It's basketball, but not as you know it

It took some time, but the long-anticipated review into basketball has been completed and presented to the basketball community.

It has been likened to the famous Crawford Report which brought about reform within football (then known as soccer.) That report was the catalyst for mass change and is essentially the reason why football is in such a commanding position today.

The basketball review rightly points out the huge disparity between the quality witnessed on the court and the support off the court. It also points out the huge participation and interest figures and how that, too, does not translate at the elite level.

Listed in the review are four key objectives for the next four years.

These include doubling player registrations to 500,000, an amicable target; being ranked by FIBA in the top three nations in the world, we’re already second so that can’t be too hard; and also reducing government funding to 25% or less.

But the big one is, obviously, the aim to become a “Top 3 recognized sport measured by viewers/attendees.”

Now there’s nothing wrong with being ambitious, however that sort of status does not happen by accident.

With the review now out there in the open, what needs to be of high priority is securing the leadership that has been all too nonexistent over the years. That’s what will ensure that the sport’s lofty ambitions will materialize. It may cost a stack, but that leadership should be sourced from one of the football codes.

After all, if basketball wants to become a top three sport, it has to start acting like a top three sport. Frank Lowy knew this when he hired John O’Neill to lead football’s new direction. Basketball needs to do the same.

(The principle of acting like a top three sport must surely also extend to venues. Can you imagine a top three sport playing out of a venue the size of The Cage?)

One aspect of the review that will help, although it flies in the face of reducing government funding, is the call for more international games and further engagement with Asia.

You just need to look at football and the Socceroos to see the benefits of having a marketable national team, that’s a no-brainer. But engagement with Asia could prove more crucial.

Again, football has shown the way on this one. They receive more funding from the federal government than any other sport mainly because of the bridges they pave with our Asian neighbours. Basketball’s immense popularity in the most important of Asian neighbours, China, will help win over Kevin Rudd if the sport can get it right. (So far, he's not complaining.)

However football can only show the way on some aspects of reform.

Following the A-League’s model is not a sure-fire way to gain a foothold in the market. There are some good pointers, like having strong leadership and making moves in Asia, but there is more to football’s story than meets the eye.

First of all, in the past week there has been a suggestion that the NBL as a brand has been so tainted by the events of the most recent off-season that it must re-brand. Names being thrown around include “The Big League” and “Premier Basketball.”

The A-League did it, so what’s the big deal?

Basketball shouldn’t be so quick to jump the gun. The NSL brand was tainted by ethnic-based clubs and the detrimental effect it had in the stands.

People legitimately thought “I’m not going to the NSL because there is a good chance there will be ethnic violence.”

I doubt the phrase “I’m not going to the NBL because they’ve lost the Kings and Bullets and they have a history of poor management” comes up much outside of Sydney and Brisbane. You’ve also got to doubt whether “Premier Basketball” would change any perceptions for the better.

It’s the same deal with the one-team, one-city rule. Many proponents view that as a way forward.

Again, the A-League did it, so what’s the big deal?

The A-League did it because in cities where multiple teams existed the only way those sides were able to differentiate from each other was through the ethnicities they were attached to.

In basketball, cross-town rivalry is a healthy thing. It’s not something you’d want to lose. Although some of the early plans for the new competition suggest that, in spite of all the benefits, local rivalry might have to give way.

Thankfully, the jump from the NBL to the new league (whatever it may be called) will be bigger than most thought. It will not be a “cull” but rather an entirely new league. Existing NBL clubs will need to apply for a new license.

It may end up being a case of whoever has the money is in. At this stage, it is all mere speculation.

Another A-League trait that should be snubbed is the willingness to jump into bed with Fox. This blogger suspects the troubles over in Perth can be attributed to the low pay TV take-up rates out west.

Changes to the multi-channeling abilities of free-to-air networks that come into effect next year will provide a neat alternative. That appears to be the path netball has decided to go down.

Of course there is a lot of work still to be done. The review has provided the blueprint, now it is time to put that plan into action.

And it’s not as if the new governing body will have nothing to work with.

There have been positive signs all over the NBL in the first couple of weeks. The expected increase in competitiveness has been truly evident; in round two, four out of the six games saw the underdog get up.

Crowds in Townsville, Adelaide and Perth have hit the 4,000 mark. The Dragons will join them in a couple of weeks with the local derby and Cairns have nudged the figure. New South Wales and Southeast Queensland remain the biggest concerns, but change is still on the way in these markets.

Regardless, the review has set out a number of important goals. Getting the next few years right will be absolutely critical, but so far – with the sport united in the quest for a new direction – things are on the right track.

With the right leadership and attention to detail, basketball in Australia can go a long way.