Anonymous
Years ago

Boti calls for 3 imports rule

A bit late given the article is nearly a week old but still:

IS it time for the NBL to revisit its playing depth and review its import stocks, especially mindful a new Melbourne franchise further will dilute our playing personnel?

Let's be honest, Australia boasts great playing depth with names such as Bogut, Mills, Ingles, Newley, Ogilvy, Maric, Nielsen, Jawai etc just rolling off the tongue.

But those guys are plying their trade overseas.

It is great for our national team but means precious little to our national league.

That's why it may be time to look seriously at a return to three imports per club.

Now before your knickers bunch up in all the wrong places and negatively impact your breathing, let's throw ourselves back to them good olde days when the NBL tipped off in 1979 and beyond.

The import restrictions were not the same as today, yet the depth of Australian talent was far greater then - hardly anyone, Eddie Palubinskas maybe - was playing overseas yet we still could accommodate multiple imports.

In 1979, Cal Bruton led the league scoring, averaging 33.2 points per game.

Remember, these were very similar conditions to today's game - 40 minutes, but with no three-point line.

In 1980, Rocky Smith - how he's not in the Hall of Fame is an embarrassment, but I digress - scored at a clip of 36.2ppg.

Mike Jones is 1981 was at 30.5, Reg Biddings in 1982 at 30.1 and Jones again in 1983 was good for 30.9ppg.

Kevin Lisch currently leads our league scoring with 17.5ppg - that's entertainment folks!

Before you start squealing about "better defences today" - someone could squeal back with "three-point line today."

And while it can be argued imports are not the be-all and end-all, quickly name right now the incoming Aussie marquee name players you would pay to see?

Trust this. For as many Julian Khazzouhs and Mark Worthingtons there are today, in the early 80s, there were just as many Larry Sengstocks and Tony Barnetts.

But when Cal came to town, or Leroy, or Al, or JC, or Bennie Lewis or - I could go on but why spoil you? - fans were flocking to stadia.

That's why the game moved out of tin-sheds.

Today too, you can find inexpensive imports.

If you think Ervin was on $150G last year with the Hawks, you probably think Showroom Glovebox was on 100G.

Sure, Ervin did a runner after winning the MVP but there are literally hundreds of potential imports we could bring to this country without breaking the bank.



OKAY, I hear you cry opportunities for our homegrown Aussies would be diminished, so in concert with expanding back to three imports, every club would need to move its playing roster to 12 players.

That still leaves nine spots on every roster for local content.

It would mean kids such as Mitch Creek and others of his ilk would be getting genuine roster opportunities instead of clubs recycling 40-year-olds and not taking a chance on youth.

Three imports, 12-man rosters, slight player points adjustments to accommodate the shift and let's see our game thrive again as it did in that initial burst of enthusiasm in 1979.

Would such a move drive youngsters to college or keep a few here?

Let's face it, Matthew Dellavedova is unlikely to be playing NBL anytime soon.

Maybe our focus needs to shift to ensure our league attracts that rush of interest and goes back to providing genuine value for the entertainment dollar.

In the end, entertainment is what the NBL is about.

SEABL and state leagues are, or should be, about development.

But perhaps it is time for the league to legislate to ensure it is a viable alternative to "The Artist".


http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport/basketball/around-the-nbl-mvp-mystery/story-e6frect3-1226300074174

Topic #27854 | Report this topic


Anonymous  
Years ago

yawn.

Reply #355321 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Fans were flocking to stadia? The crowds in the early years were nowhere near what they are today Boti!

Reply #355322 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

the great aussie sport where opportunities abound-not!

Reply #355323 | Report this post


birdman  
Years ago

i agree with this article, why not make a small adjustment to make the league more exciting! and raise the standard! give it a try!!

