Insert Marty Clarke comment here

anyone know who the key administrators are?

Lol. it was 2 weeks 2 weeks ago!

I would like to see what reforms they plan to make, seems every couple of years they talk change and nothing actually happens.

anyone know what they are going to propose?

They're proposing strippers and beer for all CEOs.

I can't see how the plan could fail, myself.

Is WC involved?

Beers and strippers failing... Um maybe they are drinking the watered down $10 beers at Perth Arena... They scream epic fail immediately !

As for the strippers... Call me a CEO and I'm there... Their shout

Tigers are only one part of the people driving this. Remaining Kings owners have been very prominent

I think a lot of different owners are driving this, they all have money and their clubs on the line if growth doesn't increase. Tigers guys are certainly heavily involved though, sold Dodo and are very keen to make the basketball thing work.

Any idea what made the Tigers' owners in particular so full-bore about the de-merger?

Possibly a combo of poor admin from BA stunting growth and their capital from sale of Dodo allowing them to invest more in NBL.

Getting Koshi on board. If Seven took NBL on one of its 3 channels, they would be interested in ratings.

Would be interesting to see what they could do with the sport because it was clear the BA Ten relationship was poorly directed with no real plan.

[ADAM SANDLER VOICE]

"A three year plan?! What is it, 'don't die'...?"

[/ADAM SANDLER VOICE]

IMO need to get on 7 Mate.

Need to have at least something on a major channel for mine.

Agree with Paul. The key is media exposure and FTA TV. If games get telecast then there is a reason for national companies to jump on board and sponsor. Higher sponsorship levels means higher salaries, higher standard of play, and more excitement.

Car companies dominate the AFL sponsor list.

Adelaide - Toyota
Brisbane – Hyundai
Carlton – Hyundai
Collingwood – Holden
Essendon – Kia
Fremantle
Geelong – Ford
Gold Coast
GWS – Skoda
Hawthorn
Melbourne – Opel
North Melbourne – Mazda
Port - Renaut
Richmond – Jeep
St Kilda
Sydney – VW
West Coast – Toyota
Western Bulldogs

With national exposure, the head office can drop $250K into a club knowing that the brand will be seen on TV and maintain brand awareness.

Take the Crows as an example, with membership around 50,000, and ave attendances around 35,000 (?), over the course of a season, the sponsor can get their message across to nearly 400,000 Equivalent persons (EP) at the ground. Add a TV audience of say 20,000 with H&A games, the total reach for the season is 840,000. With an NBL Club, the court EP is around 50,000 and season TV audience is say 50,000 (based on One HD) - about 100,000. As a consequence the reach per $ is higher in AFL with $1 reaching say 8 times more people.

NBL will never match AFL as far as audience, but I hope the business plan looks at other sports and how they fund their models and they pick the best bits out.

Here's a question for everyone..

If the NBL was shown on the FTA channel of your choice, but they said we either show games LIVE but games must be 40min games OR we will show delayed games but they can be 48min games.

Which would YOU prefer?

Live 40 min

Channel 7 is the best idea yet, 7mate and 7two always have stupid shows on which would be easier to squeeze the nbl in. Time to move on from Channel 10 i say!!

There's nothing so stable as change.
For the first time ever more watched a digital channel than the main channels viz Channel 90 cricket
Seems we could see more sport now on ch90
I'd like to watch this new 36ers for 48minutes
clarke&weigh for 40minutes was sufficient.

20/50 = 40/48, apparently.

I don't know why you don't use the time honored method of finding the square of the cosine by adding up the sum of the squares on the other two sides.
When asked to define yourself exactly, say that you are exact mathematician . Do not say or do anything that the person standing in front of you doesn't understand, he will feel you know something that he doesn't.

Channel 7 probably don't want the NBL. Although I think they'd be the best option if it were available, they actually commit to a sport when they do it unlike channel 10.

48 minutes is much better and enjoyable to watch, but i'd rather see games live with 40 mins over delayed with 48 mins.

People should only argue for 48 minutes if they watched and enjoyed the majority of the games last season start-finish.

