36ers-Hawks was my first live game in a while. Game length felt right.

Problem is more the 11-player rosters which was brought in to appease the players union over adding an import. And as it is and with the Crocs gone, third imports have hardly done much.

Play the game that FIBA plays. At the moment that is 40 minutes.

You are not going to get much more for your extra 8 minutes. It is either the same first five grinding it out at less capacity or the bench filling time in the middle.

I like the 3 imports, it keeps the standard reasonably good when players are injured.

I think we should return to 48 minutes, that combined with some tweaks in referring/rules to allow the offense some space will mean more 100+ point games and more 20+ ppg players.

At the moment only 2 players in the entire league are averaging over 20ppg (Randle, Prather). Back in the 05/06 era, the 36ers alone had 3 players averaging 20+ppg! (Farley/Maher/Rychart)

People like stats, story lines and narratives to go along with the game itself. Players scoring 14-17ppg and games between 74-89 points per team just doesn't do it. This round, no team scored above 90!

I'm not saying we should throw away defence and turn it into the Harlem Globetrotters v Washington Generals, but if we are serious about actually attempting to get the NBL more popular with the mainstream acknowledging sports is an entertainment product, 48 minutes is the way to go.

I think FIBA are probably tilting towards that change anyway.

Given LK has taken over production of NBL and Fox Sports 3 these days essentially showing NBL all day every day, I can't imagine 2 and a half hour games is going to stop Fox or SBS showing the NBL. I would probably suggest the inclusion of a couple of 20 second time outs and reduction of a full time out, I think they could add to the game and momentum too. In the future the NBL could have a 3 hour timeslot with half an hour pre-game, or 15 minute pre-game and 15 minute post-game (that builds in for potential overtime too to not impede on a doubleheader or "the news"/whatever show is on next).

I just don't see 40 minute games cutting it.

F#ck FIBA, play NBA rules..

A multi billion dollar money making machine knows what gets bums on the seats and casual fans.. $$$

With 70 years of experience and lots of lean years during the start, I'd say they know what works now..

I agree with the "F#ck FIBA" sentiment, but I don't think that necessarily means we just blindly copy what the NBA does either. (What those fans want might not = what our fans want)
But ultimately it is more important that this league survives than mirrors FIBA. We still need to retain some resemblance to the sport of international basketball, but something minor like adjusting game time is no problem in that regard.

Personally I'm fine with 40 minute games, but I'll happily support the league if it returns to 48 as well, therefore I'm not someone whose opinion needs to be considered here.

Play the game that FIBA plays

The only thing you can think of makes no sense to me whatsoever. Are you referring to tennis?

Does '28' have any meaning in tennis, Dazz?

Yes! I hate that we don't get to see any grind out games anymore, the depth is now good enough for 12min quarters. Along with the terrible reffing its my biggest complaint with the NBL.

Aesthetics-wise, I favour the 12 minute quarter with final of regulation 48 minute scores hovering around 100. This also translates to player statistics where you expect leading scorers averaging 30 PPG, rebounders 12 RPG, etc.

Honestly, the first time NBL switched to 10 minutes quarters, the lower scores and statistics were very off-putting to me. It gave the impression of the NBL filled with weaker players compared to the previous generation that played 48 minutes.

In saying that, I did get used to the scores/statistics now. Also I don't mind the shorter length of the games particularly when its one of those ugly, slog-fest, bricklaying sessions vs. zone defence.

So I'm 50-50 on this one.

Luckily we've had Randle hovering around 25, any league where your best scorer is only around 20ppg and the rest in the mid to high 10's signals shit league, not entertaining.

It doesn't signal that Ricky.

It signals:

#1 8 minutes less of substance time which equates to about 12-16 less points (therefore all 6 games played last round would have had a team reaching around 100 points)

#2 A league with relatively even talent so there is less good beating up on the crap. We have a lot of good players in this league, not a lot of crap ones.

#3 A physical league (Australians tend to play sports very physically, it's a culture based thing)

#4 Rules don't give the offence enough space to do their thing making it harder to score

#5 More tactical games - perhaps we see the shotclock run down a little further then NBA on plays and more offensive movement with less run and gun or isolationist 1v5

I do wonder what NBL shooting percentages are when wide open mid range or outside the perimeter though. That and free throw shooting have in the past not being quite where they should be for a professional league.

Good league, just could be *more* entertaining

I agree with your points as a fellow follower of the league, but I think from an outsiders point of view, they would make the negative assumptions quite quickly based on scores and stats without knowing how good the league really is.

Poor choice of kits for sure.. shouldn't be that hard to get home teams to wear their main color and away teams to wear the white / black versions of their kit.

Changing the game length by 8 minutes will only have a small effect on entertainment. The narratives, higher scorers and so on will be good, but I'd rather have more trash talk and that in the game. That's far more entertaining than somebody scoring an extra 4 points a game

Agreed Anon, the Hawks v Perth red v red situation is one of those things which shows the NBL lacks polish.

Ricey, you don't even hear about much trash talk in the NBA post-Garnett era. They are professionals, not streetballers