Reply #355325 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

yep I am all for the 3 import rule.... when it comes to 'the australian content' you seem to see alot of aussie play in this league who dont really seem up to it... all these 12th men who will never break out of the bottom of the pack. get some athletic exciting players in would ya? if were gonna have up to another 2 teams in the league soon its the only way to keep it from being completely dilluted

Reply #355326 | Report this post


alexkrad  
Years ago

I would only agree with this if they also raised the salary cap.

OR why not raise the salary cap and lure back some of those aussies playing overseas.

Or allow a salary cap exclusion for one marque player per team?

Reply #355329 | Report this post


curtley  
Years ago

yep one marquee player per team outside of the salary cap, or two imports if you don't go over the cap (on paper).

If the marquee is Aussie then he can be over the cap but not the additional import.

AND let 1 asian player play as a non-import outside of cap.

2 + 1 or 1 (marquee) + 1 is worth a try i reckon.

Reply #355331 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I like the 3 import rule idea, as Boti said there are heaps around playing in leagues that are over lower standard/wage to the NBL that would do well in the NBL if given the right opportunity, and would play for cheaper than a top Aussie, lets face it who do you think would of been cheaper last season Gary Ervin or Kirk Penney? I'd say Ervin by a mile, and Ervin had a similar impact on the league, guys like Adam Gibson would have been earning more than Ervin last year.

This happens every year, even Willie Farleys first season in 2002 he was not a top dollar import/player. Also who brings more excitement to the league a Farley/Ervin type or a Gibson who probably costs twice as much.

Sure it would be great to bring home the top Aussies in Europe, where possible clubs will still do this, but lets face it these guys probably cost twice as much as Gibson, and you can definatly grab a D-league import for alot less and who if you chose well will do just aswell if not better than the top Aussies

Sure we may have a high turnover of these imports but aslong as we attract new good players its all good, and even then some imports would stick around Farley played 4 or 5 years in the NBL from memory.

Its also good for the lower teams on the ladder who cant get the top dollar Aussies, lets just say the 36ers have 100k in the salary cap and all the top Aussies have been snapped up and we have 2 imports signed and the best Aussie available was say Brad Hill/Graeme Dann level, who would you rather the 36ers spend the 100k on Hill/Dann or a import who is putting up reasonable numbers in the D-League or staring in the NZBL like a Josh Pace/Jason Crowe type. For me its a no brainer id love to see the 3rd import. The same applys for the case of say Ballingers injury who would you rather see replace him someone like Horvath or a import, it may have been a chance to be patient and keep Williamson if 3 imports were allowed this year and $$ were available.

I'd leave the salary cap and points cap the same, maybe just slightly raise to allow for 12 players which i also am a fan of. As it would be an advantage for the teams who struggle to get the top Aussies, teams like Perth would probably just keep there same roster and just use the imports in case of injury or if one of there stars left.

For me it raises the standard of the league and making rosters 12 deep more Aussies get the chance so its a win win, especially with 2 new teams potentially coming in, as short of each bringing home 2 top players from Europe or poaching from atleast 5 players each from other clubs they are going to be a fair bit off the pace talent wise, like when the league had more teams a few years back, the talent gap between teams was much wider. 3 imports would reduce this.

Reply #355334 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I posted it and think it's a great idea. Imports fresh out of college or even the D-League (salary $25K a season) can be had for very cheap these days. Always young up and coming imports looking to prove themselves in the hope of getting a big pay day in future (Gary Ervin on bigger money in Ukraine).

On the post above just mention Farley played five seasons in the NBL (2002 with 36ers, 2003 with Razorbacks and 2005-07 with 36ers) and some of our aussies are just on too much overseas for us to really ever be able to lure them back, I remember Boti saying recently Brad Newley is on $800K a season and someone like Aleks Maric is on $900K in Greece. NBL teams just can't compete with numbers like that.

Reply #355340 | Report this post


Skud  
Years ago

I think its a good idea. It would increase the level of competition here which further challenges Australian players to rise to the occasion rather than having barely able players sitting on a bench.
We could introduce a 2 import on the court at any one time if people get really upset about it..but I think thats a bit over dramatic.
The reality is as Boti says..We goto the NBL to see performance I dont care if they are Australian or an Import so long as they play hard and make the game exciting!