If you found that 30-40 % of the time you switched off before half way utterly bored, you shouldnt argue that prolonging it is the solution.

rule changes that favour offensive freedom is the solution.... Not 8 more laborious minutes of grind

That's not quite as logical as you might expect YouknowME. To me, the 8 minutes taken out, were almost like the substantive 8 mins which were entertaining, was removed. I think 12 minute quarters teams can do more and that reflects the changing story of the game etc. I'd say that 40 minute games, at least to me, are more boring.

The compact thing doesn't necessarily mean it's more interesting. But hey, when it comes to cricket test matches are my favourite (followed by T20 then ODI), so maybe each to their own.

Boti hits the nail on the head. Rules need to be changed first. I think they should keep 40 mins, change the rules... if it goes well.. extend to 48.

Absolutely. Rules is rules.

Go to 48 without first changing the rules and all you will get is just an extra 2 minutes per quarter of grappling, holding quick star guards in the back court with both hands to impede their progress, holding with both hands on the perimeter to prevent slashing wings attacking the basket, defensive players flopping and getting charge calls go their way (when this happens in the backcourt it is particularly enraging), etc.

The two biggest problems I see with the "game style" of the NBL that turn people off are:

1). the rules favouring the defensive player, as discussed above and:

2). woeful shooting percentages. I think giving the offense more freedom will fix this somewhat, but it's no excuse for the pathetic clip that our players are shooting from the free throw line. Last season was just atrocious. Look at the top free throw shooter list from last season and compare it to other world-class leagues from around the world and hold your vomit.

So what do you do?

First of all, immediately take on board the NBA's rules (or points of emphasis) regarding guarding players in face-up situations in the half court, inside or outside the perimeter. No two hands on a guy at any time. Then, apply those rules to backcourt ballhandlers.

The second part isn't so easy to fix, as the onus is on the coaches and players. Aussies are inherently poor shooters and ballhandlers in this era. Those are two pretty big things that you need to overcome to get this offensive, high-flying game that we want to see. You have guys like Todd Blanchfield or Mitch Creek or Tom Abercrombie who are amazing athletes, but their poor ball-handling skills mean that they can't make plays in this attacking style as much as we'd like to see.

Secondly, the terrible shooting is again on the players and coaches to fix. You are a pro. Make your shots. I'm not asking you to make some superhuman percentage, and giving the defense less freedome will fix FG% a bit, but the free throw shooting percentage (an area where the defensive style of the game is of no relevance and therefore you can validly compare with other leagues A/B) is just piss poor.

I would say change not the rules but the way the rules are called, if that goes well stay at 40 minutes.

The funny thing for me is ever since I started following the NBL in the late 80s there have beem people calling for the rules to be changed because the product is too boring. Now the call is we need to change it to the way it used to be! There will always be a minority of whingers.

You'll never please everyone, but the reality is we have one of the more entertaining leagues going around (last year wasnt a great year for it but that was too few teams, too much physicality) so it is important changes are small and measured, especially when you consider the improvement in following the league has had in recent years.

Mick, free throw percentages from top comps except Greek A1 (my Greek is a bit sub-par!):

Olympics 69
TBL 70
Adriatic 71
WCs 71
NBL 72
Pro A 72
Euroleague 73
Germany 74
VTB 74
Serie A 74
NBA 75
ACB 77

So while the NBL is in the lower part, it is hardly vomit worthy as you suggest!

I actually don't mind the physical aspect of the game, as long as it's bodying up, jostling for position; that kind of thing. It's the hands. You can get away with murder with the hands in the NBL, which is the one thing that is black and white (ie. easy as hell) to call. You can't hold guys with both hands, anywhere on the court, especially when it's combined with a hacking motion.

I don't really understand how it's crept into the NBL. It's not grey areas like body-on-body impacts that are ruining our game. It's the hands. Black and white stuff.

You can't blame Perth or any other specific team, coach or player. I hate it when you see people blaming them. All they are doing is putting their teams in the best position to win, within the confines of how the game is being called. All power to them. I wish my team took advantage of the same loopholes.

Mick I couldnt agree with you more. It's a simple template to follow which is common in so many other comps, and the NBL will be brilliant to watch with our attacking style if the grabbing is cleaned up while allowing physical bodying by guys in position.

