Can't see the NBL getting the salary cap to that $2.5m level without a strong TV deal or extremely deep pockets, and Ken barely touches on TV in a meaningful way.

Not sure how realistic some of this is. DiFabrizio had a more practical discussion of league run dates based on other leagues, NBA competition and so on.

Why would Australian OS players take pay cuts to play here?

Teams don't score like they used to because they aren't coached like they used to be.

All NBL teams now produce a specific report on each opposition players tendencies. Hours of video are dissected and watched to get the defence better.

Ken's training mainly consisted of running offences and shooting.

Like most of Ken's statements this is nothing but hyperbole, why Nagy continues to give him attention is beyond me.

Reality is he won 1 title in the NBL as a coach.

better off bringing some ideas to the plate than none at all...

isnt some talk about our beloved game better than none?

yes he may be well into his twlight years and have some far-fetched out there ideas but isnt it better to have crazy ideas then whittle it down to sensible ones?

-48 mins a must
-jump ball a must
-6 fouls a must

thats rule changes to start...

better more frequent publicity which has improved dramtically here in Adelaide and more $$$ to throw around to entice players back to our league...

we have done well the last three seasons with mills, ennis et al

Nagy is just promoting the game...

Grovermi$ter, 48 minutes and six fouls were no panacea in the past. Both have been suggested countless times before and I think they're almost irrelevant. Perth have big crowds despite them. The 36ers are heading that way. I'd bring them back for minor reasons (higher stats sound better plus appeases some critics) but they're such a small part of things.

The suggestion of a higher salary cap (with little about how that would be achievable when the 36ers couldn't keep a singlet sponsor for a full year) on its own is as good a suggestion as "get LeBron" or "play on primetime TV every day of the week".

Boti loves the past and loves eyeballs and of course more talk is great and all, but there's only so much use for basketball in looking backwards. They were different times. The more we talk about it and raise the comparisons, the less useful it is. What do we have now, where do we want to take it, how are we going to get it there. The game 20 years ago doesn't need to be part of that discussion.

I've watched Big Bash a couple of times on TV and found what they've done mesmerising. Gauche, but mesmerising. I barely know any players, the teams have no history, the organisers have paid no attention to history, but they are getting massive TV audiences and the game is very entertaining despite the glowing bails, the music between balls, the silly commentary, etc. Almost every ball, you might get a big hit or out. They've taken a game that was hard to spectate for the at-work crowd and made it an evening thing which suits workers and families. They've tweaked rules to make it entertaining. They've made something that suits TV. They also provide instant stats in a reliable way, which the NBL screws up over and over.

We already have an evening game and a reasonable duration. On TV, we're let down by too many serious or unexcited or play-it-safe players, a few key commentators that aren't excited to be there, terrible representation of stats (in the broadcast and online).

Changes to things like the caps absolutely have to consider the impact on all clubs. If the NBL lose more teams, it just creates more fodder for haters. But there are ways to cover both bases with things like import rules or encouraging certain styles of play (if all coaches were Joey Wright, that'd help) or soft caps with taxes. The NBA has brought in a repeater tax on top of the luxury tax and the AFL/etc watch with keen eyes.

Great post Isaac.

Ole Ken been self medicating again....higher salary cap, guys taking pay cuts to play? We have a few teams that can hardly pay the current one and are struggling to survive every season.

Some points he raised are validate but they have been raised before so none of this is ground breaking……I think the current owners group have enough of an investment to make sure they get it right as they are the ones who'll take the biggest hit if they get it wrong.

For me, we go to the line too much and too many timeouts for great TV. I flick over during timeouts. Take a side ball rather than watch Burston,Frye,Garlepp and others struggle at the line to hit the ring

Great post Isaac. Your take on the Big Bash and the NBL as a TV product is spot on.

Of course things were great in the past, but when people talk about the past they tend to paint over some of the flaws. We had a product and a business model that worked great for the late 80s-early 90s, but the simple fact is we couldn't get that product to work on primetime TV, which became the battleground from the mid 90s onward. So even if we could transport the league back 25 years and have the same business model, the same product, the same fans, the same sponsors ... it would probably all collapse quite quickly.

(For those who missed my column on the NBL schedule Isaac refers to, it's here - http://www.theroar.com.au/2014/01/06/should-the-nbl-move-back-to-winter/ )

Yeah, nice post Isaac, especially the reference to the Big Bash. I too have had a look at the bash version of cricket and I will throw in a few facts I think they have over us at the minute...

1. Ch9 and the Packer Enterprise love cricket with a passion and will plough any amount of $$$ to save it, promote it and make it work.

2. The size of the venues and crowd capacity gives the game that colleseum effect that will draw very large crowds.

3. Crowd interaction is encouraged and so is hitting the ball into the crowd.

4. The rule changes give organisers the ability to make the game suit the audience and the market, but they also have enough scope with which to make a market almost out of thin air.

I am more of a cricket purist, loved the test matches and also had no idea of these bash teams or most of the players, but it is so well promoted and in your face that it is hard not to have a look and get drawn into the circus.