Reply #355345 | Report this post


LanceUppercut  
Years ago

The league needs to seriously consider options for making the NBL more exciting..Recently friends who are basketball players but watch the NBA came to an NBL game and asked whether players ever dunked in this league (there were 2 weak dunks the whole game) and suggested the league should be called the NDL (no dunk league).. the NBL needs to move away from gaze mentality of 'don't worry about being flashy just get the ball in the hoop' I am sorry but wake up NBL you are selling entertainment.

I propose a $500 payment for dunk of the week to the player with the best dunk for each NBL round. perhaps that would encourage players to try alley oops, for PF and C to dunk instead of doing a lay up...

Reply #355346 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

You write some shit sometimes Boti, but this must be up with your best. I also was around watching the NBL in 1979, it was terrible. American imports in those days dominated because the Australian talent was terrible. Most of them were from div2/3 US Colleges. Today's standard of Australian talent in the NBL is a complete world above the 80's. The bigs of those days (the 200 cm players) struggled to catch the ball under pressure sometimes got rebounds and only played between the foulines. Now we have players like Daniel Johnson 7 foot running the floor like a guard playing the perimeter, and he is not alone.

In the 80s Mitchell Creek would have made the Boomers for London, they always included the Aust U20 Captain. Lack of other options.
The early NBL had benches full of teenagers. In fact our AIS graduates who once would walk into NBL jobs struggle to get a gig in today's comp.

NBL teams already have 3 imports Boti. Don't forget the naturalized one as well.

The only reason the crowds came out to watch the Black imports in early days, was because it was a novelty, we had only seen these guys on posters or old Harlem Globe trotter Movies.

Crowds today are bigger than Apollo times, even when we are losing. Europe has hurt our NBL, the money and the creation of the AFL at home.

Reply #355363 | Report this post


PeterJohn  
Years ago

I'm not sure what adding 1 more mediocre import per team is going to do? If memory serves me well, all but 2 clubs replaced both imports this year, from last year. The nett result was 5 of last year's imports started this year. And only a few imports this year are being talked about as worth asking back next year.

That's been the case for the last few years. If we increase the import quota to 3, why are we suddenly going to increase the quality of imports? The imports each year represent the first and second (and in some case third and fourth choices) that teams make, and more than half who make it to the end of the season don't get asked back the following year. And the 3rd import is going to be lower down on the pay scale than those first and second choices, so presumably they are likely to be a lesser standard as well.

The problem is that the good old days with high quality imports were the days of no points system and no effective salary caps. Clubs got what they paid for and they paid plenty for it. We have the trail of teams that used to be in the NBL to show what happened as a consequence.

And Lance, the NBL is selling entertainment but a large part of not seeing dunks is simply the basketball psyche of deliberately fouling a player rather than letting him get a fast break or an "easy" dunk and the poor policing (by custodians of the game's laws) of holding, pushing and other tactics that replace skill and athleticism with strength and thuggery around the basket. Getting more imports is unlikely to change either of those things. After all, it was an import that ripped Brad Hill's shoulder to pieces on a fast break that was heading dunkwards.

Reply #355368 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Agree with the 3 import proposal. Anything to improve the product that is currently being peddled out week after week. The quality is terrible. It is getting hard to watch. Most of the guys in the circles I am in are big basketball guys but they think the NBL is a joke...these are guys that are out there playing in leagues at least twice a week, many with NBA League Pass - so they are watching hoops but don't even consider tuning in to the NBL. The games being televised are really not doing anything to change that perception... Tigers v Hawks for example that was on last week, just disgusting.

At least show us more Perth and NZ games, and a lot less Sydney and Melbourne.

