As part of overall strategy to lift quality of the league short term, I think its borderline good. It attracts more interest as the talent level improves but long-term they need to expand. I'm sure they are aware of the problem.

"but long-term they need to expand"

Why? This gets thrown around so often, but I'm yet to hear compelling arguments. Not that I'm suggesting the league shouldn't expand, but what's the big deal with the number '10' (number of teams)?

Its hard to judge when IMHO there are big problems with the lack of salary capping, and with the lack of transparency.

The rules were supposed to allow Marquee Locals in place of imports, but that doesn't seem to have worked.
The problem is that the wealthier teams are much better placed to use those import slots to their advantage.
Wildcats had Prather, McKay, and were eventually able to replace JJ with Cotton, and that landed them a ring.
This season gone United had Ware, Boone, and Prather, and were still able to bring in Felix as an injury replacement.

Would prefer if they kept it to two imports per team, but not fussed that its 3. Expanding to 9 or 10 teams will help keep more locals playing but that still depends if they are good enough to earn a roster spot in the first place.

I wouldn't really want to see it go out to 4 imports per team. Especially since we only play a 40 minute game and its only a 28 game season. There'd be some wasted talent unable to play or get court time.

Its offset a bit in that there are less natuarlised americans now than there were in the 90's when imports stayed for long careers. So in some way there are still the same number of imports now as there were back then too (with imports and natualised players combined)

FWIW, what I heard was the clubs & players were the ones that preferred less transparency. J-lo was quite happy to publish everything. Perhaps its the legality of the privacy aspect? We do have laws here that protect them.

Problem is that with no fixed cap, and no transparency to any super tax, the whole concept of marquees becomes nonsense.
In the first season of the new system the Kings has Khazzouh, Maric, Lisch and Newley, all of whom would have been Marquees under the old system.
However they STILL went out and hired a bunch of imports.

So, as I said, not working.

Putting aside Steindl and Vague, the Cats have assembled a formidable local lineup. Martin, Norton, Wagstaff, Kay, Brandt, and Jervis. Add to that they are hoping to get back the reigning MVP, and possibly the guy who finished 5th.
And that still leaves them an import slot open.

It's been great to see elite level Aussie talent come back to the league, but I really feel that allowing rich teams to stack the decks, and STILL bring in 3 imports is unfair.

Don't want Tokoto back.
Prefer Conger or Prather.

Anon, here's a link to every NBA players salary, you're obviously not a big hoops fan.

https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

In the first season of the new system the Kings has Khazzouh, Maric, Lisch and Newley, all of whom would have been Marquees under the old system.
However they STILL went out and hired a bunch of imports.

Anon, here's a link to every NBA players salary, you're obviously not a big hoops fan.

https://hoopshype.com/salaries/

People seem very concerned in making sure there are enough Australian jobs but don't seem to be keeping in mind the players filling them. As it is there are at least ten locals in the league who have basically no business being paid to play the game and for as long as that is so, we know that the import restrictions are too tight. Let's run through some names:

Brendan Teys
Kevin White
Rueben Te Rangi
Mitch Young
Cody Ellis
Kernich Dexter-Drew
Adam Doyle
Greg Hire
Aaron Bruce


And there are probably more that don't spring to mind. Anyway, they've had a shot, they've shown they aren't going to be that good, and you could probably walk onto most pick up courts in America blind-folded, point in any direction, and accidentally hit a player better than any one of them. You could fill their roles with SEABL imports for similar money and they'd be an upgrade.

If we want to incubate and develop our best talent we need the league to be at the best possible standard, and for that to happen we need to drop the dead wood. None of those guys are ever getting into the green and gold. Their pinnacles have been reached. I'd replace them either with young up-and-comers or imports. They've had their times, they're not going to be great or even good. Cut them loose.

The NBL can easily sustain 4 imports, especially with expansion. And the remaining Aussies will be better players for it.

Good Old Koberulz, still can't make a point: "Players are only marquees if the club designates them as such"
Well thanks for that brilliant insight.

"As it is there are at least ten locals in the league who have basically no business being paid to play the game"

Sorry, but that's an inaccurate and pointless statement.

There are guys getting "paid to play the game" in the SBL, its all relative.

It could equally be said that there are young guys missing out on the chance. There's no question that imports have been good for the league, and there's nothing magical that says two is better than three or vice versa.

I liked the basic idea of interchangeable Marquee and Import slots. Imports are a quick way to make a struggling team competitive, but allowing already strong teams to then load up with imports seems unfair.

Maybe we need to go back to something similar to the points system.

Here Koberulz

http://www.espn.com/nba/salaries

ESPN are an official partner and have every salary to the dollar. It's all public due to cap implications.

"Isn't "ME" a very positive person! Not.
If you can step onto an NBL court and do a better job than the players you listed I would like to see it."

That's a fairly ridiculous statement and would basically mean you shouldn't be critical of any sportsmen or anyone in public life. Of course they'd do a better job than me but are they great for the NBL and better than many Americans you could get for the same price? No. I'm not trying to be a professional basketball player.

"It could equally be said that there are young guys missing out on the chance. There's no question that imports have been good for the league, and there's nothing magical that says two is better than three or vice versa."

Expansion is inevitable. The young guys will get their chance. What I am saying in this league still has some room to grow into in regards to imports. If I can list 10 players that are in the league that shouldn't be, if we want the league to be truly great, then over 8-10 teams we have an extra import spot we can give. And recent history has shown us that teams often don't take up to the limit anyway.

Playing against 7 competitors doesn't provide for much variety. An extra 2 would do a world of good, especially if it can entrench a market ie. a second Melbourne/NZ team or expand a market ie. Tasmania

Is that confirmed?

I wouldn't hold my breath about the 4th import hype. If you're thinking Mo Bamba or Trae Young types or even Ferguson for that next gen 4th then you'll be most likely very disappointed.

They may be very athletic & high upside but good chance most won't have much impact if any. It'd be more headache for the coaches trying to get them playing times. Think more of Amritpal Singh, you'd be closer to the mark than '4th import'.

It's funny how this topic keeps popping up. The NBL is not a development league. There is no reason to keep marginal talents in the league on the bottom of rosters. Excluding *the option* of a third import on each team will only serve to detract from the overall standard by propping up low end players on rosters. Let's keep the league competitive and forget this xenophobic nonsense about "protecting marginal aussie jobs"