i agree with this article, why not make a small adjustment to make the league more exciting! and raise the standard! give it a try!!

I would only agree with this if they also raised the salary cap.

OR why not raise the salary cap and lure back some of those aussies playing overseas.

Or allow a salary cap exclusion for one marque player per team?

yep one marquee player per team outside of the salary cap, or two imports if you don't go over the cap (on paper).

If the marquee is Aussie then he can be over the cap but not the additional import.

AND let 1 asian player play as a non-import outside of cap.

2 + 1 or 1 (marquee) + 1 is worth a try i reckon.

I think its a good idea. It would increase the level of competition here which further challenges Australian players to rise to the occasion rather than having barely able players sitting on a bench.
We could introduce a 2 import on the court at any one time if people get really upset about it..but I think thats a bit over dramatic.
The reality is as Boti says..We goto the NBL to see performance I dont care if they are Australian or an Import so long as they play hard and make the game exciting!

The league needs to seriously consider options for making the NBL more exciting..Recently friends who are basketball players but watch the NBA came to an NBL game and asked whether players ever dunked in this league (there were 2 weak dunks the whole game) and suggested the league should be called the NDL (no dunk league).. the NBL needs to move away from gaze mentality of 'don't worry about being flashy just get the ball in the hoop' I am sorry but wake up NBL you are selling entertainment.

I propose a $500 payment for dunk of the week to the player with the best dunk for each NBL round. perhaps that would encourage players to try alley oops, for PF and C to dunk instead of doing a lay up...

I'm not sure what adding 1 more mediocre import per team is going to do? If memory serves me well, all but 2 clubs replaced both imports this year, from last year. The nett result was 5 of last year's imports started this year. And only a few imports this year are being talked about as worth asking back next year.

That's been the case for the last few years. If we increase the import quota to 3, why are we suddenly going to increase the quality of imports? The imports each year represent the first and second (and in some case third and fourth choices) that teams make, and more than half who make it to the end of the season don't get asked back the following year. And the 3rd import is going to be lower down on the pay scale than those first and second choices, so presumably they are likely to be a lesser standard as well.

The problem is that the good old days with high quality imports were the days of no points system and no effective salary caps. Clubs got what they paid for and they paid plenty for it. We have the trail of teams that used to be in the NBL to show what happened as a consequence.

And Lance, the NBL is selling entertainment but a large part of not seeing dunks is simply the basketball psyche of deliberately fouling a player rather than letting him get a fast break or an "easy" dunk and the poor policing (by custodians of the game's laws) of holding, pushing and other tactics that replace skill and athleticism with strength and thuggery around the basket. Getting more imports is unlikely to change either of those things. After all, it was an import that ripped Brad Hill's shoulder to pieces on a fast break that was heading dunkwards.

Tigers Hawks was hard viewing, that's for sure.

I vote for 3 imports also

Defs agree the NBL should bring in 3 imports. It would raise the standard of the league, which only helps local players get better. "You can't fly with the eagles if you hang with the crows".

I'm calling for number of refs officiating a game to be culled from three to two. Cuts the awfulness down by a third instantly. Win!

3 imports in a 40 min game will give most of those 9 aussies bugger all playing time.

A club is better off finding 2 good ones than 3 affordable hacks.

Keep it at 2 Imports per team. Spend more time developing talent instead of trying to buy it in.

3 imports, there may be some cheap ones but still more expensive than most aussies

Raise the salary cap

All good idea to further destroy struggling clubs. No club if profitable so lets make it even harder

Is he really paid to right this stuff, how about he supports basketball instead of trashing it every time he puts pen to paper

The big issue has been the standard of Import in comparison to aussie content.

It's no like imports have generally been lighting it up.

Finding 2 good imports has been near impossible. WHy would having 3 be any better.

PeterJohn, I fully agree with your comments about why the game isn't as exciting or fun any more because of the handling allowed. I blame the Euro leagues for that.