Reply #355369 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

have to agree somewhat with the 'novelty' factor.alot of people in the early days wouldve turned up tos ee black guys play, oooon he can dunk! i dont think the Australian public is as niave these days... but having said that, there is a need for a more exciting brand of play.... I mean perth wildcats is a talented team and one of the best teams in the comp, but more often then not i switch off when they play.... it just isnt entertaining basketball so a middleground must be found. I think there SHOULD be 3 imports, as for the bnaturalised thing... very fgew americans are naturalised in the league... what just CJ bruton? soon Lish maybe? Shaun redhage? thats really about it... and even then, why would that matter.... teams SHOULD have 3 imports and they should look to expand to a 12 man roster.... more entertainment, more oppurtunity for aussies , higher standard of play, Fact of the matter is, the way the NBL teams are at the moment, most really only go 8 deep... and theres some guys in the league who i dont think are on a level to truely play NBL basketball... they should probably go to a lesser league like the CBA... which outside of its 1 nba star per team is piss poor.

Reply #355370 | Report this post


Emu  
Years ago

Tigers Hawks was hard viewing, that's for sure.

I vote for 3 imports also

Reply #355374 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Boti for /-------------------
(- )
---/------( /
( /
( /
(_____/

Reply #355377 | Report this post


MikefromtheK  
Years ago

Defs agree the NBL should bring in 3 imports. It would raise the standard of the league, which only helps local players get better. "You can't fly with the eagles if you hang with the crows".

Reply #355379 | Report this post


Julian  
Years ago

I'm calling for number of refs officiating a game to be culled from three to two. Cuts the awfulness down by a third instantly. Win!

Reply #355383 | Report this post


orbit  
Years ago

3 imports in a 40 min game will give most of those 9 aussies bugger all playing time.

A club is better off finding 2 good ones than 3 affordable hacks.

Reply #355388 | Report this post


Mystro  
Years ago

Keep it at 2 Imports per team. Spend more time developing talent instead of trying to buy it in.

Reply #355392 | Report this post


Singlets  
Years ago

3 imports, there may be some cheap ones but still more expensive than most aussies

Raise the salary cap

All good idea to further destroy struggling clubs. No club if profitable so lets make it even harder

Is he really paid to right this stuff, how about he supports basketball instead of trashing it every time he puts pen to paper

Reply #355394 | Report this post


Rhea  
Years ago

The big issue has been the standard of Import in comparison to aussie content.

It's no like imports have generally been lighting it up.

Finding 2 good imports has been near impossible. WHy would having 3 be any better.

Reply #355395 | Report this post


hoopie  
Years ago

PeterJohn, I fully agree with your comments about why the game isn't as exciting or fun any more because of the handling allowed. I blame the Euro leagues for that.

I'd also add in coaches who are scared to take risks, so they turn the game into a grind-it-out affair where players have to follow what the coach draws up rather than just get out there and use their skills and ENJOY the game.

I'd also add that the quality would improve greatly if there was more money. All the good imports and lots of good Aussies play in Europe cos there's more money there.

Reply #355396 | Report this post


Mystro  
Years ago

Rhea: Cedric Jackson, Gary Wilkinson

Reply #355398 | Report this post


Average OKKA  
Years ago

Wouldn't you all rather have 1 Marque spot per team.

Meaning: 1 aussie born player can be paid outside of the cap and his points and salary does not matter.
This is the ONLY way you will lure home the likes of Ingles, Newley and so on.

IF they can get a half decent deal here they would stay. They go to Europe because they get 3-4 times what they could get here.


I know id rather that than 3 imports.

Reply #355404 | Report this post


orbit  
Years ago

Agree Average Okka. Boti has no idea sometimes!

Reply #355409 | Report this post


PeterJohn  
Years ago

Hoopie - if you dislike the grind-it-out style, you can blame Goorjian. He perfected it as a championship winning style and others have followed in his wake. A triumph of science over style.

Personally, I don't mind a tough, close game played fairly. What I mind is how often we're subjected to games that are close because teams commit 20 turnovers each, shoot 35% from the field and 60% from the foul line. I'm not convinced a third import for the 5 or 6 teams that could afford one would change that.

