Hoops

Proposed (for now) changes for 2016/17

BA has confirmed the announcement in imminent.

Anyone know when confirmation of any of the suposed new changes will be confirmed?

Jett was MVP for a team that was marginally better than the basketcase of the Kings. Garlepp won MVP for the Kings. That's how bad Jett is.
Nothing wrong with Garlepps hard work all season but he shouldn't be "as good" IMO as an import.
Thornton was a bust and Cotter didn't want him early on and that's equally as disappointing.
Please forget this there are plenty available and cheap notion. Clearly the SEABL isn't littered with them.

Anyone know when confirmation of any of the suposed new changes will be confirmed?

NOt all clubs will use it simply because some last season couldn't afford to spend to the cap let alone cheat it. The strong clubs will get stronger and the weaker clubs will fall away.

Nz should not be counted in the number of local players as they don't take Australian players

And who the hell is this "Kober" guy?

Some teams exceeded the cap. Everyone knew it, and that was every team's excuse.

At least with a taxed system, they can simple say, no problem, you owe us extra tax, and most of the teams in question would have no choice but to pay up.

Kober,
You're certainly correct that an inability to monitor the cap will not be fixed by changing the rules.
Nor do I actually have any direct knowledge of how or if clubs are in fact breaching the cap.

I can only refer back to how things once were. Some teams exceeded the cap. Everyone knew it, and that was every team's excuse. The NBL had limited options to penalise clubs, especially without everyone pointing fingers.

But back to your first point, half the problem could be because the NBL doesn't want to look too closely. Let's say they now audited the accounts of very team, and concluded that 3 finalists had exceeded the cap. WTF would they do?
At least with a taxed system, they can simple say, no problem, you owe us extra tax, and most of the teams in question would have no choice but to pay up. (Hawks of course would just change their name again ;-))

I am not sure how Anonymous gets 8 teams = 2 imports = 64 jobs and 9 teams = 3 imports = 63 jobs.

LK may have done well to get NBL reinvigorated but strip it all back it was same product.

Because at the moment, with the NBL apparently reluctant to take action, teams are allegedly exceeding the cap without any penalty. At least with a taxed system, those teams would contribute something back.

Because at the moment, with the NBL apparently reluctant to take action, teams are allegedly exceeding the cap without any penalty. At least with a taxed system, those teams would contribute something back.

"Far different isnt it."

I wouldn't say it's that far different.

2015/16: 6 locals x 8 teams = 48 locals
2016/17: 5 locals x 9 teams = 45 locals

"I did a little digging a couple of years ago, and found that the distance between first and eighth has been pretty consistent over the course of the league's history"

That seems like a finding that is impossible to draw any meaningful conclusions from once you consider that the league has had anything from 8 to 15 teams participating, and the number of games played has ranged from 18 up to 33.

How is a soft cap any more enforceable than...well, the soft cap we already have?

Kober,
Yes, in essence a taxed soft cap would be similar to Marquee rule (although I am proposing an escalating tax scale, but you could also apply that to Marquees.)
The real difference I would expect to see is the tax actually being enforced, as opposed to the hard cap which is simply ignored.

I am no big fan of the PPR system, I think some of the points are nonsense. When you can have someone like Nevill rated an 8, or pickup Motum/ Jawai / Ogilvy for 9, it doesn't really stop teams with more money shopping for talent.

Furthermore, whilst I love to see loyalty rewarded, the loyalty bonuses have given Perth a huge advantage.

Right, but he started his first ever NBL game, and played decent minutes over the course of the season, and was 26. Whereas everyone else on your list started at 18/19, most or all as DPs, and worked their way up through the NBL.

Tom Jervis seems out of place on that list.

But even in the D-league, surely there's only 2 or 3 players on each team who realistically have a chance of making NBA long term so it would be a worthwhile risk? I'm sure the other players on the roster are much better than the current minimum wage NBL players and should be targets for cheap imports that don't need to be superstars.

Only difference with the D-League is the risk/reward for the lower income.

I can see imports working, especially if the third import is cheaper and a state league level import.

Nothing wrong with cheap imports. Given the D-league pays what around $25k salary, and the minimum wage in NBL is around $40k, it's not hard to do the maths.

We'll end up back in bad ole days, when many teams exceeded the cap, the NBL did nothing, everyone knew it, and it was like a bluffing game to see who could get away with what.

If they are going to do that, they should replace the cap with a taxed soft-cap:
Pay the players what you like. Exceed the cap by upto $250k, pay 25%,
on the next $250k, 50%, then 75%, etc

It's one article, and hardly from an authoritative source. That's why I'm dubious about the "4 Marquee" proposition.
Only the "3 import rule" seems to be widely reported.

I think there are issues with the PPR system, but its total abolition leaves us relying on the Salary Cap, which the NBL has never been properly able to enforce.
We'll end up back in bad ole days, when many teams exceeded the cap, the NBL did nothing, everyone knew it, and it was like a bluffing game to see who could get away with what.

