RealGM

It's only a preview/teaser of the full interview, but the snippet is interesting nonetheless. Having multiple trophies, just as European Soccer, can only attract more eyes on the game (even though the hardcore fans might not be interested in the beginning). It seems interesting in the way he phrased it as regular-season games that also would have implications for the 'Stern Cup' or having games that have to reach a certain score.

Nobody will care. Do you think any college basketball fans care who wins NIT season tip-off in November? Or any number of other smaller 'tournament/challenges'? once the season is over?

Adaaaaaaaam hahaha KG.

Need to add top euro teams for cup games to make it international stern cup. Plus a champion of Aussie league.

Slacktard wrote:Nobody will care. Do you think any college basketball fans care who wins NIT season tip-off in November? Or any number of other smaller 'tournament/challenges'? once the season is over?

Silver isn't just talking about one cup/tournament, but multiple. If that's the case then something substantial needs to be at stake like a playoff spot, but with less teams making the playoffs. Otherwise I agree nobody will care if the it's just a monetary prize for the players or something else that's frivolous.

On one hand I think it is a good thing the NBA is actively trying to come up with solutions to make the regular season more interesting but on the flip side the majority of these suggestions sound like novelty ideas people will get sick of after seeing it a couple of times and they don't address the key issues of the season being too long and over half the teams making play-offs anyway.

The counter argument against shortering the regular season is often "why would you want less basketball?" but who here watches every single game? Are you really having 5 different games playing at the same time because you can't miss a second of all this basketball that we're getting? How about proper programming where games aren't all on at the same time? I bet if they shortened the season to like 50 games over the same period of time more people would be watching. Of course games being more spread out would help but it'd also make every game feel more important. Selfishly I'd definitely like the prospect of more early games being possible because teams don't have to play every other day in a shorter season so people from Europe and Africa can actually watch more than 1 game a week without destroying our sleep schedule.

wegotthabeet wrote:

Slacktard wrote:Nobody will care. Do you think any college basketball fans care who wins NIT season tip-off in November? Or any number of other smaller 'tournament/challenges'? once the season is over?

Silver isn't just talking about one cup/tournament, but multiple. If that's the case then something substantial needs to be at stake like a playoff spot, but with less teams making the playoffs. Otherwise I agree nobody will care if the it's just a monetary prize for the players or something else that's frivolous.

Putting playoff spots on the line could spectacularly backfire especially when you have the commissioner coming out and talking about "Star players are not playing enough games anymore"

Well if a team manages to clinch a playoff spot in December in a 'tourny', that is only going to make that team more likely to rest their star players more often.

So some teams won’t play 82 games? I assume teams won’t continue playing after they’re eliminated, right?

Or are teams now playing more than 82 games?

Whatever happens, looks like going by total stat leaders is out the window when teams get different number of games

Slacktard wrote:Nobody will care. Do you think any college basketball fans care who wins NIT season tip-off in November? Or any number of other smaller 'tournament/challenges'? once the season is over?

It all depends on the incentive for the players and attracting viewership. In Europe, you have the Champions League which is regarded as prestige as the national league itself. It won't happen overnight, but I can see them trying to figure out how to make it more appealing. There were also those who said the play-in was bad, but since the NBA is saying it's here to stay, it means more viewership and engagement has happened because of it. Don't be so dismissive of the NBA trying to progres. I'm all for traditions but it doesn't hurt to switch it up and see how it fares.

If they actually had an international cup of some sort with league champs up against the NBA's best (or worst, I don't really care) that could potentially be very cool.

But if it's just a midseason tourney with the same 30 teams as usual, or a smaller subset of them who earned the privilege, it's not going to get the attention Silver expects. The league is probably also going to have to pony up a few million apiece to get major players to not take rest days, or fine them the same amount for non-participation.

Slacktard wrote:

wegotthabeet wrote:

Slacktard wrote:Nobody will care. Do you think any college basketball fans care who wins NIT season tip-off in November? Or any number of other smaller 'tournament/challenges'? once the season is over?

Silver isn't just talking about one cup/tournament, but multiple. If that's the case then something substantial needs to be at stake like a playoff spot, but with less teams making the playoffs. Otherwise I agree nobody will care if the it's just a monetary prize for the players or something else that's frivolous.

Putting playoff spots on the line could spectacularly backfire especially when you have the commissioner coming out and talking about "Star players are not playing enough games anymore"

Well if a team manages to clinch a playoff spot in December in a 'tourny', that is only going to make that team more likely to rest their star players more often.

That's a valid point, but I disagree. Something has to be at stake. If only 8 teams made the playoffs it would harder to just rest.

I posted this in another thread. https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?p=98073024#p98073024

wegotthabeet wrote:
Regular season: 50 games (2 x 25 vs every team not in the same division). Best record after 50 games get the first playoff spot and home court throughout the playoffs.

All-star break then...

Divisional games: 24 games (4 x 6 only against divisional teams). Best record after 24 games wins the division and 6 divisional winners get the next 6 spots.

