Knight was replaced by Steindl. They'd have to sack Cooke and they clearly don't want to, even if the need to replace him was obvious from week one.

Kermit.jpg

Next Sunday is Perth's seventh-last game of the season. If they were to make a change, it needs to be before next Sunday's game in Sydney.

Nice one, lads.

Actually, do they have to play 7 or just be registered?

Just wait till they win the title with Cooke. Then all you fools may stay silent.

Cooke isn't the problem. Inconsistency and poor performances from the bench is more of a concern. Not enough contributions. Too much pressure on Cotton and Tokoto.

Actually, do they have to play 7 or just be registered?

Suck it up. Beaten by a better team and a better coach.

I remember people taking about 8 in the past. Whether that was true or false, don't know. But it's definitely seven these days (25 per cent of season)

Source?

The discussion has always been whether it's "must play at least 25%" or "must play more than 25%".

http://www.taipans.com/news/article/33290-cquniversity-cairns-taipans-sign-tony-mitchell

Third-last paragraph

I recall it being that he had to suit up for all eight and thus there was a rush to get him in uniform at Perth.

Dunno, Kobe. I have no more info.

Remember Alan Wiggins? The guy who came before Childress. God almighty, just remembered that actually happened haha. Perth should get him.

That's completely nonsensical, so it's probably right.

Jameel doing anything at the moment?

Would anyone be happy if Jeremy Tyler was suiting for the Wildcats? You can imagine that he'd be read the riot act before he signed, if he was planning on not training or being disharmonious to the team but he is quality offensively and something that's needed.

I don't mind seeing Perth lose home games but that game was boring for a lot of it and we need some extra excitement.

I thought Alan Wiggins broke his arm, is that all fully healed now has it?

This thread is essentially:

ATTN: Wildcats HQ We are struggling to buy the championship this year, buy harder

I get that teams chop and change imports, but we need to have the cutoff point WAY earlier in the season to avoid this kind of BS.

It's a cop-out and generally boring if the championship just goes to the most resourced team who chop and changes throughout the season until they've found the stud import combo to win it all. *Especially* if we don't have a hardcap and even more *especially* if those spending way more don't put into the equalisation pool.

I don't spend money on NBL tickets to play along with a tilted league with a predisposition of Perth and Melbourne winning the championship every year.

As an NBL fan, I demand there's a reasonable chance that over time all teams are able to compete and are legitimate championship prospects during periods.

Otherwise, what's the point? If the league is going to be predisposed to resourced teams buying during the season until they've got the best sides, why don't we just have the grand final between the most resourced and be done with it?

This leads me to the provocative nature of this thread:

At this point in the year, a 36ers or Cairns or Brisbane fan etc. would go "these players need to get it together".

This thread in a very Perth fan way says "I don't think these guys can win it all, let's buy a new guy so that we will".

Let's kill Perth/Melbourne fans dreams of buying championships and move the import cutoff date far earlier so that if they screw up in recruitment or team chemistry, they just gotta deal like everyone else.

And if a team gets an injury, they're screwed.

Additionally, it's been pretty obvious since Knight retired that the move needed to be made.

That dilemma exists currently anyway. If an import goes down after the cutoff point then they're done for the season and even if they made the playoffs, an injured team would be undermanned and essentially screwed.

When a team gets injuries, it does affect them, that's kind of how sports work.

In the AFL [or any other sport] if you're gutted by injuries you either have depth or you take the hit for the year.

Maybe NBL teams will start recruiting for more depth, planning better rotations and perhaps selecting younger players to avoid injury dilemmas [which they should be trying to do anyway as a risk mitigation/limit future lawsuits/player welfare approach].

Teams can adapt to conditions such as injury risk, so moving the cutoff date forward a month or two would be significantly more beneficial in avoiding Perth & Melbourne's yearly blatant "buy the championship attempt" than damaging to a side with injuries.

That's on behalf of a 36ers fan who's had an undermanned side for the past month!

I don't mind player switching during the season, whether it be due to injury or incompetence - it just needs to be brought forward a couple of months.

You conveniently removed "have depth".

You know what may also become a fast way to turn supporters? If it becomes a league where you know who will win each year.

The past 8 title winners have been Perth and NZ because they've been the resourced clubs aside from Melbourne [who spent the time pulling NYKnicks incompetence].

You don't change a good thing when it's going well. When it isn't going well? You switch things up. That's what they did last year, aka, bought the championship. That's exactly what this thread is asking to do this year.

You don't have a league if it's only 2-3 teams who ever have a real shot at it. If the system is so heavily weighted in favour of the resourced, the entertainment value goes out the door. In a period of 8-10 years you need more than 2-3 teams being successful, it's just not good enough of a league/system otherwise. The NBL needs to satisfy 5+ markets, not 2 or 3.

This isn't Perth, NZ or Melbourne's issue, this is the NBL's issue. There will always be lesser resourced clubs, it's important the league is structured in a way that they aren't perpetually fodder or "doomed" to lose, otherwise where's the entertainment and what's the point. Even more importantly, why would I bother spending money if it's going to be so designed and predisposed towards a couple of clubs?

