I think having games in bigger stadiums looks more professional and I support weekend games. Although I wouldn't be against a televised midweek game.

Will Fraser leaving affect the Brisbane NBL bid at all?

Tv might work but crowds definitely will not be big. Besides public holidays keep it thurs to Sunday. Get a deal going for a prime time thurs, and Saturday and Sunday Arvos I reckon when not much is happening.

you will NOT get crowds (4000+) filling large stadiums at odd weekday games anywhere other than for the occasional big important games in Perth/syd/melb/Bris.

Sydney died trying to do it, perhaps melbourne could , but every other populations base won't succeed.

see here
http://blog.id.com.au/2014/population/australian-population/the-50-largest-australian-cities-and-towns-by-population/

below is 1 to 21

Sydney 4,373,433
Melbourne 4,181,021
Brisbane 2,143,121
Perth 1,901,582
Adelaide 1,263,888
Gold Coast - Tweed Heads 605,134
Newcastle – Maitland 425,895
Canberra – Queanbeyan 418,856
Central Coast
Sunshine Coast
Wollongong 286,581
Hobart 206,560
Geelong 181,853
Townsville 176,035
Cairns 145,003
Darwin 119,597
Toowoomba 112,588
Ballarat 96,940
Bendigo 96,940
Albury – Wodonga 86,274
Launceston 86,188

thats an almost 33% drop between Perth and adelaide, and a 50% drop between adelaide and the next population, and a 66% drop between Adelaide and a "anticipated" canberra market that is the 8th largest population base ??

I suspect that Marvin, sucking of the biggest avable financial teat. and the NZ guys with all of NZ behind them, just do not "get it"

if the NBL wants to expand to a more marketable 12 team size ( 6 games per round for TV and internet to have at least a few products to sell) it needs to realise that syd/Melb/Bris/Perth franchises will be the odd markets that should survive irrespective of the structure, and that the majority of the rest of the league will actually be the "normal" markets where the design of the way of how the league is run ( for financial viability) will need to cater for to ensure some stability.

The immediate way would be for the big markets to give 66% of their "box office" to the teams from small markets. its a equalization thing. Like that's going to happen.

put a second team into Perth, and its still got a bigger population "share" than Canberra - but then I think you would hear the squeal carry clearly eastward not only over the Nullabour plain , but also over the Hay Plain as well.

I favour allowing the "normal" markets to have smaller home stadiums, and if they need to have midweek games, have them host "big" or strong "rivalry" games that can attract crowds, like Gong (H) Vs Sydney.

Have an enforcable equalisation policy on income and sponsorship that supports the smaller markets (that a smart large market CEO would know they need to have in the league to play against).

I think I remember Brisbane getting huge crowds at one time 10,000 ? - which is still (in todays terms) only 1 in 200(0.5%) of people. Canberra was HOT HOT HOT in the 80's,with NO AFL, NFL or Rugby - and I think may have got as much as 3500 people or probably 0.75% attendance at some games then they got to be lucky to get 1200 and had to close off some of the stadium .

Adelaide arena has an 8000 capacity , so that requires a 0.75% attendance to get full.

Honestly, Darwin should have a team. Money, sponsors and support are there, not to mention next to nothing to do.

@Very Old, I liked reading that post, it showed some perspective when comparing population bases and then including where an NBL franchise might best work.

Obviously there are many other consideration to put into play for an NBL franchise to work in any city.

The idea of stand alone franchises here in Australia however is never going to be anything like an NBA or Euro League because we just will not be able to support these, the sport just has too many established competitors.

What could work for basketball however, is the Association backed model??!

If we could tap into the huge numbers of participants playing the sport across every city and somehow connect our NBL or potential NBL teams with these markets then we may have the supporting networks behind our NBL franchises, necessary to expand the competition...

No matter how we break it down, the problem is that stand alone NBL teams are not attractive enough to make an expansion viable, or at least that seems to be the case for the most part!

Whatever TV favours and whatever gets games on live. More games, or a shorter super-season, combinations of both, whatever they'll pay for.

Players would rather play more games than all the extra training. More games, done right, could mean better use of the players in the time they're contracted. Also means less time to scout teams which makes for more fluid play, weaker defense, and more highlights. More opportunities for sponsors.