Reply #355411 | Report this post


Rhea  
Years ago

Mystro,

That is 1 out of 10.

Kind of proves my point.

Reply #355412 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

Further to PeterJohn's comment, is adding further cheap imports to the mix the solution? Someone like Ratszch? (Like the Kings giving up trying to play him, this is the one NBL player whose name I have given up trying to spell...)

Where do the dunks come from at the Tigers? Allen or Dorsey? No, Walker. In Adelaide? Johnson or Creek as much as anyone. In NZ, Abercrombie is most known for dunking. Perth only have one import so who knows what they'd want with three. At the desperate Hawks, both of their imports to start with were coming off the bench and that is after the first one was sacked.

Adelaide effectively had three imports this year with Ballinger naturalised - and endless highlights, right? Nope.

Three imports doesn't help the "local player" problem Boti has written about the 36ers having. Who's going to get squeezed out by a new import at the 36ers? Could be a guy like Ng, the only local player in the ten.

I think a marquee player rule could be more effective. Or limit a third import to teams finishing bottom two in a previous year.

Reply #355414 | Report this post


The_Champ33  
Years ago

I'd love 3 imports rule. Competition, depth and excitement will all increase.

I agree with the no dunks or lack of it in the NBL. Most are weak if they do occur. I've certainly witnessed it plenty over the years here in Adelaide. Or when the rare one is potential, arms are hugged to prevent the dunk.

I'd also like to see the salary cap raised a little higher or allow a marquee player outside the salary cap.

Beautiful ideas on here on the topic.

Reply #355416 | Report this post


BJF  
Years ago

I would like to see it go the other way with 1 stud import surrounded by aussie talent

Back in the day most imports were bigs of the 6-7 plus variety which means more above the rim action type guys

Now look at what we have

Perth guard
Adelaide guard + forward
Melbourne 2 guards
NZ guard and unathletic forward
Hawks guard and forward
GC Guard and Centre
Kings Forward and not really sure
Cairns 2 guards
Tville Guard and small forward

i would say 6 bigs out of a possible 18 spots


The league has switched around as far as talent needs go

Classic import combos were bigs

Davis and Jones
Pinder and Crawford
Dillon and Fisher
Atkinson and Moore
Colbert and Simmons
Mcleary and Mclain


Reply #355421 | Report this post


Aussiebballer  
Years ago

Comes down to money.

How many NBL teams are breaking even or making a profit??

If the majority are losing money already then increasing costs is just asking for teams to go bust.

Sure you can argue that making the league more exciting will increase attendance, but adding imports ot increasing the salary cap won't guarantee a more exciting league.

Reply #355429 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

My two cents.... 3 imports are great but if you want to improve the game and its entertainment value, need to follow the NBA and have a no charge area and defensive 3 sec violations to stop the crap zone defense that bores me to tears.

Will open the court, force more pick and roll situations and allow the game to flow and athleticism shine from both import and local talent

Reply #355431 | Report this post


Skud  
Years ago

Personnally I dont care about development of younger players in the NBL, I dont go to watch someone grow into a good player, I go to see good players compete against the best the country has to offer. Watching players develop is for amatuer leagued around the country.

Reply #355433 | Report this post


Mystro  
Years ago

BJF, Wilkinson looked fairly Athletic when he dunked on Worthingtons head

Reply #355441 | Report this post


Peter  
Years ago

The imports were generally dominant and exciting to watch in the early days (Green, Davis, Loggins etc) due to there being such a large gulf between the imports & local talent levels.

The large Gulf was generally due to a far lower standard across the board in Aussie talent (athletically & skill wise) aswell as a higher standard of available import relative to Aussie talent. This gulf is no longer there, partly due to a significant improvement (and depth) in Aussie talent & athleticism, but also the NBL can't compete with other bigger money leagues to attract top quality imports, that are a step above the whole league & have the ability to dominate as they did many years ago.

Occasionally we see an import flow through at this level who can dominate games & bring the crowds in, but it is becoming fairly rare & short lived, as they generally leave the NBL & head off to the big $ leagues.

