Agree with what you said regarding the player points cap. It's subjective, open to manipulation and keeps the league from attracting better players.

Don't really agree with needing to bring in more Americans to add razzle dazzle though I know what you mean. The league is void of some showtime, but I think that's more a reflection of tighter defences, deeper rosters and a shorter game, meaning the defense stays tight for longer and there's less opportunity for flashy dunks etc...

The player points cap is subjective, but the NBL is a small-market league with small market franchises comprising (for the most part) small market players.

Cedrick Jackson, Michael Dunigan etc wouldn't stay in Australia if the quality was better; they would stay because they could earn to their potential.. The successful imports don't last long because they can't earn as much in the NBL as they can elsewhere, not because they are rated as 10-point players...

If the league is going to increase market share in Australia its going to happen through savvy promotion of basketball and the league in Australia, and through an increase in domestic talent.

Perth and New Zealand are virtually the only teams disadvantaged by the player points cap, while Cairns, Townsville, Wollongong and likely even Adelaide RELY on it. Would a future 2-4 team league be considered a "boom"?

These reoccurring PPC threads should just be deleted - OP's have NFI.

Points cap is not holding the league back. It is not keeping razzle dazzle out of the league. Teams buy what they can afford and they prioritise players who will help them win because success brings the crowds.

The most successful club is Perth and they have a very vanilla team. No showy imports at all. Yet crowds are 10k+ now, and easily the best in the league. Plus hampered by the points cap, as they should be. Completely goes against OP's argument.

You lost me at razzmatazz.

I could put an NBL team on the floor that had Lebron, Kobe, Jawai
and Bogut in it. That would be a reasonably dominante team right. Points cap wouldn't stop it from happening but money does.

The salary cap should be enough to keep the league even with a level playing field and teams that spend over the cap should be penalised accordingly. Why further police this with a points cap as well? It really should be up to the clubs spending the money to decide how much a player is worth.

Isaac - re Perth's Vanilla team - Crowds are 10K plus because the team is consistently successful, are contending for a championship this season, plus with the buzz of a big new arena and seriously heavy marketing around the city - these are the reasons why the crowds are large. I dont think it really matters if the team was boring as hell with those factors.

The general feeling around the arena (that I noticed) when Dunigan was playing was that the crowd were starved for some excitement, and wanted to see dunks! But even with the teams fundamental style and stingy defence (which I love), the crowds will still come and watch - despite at times being a bit boring.

If the player points cap didn't exist, the Cats may have found a way to sign Dunigan under the salary cap, assuming that they had enough cash to spend, as Dunigan was keen to stay. The points cap meant we couldn't sign him - regardless of our salary cap situation. End result - A great player is lost to the league!

Yes its true the best players will play in the NBA or european leagues and earn their full potential. But there have been many great NBL import/australian players that could have earned much more money playing elsewhere but play in the NBL because they love the country, the league etc.
I agree with isaac that the wildcats are a very 'vanilla' team at the moment. They were so much better to watch when dunigan was in town but i wouldn't trade knight for anyone. But the wildcats' crowds and popularity weren't formed by this team. It was formed by brutons promoting skills and the imports of the past in the team which brought success. Its the part time supporters or newcomers to the game who havn't a passion for their club yet which need a reason to come back and watch another game. I guarantee a dunigan would draw a crowd more than a knight.

The other point i was trying to make started when the players association tried to have the players points abolished because of the fear that we will lose some aging players well before they should retire. Redhage for example is past his prime and the wildcats will be forced to make a decision on whether to bring in a new import and have to release a club legend or keep a high points player on their roster which will prevent them from signing a better player. We wont see legends running around the league into their late thirties like we used to which is a shame. I would much rather watch a 40 year old daryl mcdonald coming off the bench than an average back up point guard who is in the team because he fits under six points.

I agree with the points cap being in place to stop a team like the Cats signing both Dunigan and Knight, but I would also like to see the concessions brought back to stop them having to make that tough decision for a player in Redhage's position. I think a guy who plays 250+ games for a club deserves to be re-rated and the club should benefit for keeping a guy around for so long.

Wildcat Fan and watto,

They have crowds because of success. They have success because they are prioritising team play over freelancing and showboating. Lisch instead of Deleon. Robbins was still there at his discretion whereas Leven is long gone. It's irrelevant if the crowd is starved for dunks; the crowd is there because year after year their team is a strong chance at winning the championship.

Perth are one of the top teams. They're meant to miss out on talent sometimes. If there was a draft instead of a points cap, they would be watching the top draft picks go to weaker teams instead.

