Talk:Premier Basketball League

Miami Tropics
Apparently, as posted on here, the Miami tropics, formerlly of the ABA, has joined the PBL as well.76.197.202.207 (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)BigBoi29

Dallas Defenders
PBL League - Dallas Defenders is not a successful venture. Promises are made to jack up the appeal but nothing is ever delivered. Players are getting docked money for hotel incidentals from owner, owner is pocketing money, and players still have to pay the bills. 4 players per room. Coach has not been paid for the season or even a day after 8 weeks of working. No per diem for players. Late or no paychecks for players. Bounced checks at hotel, practice site, and payroll. Buyer beware. If you plan on investing in this organization, talk to the real people involved, the players and coaches.Jenxx23 (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenxx23 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

CBA Rumor
I rolled back the CBA rumor because, first and foremost, rumor does not have a place in an encyclopedia entry unless rumor is cited as the reason / motivation behind something factual. And if the information does have encyclopedic value, it is better placed in the Continental Basketball Association entry until such time as a merger occurs.

It is my opinion that the CBA will either play this year or fold. From reports I have read, there was an attempt ahead of this coming season to merge the two leagues but the CBA refused to let the PBL be the controlling league in the merger. This leads me to believe CBA leadership is of the type that will drive off a cliff just to prove they are right.

If you have a counter argument, please make it. LightningMan (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't really argue you there Lightning Man. But now with word that this season will be Pittsburghs last in the CBA, which means they will either 1, be joining the PBL or 2, joining the D-League as rumors have persisted. BigBoi29 (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.179.146 (talk)

Well, one other CBA team has joined. The Lawton Fort-Sill Calvary. BigBoi29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.83.199 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedigree of the Buffalo Stampede
The Stampede is not the Sharks / Silverbacks / Rapids (which means it does not have an ABA past), although the last owner of the Buffalo ABA franchise is the current owner of the PBL one. The headline of the Buffalo News article quoted in the text is misleading. The text of the article says the teams did not merge, but rather the owner of the ABA team bought the PBL team and renamed it. Vincent Lesh, president of Buffalo Pro Hoops, has ended his association with the American Basketball Association and struck a deal with the Premier Basketball League to acquire the Buffalo Dragons. The new team will be called the Buffalo Stampede and will begin play in the PBL in January. Note that it specifically says he acquired the Dragons, which were never the Sharks / Silverbacks / Rapids to begin with. LightningMan (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"Citation needed"
An assertion is made in this article that the PBL did not fulfill its public promise to compensate players and coaches of the defunct Montreal Sasquatch, and the assertion is tagged to request citation. I rolled back a similar, but more detailed bill of particulars from Montreal Sasquatch. As I documented in Talk:Montreal Sasquatch, I tend to believe the accusation but the text there read like the case of a disgruntled employee. I reverted it but invited them to rewrite it with less detail and more citations, and the same should apply here. --Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lightningman
Anyone we can stop Lightningman from destroyed the page of the ABA and PBL just because he doesn't like the way the page looks.

For example, Reading Railers have not played in the league last year, how are they a current team? He continues to list them under current teams.

The page clearly needs a year-by-year breakdown of the teams. Lightningman continues to delete all of my work. (Sportslogo (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

Maryland Nighthawks and Maryland GreenHawks
As of now, I am treating the Nighthawks and GreenHawks as separate teams, since the assertion was made at Our Sports Central that they were not one and the same. However, they share the same mascot (Dunkin) and the Nighthawks's domain has been set to forward to the GreenHawks's domain. I am awaiting published word on the nature of the change before changing and moving the Nighthawks's page to the GreenHawks. LightningMan (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

How does one find out detail as to regulations for PBL. Ie: is the court NBA regulation, Is the ball NBA regulation and such. 70.101.109.61 (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC) Neil Smith @  gardenwoods02@yahoo.com.

