RealGM

I totally agree with him, about players being so soft today.
But, I would like a 76 game season, after expanding to 32 teams

4 divisions of 8 teams
Play the 7 teams in your district 4 times (28 games)
Play all the other teams 2 times (48 games)
Total of 76 games-everyone has a balanced schedule

It would reduce injuries, cut "rest" games and improve the product for a minimal revenue loss

He’s right but also 82 games is boring to me so I wouldn’t care

pipfan wrote:I totally agree with him, about players being so soft today.
But, I would like a 76 game season, after expanding to 32 teams

4 divisions of 8 teams
Play the 7 teams in your district 4 times (28 games)
Play all the other teams 2 times (48 games)
Total of 76 games-everyone has a balanced schedule

It would reduce injuries, cut "rest" games and improve the product for a minimal revenue loss

You really think cutting games is gonna do anything?

Instead of back to backs, players will complain about having to play 2 games in 3 days because you know... injuries are more likely than having to play 2 games in 4 days. It'll never end if you keep coddling the softies.

Less games = less money. They’re not going to reduce the number of games played. He’ll ‘shorten the season’ but add the games back in with his dumb mid season tournament idea.

pipfan wrote:I totally agree with him, about players being so soft today.
But, I would like a 76 game season, after expanding to 32 teams

4 divisions of 8 teams
Play the 7 teams in your district 4 times (28 games)
Play all the other teams 2 times (48 games)
Total of 76 games-everyone has a balanced schedule

It would reduce injuries, cut "rest" games and improve the product for a minimal revenue loss

Agreed about expanding to 32 teams.

Personally, I would prefer 8 divisions of 4 teams though... to make divisions matter again... MDMA!

Play the 3 other teams in the same division 4 times (12 games)
Play the 12 other teams in the same conference 3 times (36 games)
Play the 16 other teams in the other conference 2 times (32 games)

12 + 36 + 32 = 80 games

The top 2 teams from each of the 8 divisions (2 x 8 = 16) go straight into the playoffs.
No more play-in tournament.

All playoff series are Best-Of-5... home, away, home, away, home.
This gives all teams a fair shot of winning, not just the ones with deepest rosters.

The Divisions...
East 1: Chicago, Indiana, Milwaukee, Minnesota
East 2: Cleveland, Detroit, Toronto, Washington
East 3: Boston, Brooklyn, New York, Philly
East 4: Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando

West 1: Portland, Phoenix, Seattle, Vegas
West 2: Golden State, LA Clippers, LA Lakers, Sacramento
West 3: Denver, Oklahoma, Memphis, Utah
West 4: Dallas, Houston, New Orleans, San Antonio

Simple, straight-forward and rewarding.

Tor_Raps wrote:

pipfan wrote:I totally agree with him, about players being so soft today.
But, I would like a 76 game season, after expanding to 32 teams

4 divisions of 8 teams
Play the 7 teams in your district 4 times (28 games)
Play all the other teams 2 times (48 games)
Total of 76 games-everyone has a balanced schedule

It would reduce injuries, cut "rest" games and improve the product for a minimal revenue loss

You really think cutting games is gonna do anything?

Instead of back to backs, players will complain about having to play 2 games in 3 days because you know... injuries are more likely than having to play 2 games in 4 days. It'll never end if you keep coddling the softies.

yes, I think cutting 6 games from the same length of the season will help. It will reduce injuries some, and will cut out 6 back-to-backs. Somehow, the teams have to agree then to cut the "rest" days.
It would not affect national TV at all, and should help it-fewer stars would miss big games (due to rest or injury)
It would also make each game a bit more important (I know, not a huge amount, but a little).
Overall-I think it would help-and coupled with expansion overall revenue would go up

What a silly opinion. The players play the game. The owners pay for it. The fans pay the owner.

If the players are saying it's too much, then it's too much. This is not a high school. Adam Silver is not a principal and Richard Jefferson is not his assistant.

Also guys, we are fans of the players. We're not fans of the owners or the organization that happens to have purchased the rights to these players' basketball. We support basketball players. Disgusting watching Silver up there trying to nicely word the idea that he's not giving up revenue of 1 game even if the players can't prove that injuries won't happen in the future through these changes.

YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT SOMETHING WON'T HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. That's like when an owner says they'll pay luxury tax if the team will win a title lol. It's a totally made up thing. No one will ever prove that. The NBA has lied for decades about injuries and the owners are just greedy.

The owners and players should be splitting the money, but the players are relatively vastly underpaid. Of course they want fewer games.

Tor_Raps wrote:

pipfan wrote:I totally agree with him, about players being so soft today.
But, I would like a 76 game season, after expanding to 32 teams

4 divisions of 8 teams
Play the 7 teams in your district 4 times (28 games)
Play all the other teams 2 times (48 games)
Total of 76 games-everyone has a balanced schedule

It would reduce injuries, cut "rest" games and improve the product for a minimal revenue loss

You really think cutting games is gonna do anything?

