RealGM

The question of load management has been of the major storylines to start the NBA season. The Los Angeles Clippers have rested Kawhi Leonard in back-to-back games on national television on multiple occasions.

Jeff Zucker, who is president of WarnerMedia and oversees TNT, was asked about the weak ratings of the NBA to begin the 19-20 season.

“I think the combination of injuries and sitting out has been an issue, and I think that’s a concern, and hopefully that will get addressed over time," said Zucker. "I think the league has some influence over teams and I would like them to exert that influence."

The NBA has national television deals with Turner Sports and ESPN worth $2.66 billion per year through 24-25. The current deal was finalized approximately two years before the expiration of the prior contract.

 

Via Ben Fischer/Sports Business Journal

Here's and idea. Eliminate officials time outs. Charge more for the remaining ads so that no revenue is lost. Less game breaks means a more watchable game.

Don't assign a few certain refs to any national televised games. The game should be about the players, not the refs.

Dennis 37 wrote:Here's and idea. Eliminate officials time outs. Charge more for the remaining ads so that no revenue is lost. Less game breaks means a more watchable game.

Don't assign a few certain refs to any national televised games. The game should be about the players, not the refs.

Not sure I agree with your logic $ wise, but I’d definitely like less time outs. The last 4 minutes of a game shouldn’t take an hour.

I think NBA should adopt FIBA rules. It’s a better game.

television was bound to step in

If the NBA really did what's necessary or prudent, they'd shorten the season and TV outlets wouldn't like the exerted influence.

Even as a viewer I firmly believe the sensation of regular season games would be increased by less games played. Many games are flat out boring compared to the massive amount of other available games. If there weren't as many, I'd enjoy watching Memphis or Washington every now and then. But as it stands, I don't even have enough free time to watch these teams too.

It would be entirely fair for them to make a rule that if the player is not significantly injured, or that players younger than 30 cannot have a game off for 'rest'.

And the penalty would be a big ass 100k fine like they did to the Spurs. Large enough fines that the NBAPA tells their people themselves that if you can play you better play or a lockout to lower salaries across the board might happen.

spree2kawhi wrote:If the NBA really did what's necessary or prudent, they'd shorten the season and TV outlets wouldn't like the exerted influence.

If you shorten the season to 65 games then certain players would still sit to have a 50 game season.

This was inevitable. Biting the hand that feeds you is never a great idea. Kawhi is pushing player empowerment to the limits and we're going to see what those limits are.

However, this is going to be impossible to enforce. I'd bet like 90% of players could legitimately sit out any random game for an assortment of nagging injuries. It pushes the conversations into the sensitive areas of honesty and integrity, which makes the whole thing feel pretty slimy. But that's where we are. Thanks, Kawhi.

swenjj wrote:

spree2kawhi wrote:If the NBA really did what's necessary or prudent, they'd shorten the season and TV outlets wouldn't like the exerted influence.

If you shorten the season to 65 games then certain players would still sit to have a 50 game season.

I don't understand why everybody keeps saying shorten the season. That will NEVER happen. The easier solution is to lengthen the calendar and still play 82 games. Start the regular season in September. Also, cut back on All-Star week and extra long days off between games in the playoffs.

Jabroni Lames wrote:

swenjj wrote:

spree2kawhi wrote:If the NBA really did what's necessary or prudent, they'd shorten the season and TV outlets wouldn't like the exerted influence.

If you shorten the season to 65 games then certain players would still sit to have a 50 game season.

I don't understand why everybody keeps saying shorten the season. That will NEVER happen. The easier solution is to lengthen the calendar and still play 82 games. Start the regular season in September. Also, cut back on All-Star week and extra long days off between games in the playoffs.

But it's actually very easy to understand: These are too many games to endure or be excited about both as a player or viewer.

spree2kawhi wrote:

Jabroni Lames wrote:

swenjj wrote:If you shorten the season to 65 games then certain players would still sit to have a 50 game season.