"Current, But Inactive Franchises"
I am inclined to just move these franchise to "defunct." There is no evidence that they're still active. If word comes down that they will be playing again then they can be moved to the "current franchise" list.--Chris902 (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a nod to the PBL assertion of the moment. Last year they claimed Reading was inactive.  When the Railers didn't return this year, they were moved to defunct.  Certainly by the fall, but I wouldn't object to moving them now, given the Buffalo standards situation. LightningMan (talk) 06:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Teams Year by Year
Okay. Let's all talk this out before it becomes an edit war again. I just took a quick look at a variety of other pages for minor and major sports leagues and couldn't find a single example of a page that includes such a list. It strikes me as not providing any more information than what is already included and creating an organizational and aesthetic mess. I'm opposed to this edit but I think a compromise is possible. Perhaps creating a separate "List of PBL Teams By Season" page? --Chris902 (talk) 03:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that a "List of PBL Teams By Season" page with all of the moves would be much more preferable to a chart here. LightningMan (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris902, RHI and Arena Football League both have the same list. Two leagues with a greater history. Chris902, I am willing to compromise. ABA Controversies isn't very relevant to the topic. PBL page mentions the ABA, 13 times in the page. Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral and I don't think the PBL page is very neutral. Why does the ABA need to be constantly mentioned in the PBL page? For example, this quote isn't even cited properly "It was on the heels of these two incidents that the Nighthawks and Razorsharks ownership groups combined forces to create the PBL," That line should be removed, there is no source unless Lightningman can find a source. ABA Controversies shouldn't be included at all, should be included in the ABA page and not the PBL. Do we include the CBA Controversies since Lawton came from that league? Sportslogo (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The ABA Controversies section is the genesis of the entire league. This league would not have started had the teams mentioned not had the troubles they had with the ABA. The articles I cited in the first few paragraphs illustrate as much. The ABA aspects of it are covered in depth at the ABA article, but the proper place for the PBL aspects is here. However, to satisfy your complaint, I will re-cite the Nighthawks citation at the end of that statement. As before, you duck the issue of your edit and its justification by trying to point out something else.  This isn't about me or any of my work.  This is about you and your desire to put a year by year list of the teams and their movements on this page.  If you really think the content is worthy of an entry in Wikipedia, put it on its own page.LightningMan (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The ABA Controversies section is the genesis of the entire league," opinion, not a fact. In my opinion, the ABA doesn't need to be mentioned 13 times in a non-ABA wikipedia page. You're trying to be bigger than the wikipedia page in my opinion. You have declared yourself the emperor of the PBL wikipedia page in my opinion and others. If you really think the ABA Controversies section is worthy of an entry in Wikipedia, put it on its own page. This isn't about me, you started the name-calling first, you called me a pest.  I didn't duck anything, I just pointed out a flaw in your argument, the ABA controversies is as relevant as the teams year by year in my opinion. Both stay or both go.Sportslogo (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the ABA origins of the league, it's not opinion. It's fact, certified by the citations listed.  It would be like ignoring the Western League or the National League when talking about the history of the American League.  And at any rate, that section has nothing to do with whether Teams Year By Year belongs here.  Any purported slights of you by me from over a year ago also have nothing to do with whether or not there should be a Teams Year By Year table.  As to ducking the conversation, you still offer no justification for the table.  You instead reply with a threat to maim the article if you don't get your way.  This is not cooperative dialog.  Create a separate article for the information.  Justify the inclusion in this article.  