It's all well and good if you're a Perth fan or a NZ fan etc. to love the current system because you're always winning. When it boils down to it though, that can't be the case every year for the forseeable existence, it just won't work.

Can't say I agree with you on this one. KET.

It's a tradeoff between giving too much flexibility to clubs with extra money, and killing the chances of a team that cops an injury to a key player in the latter part of the season.
Personally I think they've got it about right. It's pretty unusual for a team that's had an import for this long into a season to swap them out for purely performance reasons. Even if the Cats do it, it would still be an outlier situation IMO and not worth changing the rule over. Especially considering what a risk it would be if they did pull the trigger now. They'd want to absolutely certain about what they were signing up, considering the established chemistry that they'd kill & need to rebuild in a short time with such a move.
Meanwhile, losing a star right now and being unable to replace them is pretty much fatal to a team in the finals equation. That's something we want to avoid until as late in the season as is practical.

melbourne struggled to beat a poorly performaning Perth team.

Perth are in a slump with just enough time to turn it around for playoffs.

No one needs to panic.

Bench upgrade an absolute must next season.
NZ, Melbourne and Adelaide all have much better performing benches.

Rules are there for everyone.
If any other team makes a change to imports before the deadline no one cares but if Perth were to change ( Cooke ) all hell breaks loose and people say Perth are buying a championship.

Hogwash: That's a little like saying tax benefits for owning multiple homes is "available for everyone", well yeah, with the major caveat being those who can afford it.

Simply put, most teams can't afford to to manipulate their lineup like that. "Tough luck" doesn't really cut it as an answer when the whole point is to be a league, not just a couple of teams with moola.

#665967: It's not ideal for major injuries to occur. We have a deadline in place - Injuries don't just decide to take place prior to that, they can very well occur after and decimate the team anyway. That would then be an argument to abolish the deadline at all. But we wouldn't for many of the reasons which support narrowing chances of teams manipulating squads far into the season to win a championship.

I think the NBL is performing incredibly strongly, i'm not supposing the rules have weakened the league yet - what I am supposing is it very well could in the future. If we have say, ten years, of three teams dominating because they either a] have the resources to make a side that crushes the rest in the offseason or b] keep trying until they buy someone who destroys the rest of the league when it counts at the end of the season, then that does become an issue.

Perth have been a little bit of a and a little bit of b. We can't have that continuing every year for the next decade. It's not an anti-Perth sentiment, it's an "I want the NBL to succeed and thrive" sentiment. 2-3 teams dominating over 10 years simply does not cut it if you're selling to 5+ markets. It won't hold water over a long period like it does now.


#665957 Since 98, every team in the AFL with exception of the newly Giants/GC, have made the grand-final. That's a pretty good cycle for a league of 16-18.

Luuuc: I agree, it is a trade-off.
I would propose exceptions for injury, but that would make for a spike of "injuries" late in the season.

Obviously i'm a big fan of Cottons, and I think it's good to be able to attract that kind of talent at anytime as the league grows. Where the trade-off needs to be considered, is a few years down the line where a) the wide gap between resourced and non-resourced will be exposed if the same few consistently make playoffs a decade in a row and b) we have higher standards for the NBL generally.

I do think it will be an issue if the same 2-3 teams [and I think that'll include Sydney when they stop doing a NYKnicks/MelbUtd] find a way to use their resources to be playoffs every year, including buying a stud last minute. There has to be something to equalise the situation, otherwise it's the same story each year and that's not entertaining to anyone outside of the markets with resourced teams. I just don't see that as a sustainable concept for the league.

The 25% rule is a hangover from the era of 2 imports per team, Asian players being imports, a hard salary cap and a player points system. There's now no hard salary cap, no player points system, teams can have 3 imports and they get one Asian player deemed not to be an import.

So do 3 imports and the extra Asian player reduce the risk that losing one player is 'season-defining'?

Should the 25% threshold be increased for teams who spend over the soft salary cap? Should it be tied to a hard salary cap by not allowing a change in imports that would send a team over that hard cap?

665980
One would suggest allowing resourced teams to have such a competitive advantage would be to shoot the league in the foot.

Let's not pretend that save for New York Knicks/Real Madrid style incompetence, the most resourced teams over a long term in this system will perpetually succeed. That will shutout the rest of the markets, effectively ruining the league.

The same teams succeeding every year won't work after a decade or two. Other markets will diminish and die or go bankrupt trying to keep up.

The Wildcats didn't release Johnson by choice before they signed Cotton last year, and the two most successful clubs this decade after NZ and Perth are Illawarra and Cairns.

The crowds in Cairns and Illawarra aren't suffering.

This current decade 2010-present:

Perth - 4 titles + 2 other GF's
NZ - 4 titles + 1 other GF

Cairns - 2 GF's
Illawarra - 2 GF's

Look over there!

Eh that was in response to KR's somewhat asinine point.

It wasn't asinine at all. The lowest-spending clubs have been more successful than the highest-spending clubs. Perth and NZ have been successful retaining and building a core, not throwing money at different players until they find something that works.

So you're saying NZ and Perth aren't high-spending clubs?

That must be a joke, right?