I don't understand why everybody keeps saying shorten the season. That will NEVER happen. The easier solution is to lengthen the calendar and still play 82 games. Start the regular season in September. Also, cut back on All-Star week and extra long days off between games in the playoffs.

But it's actually very easy to understand: These are too many games to endure or be excited about both as a player or viewer.

That's your own personal opinion, but ever increasing revenues of the NBA would suggest otherwise. Or even that people can't get enough NBA related content. That's maybe part of the problem: too many people excited about the NBA these days, that the owners and players can take sometime fans for granted.

Zucker or Silver probably never even picked up a basketball so they shouldn’t dictate s#it. I’m not a big fan of players sitting out at all but this is getting way overblown because the interests of the greedy owners and the league are starting to come to haunt them. Also why is Kawhi being scapegoated here so much for this? Players have been sitting out forever. Pop used to sit out his whole starting lineups and lebron, wade and bosh would take games off too. Kawhi does in fact seem hurt. I saw the rockets game last night and u can tell he wasn’t right when sitting on the bench.

I swear, TNT and ESPN should be SCREAMING for a shorter season. It both would make their games more valuable (win for them), but would make the product better (a win for all).

Jabroni Lames wrote:

swenjj wrote:

spree2kawhi wrote:If the NBA really did what's necessary or prudent, they'd shorten the season and TV outlets wouldn't like the exerted influence.

If you shorten the season to 65 games then certain players would still sit to have a 50 game season.

I don't understand why everybody keeps saying shorten the season. That will NEVER happen. The easier solution is to lengthen the calendar and still play 82 games. Start the regular season in September. Also, cut back on All-Star week and extra long days off between games in the playoffs.

What is more valuable.

A limited edition product of 100 or a limited edition product of 25?

Well sports like everything else works the same way. The less you have of something the more it is worth (TV rights, tickets, etc).

Now in sports you get EXTRA value in that with less games to separate teams margins for error drop. So players are less likely to sit games that impact playoff seeding because they don't have an excessive amount of games to make up for losses.

So with less games teams can charge more for the games, the players will be healthier (better product), and the players will play harder (games mean more). Thus win win win for the league. Even better for the NBA, career totals aren't important stats to virtually anyone (sorry Bill Simmons) so the drop in games won't impact meaningful stats that people follow. 300 HRs matters in baseball, 30k points in basketball...it's cool but it's not remotely the same.

dhsilv2 wrote:

Jabroni Lames wrote:

swenjj wrote:If you shorten the season to 65 games then certain players would still sit to have a 50 game season.

I don't understand why everybody keeps saying shorten the season. That will NEVER happen. The easier solution is to lengthen the calendar and still play 82 games. Start the regular season in September. Also, cut back on All-Star week and extra long days off between games in the playoffs.

What is more valuable.

A limited edition product of 100 or a limited edition product of 25?

Well sports like everything else works the same way. The less you have of something the more it is worth (TV rights, tickets, etc).

Now in sports you get EXTRA value in that with less games to separate teams margins for error drop. So players are less likely to sit games that impact playoff seeding because they don't have an excessive amount of games to make up for losses.

So with less games teams can charge more for the games, the players will be healthier (better product), and the players will play harder (games mean more). Thus win win win for the league. Even better for the NBA, career totals aren't important stats to virtually anyone (sorry Bill Simmons) so the drop in games won't impact meaningful stats that people follow. 300 HRs matters in baseball, 30k points in basketball...it's cool but it's not remotely the same.

It all depends on what people are willing to pay for your product. If nba games are selling out they only have 2 options to increase profit. Play more games or increase prices. I don’t think people want to pay more and that would not be received well, just like with the nfl they pay top dollar already because the market dictates it. That’s why the NBA won’t shorten the season significantly. The only thing I could see is somehow getting to 70 games and eliminating all back to backs and discouraging load management by fines

Kinger95 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:

Jabroni Lames wrote:
I don't understand why everybody keeps saying shorten the season. That will NEVER happen. The easier solution is to lengthen the calendar and still play 82 games. Start the regular season in September. Also, cut back on All-Star week and extra long days off between games in the playoffs.