But either way, deal with the issue at hand.LightningMan (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting, the Western League was mentioned 3 times in the entire American League page, compared to the 13 times the ABA is mentioned in the PBL. I'm not talking about the ABA origins. I'm talking about the ABA controversies that needs to be eliminated. ABA Controversies doesn't need to be in the section, it just slanders one league, IHL didn't slander the UHL when they created the new IHL. You didn't explain to me why the ABA controversies section needs to be included, ducked that question. The Teams year by year needs to be included because it shows the year by year history in organized manner unlike the dreaded list. RHI and Arena Football has the same, adds more organized look to the page unlike the dreaded list. Defunct Teams/Failed Expansion and Teams that left the PBL for another league both do not list when they entered the league, folded, or suspended. How can you tell what teams played in what year and when teams were announced but didn't play? You offer no suggestion, why the table shouldn't be included besides your want or your opinion. Your reason to not have the page boils down to your opinion, your want, and your need. You started the name calling, year ago or yesterday, doesn't matter, you started the name calling. That is a fact and you didn't need to lower yourself, you should try and bring me up to your level. I have offered to have you help me before, "You want cooperation, help me edit the information year by year, I'll fix it and included it in the page," and you replied "You still haven't convinced me it needs to be there in the first place and you still haven't shown a willingness to follow the processes in place at Wikipedia for dealing with this," right there, you admitted it, it's about you, you still haven't convinced me, why I'm I am trying to convince you, you don't control the wikipedia page of the page so that argument is irrelevant.  Teams Year by Year needs to be included in the page if ABA Controversies section is included in my opinion, they are equally relevant to the discussion. Further proof, SPHL wouldn't exist without SEHL and WHA2 leagues. We don't see SEHL and WHA2 controversies section that would appear on the SPHL page because both the SEHL and WHA2 had their fair share of controversies. No reason the ABA controversies needs to be included in the PBL page, should be included on the ABA page only. Sportslogo (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You said: "The Teams Year by Year needs to be included because it shows the year by year history in organized manner unlike the dreaded list. RHI and Arena Football has the same, adds more organized look to the page unlike the dreaded list. Defunct Teams/Failed Expansion and Teams that left the PBL for another league both do not list when they entered the league, folded, or suspended. How can you tell what teams played in what year and when teams were announced but didn't play?" I say: Showing the year to year movements is not the purpose of the lists. All of the defunct and moved teams have their own pages with their own articles explaining the who, what, when, and where of their departures. All of the teams that were announced and did not play...did not play! What is your objection to moving this to another article versus putting this information in this article? Why are the year to year movements important? There are at least two people who don't want the edit, me and Chris902. Forget me. Convince Chris902 it should be here. LightningMan (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Why should a visitor bounce around team to team to find out when a team folded, departed from the league? How can we determine how many teams participated in the original year than departed the following year without leaving the PBL page? Sportslogo (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that the inclusion of this chart mucks up the page and simply repeats existing information. Perhaps a single chart of former teams that includes the team, seasons active in PBL and current league (or "defunct") that would replace the list of former teams would be the best way to go.  I do agree that avoiding lists is ideal, but I also think it's absurd to include three charts featuring redundant information (with a new chart being added every 12 months).  I am also going to suggest that if you two can't work this out before the protection is lifted that one of you begin the process of a WP:DR.--Chris902 (talk) 00:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already started the process with the Mediation Cabal. LightningMan (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What about at least listing the teams that competed during the year, folded, or suspended for each year? Sportslogo (talk) 03:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know where to post this, but found out via the PBL website, the Dayton Air Strikers will return to the league this fall.128.242.187.96 (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)KDB_77

