"When I came through, and started playing with the Melbourne Tigers at fifteen, sixteen, we had four imports. We were in a competitive situation and we didn't get opportunities to play by default"

Gaze talks without thinking sometimes. There were around twice as many teams as there are now when he came through. If he thinks guys are "playing by default it shows how little attention he pays.

The process of going down to eight teams has already forced local talent to get better just to get in or stay in the league.

So they're essentially getting rid of the points cap and the salary cap?

Hope everyone likes Perth and NZ.

Buying a championship will be easier than ever.

Sorry to get off topic.. That youtube highlights mix tape of Andrew Gaze that is attached to the article has the most appropriate soundtrack for the subject matter ever.

You do realise Cairns are about the most solid financial team in the league since they don't rely on a sugar daddy?

This is from my old memory but when Gaze started playing for the Tigers, while they may have had 4 imports a couple of them were probably shit and the team had SFA depth in Aussie talent.

For a great player he really has NFI about much else about the game including what the league was like back then.

Lol

Gaze knows fuck all about the NBL and basketball aye?

This joint is full of flogs. Gaze is a god to us basketball lovers.

Spot on ftsos. We all love Drewey, but he is the Dougie Hawkins of the NBL.

Good analogy, paul.
Unfortunately great playing skills do not necessarily translate to great punditry skills. He is Exhibit A.

It was a different league when Gaze played. I still respect hi commentary, but you can't compare his era to today.

We have already discussed the 3-import rule, however the 4-marquee locals rule is really going to shake that up. I'm not sure what they mean by "up to 4." Every rule is by default "up to." Does it imply that maybe the number of marquee locals allowed will change depending on say the number of imports?

I just cannot see how this is not a MASSIVE rearrangement of the competition? 4 marquee players basically shreds any semblance of the salary cap having any meaning at all. If you can pay your best 4 players whatever you want, then use the cap for the remaining 6, does it have any real meaning?

My biggest concern is this. Sustainably powerful clubs (like the Cats and NZ) are one thing. But what this opens the league up to is more crap like we saw with Tim Johnson, Mark Cowan, and now allegedly LK. Guys come in for a few seasons, throw their money around, buy a championship or two, then get bored and piss off.

The problem is that the NBL is barely sustainable. In fact we know its not sustainable without owners tipping in money from time to time. That's fine as long as its not extreme, and as long as its sustainable in the long term.
As a Cats fan I am eternally grateful that Dr Bendat stepped in during the challenge years, kept us afloat and kept us competitive. But I would hate to think that he would now tip in even more millions to make us competitive under these new rules. Great for the Cats and a few others, but many teams would fall too far behind.

It would seem that the only restriction left will be the PPR system, and I have a major issue with that. Why would a team bother with 8 or 9 point locals, when they can go and buy ex-Europe players at 9 points?

It's going to be a return to the bad old days when you rock up to game 1 and don't recognise anyone.

The "Asian Player" rule just makes no sense. Does that mean we just ring up the Chinese camp and buy our own Yao Ming?

"Lol

Gaze knows fuck all about the NBL and basketball aye?

This joint is full of flogs. Gaze is a god to us basketball lovers."

It was probably less than 12 months ago when he publicly stated the NBL needs to shut down for a year.

How does that make him right? How would taking a year off have made things better?

Gaze is good commentator for games. He has respect, and he knows how to play. However he seems to have limited understanding of how the league works.

Yeah I don't agree with Drew here at all. I'm pretty sure his reference to playing seniors with the Tigers with 4 imports wasn't even nbl, it was when they were still state league.

LK is definitely sending the league into an arms race that, once again looks like it'll leave too many teams on the brink through spending too much or being uncompetitive through not spending enough.

Again, I think the only way the nbl can have long term success and stability is with a drastically cut salary cap and more teams.

Trying to out spend everyone may look like success in the short term but it cannot be sustainable

You do realise Cairns are about the most solid financial team in the league since they don't rely on a sugar daddy?

Maybe, but Cairns and the Hawks have both made GFs recently paying a lot less than a number of other teams. I'm not sure any of the suggested changes would automatically make lower-spending teams wooden spooners.

