Lebron, Dirk and Spo agree on lowering games not minutes

[Archerbro]

There is no logical justification for a schedule of 82 games that includes 15-20 back-to-backs or sets of 4-games-in-5 nights.

The main "rationale" that has been offered in this thread to defend 82 games has been greed and tradition, neither of which justify 82 games. I'm sure at some point someone will add the all-powerful argument about records, which again doesn't justify 82 games.

If greed is your choice, then why stop at 82 games? Why not have the players play every day? Anything goes in name of the almighty dollar!

If it's tradition, why not go back to the original 11 teams and the original 11 cities? We can even have the players use the balls, baskets, and sneakers from the time! (Incidentally, the first season was 60 games.)

This is a bad post. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
You want empathy and sympathy for players playing a game while getting more money in one month than some of us might make in a decade.
I could buy the taxing arguement when players had to go on road trips via bus or trains but today's athletes are treated one step lower than heads of states. The fact that you have to use hyperbole to make your cases reflects how poor your post was.

Your response is poor a well, "they get paid a lot, therefore it really isn't a big deal." but we know the effect back to backs can have on injury (much more prone), and that the 4th game in 5 nights, usually looks terrible for older veteran teams (or they rest their best players which does still affect quality) even if the win %'s don't really change too much.We have to account for other factors like injury, other team is on 3rd game in 4th night, consistency of ref calls when a game is decided by 1-3 points.

Also if you've read this article on bio metrics, http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11629773/new-nba-biometric-testing-less-michael-lewis-more-george-orwell:

that traveling lifestyle (even though, it's first class) leads to a lot less sleep (arrive to city, check in, etc) which again can obviously affect individual play. This argument from many players is also to reduce wear and tear which would lead to longer careers (which we're beginning to see more of with Dirk, Duncan, KG, Kobe, Ray Allen, ETC).

I think we need to work to a point where back to backs are reduced, but keep the 82 game schedule to appease all parties.

TL;DR
I don't sympathize with the players, but I don't dismiss their claims either because of their paycheck.
We've all seen games where teams just look old and bad, and the scheduling is a part of that (guys just don't have the energy some nights-see dozens of quotes from vets on topic of b2bs).

[joeyAdaMan]

Just to be clear. I can fully understand a guy like Lebron and especially Dirk, for wanting a lighter schedule and less minutes. You are looking at two guys who have been super stars for their respective teams and been playing 82 games PLUS making deep playoff runs for over a decade. So, I understand they may have a legit case. But, this isn't new. Jordan did it. Kareem did it. Bird did it until his body literally told him "nope". Magic likely would've played well into the mid-90's if it wasn't for his incident. These guys have it BETTER than the "legends" did AND you have role players making more money than elite/all-time great talents. I think Magic signed a 25 year deal at one point worth 25 million correct? LOL The brass of the NBA or whomever makes the schedule need to get together and find a way to limit or eliminate back to backs and start the season a few weeks earlier as well. I feel like in a few years the friggen season won't start until after Thanksgiving.....sheesh

[RSCD3_]

I want to go to work less during the year but that isn't going to happen.

Some of these players need to STFU and just play. You make more money then you need and maybe some of us enjoy coming home from work and watching some basketball after a long day. If they played 60 games there would be way too much time in between games.

Seriously MJ is right, they play a sport for a living, enjoy going out there and playing while getting paid a fortune. Suck it up.

Yeah Dirk is a bum

Greenfont/


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[APacoJ]

I remember reading an article a while back about Karl Malone going to a current Jazz practice to help their big men, and him noticing the amount of pads that all the guys were wearing all over their arms and legs, and him talking about how soft the league has become. Guys like Malone played the same 82 game season we have now, but in a lot more brutal, physically grueling league, without the pads and such, and had no issues. I don't think the issue is with the schedule or the league format in any way, it's just that athletes these days are a lot softer and a lot more pampered, and simply want their work to be less intensive.

[maxpower88]

You clearly did not understand my post because nowhere there do I call for empathy or sympathy for the players. My contention is there is no logical reason to keep an 82-game season loaded with back-to-back games and 4-in-5 night sets. It's an arbitrary number of games compacted into an arbitrary time length.