Timeline
Proposing a Timeline of the Franchises, which can be found on SPHL page. I will add the timeline once the page opens up. Sportslogo (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
Sportslogo (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Against, for much the same reasons as the table LightningMan (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This would go perfectly on the History of PBL teams page. LightningMan (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ABA Controversies
Since you insist upon bringing this up here, I have started a separate section to deal with this, as it has nothing to do with the table.

You said: "I'm talking about the ABA controversies that needs to be eliminated. ABA Controversies doesn't need to be in the section. It just slanders one league. IHL didn't slander the UHL when they created the new IHL. You didn't explain to me why the ABA controversies section needs to be included, ducked that question." First of all, slander is defined as "a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report" whereas libel is "written words or images" In either case, the flaw in your argument is that nothing in this section is libelous because nothing in it is false. It's against Wikipedia policy to put libelous material up. Everything in the section ABA Controversies is sourced precisely because it could be libelous without sourcing. Next, these events, the playoff debacle and the COO vs. CEO deal are the seminal events in the creation of the league. It would be like ignoring the National League monopoly as a contributing factor to the creation of the American League. What is your justification for striking the seminal moments in the creation of the league? LightningMan (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ABA Controversies needs to be eliminated, there is no reason to have it included in the page. No other page includes their former league 13 times. Create another page, if you want the ABA controversies included. Current Teams with ABA Pasts needs to be eliminated. To quote the Lightningman "As of now, I am treating the Nighthawks and GreenHawks as separate teams, since the assertion was made at Our Sports Central that they were not one and the same,"
 * They wouldn't have ABA past than. How do you figure Chicago Throwbacks and Detroit Panthers are active and Buffalo Stampede has a failed franchise, they could go to IBL or CBL, that again is your opinion, that they are failed franchise.
 * Chicago and Detroit should be moved to the Suspended teams with ABA Pasts (newly created), how can they be listed under current teams with ABA pasts but not listed 'Teams'?
 * Under Defunct Teams/Failed Expansion: Arkansas Impact, Mid-Michigan Destroyers, Montreal Sasquatch, Quad City Riverhawks, and Reading Railers all need sources. Sportslogo (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's try to stay on point here, dude. Your only reason for striking the seminal moment from the league is because the ABA is mentioned 13 times, not that it's not important, not that it's incorrect.  Just that the ABA is mentioned 13 times. That's not a reason to eliminate it, IMO.
 * As to the Nighthawks, that was a temporary thing. I later, as you can see, did, in fact, move the Maryland Nighthawks page to the Maryland GreenHawks.
 * Chris902 has already brought up the Throwbacks and Panthers and I have already answered it.
 * As to the defunct teams, when the page is open for editing again, challenge them properly as per Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Please stop bringing up other issues. One item in one place. LightningMan (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What's with constant name calling, I am not a "dude", according to wikipedia, "A dude is an individual, typically male, particularly somebody well dressed or who has never lived outside a big city,". Again, with the name calling. Challenging my manhood, calling me a pest, and now a dude. Sportslogo (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude is not name calling. LightningMan (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The ABA Controversies needs to be edited down and I'll edit that once the page opens up. Sportslogo (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs to be edited because? LightningMan (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have an edit in mind that I think will resolve the "ABA controversies" issue: If we remove the sub-heading (ABA controversies), slide the info under the "origins" sections, remove the bullet points and instead say in the paragraph "among current franchises W, X,Y and Z started in the ABA.  Defunct franchises who had previously played in the ABA included A, B, C and D."  It keeps vital historical information while maintaining a NPOV and a not giving undue weight to the issue.  I will make that edit when the page opens unless anyone has some major objections.  I do not think that the inclusion/deletion of this section should have any impact of the inclusion/non-inclusion of the season by season breakdown chart or vice versa.  Two separate issues that are getting entangled.--Chris902 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is as I am seeing it in my head, I would be fine with that. LightningMan (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the PBL History section should change. The PBL was founded in 2007; eight teams were originally from the ABA, grown dissatisfied with the ABA’s CEO Joe Newman lead to creation of the PBL by Maryland Nighthawks and Rochester Razorsharks ownership groups.

Not needed and unnecessary:''In early 2007, Joe Newman was voted out of his position as CEO of the ABA by the board of directors, which included Maryland Nighthawks owner and then-ABA COO Tom Doyle, due to dissatisfaction with how Newman executed his duties as CEO. Newman responded by using his and other shares that formed a controlling interest to remove the entire board of directors.

Newman then refused to reschedule a weather-delayed playoff game between the Rochester Razorsharks and Wilmington Sea Dawgs although the two teams agreed to a make up date, wanting instead to force Rochester to accept a forfeit.''

