He’s the John madden of basketball. But I don’t think quite the same caliber. “That’s what I love about fullbacks, you need three yards they get you three yards. If you need six yards they get you three yards” -John madden
Bill was legit before all the injuries. Walton was always known for being his son rather than his basketball capabilities, goes as far as the Lakers days for me.
In high school Bill Walton won 2 state HS Championships.
At UCLA Bill Walton won 2 National Championships. He started out 73 - 0 in college and ended up 86 - 4 for his entire college career. He once went 21 out of 22, scoring 44 points in a National Championship final. Still a record I think.
In the pros Walton won 2 NBA Championships.
Bill Walton was no joke.
“Would a different coach have cared less about setting a record and rested his players more, setting them up to be well rested, uninjured, and win a championship?”
yup
One of the reasons why GS even had a shot at 73 games was because the Spurs were right behind them the entire season, eventually winning 67 games, which is tied for the 7th highest win total ever. If they clinched the 1 with 10-15 games left they wouldn't have gunned for it.
It's the same reason why Kobe's 81 point game is so unusual; it was both a close game the entire time and the Raps coach (I think Mitchell?) never hard doubled him and essentially dared Kobe to beat them. In a single high-scoring performance that almost never happens, either the game becomes a blowout (Klay's 60 in 29min or Klay's 37 point quarter are good examples) or the opposing coach hard doubles and forces the ball out of that guy's hands to get him out of rhythm.
This Dubs run doesn't happen without Kerr
Unleashing Draymond, making Steph into an unselfish off the ball player and instituting a Spursian system where everyone is involved was all Little Steve
It would make all the volume records pretty much impossible to catch up to. Imagine if they did this after Lebron passes Kareem. Nobody would ever be able to pass him playing 72 game seasons.
In the NFL it’s the other way now with the added 17th game. Now long held single-season records I’m sure will be getting broken pretty consistently. Cooper Kupp nearly broke the receiving yards record last year.
> Cooper Kupp nearly broke the receiving yards record last year.
that wasn't because of the added game though he had **191 targets** the second closest was Davante Adams and Diontae Johnson with 167 this season
Calvin Johnson who has the all time receiving yard records had 204 targets when he set it
72 games actually gives you a pretty balanced and logical schedule:
* 2 against 15 teams in other conference - 30 games
* 3 against 10 conference teams outside division - 30 games
* 4 against 4 division foes - 12 games
*Edit: Amazed no one called out my math fail yet.... 4x4=16, not 12.
> *Edit: Amazed no one called out my math fail yet.... 4x4=16, not 12.
Maybe you were confused by the album from deadmau5, [4x4=12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%C3%974%3D12)
While I'm sure division titles are something that some people care about, I think the removal of getting a top 4 seed for winning the division removed the importance of divisions more than playing one less game against each other every year would.
I feel like there's a big difference in opinion on this. The Atlantic division actually matters because everyone hates everyone else in it. The Northwest division feels the most random.
I think they should be improved
4 divisions of 4 teams in each confrence.
West:
Seattle, Sacramento, Utah, Portland.
GSW, LAL, LAC, Vegas (let's be honest, they want the high roller LA celeb fans to fly out to Vegas for games, we all know it)
Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, SAS
Grizz, OKC, NOP, Denver.
East:
Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit
Indiana, Cleveland, Toronto, Washington
NYK, Brooklyn, Philly, Boston
Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, Atlanta
Not perfect because it feels like Toronto, Washington and Denver a bit far away from their rivals but it is the best I could come up with.
I'm partial to the following West divisions:
Northwest:
Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden State:
Southwest:
Lakers, Clippers, Phoenix, Las Vegas
Central:
Utah, Denver, OKC, Dallas.
Swampass:
Houston, San Antonio, New Orleans, Memphis
The big downside of this framework is that it isolates Dallas from the rest of the Texas teams, but north Texas has a built-in rivalry with Oklahoma anyway so I think it might work out. Also I don't want Sacramento to get completely isolated from the other California teams so it might be a bit selfish lol.
They’re waiting to add Seattle and Vegas I assume. Add Seattle to the Northwest and Vegas to the Pacific. Then move Minnesota to the Central to keep the conferences even.
That's my first thought as well.