The amount of money someone makes is not a justification for working conditions. (This is applicabale for both extremes; no person should be working in sweatshops for 16 hours; no executive/head of states needs to be flying in private jets or in first class or staying in 5-star hotels.) Or is your contention that the more money you make the less right you have to complain about things? Does an owner have free reign to make a worker in any business do whatever he/she wants because of a salary amount?

If so, what are the amounts? At what salary level do workers start losing the right to protest about their working conditions? At what salary level do you completely renounce your right to protest about your working conditions?

Uh, we live in a free market dude. LeBron or any other player is free to not work after his contract is up if he feels that the working conditions are not adequate. By signing that contract he agrees to play the 82 games, which means legally he accepts those working conditions.

Free market? the free market where government picks and chooses which companies to bail out and which to let fail?

The NBA has a collective bargaining agreement allowing the NBA to open, close, and skew its markets (draft and free agency) to specific teams and has fixed pricing for rookies and has a cap on maximum salaries.

Sorry, friend. That load of bollocks is not going to fly.

LOL did you just compare the largest US banks to the NBA??? The American economy doesn't depend on the NBA the way it does on its financial institutions. And the collective bargaining agreement is still part of the free market seeing as its something agreed upon between the owners and players. The players, including LeBron agreed to a maximum amount they can receive, and when signing a contract they know they'll be expected to play for at least 82 games barring injury.

[RatherUnique]

I want to go to work less during the year but that isn't going to happen.

Some of these players need to STFU and just play. You make more money then you need and maybe some of us enjoy coming home from work and watching some basketball after a long day. If they played 60 games there would be way too much time in between games.

Seriously MJ is right, they play a sport for a living, enjoy going out there and playing while getting paid a fortune. Suck it up.

MJ is a hypocrite. He retired twice because he got burned out from the schedule.

[Usual Suspects]

Kind of off topic, but I can't believe how many times the "These guys have it better than other jobs and shouldn't complain" card has been played in this thread. That's not a logical argument to anything.

Yeah this is the only thing that disappointed me after making this thread. I've seen some good discussion both ways but this notion that since you get paid more so you can't talk makes me disappointed. Even a Global Mod used this angle. I definitely expected better.

However other than that, I liked the back and forth.

[SA37]

Uh, we live in a free market dude. LeBron or any other player is free to not work after his contract is up if he feels that the working conditions are not adequate. By signing that contract he agrees to play the 82 games, which means legally he accepts those working conditions.

Free market? the free market where government picks and chooses which companies to bail out and which to let fail?

The NBA has a collective bargaining agreement allowing the NBA to open, close, and skew its markets (draft and free agency) to specific teams and has fixed pricing for rookies and has a cap on maximum salaries.

Sorry, friend. That load of bollocks is not going to fly.

LOL did you just compare the largest US banks to the NBA??? The American economy doesn't depend on the NBA the way it does on its financial institutions. And the collective bargaining agreement is still part of the free market seeing as its something agreed upon between the owners and players. The players, including LeBron agreed to a maximum amount they can receive, and when signing a contract they know they'll be expected to play for at least 82 games barring injury.

No, the point was not to compare the banks and financial institutions to the NBA; the point was to show that there is not a free market in the USA and there is not a free market in the NBA. Yes, the CBA is an agreement the owners and the players enter into freely. But that doesn't change the fact that the agreement eliminates many free market features within the NBA.

[maxpower88]

The only thing the CBA eliminates is any wage that is above or below a certain value, depending on certain conditions like player status, experience, etc. But you're still missing the point that at the end of the day, if LeBron feels that the working conditions are too harsh, he can simply not sign another contract once his current one is up. There is nothing unfair about the current schedule, and the players really need to stop complaining.

Like I said before, look at the NHL. Seasons are the same length as NBA seasons, they have the same number of games played. Hockey is even more physically demanding than basketball, and yet you don't see NHL players complaining about the season being too long.

[Yoshun]

Kind of off topic, but I can't believe how many times the "These guys have it better than other jobs and shouldn't complain" card has been played in this thread. That's not a logical argument to anything.

Yeah this is the only thing that disappointed me after making this thread. I've seen some good discussion both ways but this notion that since you get paid more so you can't talk makes me disappointed. Even a Global Mod used this angle. I definitely expected better.

However other than that, I liked the back and forth.