I'd also add in coaches who are scared to take risks, so they turn the game into a grind-it-out affair where players have to follow what the coach draws up rather than just get out there and use their skills and ENJOY the game.

I'd also add that the quality would improve greatly if there was more money. All the good imports and lots of good Aussies play in Europe cos there's more money there.

Rhea: Cedric Jackson, Gary Wilkinson

Wouldn't you all rather have 1 Marque spot per team.

Meaning: 1 aussie born player can be paid outside of the cap and his points and salary does not matter.
This is the ONLY way you will lure home the likes of Ingles, Newley and so on.

IF they can get a half decent deal here they would stay. They go to Europe because they get 3-4 times what they could get here.


I know id rather that than 3 imports.

Agree Average Okka. Boti has no idea sometimes!

Hoopie - if you dislike the grind-it-out style, you can blame Goorjian. He perfected it as a championship winning style and others have followed in his wake. A triumph of science over style.

Personally, I don't mind a tough, close game played fairly. What I mind is how often we're subjected to games that are close because teams commit 20 turnovers each, shoot 35% from the field and 60% from the foul line. I'm not convinced a third import for the 5 or 6 teams that could afford one would change that.

Mystro,

That is 1 out of 10.

Kind of proves my point.

Further to PeterJohn's comment, is adding further cheap imports to the mix the solution? Someone like Ratszch? (Like the Kings giving up trying to play him, this is the one NBL player whose name I have given up trying to spell...)

Where do the dunks come from at the Tigers? Allen or Dorsey? No, Walker. In Adelaide? Johnson or Creek as much as anyone. In NZ, Abercrombie is most known for dunking. Perth only have one import so who knows what they'd want with three. At the desperate Hawks, both of their imports to start with were coming off the bench and that is after the first one was sacked.

Adelaide effectively had three imports this year with Ballinger naturalised - and endless highlights, right? Nope.

Three imports doesn't help the "local player" problem Boti has written about the 36ers having. Who's going to get squeezed out by a new import at the 36ers? Could be a guy like Ng, the only local player in the ten.

I think a marquee player rule could be more effective. Or limit a third import to teams finishing bottom two in a previous year.

I'd love 3 imports rule. Competition, depth and excitement will all increase.

I agree with the no dunks or lack of it in the NBL. Most are weak if they do occur. I've certainly witnessed it plenty over the years here in Adelaide. Or when the rare one is potential, arms are hugged to prevent the dunk.

I'd also like to see the salary cap raised a little higher or allow a marquee player outside the salary cap.

Beautiful ideas on here on the topic.

I would like to see it go the other way with 1 stud import surrounded by aussie talent

Back in the day most imports were bigs of the 6-7 plus variety which means more above the rim action type guys

Now look at what we have

Perth guard
Adelaide guard + forward
Melbourne 2 guards
NZ guard and unathletic forward
Hawks guard and forward
GC Guard and Centre
Kings Forward and not really sure
Cairns 2 guards
Tville Guard and small forward

i would say 6 bigs out of a possible 18 spots


The league has switched around as far as talent needs go

Classic import combos were bigs

Davis and Jones
Pinder and Crawford
Dillon and Fisher
Atkinson and Moore
Colbert and Simmons
Mcleary and Mclain

Comes down to money.

How many NBL teams are breaking even or making a profit??

If the majority are losing money already then increasing costs is just asking for teams to go bust.

Sure you can argue that making the league more exciting will increase attendance, but adding imports ot increasing the salary cap won't guarantee a more exciting league.

My two cents.... 3 imports are great but if you want to improve the game and its entertainment value, need to follow the NBA and have a no charge area and defensive 3 sec violations to stop the crap zone defense that bores me to tears.

Will open the court, force more pick and roll situations and allow the game to flow and athleticism shine from both import and local talent

Personnally I dont care about development of younger players in the NBL, I dont go to watch someone grow into a good player, I go to see good players compete against the best the country has to offer. Watching players develop is for amatuer leagued around the country.

