Why would Fox give up $6m/yr to promote that sort of SEABL-level league?

and the standard of basketball we watch is more like ABL than NBL.

Sure, you might get Mottram playing, but do you think we would see

Anstey
Ingles
Barlow
Schenscher
Bruce
Penney
Bruton
Worthinton
Saville
Harvey
Crawford
Redhage
Maher

just to name a few.

I think your plan is good for making people think about connecting grassroots basketball to NBL level.

The current culture is (probably) more like a business orientation (although how an owner expects to make money out of it is beyond me, except if it helps a tax problem with their real business).

I think your idea is left-field for most people directly involved in the NBL, however the 36ers have a heritage which has elements of your plan. i.e old West Adelaide and Forestville in the early league, and the 36ers being owned by the Association.

Where could your proposal be heard officially? and without prejudice?

Good thinking, Dont know if it would work in reality, but actually makes more sence than the NBL at the moment.

The home grown bonus is a good idea. They do it in AFL footy.

When a local lad made the SANFL, our local team got some $, and then when he played his first AFL game, the SANFL club got some $ as did the first club.

great to see people thinking.

The concept of promotion and relegation is great, the linking of grass roots is good.

I dont think we will see quality players playing for $50k

I think we need to look at why the NBL isnt working.
the product we have is (IMO) fabulous, so why arent people going to see it?

whats different now to the 80s-90s? (and its not the fta TV, that comes when people are interesrted)

I gues its difficult for us, as the 36ers still draw the crowds, what is stopping the rest of the country?

You like that idea Jack Toft?

Then i've got a scheme opportunity for you!

Heard of Amway...

The NBL isn't working because the management and governance structure is not correct.

Soccer was in a similar disasterous state a couple of years ago until a large broom went through and got rid of deadwood and started a new slate.

Rugby League was a similar disaster before super league shook everything up.

The AFL is working well by default. The Mebourne-centric sport is tightly held and controlled to maintain its image. Draws are maniuplated to attract the largest crowds possible and emphasis is on growing the sport at the expense of traditional support (eg Look at how many $M will be poured into GC17 to dominate that market, and how many $M have been pumped into non-profitable Melbourne clubs)

The NBL needs a similar model, but one which is not as viscious as this AFL model.

I applaud your creativity ankles, but I can see some human nature traits bringing it unstuck.
It'd single-handedly be a repellant for any marquee player or import having them saddled with the same base income as a developement player. Sure there are sponsorship deals that can be done, but someone has to find them.
Also double the average income for 6 months for 10 years, may not cover the bills for the remaining 30ish years with a sub-par income.
During the season/year, there are players involved in clubs doing Uni subjects in whatever spare time they have. I'm fairly comfortable in suggesting that going to Uni, isn't a money spinning excercise. I know of people who've gone to Uni & haven't been able to cash in on their costly specialised expertise.
As much as I'd love to see packed venues, everyone paying $11 for a seat would bring it's problems. One dude gets mid-court sideline tickets, another mug sits in the far-side bleaches. I'd be ecstatic to see a 'Ball game for $11, no matter where I sat, but I'm NOT normal. ; )
People are humans, & shit kick over nothing.
Big ugly world out there.

I dont think we can be compared to the soccer restructure.

They were VERY different in that they had ethnic issues that were holding the sport back, Basketball does not have those issues, so a new broom isnt actually changing anything.

We need to fnd out from the general public..NOT basketball fans ..the general public...why they are not going to the games?

find that...fix that...new NBL is sorted.

fair point...so...where are those other 3000?

Following via print/web/TV but not lured strongly enough to part with their cash or go along.

which is strongly frustrating for the members who attend every week..

Noticed Gaze spruiking a budget league to the press with potential for teams from the SEABL joining and playing during winter. He's on the board, so I can't imagine him pulling against the main plan and this has to be something they're considering.

However, Fox isn't going like regional teams and budget rosters and the like.

What we might see is the NBL remaining, but as more of a SEABL-level league with regional sides, moderately sized stadiums and cheaper rosters. Second team out of Adelaide, IMO. Then a new league to house the 36ers, Cats, Dragons, Tigers, Breakers, etc that will have an open salary cap, Fox deal, perhaps play a shorter blockbuster season in Summer, etc.

