Should the season be 66 games/15min quarters anyway?

ADRajX · Post #1 » by **ADRajX** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:40 pm

Current format:
82 Regular Season Games
12min Quarters (3936 total minutes for each team in a season)
28 Possible Post-Season Games (Best of 7 format)
12min Quarters (1344 total minutes for a team)
Time frame: November to April (Regular)|April to June (Playoffs)

New format
66 Regular Season Games
15min Quarters (3960 total minutes for a team in a season)
- plus 24min compared to 82-game format
28 Possible Post-Season Games (Best of 7 format)
15min Quarters (1680 total minutes for a team)
-plus 336min compared to 82-game format
Time frame: November to April (Regular)|April to June (Playoffs)

I feel like there are just too many games in the NBA season to begin with. Some of them no one cares about or they are just too unnecessary. I think shortening the season will bring more focus/importance to each game. There will be more meaning to them, as there is less room for error (losing) in order to make the playoffs. I think the players need more gaps/breaks in between games for recovery/rest. It will also give teams more time to have practice and develop chemistry/game-plans DURING the course of the season, in order to make adjustments and proper evaluations.

I think increasing the quarter length from 12 to 15 minutes gives the fans more basketball action/entertainment to watch on the court; especially when attending games. It also gives more minutes/opportunities to rotational/role/rookie/DNP type players. Also at the end of the 66-game season, there is actually an increase in the TOTAL minutes for the entire regular-season and post-season played when compared to the 82-game format. So guys like Kobe, Wade, Lebron, Dwight, etc. will still have a great chance to keep their past season averages (gs, mpg, ppg, rpg, apg, spg, bpg, etc.) CONSISTENT with no drop-off in rate/production when chasing after the All-time greats/leaders. I feel like injuries will be reduced and careers will be extended as players will only play two-three 60 minute games per week, rather than play three-five 48 minute games per week (as seen in an 82-game format) [Regular Season: November to April|Playoffs: April to June]. There will also be less back-to-back games. Road games will be more manageable. This will also help certain older/veteran players continue to play at a higher level, due to having more gaps/rest/breaks between games.

Also, each team will play their divisional rival teams four times (16 games total); and each team will play everyone else outside their division and conference (East and West) two times (50 games total) for the season. Obviously with even home and road games split (33 home, 33 away).

What do you guys think? I know in the past people have complained about the length of the season.

HTown_TMac · Post #2 » by **HTown_TMac** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:41 pm

Dr Positivity · Post #3 » by **Dr Positivity** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:41 pm

Yes, they should also play outside - can bring pets, holds millions

IanJames · Post #4 » by **IanJames** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:43 pm

I feel like by the end of the season LeBron/Wade/Durant/Rose would be averaging 40+ ppg playing 60 minute games

ADRajX · Post #5 » by **ADRajX** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:45 pm

Dr Mufasa wrote:Yes, they should also play outside - can bring pets, holds millions

HTown_TMac wrote:lol

hey look, two guys who failed to read objectively, to give an opinion, and are using condescending tone to put down a thread... refreshing... keep up the great work ... really

Ron Harper · Post #6 » by **Ron Harper** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:45 pm

60 minutes is a lot of time. You're going to be seeing some very trashy play at the start of the 2nd and end of the 3rd. I'd rather not.

ADRajX · Post #7 » by **ADRajX** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:47 pm

IanJames wrote:I feel like by the end of the season LeBron/Wade/Durant/Rose would be averaging 40+ ppg playing 60 minute games

I actually disagree. Yes there are 12 plus minutes in a game, but that also means more timeouts, more rests on the bench, and more minutes given to role players. I think star players' averages may look skewed/higher, but with less games involved the total points, rebounds, steals, assists, etc. at the end of the season will still be comparable to an 82-game season when you average everything out.

NBA Fan 1234 · Post #8 » by **NBA Fan 1234** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:47 pm

Ron Harper wrote:60 minutes is a lot of time. You're going to be seeing some very trashy play at the start of the 2nd and end of the 3rd. I'd rather not.

FIrst thing that came to mind for me. I also think that as the games go on, the game will become more ugly -- due to players will be playing even more minutes per game (even though there will be fewer games, it's just a gut feeling).

