Another Try-Shorten the Season

[pipfan]

Many people have suggested shortening the season-most of us would agree the RS is too long. I have seen 66 games, but that is too big a cut.

I have posted twice about cutting 6 games, and I think it makes more sense than ever. For the teams, here are the benefits:

- each game counts a little more-less tanking
- great for image (we want to protect player health) while the NFL looks to lengthen the season
- fewer injures (fewer games plus less fatigue)
- more prep time for games
- coach's would have to be STRONGLY discouraged from resting healthy players-no more late season throw away games
- a balanced schedule (4 games with division, 3 games with other conference (HHA with one division, HAA with other and 2 with other conference)

It would improve the product. The arguments against:
- tradition-the NBA is not a totals league really for records, more for per game stuff
- fewer home dates for ticket sales-LOTS of tickets are sold in 5/10 game packs-still possible. And by limiting the supply of home games a little, it makes each home game a little more valuable
- local TV-it does not affect national TV at all-still have plenty of marquee matchups. Local tv would lose the 6 dates.

It would not hurt revenue that bad, since players get half anyway (a slightly smaller pot to split). But with new TV contracts coming, the pot will grow a lot now anyway.

This seems like a win-win-win to me (players/fans/owners). 6 fewer games would improve the product and send the right signal about player health.

[Goon]

I would just make the regular season a couple of weeks longer and eliminate all back to backs. 6 games less wouldnt make the games much more important plus all other effects can be achieved by stretching the schedule by 2-3 weeks. Also the revenue would stay the same.

[islanders11040]

The times when its 4 games in 5 days is just ridiculous

[wicked_crossova]

money.

[Andi Obst]

82 games are just way too much. I love basketball, but that's simply too much.

There are so many games where no team actually tries until the 4th quarter (especially in the middle of the season) because players just have to watch their health. You can't even blame them for not giving everything each and every night. Just look at the number of injuries.

The NBA would be a better league and basketball in the NBA would be a lot better if less games were played.

[Scubetrolis]

if it was up to me, which it never will be, i would put it at 50 games a year and opening day would be on Christmas. So teams basically play 10 games a month, sounds good. never any back to backs.

[pipfan]

We all know no drastic cut in games is possible, and the season is too long now. 2-3 weeks more is too much to ask. Same length of season, 6 fewer games is about a game less a month. Not a huge deal, but it would add valuable rest each month, and less wear-and-tear

[MisterHibachi]

Do basketball fans hate basketball? Why do you wanna watch less basketball?

[WOX_69]

The amount of games is perfect, leave it be.

[WhatsMyName]

Do basketball fans hate basketball? Why do you wanna watch less basketball?

Quality over quantity, I would gladly trade 3 mediocre games for 2 good games.

[MisterHibachi]

Do basketball fans hate basketball? Why do you wanna watch less basketball?

Quality over quantity, I would gladly trade 3 mediocre games for 2 good games.

But what's the guarantee that those 2 games will be of higher quality than those 3 games? Theoretically, less games means they're each worth more but I don't know if that's necessarily true in practice. I didn't see any different intensity in random games in 2012 than in 2013. I don't know. I have no problem with the season as it already is. We get plenty of great games every year.

[WhatsMyName]

Do basketball fans hate basketball? Why do you wanna watch less basketball?

Quality over quantity, I would gladly trade 3 mediocre games for 2 good games.

But what's the guarantee that those 2 games will be of higher quality than those 3 games? Theoretically, less games means they're each worth more but I don't know if that's necessarily true in practice. I didn't see any different intensity in random games in 2012 than in 2013. I don't know. I have no problem with the season as it already is. We get plenty of great games every year.

2012 had a higher game/week ratio than a normal season, which showed in the insane 3 games in 3 days schedule.

OPs point is to have less games in the same time frame, which would result in more rest/more preparation time for games and putting less stress on the players body to have less injuries.

While it doesn't mean the games are better, it would at least have the effect of the players playing more of their A-game.

[zronv7]

no can do, less money for the NBA

[DaddyCool19]

76 Games while keeping the schedule to give the players more rest.
Or cut 2-3 Days from the Preseason, add those day to the regular season. Add another 7-8 days to cut as many back to back games as possible.

[Michael Scott]

Over the years, shortening the season will give a disadvantage to potential record breakers. Which isn't the end of the world but I would hate for (hypothetically) Steph Curry to miss out on surpassing Ray Allen's 3 pt record because he missed 6 games a year.

Extend the regular season 3 weeks, and NEVER schedule a team for 4 games in 5 nights. Maybe do away with the preseason and just start the season then?

[Sam6]

It would be great to cut it to somewhere around 70 games over the same time frame (November to April).

1. Player health, players would have more opportunity to deal with nagging injuries before they develop into something worse, more time for strength training to hopefully reduce the number of tears and sprains.

2. Practice. I find it absolutely amazing how NBA teams run functioning offenses and defenses and have game plans when they almost never get to practice due to travel and having to be able to rest sometime. Teams would also gain the opportunity to actually game plan against a specific team.

3. each game becomes a little more valuable and competitive.

4. As fans we would not be losing basketball games we would just be able to watch a higher percentage of games. I understand sometimes it is appealing when there are 12 games but that is a small price to pay for all the other benefits. If someone can make a good schedule we could still have basketball almost every night of the season its just that we would not have nights where every team is playing.

It is too bad that this probably won't happen because it will probably mean the NBA will decide to make less money by losing around 10 games. The argument for this might be that long term the benefits of cutting 10 games will make the NBA a better product that will skyrocket in popularity and maybe then be able to make huge money off tv contracts, but that would be a hard argument to sell, plus there would be no way of making up lost ticket sales. but hey i am a fan I care about the product itself more than how much profit the owners make.

[marcus_misc]

Hey OP here's an idea: you only have to work 30 hrs a week now not 40. You'll still get the same wage though so your overall income will decrease. But on the bright side you won't have to work as much!

What? You don't like the offer? why not?

Remember - the NBA is business and entertainment FIRST and sport second.

[Pan Jia Yuan]

Billionaire owners and multi-millionaire players want it that way.
Minimum wage consumers gonna consume.

[ComboGuardCity]

You think players will try harder because they're playing 6 less games?

[Sam6]

You think players will try harder because they're playing 6 less games?

Players will be less tired from having fewer games, thus they will be playing harder.

Each game will be more valuable, so players will be less inclined to save their energy in any one game.

I do not understand how this is a hard concept to grasp.