I agree. Overall, it's an interesting topic and good thread. I guess I shouldn't be surprised to see people writing stuff like that.

[pipfan]

I have been arguing for 76 games for a while-4 versus division (16 games), 3 versus conference (30), 2 versus other conference (30)

The 6 games are just enough to reduce the wear and tear but it is not huge-so revenue would not be affected too much (and national tv would have no change). Then, fewer injuries and each game meaning a little more would help overall play

[SA37]

The only thing the CBA eliminates is any wage that is above or below a certain value, depending on certain conditions like player status, experience, etc. But you're still missing the point that at the end of the day, if LeBron feels that the working conditions are too harsh, he can simply not sign another contract once his current one is up. There is nothing unfair about the current schedule, and the players really need to stop complaining.

Oh, the CBA does a lot more than that. Restricted free agency, the draft, rookies contracts, Bird rights, financial trade restrictions, an age restriction, and the luxury tax are all examples of the way the NBA manipulates and restricts player movement by giving advantages to the team holding a players' rights and placing other teams at a disadvantage to sign a player or flat out restricting the players a team can acquire.

The NBA's eventual goal is to implement a hard cap to completely fix spending. To give you an idea how far they want to cut spending, the NBA tried this move:

"

The NBA’s initial proposal for a new collective-bargaining deal called for a $45 million per team hard salary cap along with non-guaranteed player contracts and significant cuts in annual salary increases...

...The memo was sent to all NBA players and was dated just days prior to the league delivering to the union a new labor proposal, which a source said still included the $45 million hard cap but added a phase-in of the cap over a few years. Union president Derek Fisher publicly dismissed the latest proposal as too similar to the original proposal.

The memo’s most eye-popping element is the league’s proposed $45 million hard cap, which cuts the current $58 million soft cap by nearly 25 percent."

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2 ... salary-cap

Yeah, you're right, any player could choose not to play in the NBA. But is that realistic? That's like saying, "Well, if you don't like what the US government is doing, just stop going to work and supporting the system."

The NBA is attempting to completely remove the risk factor from its business at the expense of players' rights. To ignore that is a mistake.

Like I said before, look at the NHL. Seasons are the same length as NBA seasons, they have the same number of games played. Hockey is even more physically demanding than basketball, and yet you don't see NHL players complaining about the season being too long.

I don't follow hockey, but I can tell you hockey players' knees and feet are not taking the pounding that NBA players' do.

At any rate, that's irrelevant to the conversation about basketball seasons because we already see teams in the NBA monitoring players' mintues before and during the season and players are sitting out games during the season and towards the end of the season when the games really become meaingless for most teams. Players who have been seriously injured (Rose and Rondo come to mind) are taking extra time to come back because of how demanding the schedule is.

In other words, we're already seeing other measures being taken to fix what is clearly perceived as a problem by teams.

[Blame Rasho]

There is no logical justification for a schedule of 82 games that includes 15-20 back-to-backs or sets of 4-games-in-5 nights.

The main "rationale" that has been offered in this thread to defend 82 games has been greed and tradition, neither of which justify 82 games. I'm sure at some point someone will add the all-powerful argument about records, which again doesn't justify 82 games.

If greed is your choice, then why stop at 82 games? Why not have the players play every day? Anything goes in name of the almighty dollar!

If it's tradition, why not go back to the original 11 teams and the original 11 cities? We can even have the players use the balls, baskets, and sneakers from the time! (Incidentally, the first season was 60 games.)

This is a bad post. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.
You want empathy and sympathy for players playing a game while getting more money in one month than some of us might make in a decade.
I could buy the taxing arguement when players had to go on road trips via bus or trains but today's athletes are treated one step lower than heads of states. The fact that you have to use hyperbole to make your cases reflects how poor your post was.

Your response is poor a well, "they get paid a lot, therefore it really isn't a big deal." but we know the effect back to backs can have on injury (much more prone), and that the 4th game in 5 nights, usually looks terrible for older veteran teams (or they rest their best players which does still affect quality) even if the win %'s don't really change too much.We have to account for other factors like injury, other team is on 3rd game in 4th night, consistency of ref calls when a game is decided by 1-3 points.

