2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[eminence]

Not that hard to see the future with Ayton. Somebody offers him a 3/1 max next offseason and the Suns match.

Unknown variable is if Ayton's play suffers this season.

[MO12msu]

Yeah I don't get it either. They seem to be trying to copy things like the Champions League, but that's in a sport with a long history of cup competitions being a major part of the club game. I can't see where they fit into the NBA where winning the playoffs has been the only ultimate goal since inception.

Your last sentence is where I'm at. Silver is basically asking the NBA community (coaches, players, fans) to radically change from the "playoffs are the primary goal" approach. I don't see that happening and I don't really see why it's so important to force a different narrative.

[Doctor MJ]

Sounds like Silver will keep pushing for the in-season tournament. I have no problem with new ideas (I was supportive of the play in) but this one seems to have no upside unless I'm missing something.

Yeah I don't get it either. They seem to be trying to copy things like the Champions League, but that's in a sport with a long history of cup competitions being a major part of the club game. I can't see where they fit into the NBA where winning the playoffs has been the only ultimate goal since inception.

So, the problem is that 82 games is too many, it bores the average fan and so they aren't watching like the NBA wants them to watch.

Including a tournament mid-season is an attempt to make the mid-season something people actually care about.

I'd disagree that the championship was the only thing that mattered from the start - teams don't fold because they can't win championships, they fold because they can't draw in the regular season - but I see the problem you're speaking to, and I'd agree it's a major concern.

It's entirely possible that the only real way to improve interest in improving pre-playoff NBA basketball is chop the season down quite a bit.

Now, how necessary is that? I think at this point it's not necessary, but the NBA sees the writing on the wall: We've gone from a fanbase that goes to games after work to relax, to one that's mostly just watching highlights until the trophy is in site, and so if you were designing a season arc from scratch now it wouldn't look like the MLB/NBA/NHL does things. How do you go about trying to steer toward optimizing modern culture without pissing off the stakeholders too problematically?

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah I don't get it either. They seem to be trying to copy things like the Champions League, but that's in a sport with a long history of cup competitions being a major part of the club game. I can't see where they fit into the NBA where winning the playoffs has been the only ultimate goal since inception.

Your last sentence is where I'm at. Silver is basically asking the NBA community (coaches, players, fans) to radically change from the "playoffs are the primary goal" approach. I don't see that happening and I don't really see why it's so important to force a different narrative.

The importance is about money not about narrative, it's just that narrative is a medium money tends to propagate across.

[Fadeaway_J]

Sounds like Silver will keep pushing for the in-season tournament. I have no problem with new ideas (I was supportive of the play in) but this one seems to have no upside unless I'm missing something.

Yeah I don't get it either. They seem to be trying to copy things like the Champions League, but that's in a sport with a long history of cup competitions being a major part of the club game. I can't see where they fit into the NBA where winning the playoffs has been the only ultimate goal since inception.

So, the problem is that 82 games is too many, it bores the average fan and so they aren't watching like the NBA wants them to watch.

Including a tournament mid-season is an attempt to make the mid-season something people actually care about.

I'd disagree that the championship was the only thing that mattered from the start - teams don't fold because they can't win championships, they fold because they can't draw in the regular season - but I see the problem you're speaking to, and I'd agree it's a major concern.

It's entirely possible that the only real way to improve interest in improving pre-playoff NBA basketball is chop the season down quite a bit.

Now, how necessary is that? I think at this point it's not necessary, but the NBA sees the writing on the wall: We've gone from a fanbase that goes to games after work to relax, to one that's mostly just watching highlights until the trophy is in site, and so if you were designing a season arc from scratch now it wouldn't look like the MLB/NBA/NHL does things. How do you go about trying to steer toward optimizing modern culture without pissing off the stakeholders too problematically?

The problem is, people don't just care about cup competitions in football because it's something to distract them from the league season. They weren't just parachuted in to give fans something else to care about in a league that's already been operating for 75 years. A lot of these cup competitions have their own history and prestige that rivals the league itself - England's FA Cup for example has been around since 1871. I don't see how just adding a new competition that everyone knows doesn't ultimately matter in the grand scheme of things is going to generate any significant increase in interest.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah I don't get it either. They seem to be trying to copy things like the Champions League, but that's in a sport with a long history of cup competitions being a major part of the club game. I can't see where they fit into the NBA where winning the playoffs has been the only ultimate goal since inception.