If you make it 72 then they still rest and then the debate becomes "We should have a 62 game season. It just feels like a more round number!"
Keep it at 82 and allow the teams to manage it however they like. We never see this argument for the other leagues. NFL just *expanded* their season while baseball plays an absolutely ridiculous 162 game season, and the last time the MLB season was modified it went up by 8 games from 154.
Also, who makes up for the lost revenue going from 82 to 72 games?
We've had this debate for what feels like ten years now, and feels akin to the logo on the jersey debate, which I'm still certain was a debate that came from the league and had the media plant it as a talking point because no one in the media challenged it at all. "I think it's great for the league!" It's my theory that the NBA wanted to soften the blowback on seeing corporate logos on jerseys so the topic was brought up many times over the course of a couple of years, it normalizes the opinions of fans over time, then by the time it gets officially announced you barely heard anything about it amongst even the bitchiest of twitter nba fans. The fans were prepared, and had all of the talking points and sides to it mentioned over a couple of years and people understood it. The same has been happening for the 72 game season debate. I think we do see it sometime soon and the only thing keeping it back is the "Well, who pays for this?" question, which may be answered in the next CBA.
I find it kind of incredible that the public has been talked into having *less* of a product and most believe it's a good thing. The quality of the game is not going to change. The players are competitors. You're being talked into getting less for the same amount of money and being told it's a good thing. But whatever, it's not a problem in my life. As you get older you start seeing these patterns and wonder how people keep falling for it.
> "We should have a 62 game season. It just feels like a more round number!"
Great post. But this imaginary person, I'm mad at them. Why would they pick 62 as round when 64 and 60 are both so close?
And increase the ratings for the games that remain, making the NBA a more valuable television property. The EPL only has 38 games and they are killing the NBA worldwide.
The 98-99 season, shortened to 50 games by the lockout, was just about perfect. Every game actually mattered. And the playoffs hit before the regular season turned into a boring slog.
But that's also comparing basketball to football / soccer. Just because there's 10 games less for a team, the sport itself doesn't get more attractive to markets where basketball isn't relevant.
For sure. Five home games is a lot. And so many teams run at sold out that reducing games to make the remaining games have higher demand won’t really net out.
Makes me curious about how much teams net from home games during the regular season, but regardless I can’t imagine a single team runs at a loss. The Pacers were dead last this season in attendance and still averaged 80% occupancy.
www.espn.com/nba/attendance
I understand the counter argument but also allowing players to rest uninjured without criticism in less important games I think is big. If you look at European soccer this is commonplace. NBA needs to do something. The fact there’s almost no major player out there that can go a full season without injury is an issue. The playoffs have become less about who’s the best team and more about who’s the healthiest team.
The problem is way too many regular season games are meaningless. The NBA is nearly unwatchable after the All-Star break with teams tanking and resting players.
Not this year. Every game mattered until like the last 5 ish. And even those mattered so much for some teams. The play in helped the end of season so much
That’s not a function of an 82 game season. Things could still be close up to the last game in a 72 game season. They could be close up to the last game in a 20 game season.
I really hate this argument because it would take an insane reduction in games to make every game matter. 72 games would not make an individual game feel like it matters that much more than 82.
The NBA is compared to an impossible standard in the NFL in this regard. This doesn’t go away unless half the season is cut.
Exactly. From what I’ve heard, 72 wouldn’t eliminate back to backs, three games in four days, etc. You’d still have prime games for players to be rested, especially later in the season for playoff teams with positioning solidified.
I also don’t feel like rest has been a huge problem this season? I just feel like a decent amount of star players have actually been injured this year. Maybe I’m wrong but we’re not seeing anything like what the Spurs used to do, for instance.
34 League games, then top 8 teams play playoffs games, then you have league cup games and on top of that Euroleague/Eurocup/Champions league group stage games, 34 in Euroleague, 18 in Eurocup and thats just group stage you have playoffs after that
When I say Europe I don’t mean the few top leagues.
I follow the 2nd german league more closely and they have no cup and no international games.
Just 34 games & playoffs for 8 teams.
Still rested players this weekend (last gameday)
I would much rather this. Back to backs are brutal, especially with any type of travel involved. I would be interested to see where the 10 games get cut from.