Also if you've read this article on bio metrics, http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11629773/new-nba-biometric-testing-less-michael-lewis-more-george-orwell:

that traveling lifestyle (even though, it's first class) leads to a lot less sleep (arrive to city, check in, etc) which again can obviously affect individual play. This argument from many players is also to reduce wear and tear which would lead to longer careers (which we're beginning to see more of with Dirk, Duncan, KG, Kobe, Ray Allen, ETC).

I think we need to work to a point where back to backs are reduced, but keep the 82 game schedule to appease all parties.

TL;DR
I don't sympathize with the players, but I don't dismiss their claims either because of their paycheck.
We've all seen games where teams just look old and bad, and the scheduling is a part of that (guys just don't have the energy some nights-see dozens of quotes from vets on topic of b2bs).

I wasn't trying to make an awesome post on my phone. I was just highlighting the absurdity of the logic that somehow all of a sudden now an 82 game season too too much. Now having 4 games in 5 nights is crazy, when it has been going on for decades. If anything, players have been coddled too much compared to yesteryear.

It is interesting, during restgate( you remember that right?) the how many posters made a big deal about an 82 game season? Hardly any.... In fact it was an injustice that the Spurs sat their players for a game, and now we want even less games for fans to see teams? No one seemed to give a crap when the Spurs were playing 4th game in 5 nights, and the Heat were playing on 3 days rest. You know I just don't think highly of the masses who change their opinion of something at whim of things.

I have no issue extending the season by a month and keeping the 82 game season intact, but for someone to just blow hot air that somehow that there is a rash of injuries that come from playing when there is no tangible proof of this.

[jbk1234]

The NBA has been playing 82 game seasons since 1968. I don't understand why the number of games in the schedule has suddenly become an issue.

The playoffs are a lot longer now. There weren't as many post season games.

[Blame Rasho]

Kind of off topic, but I can't believe how many times the "These guys have it better than other jobs and shouldn't complain" card has been played in this thread. That's not a logical argument to anything.

Yeah this is the only thing that disappointed me after making this thread. I've seen some good discussion both ways but this notion that since you get paid more so you can't talk makes me disappointed. Even a Global Mod used this angle. I definitely expected better.

However other than that, I liked the back and forth.

The my overall point is that you can't all of a sudden say that playing this game is so harsh and demanding when players of yesteryear did so without any problems and are critical of current players esp with all the advancements of technology and medicine.

You want less games, but same amount of money? No... It doesn't work like that. The economics are pretty much set, and if people don't want to acknowledge it, there isn't much to discuss.

[maxpower88]

Oh, the CBA does a lot more than that. Restricted free agency, the draft, rookies contracts, Bird rights, financial trade restrictions, an age restriction, and the luxury tax are all examples of the way the NBA manipulates and restricts player movement by giving advantages to the team holding a players' rights and placing other teams at a disadvantage to sign a player or flat out restricting the players a team can acquire.

The NBA's eventual goal is to implement a hard cap to completely fix spending. To give you an idea how far they want to cut spending, the NBA tried this move:

Yeah, you're right, any player could choose not to play in the NBA. But is that realistic? That's like saying, "Well, if you don't like what the US government is doing, just stop going to work and supporting the system."

The NBA is attempting to completely remove the risk factor from its business at the expense of players' rights. To ignore that is a mistake.

Like I said before, look at the NHL. Seasons are the same length as NBA seasons, they have the same number of games played. Hockey is even more physically demanding than basketball, and yet you don't see NHL players complaining about the season being too long.

I don't follow hockey, but I can tell you hockey players' knees and feet are not taking the pounding that NBA players' do.

At any rate, that's irrelevant to the conversation about basketball seasons because we already see teams in the NBA monitoring players' mintues before and during the season and players are sitting out games during the season and towards the end of the season when the games really become meaingless for most teams. Players who have been seriously injured (Rose and Rondo come to mind) are taking extra time to come back because of how demanding the schedule is.

In other words, we're already seeing other measures being taken to fix what is clearly perceived as a problem by teams.

Yes, it does all those things, but that's still part of a free market. The government has no involvement with the CBA or individual contracts. The CBA is agreed upon by both owners and players. Before any rules of the CBA can be applied to contract negotiations, they must first be agreed by both parties. Therefore, whatever limitations are placed on contracts have already been accepted by the players signing the contract.