Maybe LK sees this as a way to increase revenues and fill stadiums in the short term, and get a solid base of fans for the long term.
We certainly don't have the crowds that we did in the 90s

Lower spending teams can compete for titles occasionally but over time, the teams throwing the money around will win the overwhelming majority of the time.

Teams in Europe (both hoops and football) are evidence of this. This season's epl is the outlier.

I can see the idea of spending big to get people through the door. But it's been done and it's hard to see how it's ever going to be sustainable

"while they may have had 4 imports a couple of them were probably shit and the team had SFA depth in Aussie talent. "

Here's some context for Gaze's comments about his personal experience. It certainly undermines his choice of that experience as a guide to the impact of the proposed changes for contemporary Australian players in the NBL.

Gaze's first year in NBL was 1984, when the Tigers joined the league. In 1984, the NBL had 17 teams and 198 individual players played in that season. By comparison, 119 players played in 2015-16. Note that, unlike 2015-16, NZ and Oceania players not Australian citizens would have been imports in 1984 and there weren't any. So there were around 160 NBL spots for Australian players in 1984 compared with around 100 in 2015-16 for Australian and non-Australian citizens of Oceanias. In terms of starting fives, the numbers of places would have been around 50 and 35, respectively.

The Tigers' roster in 1984:

Peter Walsh
Ian Rouse
Ray Gordon
Mark Oliver
James Kirkup
Brian Goorjian (import)
Al Westover (import)
Nigel Purchase
Andrew Gaze
Russ Dyer (import)
Mike Dimattina
Peter Morse

I don't know who would have been the 4th import. Maybe Mark Oliver?

Goorjian and Dyer were one season NBL players. Westover played 2 NBL seasons (1985 with Geelong). Both Goorjian and Westover had played with the Tigers for 6 or 7 seasons before they joined the NBL. In 1984 Goorjian ranked 24th in PPG, 3rd in APG, 78th in RPG; Westover was 60th in PPG, 26th in APG, 113th in RPG; and Dyer ranked 18th in PPG, 21st in APG, 32nd in RPG.

In 1984 the Tigers won 11 of 24 games and finished 5th of 9 teams in the Eastern Division, which meant they missed playoffs by 2 wins. Across both divisions (17 teams), they had the 9th highest winning percentage.

The next 4 seasons the Tigers spent at the bottom of the table (bottom twice, second bottom twice). In those seasons, the NBL operated as a single division of 14 teams (13 in 1988). The Tigers became a regular contender from 1989, when they recruited Dave Simmons and Dave Colbert as imports.

It wasn't until they replaced Colbert with Copeland in 1992 that they became a championship contender. Adding Bradtke in 1993 brought them a championship.

That gives some insight into the quality of the Tigers' Australian players relative to the rest of the (much larger than today) league, in the period to which Gaze refers.

LK has three years to prove himself. One year has passed. I don't think he has time to wait. He has to make the product more entertaining for TV ASAP.

Three imports would help cover for an additional team and I don't think it would entirely work against cheaper clubs. They would instead be in a position to fill needs from a larger talent pool.

If I own a club and a new team is entering the league, and I have $70k to burn, I'd much rather have the option of an import.

Let's say Perth retire Redhage and bring in another Prather. Might be less bitching on Hoops, but I'd guess the league would be more entertaining.

On the surface having 3 imports looks to be more expense for teams which wouldn't make sense considering where some of the existing teams are at financially.

But I would assume that there has been some consultation with all the teams and this change would only be implemented if it is viable.

LK would obviously know the impacts and there would have been planning around the benefits.

There is no doubt that it should make for a more entertaining game.

From what I have seen this season there have been massive steps taken in improving the NBL so I would have confidence in the moves that LK is making.

Maybe this is to counter any impacts of the proposed Champions Basketball League that created a buzz earlier this year but seems to have fizzled out...

I do agree with Gazes' assessment about certain Australian players getting positions by default.

I do think perhaps the league wanted more stability before pulling the trigger on changes such as these, but I think they ultimately realised that a TV deal was needed. It's a case of instead of waiting for others to catch up (which could take another 5-10 years if at all), the league is saying were moving forward regardless and you have to keep up.