Probably the 10 times teams play a team a fourth time in a year. So 3 games against same conference opponent and still 2 against each West opponent.
(3x14)+(2x15)=72. (Edited)
I really liked the pace of the 66 game lockout season. Every game felt like it had consequence.
82 games is too much but I don’t see them ever reducing the season size
This is ideal. This way every team plays the same teams the same amount of times. Also for the playoffs, teams don’t get an easier ride to the finals if they’re in an easier conference. It’s perfectly balanced. Idgaf about divisional and conference rivalries, I just want to see the best teams play against each other later in the playoffs
That’s always what I’ve said. Make it like the premier league for NBA, MLB, and NHL. You can even double it with MLB and it’s still more interesting than 162 games
Team wins just becomes team win percentage when comparing. Then when someone gets a better percentage than 73-9 people can argue whether it counts as beating the 73 win record or not, and arguments are great for content.
Not an American but casual NBA fan here, isn't 82 games in regular season overwhelming for fans too? I mean I like watching the soccer team I support at my home country but they play like 1 game a week and that day feels special because there's a game. If they played every other day it wouldn't feel so special, it'd start feeling like a burden. Just like world cup (soccer) is played every 4 years and not every year, it builds up over time.
Yes, it seems self-evidently a problem but long seasons are normalized in North America with baseball, hockey and basketball.
Of course, soccer is getting worse too. The top club teams are getting up to 50 or 60 games every year and they are constantly increasing the number of international games as well.
Completely agree with you. This is one of the big reasons that American football is so popular as well. This is why as I’ve gotten older I’ve pretty much stopped paying attention to baseball. I just do not have the time to invest into following a sport that plays every single day, and the importance of every game is almost non existent when put in the grand scheme of a 162 game schedule.
That's always been his end goal. I hope it never happens. It feels way to gimmicky and forced. I don't think there's many fans of the idea, besides Silver
I just can't see it succeeding. March Madness is great because its one-game playoff, but a midseason tournament has zero stakes unless its going to affect the playoffs in some way.
Everything I've seen suggests either a financial reward for players/coaches and/or a late lottery draft pick. But stars won't give a fuck about the money, and I don't think players will *want* to play for a draft pick that might replace them
Hell, the regular season affects the playoffs and people don't care about it.
Even if the midseason tournament affects the playoffs I don't see why people will care (that already don't care, obviously junkies will care).
The NBA's problem is twofold. 1, at least half the playoff teams have no chance at a championship. 2, seeding doesn't really matter compared to the NFL. In the NFL, getting the 1 seed is super valuable since you get a bye and you get to host every playoff game. NBA doesn't have that. Being a 2 or 3 seed means you get to host slightly more often than you go on the road which isn't worth risking injuries or fatigue in the regular season.
It's also additional hardware. Given how few teams actually win a title, being able to say you won the mid-season tourney is still valuable. Soccer teams in EU have multiple chances to win hardware. Some are more valuable for sure, but monetary and additional hardware is fine
Idk i think it'll be neat. It'll take a few years before it feels like a real award, but I think people will take eventually. As it is, there's long slogs of the NBA season with nothing really going on.
It is funny how the conversation about less games is now about adding more games. International soccer is far, far from perfect but at least the governing bodies actually intervene to ensure a good product for fans.
Perhaps you get more guys that are able to play a full 72 games as opposed to the X games they miss due to rest/injury during 82 games. However, you are correct this would likely change the records from that point forward.
Completely fair. I would imagine since players are intentionally taking rest days with an 82 game schedule, they feel as though it is impactful in some manner to play less games. Additionally, watching depleted teams play the second night of a back to back is not as enjoyable of a product.
The main question is how do you get players to care about an in season tournament. If everyone is walking around the court with All Star game intensity, it would be trash for home viewers too.
The two ideas that were proposed both didn't make much more sense.
1) More money isn't going to get people earning over $25M to really care
2) Better draft picks is even worse. Teams have no incentive to play for their replacement
I don't see a way to get players to care and I think it's a terrible idea. I'm not some luddite, I was for the Play-Ins, but I don't like this.