And you don't follow hockey so you can be forgiven for not knowing that the pounding basketball players take to their knees is nothing to what NHL players face. It's like football on ice. They're in two different leagues physically.

LeBron and anyone else calling for a shortened season need to stop crying. LeBron is 30 now, he's not the same athletic machine he was when he was 26. It's not the seasons being too long that's tough, it's him trying to play at the same intensity he's been playing at since his younger days.

[SA37]

It is interesting, during restgate( you remember that right?) the how many posters made a big deal about an 82 game season? Hardly any.... In fact it was an injustice that the Spurs sat their players for a game, and now we want even less games for fans to see teams? No one seemed to give a crap when the Spurs were playing 4th game in 5 nights, and the Heat were playing on 3 days rest. You know I just don't think highly of the masses who change their opinion of something at whim of things.

The league cared enough to fine San Antonio $250,000.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/86958 ... ng-players

I understand you don't think the season should be shortened and you don't believe 82 games is an issue. But the actions of many teams, players, and coaches are telling a very different story.

[Blame Rasho]

It is interesting, during restgate( you remember that right?) the how many posters made a big deal about an 82 game season? Hardly any.... In fact it was an injustice that the Spurs sat their players for a game, and now we want even less games for fans to see teams? No one seemed to give a crap when the Spurs were playing 4th game in 5 nights, and the Heat were playing on 3 days rest. You know I just don't think highly of the masses who change their opinion of something at whim of things.

The league cared enough to fine San Antonio $250,000.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/86958 ... ng-players

I understand you don't think the season should be shortened and you don't believe 82 games is an issue. But the actions of many teams, players, and coaches are telling a very different story.

You missed my point totally...

[DefenseWins]

The players should get paid less then if they want to play less games... smh

I think there shouldn't be any back-to-backs, but 82 games is perfectly fine.

What's with the NBA trying to change so many things? Don't fix it if it ain't broke.

Only thing I agree with is less time outs, because that **** is annoying. Also, less time at the FT line as in no high fives, no 8-10 seconds to wind up just 5 seconds instead or something.

Also with that new TV deal, I don't think less games will fly with those guys.

[SA37]

Oh, the CBA does a lot more than that. Restricted free agency, the draft, rookies contracts, Bird rights, financial trade restrictions, an age restriction, and the luxury tax are all examples of the way the NBA manipulates and restricts player movement by giving advantages to the team holding a players' rights and placing other teams at a disadvantage to sign a player or flat out restricting the players a team can acquire.

The NBA's eventual goal is to implement a hard cap to completely fix spending. To give you an idea how far they want to cut spending, the NBA tried this move:

Yeah, you're right, any player could choose not to play in the NBA. But is that realistic? That's like saying, "Well, if you don't like what the US government is doing, just stop going to work and supporting the system."

The NBA is attempting to completely remove the risk factor from its business at the expense of players' rights. To ignore that is a mistake.

Like I said before, look at the NHL. Seasons are the same length as NBA seasons, they have the same number of games played. Hockey is even more physically demanding than basketball, and yet you don't see NHL players complaining about the season being too long.

I don't follow hockey, but I can tell you hockey players' knees and feet are not taking the pounding that NBA players' do.

At any rate, that's irrelevant to the conversation about basketball seasons because we already see teams in the NBA monitoring players' mintues before and during the season and players are sitting out games during the season and towards the end of the season when the games really become meaingless for most teams. Players who have been seriously injured (Rose and Rondo come to mind) are taking extra time to come back because of how demanding the schedule is.

In other words, we're already seeing other measures being taken to fix what is clearly perceived as a problem by teams.

Yes, it does all those things, but that's still part of a free market. The government has no involvement with the CBA or individual contracts. The CBA is agreed upon by both owners and players. Before any rules of the CBA can be applied to contract negotiations, they must first be agreed by both parties. Therefore, whatever limitations are placed on contracts have already been accepted by the players signing the contract.

No, it's not part of a free market, which is why the CBA is needed. All of the provisions I mentioned would be illegal under US law. The CBA allows the NBA to circumvent those rules (yes, with the agreement of the players).

If the players feel the NBA is overstepping its bounds, they'll disband the Players Union like they did in '11 and they'll sue the league for unfair business practices.