Im for allowing 3 imports. With atleast 8 aussies on a team at the moment we have at least 64 australians in the league not including development players etc. If the league grows to 12 teams, with 3 imports, there will still be an additional 20 more Australian spots. Any more than that and I believe the talent will begin to water down.

I'm for it too.

Hopefully it means some of the spuds who are on lists now go back to the bush leagues.

Um, maybe you need to fix the OP title?
Raising restrictions means MORE restrictions not less...

It's a stupid idea.
It's at best unnecessary and would achieve nothing.
At worst it makes it easier for wealthy clubs to exploit the system.

There's nothing magical about the number two, and in reality whether you have 1, 2, or 3 players born O/S is not really going to effect the quality of the league. Saying "oh my team needs an X, so lets grab another import" is absurd. Any team can always be improved by the addition of a better player. That is NOT the problem facing the league.

The perennial challenge for the NBL is maintaining enough viable teams for a competitive league.

The import restriction is simply one of the brakes applied to teams, that in some ways tries to enforce equality. Increasing the number of imports would simply allow the teams with money to buy in more talent.

Think about it, if we had 3 import slots this season Lisch would be playing for the Wildcats, and imagine how much stronger MU and NZ would be.

Contrary to popular misconception, there is not an infinite sea of quality imports ready and waiting. Finding those good enough, but not good enough to play in Europe, and willing & able to come for the money we're offering, narrows the field. That's why not all imports thrive. So wealthy clubs would simply get first dibs on even more players.

If we allow 3 imports:

1) Will there be a commensurate increase in the salary cap?

I think this is required as there won't be many imports wanting to come play for minimum.

2) Will we get rid of the Points system?

If a team choose a third import as a role player, its not fair that that player will be worth 10 player points. So few teams if any would ever burn 10 points on such a player.

It's going to be a massive boon to teams with the ability to pay for 3 quality imports, but it could also lead to a more top-heavy league than we have now.

In the 1990s there were around 30 imports in the league and most were reasonable quality. Many didn't play a lot of defence or didn't play it overly well but that made the games fun to watch. Maybe that's what would happen if NBL increased to number of imports allowed. It's hard to say. Would teams opt for a pretty good third import at a high price and therefore cut a high-priced Australian/NZ player? Or would they opt for a journeyman import off the bench and cut a low-priced local? Illawarra currently have only one import anyway, Adelaide reportedly opted for a low-priced import, Melbourne still have Barlow to come back into the team (would they bother with another import?) and Cairns played Craig off the bench for two seasons (until their recent injury problems).

Perth usually go for better quality imports and would probably go that path. Townsville probably don't have money for a high quality third import and Brisbane reportedly might.

Like MC I would like to know what they plan to do in terms of salary/points restrictions first.

In essence I've got no problem with allowing 3 imports per team, provided it doesn't kill the parity of the comp or financially hurt the poorer teams.
(In other words, in reality I probably will have a problem with allowing 3 imports)

There's a lot of non-salary cap leagues around the world with little to no parity (ie. same winner for the last 5-10 years or more). If increasing the import limit and raising the cap, or effectively eliminating it by putting it at a level only a couple of teams can reach, pushes our NBL towards that direction, I'm heavily against it.

If it's only a slight boost, then I think a lot of teams will either run with an import-priced Aussie/Kiwi, one quality US import, and one or two SEABL-esque quality guys, or two quality US imports and one or none SEABL types.

I'm all for 3 imports.

As far as restrictions and caps go, they could have a tiered system/option system for imports.

E.g. (figures are just made up to show the difference)

1 - Unrestricted/Marquee Import (no dollar limit)
2 - Standard Import ($150 - $200k)
3 - SEABL/SBL Quality Import ($70k - $149k)

Then there could be alternative situations like, if a club that doesn't seen a marquee import can sign two standard imports and a SEABL quality import, or three SEABL quality imports.

RMQ, the top players in the league would get $150-200k.

There'd be multiple MVP candidates this season on around $100k.

SEABL import would be $40-60k. Standard from there to $100k. Proven, strong players would be $100k+.

The most expensive teams would obviously pay more (Melbourne, Perth, Sydney).

Will there definitely be 12 teams next season?
Or is only the Brisbane team confirmed at the moment?

Hold your horses, Aussiebballer. I'm not even convinced there will be 9 teams in the NBL next season!
(but to answer your question, yes, Brisbane are the only one confirmed to be added)

Few questions:
Will they keep the points cap?
If they do, will new imports continue to default as 10 points?
How about the Asian player?

The points cap is already pretty restrictive for those good but not great players trying to get into the league. If a club is going to go out and spend 30 points on 3 imports, then have 1 or 2 quality Aussies, and the Asian, that's a big portion of the cap gone. And that's assuming the quality Aussies still get picked up.
What happens with the Brendan Teys, Brad Hill, Rhys Carter types who bring something to the table, but will be 5/6 points into the cap and don't bring too significant a difference to justify the 4/5 points extra over a rookie?

