ROFLCopter: We arnt watching a Year 5 athletics competition here. Just because one team is 'too good' we dont just break them up to dilute the talent and give every team a chance to 'win'.

If other teams want to win, then they have to build a team than can win.

The NZ national team draws on a total population the size of Sydney to find it's players. Think of NZ as basically the same size as an Australian state.

I think the Breakers are a great example of patient and persistant building. Just think about how long that group has been playing together, and they seem to have really organised succession plans with their coaches. Throw in a brilliant import who hangs around, coupled with intelligent, team needs based recruiting with your second import and you have built a well deserved dynasty.

NZ is a counrty of 4.5 million people where two rugby codes dominate sporting participation. They defintely punch above their weight but the fact that they currently represent an entire counrty, and therefor have a supposed talent pool advantage because of this, isnt really the case in my view.

Plus, nothing stops Australin clubs from recruiting NZ's best players to play here.

To say the Breakers are too good just because they are made up of many locals is ridiculously insecure. Good for them, they are coached extremely well and the United went in with a game plan that didn't work, so the Breakers are in the grand final again, so what?

If and when NZ is ready for a second team it will obviously cause some players to move on, but it will also provide young Aussies another NBL team to consider. And, should that team be coached successfully into being a great team, well good luck to them too...

It is the NBL and NZ is part of it, get over it I think!

1999/00 GF between Titans and Wildcats involved 6 Boomers for Perth (Fisher (98 Worlds), Rogers (2000 Olympics), Grace (2000 Olympics), Black (2003 Oceania), Vlahov (2000 Olympics)) and a future Boomer (Harvey (2009 Oceania)); but only 2 Boomers for the Titans (Ronaldson (1998 Worlds, 2004 Olympics), Drmic (1998 Worlds). Titans also had future Boomer Smith, fringe Boomer Wheeler and import playmaker McDonald. Should Perth not have been allowed to compete that year? What about the Titans?

NZ had a team full of Tall Blacks all through the 2000s and never won a championship. They added a Boomer in 2009 and still didn't win for another 2 seasons.

The point is that NBL used to be a place where Australia's Boomers developed and played. It isn't that place any more.

It does seem to be a place where Tall Blacks now develop and play. Does that give them an unfair advantage over other teams? 2013-14 suggests not.

"Should there be a 2nd NZ team to water down the talent?" Yes and no. The 'no' is that watering down the talent is the wrong reason to introduce a second NZ team. You risk creating one or two weaker teams that do poorly, struggle to draw crowds and become non viable. Especially if the NZ players follw teh above Australian trend and start looking overseas to develop and play (like Penney did, Marks etc.).

The 'yes' is that if it isn't going to undermine the NBL product, then a second team will probasbly be a good thing. Behind this I have the following thinking. In terms of the league's overall strength, I wonder if we'd have a league at all, if the Breakers had never been brought in. They and Perth have been the only stable organisations through the league's problematic last decade. Every other team except Melbourne has, at one point or another, failed or come close to it. Would the league have survived with only one stable, well run organisation through that period?

While NBL went well this year, it remains to be seen whether Kestleman's investment will have turned the NBL into a profitable business in 2 years' time (I think his timetable was 3 years altogether?). If it hasn't, the league could be on the same roller coaster ride for survival it was on before this season. Anything that either materially increases the chance of that outcome or materially increases the chance of failure in the event of that outcome should be avoided.

So a second NZ team should be based on a sound business case that enhances the league and at least does not make it less likely to fail in 2 years' time.

They may well prove too good this season (based on the last two games they've played...), however they operate under the same rules as everyone else. It should encourage other teams to strive to improve so they can beat them, not try to think of ways to make the Breakers weaker.

Glad to see some sense being injected into this discussion.
The whole "national team" thing is a silly basis for an argument IMO. It's meaningless. There are no rules that would have stopped the Sydney Kings having the same roster as the Breakers currently do.
Full credit to the Breakers for the way they have developed and retained their playing talent.

Want to entice players from New Zealand to leave the Breakers? Have a better situation for them to go into.

Why leave your home team that wins and pays you money?

Good discussion and I agree with most of the points above.

I wasn't suggesting that something should be done...I was just asking the question as it's something a few mates and I were talking about yesterday over a few beers.

They certainly are an impressive outfit. I think they'll win it again this year.

I think that any nationalistic viewpoint regarding the NBL being an Australian competition needs to be viewed more liberally.

The NBA is an American national competition, however has a team from Canada, if they suddenly won it would people in the States be up in arms about the fact they could have a few Canadians in their side, really>?

I would hope not and I would hope we can also be above that level of insecurity.

Let's not worry about building a wall just yet (pun intended)...

How about changing the name (I am a Breakers fan- bit of context) to Auckland Breakers or even just Breakers, like the Kangaroos in the AFL were!

I have raised this point before in other threads but I'll raise it again.

NZ's development program is second to none.

Vukona, Pledger, Abercrombie, Webster, TeRangi, Bartlett were all Breakers development players.
That's 6/10 players with Shane McDonald (Aus) and Tai Wesley (Guam) and two US Imports rounding out the playing group.
Young DP Shea Ili will be the next fully contracted player to come through the ranks into the team with Isaac Fotu, Rob Loe and Duane Bailey the only former DP's plying their trade overseas.
Former DP's Tai Webster, Tai Wynayard and Jack Salt are all playing Div 1 NCAA.

No one said it was easy to entice players away from the breakers but nothing stops aussie teams atleast attempting to raid the talent the breakers have assembled at some point when they're free agents.

Its important for the breakers to hold onto and develop their local talent and they do just that. They've been brilliant for the NBL.

Their success has nothing to do with having and kind of advantage because they're the only team based out of a small country.

Yes & No.
As I pointed out elsewhere, various teams have gone through their golden patches.
NZ are well resourced, that will always put them ahead of say a Townsville. Plus success does attract talent. Just look at the Cats. Without dominating (except in a couple of patches) they have made 30 successive play-offs. There's not much you can do about that. I suspect that MU are starting to develop into a similar power club. Unfortunately if you want to have regional teams, unless you can get Clive Palmer on board, its hard to redress such advantages.

I do agree that they possibly have an attraction bonus when it comes to their local players. Aussie players don't seem to prefer their home states like NZ players prefer their country. SO yes, to that extent having a "National" team in our competition is probably nolonger acceptable.
I have said at length that a 2nd (and possibly third when Christchurch is fully rebuilt and has a decent venue) makes sense, for a number of reasons. Fact is that but for Neill's obstinance we might already have a Wellington team.

Besides, teams like NZ and Wildcats also demonstrate the benefits of building and maintaining a squad, instead of throwing the baby out every year and starting from scratch. Other teams should emulate that instead of bitching.

Ultimately this season, NZ players have stepped up when it matters most. If they win another flag it will be due to strength of character.

"theres 3-4, where did you get 7 from? look at the world cup roster"

Vukona, Abercrombie, Te Rangi, Bartlett, Webster and Ili all played in the Olympic qualifiers last year, while Pledger would have played if he wasn't injured. I'd say that's where they got seven from.

I'm not sure what the obsession, with how many Tall-Blacks they have, is all about?
If they were that good, they'd be playing in Europe and the NBA like most of the Boomers are. Lets not forget that the TB's PG is on the bench for Perth.