Instead of points, lets review the league landscape and annually implement a new rule around roster composition that benefits the Perth Wildcats. Would that work for you?

Points system led to a competitive league and stopped the have v have not situation where it is a race to the bottom we have now

The former points system would put all the next stars guys at the bottom level in terms of experience. The Hawks started the year with three guys with NBA experience, which eclipses the Kings currently and NBA experience isnt what it used to be in terms of guaranteeing NBL success.

"Should the NBL being using a points system and then the salary comes secondary?"

The NBL is effectively using a points system. Previously, the league assessed the value of players and allocated them a point ranking. Now, the league assesses the value of players and allocates them a $ ranking. There is very little different in that part of it.

Where the difference lies is teams can go over their allocated cap and simply pay a luxury tax in return, where as previously it was pretty much a hard points cap.

It doesn't "trickle down" to them at all from what I understand, they have to apply for it, and provide a good business case as to why they need it (ie. not "we want to be able to outbid Melbourne for Melo Trimble"). I suspect the league uses this fund to help pay for things like Next Stars etc. also, which is one of the reasons it seems shady that the league doesn't release more on the specifics of this program, because if the Kings pay the tax and then that tax goes towards giving them Didi it looks ... off. The teams able to spend the least should be given priority if this is the case, and they very well might be - its possibly they don't want particular Next Stars, which has also been rumoured with a few teams.

I don't want a points system because I want a strong and entertaining league, which is what we have right now, rather than artificial handicaps that stop teams from recruiting guys they can afford. Even the "poor" teams like Illawarra and Cairns are entertaining to watch for very different reasons. Cairns have come the closest (IMO) of nailing how to succeed with a budget by nailing the imports instead of the Brisbane route of overpaying locals. It hasn't necessarily translated to wins this season, but they have the ability to shake up their roster each season and swing for the fences on guys like Deng. The Hawks also have gone the more questionable route of signing young local prospects for multi-year deals and although the jury might be out so far, it might pay dividends in a few years if they get the right guys.

The points scheme was actually not too bad, but used in conjunction with the salary would work. You would expect the points to pretty much coincide with salary negotiations, but the issue with the old points scheme was that the fact that points were a little too rigid. Some players were classed as 7's and were only really 4's, but some 4's were 7's. Then there was the appeal process etc..

Rather than rely on points per say, it would be better for teams to work out their rosters, then work out the player points for that roster. If the points exceeded a set limit, then that team pays the "points tax" which the league could spend.

For example, under the old system I think the limit was 75 points per team. Let's say a team has the money to assemble a stud team of players and their points were 90, and let's say a budget club assembled a team of up and coming players for 50 points. All OK under this scheme, however, because the stud team points exceeds 75, then the league collects a "tax" of $X per point.

In order to get the points ranking per player, having a round number was restrictive so it could be out of 100 points per player, or if it was out of 10, make it decimal points too. I would say the league knows the "value" per player, so in setting the points per player, past performance etc could play a part, but also the club could potentially nominate the player value with other clubs having a say to ensure fairness (eg you would want a club saying that their player was worth 5.7 points, where in fact other clubs knew they were worth 7.3)

Points equalise the talent, whereas a salary cap ensures financial stability.

During the points era Bullets/Kings/Tigers still paid over the salary cap and every decent player gravitated their way. Wouldn't change much at all.

There were several problems with the points system:

1) There was also a rigid salary cap, which would have stopped us getting great imports like Cotton and Ware, and ensured guys like Trimble and Long left after one season. Also Bogut, Newley, and all those guys would be playing in Euope or China, and Creek would have stayed in the G-League.

2) Fresh Imports, and guys returning from O/S were arbitrarily assigned 10, or 9 points. So Derek Cooke would be worth the same as Cotton or Ware.

3) By always assigning maximum (or more) points to winning and top teams, it made it hard for the league to improve.

4) The allocation of points was unfair to players who suffered injuries.

5) The allocation of points was also unfair to teams that were well organised, balanced, and coached. So one of Gaze's star-studded teams would have been rated at less points than Bevo's Battlers, just because Gaze was a hopeless coach.

Personally, I would try to make it work as follows:
i) Points allocated based on a market-based assessment of salaries.
ii) Adjusted down for games missed due to injury.
iii) 2 Marquee players (either 2 local, or 1 local & 1 import) allowed without being subject to the points cap.
1v) Teams allowed to exceed the cap due to re-signing existing players, but any new recruits have to fit back within cap.
v) Points to be scaled each season, to allow for reasonable growth within the league
vi) Next Stars included but at a 50% discount.

The league equalisation payments should :

1) Only lift recipients to the salary floor, why should teams profit for being lazy in raising their own revenue? If we give them too much they will be reliant solely on such payments.

2) Be granted via an application process including financials and a business case of why they should be granted such money.

3) Come under regular scrutiny where if you have been granted the money, it must be spent on the roster and not become general revenue for the owner.

4) Reduce by percentage over time for repeat recipients, we don't want to foster a reliance on this money, we want teams to be able to make the salary floor on their own.

Anon (OP):

"Should the NBL being using a points system and then the salary comes secondary? E.g. players are assigned a point/s and there is only a certain amount of points that the team can accrue. If we had this system the rightful teams would be in line to win like the Wildcats. Wildcats have not cheated and should be top of the ladder."

Why didn't you just type something like:
“Why can’t Larry just rewrite the rules so that Perth are automatically given the championship at the beginning of each and every season?”

That’d save a lot of bother and expense of running an actual sports league. All recruits could then be paid $400k per year, but no team would need to recruit anyone because there’d be no games.

Thanks Trevor

While towards the end of the points system - NZ and Perth were always top and 36ers bottom. Predictable and points didn't make any difference, while supposed to even competition, but it didn't.