So, the problem is that 82 games is too many, it bores the average fan and so they aren't watching like the NBA wants them to watch.

Including a tournament mid-season is an attempt to make the mid-season something people actually care about.

I'd disagree that the championship was the only thing that mattered from the start - teams don't fold because they can't win championships, they fold because they can't draw in the regular season - but I see the problem you're speaking to, and I'd agree it's a major concern.

It's entirely possible that the only real way to improve interest in improving pre-playoff NBA basketball is chop the season down quite a bit.

Now, how necessary is that? I think at this point it's not necessary, but the NBA sees the writing on the wall: We've gone from a fanbase that goes to games after work to relax, to one that's mostly just watching highlights until the trophy is in site, and so if you were designing a season arc from scratch now it wouldn't look like the MLB/NBA/NHL does things. How do you go about trying to steer toward optimizing modern culture without pissing off the stakeholders too problematically?

The problem is, people don't just care about cup competitions in football because it's something to distract them from the league season. They weren't just parachuted in to give fans something else to care about in a league that's already been operating for 75 years. A lot of these cup competitions have their own history and prestige that rivals the league itself - England's FA Cup for example has been around since 1871. I don't see how just adding a new competition that everyone knows doesn't ultimately matter in the grand scheme of things is going to generate any significant increase in interest.

I understand and share your concerns, but do you understand what I'm saying about what the current problem is for the NBA?

On the specific note on how to generate interest: I'd like to see a single elimination tournament which uses the Elam Ending. May well fail, but single elimination is always more exciting than series or endless regular seasons, and the Elam Ending to my mind is a better way to end basketball games if you want crunch time to actually be thrilling to watch rather than a time for bathroom breaks.

If you do that and it doesn't work, but there's nothing glaringly wrong exposed about the Elam Ending, it gives you a way to move forward improving the ends of games generally - which to me needs to be a priority.

[eminence]

I could go for some ELAM ending to games, but I also agree with shortening the season, probably just a home and away with every team in the league (maybe with a small expansion at the same time). ~60 game RS. Still more than enough time to sort out the best teams.

[Fadeaway_J]

So, the problem is that 82 games is too many, it bores the average fan and so they aren't watching like the NBA wants them to watch.

Including a tournament mid-season is an attempt to make the mid-season something people actually care about.

I'd disagree that the championship was the only thing that mattered from the start - teams don't fold because they can't win championships, they fold because they can't draw in the regular season - but I see the problem you're speaking to, and I'd agree it's a major concern.

It's entirely possible that the only real way to improve interest in improving pre-playoff NBA basketball is chop the season down quite a bit.

Now, how necessary is that? I think at this point it's not necessary, but the NBA sees the writing on the wall: We've gone from a fanbase that goes to games after work to relax, to one that's mostly just watching highlights until the trophy is in site, and so if you were designing a season arc from scratch now it wouldn't look like the MLB/NBA/NHL does things. How do you go about trying to steer toward optimizing modern culture without pissing off the stakeholders too problematically?

The problem is, people don't just care about cup competitions in football because it's something to distract them from the league season. They weren't just parachuted in to give fans something else to care about in a league that's already been operating for 75 years. A lot of these cup competitions have their own history and prestige that rivals the league itself - England's FA Cup for example has been around since 1871. I don't see how just adding a new competition that everyone knows doesn't ultimately matter in the grand scheme of things is going to generate any significant increase in interest.

I understand and share your concerns, but do you understand what I'm saying about what the current problem is for the NBA?

On the specific note on how to generate interest: I'd like to see a single elimination tournament which uses the Elam Ending. May well fail, but single elimination is always more exciting than series or endless regular seasons, and the Elam Ending to my mind is a better way to end basketball games if you want crunch time to actually be thrilling to watch rather than a time for bathroom breaks.

If you do that and it doesn't work, but there's nothing glaringly wrong exposed about the Elam Ending, it gives you a way to move forward improving the ends of games generally - which to me needs to be a priority.

Oh I understand, I just don't think adding more games is the solution unless there are significant stakes involved. Are we talking about bringing draft equity or cap space into the equation?

