While people have made Wrublewski something of a demi-god because of the incredibly tragic circumstances in which he passed away, his nomination seems to undermine the hall of fame.
From my understanding he was involved with an NBL franchise for about 12 years as an entrepreneur. In that time his team won nothing, their results could best be described as mediocre, had an extraordinary reputation for promotion and "glitz" and supposedly, he and his fellow owners made significant profits.
Does 12 years involvement justify a hall of fame position, especially considering his involvement was a business only proposition.
When he moved the team on in 2000, it was well known that it had started to lose money. That's not "hall of fame" material for me....thats more like "take the money and run" material. (that may be a bit harsh but when the going gets tough.....)
I don't doubt his passion and work ethic, and the Kings were a slick, brilliantly promoted vehicle for much of the 90's and I am happy to acknowledge what was achieved with the Flames was also fantastic, but Mike was an owner of a basketball business, and little more than that.
Would BA consider Peter Fiddes for a spot in the hall of fame? He's been involved much longer, has directly sponsored BA and the NBL, has been involved with numerous clubs, but really, has run a basketball business for 20 or whatever years - I doubt his name would even be mentioned (and neither it should).
(I actually don't know why BA have attributed the 1994 wc's to Mike - they ran it, reportedly at a huge loss, with support from Tassie and Adelaide.)
I am not bagging the guy, not in any way, but is this what we want our hall of fame to look like and reward?