Joakim Noah was surprised recently that Pau Gasol was watching game tape for research on a flight to play the Raptors. Those guys play back-to-backs and (in the past, not sure about now?) even four-in-fives. Here each team generally has a full week to prepare for their opponent.

With more teams, the talent will be spread thinner so that you'll more often have a stud taking on a rookie - again, should mean more highlights. Teams going 9-10 deep are too good.

With more games, you won't really expect to see all your home games in person. You might go to 10 out of 20, or 14 out of 21, etc. You'd watch the extras on TV, ideally.

More teams means more jobs, more rookies coming through, more imports. More total viewers.

I think the NBL is in an awkward zone of public support between strong enough and something more amateur. If you want only blockbuster teams drawing 8k/game, only about 5-6 teams have that potential and that's if everything goes perfect. In reality, only one is doing it. Any plan needs to account for the regional clubs or let them go.

The main issues then are these:

1. Crowds
2. Money
3. Standard of competition

1. CROWDS - We don't play in huge open air stadiums (like footy or soccer), therefore we must accept and adapt to smaller indoor stadiums. Not a problem if we have more teams that are supported by locally situated basketball communities. This also creates rivalry and tribalism, crowds will be more consistent, if not massive and sporadic.

2. MONEY - In stead of always running out of it by creating fincnial nightmare situations, the new NBL model should look at how it can be more financially viable. Smaller franchises, more of them, backed by several local Associations I believe will be far more financially survivable and throw in TV money with the tribal rivalry this creates, then we don't have the problem of losing teams.

3. STANDARD - Each team should be able to afford a very handy starting line up, the bench would not be as strong as it is in the NBL now and like @Isaac says^ this creates more of everything. It also makes coaches think more about their substitutions and the best players will stand out more, maybe even become super stars in the league by doing so...

Yes, this idea has been spoken about before and yes, it is taking one step back to perhaps take two forward, but I have always though going down this track is the answer for basketball here in such a small population country like Australia!

...And include New Zealand, of course...

Not any local Association on it's own Anon^, you gotta think outside that square sonny jim, look towards the sky and think of combined basketball communities (more than one Association), to create a strong community model by combining resources...

Kind of what Melbourne United is trying to do, but on a scale they can manage better! Think of Victoria as having the potential for six NBL teams, for example:

Melbourne Tigers
Melbourne Dragons
Melbourne United
Melbourne Magic
Bendigo Braves
Geelong Supercats

I am only naming them from previous used names as a concept (not saying this is how it would be), don't hang me on what or who they are, this is just an example of potential markets in Victoria. If you can split Melbourne into zones and adopt something like a grouping of Associations model you will get what I mean...

Anon '150, the financial cost of another self-funded club (not the case with Brisbane, it seems) doesn't necessarily hamper the league and existing clubs. All those costs generally come from the new owners, their incoming fans, their sponsors, etc. It doesn't detract from the existing clubs. If it were a new Melbourne team, for example, it would even consolidate some travel costs potentially.

I think they could bring in new clubs without impacting the issues they already have with online, etc.

You're right, revenue is the issue.

I'm not on Neill or Marvin's side, I'm on the side of a league run well, and I think that needs a board with at least as many independent members as club reps, and an independent chair, which has been talked about and will hopefully be genuinely delivered.

And if you can have a mix of both then you're an even bigger winner.

I disagree anon. It's the other way around. Gate takings are your lifeblood and the TV deal is cream on top. No one is walking through that door offering a TV deal that is going to be "lifeblood" to this league. It's just not gonna happen.

So I think you have to be very, very careful about putting all your eggs in the TV basket as a source of revenue.

Of course we need the best possible TV deal to guarantee exposure for the sport, but relying on it as a source of income is tenuous at best when you consider how little the NBL product is worth to advertisers and therefore TV networks. Clubs need to put bums on seats to make money.

If people think they can damn the game night experience and get some league wide TV deal that will be divided up between the clubs and expect to even come close to breaking even with paltry crowds, then you're sailing the NBL down the river.

The TV deal is gravy, but it's not going to be very big dollar wise. We have to realise that. The product is just not worth much to anyone, even in the current internet-age TV landscape where live events are a premium commodity. The NBL just doesn't move the needle, and they need to realise that when planning for the future.

The league could do a lot worse than listening to Nick Marvin right now...