Also, it seems a bit weird that this would be pushed at a time when the league has been moving toward being more conservative with players' minutes, presumably with long-term health implications in mind.

[HeartBreakKid]

So, the problem is that 82 games is too many, it bores the average fan and so they aren't watching like the NBA wants them to watch.

Including a tournament mid-season is an attempt to make the mid-season something people actually care about.

I'd disagree that the championship was the only thing that mattered from the start - teams don't fold because they can't win championships, they fold because they can't draw in the regular season - but I see the problem you're speaking to, and I'd agree it's a major concern.

It's entirely possible that the only real way to improve interest in improving pre-playoff NBA basketball is chop the season down quite a bit.

Now, how necessary is that? I think at this point it's not necessary, but the NBA sees the writing on the wall: We've gone from a fanbase that goes to games after work to relax, to one that's mostly just watching highlights until the trophy is in site, and so if you were designing a season arc from scratch now it wouldn't look like the MLB/NBA/NHL does things. How do you go about trying to steer toward optimizing modern culture without pissing off the stakeholders too problematically?

The problem is, people don't just care about cup competitions in football because it's something to distract them from the league season. They weren't just parachuted in to give fans something else to care about in a league that's already been operating for 75 years. A lot of these cup competitions have their own history and prestige that rivals the league itself - England's FA Cup for example has been around since 1871. I don't see how just adding a new competition that everyone knows doesn't ultimately matter in the grand scheme of things is going to generate any significant increase in interest.

I understand and share your concerns, but do you understand what I'm saying about what the current problem is for the NBA?

On the specific note on how to generate interest: I'd like to see a single elimination tournament which uses the Elam Ending. May well fail, but single elimination is always more exciting than series or endless regular seasons, and the Elam Ending to my mind is a better way to end basketball games if you want crunch time to actually be thrilling to watch rather than a time for bathroom breaks.

If you do that and it doesn't work, but there's nothing glaringly wrong exposed about the Elam Ending, it gives you a way to move forward improving the ends of games generally - which to me needs to be a priority.

Small correction, the NBA is already single elimination. I think you mean a winner takes all type of game as opposed to a series?

[MO12msu]

So, the problem is that 82 games is too many, it bores the average fan and so they aren't watching like the NBA wants them to watch.

Including a tournament mid-season is an attempt to make the mid-season something people actually care about.

82 games isn't explicitly too many for the fans, that's not a criticism that you see come from fans. If fans knew they were getting 82 games a season that were played at maximum effort with no load management, they would be fine with 82 games. The issue is that 82 games is too many for the players to play and the playoffs have such an outsized importance that teams have been giving less and less effort consistently to the regular season.

This is a big reason why the play-in game was a success. It turned the end of the regular season, which had turned into a final month of minimum effort and injury avoidance, into a meaningful time of the year again with actual games with stakes.

I understand that Silver is trying to make the tournament so that there are games that people will care about but my point is simply that the NBA Championship being the whole point is so ingrained in NBA culture and history that it will come off as gimmicky and forced to shoehorn in a midseason tournament and all of a sudden have it mean anything.

I think there are other ideas (reduce regular season to ~66 games, have the top teams pick their 1st round matchup) that would better accomplish the goal of increasing eyes and importance of games during the regular season.

[Texas Chuck]

I'm a purist. I want my 82 games and my 4 rounds of 7 and that's it.

But I'm with Doc that the league has to be more forward thinking than just this is how we've always done it. They need to be exploring all these options and the pandemic giving them a chance to experiment should help them overcome people's aversion to change. I mean how does it really hurt to try a mid-season tournament and see how it plays before ruling it out?

If they are really giving the winners a money prize, you are going to get highly competitive games and give a 2nd franchise a chance to win something major every year. That seems more likely to be popular among casual fans than the status quo. And us diehards need to remember, they have us. We aren't going anywhere. They have to attract those who typically choose something else.

And sorry but it's a road game in Sacramento, thats not must see. But a game to get to the Finals of the Michael Jordan/Kobe Bryant Cup?

I want what I want, but I also want what's good for the long-term health of the Association.