BJF, Wilkinson looked fairly Athletic when he dunked on Worthingtons head

The imports were generally dominant and exciting to watch in the early days (Green, Davis, Loggins etc) due to there being such a large gulf between the imports & local talent levels.

The large Gulf was generally due to a far lower standard across the board in Aussie talent (athletically & skill wise) aswell as a higher standard of available import relative to Aussie talent. This gulf is no longer there, partly due to a significant improvement (and depth) in Aussie talent & athleticism, but also the NBL can't compete with other bigger money leagues to attract top quality imports, that are a step above the whole league & have the ability to dominate as they did many years ago.

Occasionally we see an import flow through at this level who can dominate games & bring the crowds in, but it is becoming fairly rare & short lived, as they generally leave the NBL & head off to the big $ leagues.

Many years ago, all imports would always be your marquee & go to players & despite a few rare Aussie exceptions, it would generally be unheard of for all imports to not be first choice offence or not playing almost full minutes, let alone coming off the bench. This started changing with significant improvement in Aussie talent (the Gazes and Mahers of the world) & teams could no longer afford/attract "marquee imports" that had the capacity to completely dominate these types of Aussie players. At best now the NBL can only afford to attract 2 imports that are equal to the best available Aussie talent (if you are lucky), which is why the NBL churns through so many imports.

I can’t see how having 3 imports will change this or improve the spectacle, but allowing 1 marquee player could potentially do this (provided it didn’t send any teams broke).

It is clear from watching the Aussie soccer teams in the ACL (in previous years at least!), the benefits a marquee player who is clearly a step above all other players on the field can make (their salary is also far higher than everyone else). It brings a wow factor for the crowd & I’m sure all of the team mates training against the marquee player each day & opposition playing against the marquee player would become better players as a result. This should be highlighted even more so in Basketball given 1 player out of 5 can have more influence on a game.

For example, the only reason the NBL was able to attract Julius Hodge was due to all of the baggage he brought with him, but he did have the skills to dominate & excite (on the court). Imagine if every team could have 1 player with Julius’ ability (with no baggage).

That could potentially be what happens if 1 marquee player outside of the cap is allowed in each team.

The only downside is the richer teams may be able to buy a far better marquee player than say Wollongong, which potentially could advantage one team over another.

Lets be honest guys people wanna see an import who can jump out the gym. Not a white guy from Seven Hills who can stroke a 3.
I am all for 3 Imports.

Woody, Adelaide have effectively got three imports now. How are you finding the games?

I hate to say it ( but i will) our highest placed Olympic finish was 4th in 1988

This was right at the start of hoops taking flight across the country and the world on the back of Jordan.

Australia took Russia to OT that year too so we were far from also rans when it came to having elite/ world standard players in the NBL.

Only non NBL player on the 1988 team from memory was a young Luc Longley

again 1996 and 2000 we finished 4th built mostly around NBL talent. Did Longley even play in 1996?

Which NBL teams could afford the $500k+ to get a "Marquee" player???

And if it is only 1 or 2 you will turn the NBL into the EPL. ie only 2-3 teams ever have a chance of winning and only because their owners are Billionaires.

I hear Clive Palmer is looking for a new team to own!! :)

Concern l would have about awarding bottom 2 finishers an additional import spot the following season would be 'tanking' by teams unlikely to make finals.

So many interseting ideas on here - yet none will even be trialled. Football tries different things using their NAB games to guage the interest/success, and they seem to go from strength to strength over the years.

NBL is pretty reticient to put their toe in the water and try anything.

As someone posted on here it is about entertainment - just listen to King Cole in the Golden Era - he knew all the way back then and nothing has changed.

If you don't change/improve your product if becomes stale and dies.

C'mon NBL, have a go at SOMETHING.