Seems sensible enough. I guess with the NBL's standing in Australia, it's probably quite difficult for clubs to assist older players making a transition out of the game.

Assistance with off-season placements could work in some cases, but would be impacted given that a lot of players look to get extra money in another competition (SEABL, ABL, NZ NBL) during that time off.

Maybe career counselling and networking help through a formalised NBL-assisted plan?

Nashy's point about playing on because veterans keep getting contract offers is the key - McDonald, Trahair, Ronaldson, Copeland, etc have all been making decent contributions.

It would not be hard at all, get some internships going with sponsor partners where a player may work 10 hours per week in a chosen field.

Offer some study options with support if need be.

Then they have real world experience to offer as opposed to "i used to play ball"

I had the chance to speak with Tim May who played cricket for Australia. I asked him if he had any regrets and he answered with " If i had my time again i would have focused on business rather than Cricket." I asked what he meant by that and he said how much better off financially he would have been had be not wasted so much time playing cricket.

I guess this line of thinking lead him to become the players representative when negotiating with Cricket Australia.

So what i am saying is that the league and team owners have a responsability to try and educate their staff that they may only have a limited life of earning above average wages.

I oppose any cocnept of a draft, and any concept of forced retirement.

If you are good enough, you will make it and you should be able to continue to play for as long as you are good enough.

Imagine being told that Brett Maher MUST retire.

The draft does little more than increase mediocrity...

give me the best, playing their best, no matter what age they are.

Isnt a draft to try to ensure balance of talent through out the league?

If their was no draft in the NBA the best kids would all be playing at the richest clubs instead the best talent goes to the worst team in order to make them better and therefore the league more balanced

IMO, A draft is to attempt to manufacture results that are closer and therefore more palatable to "audiences", and therfore more able to generate revenue.

In truth they create a mediocrity that allows the average to play, where the elite should shine.

So by your rationale the Dream Team should allow players to shine?

Jordan average 14.9 PPG in the 92 Olympics, did that showcase how dominant he could be in a game?

Of course the draft is about creating parity. People will no watch if they know the result before it starts.

In Formula One audiences increased when Schumacher stopped winning.

Parity in teams will also keep owners interested in putting money into their club. You think the owners of Singapore are chuffed at the results they are getting?

I imagine it's a challenge to focus on a potential career 10-15 years into the future when you can just concentrate on basketball for now and have a decent lifestyle.

Isn't Jocob Holmes doing some work for Mark Cowan's company.

I heard that somewhere and thought "great, another reason why we won't see him back in Adelaide".

Yes, I think he is.

There is nothing stopping these players from studying, a lot of study is available by correspondence on a part time basis. If you play for an NBL team (and don't go elsewhere at the end of the season) you have virtually a semester where there are no games, any player could fit in study whilst they are playing. Even if you play all year round I am pretty sure your playing and training doesn't take up all day every day. (Darren is an example to the extreme, most courses do not require that much time away from the court.) All the club should be doing is reminding and encouraging the players to look at further study.

Comes down to discipline and motivation though. If you're a full-time student, that's what you do - you're working towards a job. If you already have a decent job that pays well and is pretty enjoyable, I think it'd be more of a challenge to motivate yourself to pick something to study and do it.

Discipline and motivation is a huge factor, but one that would be mitigated by NBL/Club endorsed programs like the AFL has.

I know a Redbacks cricketer who has been playing for some time, and has only recently taken up study (in the last couple of years) after an injury gave him a scary insight into being without a career or any skills to forge one.

SACA have thrown their support behind him and helped him secure work experience with sponsors. He'll walk into a job on retirement with a profile, education and relevant experience. I think the league and individual clubs could do the same.

ben fitz...
I mostly agree with what you say...

Its about parity..
A question... was MJ comparable to everyone else? if not..maybe each team should get a share of MJ over his career, or over the season? or over the game?

I appreciate thats being excessive...but where does the equalisation stop?


re people not watching, refer the football in Europe/UK, they have no problem filling stadia every week when there are dominant sides in the competition, because people go to see, the best, the elite, play.


Your last point re the input of dollars in singapore basically confirms what im saying...its all about revenue.

Maybe we have too many sides in the NBL for the number of quality players, if we reduce the teams and play a higher quality game...that will increase the revenue?

I dont know the answer...but i think drafts and salary caps encourage mediocrity.

I don't mind the idea of a draft in the NBL per se, I just don't see it as being at all workable. It just cannot work in an 'second tier' league like the NBL.

Say that there are 14 teams, and you have two rounds of drafts (28 young Aussies). You need 28 kids each year to fill the draft, who are prepared to go wherever the draft takes them. Then I assume you need to guarantee contracts for the first round (at minimum $$), and development spots for the second so as to encourage people that it is worth entering the draft.

Now, for this to work, the draft has to be the only way that a new player can enter the league. Otherwise, if you are good enough, why not just sign with the highest bidder? But why should young Aussies be treated differently from imports coming into the league? Does that mean imports have to go through the draft? What about an Australian that has already been playing overseas?

What is to stop a team from not taking anyone in the draft? Why would Sydney want to take on any new blood next year after dominating this year?

Really, I think the end result would be that a draft in the NBL would squeeze out the middle of the road young players (such as Ng before this year), rather than the established 'names' of the NBL. Accordingly, it wouldn't fix the problem Boti has identified. You are really much better off promoting youth and giving the NBL clubs better scouting opportunities so that they can each try to identify the next Andrew Gaze or Brett Maher.

Yeh get a draft, however it should allow one regionally drafted player per team unlike the NBA. Also the NBL should introduce trades between imports and between locals. This would at least take up a bit more space in the papers when a trade happened.

Yeh get a draft, however it should allow one regionally drafted player per team unlike the NBA. College players should be drafted also, many Aussies playing college ball aren't a chance of making the NBA. Also the NBL should introduce trades between imports and between locals. This would at least take up a bit more space in the papers when a trade happened.

one thing that really strikes me is when a dominant team is playing a weak team, after the first half the game goes dead. thy bring on there bench, they slow the ball down and just shoot jump shoot after jump shot.

atleast with two weak teams its non stop action because they both have to play hard to get a needed win...

and i dont know about you i would rather watch a decent match with two bad teams, then a slow boring match with one dominant team.