Offseason Thread 7: A Tale Of Two Dragons

phrazbit · Post #1021 » by **phrazbit** » Fri Oct 17, 2014 9:52 pm

I don't really care one way or the other but a 44 minute game would not equal 4 more minutes of advertisements. Televised NBA games are not setup in some rigid block of air time, unless they granted teams 2 extra timeouts per half then this would cause less commercials (as a result of less game play and therefor less stop in play) not more.

RunDogGun · Post #1022 » by **RunDogGun** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:23 am

I cat wait to see the Kerrsed version of Amare's wine baths. :lol:

RunDogGun · Post #1023 » by **RunDogGun** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:26 am

phrazbit wrote:I don't really care one way or the other but a 44 minute game would not equal 4 more minutes of advertisements. Televised NBA games are not setup in some rigid block of air time, unless they granted teams 2 extra timeouts per half then this would cause less commercials (as a result of less game play and therefor less stop in play) not more.

More "official" timeouts?

Zelaznyrules · Post #1024 » by **Zelaznyrules** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:33 am

phrazbit wrote:I don't really care one way or the other but a 44 minute game would not equal 4 more minutes of advertisements. Televised NBA games are not setup in some rigid block of air time, unless they granted teams 2 extra timeouts per half then this would cause less commercials (as a result of less game play and therefor less stop in play) not more.

I think you're looking at this wrong. You're right that there isn't a rigid block of time scheduled but it would increase the likelihood that they'd run true to their schedule which functionally allows them more commercials per minute of broadcast (they are going to fill out there time slot with ads and it won't be offset by what they lose when they run long). It's probably less of a problem for ESPN than ABC but regardless, it's a move to appease their TV partners with an eye to maximizing their advertising revenue.

phrazbit · Post #1025 » by **phrazbit** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 12:46 am

RunDogGun wrote:More "official" timeouts?

I doubt it. They are looking into this to help the flow of the game, make it more like the international and college game flow, making less minutes and more "official" timeouts would have the opposite effect.

Zelaznyrules wrote:
I think you're looking at this wrong. You're right that there isn't a rigid block of time scheduled but it would increase the likelihood that they'd run true to their schedule which functionally allows them more commercials per minute of broadcast (they are going to fill out there time slot with ads and it won't be offset by what they lose when they run long). It's probably less of a problem for ESPN than ABC but regardless, it's a move to appease their TV partners with an eye to maximizing their advertising revenue.

If you want to argue that they will have more time for pre and post game shows and THOSE will in tern get more commercial slots, then yes, I agree, that would happen, but I don't really give two turds about the pre or post game. I tune in when the game starts and I tune out when its over.

Post #1026 » by **bwgood77** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 1:48 am

They are not going to shorten games.

Sunsdeuce · Post #1027 » by **Sunsdeuce** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 4:25 am

bwgood77 wrote:They are not going to shorten games.

also they aren't going to shorten seasons. Lost revenue and players would have to cut salary.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

King4Day · Post #1028 » by **King4Day** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 5:56 am

What does everyone think about the talk we are considering keeping Barron?

Post #1029 » by **Qwigglez** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:12 am

DarkHawk wrote:What does everyone think about the talk we are considering keeping Barron?

Fantastic. He'll most likely win Most Improved Player of the year.

SideSwipe · Post #1030 » by **SideSwipe** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:19 am

It's Barron's rebounding and decent defense that have most impressed. He's had a decent mid-range and some putbacks as well. The question is will it hold up. Will defenders believe it enough to follow hi out of the lane to clear it out for Dragic, Bledsoe, Green or IT, or make the shot if they don't clear the lane.

DRK · Post #1031 » by **DRK** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 1:12 pm

SideSwipe wrote:It's Barron's rebounding and decent defense that have most impressed. He's had a decent mid-range and some putbacks as well. The question is will it hold up. Will defenders believe it enough to follow hi out of the lane to clear it out for Dragic, Bledsoe, Green or IT, or make the shot if they don't clear the lane.

King4Day · Post #1032 » by **King4Day** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:40 pm

Is Randolph having a bad preseason that we'd really consider cutting him?

