asia, The East Asia Champions...etc.

There seems to be the real stepladder portion. The way it works is the best teams all emerge from these divisions to play against each other. The second and third place teams also come up.

The developing teams could build against their own division first. Most divisions have at least 1 strong team in their fold and they set the bar for that level.
Some of the teams you mentioned, Hong Kong (East Asia), Uzbekistan, (North?) Indonesia and Malaysia (Southeast Asia) first build against teams like Korea, Kazakhstan and the Philippines. Once they get to that level, they move up to the other tournaments.

Maybe we can use that existing structure to implement your idea. With some tweaks. Perhaps this could make implementing it easier since the structure is already there?

For example, the first and second placers can all progress to the Championships while the third and fourth placers first compete in a wildcard tournament against each other. (Which can be your B tournament) The winners in this tournament can then join the Championship round.

The problem lies with some regions who don't have strong teams in their divisions. India for example always emerges as the winner in a very weak south asia division. And they are not a strong team. They need stronger competition and perhaps should be folded into either the West or Southeast Asian divisions.

Mojado
09-24-2011, 07:19 AM
It seems interesting.

For the purposes of discussion though, I wanted to ask: Isn't that theoretically why we have the regional championships? The Western Asia Champions, the South Asia Champions, The Southeast Asia, The East Asia Champions...etc.

There seems to be the real stepladder portion. The way it works is the best teams all emerge from these divisions to play against each other. The second and third place teams also come up.

The developing teams could build against their own division first. Most divisions have at least 1 strong team in their fold and they set the bar for that level.
Some of the teams you mentioned, Hong Kong (East Asia), Uzbekistan, (North?) Indonesia and Malaysia (Southeast Asia) first build against teams like Korea, Kazakhstan and the Philippines. Once they get to that level, they move up to the other tournaments.

Maybe we can use that existing structure to implement your idea. With some tweaks. Perhaps this could make implementing it easier since the structure is already there?

For example, the first and second placers can all progress to the Championships while the third and fourth placers first compete in a wildcard tournament against each other. (Which can be your B tournament) The winners in this tournament can then join the Championship round.

The problem lies with some regions who don't have strong teams in their divisions. India for example always emerges as the winner in a very weak south asia division. And they are not a strong team. They need stronger competition and perhaps should be folded into either the West or Southeast Asian divisions.

There are a couple of options that are possible, one would be like you said an additional tournament before the championships like the one before the Olympics.
Also, like FIBA Europe had it before adding almost all teams to this year's championships, there could be a system of the "A", "B" and "C" championship hosted by a team in this division. The "C" championship in Europe has been won by Denmark (who gained promotion to "B") this year and has countries like Andorra, San Marino or Malta which are developing their game. It would be football-like where you can gain promotion or you may get relegated if your national-team is descending skills-wise.
It's always better for developing countries to play in one division instead of being routed by big basketball nations which is quite negative since building a winning mentality for a coach is important as well as a positive reaction in each of the country's media outlets.
Also regrouping India is another thing that should be noticed by someone in FIBA Asia. It's ridiculous that they have to play Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal...even Iraq would have had a pretty good chance to beat them and they cam in last in their zone if I remember right.

reamily
09-24-2011, 10:10 AM
tournament for 2nd level teams is a must because of the gap between the first but we should not change the format of fiba asia..

make the stankovic cup the 2nd level tournament

leoisiah
12-15-2011, 06:09 AM
Works for Europe because Europe is small. Countries are much nearer to each other compared to those in Asia. Because Asia is big, groups are much better divided regionally. Just to illustrate, Cambodia team might not want to travel all the way to, say, Oman for just a FIBA-Asia 'C' game. Too much travel expense but the rewards are just small.

leb-basket
01-10-2012, 04:26 PM
Works for Europe because Europe is small. Countries are much nearer to each other compared to those in Asia. Because Asia is big, groups are much better divided regionally. Just to illustrate, Cambodia team might not want to travel all the way to, say, Oman for just a FIBA-Asia 'C' game. Too much travel expense but the rewards are just small.

makes sense... Even if Fiba obliged them to do so it wouldn't be that competitive and indeed countries will not develop. I think The way FIBA is divided now is gd. We can add 2 more countries from oceania, in such a case we must increase 2 qualifying slots. First 5 are qualified to the WC. Games could be played Home and Away of hosting the championship in "china".

Mojado
01-11-2012, 11:11 AM
Works for Europe because Europe is small. Countries are much nearer to each other compared to those in Asia. Because Asia is big, groups are much better divided regionally. Just to illustrate, Cambodia team might not want to travel all the way to, say, Oman for just a FIBA-Asia 'C' game. Too much travel expense but the rewards are just small.

I meant not travelling for a single game in championship but a tournament. Make up three tournaments. FIBA Asia A Level, B Level and C Level. Winners of B and C move up, last placed teams go down. Cambodia would be in the c Tournament together with Nepal and so on...and one of them is hosting it. Whats the problem?

tmlouk
08-01-2012, 09:56 AM
there is no more A and B division in europe, because teams are more equal than before.

if there would be aqualification in asia, it makes more sense for A and B division.

but only for one torunament, it`s quite equal. good teams have the security to qualify for the next stage and small teams have the chance to play big nations.

there would be no improvement for smaller nations.

you can see it at the women champs, where only 4 or 5 nations have the chance to play for one year in division A (Lebanon, India, Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Thailand). And afterwards, they will mostly relegate to division B. The others will always stay in Division B (singapore, Indonesia, Sri Lanka......).

So, they could also play a torunament with all teams. It would be better than always China vs Japan, Or Chinese T. vs China....It is boring.