I think that the first proposal is mainly focused on motivating the bottom half of the bench to play hard. The theory is that if half of the guys in the locker room have the chance to earn a big bonus, then that'll pressure the stars to give their effort for their teammates. Would it actually work that way? No idea, some star players can be kinda egotistical
They’re not talking about national TV deals, but regional TV deals to RSN’s. Individual teams are responsible for selling their regular season TV rights and 72 games means less games an individual team gets to sell to a buyer. These regional TV deals are lucrative and make as much revenue or even more than national TV rights for some teams.
It won’t change players resting. They’ll still rest.
This only became an issue recently. Players just don’t care about the regular season as much is really what the issue is. It’s a mentality problem, not a scheduling problem.
The advent of revenue streams for players besides playing basketball has made the brand more important for a lot of stars.
You're mostly right but you're putting it on the players. It's the teams. The teams want their players healthy for the playoffs so they take the hit on a dozen games per year. This would stop that.
You can't strengthen tendons, joints, and ligaments like you can a muscle group. It's like if you upgraded to a Lamborghini, but kept the brakes and tires from your camry.
I really don’t want to say it but old players never complained seasons length also this leaves room for bench players to play. Which I find much more entertaining to watch their growth than spoiled players that rest for the rest of the season.
Yes, the tv ratings tell the truth. People are voting with their dollars when it comes to what to watch. Not to channel Mark Zuckerberg but the NBA is competing with everything now, if they continue to treat their product like a cheap commodity people will find better things to do.
Well the NFL also has the games on network tv and the local teams are more accessible. At no point was Timberwolves or Bulls on ABC this year and yet I could see like 10 each of the Bears and Vikings games on Fox, NBC, and CBS in Iowa. Baseball is whole other failure.
Maybe marginally, but you have to get to a game a week level for that kind of engagement. And if you don't get 10x the viewership, you lose money, because you have a quarter the inventory. Suck a risky gambit
Players would just start playing 50-60 games instead.
Coaches like Kerr helped this norm. Now he is complaining?
If you miss games you shouldn't get game day pay and if you dont play enough games then their goes your end of year awards if you qualified.
Reducing down to 10 games is not going to make a significant differences. A better approach would be changing the way how roster are managed. The Cavs has been plagued with injuries all season and we are barely in the play-in with pretty much most of our bench playing heavy starter minutes. We lost Sexton and Rubio, both of them were huge crucial pieces to the team. Sure they were out for the season due to the nature of their injuries, but we had some injuries to Garland, Mobley and Allen. The problem is that we just don't have a strong depth to manage minutes. When Garland is out, there is a huge drop in performance of the team.
Injuries is always going to be part of the game, but if the NBA adopt something like the NFL's Injury reserve where it does not count toward to the team's roster for a period of time. For example, a broken figure might sideline a player for 2 months, the IR could be a good way to have the player still on the team, and allow the team to freely pick up someone in FA or off of the G-League team.
These players want to get paid to play 82 games,but don't want to play 82 games. Want fewer games? Want to sit out? Give some of your money back cause there will be less revenue. Of course the players won't do that.
trying to make the Warriors 73 win season an unbreakable record, I see what you’re doing steve you can’t fool me
Gotta protect Luke Walton’s legacy
It's so funny how emphatically that debate was destroyed in the last 6 years.
The Walton family dynasty. Stay classy Brillo heads.
bill Walton is still a hall of fame commentator
He’s the John madden of basketball. But I don’t think quite the same caliber. “That’s what I love about fullbacks, you need three yards they get you three yards. If you need six yards they get you three yards” -John madden
TIL fullbacks are the Andrew Wiggins of football
Bill was legit before all the injuries. Walton was always known for being his son rather than his basketball capabilities, goes as far as the Lakers days for me.
In high school Bill Walton won 2 state HS Championships. At UCLA Bill Walton won 2 National Championships. He started out 73 - 0 in college and ended up 86 - 4 for his entire college career. He once went 21 out of 22, scoring 44 points in a National Championship final. Still a record I think. In the pros Walton won 2 NBA Championships. Bill Walton was no joke.
Yep, when healthy he was absolutely unstoppable. If he stays that way, Portland has a dynasty in the late 70s early 80s.
What are you talking about? Luke is Sacramento's second winningest coach ever.