End of the day, it's an Aussie league. Don't really want it to become an import league with Aussies making up the numbers. And don't want to lose the opportunity to see the Khazzouh, Goulding, Penney types playing in the league because of the shiny toy factor with new imports. Also don't want to see the ok-good players fall off because they don't fit anymore.

If they have a definitive plan in mind to expand the league to at least 10 teams, hopefully 12, then I can see this working, as you're basically keeping the Aussie pool constant and just introducing extra imports/Asians. But I don't think it's a good move if we're going to be an 8 team league. Townsville are very much teetering on the edge, so hopefully they have a plan in mind for them especially. Can't see them affording 3 imports and good Aussies.

Sorry I meant 10 teams :)
ie the current 8 plus Brisbane and anther NZ team.

Yao Ming to make a comeback..

I wonder if they are looking at adding a team in the Philippines.
It wouldn't add that much cost if the teams travel there and play 2 games, so they only have to go once a season.
They are basketball crazy there so they may be interested depending on when their local comps is scheduled.
If they can get Philippines Airlines as a league sponsor that could reduce the costs even further.

3 imports + Asian player on at the same time leaves room for only 1 Aussie on the court. i don't like the sound of that.

I dont see Lisch going back to Perth. His wife is from NSW and he has a good thing long term with the Hawks and Bevo.

Jawai would be interesting though.

Racist!!

"If their is an increase in the salary cap, teams will go bust...its as simple as that."

This is my worry too. Are the weaker teams even paying the full current salary cap? Increasing it further and having them either join the arms race or become less competitive is a recipe for foldage.

If the NBL wants to expand into Asia, they can kiss the idea of regional teams goodbye. I cant see a team like townsville being able to afford the travel costs compared to the bigger markets

There are two teams I would guess are under the cap but currently in the four. Two over the cap out of it.

LK is trying to increase the spectacle and the sellouts and TV interest. The crowds will decide whether they like that more than the extra Australian jobs, I guess. Ultimately, a more powerful and financial league will attract more teams and create more jobs, IMO.

Could be an idea to have Asian and Oceanic conferences?

Or even 3 conferences, with a South, Central and North?

Teams could consist of something like:

South: Australia, NZ
Central: Philippines, Singapore, India
North: China, South Korea, Japan

6 teams from each conference, for 18 teams.
Play your conference 4 times for 20 games, and inter-conference twice for 24 games.

The "Asian" player idea is even worse.
What do they even mean by "Asian"? It's a BIG continent.
Obviously getting even a tiny slice of that massive TV market would be awesome, but people aren't going to decide whether or not to watch Australian Basketball based on a handfull of token players.

I don't mind the idea of an Indonesian team based in Jakarta, as that is a HUGE potential audience, and Jakarta is not too far. But anything further afield would be prohibitive in terms of travel.
Singapore was ok as a location, but doesn't have the population to provide or support a team.

Brisbane have been confirmed for months. They have staff, a logo, coaches, the whole deal.

Interesting isn't it, this time last year we were not that inspired, not that long ago we were wondering if the competition would actually survive in the current format, or at all!

Now we are talking it up like the NBL is full of millionaires or something...

Let's walk before we start tripping over our own egos I reckon. Maybe we can talk about some adjustments in the structure and maybe even look at a third import down the track, but I would like to see the competition and the teams become stable first.

I recall the A-League getting a little ahead of itself in early days, losing teams and making adjustments to the market before they got to where they are now, and they still don't have it right really, so too early for too much rah rah me thinks...

can't see the Asian player rule working out - if they are a superstar, they're in NBA. If they're a star, I'm guessing they'd be able to make way more money in an Asian league than NBL. So then why would you bring a good/average Asian player in when he's only as good (or more likely worse) than an Aussie player?

Ugh terrible idea

As much as they may say they have no responsibility to provide places for Aussie talent, that's exactly what you need your top flight league to do. It completely goes against their rhetoric about gaining "grass roots" support. Having only around 50 places for Aussies to play professional ball in their own country is absurd. It definitely makes the decision easier for guys thinking of switching to footy.

It also shows that they're looking to increase the arms race where the rich teams attempt to put expensive but talented (on paper) on the floor with a view that "surely" that will bring the fans in. That hasn't worked in the past and with several teams struggling already I can't see how that will change.

As much as I'd love to see basketball in Australia be "big" and "spectacular" again, I'd much rather the league look towards a league with greatly reduced costs, enforced strict tight salary cap and more teams. If everyone were to play by the same rules we could get back to a truly national league again.

Perhaps I will get my wish and Kestleman will turn the nbl into some kind of Asian league and do whatever he wants with it, and then a new national league can truly come from the grass roots in its place

"Singapore was ok as a location, but doesn't have the population to provide or support a team."

Singapore's population (>5 million) is bigger than that of every city that currently has a team in the NBL. It's the financial centre of SE Asia. Its GDP per capita is 3rd highest in the world and almost double Australia's, 2.5 times New Zealand's. Seriously, check the facts before posting such a wrong argument.

The Asian player thing could just be a small allowance to efforts in China, as one example. Not as though teams would actually use them.