Please defend why we need include so much about the ABA. I believe this topic doesn't belong in the PBL origin. Sportslogo (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Already answered. LightningMan (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Sources
Under Defunct Teams/Failed Expansion: Arkansas Impact, Mid-Michigan Destroyers, Montreal Sasquatch, Quad City Riverhawks, and Reading Railers all need sources. Sportslogo (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cite it under Wikipedia guidelines when the page opens. LightningMan (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

New Section Needed, Inactive teams with ABA Pasts
Chicago and Detroit should be moved to the Suspended teams with ABA Pasts (newly created), how can they be listed under current teams with ABA pasts but not listed 'Teams'?Sportslogo (talk) 23:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Chicago and Detroit should be moved to defunct teams and deleted from current teams with ABA pasts. LightningMan (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

DEAD LINKS
The second Kenny Smith reference is dead, another link is dead as well. Both need new citations.66.251.84.28 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I found three dead links, we need reliable links, people already question Wikipedia as reliable source.Sportslogo (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Birth, not a neutral point of view
PBL birth bashes one league, regardless of the league being formed because the team's owner were disgruntled with the ABA, it's irrelevant to the topic.Sportslogo (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't "bash" another league. It explains what happened. If you want to make the wording more neutral then you're being reasonable, but choosing to remove it altogether detracts from the amount of information readers are getting.  The relationship to the ABA is important for understanding the PBL. YOu also don't need to tag every paragraph you disagree with.  Section by section is probably fine.--Chris902 (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to be more neutral because right now, it's clearly a PBL-pro point of view. Sportslogo (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to clean up some of the wording and I encourage you to do the same, but I don't think there is any need to throw out the whole section. Let's all try to be reasonable here.--Chris902 (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also: have you actually nominated this article for an NPOV check or did you just add the tag without actually nominating the article?--Chris902 (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you nominate the article for NPOV? I don't want to delete it but it clearly wasn't from a neutral point of view. By the way, was Kenny Smith fired as commissioner? Sportslogo (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want some outside opinions you can tag the article and then post at WP:NPOVN explaining the issue with a link back to the page (I believe this is the process). However, I think that as long as everyone works in good faith we can improve the article without having to go that route.  I think that the separate "History of PBL Teams" is a good example of how we can struggle through these edits and come up with good solutions as long as we all avoid edit waring, act in good faith and assume good faith on the part of other editors.  I feel like my recent edits to the Year 1 section also work towards improving the article and we should continue being proactive in eliminating bias POV, and improving the readability and accuracy of the article.
 * In Terms of Kenny Anderson, I have no evidence to suggest that he ever did any real work as the commissioner at all (although I would not include that in the article). He is not the current commissioner, Tom Doyle is, so it's safe to say he either chose to leave or was fired but I have no source on it.  A real reporter should dig it up, but I don't think the talk page of a wikipedia article is the proper place to discuss this at any length. --Chris902 (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what happened to Kenny Smith and that's why I didn't say what happened to him. LightningMan (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Chris902, I agree, the part was the vision of lightningman, PBL page, he had a certain vision and if you disagree with your vision, you're wrong. This lead to him, lowering himself to name-calling. No one controls wikipedia page and I certainly disagreed with his vision of the PBL page.Sportslogo (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sportslogo, I don't control this page, never claimed I did. This isn't about me and what I like and never has been. LightningMan (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we remove the NPOV tag now? I think the offending wording has been changed and it never actually was nominated for outside editors to check the POV issues. If I will remove it in 48 hours if I don't hear any objections. If anyone does object then please make edits to improve the article. Let's be proactive and improve the article.--Chris902 (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was out of town, but I have no objections to removing the NPOV. LightningMan (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

2014 Playoffs
Wikipedia isn't the place to argue over what happened in the playoffs. If you want to discuss improving the article, including what happened, then do it here. Otherwise, please don't spew press releases into the article or complain about what happened. LionMans Account (talk) 22:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The section on the 2014 playoffs is inaccurate at best, and libelous at worst. Representatives of the PBL continue to edit the page to remove what actually happened, and "spin" it so that it looks favorable to the league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.8.239 (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