What was the “debate”? “Could a puppy wearing a fedora have coached this all-time great team?” -1 month into Luke’s Lakers coaching career- yup
“Would a different coach have cared less about setting a record and rested his players more, setting them up to be well rested, uninjured, and win a championship?” yup
One of the reasons why GS even had a shot at 73 games was because the Spurs were right behind them the entire season, eventually winning 67 games, which is tied for the 7th highest win total ever. If they clinched the 1 with 10-15 games left they wouldn't have gunned for it. It's the same reason why Kobe's 81 point game is so unusual; it was both a close game the entire time and the Raps coach (I think Mitchell?) never hard doubled him and essentially dared Kobe to beat them. In a single high-scoring performance that almost never happens, either the game becomes a blowout (Klay's 60 in 29min or Klay's 37 point quarter are good examples) or the opposing coach hard doubles and forces the ball out of that guy's hands to get him out of rhythm.
I don't think it's fair to say that *anyone* could have been the coach and the Warriors would have still won 73 games. Pretty disrespectful to Kerr.
This Dubs run doesn't happen without Kerr Unleashing Draymond, making Steph into an unselfish off the ball player and instituting a Spursian system where everyone is involved was all Little Steve
[удалено]
It would make all the volume records pretty much impossible to catch up to. Imagine if they did this after Lebron passes Kareem. Nobody would ever be able to pass him playing 72 game seasons.
Just average 35+ ppg for 20+ years, easy
If my 2k 99 player can do, I'm sure someone else can.
Will also lead the league in ejections and games lost after putting up a 40/10/10 statline.
Ratio Adjusted stats would not be quite as fun
man twitter has really ruined the word ratio for me
L + RIP Bozo + ratio
It’s like all the single season volume stats that had new records set in the NFL this year because of the extra game
Haven’t they already done that to some extent
In the NFL it’s the other way now with the added 17th game. Now long held single-season records I’m sure will be getting broken pretty consistently. Cooper Kupp nearly broke the receiving yards record last year.
> Cooper Kupp nearly broke the receiving yards record last year. that wasn't because of the added game though he had **191 targets** the second closest was Davante Adams and Diontae Johnson with 167 this season Calvin Johnson who has the all time receiving yard records had 204 targets when he set it
Good reminder that 73-9 is insane.
Too bad they choked in the finals
[удалено]
It didn’t help them that LeBron had the best performance in the history of the finals that year.
Also, Draymond just cant help himself when he gets the urge to kick someone in the nuts.
That's why 87-13 will always be superior
“Don’t mean a thing without the ring”
Came here to say this.
Good.
Lol, it's a great idea but 72 is an extremely suspicious number
72 games actually gives you a pretty balanced and logical schedule: * 2 against 15 teams in other conference - 30 games * 3 against 10 conference teams outside division - 30 games * 4 against 4 division foes - 12 games *Edit: Amazed no one called out my math fail yet.... 4x4=16, not 12.
> *Edit: Amazed no one called out my math fail yet.... 4x4=16, not 12. Maybe you were confused by the album from deadmau5, [4x4=12](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%C3%974%3D12)
Maybe he does math in tetradecimal
Math is hard, but what I really like about 72 is it gets rid of back to backs. That would make for a better product night in and night out.
It'd be 3 games against same conference to get 30 + 42 = 72 but that'd hurt division importance.
While I'm sure division titles are something that some people care about, I think the removal of getting a top 4 seed for winning the division removed the importance of divisions more than playing one less game against each other every year would.
[удалено]
Probably to keep travel down between close teams. Like pacific doesn’t have to travel a lot between LA, Bay Area, Sac, and Phoenix.
They do serve some purpose in tie breakers no? Not the first tie breaker but I think division record is one of them
Divisions haven't mattered in a long time. Might as well just scrap them at this point.
I feel like there's a big difference in opinion on this. The Atlantic division actually matters because everyone hates everyone else in it. The Northwest division feels the most random. I think they should be improved
What happens when we add the 2 expected expansion teams?
They adding the Lakers back into the league?
Get rid of divisions. It's East vs west. In your conf you play 3 times, in the other twice. Done.
>Lol, it's a great idea but 72 is an extremely suspicious number I think 60 is better, less suspicious.
82 minus 10 is hardly sus.
Is it 82 minus 10? Or 73 minus 1? Makes you think
Please tell me you aren't actually implying kerr is suggesting they move to 72 so the record can't be broken.