It is important to figure out the cause and not just try to address the symptoms IMHO.

To get the TV deals and the money you have to first develop a viable product, however that also needs time to develop which in turn needs stability and interest within the community.

Are we getting the process in the right order? If we don't get the horse driving the cart we are in for another messy future in front of us...

I don't agree Mick, because potential sponsors will ask how many people will see my business on TV, not do you have 3000 or 6000 at your games.

TV and sponsorship money has a much higher ceiling than ticket sales, because the venues available for basketball in this country are relatively small but expensive.

Just as importantly, the best advert for your product is a good broadcast deal that promotes the league and makes it look good. Without that the league will always be battling hard to keep crowds coming in.

Nick Marvin has money behind all his success as does Dunn and Co....

If money was not there in the first place they would not look so successful.

That is the issue.

They are now feathering their own nests and at the expense of the other clubs..

Just look at the TV schedule.. Appalling..

Get ready for clubs to fall and the NBL to be in hiatus next year.

Great to have the money for the superstars but when 70 % of your clubs without the funds then the mismatch begins and we are already seeing that.

Rules and deals made to suit the BIG 3 !!!!

Bye Bye NBL… We will miss you….

If midweek games worked don't you think the AFL would be already doing it?

So you push the clubs to play in small shit stadiums to cover the money lost by not getting bigger crowds and then after a couple years the TV realises no one is watching and pulls out and then what? we are stuck with a seabl size national competition.

Isnt the reason Townsville got no TV games because their stadium had inadequate lighting and camera angle for TV presentation? so if that's the bench mark for these smaller stadiums being used then they cant even be used for TV purposes what's the point?

We should be moving forwards not backwards.

I would be OK with Wednesday games, IF it didn't have a 'small stadium' condition attached.

Bring back the 3,000 capacity minimum. If you cant fill that you probably aren't in a viable market to be in the league or not trying hard enough.

Move Crocodiles to Brisbane if they insist they cant survive if they don't play at the RSL, gives them a decent roster to start out with.

Alex, the AFL desperately wants midweek games because it would increase the value of their TV deals, but they have a limited number of games they play each year and can't win fans over to trade in weekend games and head into the city on those nights.

That's why Neill wanted midweek games in small local venues. They are close to people's homes and you only need a small crowd in those stadiums to provide atmosphere.

Then, with an increase in games, you still offer the same weekend games you always have. You are not trading off one or the other, you have both and get more bang for your buck.

BTW, Townsville and Cairns being marginalised in the TV schedule this year is about cost rather than venues.

How much of Perth's off court success is down to Marvin and how much of it isn't?

Sure Perth is absolutely the ideal model but I am more inclined to think there were other things which paved the way for Perth to get where they are at.

As good as Marvin is, he hasn't really done anything really innovative or "out there"..he built a prayer centre and hired about 7 assistant coaches..but from a marketing perspective i feel he hasn't been too proactive.

Yet he will use Perth's success to believe everyone that they are doing things mightily different.

@alexkrad, mid week games in the AFL would just be too long and people can't afford the time, they tried Monday night football and Thursday night football, it wasn't as big and their crowd expectations are so high that they have dropped these concepts in favour of more weekend games.

The AFL recognises the improtance of bringing football back to the people, listen to the footy talk around the place and you will see they are going to be careful of dropping the ball and not going too corporate in the future.

The other thing that makes this comparison unfair is the game itself, you can play more than one game of basketball a week, not football, therefore the AFL schedule is made much harder with mid week games, not such an issue for the NBL I would imagine.

Small, shit stadiums with poor lighting isn't what people are talking about for future stadiums in a restructured NBL either.

I think you will find that a smaller stadium of about that 3,000-8,000 capacity mark is about what is needed. Quality if important and I think everyone egrees that TV deals will not be successful if we don't get lighting, seating, atmosphere etc... right!

Anon 190,

So tell me what he has done. I'm not discrediting the bloke.

I just want to know what he has done in terms of systems, plans, strategies to get it how it is.

Please provide examples. I'm not taking the mickey, I genuinely want to know what he is doing/has done.

I wish the owners of the Melbourne Tigers did all that anon^, maybe we would have a second franchise in Victoria already, call them united, I don't care really just saying...

The Wildcats have done a great job of recreating their former prestige in Perth and then building on it, and Marvin has been a big part of that.