As I've said for a while, two-tiers has to be an option as it provides an opportunity for regional teams, their community and sponsors to participate. It also brings more opportunities for players, coaches, and all the business that goes on around basketball.

Was talking to a fan from Wollongong the other day and they suggested that Hawks fans wouldn't be attracted to their team playing in a league under the NBL. Aside from the fact that they might not have a choice, perhaps the trick is not to bring a league under the NBL, but to start something fresh above it?

Where to start but delighted to see how much thought has gone into it.

A few responses.

Firstly, understand the costs and the league pretty well. Played back in the day, and have been on a few coaching staffs since then (ancillary, rather than bench).

Isaac - Fox are giving up $6m a year for content which they absolutely control. Do you think their mainstream viewers discern the difference between locking and trialing or sitting behind a screen? They see action and teams winning and losing. Fox sees (say 10 teams as per your sums), 320 hours of live plus the endless repeats of programming. Don't tell me the soccer is above our equivalent of an ABA? If so, only marginally.

276 - that's ok, find some more players. There are no guys on benches or at ABA level that would take that opportunity. When I sell a product, people buy it because they see value in it. If they don't see value in it, they don't buy it. People aren't buying our product, they don't see the value in it. I can increase my marketing and try and convince them it's worth it, or I can try and reduce my costs of production (player's wages) to produce it at a price which they think is good value. Might not be quite the same quality, but if there are more buyers, then maybe I have a business instead of a waiting room for kids in short pants. (I know that sounds facetious but as an ex-player in the league, I'm not unsympathetic to their cause, I just don't think we can afford what they (or their agents) would like to earn).

Promotion/relegation works on 2 levels. Firstly, it assumes that the current disparity (produced by unsustainable budgets and player wages) would diminish courtesy of a drop in standard (remember that we can't afford the current wages of our top players and many would, in fact, pursue better money overseas) plus a relative increase in the standard of ABA programs as there was a genuine incentive for them to build their program which had access to the NBL. There would also obviously be some movement between relegated and promoted teams.

Good for Motts, it will happen all the time but because he's a local product we'll be delighted he's doing well and will enjoy the reflected glory of him playing OS - much like how the PGA tour is much more interesting when an Aussie is in contention.

me - I agree with everybody that says we'll lose quality players. But I think a) not as many as you think (did Luke Kendall immediately head OS hen left out in the sun after the Kings demise) and b) the diminished standard would not be evident to casual observer (the fans we are currently missing out on!).

289 - you may be right - there's nothing in it which would work, but what's in the current model which works? I threw it up to create discussion, not change the world, or even the league. While I'm here - define works? 10 competitive, viable teams playing an exciting brand of basketball enjoyed by capacity crowds with an opportunity for every town in Australia to host one of these teams? The atmosphere created by the Unley boys at the Unley girls GF at the NSBT this week was better than most NBL games these days. I'm about to head back over the the boys game and the join will be jumping.

I'm only convinced that the AFL has a model which works and is so culturally entrenched that its impossible to replicate (much as high school football is in Texas). The NRL is a basket case, soccer simply has a richer group of owners and access to a worldwide pool of funds via Asia and the World Cup.

DDFan - I agree, human nature tends to bring most excellence undone!! Look at what's happened to the NBL lately. There is no people-proofing any system. Clearly, we need some incentives/strategies for rewarding outstanding performance but perhaps that comes from opportunity, a la the D league or US colleges. When you are filling the joint (have created demand) then you can start to premium price for differential seating. The problem is when you have not yet created demand and manufacture disincentives to attend.

Keep thrashing and understand that it won't be the same - perhaps you'll see Brett Maher develop for 3 years before heading OS to ply his trade but hopefully will be around to be able to follow the next Brett Maher, and better yet, he'll be from your area more often than not.

Fox are offering say $1-2m/year for a NewBL comp full of drawcard players, with teams in big cities and presumably playing to their preferred schedule. Why would they come to the table with $6m for a budget comp in gyms that might be in regional areas (a pain for Fox to cover)?

Is there merit in each club putting in their cap at the start of the year, and then the league paying players directly out of that? Is this how the NBA works? Would it avoid the need for the $1m bond that's often mentioned covering for problems with owners?

Ah Fox 96,
the classic pyramid scheme.
Works well if you're the point of the pyramid