I think basketball has some things over the cricket, yet we don't have that shining knight and media mogul with plenty of cash who wants to take a risk and throw all his/her wealth and power behind our sport, with passion, unfortunately.

So, for me our game must find its place in the sporting picture and solidify that place from which to build on. Yes, throw around plenty of ideas, then take on board the best of them to look to the future, at the same time understanding that if we can't reach the moon, we should at least aim for the sky...

Spot on Isaac. I'm not a cricket fan but have found myself watching a lot of the Big Bash.

Side bar Bear, get what you meant, but Channel 10 are doing the Big Bash. Still, just to get under the skin of Channel 9, I am sure they are throwing good dollars into it.

Basketball is "my sport", but I have to concede that AFL and Big Bash on TV are getting it very, very right. And even if you allow for past contracts hampering the NBL in ways, on TV they're often getting it inexcusably wrong. If you can't flash up stats during play, read them out ("Petrie grabs his 10th rebound for the game, Vukona now 1 of 5 from the field"). Online, it's all over the place, but the mobile experience is woeful.

In cricket, they have bowling speeds, scoring wheels, snickometer, hot spot (I love hot spot, could watch the entire game in hot spot mode), delivery estimates, LBW predictions, run rate and so it goes on. In the NBL, we wait two days to get a boxscore up or fixed and the stats during broadcast are often wrong. I would be that much happier even with commentators calling out stats during play, and that is utterly trivial.

Sadly, with the exception of Fox Sport for a while and Sky Sports in NZ recently, the NBL has never been done really well on TV and it shows with its current position. That's the responsibility of both the league and the broadcasters, but something the league needs to get right from now on.

Once the Ten and Perform deals are done theyll get their chance to really do things differently. Frustrating waiting though.

Can't deny there aren't things they could do despite the deals. Even if the shoddy graphics and data are locked in, each team could be handing trivia/stats info to commentators off their own back. Or the league could be covering costs of improving the graphics. Remember the spinning shoes in place of headshots?!

I think that TV production is key. As Isaac states the amount of stats that cricket and other sports have at there disposal is mind boggling. The commentators are then able to use these facts as talking points on the fly and which create interest.

Cricket's got the erudition of such commetary-analysis as Ian Chappell. Someone of that calibre wouldn't be able to handle a courtside announcer yelling out 'deefence ' a hundred times.

Lots of things they can do better Isaac, you know I agree with you on that! But to make a real difference, they need to start again with a new broadcaster who is interested in making it work, even if that means initially getting very little in terms of rights.

Better for the league in the short term to invest money and generate value in the product than receive what little money it is currently worth and maintain the status quo.

I do like how the NBL has started the odd bit of gametime commentary with players on the bench, a leap out of Big Bash's book with the player in the field mic'd up.

I must be the only person who dislikes in-game comments from players. I actually change the channel, whether it's basketball or cricket.

However, it's important to build the profiles/recognition of players.

Isaac - your comments re BBl strike a really strong chord within my family. I have 4 kids between 12 and 18 years old and none of whom have ever had the slightest interest in cricket - watching or playing. However, one of them stumbled onto a BBL replay over the holidays and they are all rapt with it. The thing that got them in was the excitement and the fact that you could get a six or a wicket any moment and regularly did.

Personally, I loathe the peripheral stuff they've introduced (especially the in game comments by a player/coach/someone in the crowd or in their living room at home) but I really enjoy the game itself. It's relatively quick, exciting and has a sense of "Stingray" about it (60s marionette TV show that opened with "Anything could happen in the next 30 minutes...."). The other major thing is that there are no breaks in the action other than the change over between innings.

Reflecting on Cole's comments, he seemed to want to get back to a purer form of the game in the NBL and contrasted that with what the NBA has become. While I personally would enjoy that pathway, the BBL experience with my kids makes me wonder if the future lies with a less pure form of the game that is more about the entertainment than the sport itself? Is that what the future sport watchers and TV sports programmers will be seeking?

Some great points Isaac and I know exactly what you mean about the BBL being mesmerizing even if you're not a cricket fan.

I think Tiger Watcher hit the mail in the head about Cole self medicating again and like others I wonder why Nagy keeps giving him oxygen. There are way too many people on basketball in this country living in the past rather than looking for the best solutions for the future.

In fairness to Boti, he has to come up with stories of interest and different perspectives every day, that aint easy.

Interesting thread - i've been also thinking about this for a while. Here's what i'd to try and turn the NBL around;

- Rule changes mentioned previously (48 mins, 6 fouls, etc). It's hard to compare your favourite players, especially when you're a kid, if the game lengths are different. Kobe scoring 30 a night sounds pretty good when you're a kid, much more exciting than Ben Madgen averaging 18.

- Salary caps - salary caps need to be increased dramatically to try and encourage good Australian talent to return home, as well as encouraging young athletes to pick basketball over AFL (Nick Natanoui is a great example - would probably play NBL if he stuck with basketball, but is now making huge money playing AFL). The NBL needs some serious sponsorship or TV deals, or someone along the lines of Frank Lowe with very deep pockets to spend their way out of this hole.

