didnt Fiddes run his team into the ground? why would anyone care what he thinks?

(Adjusted your title to better reflect the situation - remember that by tomorrow or next week "Boti's article today" won't really mean that much as a topic title.)

The suggestion was from Peter Fiddes who proposed up to 20 teams, a $400k cap, a marquee player rule and (if I remember the article right - it's not yet online that I can see) imports outside the cap.

Australia needs a top level competition in basketball. That is a given.

We currently have the various state leagues and then there is nothing beyond that without the NBL. Therefore, we need to NBL to be the next level up from the ABL competition, just as the AFL is the next level up from the SANFL/WAFL/VFL, or the Trans-tasman is from the SNL.

There needs to be a skill gap between these competitions, just as there is a skill gap between AFL and SANFL. Having the skill level of the NBL too close to the ABL will not attract much interest in it.

With too few teams in the NBL, we run the risk of it being too boring with each team playing the same wek in week out, but with too many teams in the NBL we run the risk of the skill level of the NBL being too close to the ABL.

I would like to see around 10 to 14 teams in the NBL, but with all teams being solid teams. I believe that 20 teams is too many to have in one competition as the skill base will be spread thinly. Further, with 20 teams, the teams making finals will be determined sooner and so that will make the competition boring as once a fan realises their team is done for the season, attendances drop. The only way it would work would be a conference type system.

The current salary cap is a joke as it is not policed and all clubs appear to be paying over the cap. They have to as if they don't, the other teams will poach their players. This is un-sustainable in the long term as we have seen in the past. The NBL salary cap needs to be agreed upon by NBL clubs, then adhered to - no crossed fingers while shaking hands boys!

Yes, we need a strong NBL will a good number of teams, but no, 20 teams is just too many in one competition.

I like the idea of forcing the marquee players to be spread around the league. Good for fans and marketing, but also good for the players.

^ couldnt agree more!

Jack Toft - I'm interested in your statement:

"Australia needs a top level competition in basketball. That is a given."

I don't disagree with it per se but it's the sort of value statement that often is made without the reader knowing what the writer's value set is. So I'm interested in knowing what you see as the need(s) that are fulfilled by having a national basketball league above ABL. It affects how I view the rest of your points.

That said, the rest of your points are good - although I think the reasons for there being an AFL are different for there needing to be an NBL and an SNL. The AFL exists only for commercial reasons and the latter provides a development mechanism for (meaningful) international competition, for one.

The other point I might contest is the one about salary caps. If the Australia as a whole needs NBL so much (as you've put it), then salary caps should not matter as all Australians will happily fork out to make it happen in an equitable way for all teams. i.e., pay high ticket prices, membership subscriptions or government subsidies through the taxation system. Realistically, that won't happen, though (just revist the threads, too numerous to mention, about cost of Tigers' tickets and even 36ers tickets, from fans who would agree with the need for an NBL). So I'm back to my question about the underlying premise for your staement about the need for an NBL.

Peter,
The need for an NBL is quite clear in my mind.

The sport of basketball is an international sport and Australia seeks to be competitive in this sport. Therefore, you would expect that candidates for the national team squad should be playing at a high level and certainly playing either along side their teammates, or against their teammates.

If we want our national team to be competitive, then we need to ensure we have top level players developing themselves. Having a national team spread across the globe in a number of competitions develops those players individually, but fails to develop the teamwork and loyalty required for a national team.

And yes, the salary cap/ticket price is a catch 22 situation. The salary cap must be paid for by the fans/sponsors through ticket prices (or some other means) The salary cap ensures a stable competition by preventing finances from getting out of control. What annoys me with the salary cap is that it appears as though clubs shake hands, agree to the limit, and then pull their left hand out from behind their back and say "look, my fingers were crossed when I shaked, therefore it doesn't apply to me!"

Jack Toft Wrote:

If we want our national team to be competitive, then we need to ensure we have top level players developing themselves. Having a national team spread across the globe in a number of competitions develops those players individually, but fails to develop the teamwork and loyalty required for a national team.


It doesnt seem to affect Argentina or Spain when it comes to international basketball. Well over half their players play either in the NBA, Euroleague or just the plain old Spanish league. Both teams are totally competitive internationally so your statement is floored.

Both teams are exceptional because of their teamwork. That's what makes them great teams. That's why Spain came within 8 points of the USA in the Gold Medal game.

Ah well,
scrap the NBL on the grounds it's doesn't benefit the national team

20 teams with a salary cap of $400K? No thanks, we have the ABA if that's the quality league we want in this country.