Instead of back to backs, players will complain about having to play 2 games in 3 days because you know... injuries are more likely than having to play 2 games in 4 days. It'll never end if you keep coddling the softies.

yes, I think cutting 6 games from the same length of the season will help. It will reduce injuries some, and will cut out 6 back-to-backs. Somehow, the teams have to agree then to cut the "rest" days.
It would not affect national TV at all, and should help it-fewer stars would miss big games (due to rest or injury)
It would also make each game a bit more important (I know, not a huge amount, but a little).
Overall-I think it would help-and coupled with expansion overall revenue would go up

players now are pussies

the top players coast all RS and plays 55-68 games at most. For example only Jokic Trae and KAt played 74-76 games.

Less than 10 of TOTAL players played 80/82 games

14 years ago, i see 13 players playing 80-82 games only in top 25!!!!!!!

paul-kobe-Al-howard-boozer-iverson-nash-calderon-deron-pierce-davis-JS-iggy

and the others one play in the high 70s bron-stat-dirk-Duncan-Billups-melo-AJ-west

even brandon roy played 74, KG with 71 is the bottom of top 25

https://www.espn.com/nba/stats/player/_/season/2008/seasontype/2/table/general/sort/PER/dir/desc

change seasons and you only see SHAME

RS is bullsht now because players are pussies, playoffs are bullsht now too, with 25 blowouts and the spammings of 3s

I'm actually a bit more impressed at how masterfully Silver potentially opened the door for a shortened season while making it pretty clear that it's never going to happen. Bottom line is there's way too much money at stake for them to shorten the season. It's way more likely they'll increase the number of games than reduce them.

Nice response from RJ but there are two priorities, in this order:

1. Revenue. Less games, less revenue.
2. Product on the floor. Can shortening the season improve it.

Sane wrote:What a silly opinion. The players play the game. The owners pay for it. The fans pay the owner.

If the players are saying it's too much, then it's too much. This is not a high school. Adam Silver is not a principal and Richard Jefferson is not his assistant.

Also guys, we are fans of the players. We're not fans of the owners or the organization that happens to have purchased the rights to these players' basketball. We support basketball players. Disgusting watching Silver up there trying to nicely word the idea that he's not giving up revenue of 1 game even if the players can't prove that injuries won't happen in the future through these changes.

YOU CAN'T PROVE THAT SOMETHING WON'T HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. That's like when an owner says they'll pay luxury tax if the team will win a title lol. It's a totally made up thing. No one will ever prove that. The NBA has lied for decades about injuries and the owners are just greedy.

The owners and players should be splitting the money, but the players are relatively vastly underpaid. Of course they want fewer games.

They split the revenue essentially equally as per the most recent CBA. I think there's a real conversation to be had about shortening the season, but the fact of the matter is nba starters play ~30-34 mins a night in the regular season. They are not logging the same minutes that stars in the 90s and early 2000s were. And they get games off for rest. If they shorten the season, are stars still going to be sitting games? My hunch is yes.

He is 100% right. What next? Shorten season to 29 games so people don't miss games? Or 1 game to guarantee no games missed?

Why is this all on the players? When I buy a nice whisky, I don’t pull it out when I’m pregaming w/ Whiskey Cokes. I’m saving that and making it last. Likewise, teams want their guys to stay healthy for years to come. Let the sports science drive the number of games so that more teams have a chance at a chip.

Dupp wrote:He’s right but also 82 games is boring to me so I wouldn’t care

Nobody forces you to watch.

I mostly agree with Silver. Basketball and health, just like everything else evolve and changes must be applied. I don't enjoy RS much overall. A good game here and there, but overall a tedious, non-competitive slugfest.

Jefferson's heated response doesn't hold real arguments, seems to me like he's pushing for things to be done the old way just for the sake of it, projecting his old past experience as a player. Typical attitude of wishing others to go through suffering just because you did.

"You tore your ACL Kendrick", if you're not conditioning 24h that's on you! It's just "natural" that we get torn ACLs every month!

pipfan wrote:yes, I think cutting 6 games from the same length of the season will help. It will reduce injuries some, and will cut out 6 back-to-backs. Somehow, the teams have to agree then to cut the "rest" days.
It would not affect national TV at all, and should help it-fewer stars would miss big games (due to rest or injury)
It would also make each game a bit more important (I know, not a huge amount, but a little).
Overall-I think it would help-and coupled with expansion overall revenue would go up

Of course it impacts national TV. Each game generates ad revenue, less games mean less revenue. Same with arena attendance, less games less revenue. Less revenue means less money available to pay players. So if players want to play less they get pay less.

Stockton played 17+ seasons and missed like one game if that

Cut games? Then cut the players' salaries. Period.

NotAKnicksFan wrote:Stockton played 17+ seasons and missed like one game if that

Yep. He is exactly whom I think of when the babies complain.