I like it - it weeds out the weak links.

MACDUB. " do agree with Gazes' assessment about certain Australian players getting positions by default."

But wasn't he using his first Tigers team as some sort of example about him not getting a game by default.

As I said my memory told me that his team was shit (relative to todays league) when he entered the league. After my memory (I have watched and followed the/a league(s)from before the time of the NBL)was reinforced by the publication of the actual roster the players were even "shittier" than I remembered. Peter Walsh started and he would be dominated by Ben Allen. Goorj, Westover were imports that you get by giving them a part time job due to the fact that they would have no capacity to earn money from full time playing elsewhere. Can't even remember Dyer.

Nigel Purchase was probably their second best Aussie player. His claim to fame was racking up assists by passing the ball the ball to Gaze. He went to the Bullets as a role player after years at the Tigers from memory. I'll be generous and say that he was almost as good as maybe Greg Hire but a poorer shooter.

Decent imports and Gaze along with the top tier Aussies looked like superstars back then because the quality dropped off to part time players on most teams benches. Not anyone I can think of in a teams top 8 who got a gig by default this season. PLENTY back then.

fstos, i mean i agree with Gazes' proposition that he believes players in today's game get playing time and roster spots by default. As in, i agree that it was probably harder to get a game by default back then.

There were twice as many Aussie spots in the league back then and nowhere near the depth of talent due to the low participation rates before the 'Jordan boom'.

It has never been harder to get a gig in the NBL than it is right now. Gaze is so far off the mark it's hard to believe he wasn't misquoted or quoted out of context.

MACDUB. Sorry but I completely disagree with both Gaze and yourself.

Brad Hill would probably have started and played major minutes back then in many teams.

A lot of that was probably due to the amount of teams BUT

Peter Walsh
Ian Rouse
Ray Gordon
Mark Oliver
James Kirkup
Brian Goorjian (import)
Al Westover (import)
Nigel Purchase
Andrew Gaze
Russ Dyer (import)
Mike Dimattina
Peter Morse

there is a LOT of by default in that team. In fact Gaze is about the only player even at his young age who was not in the league by default.

Michael Dimattina, great wicketkeeper!

Yeah. Play a fair bit of shield didn't he. Gordie was a good keeper in his day as well and was in the HSW Sheffield Shield squad a believe.

So he is talking about the days just before Mark Davis worked as a security guard at the Adelaide Casino to pay the bills.

I think the assumption an extra import = better product is a poor one. If interested, I wrote about it here:

http://www.fiba.com/news/time-to-develop-the-argument

And how I think they should go about it here:

http://www.fiba.com/news/invest-in-the-future-bring-excitement-now

That was the point of the article. When we did get the best young guys playing in the NBL, and a number of them getting drafted from here, it generated buzz about the league.

Those that go to college either don't come back, or don't generate the excitement that quality young players do.

Are the lights brighter in college? They have been recently, but that's what the NBL should aim to change now they have the resources to do so.

The lights are certainly getting brighter here and rather than focusing on third-choice imports, focus attention on getting our best players before and after they make their name OS.

I think a temporary move to 3 imports would help whilst the league is expanding. Say Brisbane next season, maybe Wellington year after, etc.
Not all imports are going to be guns, especially for teams on a limited budget, but it would make it easier to fill gaps in your squad.
But I think they also need to tweak the PPR. There's currently not enough difference between a gun import on 10, and decent bench player on 8.
The danger as always is in allowing cashed up clubs to get 3 guns, whilst struggling clubs go without.

I still feel the biggest impact will be the 4 marquee locals rule.
I get that they want to attract more Aussie (& NZ) talent back to the league, but gees that is opening a can of worms.

And here's the thing, even if more money = better players = better standard, so what? Is that what is best for the league? I enjoy watching NBL because its relevant and accessible. I support the Wildcats because they're our team. I'm sure they're are many better quality leagues in the world, but they have no interest or relevance for me.
One of the good things about this season is that only an injury ravaged Sydney have been easy beats. We've dominated at home, but had some close games, and almost every road game has been a challenge. Last thing I want to see is a league where only MU and NZ can give us a run for our MONEY.