2015 season
Representatives/supporters/employees of the league continually blank information they don't want publicized, despite the fact each bit of information is cited. Things Said Over Coffee (talk) 06:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Things Said Over Coffee
 * , that's not really true - Facebook is not a reliable source, so that stuff has to go. To quote Wikipedia's guideline: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (see BLP) A blow-by-blow account of who said what on Facebook does not belong in a Wikipedia article. It would be better to give a concise summary of the controversy, supported by a few good-quality sources. Keep the size of it appropriate for its importance relative to the entire article.  And please avoid personal attacks of other editors; it does not contribute to a constructive discussion.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Gronk Oz. The two newspaper articles are the only third-party coverage. Facebook, Twitter and Instagram are not reliable sources, particularly not for contentious claims about living persons. Furthermore, the tone is anything but neutral, and the level of detail is nothing short of ridiculous. We're dealing with an entire season here, does it really matter whether the Facebook posts were made at 5:08 p.m. Eastern Time or maybe 5:09 p.m. Eastern Time? If a third-party source had taken note of all those Facebook posts, now that would be helpful. I'll drastically shorten the section to what third-party sources have reported. Huon (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I have shortened the section even more drastically than I expected to. I could not find any confirmation of an early end to the season in reliable sources; in fact, the Democrat and Chronicle of today reports on upcoming games and does not mention any general League troubles. The various "this game was cancelled"- or "that game changed the venue"-style trivia that made up the section were entirely devoid of context (which was instead supplied by original research), and I saw no benefit in having them. The source I found instead explains not just that there were multiple cancelled games, but also why, and what effects the cancellations had. I would have added something on league standings, but with the season not over yet, it seemed a little too early for that. Huon (talk) 23:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't understand about the Facebook posts--most are coming from official accounts from teams in the PBL. Plus, Eurobasket, a third-party international basketball news website, is now covering the issue.  The Carolina Pee Dee Vipers website specifically mentions financial difficulties of teams, and the PBL website itself references the fact that "current financial positions as many of the owners voiced concern of their financial state due to multiple rescheduled events."  Here is the PBL's official statement: http://thepbl.com/#556657  In future, I will use a more concise summary rather than a blow-by-blow, but as the news was breaking, I thought it appropriate to keep up with developments as they happened Things Said Over Coffee (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Thing Said Over Coffee


 * Also, Huon, I undid the large removal of text that you did before I came here. I apologize, I figured it was just the league trying to protect its image again.  I would welcome a fair summary, now that you have been made aware of the league's confirmation that the season was ended three weeks early, and that there is non-Facebook documentation of financial troubles among teams, even on the PBL's own website. Things Said Over Coffee (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * That reference is a good start,, although it is still what Wikipedia calls a primary source, i.e. it is the PBL talking about itself. It would be much better to get coverage from a reliable secondary source - but until one can be sourced I guess this is better than nothing.--Gronk Oz (talk) 04:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Premier Basketball League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121231042505/http://www.thepbl.com:80/2012/12/the-independent-basketball-association-and-the-premier-basketball-league-to-join-forces/ to http://www.thepbl.com/2012/12/the-independent-basketball-association-and-the-premier-basketball-league-to-join-forces/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Out of date?
Some parts of this article seem extremely out of date; for example, the "Current teams" section doesn't list several of the teams, including the most recent champions! 68.156.95.34 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I add also then the PBL url redirect us to the North American Premier Basketball League(NAPB). http://napbasketball.com --Sd-100 (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2020
Toledo Glass City B.C 2600:1700:E7A1:AAD0:95C7:A8C0:F484:8B71 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
The name of the coach for Toledo Glass City Basketball is wrong. Please change Eddie Zamora to Freddie Zamora. Mikeyrj (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request
The coach’s name for the Lancaster Thunder is missing. Please add Jamelle Cornley as the coach for the Lancaster Thunder. Mikeyrj (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)