Is second tier reform possible?

MELBOURNE (Paulo Kennedy's View from Downunder) - If there's one thing no one in Australian basketball can agree on it's what the sport's second tier should look like.

The reality is we don't actually have a second tier, so the real debate is how do we create one?

While the NBL has had its issues, for nearly 35 years it has provided a clear top level competition for players to aspire to, and for nearly the past two decades a truly world class league to develop Aussie and Kiwi basketballers.

Under that - while New Zealand's NBL creates a reasonable division two-type competition - there are no other professional competitions in Australia.

Instead we have mostly association-based teams competing in state based competitions or the South East Australian Basketball League (SEABL).

The SEABL is the strongest of the competitions below the NBL, featuring the strongest clubs from powerhouse hoops state Victoria and its borders, along with a small handful of interstate competitors.

The next best is the Queensland Basketball League (QBL), which features teams from large regional cities like Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and Rockhampton as well as representatives from Brisbane and surrounds.

Both these comps have strong histories and are quality competitions in their own right. It's not surprising their clubs resist the idea of a true second tier league that would split up their existing structure.

But Australia needs something to bridge the large gulf between the NBL and the association-based competitions, which is so big for two main reasons.

The first is there are 28 teams in the SEABL and QBL, and a total of 75 once you factor in state leagues in New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia, all of which contain many players good enough to be playing in a true 'div 2' competition.

When there are only seven pro teams and the next level has 75 you know there is going to be a big discrepancy.

The second reason is the training.

Where NBL teams are fully professional - training and lifting weights pretty much every day, getting treatment on niggles, constantly watching tape of themselves and opponents to improve their games - most state leagues and SEABL teams only practice twice a week.

For those who don't pick up a pro gig after graduating from juniors or returning from college in the USA, keeping up with those who do is very difficult and many are lost to the sport.

So what's the answer?

One is for NBL clubs to run their own development league.

The benefits are obvious - it allows clubs to look at future recruits in both training and game settings, give their development players opportunities to play during the season and create a much stronger connection between local clubs and the pro team in their city.

The down side, of course, is cost. A number of NBL clubs are trying to stop a bit of financial bleeding as it is, the last thing they need is another cost to factor in.

One way of getting around this could be the development league running for only 12 games between October and December, meaning only six road trips.

It could be finished before Christmas with a Final Four or one-off grand final at the NBL All-Star weekend, or you even just award the championship to the top team.

That would allow teams to get a look at the next lot of players and expose those developing athletes to the pro system without imposing a ridiculous cost.

It's worth thinking about, although it is unlikely to happen any time soon, so another option is needed.

I would like to see the SEABL become the truly second tier competition and be modelled on the Euroleague, with participation a reward for excellence.

That would mean all clubs participate in state-based competitions earlier in the year - perhaps from February to early May - with SEABL playing after that, from late May to playoffs in late August.

(Equally state leagues could run from March to July and SEABL from August to November depending on what fits best)

All 15 current SEABL teams would be given A-licences, which they would be able to maintain similar to the Euroleague model. Provided they have strong grassroots numbers, adequate facilities and don’t finish near the bottom of their state league they stay in the SEABL.

The remaining nine spots would go to the best performing teams from the other state leagues - possibly three from Queensland and two each from New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria outside the nine teams with A-licences (I have left out Western Australia simply because of travel costs).

Teams competing in the SEABL might only be allowed one import, but they could recruit from other state league teams who have not qualified to ensure as many of the 'next best' players are competing.

The league could be formatted with four groups of six, playing a 10-game regular season over six weeks. The top three from each group move into two pools in the Top 12, playing five games in three weeks before moving into the playoffs.

There are still some questions, like what to do with the Tasmanian teams during the state league phase, but I think there are so many benefits to this that finding solutions to those issues is well worth the effort:
- the best teams in each state play in their local state leagues and the SEABL
- the best players outside the NBL, and NBL development players, then get to compete in a more elite competition
- it provides a pinnacle of club basketball, a national championship for all clubs to aim for
- and the history of our great local competitions gets preserved while also closing the gap between them and our professional league

It's worth considering, because the current model of playing the SEABL and state leagues parallel to each other isn't serving basketball well.

Paulo Kennedy

FIBA

FIBA's columnists write on a wide range of topics relating to basketball that are of interest to them. The opinions they express are their own and in no way reflect those of FIBA.

FIBA takes no responsibility and gives no guarantees, warranties or representations, implied or otherwise, for the content or accuracy of the content and opinion expressed in the above article.