True, 25 is a bit old to be winning it, you need to be 24 or under ;-)

I think 25 is fine. Players are playing for a lot longer now, well into their 30s, and breaking in older now too compared to how it used to be. 25 used to be considered "older" 5-10 years ago. Now you're given much more leverage, which I think is great.

Seems strange to change the award requirements with only a few rounds of the season to go...

Not much info in that article? So in theory an American could win this that has been playing professionally for 2-5 years?

Just to be clear, you need to be under 25 at the end of the season in question. I think it should be an award you can only win once, and certainly don't agree with imports being able to win it, otherwise in 2014 it would have ended up at the bottom of the Yarra ;-)

So they saw LaMelo Ball win Rookie of the Year and decided it would be even cooler if a 24 year old import could win the award instead

If the NBA had an equivalent to this award, Luka Doncic would not only be able to win it this year, but he'd only miss the cutoff to win it next year by 2 months

In reality, the ROY can be any age as it stands now. A 40 year-old can win, if it's his 1st season. Highly unlikely, of course, but within the guidelines.

I don't mind opening it up to include imports, DPs and Next Stars in the mix. So long as they are, within say, 2 or 3(max) years as a professional basketball player. When Nick Kyrgios gives up tennis and signs with SEM, should he be denied the ROY just cos he's really old by then?

Might like to see an exemption for recruits from NBL1 and NZNBL, local or import.

Last year, the Breakers, with their 2 young guns, 1 a NS, the other as a full roster signing (both French, from memory). Both could have been in contention.

Personally, I would want it to be an Aussie as there is more chance that an Aussie would be in the NBL longer than most non-Aussies, to see our best "newcomers" develop.

I agree that it is a mistake to change anything at this late stage of this season.

I think they should have ROY and the U25 award, they are for the most part covering different groups of players.

They need something to replace this - bring back the Good Hands Award.

Silly why change an award midseason. Just keep ROY award with this new 25 year old award.

Why does it matter when they change it? It's not like anyone has been targeting the old criteria and suddenly isn't eligible or something.

This change has been bouncing around for a year or two now, anyway, it's not coming as a surprise to anyone.

It matters because it probably means someone like a Sam Froling will now win it, when he's in his 4th year in the league and wouldn't have been close to being eligible a week ago

So? How would anyone's decision-making have differed if this information had been released six months ago?

And again, this has been discussed going back to at least last season. This isn't a surprise to anyone who's actually involved in the league.

No one took the NBL rookie of the year award all that seriously. In any given year, there are only a handful of new players that get any real burn, and usually, the best player is either quite obvious, or there is no one really deserving to win. If you look through history there have been some absolute bums with the award. At least this way, a young player can still be awarded who might otherwise get overlooked in a normal ROY scenario.

No one took the NBL rookie of the year award all that seriously. In any given year, there are only a handful of new players that get any real burn, and usually, the best player is either quite obvious, or there is no one really deserving to win. If you look through history there have been some absolute bums with the award. At least this way, a young player can still be awarded who might otherwise get overlooked in a normal ROY scenario.

Three of the past five ROYs have gone on to play in the NBA, the guy two years before that is an Olympic bronze medal winning starter.

Names like Gaze, Heal, Vlahov, Mackinnon, Rillie, Nielsen, Newley, Worthington, Ingles, Jawai, Wagstaff, Kay, Humphries, Ball and Giddey.

It's an award with serious jistory and I don't see any reason to replace it. I think Sam Waardenburg would have been a good winner this year and will go on to a very good career.

They could've kept ROTY and added a "Young Star" award for the best player of any nationality who's 24 or under. Would occasionally be won by the same person, but more often not

Agree, LV, and it would have given a bit more publicity and credit to talented young players, esp. from overseas.

From a player's point-of-view, both awards could be meaningful to the player and the league.

ROTY(as is).
Rookies would all be eligible at start of season and if the players involved have got balls and a chance of a good/great career I am sure that they would bust their arse to be in contention. Helps both the player and the fans(league) gets the benefit of a bunch of young guys doing their best etc.

New Award(?).
For under 24s/25s, could urge young players for 4-5years trying to get the nod. As for same player winning for 2, 3 years so what. Every young sportsperson wants be top-dog, and once there would want to repeat and threepeat. Selfish bastards. Everyone else with any true creds would want to knock off the top-dog. An achievable target for most youngsters to push themselves more.

May I offer Harry as an example. Wins ROTY then fades away.
With all other awards almost certainly going to super stars (at least to veterans/established) the challenge to be considered may be "too far away".

I don't mind it ROTY had to be given out every year even if there was no one that really deserved it so a lot of mediocre players won that award. It's a by-product of a league with only about 100 players compared to say the NBA with about 450 players.

At least with opening the award up to guys 24 and under including imports it should make the award a bit more relevant.

Surely no previous pro experience should be criteria as well.

The issue of previous pro experience being way too complicated was why they made this change in the first place.

I doubt that very much. It's not complicated at all, you pick a definition. That's what has been the case for a long time.