Hoops

Points over salary system

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.

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

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.

You can’t have the poorer clubs owners pocketing the money from the tax, it should be put into the team to get them better. Hawks owner got the money just doesn’t want to spend it, hopefully they get new owner in next season.

I think the solution is to be open about total team spend and luxury tax paid. Then distribute the luxury tax evenly among the teams who didn't go over the soft cap, rather than using it to help teams spend to the salary floor.

Let the teams decide how they want to use that money

Didn't Tyson Demos have a negative rating at the end due to loyalty discount?

The points system was crap.

Having it there doesn't guarantee any on court results either.

There was one year where the Hawks and the Wildcats were coming up for max points discounts due to tenure (thinking of Forman, Coenraad, Rhys Martin and maybe even Larry Davidson), even with those they were still not very good.

It still comes down to the imports you choose.

This is a very difficult dilemma, the league right now is as talent laden as I have ever seen it and the on court product is terrific.

This however is partly a function of the arms race going on, which may or may not be sustainable.

Overall the league is a better product right now and more buzz around it with all the initiatives like Next Star and Marquee rule.

I feel it would be regressing if we allowed Cairns and Illawarra to drag in down but understand the league overall should benefit not just the top 3-4.

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.

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.

It is already effectively a points system it's just that it is also completely hidden from everyone. Foolproof right? What could possibly go wrong.
So move along because there is literally nothing to see here.

"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.

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.