Probably the three biggest calls for me are the grabbing/pushing of the guy trying set the screen and then roll out, grabbing the cutter, and also pushing the guy who catches the ball to put him on the back foot.

Just on that last set of posts, it isn't just an NBL problem, is it!?

Pulling, grabbing, holding and pushing is allowed to go on (almost entirely in the key) at all levels from NBL, SEABL, Big V and junior level down...

I know this topic has been covered several times on this forum but it would seem to be one easy fix that would enhance offensive play.

Yes I agree, it won't fix all the problems, but it would be a good start in many people's eyes.

I also like the fact that Hoops is a physical game for MEN, but it is played on a surface which is hard and unforgiving, players need an extremely high level of skill to move with the ball and they are often exposed to dangerous situations offensively.

Throw in a blatent hold, push or grab and you could have disaster, so to protect yourself you adapt! The result, ugly defensive and scrappy basketball.

Not rocket science IMO...

Agreed once again, the running of the comp has to be improved on so and levels, and what we remember as the boom times was really a fleeting few years that probably wont be repeated.

Perth and New Zealand have both shown they can get big crowds though, and Melbourne increasing from 600 to 4000 members in one season suggests there is real potential for the league to become more than what it currently is and has been for a long time now.

Yes but it is also a part of the NBL's image problem that:

a). costs a grand total of $0.00 to fix
b). can be implemented instantaneously
c). can be implemented with out any degree of difficulty, outside consultation or specialist expertise

If you start fixing these sorts of "easy fixes" in the interim, the big picture, harder to fix stuff can become a sole focus and you will find that the league will benefit from that.

I'd definitely support rule changes to start favouring a bit of a better offensive game. I'm not going to lie, when I watch a replay of a match and I remember that we scored 20-30 points in a quarter, i'm keen for it, when I remember that we scored 10-15 points in a quarter it's a bit more like I just have to get through it. It doesn't make for great viewing when there is miss after miss after miss - some of that may be to do with the 36ers being crap i the past, but to me 90-105 is the most entertaining scoring range. Above that, and you start really questioning how bad the defence is.

It is also a problem that -- unlike a return 48 minutes, points cap scrap, etc. -- has an unnopposed consensus point-of-view on the matter.

Even people like Rob Beverdige and Shawn Dennis who were proponents of that style and benefitting most from the holding/grappling are speaking out in the media saying they want the game called properly. How can anyone argue with that?

It is an attitude adjustment from the officials which is needed and this has to come from the top!

Speaking to referees, as I sometimes like to do, to judge what they are thinking, when asked about this topic of holding and not calling fouls the answer is usually one of, 'well would you like all the players to be fouled off the court?'

My answer is, 'you needn't concern yourself about influencing the result of games by fouling players off, they will adjust if common sense is applied, all you need to be is consistent and the players and coaches will adapt accordingly.'

1. Common sense officiating
2. Consistent officiating
3. Call games according to the rules

above posts were @ anon not at paul, bear or KET.

Theyre not all full season memberships.

Because Perth are run very well, for one, they are successful on the court, and on top of that they don't have an NRL club to compete with; only Aussie Rules and Union.

On top of that, being on the West Coast limits other competing entertainment options somewhat. It's like a galapagos islands of basketball membership evolution.

They also have a brand spanking new stadium to offer.

when you only have 5,000 seat stadiums and can only charge so much per seat, it immediatley puts a ceiling on revenue raised and how much you can pay players,apart from sponsorships etc which are also limited in regional areas.
Perth has a purpose built stadium positioned for easy access to attract fans.....most of the present stadiums are not.
the national league needs bigger stadiums with better poition/access to attract a larger fan base.

I think both NZ and Perth have shown it's best to do things right in a small stadium first.

The people in Perth are very good at supporting their sports teams, they're doing something for Adelaide to aspire to really.

The 'if you build it they will come' theory is just one part of the equasion, none the less a valid one.

Melbourne as an example would be better served like this:

One venue, purpose built with suitable capacity, shared between rival NBL teams in the same major city.

If the A-League, NRL, ARL and AFL can do this successfully, so can the NBL, IMO!