Had the Giants not crumbled in game 3, there would have been hell to pay back in '95 after the salary-cap fiasco.

If they are going to do that, they should replace the cap with a taxed soft-cap:
Pay the players what you like. Exceed the cap by upto $250k, pay 25%,
on the next $250k, 50%, then 75%, etc

Dazz, maybe read the article you linked to.

With the salary cap changes, and expectations that the points system will be abolished,

If the plan is to expand the league (Brissy next season, then maybe a Wellington team in a season or two, and/or another Melbourne team, etc.) Then 3 imports can ease that.
If you look at the available pool of new Aussie talent each season (ex DPs, ex college, ex Europe) it is a drop in the bucket compared to the field of imports.
And yes, imports nolonger means extra quality and/or big money.
Put simply, lets just look at one source, players coming out of college who are not good enough to get a Euro or D-League contract (or who want a bit more coin than the D-League is offering.)
You've got a huge pool of players who would be prepared to come and play here for modest money. (Not as good as when the AUD had parity, but still.)
Ok, so narrow that pool down to those at the top (of the remaining) who might be NBL quality.
Now, you can scratch around at the few Australians on that list, or you can pick and choose from the majority who would be classified as imports.

Personally, in a stable league, I would advocate keeping the limit at 2. But as a way to ease the impact of expansion it had merit.
It's one less local that Brissy has to poach, and makes replacing those poached easier.

Keep in mind that as far as we know there will still be the salary cap, and the PPR cap, so its not like Perth can just add Ennis to their existing squad.
Personally, I would like to see the PPR system tweaked, so that imports and ex-Euroleague players start at say 12, and the cap is raised to say 75.

From what I have read, the "11 player" rule is to allow 1 DP to travel to away games. (Teams can already have 2 at home.)
Teams already have the option of signing upto 12 regular players, and apparently in the past a few have had maybe 11. The advantage of this is minimal, as you can still only play 10 player, you can play 2 DPs at home, and in the event of injury you have 3 nominated DPs.
The advantage to an 11th REGULAR player (as is already allowed) might come down to age. Next season Corbon Wroe will be too old to be a DP. It the Cats want to keep him around they could do so as a "training player" as they have done in the past, but then he can only ever play as replacement for a LTI.

The 11 player roster (DP) would have been good for him this year, and will benefit somebody like Rhys Vague next season.

The "4 Marquee Locals" story as far as I can tell comes from one article on hoopla:
http://www.aussiehoopla.com/aussie-nbl-players-will-forced-get-better-according-boomers-icon-andrew-gaze/

For the record, it does say "Australian Born" which makes sense, as the rationale would be to attract Aussie talent back to the league. (Although it would naturally have to include NZ.)

Frankly, it makes no sense.
Not only would it make a complete joke of the cap,
WHO exactly are all these locals we expect to attract back? We're never going to get current NBA players back, and how many Aussies are playing in Europe, that would be interested in returning and we could reasonably afford?

I can only think that either:
The "4" is a typo. or
Its only 4 for the entire league (weird) or
Since it says "up to" perhaps the number of imports reduces it, so if you have 3 imports you can only have 1 Marquee local.

Are you doubting the reputation of hoops.com.au anons?? :O

Clubs being allowed to spend big certainly does not guarantee all of them success. What it does do, though, is all but guarantee the poor clubs failure, and that's not good.

I'm worried about how far these proposed changes are going to go.
I love clubs having the ability to bring a marquee player into the league if they can afford it, because that benefits not only the club but also the highlight reels, and therefore the whole league.
4 marquee players? Just for starters, they've then thrown away the definition of "marquee", but what it also does is allow several clubs to throw huge dollars at their rosters. There's still only one club that's going to win the title. Does the financial compensation really help the poorer clubs? Maybe it offsets some of the attendance loss from having an inferior roster that fans know is going to struggle, but I would question whether it's going to make a significant difference in them putting a top-notch roster on the floor.
I don't want to see a bunch of noughties-era situations like Kings/Bullets/Dragons killing themselves in arms races.

Seems like LK sees a serious problem and is going all-in with his response. I admire that. I respect him for putting his money where his mouth is, and I think the 15/16 season was a success in getting the NBL back on the map. I just hope this next step has been thought through and isn't too large of a leap.

Have heard no Points system anymore, if that hasn't been mentioned yet.

What KET said (at least for his first 4 points).

@Isaac, well yeah, the main concern is that the teams are aware, as we've seen in the past tweaks come in after teams have started rebuilding when they might have gone a different path...

Haven't heard anything from the NBL direct but the way Joey was talking during the "Randle" press conference it sounded like they were planning for 3 imports.

Does anyone know what kind of company it is? There are literally thousands of companies named Golden Star something, with the most prominent being a mining company in Ghana.