If Dunigan wasn't "lost to the league", someone else would be lost instead given the finite budgets and number of playing roles in the NBL. The only argument to be made against that is that we'd ideally have the best players in our league, but the points cap and parity (salary caps and drafts and the like around the sporting world) prioritise the health of the league first.

Dunigan could've been picked up by other clubs if they were keen and had the opportunities, were willing to cut someone else, etc. Another club is more than capable of trying to get him in the off-season too.

Same goes with Redhage. Veteran or not, he can obviously still play and would be in demand. If Perth wanted to keep him or anyone else as a priority, they could - just renew his contract first! Or retain him, and fill spare spots with scrubs.

The maximum player rating is 10. Every club under their points allowance has, by default, room for any player they ultimately value higher than others.

Situation, why can't they keep Redhage? NBL site says 68 points are being used which allows for some movement. Could save points on a 2013/14 replacement for Robbins/Carter pretty easily.

Sorry, I wasn't saying they need to. Just responding to the examples above where the Cats may have to make the tough call on long term players. I dont want to see any player who has played at a club for the majority of his career forced to sign elsewhere.

Didnt the NBL used to have a "loyalty points cap" or something where a long serving veteran of a team can get their points reduced so they can play out their career at that one club, but would be worth more if they changed clubs?

If this ever existed, then why did they scrap it?

I understand the reasons why they have the player points cap, but the salary cap itself should be sufficient. Its essentially having 2 caps to adhere to. And if they have must have a points cap, then they should allow some concessions like player loyalty at one club.

Yes, they had a loyalty rating previously, but scrapped it because the lower rating applied if the guy signed for a new team. I believe it is how Brisbane were able to sign Bradtke and Copeland (possibly a couple of others) during their last few years.

Ratings were capped at five if a player stayed with one team their whole career (Maher, as one example). You could also retain a ranking as long as you kept re-signing a player (Abercrombie and Goulding).

Shawn Redhage is all of 32 years old. Any conversation concerning him should be only about retaining long term players rather than coddling veterans. If a team wanted to keep Rillie in the league, they could have.

Situation, keep Redhage, get someone instead of Bartlett or Carter. Easy.

I agree with the points cap holding us back but my main concern is not that we are losing flashy players. My main concern is the way that players are forced to jump around to different clubs. I think its stupid that if a player is drafted to a club as a level one player then that club brings them up to a standard of a level ten player they are punished by having to trade this player or other players to keep room in the cap. When they do this good players will just go overseas

I can't think of a good player who'd currently be playing overseas because of the points cap. David Barlow is not one. Rhys Carter could've possibly been considered one, but is back in the league.

I don't think Bose and Khazzouh count as the Kings would've aimed to keep them.

Some players miss out and think the points cap is to blame when the reality is they aren't team players or have deficiencies that coaches don't like or just don't cut it for the money they're asking.

I agree with you isaac that an even competition is good for the league but i also think that fans would like to see the same players play for their club of choice year in year out. When i support a team its about supporting the players within that team and the points system seems to change that team every year. Redhage is a wildcat and i have supported him for years and it is not fair that he may have to pack up and go to a rival club because these rival clubs can not compete and find there own quality players.

Why would Redhage have to leave the club? I've already said that the Cats could get someone rated lower than Carter or Bartlett and keep Redhage easily.

Redhage is only mentioned in all of this (and Holmes as another example) because they Vice President and President respectfully of the NBLPA.

If we have to get rid of bartlett or carter we are still getting punished like i said above. And why should redhage, bartlett, carter or any wildcat have to move because other clubs can not entice quality players to come along. If the point system is supposed to keep the competition even then why is it that New zealand and Perth continue to dominate. The NBL needs to focus on getting the struggling clubs up and running rather then punish the successful clubs who are keeping the competition alive

I agree with you totally Wildercat! There will always be dominate clubs and struggling clubs in any sporting competition. The more successful clubs should be allowed to lead the way and the struggling clubs need to be given assistance to improve and evolve. That is the only way things can improve. There is no disputing the points cap is very effective in keeping the competition a little more even. But while some people here are calling it parity in actual fact its facilitating mediocrity in the league.

It's actually causing all teams to look at ways of improving other than stacking their roster, and that is breeding anything but mediocrity.

Wildercat, no one needs to necessarily move. Clubs could accommodate existing players with who they sign in an off-season. e.g., not get Bartlett this off-season just been. For whoever misses out, there will always be someone who gets that spot and becomes a club man.