Dr Mufasa wrote:Yes, they should also play outside - can bring pets, holds millions

I still love that thread.

Tai · Post #9 » by **Tai** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:48 pm

Why not just decrease the amount of games?

Either way, the quality of games argument seems overstated. I think the "teams don't show up" issue happens even in the NFL. I'd rather decrease the amount of games than increase the time in each one, but other than that, I don't think decreasing the amount of games will really mean much.

Sky_Knicks · Post #10 » by **Sky_Knicks** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:48 pm

Terrible idea. Leave it the way it is.

ADRajX · Post #11 » by **ADRajX** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:48 pm

Fair enough^

What if the quarters were still 12 minutes long, but the games were shortened to 66? Would any oppose or agree that it would be beneficial in the long-run for teams and players? Good or bad?

pace31 · Post #12 » by **pace31** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:49 pm

Games take what 2 and a half hours as of now and adding an extra 3 minutes onto the end of each quarter would make games easily last over 3 hours. That's just way too long for a basketball game. I know football games easily go past 3 hours and close to 4 at times, but that's usually a once a week thing for fans.

ADRajX · Post #13 » by **ADRajX** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:50 pm

pace31 wrote:Games take what 2 and a half hours as of now and adding an extra 3 minutes onto the end of each quarter would make games easily last over 3 hours. That's just way too long for a basketball game. I know football games easily go past 3 hours and close to 4 at times, but that's usually a once a week thing for fans.

Most games now are 2hrs 20min

Football games are 3 hours (that's including long stops, and timeouts)... I think the games would be just under 3 hours (2hrs 45-50min)... Basketball much more fast paced

NBA Fan 1234 · Post #14 » by **NBA Fan 1234** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:51 pm

DJRajX wrote:Fair enough^

What if the quarters were still 12 minutes long, but the games were shortened to 66? Would any oppose or agree that it would be beneficial in the long-run for teams and players? Good or bad?

Definitely beneficial in the long run for players -- less mileage so they'll be more fresh come postseason time. I personally don't want to change anything about the length of games or season; I like it the way it currently is.

MaxRider · Post #15 » by **MaxRider** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:52 pm

15min quarter? i was thinking 10min quarter and less game
i want 2-3 games per week (more chance to fans to watch other team play)
4 games in 5 nights is just crazy

ADRajX · Post #16 » by **ADRajX** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:52 pm

Paco wrote:
DJRajX wrote:Fair enough^

What if the quarters were still 12 minutes long, but the games were shortened to 66? Would any oppose or agree that it would be beneficial in the long-run for teams and players? Good or bad?

Definitely beneficial in the long run for players -- less mileage so they'll be more fresh come postseason time. I personally don't want to change anything about the length of games or season; I like it the way it currently is.

Yeah that was the main reason I stated a change... the only reason I increased it from 12min to 15min is because I didn't want a big drop-off of season averages/totals to occur, due to obviously having less games being played (but there are more total possible minutes being played to compensate for loss of games).

Chalk1 · Post #17 » by **Chalk1** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:54 pm

I foul out. You foul out. We all foul out.

Post #18 » by **alucryts** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:54 pm

I don't feel that there is enough of a potential benefit in order to justify such a change. You know the problems that we have with 12/82, but we have no idea what will happen with 15/66. The unseen problem is always the one that is most impactful, and there is no huge gain to be had by the move.

ADRajX · Post #19 » by **ADRajX** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:55 pm

MaxRider wrote:15min quarter? i was thinking 10min quarter and less game
i want 2-3 games per week (more chance to fans to watch other team play)
4 games in 5 nights is just crazy

I agree with this... I feel like there are too many stretches/weeks of games... players get injured/fatigued/hurt... too many back-to-back games, and long road games packed in a week. Ridiculous.

Jaysonw23 · Post #20 » by **Jaysonw23** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:03 pm

I say keep it the way it is. It's already hard enough evaluating players across eras, it would be even worse with less games an more minutes.

But sticking with the longer game premise, I disagree that there would be more sloppy play. In fact, 4th quarters could end up much better due to more rest on the bench, most coaches would not play their stars for 50 minutes a game, that's crazy.

82gms/12minQ or 66gms/15minQ?