You're like the Chelsea/Man U/Man City fan who goes "Leicester City won it so it's not all about the money".

When you've got 8 championships the last decade between 2 sides, the point really makes itself.

In the NBL, resources = wins; therefore more resourced teams = win; less resourced teams = lose. Answer to that equation is if you're a less resourced team, why bother competing?

Lower resourced teams can't just go "this player sucks, lets get an amazing one" towards the end of the season when they're losing. Higher resourced teams can. That's an anti-competitive/inequality issue in a league which thrives on entertainment through competition. You take out the competition, you take out the entertainment, you take out the league.

...and the NBL can't just survive on "I'm a Perth/NZ fan and I am entertained by my team winning all the time, so the NBL is fine there's no issue here."

We might see things this year and last year in terms of competitiveness and say "everythings great!" but the system can be easily manipulated exactly like this thread suggests, manipulated by a significantly advantage to resourced teams - so who's to say that won't happen in the future? Who's to say the resourced clubs won't take advantage of an opportunity to create a clear discrepancy?

If you're doing not so well - why wouldn't you pay up big last minute to get a better player if you can afford it? The system literally invites the resource gap to affect results.

So you're saying NZ and Perth aren't high-spending clubs?
That must be a joke, right?

I'd have them in a tier below Sydney and Melbourne. They're certainly not "throwmmoney around until something works" types, which is what KET is trying to prevent.

Perth and nz succes is/was based on extremely good local cores. Players possibly not taking more elsewhere to be part of what was being built, i think its called culture. Yes funds help, but i dont think you cam say perth or nz went a purchased the biggest well known imports with big names or nba experience. Prather, beal, mckay hadnt made nba, cotton had 20 odd games.

What perth did dobis succesfully market their product and move from a 3000 seat stadium to a 13000 seat stadium. Their marketing is excellent,thier game night entertainment possibly league leading.

To say the only reason perth and nz are successful is the embarassment of riches is understating the importance of a well run club and the local foundation of players.

Koberulz, I don't think we want our system being subject to that by any team.

In this case, Perth did it last year with Cotton, and this thread was started on the premise of doing the same thing again.

So that's not to say Perth have done it for a decade, they've mostly/almost entirely got it right at the start of the season [hence my little bit of a, little bit of b comment].

KET, if you get to re-write the rules then what do you go with?

In this case, Perth did it last year with Cotton

Luuuc, push the deadline forward a month

Guys like Hire,Kenny and few others need to be let go

Some people just don't get it.

Replacing Hire (who was injured anyway, plus isn't going anywhere), Kenny, DKD, etc, mya sound great in theory,
but firstly there isn't that much NBL quality Aussie talent just sitting around,
and secondly trying to swap out your bottom-dollar bench-warmers isn't going to make much difference yesterday.

Last night we actually saw what should be happening. In an effort to curb Boone's influence, we started with our Stud Import Centre, with Brandt tag-teaming off the bench.
Unfortunately, our import stud is a dud.

Realistically, the only options teams have to improve their roster mid-season is to find a new import.
If DCJ was an aussie, teams would have been fighting for his services, but he's not. Abd the Cats need more from their import. Simples.

Tire of people defending him whenever he pads his stats in junk-time against undermanned teams. Champions step up in touch games like last night.
JP put in an MVP worthy performance, Cotton (whilst inaccurate) never gave up trying, Damo was flying everywhere, even Kenny was throwing himself in (to not great effect but he was having a crack).

Even before he fell on his arse, DCJ was MIA, he just looked lost, constantly out of position. He's clearly a good athlete, but should go back to playing Football because he knows sod all about basketball.

Also, not sure where the confusion is, its there in the rules:

66. Player Eligibility for NBL Finals
66.1.
No player may play in the NBL Finals without having been on the Active Player List for at least or more than 25% of regular season games for his then registered NBL Club in that season.

So its 25%, ie 7 games, and they only have to be on the active player list.

I'm happy that it's 25 per cent for that particular club. Was thinking that if Perth were desperate they could get Jeremy Tyler 2 days before the playoffs because he was registered with the Kings for more than 25 per cent

Where'd you find the written rule?

Why on earth would Perth want Tyler? Even Sydney drew the line on that dude!

Tyler can play ball and score, I wouldn't get a import to play a role. Need the imports to be impact player's.

I would give a Aussie a chance to be a role player.

I get that Tyler is undesirable, but my thought was that if Perth missed out on getting a new guy before the 25% threshold, and found that they desperately needed an import a couple games before playoffs then they could look for guys who have already played NBL this season. But seeing as the rule applies to players playing 25% for that club, Perth doesn't qualify as Tyler played in Sydney

I see what you mean now Manu, fair call.

Perth are much better off with Cooke than Tyler, he might be able to score, but the only place he'd be valuable in his current persona is in a one-on-one league.

Maybe they view him as a long-term prospect?
He certainly hasn't delivered this year, but maybe can improve with time?

I called it after the first game.

Well this is happening again.

Surely they don't get a pass two years running.

Fire up.

That's what we thought last year.

Point taken but the one underlying theme remains - they are cheapening out on us.

#cheapout