"A very one-eyed Sixers fan"....have you actually ever read my posts?
Absolutely clueless and a pathetic cheap shot.
We're on top of the ladder, relax.
Exactly a reason why I wouldn't have sour grapes which is why I just said that in my previous comment which I gather you didn't bother to read since that doesn't seem to be your thing in this thread.
Where was this 'legitimate question' during the 8 game winning streak? We're on top of the ladder, relax.
You just don't get it do you?
It's not about the 36ers, it's about the fact we're in a period of transformational and structural change in the NBL with likely more to come and it's worth discussing the structure along with the pros and cons.
Which is another thing you don't get - you naturally assume a particular position has been taken as an answer to the question posed instead of the intellectual curiousity of considering both advantages and disadvantages and fleshing out the ideas. This is despite the fact it's a clear invitation to consider both the pro's and cons.
Only a few days ago I posted a thread triggered by Boti's article about refereeing - I had been meaning to do it for some time but this gave a good opportunity. Now if I had posted that exact same thread after a 36ers loss to a controversial call would that make the thread suddenly sour grapes? Would it be suddenly less legitimate? Would the substance suddenly not exist? Or would it have been a good segue to what is regardless an interesting discussion to have? Funnily enough, with all these moves by the Wildcats, NZ, Sydney and Melbourne it has been on the cards for discussion anyway. It's kind of a relevant topic at the moment.
So why is this particular question interesting? For the same reasons why the discussion about the soft cap and 3 imports and teams stacking at the start of the year was interesting, but with the added element of mid-season review and replacement.
If you've got teams with resources and the will to win in a system which allows them to effectively pay what they like to attract players - they're going to try and attract the best aren't they?
At the start of the season you're taking a risk the chemistry and players will work and the quality will be there. There's still that element of risk.
If you're able to take away that element of risk by signing better players during the season in order to win, they're probably going to do that.
This opens the prospect that we end up having the same four stacked teams making up the top four year after year. At which point why do the other four clubs bother existing if they're born to lose - that's the anti-competitive nature of it, and what chance does having four teams always losing have of those clubs surviving anyway?
It might be easy to point to this season as being even and debunking these type of ideas of anti-competitive behaviour - and I actually agree with what they've got in place at the moment for the short term which I have stated before
(shock horror Zodiac - if only you bother reading what is written instead of making assumptions! And maybe it's best not making claims about what I am if you haven't read my stuff before!), but what if injuries and slow moves by clubs makes this more of an outlier than proof of the contrary?
At the end of the day, this could be an aspect of the NBL structure which long term is not necessarily viable for a competitive league.