The key there has been spending money to make money, and the NBL really needs to put some cash into its front office to be able to emulate that.

It seems they are waiting for next year when a new TV deal (hopefully) brings a major sponsor, but really the owners who can should be investing now and recouping when that happens.

You'd think they would have learned by now but I guess its just easy for them and their fans/online mouthpieces point the finger instead.

Do you think there is only one?

The main one being singled out is the fact the NBL doesn't have an independent chair or board. That's a major issue.

Yes, some people are using it as a chance to bash Marvin, but the simple fact is no one should be in those two positions, and certainly the move towards having independent people on the board has been very slow.

I'm all for the idea of mid week games in regional areas. Each team plays 1-2 games a year outside of their normal arena. For example Perth could play games in Geraldton or Kalgoorlie. Melbourne could play in Geelong/Bendigo, Townsville and Cairns could play games in Darwin/Mackay/Rockhampton...and so on.

Not only would this provide weekly games for TV coverage but it would also go to communities that don't get to see live games. May even help in growing fan base and sponsorship.

These games could be played in areas where the NBL might look for possible expansion teams for the future. Would of really liked to see some games played in Gold Coast, Brisbane, Canberra, Darwin, Hobart and Wellington this year.

Im positive I heard O'Neil on radio yesterday as I was driving home talk about there needing to be more money spent on Advertising and the 'front office'. I missed most of the first part of him talking but Im certain he was he disappoint about the lack of cash spent on Advertising.

But therein lies my concern.

Marvin had money, spent money and has made money.

Most owners don't have that initial cash injection that Marvin had.

Anon #221, try international cricket from Dubai mate!

"Show me a sport that rates well on tv but that no one goes to watch in person. I sure can't think of one."

The NRL and A-League get television money well out of proportion with the number of people who go to games.

But the idea of playing more games, with some in big stadiums and some in small, will actually result in more people going to games, not less.

@paul, this is true, any sport can stuff up and waste many $$$ if they are not midnful of how they manage their product, so the NBL is no different to the AFL, NRL, A-League or ACB in regards to its financial future and growth of thier game.

The only difference is the product, the structure and potential.

If the NBL can get its structure right it will improve the product to a point where TV will jump on in leaps and bounds, why?

Because basketball is probably the one with the most upside (potential to grow)! I believe our ceiling is much higher and we are coming from a lower base...

Think about it, none of the other sports mentioned are truly cross gender, sure girls play them but not in the percentage they play basketball. The WNBL is proof of what I am suggesting here.

We have a real advanatge over other sports in some areas IMHO. I believe we just need to get our heads right and we can move forward, grow and compete for the TV dollars...

PS, not counting games like golf or tennis where females make up a huge % because they are not really our competitors in this market I don't think.

I'm not a Perth supporter, hence I don't get to see what he does in the flesh.

Hence why I asked what he does (it was a legitimate question)

Re: the comment regarding the assistant coaches and the prayer room.

That's because as fans of teams other than Perth, we only see the spending. Don't hear about anything else.

it doesn't matter which side you're on
when you're on the titanic

Correct me if I'm wrong but is there any advertisement of NBL on TV in WA ??

Add also in any other state?? I see bits and pieces on the news, and the players have there segments on the radio stations but nothing on TV

If the NBL clubs don't have some sort of live, editable shared manual that improves with each season, they really need to sort that out. Develop core best practice for every thing done (member outreach, community efforts, advertising, game nights, players, etc) and note embellishments that each club has tried and whether that's succeeded or failed.

The 36ers first home game this season looked like it was done entirely by people who'd never run a game night before. Same stadium, same timing, many of the same staff, etc. Some sort of manual would help there.

Blitz101: Not on TV that ive seen. Ive seen many a newspaper advertisment, many a radio ad, and a lot of billboards but not really a tv advert by the Cats. I think more of their visual budget goes into their Youtube efforts. Then again I have seen a couple of Channel 10 promos for the Cats (not the NBL in general)

The Wildcats tv series is a combination of highlights of games, them out playing lawn bowls, bits on Wilbur the Wildcat and so on. Its pretty reguarly updated. THats on youtube only though.

