From memory I thought Farrahkan was somewhat average.

Farrahkan struggled in his first few games after joining the team part way through the season, then got going. At his best, he was good. He struggled again late in the season and didn't have much impact during the semi final series- from memory, he had injury niggles.

But in the middle stretch of the season- he averaged 14.4ppg over a 12 game stretch, scoring at least 9 points in every single game.

Farrahkan was- along with Wortho- the 2nd scoring option on that team.

It was basically Goulding or bust, but Farrakhan and Wortho were literally the only two other guys on the entire squad who were dangerous scorers. After that, you were looking at Lucas Walker- who had a career best year- Ballinger's jump shooting, and Morrison doing some work but only ever within 4 foot of the rim.

My recollection is also very different to LV's. The Farrakhan I watched had the occasional good game but mostly struggled and dropped out of favour.

As for comparing these two teams, one of them has yet to play a game in anger so at the moment it tells us nothing about the NBL! The game's not played on paper. Remember how far people said the league had come last season yet Perth and NZ were in the GF again.

The league looks to have taken another step forward this year but the proof will be in the pudding.

The league does look in good shape this year, but it has done so many other times in the last 30 years. The key is continued long term success. Until proven otherwise, this appears to be another bubble created by rich people with nothing remotely sustaimable.

How good was that Eddie Groves Bullets championship team? Or the firrpower kings? Or the Dragons?

Good point Paul- the game isn't played on paper. This season may well end up a disappointment for United, like 2014/15 was and like many claim that 2015/16 was.

But- with 6 or 7 teams looking talented and deep on paper, most with well credentialled NBL coaches, it's not a stretch to say the NBL has improved greatly since a few years ago, even without a regular season game having been played.

A few of these teams will turn their paper talent into seriously good basketball teams- the question is just "which ones?". If everything goes well, we might even have a super competitive league with 6 or 7 very good teams (by historical NBL standards of the past 10-15 years). Last year we had 5- and the talent levels have risen again.

Two differences before you even compare any past team to this season.

1. Now 3 imports rather than 2.

2. Marquee salary cap rule.

Also Paul, I don't think it's really fair to use the "Perth and NZ" argument with regards to last year.

Illawarra and Melbourne were both unlucky, in that they both drew the one semi final opponent that had beaten them badly during the regular season. For the Hawks, they had Lisch's injury to deal with during the semi finals as well. If the Hawks had drawn NZ for the semi finals- we might have seen a Illawarra vs Melbourne grand final- after all, from memory Illawarra swept NZ 4-0 and Melbourne beat Perth 3-1 during the season. A lot of this comes down to matchups.

Also, NZ only made the playoffs off the back of Randle's injury. They smashed Adelaide while Randle was missing, covering the head to head tie breaker line and then finishing two games clear while Adelaide kept losing during Randle’s absence.

Luck comes into it a lot, and no doubt Adelaide were given a tough blow with the NBL’s best player getting injured at a crucial point. There were probably about 5 teams who were favourites (or very close to it) at one point or another last season- that alone tells us how competitive things were. Not bad for an 8 team professional competition!

The point is: If Randle didn't get injured, it would have been very unlikely that NZ makes the playoffs. His injury opened the door for NZ. Adelaide had won 7 out of their past 8 games (including the game he got injured) and he was ripping it up, scoring over 25 points in the 6 games preceding the injury game. He gets injured and then they lose 4 games in a row and miss the playoffs.

He did come back for the last 2, but he didn't look 100% fit, and struggled to regain his form. It's a bit of a hard luck story, really.

And it was his hard luck that opened the door for NZ.

@ Joe- of course, the existence of multiple marquee players, and luxury tax type mechanism means we've gone from a hard cap (like say, AFL) to a soft cap (like NBA). And the extra imports make a difference too.

There could be other reasons too, perhaps struggling European economies and non-payments from clubs? These would make Australia a more preferable option to players in comparison, vs years ago. I remember Dave Barlow making some comments to that effect.

It's comparing a team who was a semi finalist in the NBL not long ago, with a team who is one of the 3 main favourites for this year's NBL. And showing how, on paper, this year's team is vastly, vastly, superior.

You could do the same exercise for any team (except Adelaide) and show how, on paper, they are superior to that Tigers team of 2013/14. Now- not every impressive "paper team" turns into a strong basketball team- but many do.

How many different ways can we discuss the same topic?

Yes, obviously the league has attracted on average a much higher calibre of player for this season.
What remains to be seen is:
Whether this actually improves the games,
Whether it gets more bums on seats,
Does it improve or diminish league balance, and
Is it sustainable.

Cos yes, we have have all seen the spurts occasioned by bored rich guys throwing their money (Or in the case of Sydney, other people's money) around for a couple of years, and ultimately they caused more harm than good.

Personally, I find the notion that "Better" Players equals "Better League" to be absolutely infantile.
Any idiot could hatch a plan to pay more money to players. Finding people to TAKE the money, has never been the NBL's problem.

What concerns me, is that considering Basketball has always lost money in this country, nobody has actually put forward a model for how the league is going to even break-even, let alone cover these increased costs. It's like the "Underpants Gnomes."
Step 1 is spend more money on players, Step 3 is make profit, and nobody has bothered to figure out step 2.

But Dazz, is making money even a realistic aim?

Consider that last year, only 6 clubs from the major football codes made any kind of profit, if you exclude the AFL.

In fact, From AFL, A League, NRL and Union, every single club in the country made a small profit (under 1 mil) or a loss. The only exceptions being Hawthorn, West Coast, Melbourne Victory and Brisbane Broncos.

To me, that says sport is just a tough business.

In other words, if most of the clubs in NRL, Union and A League are losing money, then what can basketball do differently in order to make money?

Sport seems to rely on wealthy people who do it for the love of the game. We should be thankful for them and hope LK sticks around as long as possible!

Oh and another thing- of the 11 clubs In the AFL who managed to make (mostly small) profits last year, most of them get revenue from pokies!

If it wasn't for the poor grandmas giving away their life savings on the slot machines, even AFL clubs would be in losses too. Sad, but true.

"If you exclude the AFL". Ha. Classic lv.

All of those other sports have a combination of general public support, crowds, television coverage, history and corporate ties that the nbl has never been able to compete with. Union is still in a growth phase professionally and is doing well. A league definitely relies on rich benefactors and the NRL probably has trouble coming long term.

No other professional league in the country (the world?) Has had anywhere near the turnover of clubs as the nbl. Its different worlds. That affects our ability to ever get close to the other sports on those above factors. And it aint happening any time soon

The problem is the reliance of getting bums on seats to make money. Its a very low glass ceiling given that hardly anyone plays out of an arena of 10k capacity or better.

Our NBL clubs need to find other income streams via merch, sponsors, & more diehards to support their team.

There's probably other revenues that could be explored as well.

I see s huge ratio of NBA merch getting around compared to NBL stuff. Thats the first thing that needs changing.

All true Cram. That's exactly my point. If, after 25 years straight economic growth in this country, well established clubs in big sports can't turn a profit, and those that do are relying on gambling revenue to subsidise their operations... Well it's naturally going to be very difficult for the NBL. My hope is that the league can be just viable enough to keep LK in the game

What concerns me, is that considering Basketball has always lost money in this country, nobody has actually put forward a model for how the league is going to even break-even, let alone cover these increased costs. It's like the "Underpants Gnomes."
Step 1 is spend more money on players, Step 3 is make profit, and nobody has bothered to figure out step 2.

"If you exclude the AFL".

There's probably other revenues that could be explored as well.