Mick, if Australian shooting percentages are down, that is not something that is going to turn around in a season or three, that'll be something pulling up from grassroots over several years. The only way to beat that is more imports, which is seemingly passe.

I think the point he was making was that bringing in an import can be done overnight rather than waiting for grassroots changes to come through the ranks.

I think you'll see shooting percentages go up slightly if we make the required changes to the bogus way the refs are calling the games at the moment.

Bear,if the NBL is to become a serious level 1 sport in australia it needs to pull this whole thing down and start again.
The current model is broken and cannot be sustained.
The community model IS sustainable but WILL eventually kill the league and the crowds.

here's my take on it....

with state and federal monies,investment in proper facilities will be needed and the league should look something like this-
*Perth 2 teams
*Adelaide 2 teams
*Melbourne 2/3 teams
*Sydney 2 teams
*Brisbane 1 team
*Sharing purpose built min 10/12,000 seat stadiums
Marquee players,no salary cap, etc etc etc

Don't forget our bruddas over thu dutch, two teams in NZ too...

anon - oh well,lets just go back to talking about the 48 vs 40mins issue or the way the refs call the game.....

i'm talking about investment in our cities for multi-sport indoor facilities built in the right positions for future growth, not specifically the NBL.
Investment in our lagging international sporting achievments on all fronts....some impact action instead of re hashing the same old crap.

Bear,yes 2 teams in NZ

Skull that is a pipe dream.

Not only is it entirely impossible to make something like that happen (two teams in Adelaide? Yeah. While we're at it why don't we base 7 teams in Townsville? May as well...), you would see a franchise going broke at a rate of around two per season until the league implodes entirely within a five year window. Or is that the idea?

The goal isn't to become bigger than NRL or AFL, that is impossible. The goal is to close the gap.

It is a wish list let's face it and of course it would take some work to get there, but for the sake of it here's my take on how the NBL should look in let's say 5-10 years:

Tasmania - 1
Canberra - 1
Brisbane - 1
Townsville/Cairns/Gold Coast? - 1
Adelaide - 1
Geelong - 1
Newcastle - 1
Perth - 2
Melbourne - 2
Sydney - 2
New Zealand - 2

Three conferences of 5 teams in each so most games during the season are played against the nearest rival team to establish that tribal atmosphere we love at games and to reduce travel costs because let's face it logistics are a killer here.

Finals consist of the top two teams in each conference placed into a 6 team pool according to overall ladder position + percentage.

Play offs similar to US NBA but maybe best of 3 games first round, five games second round and 5 - 7 games for the final.

I will let the mathematicians work out the format, suffice to say I am sure a final 6 would be pretty exciting in such a format...

Wish list, yes, pipe dream, maybe, should it go this way... IMO Yup!

Mock schedule:

Adelaide 36'ers NBL season 2018

Round 1 - Adelaide v Perth Wildcats
Round 2 - Geelong v Adelaide
Round 3 - Adelaide v Melbourne Tigers
Round 4 - Perth Sonics v Adelaide
Round 5 - Adelaide v Melbourne Dragons (cross conf' game)

Round 6 - Perth Wildcats v Adelaide
Round 7 - Adelaide v Geelong
Round 8 - Melbourne Tigers v Adelaide
Round 9 - Adelaide v Perth Sonics
Round 10 - Sydney Kings v Adelaide (cross conf' game)

Round 11 - Adelaide v Canberra Cannons (cross conf')
Round 12 - Geelong v Adelaide
Round 13 - Adelaide v Melbourne Tigers
Round 14 - Perth Sonics v Adelaide
Round 15 - Adelaide v Melbourne Dragons (cross conf' game)

The conference here would of course be:
Adelaide - 1
Perth - 2
Geelong - 1
Melbourne - 1

Not suggesting this is perfect, just a starting point for such a proposal because I am a bit bored of what the NBL is at the minute...

Who wants to play?

What needs to be addressed is that the community model at Townsville is not sustainable.

They have simply not got the community response that is required to keep going after this year and it remains to be seen whether anyone will come to the games this season.

Wollongong's crowd numbers are even worse so I'm not sure how they're doing either and what the long term outlook is there, or whether they factor in the low crowd numbers into their model and are viable either way.