I am a long-term fan of both The Eagles and Wildcats.
Whereas many fans believe that The Eagles CEO is an overpaid, incompetent crony who treats paying members like s___, few would say anything similar about Marvin.
Even back when the Arena was a pipe-dream, Marvin has always bent over backwards and innovated to keep the fans engaged and happy. As a result, fans flocked to the new Arena, they have 9000 members and climbing, and have often sold-out the venue people said Basketball could never fill.
Meanwhile The Eagles are in the same situation now, with a new stadium being built, and yet some pundits are predicting that membership will actually FALL once there are 60k seats available, such is the animosity towards management.

FTA TV IS vitally important to the future of the NBL, but it's unlikely to be the financial windfall it is for the AFL.
Keep in mind that even when the league was much bigger, they lost FTA coverage for a LONG time.

I appreciate that not every regional city has access to a large capacity stadium, however the capitals do, and that is where the NBL must strengthen its foundations.

What if they can't get TV coverage on the days that those big stadiums might actually get a decent crowd?

I don't know how it works in other cities, but on a Friday night we can watch the game live, rush home and watch it again at 9:30pm
I assume that such Perth games would actually be telecast live into the East Coast because of the time difference??

Given all the extra channels we have now, and the dregs they use to fill them up, I'd be very surprised if they can't find a slot for the NBL.

The question I'm asking is, what if no station wants to show a decent number of games over the weekend?

You said FTA is vitally important to the future of the NBL, but I can't see how a small number of broadcast games, many of them delayed, are going to allow the NBL to survive in its current form.

All the Perth games live to the East coast will rate. Not.
11 pm or 11:30 pm will rate well. Not. AESDT.

I think they need a mix of both. Big games in big stadiums on weekends and midweek games in smaller stadiums with good atmosphere to offer TV more product.

Many SEABL clubs have NBL players on their roster, not sure that could work.

I think FTA is firstly important for building, engaging, and retaining a fan base. In the past there were many years when tickets to a live game were an occasional treat, so televised games were important. It was harder to feed the interest when it stopped.

It could also be important as a revenue stream.
Obviously for something like AFL its a huge thing, but I'm not sure how much money there is to be made in televising NBL?

The ONLY basis I have for evaluating FTA revenue is that up until very recently NO FTA network wanted it. ie, it wasn't worth a cracker.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe there has been a paradigm shift, and suddenly its uber profitable, but I don't think so.
And based on that, the model of playing "unprofitable" games in front of a thousand people and raking it in from FTA revenue just won't work.

I have no real knowledge of TV watching demographics, so this is mostly supposition on my part, but I'm not sure the model would work anyway.
Perth has nearly two million people, and on a good night we can get 12k+ people into the Arena, so its fair to assume we could generate a decent television audience for the away games.
Townsville is less than a 10th of the size and struggles to get 2000 to their games, so what would their viewing audience be???
IF FTA revenue became a driving factor, it would be no time at all before teams like the Cats began demanding a fairer share of the revenue.

As I said in that thread, it would be a shame in The Crocs folded, but a model based on propping up unsustainable teams with FTA revenue just won't work in the NBL.

The ONLY basis I have for evaluating FTA revenue is that up until very recently NO FTA network wanted it. ie, it wasn't worth a cracker.

I guess when we are talking about midweek games and such, we also need to work out the associated costs. We have a 20 week schedule right now. Add a Tuesday game, a thursday game, and a combo of Friday/Saturday games. This shifts us from 20 games a year to 60, with 30 away games as opposed to 10. Yes, some of these are small (like Sydney to the gong), but if you suddenly triple the number of times teams have to travel to Perth, or NZ, it becomes harder to afford the travel.

In regards to playing every night, you'll come up against Big Bash, who play every night. Right now, we come up against Cricket and Soccer for viewers, we need to find a way to appeal to those who aren't interested in those to watch games

Making sure we have stadiums which look good on TV, aren't too expensive but can still hold a decent crowd is important. How we acheive this is a hard sell, but we need to get our revenue streams going!

Perhaps a way of working things is getting NBA rights on NBL.TV, allowing Basketball Fans access to all the best Basketball from the US. Or, partner with some College Conferences to add content? More reasons to subscribe = more subscribers.

There is no need to increase the number of games if you don't want to. All options are available to find what works best, but the current model doesn't seem to.

I think there needs to be a little bit of innovation to create a niche for basketball.