Man, these anons are out to get me. Show me your ideas boys.

"So the team gets its 2 imports as usual, but the 3rd has to be a really entertaining player."

Luckily John Hollinger just finished developing the 'Player Entertainment Rating' statistic which could help the NBL judge signings for their objective entertainment value.

I told you the last one was far-fetched and I think you all agree lol

Don't expect a decent response from anons moneyballer. The 3 import rule could work when we get 4 more teams, just a thought.

The NBL never had 3 imports did they?

Great idea...........let's have five imports! Most teams struggle to pay two, so how the hell are they going to afford three?

The only teams who struggle is T-VILLE and the Gong and it's not an imports salary on top of everything else it's replacing a starters salary. Another thing, you don't have to have the 3rd import if you don't want him.

Good idea, if u can afford him, have him I say, the weak teams in the NBL shouldn't be allowed to coast, and the ones in good financial stead should be able to flex their muscle

Don't have any restrictions on imports. The local Australian 'talent' are already bringing the league down to a mediocre level. I'm not saying imports are the answer to bringing the talent level up, but too many Aussie players appear comfortable in their mediocre situation because they know they're not going to get cut for anyone better.

I like 3 imports but not like the above.

3 imports, at least 1 must be from one of the state leagues like Big V, SEABL, WSBL etc. That one import must have played in one of those league's the season before and IF the player points stays in, that 3rd import can only be rated max 7 points.

This allows "lower" imports that are willing to sign for min money just to play in the league/Australia to be signed.

There are so many of these imports that team's have tried out and liked but did not want to give up 1 of their 2 import slots to. And have said if they were local they would be signed.

This gives those imports a shot at playing in the NBL whilst it's little risk to NBL teams.

People would say why give a roster spot to an import when you can help home grown talent. Yes, that is true to a point. But wouldn't benefit EVERYONE if the talent level was raised? Besides there will be more teams which means more roster spots.

Teys may miss out on a spot, but imagine replacing him with someone like Daequon Montreal? Or what about Wollongong replacing Shane H.T with the rebound machine Ivan Mcfarlin? Sydney Kings could really use someone like Jermel Jenkins coming off the bench instead of trying to get White to play back up PG. Imagine having Jazzmarr Ferguson instead of Drake U'u?

Nothing against the players I've mentioned, but these imports have tried to break the NBL and have said they would play for little cash, teams just aren't willing to take a shot at them because they take up a import slot.

This fixes that.

I like your post natwhereyouat and agree with introducing a third import on WA SBL or SEABL level and after there first season re grade them (assuming some points system is still in place) so if they have great year make them a 10 pt player. Slightly off topic I see that Knight is under contract for 3 years will he be a 10 pt player for the duration of his contact? Can he or any other player for that matter be re evaluated after each season or is their point value locked in?

"I see that Knight is under contract for 3 years will he be a 10 pt player for the duration of his contact? Can he or any other player for that matter be re evaluated after each season or is their point value locked in?"
Points ratings are re-evaluated every year, but the new rating only comes into effect if the player signs a new contract.

It used to come into effect if the player signed a new contract OR if the new rating was lower than the old rating, but they changed it. Presumably it made too much sense.

Thanks for clearing that up Koberulz I also don't agree with it I don't see Knight as a 10pt player anymore.

Yeah, it essentially punishes teams for signing players to long-term contracts at or after their peak.

The French league has a 3 import rule but only two can be on the court at the same time. Also if there is a marquee player rule this player should count as two import players.

Three imports is a good idea especially if they are increasing the number of clubs over the next few years. Would help the fledgling clubs be more competitive early days and maintain depth in the squads with the australian talent spread thinner

I get this idea, but because this is an australian basketball league, i think having 2 imports is enough. scout your imports correctly, and you'll end up with players like ennis, beal, clarke, ervin etc

Instead of a 3 import rule, why not have one aus/nz player that has zero points, it might bring some of the good players back from Europe and College

I dont mind the three-point rule with the expansion to 16 teams, at least for the first few years. With eight teams there is no need for it.

It's been around since 1984, I doubt it's going anywhere.

:p

@Keany is what your saying about a 0 point (unrestricted) player basically another version of marquee player proposal? If/when we get to 16 teams I don't see 3 imports being a problem, that's 48 jobs which still leaves 112 local positions plus development players.

Yeah pretty much, I think that instead of getting a heap of overseas players we should try and get some of the best australian players back into the league like joe ingles and David Anderson etc

Guys who have Euro passports can get good money and there are always plenty of jobs available, so getting them back will be tough.

For Aussies/Kiwis who are imports in Europe (which I think is only Brad Newley, Ater Majok and Kirk Penney at the moment, and prob Nate Jawai again next year) things can be a bit more unpredictable, but Brad seems to have made himself right at home on the Canary Islands.