Lebron, Dirk and Spo agree on lowering games not minutes

[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.

[GinWeary]

The only sensible suggestion I've seen is abolishing back to backs permanently and either starting the season earlier or ending it later. Back to backs are the most devastating things to players' health (see: lockout year). We know that owners will never agree to lose money by cutting games, and shortening games is useless as mentioned by LBJ (I suspect that it was proposed as a way to squeeze in more commercials in the same time block--nothing to do with health concerns)

I agree with all of this. These guys get paid BIG bucks. We've been playing 82 games per since 68' right? So basically every relevant and important thing that has happened in NBA history has happened under the 82 game format. It's been going on for 46 years, and we KNOW players are better paid/fed/trained/taken/ care of now. So, what's the big deal all of the sudden? For the most part these guys work from September to mid April. Come on meow. Sure, some guys play from September until June. But, that's kinda what separates champions from everyone else and is really the whole point of the NBA season to being with. If the old heads could do the grind "back in the day", surely the new kids who play in a more advantageous league/WORLD can handle it.

Could not agree more. Going through a long, grueling season is part of what it takes to be considered a champion. That is why it is fun to watch this many games because it is not always the team that has the most talent on paper, but teams that are talented and endure the season, and make smart long term decisions.

[molepharmer]

No surprise. Two guys who are among the career leaders in games played (including playoffs) would now like to play fewer games.

[RNsteve]

Would be OK with 80 games... Beyond that,..

Sent from my Nexus 5 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[mpharris36]

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.

[Perkele]

Start the season 3 weeks earlier but keep the 82 games to reduce back-to-backs.

This. Reducing the minutes of the game is stupid IMO. 48 minutes are absolutely fine. It worked for so many decades, why to stop it just now? The medicine has made such progress during this time span, the athletes have a much better surrounding than like in the 60's and 70's.

If you want to increase the flow of the game, get rid of 1-2 timeouts and reduce the number of foul calls. And regarding the high number of games, you can either skip that stupid preseason or stretch the season by 2-3 weeks to erase the number of back-to-backs. Shouldn't be such a big issue. 82 games per season is fine, only the timeframe might need to be stretched a bit in order to sustain the quality of the game by helping the players to get more rest. But I would be fine with no changes as well. It worked for so long, there is actually a risk of ruining the game by making too many or idiotic changes.

[durden_tyler]

Why not just put a cap on the number of games a player can play? Keep the 82 game season, but force every team to go the Spurs route and rest guys for a certain number of games.

Teams actually have the option to do that already. The Spurs proved it works and teams should just wise up and follow.

[SA37]

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.)

Sorry, the victim card just isn't going to work for pro athletes. There are plenty of strenuous , taxing jobs that people do 365 days a year and they don't even get paid 1% of what these guys make.

I never said nor suggested they were "victims". What my contention is, is there is no logical reason to maintan an 82-game season, in particular given the structure of it.

I agree there are plenty of people who work very hard all year around. But, there are thousands of studies showing the United States is an overworked, underpaid population and people are not any happier despite, in general, having "better" living situations than they did 40-50 years ago.

In both cases, there is no logical reason to keep the status quo other than to continue to line the owners' and stockholders' pockets. There are plenty of logical reasons as to why both situations could and should be changed.

[SA37]

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.

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?

[ThirdMan]

I would like a shorter season so we can get into the playoffs quicker. I follow the team on a semi-regular basis during the season but watch every game in the playoffs.

[cpower]

forget about the league , lets play a tournament to determine the champion right away LOL

[KrazyP]

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.

Just cause something has been done a certain way for a long time does not in and of itself mean it is the perfect way to do it or that it cannot be improved.

Lowering the number of games significantly increases the importance of games, reduces risk of injury, increases quality of play due to less wear and tear, extends players careers and allows us to enjoy the Lebrons, Dirks, KD's of the world for a lot longer.

With a 55 game season instead of 82, we can enjoy lebron (hypothetically) for 20 years instead of 15. We get to enjoy KD's prime for 10 years (again, hypothetically) instead of 6.

A 55 game season would result in a 33% drop in regular season revenue. Ridiculous. Nobody would ever sign up for this except a guy like Lebron who makes a boatload of money in endorsements. This is the prima dona era.

[maxpower88]

The NHL season is just as long as the NBA one and has just as many games. Hockey is also a more physically intensive sport than basketball. Someone tell these divas to stop crying.

[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.

[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.

[dautjazz]

Pampered generation

[MoMoneyMoProbs]

When you only have 8 or 9 players out of 12 playing on any given night, it will cause an issue on the primary players. You can't reduce the schedule, well you shouldn't, but if you want to make changes, here are a two ideas

- Increase shot clock
- Decrease the number of fouls to 5, it'll help extend the bench, and may be reduce play time?

[tidho]

If guys need time off, give them time off. Less minutes per game, or days off on back to backs. Just because there are 48 minutes in a game doesn't mean LeBron can't play 35 a night instead of 38. Just because there are 82 regular season games doesn't mean he can't play just 75 of them.

[Zane]

Pampered generation

The 2 players in these comments were LeBron and Dirk. Are you saying players born in the late 70's to mid 80's are part of the pampered generation? I figured that would be more of people born in the mid 90's to 2000's or something.

[SA37]

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.