- Marquee players - similar to the import rule - each team gets 2 players and their salaries are not counted against any team salary caps. For example if the Sydney Kings wanted to recruit Allen Iverson, and could arrange a deal with a local business to cover some of the costs, in return for appearances by AI at their stores, then i'm all for it. Big names draw the big crowds (Buddy Franklin to Sydney anyone?). I would also target big name players in China. Basketball is huge in the Chinese community - go to any inner city Sydney court on a weekend, or warm night and they will be packed with young Chinese blokes (mainly) all wearing $500+ worth of basketball gear (shoes, arm bands, NBA singlets, etc). If the Kings could land someone like Sun Yue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Yue_(basketball)) it would be huge for the local game - you'd probably get twice as many people turning up to each Kings home game after that.

- Grass roots excitement - the biggest thing missing is grass roots involvement and excitement. Bring back dunk contests, changes rules to make the game more exciting (restricted area under the basket, defensive 3 seconds, etc), and then get players out in the community every second they're not training. In schools, hold shooting contests in Pitt St Mall, etc

I could go on for a while, however it's not likely to make a lot of difference without a shed load of cash.

The NBL once had a Chinese national team player in Liu Wei and it was a bit of a weak experiment. He was about Scott Christopherson level. The money in Chinese basketball right now is so strong that a Sun Yue will not play here. Why have him here to appeal to a small part of the community when he can play over there for more and appeal to an entire country that thoroughly dwarfs ours. I wish I could remember some of the Chinese hoops money stories I've heard because they would amaze you - we are miles off the pace. Even cities you've never heard of throw buckets of money around.

Marquee player rules are a bit useless without the money to pay for them or equalisation to assist weaker teams. What could work is a bit of a combination of things:

Salary cap is say, $900k, plus marquee player allowance (changes little for most teams, but allows Perth to blow the bank on a super-stud if they want). Points cap maybe dropped or adjusted, but impact would need to be seriously considered. This would benefit the strongest teams most, but limit that advantage to a single player. A single player with a media profile will help the entire league but also be less dominant win-wise than a team of Boomers over a team of SEABLers.

To offset the advantage, teams can choose between three imports or a marquee player that puts them over the cap, but not both. Because the market for imports is so big, teams using a third import have increased flexibility in filling a position and often at a lower price. So a regional team could elect to get a SEABL guard rather than a Tyson Demos, or a raw dunking big with no jumpshot instead of a Vanderjagt or SHT. Ideally, more interesting, flamboyant players should boost the entertainment at games.

Those are two things the league could do easily without relying on a mysterious influx of money or new TV deal, etc.

Whilst entertainment is key, keeping all teams in the league even is also key.

At the end of the day, no one enjoys one team dominating another (it eventually gets boring for the winning team aswell). Imagine if NZ & Perth were winning by 30 points every week over the past 3 years.

I'm all for a marquee player, but all teams need to have the capacity to attract a similar quality marquee player. This would ultimately benefit the league.

Even as good as the AFL brand and marketing is, when a top club is playing a bottom team and everyone knows it will be a 20 goal margin before the game starts, the crowds and TV audiences are much lower than block busters between 2 evenly matched top teams.

What's more exciting, watching a dominant player (think Ennis or better) dominate or 2 evenly matched dominant players go at each other every week.

Bear in mind, paying big name marquee players would need higher average crowds, $ for TV deal etc, which would be far easier to achieve if fans of other teams & new fans want to watch every game

The equalisation idea is the answer, but how to administer it needs some thought by the teams. Does X% of each teams profit be placed in a pot, to then be distributed evenly amongst all clubs to spend on a marquee player?

The question of how to stop teams paying extra still remains or higher costs of living in certain areas

Here's a thought, get rid of the salary cap, keep the points cap, but teams have to clear their player spend with HQ who can check they can both afford it and are still allocating sufficient money for marketing, required staffing levels etc.

I dont think things would change too much from now in the short term, but it would certainly help get some deals across the line, especially for players like Johnson, Pledger, Abercrombie, Goulding etc who are receiving offer from OS.

Peter, I think import flexibility would help poorer teams stay competitive. Let's say Wollongong can swap Demos for Pace or SHT for Conklin without spending a great deal more. Or Jazzmar or someone else like that. Or Crocs have Conklin instead of Vanderjagt and another import.

For $40-70k, there's not always a lot you can do with local free agents. For the same in imports, you could've potentially had Deleon, Corin Henry, Frye, etc. There are guys in the SEABL or NZ NBL who could help a team with 10+ PPG and step into a starting role if required. Minimum on a local gets you Trueman, Teys, S Bruce, etc - those are good fits for a team that respect their role, but they won't necessarily keep you competitive with Perth or up the average when needed.

Import allowance is one easy thing the league could do for equalisation. Luxury taxes are harder to audit and administer. A tax involving a soft points cap is another thing I've mentioned before that might work.

It's definitely an idea worth considering, especially if more clubs are brought in.