Hoops

Addition of new teams - success or not

Isaac and david K --Agree with your comments that it does not help struggling teams when they get looted by the more financial clubs  poor team, poor crowds, sponsors down and recruiting gets tougher. Good central league administration helps weaker teams to rebuild but ultimately any good league needs a fundamental financial model that works. The NBL is in denial on this. The basic model must include the requirement to build a season ticket base so that there is some breathing space to rebuild after a poor season. 36ers are the classic example  had a great fan base and lost it thru poor management and marketing while small fortunes where spent on the next championship team. David K comments make sense  a good draft, a rookie camp and maybe a zero points for the second or third player under 20 would help but the owners are not that interested in developing a system that encourages young talent -- these suggested changes make it harder to WIN NOW!. Isaac you menttioned the other classic example of how not to go about--the Hawks -- great franchise without any leadership or management.

Maybe the bottom 2 teams at the end of each year should get a salary cap exception. We have no draft so maybe this would help and bring the level of competition closer. Just an idea i guess.

Isaac, you talk about the composition of the NBL as if the number of teams is a well thought out strategic decision. We wish ! The number of teams is determined by how many go broke in a season and when their cash actually runs out. The two new teams, Slingers and Dragons are classic examples of the on-going cycle. Singapore took over the Newcastle license (after 2 financially disastrous seasons)  Newcastle got the license from Canberra who had 3 ownership changes in the previous 5 years. Dragons took over the Victoria Giants license who took over the Titans who took over the Magic who took over the Saints and Spectres. Every franchise in the NBL except Crocs has changed ownership in the last 5 years, many change annually. Last year Crocs and Tigers made money, no other franchise got within $250,000 of a break even. The interesting question is how many clubs with losses last year are improving their position - cos if they are not then they better have the owner(s) with long pockets. Read Bullets and Kings. Cairns and Perth have enough of the fundamentals right (and some capital) to see a financial light at the end of tunnel. The light that the Breakers, 36ers, Dragons, Razorbacks, Slingers and Hawks see at the end of their tunnel is a fast moving train called bankruptcy. They must change their fundamentals next season or sell. Are more or less teams good for the NBL ? they dont care how many teams or how it effects the standard - their game is survival.

I dont mind the league expanding, and if the talent gets too diluted i reckon the NBL should allow teams to have 3 imports, or atleast the bottom couple who have trouble recruiting key Aussies to keep every team at a high standard.