OT: Adam Silver in favor of 10 minute quarters

[WindyCityBorn]

No thanks. He seems desperate.

[Indomitable]

This idea blows to be frank.

You're creating more issues and deflecting, maybe be its me for him to move on.

All does create is headlines.

[Indomitable]

No thanks. He seems desperate.

In over his head

[jStuNNa]

:dontknow:

I think this is a great idea, but I get why people hate it, because I feel like people mostly hate big changes.

Shorter games is probably a better fan experience

Shorter games means easier to stagger minutes may result in fewer injuries (though remains to be seen if star players would just have lesser workloads or if guys like Thibs would just never rest their stars at all now) without shortening the season and decreasing revenue.

I think it'd have less impact on records than you think (at least at an individual level) because you still might see similar MPG for star players that are breaking records (ie, no one is going over 40 now anyway) though if that proves true, the injury mitigation is less.

I'm in the minority here and agree as well. I was just at the Denver game this week, which was fantastic, and had great seats. But as as exciting as that game was, there were many times when it felt like it was dragging.

I also think shorter games would encourage the players to play harder since there's less time to make a come back if you fall too far behind. Teams would play harder to keep the game closer.

[Hangtime84]

As I only just watch the clip... he talks it predominantly framing it around TV, games being in a 2 hour timeslot is easier for programming etc. This feels like being stuck in an old mindset... given the progression to more on demand services/streaming.

What's the point of it fitting better in a 2 hour slot, if the quality of the product is going downhill? It doesn't matter if a movie is 1.5 hours or 3 hours, a crappy movie is a crappy movie and people still won't watch.

i think is position was fair and this is counter point to his view.

[kodo]

It's only 48 minutes, the reason it takes 2 1/2 hours of viewer's time is firmly because of the NBA.

It's such a Silver thing to say that the problem of NBA games is that it's showing too much basketball. We need more commercials and sports betting content, that will bring the ratings up.

It's so very clear he doesn't care about basketball as a passion. He's the Jerry Reinsdorf of commishes. Great on maximizing monetization, but doesn't care a bit about the actual game.

[step]

As I only just watch the clip... he talks it predominantly framing it around TV, games being in a 2 hour timeslot is easier for programming etc. This feels like being stuck in an old mindset... given the progression to more on demand services/streaming.

What's the point of it fitting better in a 2 hour slot, if the quality of the product is going downhill? It doesn't matter if a movie is 1.5 hours or 3 hours, a crappy movie is a crappy movie and people still won't watch.

Oh I agree with you regarding the quality.

I just also think that given the general move to on-demand service providers etc e.g. Amazon and Netflix etc, that decreasing the total length of time to fit TV programming is somewhat redundant. I get that cable TV is still a thing... but by the next TV deal, I'll be surprised if it's still around at all.

[dice]

:dontknow:

I think this is a great idea, but I get why people hate it, because I feel like people mostly hate big changes.

Shorter games is probably a better fan experience

Shorter games means easier to stagger minutes may result in fewer injuries (though remains to be seen if star players would just have lesser workloads or if guys like Thibs would just never rest their stars at all now) without shortening the season and decreasing revenue.

I think it'd have less impact on records than you think (at least at an individual level) because you still might see similar MPG for star players that are breaking records (ie, no one is going over 40 now anyway) though if that proves true, the injury mitigation is less.

You don't get why people hate it, if you think that is the reason.

NBA games aren't too long. NFL games are. MLB games are (a little better since the role changes).

football fans don't think the games are too long. if anything there are too few possessions. commentary and replays fill the time between plays just fine

[ThisGuyFawkes]

:dontknow:

I think this is a great idea, but I get why people hate it, because I feel like people mostly hate big changes.

Shorter games is probably a better fan experience

Shorter games means easier to stagger minutes may result in fewer injuries (though remains to be seen if star players would just have lesser workloads or if guys like Thibs would just never rest their stars at all now) without shortening the season and decreasing revenue.

I think it'd have less impact on records than you think (at least at an individual level) because you still might see similar MPG for star players that are breaking records (ie, no one is going over 40 now anyway) though if that proves true, the injury mitigation is less.

You don't get why people hate it, if you think that is the reason.