If both bomb out at the end of this season you can forget about expansion, the league is done.

Wollongong get support from Gujarat NRE. I don't know how they'd get by otherwise?

Townsville just need to take small steps to win back the fans they lost. Might be hard without a winning roster though, but we'll see.

The goal isn't even to close the gap on the NRL and AFL. The NBL should move back to winter with the sole purpose of being the number #1 sports alternative to the football codes. That is a realistic goal.

And skull, your plan to have two teams nearly everywhere is not realistic. Why would anyone who likes basketball, say in Perth, jump aboard a new NBL team? Wouldn't they already be following the Wildcats?

Vart, I was living in Perth and witnessed that same mindset when the Dockers separated the fans there......before the dockers they all supported the eagles.
Perth, in particular would be the first city to do it in, where an already building basketball fan base could be built on further with a new exciting product.
in any city of 1 or 2 million people, with the right marketing, players and access to more sponsorship dollars you don't think it could work?

Mick's and Isaac's comments above support what I said earlier.....the community model will eventually kill the NBL,but is basically the only model that has any chance(if run properly) of longevity in the current league.

I think if your going to do multiple teams in states... do it for places which already have rivalries or have already had teams. Melbournes cool for a second team... I don't know any other state which is worth doing it in really? Geelong maybe... But I think look at places like Hobart, NT, Wellington.... before a second perth side which makes literally no sense at all...

but it makes a whole lot of sense to keep building community models in 3 or 4000 seat stadiums??
The NBL will be finished if it keeps heading down this road.....

Sydney, Adelaide and Perth are all one city teams in my opinion.

Adelaide maybe, the others.....no!

Not if it is going to work anyway.

Adelaide 1 team
Perth 2 teams
Melbourne 2 teams
NZ 2 teams
Sydney 2 teams
Brisbane 1 team

Sydney can barely get people to come along to their NRL games, and it's supposed to be the heartland of that spot. It's not a sporting city like Melbourne where it dominates the popular culture. Two teams there is not going to work. Better off aiming to get the Kings to the level of the Breakers or Cats than chucking another team in there.

But I absolutely agree with you that you can't have a league full of community-funded teams. They have to be the minority.

The community model is very new though. Only Cairns has turned a profit so far and it was just last season, a modest profit of 10k. If that trend continues there is no telling what kind of numbers they will have in say five years if they continue doing a great job off the court.

Well said Mick. There is no way Sydney can sustain a 2nd NBL team. The Kings have a great venue with good access & Australia's largest city to draw crowds from (plus some substantial satellites nearby) yet rarely come even close to filling the stadium so why anybody would consider a 2nd team is beyond me.

I've said time and time again, the only city in Australia that needs two NBL teams is Melbourne. Note I said 'needs'. The only other city that I believe could sustain two NBL teams aside from Melbourne is Sydney. The idea of a West Sydney franchise was one of the better ideas the NBL have had for a while, it just wasn't executed properly.

Melbourne need another franchise purely because of the divide between the overall basketball playing/coaching population and the Tigers as a result of the Melbourne Tigers junior program.

Sydney could sustain another NBL team based in West Sydney purely because of the geographical divide existing between the CBD and the Greater Western area.

There just doesn't seem to be a great deal of need to divide the supporter base of a city, particularly when these Australian cities aren't exactly falling over themselves to support their current NBL teams. If Perth we're to build themselves up into a position where every single game at Perth Arena was a sellout, and they've got 10,000 members on board each and every year, along with an extensive waiting list, then maybe, MAYBE, it would be worthwhile. But in contrast, look at the NBA. You've only got two cities with two teams, LA and New York, and even New York only just got their second team last year. And those cities have populations of 4 and 8 million respectively. Chicago has a population of nearly 3 million, and the Bulls sellout 20,000 seats to 41 games per year, yet the city of Chicago doesn't see a need to have a second NBA team. That's because the entire city supports the Bulls. Whilst the games sellout, and its difficult to get tickets, other revenue streams open up such as local TV and radio broadcasting.

The immediate expansion focus for the NBL must be a new Brisbane franchise, and another Melbourne franchise. Once those two are in place, then they can entertain the idea of further expansion.

