Maybe use the existing points system?
Player must be first year in the league and less than say 5 points in value?

Brendan Polyblank joins a desperate NBL team at age 34. Might be five points or under since he's recently just played some NZ NBL, and is in his first NBL year (can't remember if he ever played for the Breakers in the early years). Would he thus be eligible despite having played in Europe?

Would all rookies be three points or under? If a Newley-level talent went AIS, two seasons in the SEABL (winning MVP), would he be a three? Maybe three points and first year would cover it?

I think the problem is that there aren't enough rookies coming into the league each year, and there are never going to be. This isn't the NBA, where there are a sizeable pool to chose from each season. Therefore, I think the award should be renamed for a start. "Rookie" means first year player, simple as that. Maybe something more along the lines of the AFL's Rising Star is a better idea. Less than x number of games, younger than x at the start of the season. One restriction should certainly be that any previous NBA/Euro/wherever pro jobs should disqualify you. Maybe imports, if it is their first professional gig, should also be contenders?

From memory years back what Lachlan Armfield won it he had actually played NBL games in two previous seasons, which is a bit stupid.

The NBL have to come up with a definition of a 'professional player'. Then any players deemed to have been professionals prior to their first season in the NBL, should be ruled ineligible. That alone would rule out any ABA type leagues (SEABL, Big V etc.) as they are all deemed to be semi-professional, as the majority of the players earn more income outside the league than they do for playing the sport. I don't think its fair to place an age cap on it. There may be the odd late bloomer whos played Division 2 or 3 college basketball for 4-5 years, then toiled in the SEABL for a couple of seasons before making an NBL roster, which would make them about 25 years old. I don't think they should be ineligble to win rookie of the year. Also, anyone who has only been a development player in the NBL (ie. Madgen) should not have their eligibility for rookie of the year taken away.

I remember back in the 90's Matt Scalzi had a couple of season's coming deep off Adelaide's bench (only garbage time but enough for people to know who he was - more minutes than Warbout for instance) then he moved to Newcastle (I think), had a good season and was runner up the rookie of the year award.

I remember thinking that was pretty weird at the time, obviously they had different eligibility back then.

If the eligibility was simply a first year non-import who had not played professionally in NBA or Europe that would cover most bases. I guess it gets tricky if say Delly gets drafted late, bounces around the league for a season, gets 3 minutes court time before coming back to the NBL, but is this realistically going to happen or would young fringe NBA player almost certainly go straight to Euorpe these day?

It's probably not possible to get a fool proof system, and Mills' situation was pretty unique this year. Would have been interesting if Luc Longley ended his career in his mid / late 30's for the Wildcats and picked up the NBL ROY away to sit alongside his 3 NBA rings in the trophy room!

I haven't given much thought to this. My starting point would be to ask what the league is trying to achieve through having the award. Probably identify that relatively inexperienced player that did really well in their first full season of NBL. Or is it about those players who are young, inexperienced

So I'd be putting some criteria in about what "relatively inexperienced" means - hasn't hit the court or has played less than X minutes in an identified list of leagues and competitions (e.g., NBL, NBA NZNBL, the various European leagues, World Championships, Olympics, international tournaments generally etc.).

After that, does the NBL want to make it about developing young players by identifying and rewarding young players who do well? Or even about rewarding talented young players that elect to go the NBL route rather than USA college route? If so, then there needs to be an age criterion to fit that objective.

Does the NBL want it to have an Australian/NZ focus? (See above re NBL route vs college route for young players.) If so, then put in a suitable criterion to exclude imports.

So what do people think the role of the RoTY award is or should be. The criteria will follow.

Having spent any time in an NBA team should automatically disqualify you.

Otherwise:

Under 25yo
Imports not eligible
Spending time as a development player doesnt effect eligibility
Being a development player makes you ineligible. ie you cant be rookie of the year as a development player and then the next year given a roster spot and win it again.
Professional experience makes you ineligible but more definition on this rule required ie ABA doesnt count, NBA does etc.

I would like to see it always given to a player just out of college, or just elevated to a roster position after spending time in state leagues or as a development player.

Chris Cedar is playing in his 4th NBL season....???

Patty Mills plays 8 games - eligible for Rookie of the year but no matter what his numbers are is not a candidate to win the scoring award, most assists or any other statistical award.

The League admitted they made a mistake last year when Madgen was firstly ruled unable to win ROTY because he warmed up once with the Sixers but to have Mills and possibly Bogut eligible is just so wrong.

Didn't Neville or Loughton return to play here after a brief and largely unsuccessful stint in Europe after college? I am not sure that should affect your eligibility either.

I like this rule:

A 'Rookie' means a player (excluding imports) who commenced their first year of professional competition at a national or international level within the 12 months immediately prior to the first day of the current NBL season, save that no player will lose their rookie status just because they have logged less than 100 minutes of court time while a Development Player in the NBL.

The 12 month rule allows someone to still be a 'Rookie' so long as they are in their first year of professional competition (NBA or otherwise) at the time the NBL season starts. A Rookie is after all a person in their first year of professional sport.

100 minutes is more than sufficient for the DP rule, as they can only suit up in half the games anyway.

It should probably be the 12 months ENDING on the first day of the current season, just so that you are not eligible in both of your first two seasons as a professional.

I'm interested in what people think of players who have played in world Championships and Olympics but not played professionally, who come into the NBL. Should they be eligible for RoTY?

Andrew Vlahov is the obvious case, albeit from a long time ago. However, with the college based players being included in current Boomers' teams, their situations may well arise again (e.g., Dellavedova).

Vlahov played 7 of 8 games at 1988 Olympics scoring 4.6 ppg and 3.1 rpg, then played 7 of 8 games at the 1990 Worlds, scoring 11.6 ppg (second highest scorer on the team). He finished college and joined the Wildcats the next year, 1991. Not surprisingly, he won the NBL RoTY that year.

Accepting that case makes it clear that the RoTY is not about developing inexperienced players. To my mind, that calls into question the "not having played in a professional league" criterion. especially as these days the Worlds' competition level is so much higher than most professional leagues (for top 10-15 nations). To a lesser extent, the Olympic level is also high.

For what its worth.
Andrew Vlahov was ROY in 1991 having already been a Boomer at the 1988 OG and 1990 WC.

Sorry. Ignore my previous post. Didn't see Peter John's earlier post.

Obviously patty should not be eligible. However, I think we should also reward American players who are playing their first year as a pro. Jumping from college to NBL level is no easy feat. In recent years, with clubs looking to save money and the increased buying power of Europe, we are seeing more and more imports fresh out of college.

Maybe have an Aussie/kiwi rookie and an international rookie of the year?

I don't like the idea of an age limit. A rookie is a rookie no matter the age. If he's toiled his ass off in the state leagues before finally making the jump up to nbl in his late twenties, he should definitely be eligible for ROY.