What is the standard?

[colicab85]

Been a question I’ve been wondering for a while now.

Until recently the height of the standard of the league was 1997-2004, in my opinion of course, and I was interested to know whether the current standard of the league and players is at that level or maybe even higher?

London Lions are clearly the best team we’ve ever had in the league and I think that level is meaning all teams are having to improve etc.

I think it’s as good as it’s even been and probably even better than 97-04.

It’s really really entertaining atm.

[dexter]

I haven't been following BBL all that long but I would say London Lions this year are noticeably better than they were last year.

[tallerman]

There's been better teams than London, Kingston went something like 39-1 all season and got to the final four of the euroleague. I may have some of the finer details off but they were definitely better

[SamH]

I think you have to focus on the overall standard of the league rather than just the best team. But it's very hard to say. The period of '97 to '99 for me as a Bears fan was dire, the Bears were so bad that it would have lowered the overall average of the league by some way! And you had other poor teams like Crystal Palace and Hemel and Watford knocking about too. But at the top end you had the Giants, Sharks, Leopards and Towers who were all excellent. Then into the new millenium teams like Chester, Eagles and the Bears improved considerably but you always had the no hopers - Riders were dire at that time from memory. What you did have was more parity though, not one team running away with it. So from a competitive view, then no - this is not the greatest era right now as one team is just dominating. That has happened in the past, like the Jet Wash team or Eagles winning everything, but for the most part you'd get prizes being more shared out and even if one team did win everything they would have to work hard to do so.