Also gotta be honest. The Cats have something like 8 players out of contract. Now I expect some tweaks, and I am prepared for Redhage's retirement, but I don't want to see 8 new players next season.

It depends on what the NBL puts to you, doesn't it? To get our best young talent you have to make an effort, just as they are starting to with our top talent.

Re draftees, since the NBL came into existence we've had seven drafted from college, four from the NBL, one from Europe and one from the AIS, so there isn't a big difference, especially when you consider how many more of our young players go to college.

Hang on, there's been seven drafted from college and four from the NBL, despite the fact the vast majority of our best young players have gone to college in recent years.

The current NBL ownership has the resources to sell it if they make it a priority. It was once the done thing, no reason it can't be again if sold right.

"I remember when Kickert finnished college and he was training with the Tigers one off season when they had Anstey on the roster, they were trying to convince him to play NBL, but he chose Europe"

Now you're getting it. Wait until after college and you lose these guys. You've got to get them early.

It's simple. Once upon a time most of our best youngsters played NBL. Then, with the number of clubs reducing the our depth of talent increasing, NBL clubs mostly stopped recruiting them.

If the league makes enough of an effort, they will be able to get some of them to play in the NBL, and that will bring back the buzz that players like Mackinnon, Anstey, Newley, Ingles, Jawai and Abercrombie have generated as youngsters.

What stands in the way? The attitude that it can't be done, it's what stands in the way of most things in life. Thankfully, I don't think the current NBL management suffers from that affliction.

I do think extra import does equate to a better product.

If every team replaced say there 10th man with a import even a DQ Montreal level import for the same money, that is a big upgrade imo. Lets face it losing many of the 10th men wont really cost the league much in qulaity, the good players who start as 10th men, will overtake a few team mates before too long and not be replaced naturally

On the surface having 3 imports looks to be more expense for teams which wouldn't make sense considering where some of the existing teams are at financially.

fstos,

I can't really compare between now and the 90s beacause its hard to cross compare the skills in different eras. I won't touch on the 90s because admittedly i'm no expert at the NBL during that time.

But I will say that I feel players do get positions by default. The points cap and salary cap means that if you're a low rating and you're willing to take minimum/low pay, you're going to get a position by virtue of the fact that other players having a higher points rating or want/need too much money.

For me, it's a case of not always the best players being chosen, but those that simply have favourable points ratings.

There's been a few non-sensical signings over the past few years.

The Australian players I can recall who were effectively drafted from NBL and went on to play in the NBA, were:

Shane Heal
Chris Anstey
Mark Bradtke
Nathan Jawai (had a year in a USA college but didn't stay - returned home and played QBL then NBL before being signed in the NBA)

All 5 Australian-born players who made it to the NBA before 2005 had played in the NBL first. Even Longley spent a year in the NBL (played 2 games) before going to college in the USA then to the NBA. The other 4 all had successful NBL careers going when they were signed to the NBA. Arguably, Gaze wouldn't have gotten his first opportunity without his year at Seton Hall but the point is that he got to that via NBL and went back to NBL after tryouts with the Supersonics and was playing NBL when the Bullets signed him.

There was clearly a time when NBL was the path to the highest levels of basketball for Australian born players. i.e., Boomers and NBA.

Personally, I doubt that will ever be the case again. The NBL is now privately owned and operated and is an entertainment product. Its first objective has to be viability in the live entertainment market. Removing or relaxing local content requirements may make that easier.

If Perth and Melbourne (and maybe Brisbane) are able to field three above the rim imports, that could produce some NBA level promotional material and in-game thrills. That would make the league both more attractive to watch and to play in. I'd be happy with that.

"
The lights are certainly getting brighter here and rather than focusing on third-choice imports, focus attention on getting our best players before and after they make their name OS."

Hence the four marquee Aussie rule.

Drafted from the NBL:

Chris Anstey 1997
Ben Pepper 1997
Brad Newley 2007
Nathan Jawai 2008
Ater Majok 2011

Signed from the NBL:

Andrew Gaze 1993/94 & 1998/99
Shane Heal 1996/97 & 2003/04
Mark Bradtke 1996-97