The NBL are working on some Asia-related plans that seem pretty realistic to me. I'm sure they'll announce them at some point if they make progress.

I remember the Slingers experiment. What was the other one?

German league used to allow something like nine imports but it wasn't a great standard.

If this happens, it will be interesting to see how many teams use it. A lot of work and money goes into finding imports, and if they don't fit into the team then sometimes they do more harm than good.

Three of the past four grand finals have featured teams with one import (with another GF team having a role playing import off the bench), and there's a chance of that happening again this season with Illawarra.

As long as they keep increasing the number of teams over the next few years I'm not dead against this, but I don't think it will really lift the standard of the league overall and I know it wont lift it's popularity.

I'd prefer teams to spend more money on guys like Childress, Randle, Jackson, Wilbekin etc than spread money across more imports.

Singapore's population (>5 million) is bigger than that of every city that currently has a team in the NBL. It's the financial centre of SE Asia. Its GDP per capita is 3rd highest in the world and almost double Australia's, 2.5 times New Zealand's.

Seriously, check the facts before posting such a wrong argument.

Also for those who say rich clubs will just stack marque imports on top of current roster, the points and salary cap still exists so this wouldn't be possible without the clubs letting go a good player in the process.

So what's the major issue??

Dazz, drivel? You said:

Singapore was ok as a location, but doesn't have the population to provide or support a team.

"What about teams having two Randles"

Teams already have two import spots and a marquee salary cap exception. The reality is players like Randle, Childress, Ennis, Wilbekin and Jackson don't grow on trees, or else the rich clubs would already have two.

As I said earlier, leagues in Germany and Belgium were/are stacked with Americans but it didn't make them high-level comps. Here, teams with one import regularly outperform those with two.

I'm not dead against the idea if the league is increasing the number of teams, but I'd prefer to see the next Daniel Dillon, Lucas Walker, Shaun Bruce, Anthony Petrie, Tom Jervis, Tom Garlepp, Agent 97, Nathan Sobey etc get a chance than watch the next Garrett Jackson, Will Hudson, Joevan Catron, CJ Massingale or Daequon Montreal fill up the bemch.

Did the league have a 3 import rule back in the late 80's/early 90's. The 90's Perth team had Crawford, Pinder and Grace....or were Crawford and/or Pinder naturalized.

Crawford and Pinder naturalised after 89, allowing Perth to add Grace and Jeff Allen as imports for 1990.

The Singapore experiment failed simply because the Singapore Government withdrew their financial support. In the early days the Slingers had to pay for all flights there and back. Once the Government withdrew their support they folded.

Pretty sure they used to do that in the early 80s. On the Wildcats Behind the Ball doco Mike Ellis mentions Tim Evans and Billy Keys as imports, and then Dan Hickert as "the import that was the three-year player".

Canberra had a three-import allowance at some point. Can't remember if that was granted to the bottom team or something else.

I'm not opposed to 3 imports but I would much rather see the money for a 3rd import going towards getting better quality first and second imports or luring Aussie talent back from overseas.

"Canberra had a three-import allowance at some point. Can't remember if that was granted to the bottom team or something else."

Yeah I don't remember the criteria either, but they did finish last in 2001/02 and were allowed 3 imports for the following season. (Dave Thomas, George Banks & Korleone Young)

In 02/03 they finished 2nd-last with a 12-18 record and were again allowed 3 imports for the following season. (Dave Thomas, Mike Chappell & Reggie Poole)

^ Sorry - I got those years wrong. They had those imports in the years I noted, but their last-placed finish was 2000/01 (3-25 record), followed by 2nd-last (12-18) in 2001/02.

I only like this rule if it encourages teams to try and keep imports... If the criteria of the third import is one that's returning or as mentioned above been there three seasons that that's what I'd like .

I hate that the league loses stars like Rotnei Clarke and if we had some rule that encouraged MVP caliber imports to stick around then I'm all for it.

It may have kept Gladness in the league but maybe he was discouraged by the stats people ripping him off with blocks

A couple of different sources reporting that this is being considered:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/perth-wildcats-coach-trevor-gleeson-extension/7167370

Meanwhile, the NBL is considering a controversial move to allow each team an additional import next season.

The change would allow all nine franchises to sign three overseas players each.

Grandstand basketball expert and NBL championship coach Alan Black denounced the proposal.

"That would be such a retrograde step for this league," Black said.

"You're then telling every young player to go over to college to get developed, because you're not going to make a roster here.

"You're telling any Australian player that's not one or two, to go over to Europe and play because you're not going to get the big money, because the big money is going to go on imports.

"And then you can really run a team around three players. You can get two role players, Australians, to just sit around three really good imports.

"Joe Public sitting out in the stands probably won't care, but if I put on any sort of Basketball Australia development hat, that's just not the way to go."

Or the same players just play more minutes.

Why? So Fox will stop broadcasting the league?

Why dont we trailblaze and go 44? Everyone happy.

48mins was ok for Fox for over two decades. 40mins was changed for One/Ten.

Other than MU and the cats all other clubs can't afford one quality import let at all three