[Doctor MJ]

So, the problem is that 82 games is too many, it bores the average fan and so they aren't watching like the NBA wants them to watch.

Including a tournament mid-season is an attempt to make the mid-season something people actually care about.

82 games isn't explicitly too many for the fans, that's not a criticism that you see come from fans. If fans knew they were getting 82 games a season that were played at maximum effort with no load management, they would be fine with 82 games. The issue is that 82 games is too many for the players to play and the playoffs have such an outsized importance that teams have been giving less and less effort consistently to the regular season.

This is a big reason why the play-in game was a success. It turned the end of the regular season, which had turned into a final month of minimum effort and injury avoidance, into a meaningful time of the year again with actual games with stakes.

I understand that Silver is trying to make the tournament so that there are games that people will care about but my point is simply that the NBA Championship being the whole point is so ingrained in NBA culture and history that it will come off as gimmicky and forced to shoehorn in a midseason tournament and all of a sudden have it mean anything.

I think there are other ideas (reduce regular season to ~66 games, have the top teams pick their 1st round matchup) that would better accomplish the goal of increasing eyes and importance of games during the regular season.

Okay, do understand that the connection between fewer games and audience engagement has been considered something of a known thing for a long time. Maybe what was thought was "known" was wrong in your assessment, but the idea that the NFL was actually benefitting by only having 16 games instead of 5 to 10 times that many occurred to people in and around media for a couple of decades at least.

I think you need to make sure you're looking at this not just from a perspective of whether or not you think it's going to work, but also from a perspective that some kind of financial squeeze is at work in motivating this newfound creativity.

We wouldn't be talking about this right now if the main stakeholders thought the regular season was doing great TV ratings.

Re: better idea, reduce regular season to 66 games. I'm with you. I think they might be better served to strive to go even further, though 66 seems like a reasonable first step. I don't see this as a competing idea though. To me it just makes sense to reduce the regular season while you add a mid-season tournament, and yeah, I don't think adding more games without taking any away should even be on the table as an option.

Re: better idea, top teams pick matchup. I'm not against this but I don't think it would really move the needle on this problem.

[AussieBuck]

If the mid-season tournament includes teams from round the world I'm in. NBA teams can give their main dudes the night off in early rounds.

[MO12msu]

Okay, do understand that the connection between fewer games and audience engagement has been considered something of a known thing for a long time. Maybe what was thought was "known" was wrong in your assessment, but the idea that the NFL was actually benefitting by only having 16 games instead of 5 to 10 times that many occurred to people in and around media for a couple of decades at least.

Do you have a source for this known thought? I'd love to read it if so. It's curious that you bring up the NFL considering that they just added another regular season game to the schedule. I don't think the NFL is a good comp for the NBA anyways though.

I think you need to make sure you're looking at this not just from a perspective of whether or not you think it's going to work, but also from a perspective that some kind of financial squeeze is at work in motivating this newfound creativity.

We wouldn't be talking about this right now if the main stakeholders thought the regular season was doing great TV ratings.

I'm well aware that money is the main motive in the majority of these decisions. When I speak of things working or not working, I'm talking about from an overall interest generating perspective, which goes hand in hand with the finances.

Re: better idea, reduce regular season to 66 games. I'm with you. I think they might be better served to strive to go even further, though 66 seems like a reasonable first step. I don't see this as a competing idea though. To me it just makes sense to reduce the regular season while you add a mid-season tournament, and yeah, I don't think adding more games without taking any away should even be on the table as an option.

Do you have an idea for how they could make it so that the tournament is not just a bunch of glorified exhibition games between 2nd stringers from both teams, essentially a 2nd preseason? Otherwise how is that any better than a random regular season game where one of the stars is doing load management?

From my perspective, the incentives for the tournament would need to:
1. Be lucrative enough for the players such that Lebron James, Kevin Durant, etc. would actually want to play with effort
2. Have enough championship incentives for teams so that the doctors won't look at this as an opportunity to grab some rest in the middle of the season.

Re: better idea, top teams pick matchup. I'm not against this but I don't think it would really move the needle on this problem.

I think it would give more incentive for teams 1-5 to try towards the end of the season, similar to how the play-in has done for teams 6-12. Not to mention a little added drama in the first round from teams being offended that they got called out.