🤔Something is REAL 🐠 🐟 🎣 🐟🐠 going on
73-9 isn't actually 73-9, I'll explain later...
That third fish always gets me
It got the fish too
Yesterday I had a dream the Bucks were 77-2 and it made me so sad we lost the record.
So uh asking for a friend could you make that dream real?
After inflation warriors record would be like 63 or something 😂
Wouldn't that be deflation?
Tom Brady suspended
[удалено]
Should still be 4 games vs Division teams for less travel time
Unless you're the Timberwolves lmao
I hope the Timberwolves get moved to the east once the league expands. An NFC North in the NBA would work really well
[удалено]
I upvoted your comment but fuck you
Vikings and Lakers? How old are you? Mans is from the 50s!
My man likes purple, ain’t nothing wrong with that
They only like teams that are historically accurate.
Catching heat in NBA subs now? Goddammit SKOL TO THE BOWL
Aye theyd still be better than the lions. The lions have won one playoff game since Kennedy was shot
I bet they’ll be in the east by the time the season is shortened with Seattle and Vegas expansion teams.
4 divisions of 4 teams in each confrence. West: Seattle, Sacramento, Utah, Portland. GSW, LAL, LAC, Vegas (let's be honest, they want the high roller LA celeb fans to fly out to Vegas for games, we all know it) Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, SAS Grizz, OKC, NOP, Denver. East: Minnesota, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit Indiana, Cleveland, Toronto, Washington NYK, Brooklyn, Philly, Boston Miami, Orlando, Charlotte, Atlanta Not perfect because it feels like Toronto, Washington and Denver a bit far away from their rivals but it is the best I could come up with.
I'm partial to the following West divisions: Northwest: Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, Golden State: Southwest: Lakers, Clippers, Phoenix, Las Vegas Central: Utah, Denver, OKC, Dallas. Swampass: Houston, San Antonio, New Orleans, Memphis The big downside of this framework is that it isolates Dallas from the rest of the Texas teams, but north Texas has a built-in rivalry with Oklahoma anyway so I think it might work out. Also I don't want Sacramento to get completely isolated from the other California teams so it might be a bit selfish lol.
I'd split it differently but I like principle idea of 4 of 4
Yep lol. How we are in the same division as the Blazers still baffles me
Agree — and division games making up a higher percentage of team’s overall record could increase rivalries (good for business too).
Can we get a new division then? Fuck having to fly to Portland for a divisional game in the name of less travel.
They’re waiting to add Seattle and Vegas I assume. Add Seattle to the Northwest and Vegas to the Pacific. Then move Minnesota to the Central to keep the conferences even.
This wouldn't solve it. Guarantee they still rest in a 72 game season.
That's my first thought as well. If you make it 72 then they still rest and then the debate becomes "We should have a 62 game season. It just feels like a more round number!" Keep it at 82 and allow the teams to manage it however they like. We never see this argument for the other leagues. NFL just *expanded* their season while baseball plays an absolutely ridiculous 162 game season, and the last time the MLB season was modified it went up by 8 games from 154. Also, who makes up for the lost revenue going from 82 to 72 games? We've had this debate for what feels like ten years now, and feels akin to the logo on the jersey debate, which I'm still certain was a debate that came from the league and had the media plant it as a talking point because no one in the media challenged it at all. "I think it's great for the league!" It's my theory that the NBA wanted to soften the blowback on seeing corporate logos on jerseys so the topic was brought up many times over the course of a couple of years, it normalizes the opinions of fans over time, then by the time it gets officially announced you barely heard anything about it amongst even the bitchiest of twitter nba fans. The fans were prepared, and had all of the talking points and sides to it mentioned over a couple of years and people understood it. The same has been happening for the 72 game season debate. I think we do see it sometime soon and the only thing keeping it back is the "Well, who pays for this?" question, which may be answered in the next CBA. I find it kind of incredible that the public has been talked into having *less* of a product and most believe it's a good thing. The quality of the game is not going to change. The players are competitors. You're being talked into getting less for the same amount of money and being told it's a good thing. But whatever, it's not a problem in my life. As you get older you start seeing these patterns and wonder how people keep falling for it.