Frank Lee · Post #1033 » by **Frank Lee** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 5:54 pm

are we having such a bad preseason that we think yo scubs-o-scrubs at the #15 spot is really going to make a difference. Where is Pat Burke when you need him?

Zelaznyrules · Post #1034 » by **Zelaznyrules** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:01 pm

Frank Lee wrote:are we having such a bad preseason that we think yo scubs-o-scrubs at the #15 spot is really going to make a difference. Where is Pat Burke when you need him?

We're having a bad enough preseason to envision the #15 scrub starting for us by December. It looks like an obvious overreaction here but with the way our bigs have played, can anything really be an overreaction? I wouldn't be shocked to see us throw away all common sense and install Tucker as our stretch 5. I still have my fingers crossed that a healthy Len solves all our problems but reality probably has other plans.

NavLDO · Post #1035 » by **NavLDO** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:06 pm

As someone else noted, why not bring back Jermaine O'Neal? He played well for us a couple of years ago, and he'd be a great mentor for Len and Plumlee.

Or how about bringing Okafor back? He may not be ready to play now, but surely, he'd be ready at some point this season, right?

They really should consider bringing in a veteran presence at the 5, if nothing else, to help mentor Len and Plumlee, but as well, provide some solid veteran play...especially if we manage to get into the playoffs. It would be nice to have a Center that's "been there before" and won't be overly "skittish", if that makes any sense.

I'm sorry, but I just don't trust Len or Plumlee to not be overwhelmed somewhat by the playoff atmosphere, if we get there...or even if we are battling 2-3 other teams to get that 8th spot in the last 5 games or so...that veteran presence will help immensely in those high pressure type situations.

SSOL · Post #1036 » by **SSOL** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 6:39 pm

I can tell you on high authority that it has to do with attracting viewership. Cutting four minutes cuts mandatory timeouts which keeps the game entertaining for longer periods of time. It is why the D league is considering going to on free throw attempt versus two or three. Say what you want, but it is a real possibility that games will be shortened in the future.

bigfoot · Post #1037 » by **bigfoot** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:00 pm

SSOL wrote:I can tell you on high authority that it has to do with attracting viewership. Cutting four minutes cuts mandatory timeouts which keeps the game entertaining for longer periods of time. It is why the D league is considering going to on free throw attempt versus two or three. Say what you want, but it is a real possibility that games will be shortened in the future.

I'm all in for speeding up the game. I've always thought the fast break teams were at a disadvantage in the post season because there are longer and more breaks for commercials which give more recovery time to the players. Non-stop basketball or much fewer timeouts / waiting for free throws would be better. If soccer players can go for 90 minutes without commericials basketball players should be able to go for 48 minutes with commercials.

BTW who is the authority your are referring too?

jcsunsfan · Post #1038 » by **jcsunsfan** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:15 pm

RunDogGun wrote:
phrazbit wrote:I don't really care one way or the other but a 44 minute game would not equal 4 more minutes of advertisements. Televised NBA games are not setup in some rigid block of air time, unless they granted teams 2 extra timeouts per half then this would cause less commercials (as a result of less game play and therefor less stop in play) not more.

More "official" timeouts?

Players want fewer games. The owners are countering with shorter games. They are trying to protect their revenue streat. Fewer games=less gate, less advertising (games lost). Shorter games does not reduce the gate and would give opportunity for more advertising.

I HATE the idea. Shorten the season, not the games.

The idea of one two-point free throw is intriguing to me. It makes free throws more interesting and speeds up the most boring part of the game. If they do that, why not do the free throw on fouls on three point shots from outside the three point line. Call it a "free three." A player can shoot it from the corner or wherever as long as it is outside the three. The rebound off that shot would be more interesting too.

NaturalBuns · Post #1039 » by **NaturalBuns** » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:16 pm

Would be nice to see suns and cardinals both in playoffs.

Teams have good GMs and head coaches.

Saberestar · Post #1040 » by **Saberestar** » Sun Oct 19, 2014 12:06 am

Kobe on ESPN ranking him 40th best player: "I've known for a long time that they're a bunch of idiots."

I do not know who has made exactly this list, but only seeing Kobe at #40 and Iguodala at #39 you know that Kobe is right in his statement. This is ridiculous.