Many years ago, all imports would always be your marquee & go to players & despite a few rare Aussie exceptions, it would generally be unheard of for all imports to not be first choice offence or not playing almost full minutes, let alone coming off the bench. This started changing with significant improvement in Aussie talent (the Gazes and Mahers of the world) & teams could no longer afford/attract "marquee imports" that had the capacity to completely dominate these types of Aussie players. At best now the NBL can only afford to attract 2 imports that are equal to the best available Aussie talent (if you are lucky), which is why the NBL churns through so many imports.

I can’t see how having 3 imports will change this or improve the spectacle, but allowing 1 marquee player could potentially do this (provided it didn’t send any teams broke).

It is clear from watching the Aussie soccer teams in the ACL (in previous years at least!), the benefits a marquee player who is clearly a step above all other players on the field can make (their salary is also far higher than everyone else). It brings a wow factor for the crowd & I’m sure all of the team mates training against the marquee player each day & opposition playing against the marquee player would become better players as a result. This should be highlighted even more so in Basketball given 1 player out of 5 can have more influence on a game.

For example, the only reason the NBL was able to attract Julius Hodge was due to all of the baggage he brought with him, but he did have the skills to dominate & excite (on the court). Imagine if every team could have 1 player with Julius’ ability (with no baggage).

That could potentially be what happens if 1 marquee player outside of the cap is allowed in each team.

The only downside is the richer teams may be able to buy a far better marquee player than say Wollongong, which potentially could advantage one team over another.

Reply #355455 | Report this post


Woody Venkat  
Years ago

Lets be honest guys people wanna see an import who can jump out the gym. Not a white guy from Seven Hills who can stroke a 3.
I am all for 3 Imports.

Reply #355468 | Report this post


Isaac  
Years ago

Woody, Adelaide have effectively got three imports now. How are you finding the games?

Reply #355485 | Report this post


BJF  
Years ago

I hate to say it ( but i will) our highest placed Olympic finish was 4th in 1988

This was right at the start of hoops taking flight across the country and the world on the back of Jordan.

Australia took Russia to OT that year too so we were far from also rans when it came to having elite/ world standard players in the NBL.

Only non NBL player on the 1988 team from memory was a young Luc Longley

again 1996 and 2000 we finished 4th built mostly around NBL talent. Did Longley even play in 1996?

Reply #355491 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

No, Longley didn't play in 96.

When we finished 4th at the 2000 Olympics the vast majority of our team was made up of NBL players, when we finished 8th or whatever it was at the 2010 WC's all but 2-3 players were non-NBL players.

That is how far the standard of the NBL has dropped in a decade and any initiatives to improve the quality of what we're seeing out there on the court would be most welcome.

Reply #355498 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Adelaide haven't had Ballinger since early December...hardly a great example.
However, if he was playing I don't doubt they'd be better to watch than currently.

Reply #355499 | Report this post


Aussiebballer  
Years ago

Which NBL teams could afford the $500k+ to get a "Marquee" player???

And if it is only 1 or 2 you will turn the NBL into the EPL. ie only 2-3 teams ever have a chance of winning and only because their owners are Billionaires.

I hear Clive Palmer is looking for a new team to own!! :)

Reply #355501 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Back in those days European basketball wasn't where it is now. Plus the break down of the Soviet Union created more countries in the eastern block for countries to step up that had no chance prior.

Reply #355505 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

When Boti puts his hand up to help fund one of the NBL teams, maybe then we can take his opinions seriously.

Boti only knows how to find the negative, he has no idea about the future

Reply #355508 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

oh, and how many times do we have to listen about the golden times!!!!
The sport has changed, unfortunately the people writing at the advertiser haven't

Reply #355509 | Report this post


Big Ads  
Years ago

Concern l would have about awarding bottom 2 finishers an additional import spot the following season would be 'tanking' by teams unlikely to make finals.