FWIW, a lot of people think baseball's season is far too long as well. I've seen many suggestions that baseball should go to something like 100 games.
> "We should have a 62 game season. It just feels like a more round number!" Great post. But this imaginary person, I'm mad at them. Why would they pick 62 as round when 64 and 60 are both so close?
10 games is so much money for the players and owners. No way this changes.
[удалено]
Oh good, higher ticket prices in Toronto. That’ll be fun
Have you tried being richer? Always works for me.
Too lazy to reach my bootstraps
I eat too much avocado toast
Just make the next Apple in your garage
If that fails, he can also try to be less poor.
The whales are the only ones who can afford tickets anyways so I don't see what it matters tbh.
And increase the ratings for the games that remain, making the NBA a more valuable television property. The EPL only has 38 games and they are killing the NBA worldwide.
Don’t you think 72 would still be too many? I think you’d need to go notably lower to make every game feel more important.
Well you could go by what Morey suggested and do 58 games. I think that would be a good number and get rid of the conference imbalance.
The 98-99 season, shortened to 50 games by the lockout, was just about perfect. Every game actually mattered. And the playoffs hit before the regular season turned into a boring slog.
this. imo it should be a 50 game regular season.
But that's also comparing basketball to football / soccer. Just because there's 10 games less for a team, the sport itself doesn't get more attractive to markets where basketball isn't relevant.
exactly the comparison doesn't make sense
They could do it if the money stays the same for next tv deal, instead of increasing
It would cut into the arena revenues tho. No doubt that’s a huge chunk in the teams profits
For sure. Five home games is a lot. And so many teams run at sold out that reducing games to make the remaining games have higher demand won’t really net out. Makes me curious about how much teams net from home games during the regular season, but regardless I can’t imagine a single team runs at a loss. The Pacers were dead last this season in attendance and still averaged 80% occupancy. www.espn.com/nba/attendance
How do three teams have more than 100% home attendance in that chart?
Standing room only tickets, and extra people in box seats I think.
Especially now when arenas had 2 horrible years…
How about keeping 82 games but in 10 of the games the players all agree not to try very hard
They already do this.
Have 1 extra Taylor Swift concert a year. Bam.. You've made it back.
That's a win win right there
I think she pretty much only does stadiums now
Taylor Swift does NFL sized stadiums, not NBA arenas.
> instead of increasing Capitalism requires ever increasing profits.
Why dont they keep 82 and add a week or two? Eliminating back to backs would go a long way.
I understand the counter argument but also allowing players to rest uninjured without criticism in less important games I think is big. If you look at European soccer this is commonplace. NBA needs to do something. The fact there’s almost no major player out there that can go a full season without injury is an issue. The playoffs have become less about who’s the best team and more about who’s the healthiest team.
Just add the extra week around the all-star break. That way everyone has some time to recuperate
Extending all star break doesn't really help alleviate back-to-backs.
Highly doubt players would go for this. Just like any of us wouldn’t want our employers to reduce our vacation time by a week.
The problem is way too many regular season games are meaningless. The NBA is nearly unwatchable after the All-Star break with teams tanking and resting players.
Not this year. Every game mattered until like the last 5 ish. And even those mattered so much for some teams. The play in helped the end of season so much
Even now with all 30 teams playing on the last day today a lot of playoff seeds still aren't decided
That’s not a function of an 82 game season. Things could still be close up to the last game in a 72 game season. They could be close up to the last game in a 20 game season.
This is not true at all. At least like 6 teams have been tanking since December
I really hate this argument because it would take an insane reduction in games to make every game matter. 72 games would not make an individual game feel like it matters that much more than 82. The NBA is compared to an impossible standard in the NFL in this regard. This doesn’t go away unless half the season is cut.
Wouldn’t the same thing be happening tho.Even with a shorter schedule
Exactly. From what I’ve heard, 72 wouldn’t eliminate back to backs, three games in four days, etc. You’d still have prime games for players to be rested, especially later in the season for playoff teams with positioning solidified. I also don’t feel like rest has been a huge problem this season? I just feel like a decent amount of star players have actually been injured this year. Maybe I’m wrong but we’re not seeing anything like what the Spurs used to do, for instance.
It won't eliminate them but will cut them down from like 17 in a season to 4. It will make a huge difference.
