Assuming that Jeff Van Groningen did play his cards close to his chest however (and he claims as much in his interview with Inside the Game), the NBL/BA must surely be mulling their options right now with regard to this upstart, which has been dubbed by some in the media as “the 20/20 of basketball.” To save them the time involved, I’ve done the work for them and prepared a quick analysis of the pros and cons involved with ECB’s new plot on the basketball calendar.
Before taking a public stance on the High Stakes Hoops tournament, the following would have to be considered to be the potential consequences for the NBL/BA.
PRO
Free Talent Evaluation: Any time someone else is willing to pay for a public tournament, providing a talent evaluation opportunity for you clubs, an organisation like the NBL (which is notoriously short on funds) really needs to think twice before looking that gift horse in the mouth. A five day tournament offers an opportunity for league executives to treat the eight teams as a form of mini summer league (to steal the NBA parlance). Without a doubt, the NBL will be unlikely to allow any current players on contract to join the tourney, so the players on show will be up-and-comers from Australia, former NBL players and potential import signings. All of that amounts to a nice little showcase of players that could be signed by NBL teams.
Free Marketing for Basketball: Once again, that gift horse. There is a huge outcry in the diehard basketball community that one of the things lacking in Aussie basketball is marketing. A new body, which is willing to shell out dollars to promote the game of basketball in whatever form it may be, is undoubtedly a good thing for the sport as a whole. It raises awareness of the game. It raises understanding of the rules. And perhaps most importantly, it puts the sport under the nose of a public that inundated with entertainment options in the information age that we live in. Getting the game onto live free-to-air television (through One HD) brings into play a whole new segment of the market that does not currently have access to the televised form of the game.
Opportunity to Trial Rule Changes: Whilst it has been made fairly clear by Larry Sengstock that the NBL’s objective is to align its rules as closely with FIBA’s as possible, there has to be some merit in considering the impact of potential changes to the way the NBL game is played. At the end of the day, the NBL is a domestic professional league, which is a distinct beast to the amateur international representative game. Most leagues around the world have their own rule tweaks and distinctive playing styles which differ from the FIBA game, so doing the same in Australia is not necessarily a harmful thing to the Boomers, within reason. If the High Stakes Hoops league wants to bring back jump balls, bring back 48 minute games and showcase some elaborate crowd-drawing features such as “Game Breakers,” then let them do that. And BA can watch on and gauge the success, or otherwise, of those rule changes — at no cost.
Involvement = Show of Goodwill: There are all too many fans in the Australian sporting community who have been happy to bad-mouth the NBL as a joke over the past decade. They’ve labelled it everything from irrelevant to invisible. Winning back the goodwill of the early-90s-loving public is one of the hardest tasks that Sengstock and the BA board have on their hands. By supporting a venture like this which is innovative and exciting, the establishment shows that they are willing to change and that they are willing to see put every bid in to bring back the fun for the fans. Being involved has very little cost — a quick article now and then on the BA/NBL websites would suffice to indicate a show of support for the tournament. On the other hand, the reward could be quite large indeed.
CON
Potential Loss of Revenue: Within a five day span there is a minimal chance of revenue loss by NBL clubs. At the very worst, some families might attend the tournament and then not show up for the next Adelaide 36ers home game in order to afford the tickets. Outside of that, I can not see any short-term revenue loss involved. If on the other hand, the NBL sees this tournament as a long-term threat to the league, with the potential to become a full-blown season-long competition, then there may be lengthier concerns on revenue loss. Given the current nature of the tournament, revenue loss does not seem to be an issue.
Potential Talent Drainage: As with the revenue loss issue, this is a minimal risk in the short term. Players contracted to NBL clubs will only be part of the tournament should they be released by their respective clubs to do so. Once again, losing players to the NBL is only going to be an issue down the track if High Stakes Hoops becomes a bigger beast than what it is now. As mentioned by Van Groningen during his interview with the Inside the Game‘s Brett Maher and Kevin Brooks, this is a very different game to the NBL game and is not intended as a competitor to the NBL. Whilst that point is debatable, as this could be seen by some as a cold run at building a rebel league down the track, it is certainly true right now.
At Odds with FIBA Rules: One fear within the ranks of BA might be the fact that the tournament will take on rules well outside of the normal realms of FIBA rules. If the altered rules become attractive to the public, the push to adopt them in the NBL may become a hinderance to BA as they try to rebuild the image of the league, whilst maintaining congruence with the FIBA game. My response to this concern would be to remember that this is a five-game tournament, which is seen as a novelty event and that experimentation with rule changes is not necessarily a bad thing — particularly when the cost of that experimentation is borne by someone else.
Involvement by BA May Lend Credibility: This is probably the biggest con in the minds of the BA board. Should the BA aid in the promotion of this tournament they will lend credibility to it as a legitimate part of the basketball fraternity. That credibility may be a seal of approval for something that they would rather see fail down the track, should it become a direct competitor to the NBL at some point. Of course, this would be a very short-sighted approach given the potential benefits listed above.
ANYTHING ELSE?
I am sure that there are a host of other pros and cons that I’ve missed here. Feel free to add your suggestions below.
UPDATE: Some thoughts were passed onto me by Mili Simic (Wollongong Hawks’ web extraordinaire) on the scheduled dates for High Stake Hoops. Bearing in mind that the tournament will be played from 6-11 April, 2010, it’s worth noting that SEABL Round 4 is played from 7-11 April and that the New Zealand NBL has games from 9-11 April. Both of those leagues are potential sources of players for this tournament. One other big potential source of quality players would be Aussie players with NCAA programs — the last day of classes for those NCAA students would be approximately 30 April. How this will fit with the tournament will be interesting.