Reply #355510 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I think a lot of people on here are underestimating how cheap the imports the NBL attracts these days are. They can be had for a lot less than $100K.

Reply #355513 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

I cant see how having the option of 3 imports would make the league worse, if the imports are worse than the Aussies then clubs will sign Aussies. I think it will definatly add extra depth to the league and teams like Perth who are stacked with local talent will stay so and wont use the extra imports.

The problem I see with a marquee player rule is that pretty much all clubs are losing money now, while keeping to the $1 mil salary cap, how is saying you can now spend an extra $500k to sign say Newley going to help. He may sell some extra tickets but no where near enough to cover 500k, I just see it as making clubs lose more money and more clubs going broke, so would rather we just stick with the salary cap, which even as is some teams struggle to afford.

As said above imports can be signed for less than 100k, i remember the rumours that guys like Rychart and Ballinger were on say 50-80k when they first came to the NBL, and I dont think Ere or Chris Williams were on huge $$ when they arrived to the NBL and how good where they! Without any inside knowledge, i would guess thats what say Brad Hill would earn, who would you rather your team sign? Nothing against Hill, and he would defiantly stay in the league with a extra import option to teams but If i have a roster spot left, have 2 imports and around 80k to spend id rather sign a young import than a mid level Aussie.

For those who think it wouldnt change the teams or league, think how much better the 36ers could have potentially been if they were allowed to have an extra import to replace either Crosswell or Ballinger injury, or from the start of the season instead of say Helliwell or Herbert, if you snare the next Rychart/Ervin for a similar cost then it would make a huge difference. Sure clubs may get it wrong, worse case the club can let the player go and go with 2 imports, or keep them off the bench and even a Ratzch type will give you just as much as a bench Aussie player so its not all bad.

Reply #355534 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Good post. Like you pointed out it's not like teams have to sign three imports it just means a max of three. Perth only went with one import all season and the Hawks did too pre/post-Glover.

Reply #355535 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Even more important with a new Melbourne team coming in and potentially a new Brisbane side. That's around 20 new open spots, which creates even further dilution of an already unimpressive talent level. Sure there will be a few guys come out of the AIS and college system that are worth a gig, but enough for two more teams? If each team picks up an extra import that will certainly have the impact to blunt the edge off the potential talent dilution.

Reply #355539 | Report this post


ineedmore  
Years ago

So many interseting ideas on here - yet none will even be trialled. Football tries different things using their NAB games to guage the interest/success, and they seem to go from strength to strength over the years.

NBL is pretty reticient to put their toe in the water and try anything.

As someone posted on here it is about entertainment - just listen to King Cole in the Golden Era - he knew all the way back then and nothing has changed.

If you don't change/improve your product if becomes stale and dies.

C'mon NBL, have a go at SOMETHING.

Reply #355593 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

12 man rosters with 3 imports would work but need to go back to 48min games to get more playing time

Reply #381342 | Report this post


Anonymous  
Years ago

Boti is clearly on drugs.
How well did the 3 import rule last time? It didn't.
Boti is supposed to be basketball smart and savvy. It's the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. The NBL is struggling big time and yet he is suggesting the NBL clubs can afford another import? So is he saying increase the salary cap again? Sponsors money is as tight as all shit, and to increase the cap will seriously affect tne community based clubs for starters. The Crocs are close to folding, the Kings are a basket case and the Tigers will challenge for bottom of the ladder.
3 imports is crazy.

Reply #381347 | Report this post




You need to be a registered user to post from this location. Register here.



Close ads
Serio: Tourism photography and videography
Little Streaks - The fun and interactive good-habits app designed especially for kids.

Advertise on Hoops to a very focused, local and sports-keen audience. Email for rates and options.

Recent Posts



.


An Australian basketball forum covering NBL, WNBL, ABL, Juniors plus NBA, WNBA, NZ, Europe, etc | Forum time is: 10:23 pm, Tue 19 Mar 2024 | Posts: 968,026 | Last 7 days: 754