NBA games aren't too long. NFL games are. MLB games are (a little better since the role changes).

Both those sports have more play stoppage than they do actual play. Not only are NBA games shorter than other major sports, there is more consistent action than in those other sports. It is why my favorite sports went from "MLB, NFL, NBA" TO "NBA, NFL, MLB". Frankly, if the Bears fan wasnt drilled into me since I was 7 I probably would never watch an NFL game and I quit watching MLB a few years after the Cubs won the world series. Just not enough actual playing the game.

As others said, this is a solution looking for a problem. I have never had anyone list "the games are too long" as being one of the problems the NBA has.

I would watch more NHL for the same reason, but I live in south Texas (no local hockey broadcasts) and I'm not going to pay to watch it all season. I already have to pay for Bulls games.

[Red8911]

I always wondered why the rest of the world has 10 minutes a quarter but the NBA has 12.

I wouldn’t mind switching to 10, 2hrs a game is better than 2.5 hrs but would kill all stats comparisons and would change the game in general into something we aren’t used to.

One example the bench would probably get less playing time.

[aguifs]

Let him kill the game. This guy is a joke

[League Circles]

I've never really understood the notion that entertainment can be "too long". Like I always laugh when people complain about great movies being too long.

[CROBulls]

Adam Silver was never smart person to begin with but now I realized he might be incompetent too

[dougthonus]

You don't get why people hate it, if you think that is the reason.

My experience is more or less every change that is proposed is ripped on. The In-Season tournament is really good IMO, but people absolutely hated it at first, but the result is that it has created something interesting in the early season and the games ARE more intense. The play-in tournament has been good, but people absolutely hated at first, but the result has been more competition on the back end of the season and some really good games.

NBA games aren't too long. NFL games are. MLB games are (a little better since the role changes).

Both those sports have more play stoppage than they do actual play. Not only are NBA games shorter than other major sports, there is more consistent action than in those other sports. It is why my favorite sports went from "MLB, NFL, NBA" TO "NBA, NFL, MLB". Frankly, if the Bears fan wasnt drilled into me since I was 7 I probably would never watch an NFL game and I quit watching MLB a few years after the Cubs won the world series. Just not enough actual playing the game.

As others said, this is a solution looking for a problem. I have never had anyone list "the games are too long" as being one of the problems the NBA has.

Maybe, off the cuff, I don't see anything magical about 48 minutes vs 40 minutes. Maybe it doesn't solve a huge problem for you, but I think it might help with several minor problems. I would rather watch a 40 minute game than a 48 minute game and get the time down shorter, and I think most younger fans are the same.

Every other pro version of the sport is at 40 minutes right? So the format obviously works.

I've not seen any real reason to hate on the idea presented in this thread. Just a bunch of people who hate Adam Silver for some reason and think he sucks, which is sort of hilarious, because he's grown the value of the NBA at an insane clip. Adam Silver took over in 2014. He's absolutely crushed every other sports league in terms of growth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/billsimmons/comments/1buy37f/franchise_value_growth_over_the_last_decade_for/

[League Circles]

You don't get why people hate it, if you think that is the reason.

My experience is more or less every change that is proposed is ripped on. The In-Season tournament is really good IMO, but people absolutely hated it at first, but the result is that it has created something interesting in the early season and the games ARE more intense. The play-in tournament has been good, but people absolutely hated at first, but the result has been more competition on the back end of the season and some really good games.

NBA games aren't too long. NFL games are. MLB games are (a little better since the role changes).

Both those sports have more play stoppage than they do actual play. Not only are NBA games shorter than other major sports, there is more consistent action than in those other sports. It is why my favorite sports went from "MLB, NFL, NBA" TO "NBA, NFL, MLB". Frankly, if the Bears fan wasnt drilled into me since I was 7 I probably would never watch an NFL game and I quit watching MLB a few years after the Cubs won the world series. Just not enough actual playing the game.

As others said, this is a solution looking for a problem. I have never had anyone list "the games are too long" as being one of the problems the NBA has.

Maybe, off the cuff, I don't see anything magical about 48 minutes vs 40 minutes. Maybe it doesn't solve a huge problem for you, but I think it might help with several minor problems. I would rather watch a 40 minute game than a 48 minute game and get the time down shorter, and I think most younger fans are the same.