What is more valuable.

A limited edition product of 100 or a limited edition product of 25?

Well sports like everything else works the same way. The less you have of something the more it is worth (TV rights, tickets, etc).

Now in sports you get EXTRA value in that with less games to separate teams margins for error drop. So players are less likely to sit games that impact playoff seeding because they don't have an excessive amount of games to make up for losses.

So with less games teams can charge more for the games, the players will be healthier (better product), and the players will play harder (games mean more). Thus win win win for the league. Even better for the NBA, career totals aren't important stats to virtually anyone (sorry Bill Simmons) so the drop in games won't impact meaningful stats that people follow. 300 HRs matters in baseball, 30k points in basketball...it's cool but it's not remotely the same.

It all depends on what people are willing to pay for your product. If nba games are selling out they only have 2 options to increase profit. Play more games or increase prices. I don’t think people want to pay more and that would not be received well, just like with the nfl they pay top dollar already because the market dictates it. That’s why the NBA won’t shorten the season significantly. The only thing I could see is somehow getting to 70 games and eliminating all back to backs and discouraging load management by fines

Why would people not pay more? Right now there are so many games most of us just flat out ignore a significant amount of the schedule be it our favorite team or our favorite players. Meanwhile the NFL demands substantially more for each game, and a big part of that is that every game means so freaking much. Heck, with less games and a more normalized schedule fantasy basketball could become a real thing for casual fans, who right now aren't about to get into it because it's just too much work.

The league is not selling out every game and they CERTAINLY aren't selling out at premium pricing. Most teams have to use massively game adjusted prices to move tickets already. The league is far from maximizing the value of each game, they're using a much more dated volume selling point. Think the difference in a premium good and a commodity. A 5 star restaurant vs McDonalds. Sure the nba isn't actually a big mac and I doubt they want to be kobe beef either, but they have plenty of room to push their product up market.

They could elongate the season.
Start in September and end in early July.

The league could potentially make more money by starting just before Christmas and ending just before football starts.

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

I don't believe the NBA can collectively raise prices for tickets. They're likely about as high as they can go. A title contender specifically can (like the Clippers) but that wouldn't apply in Orlando I suspect. NOLA is another unique example that could raise prices.

I don't follow the logic of lowering the number of games. The NHL or MLB wouldn't be more appealing imo if they both decided to only play 16 games similarly to the NFL.

Sent from my LM-G710 using RealGM mobile app

Kinger95 wrote:

dhsilv2 wrote:

Jabroni Lames wrote:
I don't understand why everybody keeps saying shorten the season. That will NEVER happen. The easier solution is to lengthen the calendar and still play 82 games. Start the regular season in September. Also, cut back on All-Star week and extra long days off between games in the playoffs.

What is more valuable.

A limited edition product of 100 or a limited edition product of 25?

Well sports like everything else works the same way. The less you have of something the more it is worth (TV rights, tickets, etc).

Now in sports you get EXTRA value in that with less games to separate teams margins for error drop. So players are less likely to sit games that impact playoff seeding because they don't have an excessive amount of games to make up for losses.

So with less games teams can charge more for the games, the players will be healthier (better product), and the players will play harder (games mean more). Thus win win win for the league. Even better for the NBA, career totals aren't important stats to virtually anyone (sorry Bill Simmons) so the drop in games won't impact meaningful stats that people follow. 300 HRs matters in baseball, 30k points in basketball...it's cool but it's not remotely the same.

It all depends on what people are willing to pay for your product. If nba games are selling out they only have 2 options to increase profit. Play more games or increase prices. I don’t think people want to pay more and that would not be received well, just like with the nfl they pay top dollar already because the market dictates it. That’s why the NBA won’t shorten the season significantly. The only thing I could see is somehow getting to 70 games and eliminating all back to backs and discouraging load management by fines

58 would be ideal obviously. Everybody facing each other twice. Every matchup counts as a potential tie breaker as you basically can't afford losing to any team twice. That's real pressure and would be great for the regular season atmosphere.