Basketball On The Internet.

MOST of us believe the NBL in the restructured form we will soon see revealed, has only this chance to "get it right".

The league has been around since 1979 and not too many sports can boast a national competition 34 years old with 35 seasons under its belt, without overlooking the host of clubs to have fallen by the wayside since that first meeting in the airport hangar a long, long time ago.

The birth of the NBL was driven by the clubs themselves and by men of vision and passion, NEVER by the Australian Basketball Federation, as Basketball Australia was then known.

BA was then, as it is now, chasing international success (often to guarantee its funding), focusing on broadening its participation base and keeping its state associations happy.

As Jerry Seinfeld and cohorts would add: Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Nearly four decades later, little has changed.

BA's priorities still have little to do with supporting a pro league in Australia, even though no less a luminary than current Boomers coach Andrej Lemanis recently also repeated something we all know but which a few key figures appear to have forgotten.

That is, a strong national team needs a strong national league.

(No, it is not ESSENTIAL - just look at Canada - but it is extremely important.)

BA can - and will - take a lot of credit for saving the league some four years ago when irresponsible ownerships drove it into a hole of such magnitude, few could even still see daylight.

The free-to-air TV deal, the eventual return of the Sydney Kings ... BA can take some bows, for sure.

But no-one should overlook either that BA tried to turn the NBL into something very self-serving, with a return to FIBA's 40-minute game from the 48-minute format fans nationwide clearly loved.

Fan opinion made no difference once BA decided 40 minutes would help the Boomers internationally. Say what?

Or how about the insistence on an under-23 player per 10-man rotation?

So yes, let us be grateful BA stepped in and saved the day but let us be equally clear this de-merger had to happen if the NBL was to survive and thrive as a professional competition.

When the CEO of BA, Kristina Keneally, reveals she believes "the NBL is not sustainable in its present form" then you have one of two courses left to you.

ONE. The league splits away to again control itself, taking a genuine run at being a quality pro competition, possibly even incorporating rules to make the game a more spectacular entertainment option.

You know, it can do things such as re-introduce jumpballs for example, 12-minute quarters, a colored ball - whatever it perceives it needs to put extra bums on seats.

If that means divurging from the purest form of the game, so be it.

As I said in the opening paragraph, most of us believe this demerger represents the NBL's one last real chance at not just grabbing mainstream Australia's attention, but of retaining it.

Basketball has grabbed attention before. Attention spans these days are brief.

TWO. BA controls the league and returns it to what it responsibly believes IS a sustainable model - the semi-pro model of the SEABL today or the NBL of 1979-early 80s.

Andrew Gaze, now a BA Board member, advocated something along the SEABL lines, with promotion/relegation a while back and when you look at how many NBL clubs have gone to the wall, you can make that case.

(Interesting he never made such assertions when he was racking up 600-plus NBL games in the league's halcyon days but viewpoints are allowed to change.)

But here's the thing. If eight clubs (just as the original 10 were prepared to do in 1979 when BA didn't really want to take on the responsibility of a weekly national competition) are prepared to take on the risk, then why not just let them?

If the new NBL Pty Ltd prospers with the savvy consultation of a proven heavyweight such as Tony Cochrane and even expands to 10 teams in 2014-15 with Brisbane and a second Melbourne team (or more with Wellington Saints), then we should all be celebrating.

If the new NBL has a red-hot go but cannot stake a claim on the national sports psyche, then so be it too.

Then BA can pick up the ball, continue the competition as a surrogate SEABL, with part-time players working during the week, showing us their skills on the weekends.

Realistically, it is a win-win.

That's why when an email from BACEOKK "leaks" to the media and creates conclusions such as the forthcoming NBL season being at risk of being "scrapped," you have to wonder about the leaker's motivation.

When BA declares if the demerger collapses and it is forced to again assume control it will require a $250,000 bank guarantee PLUS a $150,000 marketing levy - look how well BA has marketed Kyrie Irving being in Australia - then you must suspect BA wants this "not sustainable" model to fail.

What owner of a pro team is going to hand BA $400,000 for its coffers? So then the league as we know it would fold and BA could run its SEABL model. Neat.

Maybe as a governing body BA believes it is acting responsibly and yes, it does need to protect itself from contracts entered into when it ran the NBL. Again too, when you look at the charred remains of so many clubs over the years, you can make the case BA is acting responsibly.

But how about they let option ONE run its course and wait to see how that pans out?

Option TWO is a safety-net option where - who knows for certain? - the sport may end up.

But it also may not, so why not let those bold enough to have a crack do it without the spectre of sabotage and subterfuge?

A COUPLE of final points.

The SEABL has been and continues to be the best run national competition in Australian basketball.

Yes, it has had its screw ups too but consistently it gives its fans the competition they want and does it professionally.

Why would it want to get under BA's rule?

And two, how does the WNBL sustain itself?

Rarely do you see a bigger crowd than 500, even though it is a super competition and one of the best in the world.

How about BA leaves the NBL alone to do its thing and either follows option ONE with its WNBL - e.g. treats it like the quality competition it is and sinks some $$$ into its proper marketing and promotion - or entertains option TWO, a SEABL-model the Australian marketplace and cash-strapped clubs may better accept?

Just a thought.