Basketball On The Internet.

GATHER around the campfire now to hear a tale of a mythical league and its clever endeavor for avoiding rorting - a simple measure it chose to call the "Player Points System".

Before I go any further though, let me say this is NOT a story about the popular pioneer Thomas Daly or the booming talent of sun-loving Brendan Teys, though they shall feature prominently.

This is merely a cautionary tale of what can happen when you have a system based on maths and false premises with a "one size fits all" mentality.

In three words? You promote mediocrity.

But let's start at the end and go back to the beginning.

The end point is this. Daly is currently rated a "3" point player by the NBL.

His hometown team, the Adelaide 36ers - like all eight NBL teams - is allowed a maximum of 70 points.

The Sixers have 22 points of PPS space left. To bring in two imports, they will use up 20 points because imports always attract the maximum of 10 points in their debut season.

(*Remember the 'one size fits all'?)

Even if one of those imports happens to come from a lesser second-tier competition and has spent 10 years there, he will still attract the maximum 10 points, same as a Jonny Flynn straight out of the NBA.

Because? (One size fits all.)

So assuming the 36ers bring in two imports, they will have used 20 of their remaining 22 points, leaving just two.

So Daly, a development player who is now rated as a three, cannot make the team.

Instead Teys, who is rated as a "1", can come into the team.

Now if this ratings system is to be believed, Daly has to be a better player than Teys because no matter how you boil it down, 3 is more than 1.

Stop right there!

Remember, I said this is NOT about Daly and/or Teys so please, no frantic emails defending either or attacking the other. They are merely the example available this second.

We can all make the case Teys should not be a one and may even be better than Daly. After all, which one of them was invited to the last Boomers squad camp?

That's why those direct comparisions are spurious and this not meant as any sort of reflection on either player and two terrific young men.

It is meant to point to the anomalies of a system introduced a decade ago to, alongside a non-policed salary cap, ensure parity across the NBL.

Has it done that?

Even operations manager Chuck Harmison recently was moved to ask that question when confronted last year with the prospect of an NBL season where every tipster - EVERY tipster - accurately predicted a New Zealand-Perth Grand Final.

That's before the season began.

How could that be if the PPS has produced parity? Surely over a decade we should have parity now.

When Basketball Australia took over running the NBL, it noted the league was "old" so introduced the compulsory under-23 player rule which meant every club had to have one under-23 on its 10-man team.

You can see where BA was coming from with that and the intention was good. But seriously. To dictate to pro teams investing money into their product that they had to have a junior on their bench was beyond absurd.

Now I am not an advocate for or against the Player Points System, though my personal preference would be for a realistic salary cap, properly policed, and maybe consideration of a soccer-style allowance for a star player outside the cap.

But such a process needs a lot of thought because history has shown us clubs can become suicidally reckless in pursuit of the championship and go bust relatively quickly.

I am sure recent examples aren't hard to find.

I recognise the PPS has a Points Appeal Panel comprised of representatives of the NBL Players Association, NBL management and an independent chairman with a basketball background and no club affiliation.

They clearly are bound though by the rules which are in place which, supposedly, eliminate emotion from the ratings debate.

Therein lies the problem. Sport is all about emotion!

You take that out and there's no point to a scoreboard or stats or any of the resources we use to explain why Team A is better than Team B or why LeBron is better than Kobe.

It's all about emotion.

To make a PPS work, it needs a panel of reasonable men NOT restricted by maths, stats and rules and able to distinguish what is fair and equitable.

For example, if a guy can make it back from a potentially career-ending injury, should he still be at maximum points?

Simple stuff like that.

No system is bulletproof or infallible. But factor out emotion and all you ask for is endless criticism and scrutiny. Just look at the AFL reporting procedures.

The NBL next season will follow the guidelines of its predecessor because it has no option.

Clubs have been recruiting on the basis of the salary cap and PPS so that can't be changed now. But for 2014-15 when the new-NBL is in full control of its destiny?

It will need another panel of reasonable men to determine what has worked and what has been a band-aid on a gaping wound.

In the meantime, players such as Tom Daly can go look for another place to play.