Last chance Tournament: the remaining teams play a March Madness style tournament for the last playoff spot.

Gives meaning to the regular season and the games ramp up in importance as the season progresses. Every team would have 3 chances to make the playoffs and the playoffs would only be the very best teams in the league.

Players could rest in the first 50 games, but then they'd have to win a division tournament/cup or a single elimination tournament to get a playoff spot. By contrast the team that finishes with the best record in the first 50 games could also rest players during the division games, but only one team would have that luxury.

If the league expanded to 32 teams, created 4 divisions and had multiple cups worth 1 playoff spot it would be even more difficult for players to just rest.

Regular Season Cup: 48 games. Best record = 1 playoff spot

Divisional Cup: 14 games. Best records = 4 playoff spots

Stern Cup: 32 teams single elimination = 1 playoff spot

Champions Cup: last 16 teams to win a championship participate = 1 playoff spot

Last chance Cup: the remaining teams play a single elimination tournament for the last playoff spot.

Hard to rest players in this type of scenario without risking missing the playoffs. They could also play the first half of the division games before the regular season, then the second half after. Only one team would clinch a spot by game 55 of the season. There's room to get creative here. A player could sit out all year until the last two/three tournaments, but there's no room for error in single elimination, all of which are at the end of the year.

Sounds stupid af lol

What about the Silver Cup?

The Stern Cup will be even more meaningless than a win in the all-star game

haha It's crazy how many people replying is not remotely close to be openminded enough to welcome something that could be much better than "82 games"

If they want more eyes on the product, they need to get rid of the black out rules that accompany regional contracts and start making games available on a per game basis. The forced purchase of unwanted content is going to catchup with the league if they continue on the current trend. Cable is dying. The cost of unwanted content far exceeds its value. My parents are in their 70s and even they cut the cord.

Slacktard wrote:Nobody will care. Do you think any college basketball fans care who wins NIT season tip-off in November? Or any number of other smaller 'tournament/challenges'? once the season is over?

I consider myself an avid NBA fan. I watch Summer League, I watch pre-season, I keep up with the latest results every day and certainly watch almost all of my team's games. I watch college basketball just to have a closer look at the future NBA players. For me, I can safely say that I'll definitely care more about an in-season tournament game than the 57th game of the regular season. It simply matters more, even if the trophy at the end doesn't have the greatest appeal.

And keep in mind: Silver is very explicit that I wouldn't even be the target of this adjustment. It's casual fans who want to see games that matter by virtue of the format, even if the stakes are not comparable to the ultimate trophy in basketball at the end of the playoffs. People are most definitely more inclined to tune in and watch something that's labeled ‘Semifinals’ or ‘Finals’, that have direct consequences, than a random regular season game with the same two teams that may or may not matter a couple months down the road.

Keep in mind also that college basketball, for instance, has a lot of (half-baked) in-season tournaments that ESPN and co. love to advertise. Would they do that if there wasn't some value in that (which can only come from interest among the audience)? European soccer also has a bunch of successful in-season tournament formats. If done well, I have no doubt that this generates more interest from a broader audience than the average game in a 82-game season.

It seems that the ones most opposed to this idea are ‘basketball purists’ and those who just like things the way they have always been or used to be. I'm not even sure most avid fans are against this idea. But even if they were: conservative ‘basketball purists’ and the most invested fans are not the targets here. It clearly angles for support from the broader audience and casual followers. Whether one likes this or not, it's important to keep this in mind and to be able to see the reasoning from the NBA's perspective.

And lastly, let me also note that I'd fully agree that this doesn't fix everything that's wrong with the NBA, or that it's even the most important part. Long commercial breaks, too many time-outs, hours to finish close games, players resting, star players holding franchises hostage, crappy owners, excessive tanking, too many foul calls etc. – there is a long list of issues that should be looked at closely. But I fully understand the desire to create new formats to better deal with the very long and often monotonous regular season and the problem that too many games simply do not seem to really matter (both to fans and teams).

What are ways to make it fun?

Spitballing here. Go world cup style.

6 division winners from prior season get the top seed in each group. Then the 6 2nd place, on down. So its essentially 6 randomly drawn groups of 5.

For example one group might be: Boston 1, Chicago 2, Minnesota 3, Lakers 4, Rockets 5.

Go round robin and play every team in the group once. 2H, 2A. Point differential is tie breaker.

Then do a single elimination playoff. Top 2 teams get byes.

Winner of the tournament gets $1M bonus for all players. Should be another incentive as well. Maybe the 10th overall pick to the winner (untradeable and excluded from lotto odds). Maybe an automatic 6 seed?



The games played can come out of your schedule from later in year. So for instance if Minnesota plays at home vs Chicago in playin that game already happens. Record in playin groups counts for regular season.

Honestly the NBA needs sister leagues in Europe and Africa that it can officially lend players to and from and hold inter-league tournaments with. It would boost the brand globally by a lot. Masai is already putting in work in this area with the Giants of Africa program.

Wolfgang630 wrote:What about the Silver Cup?

I see what you did there