Every other pro version of the sport is at 40 minutes right? So the format obviously works.

I've not seen any real reason to hate on the idea presented in this thread. Just a bunch of people who hate Adam Silver for some reason and think he sucks, which is sort of hilarious, because he's grown the value of the NBA at an insane clip relative to tis size in his reign. By any objective measure, Silver's reign has been fricken awesome for the league, and the league knows it. I have no idea why fans hate commissioners of every league, except that they generally just seem mad every time something changes, and Silver's been one of the more aggressive commissioners at making changes.

Do you have any evidence that there even are pro leagues other than the NBA? Sounds made-up.

It's pretty simple - play-in tournament and in-season tournament are MORE basketball. This would be LESS basketball. I can't speak for everyone but I don't remember having a problem with either new tournament. A lot of people were pretty big fans of David Stern. I wouldn't say I hate Silver or any commish that I can think of, but this is a bad idea IMO and many aspects of the game/league have become worse for fans under Silver IMO.

[dougthonus]

Do you have any evidence that there even are pro leagues other than the NBA? Sounds made-up.

WNBA, NCAA Mens/Womens, all European leagues?

It's pretty simple - play-in tournament and in-season tournament are MORE basketball. This would be LESS basketball. I can't speak for everyone but I don't remember having a problem with either new tournament.

Neither did I, but boy were we in the minority there.

A lot of people were pretty big fans of David Stern. I wouldn't say I hate Silver or any commish that I can think of, but this is a bad idea IMO and many aspects of the game/league have become worse for fans under Silver IMO.

And yet the league has grown 500% in 10 years under him, more than double the next biggest league growth.

[League Circles]

Do you have any evidence that there even are pro leagues other than the NBA? Sounds made-up.

WNBA, NCAA Mens/Womens, all European leagues?

It's pretty simple - play-in tournament and in-season tournament are MORE basketball. This would be LESS basketball. I can't speak for everyone but I don't remember having a problem with either new tournament.

Neither did I, but boy were we in the minority there.

A lot of people were pretty big fans of David Stern. I wouldn't say I hate Silver or any commish that I can think of, but this is a bad idea IMO and many aspects of the game/league have become worse for fans under Silver IMO.

And yet the league has grown 500% in 10 years under him, more than double the next biggest league growth.

Lol I was joking about other pro leagues.

League has grown 500% in profits? Revenue? Good for them. Many products and services get more expensive as they get less desirable. It's decreased about 10-20% in enjoyability IMO.

[Jeffster81]

Sure, why not. Silver has turned the NBA into a hot mess.

[DuckIII]

Not everyone who thinks this idea is stupid (it’s incredibly stupid and solves nothing related to actual basketball) dislikes Silver or all of his ideas. Flattening the lottery has been an outstanding change for example. And though the in-season tourney is hilariously dumb, fans seem to like it and it doesn’t disrupt the regular season like I thought it would. So that’s a win too.

[Stratmaster]

:dontknow:

I think this is a great idea, but I get why people hate it, because I feel like people mostly hate big changes.

Shorter games is probably a better fan experience

Shorter games means easier to stagger minutes may result in fewer injuries (though remains to be seen if star players would just have lesser workloads or if guys like Thibs would just never rest their stars at all now) without shortening the season and decreasing revenue.

I think it'd have less impact on records than you think (at least at an individual level) because you still might see similar MPG for star players that are breaking records (ie, no one is going over 40 now anyway) though if that proves true, the injury mitigation is less.

You don't get why people hate it, if you think that is the reason.

NBA games aren't too long. NFL games are. MLB games are (a little better since the role changes).

football fans don't think the games are too long. if anything there are too few possessions. commentary and replays fill the time between plays just fine

Some do, some don't.

I agree on the too few possessions. A 35, or even 30, second play clock would help and would also reduce the amount of time teams can burn off the clock when in the lead. Stopping the clock until snap on more plays during more of the game might help. I would have no problem with a 3.5 hour game if it is mostly action.

I record the games and skip not only commercials and halftime, but sometimes even between plays.

Regardless, I haven't heard any complaining that NBA games are too long.