Why let in Melbourne or Brisbane next if the support base and $$$ issues aren't 100% confirmed, when Wellington is good to go on all fronts?

Why not let them in tomorrow and then put effort into getting Melbourne 2 and Brisbane into the comp?

By the sounds of it, Wellington don't need help wiping their ass or jumping thru hoops, so I say let the bastards in, get the league another team tomorrow, then you can focus on holding Brisbane and Melbourne 2's hands next week.

Im not sure Wellington is any more ready to go than a second Melbourne team, but the answer to your question is those two big city franchises can offer a lot more commercially to the league.

I wouldnt be surprised to see all three in over the next couple of years though.

The other reason i suggested Perth is there is plenty of money over there ATM,surely another potential wealthy owner amongst them,Lets face it,thats what it needs.

Good points re Chicago,the other end of the spectrum i guess,where you can build demand in the market place and reap the financial benefits.
Another reason im suggesting capital cities,larger stadiums etc is being a long term season ticket holder at Cairns, i have heard the financial creaks and groans from within.
even when they made the g/f that year, there was not a great financial gain.....sure the 5,000 tickets sold really quick but financially.....just another home game.
I believe that all g/f series should be 5 games for this reason.

If that's the case Paul then fair enough.

But the way their management has been talking in the media it's as if they are ready to go, the NBL just doesn't want a bar of it because of their Brisbane/Melb fixation. They are talking as if they already have the business support system, staff, venue, everything else in place they just need to switch over to the (A)NBL. But yeah maybe it's all talk at this point...

I understand that Bris and Melbourne II are vital for the long term success of the league, and it would great to see them both in at any point in the near future, but my point is: what's that got to do with the price of tea in Wellington?

I doubt that a 2nd NZ team would attract the same TV audience as what another Australian team would.

Mick, you wouldn't want to stretch too thin too quickly. I think the league could handle two teams in 1-2 years, but probably not three, even if four Kiwis not currently in the league went to Wellington.

All the new-NBL talk is Brisbane and Melbourne II anyway.

One team per city almost always in the US, sure, but on the other hand, they have such a godawful lot of cities, all over the freaking place, that it would make no sense to do it any other way.

Correct Nathan - The US is full of big market cities so there is no need to have more than 1 team per city.

Here though, there are only 2 (really) big markets - Melbourne and Sydney, and thats why the majority of AFL and NRL franchises are based there, which then makes sense for a 2nd Melbourne team, and if done correctly, a 2nd Sydney team. Though the Sydney team wont happen for a long time.

Just getting back to the idea of Perth having 2 teams (will never happen, nor should it) BUT if it did - I can only see the second team coming on board and playing out of Challenge Stadium, and crowd wise, would probably attract up to 3,000 people a game in its early days with the 'Perth Derby' getting a full house at Challenge and the Arena.

However there are just far too many "Wildcats only" fans in Perth, that no Cats fan will make the switch - however I can see plenty of die hard basketball fans following both franchises. Who would run the team? I can see Cal Bruton being the GM!

Guys, it is unavoidable that we need to be more diverse in how we grow our competition here. Each team will need to be successful in their own right, be managed to suit their environment and supported in the way they can best survive and prosper.

We can't suggest for a minute that we can emulate the US, we just don't have the resources, so yes we have to go with some community based franchises.

We can however work smarter, adapt models from other codes and perhaps even end up with a best practise system if we are clever enough...

One hand on a player is also a foul.

Indeed, but the same is true of two hands in that case. Honest question, is there anywhere in the rules that differentiates between one hand and two? NB Im not talking about an armbar.

The upcoming Boomers games are likely to be televised.

In terms of armbar, that is considered legal defence of a back to the basket player (use of hands isnt). When a second arm makes contact to the back refs will usually then call a foul, although this can be an area of inconsistency.

Re two hands, I agree, but dont really see too many situations where one hand on shouldnt be called either. Brief contact off the ball that doesnt push wont usually be called, and a player lightly resting their hand(s) on a player with the ball who is not looking to attack.

will livebasketball.tv play all the games of the 2014 WC's? If so might buy it.