[frica]

I think what NBA needs is shorter games.

Though it already is a lot shorter than it used to be.

https://www.inpredictable.com/2016/02/nba-games-are-not-getting-slower.html

[Outside]

Do you have an idea for how they could make it so that the tournament is not just a bunch of glorified exhibition games between 2nd stringers from both teams, essentially a 2nd preseason? Otherwise how is that any better than a random regular season game where one of the stars is doing load management?

From my perspective, the incentives for the tournament would need to:
1. Be lucrative enough for the players such that Lebron James, Kevin Durant, etc. would actually want to play with effort
2. Have enough championship incentives for teams so that the doctors won't look at this as an opportunity to grab some rest in the middle of the season.

To me, this is a valid concern. It would be a really bad look for players and teams to tank the tournament. And there would be a lot of incentive to tank the tournament.

For many (most?) top stars, the financial incentive likely wouldn't be enough. Maybe have a benefit tied to playoff seeding, as the tiebreaker between teams for home court advantage, something like that. On the money side, there should be some benefit because that would be incentive for all except the top tier, but also have them play to win money for a charity, something that would push the top stars more than just adding to their own personal mountain of cash.

[Outside]

But forget the tournament -- the season starts tonight! Let the games begin!

[Texas Chuck]

Okay, do understand that the connection between fewer games and audience engagement has been considered something of a known thing for a long time. Maybe what was thought was "known" was wrong in your assessment, but the idea that the NFL was actually benefitting by only having 16 games instead of 5 to 10 times that many occurred to people in and around media for a couple of decades at least.

Do you have a source for this known thought? I'd love to read it if so. It's curious that you bring up the NFL considering that they just added another regular season game to the schedule. I don't think the NFL is a good comp for the NBA anyways though.
.

I think the idea is because you only get 16(now 17) games it makes every single game super meaningful. NFL teams never simply take a loss the way you see most NBA teams do multiple times a year. Where they rest stars or understand its the 3rd game in 4 nights on the road and there is just nothing left.

NFL is still very exclusive even adding a game. And by adding that game it means hundreds of millions of dollars from their TV partners not to mention every single dollar they make from tickets, parking, beers etc is pure profit because their TV deal is so rich every team is in the black off that alone. Literally everything else is gravy for them.

NBA, like any other sports league needs great TV deals to survive/thrive and so it would be silly not to work with your TV partners for the best content.

One of the issues with reducing the schedule and not adding in a tournament is your national TV deal gets smaller, your local TV deals get smaller, and you lose all that game day revenue. All of which makes it harder for all but the biggest markets to be profitable. Oh yeah and you have to go to your player partners and explain we are cutting your contracts by 15% since we are reducing the schedule. Something your older stars on their last big contracts are going to fight and these are the most influential players in the league. They get no benefit from the reduced wear and tear maybe prolonging their career to make back that money.

I think we have to remember this is a business and you can't ask all these people to just give up millions of dollars. Because I can promise you the casual fan isn't even going to notice the quality of play went up a bit because of the reduced schedule. There isn't a way to monetize that "improved" product.

[Texas Chuck]

For many (most?) top stars, the financial incentive likely wouldn't be enough. Maybe have a benefit tied to playoff seeding, as the tiebreaker between teams for home court advantage, something like that. On the money side, there should be some benefit because that would be incentive for all except the top tier, but also have them play to win money for a charity, something that would push the top stars more than just adding to their own personal mountain of cash.

IDK, wouldn't the vast majority of the max guys want to play really hard so their min teammates can get a million dollars? I think most of them would. Look at say the Lakers which is 3 max guys, THT, and a bunch of mins or near as. Winning that tourney gives almost the whole roster a big bump. How do the stars not go all out when they are going to ask the min guys to do that for them in the playoffs so they can get all the glory/endorsements etc...

I think that mostly resolves itself by simply being a good teammate. Sure you would have a few who might not care about others, but I think most would.

Now I'm really on board with the charity idea and my guess is a lot of the max guys would probably do that on their own with their potential winnings.

[MisterHibachi]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

It was quite obvious it would lead to this once they didn't trade him and forced him to report to camp. I can't believe Morey actually thought he could go into the season with Simmons still on the roster. This situation is turning uglier week by week.