1999/00 GF between Titans and Wildcats involved 6 Boomers for Perth (Fisher (98 Worlds), Rogers (2000 Olympics), Grace (2000 Olympics), Black (2003 Oceania), Vlahov (2000 Olympics)) and a future Boomer (Harvey (2009 Oceania)); but only 2 Boomers for the Titans (Ronaldson (1998 Worlds, 2004 Olympics), Drmic (1998 Worlds). Titans also had future Boomer Smith, fringe Boomer Wheeler and import playmaker McDonald. Should Perth not have been allowed to compete that year? What about the Titans?
NZ had a team full of Tall Blacks all through the 2000s and never won a championship. They added a Boomer in 2009 and still didn't win for another 2 seasons.
The point is that NBL used to be a place where Australia's Boomers developed and played. It isn't that place any more.
It does seem to be a place where Tall Blacks now develop and play. Does that give them an unfair advantage over other teams? 2013-14 suggests not.
"Should there be a 2nd NZ team to water down the talent?" Yes and no. The 'no' is that watering down the talent is the wrong reason to introduce a second NZ team. You risk creating one or two weaker teams that do poorly, struggle to draw crowds and become non viable. Especially if the NZ players follw teh above Australian trend and start looking overseas to develop and play (like Penney did, Marks etc.).
The 'yes' is that if it isn't going to undermine the NBL product, then a second team will probasbly be a good thing. Behind this I have the following thinking. In terms of the league's overall strength, I wonder if we'd have a league at all, if the Breakers had never been brought in. They and Perth have been the only stable organisations through the league's problematic last decade. Every other team except Melbourne has, at one point or another, failed or come close to it. Would the league have survived with only one stable, well run organisation through that period?
While NBL went well this year, it remains to be seen whether Kestleman's investment will have turned the NBL into a profitable business in 2 years' time (I think his timetable was 3 years altogether?). If it hasn't, the league could be on the same roller coaster ride for survival it was on before this season. Anything that either materially increases the chance of that outcome or materially increases the chance of failure in the event of that outcome should be avoided.
So a second NZ team should be based on a sound business case that enhances the league and at least does not make it less likely to fail in 2 years' time.