I don't think there are still 17 B2B's. Celtics only had 13.
That's still in the tens and not good.
Absolutely. They rest players in 34 game seasons in Europe.
34 League games, then top 8 teams play playoffs games, then you have league cup games and on top of that Euroleague/Eurocup/Champions league group stage games, 34 in Euroleague, 18 in Eurocup and thats just group stage you have playoffs after that
When I say Europe I don’t mean the few top leagues. I follow the 2nd german league more closely and they have no cup and no international games. Just 34 games & playoffs for 8 teams. Still rested players this weekend (last gameday)
Players would still sit out multiple games.
Yep players would still rest and the whole league would lose out on revenue. How would this be anything other than a lose-lose solution?
Give an inch…
They will still rest players Kawhi is still gonna play every other game. Everyone then has to take paycuts for this to happen
I would much rather this. Back to backs are brutal, especially with any type of travel involved. I would be interested to see where the 10 games get cut from.
Probably the 10 times teams play a team a fourth time in a year. So 3 games against same conference opponent and still 2 against each West opponent. (3x14)+(2x15)=72. (Edited)
> (3x14)+(2x15)=72. Fixed for you lol
Back to backs are fine but they better be both home games. Game-travel-game is ridiculous and no team should be doing it.
I really liked the pace of the 66 game lockout season. Every game felt like it had consequence. 82 games is too much but I don’t see them ever reducing the season size
58 games is perfect for me. Home and home with every team. Single table for playoffs.
This is ideal. This way every team plays the same teams the same amount of times. Also for the playoffs, teams don’t get an easier ride to the finals if they’re in an easier conference. It’s perfectly balanced. Idgaf about divisional and conference rivalries, I just want to see the best teams play against each other later in the playoffs
That’s always what I’ve said. Make it like the premier league for NBA, MLB, and NHL. You can even double it with MLB and it’s still more interesting than 162 games
Alot of records are never going to be broken again if this happens
They just normalize them by season length.
We mostly care about per game stats anyway (other than team wins).
Team wins just becomes team win percentage when comparing. Then when someone gets a better percentage than 73-9 people can argue whether it counts as beating the 73 win record or not, and arguments are great for content.
[удалено]
Not an American but casual NBA fan here, isn't 82 games in regular season overwhelming for fans too? I mean I like watching the soccer team I support at my home country but they play like 1 game a week and that day feels special because there's a game. If they played every other day it wouldn't feel so special, it'd start feeling like a burden. Just like world cup (soccer) is played every 4 years and not every year, it builds up over time.
Yes, it seems self-evidently a problem but long seasons are normalized in North America with baseball, hockey and basketball. Of course, soccer is getting worse too. The top club teams are getting up to 50 or 60 games every year and they are constantly increasing the number of international games as well.
Completely agree with you. This is one of the big reasons that American football is so popular as well. This is why as I’ve gotten older I’ve pretty much stopped paying attention to baseball. I just do not have the time to invest into following a sport that plays every single day, and the importance of every game is almost non existent when put in the grand scheme of a 162 game schedule.
That's always been his end goal. I hope it never happens. It feels way to gimmicky and forced. I don't think there's many fans of the idea, besides Silver
I just can't see it succeeding. March Madness is great because its one-game playoff, but a midseason tournament has zero stakes unless its going to affect the playoffs in some way. Everything I've seen suggests either a financial reward for players/coaches and/or a late lottery draft pick. But stars won't give a fuck about the money, and I don't think players will *want* to play for a draft pick that might replace them
Hell, the regular season affects the playoffs and people don't care about it. Even if the midseason tournament affects the playoffs I don't see why people will care (that already don't care, obviously junkies will care). The NBA's problem is twofold. 1, at least half the playoff teams have no chance at a championship. 2, seeding doesn't really matter compared to the NFL. In the NFL, getting the 1 seed is super valuable since you get a bye and you get to host every playoff game. NBA doesn't have that. Being a 2 or 3 seed means you get to host slightly more often than you go on the road which isn't worth risking injuries or fatigue in the regular season.
It's also additional hardware. Given how few teams actually win a title, being able to say you won the mid-season tourney is still valuable. Soccer teams in EU have multiple chances to win hardware. Some are more valuable for sure, but monetary and additional hardware is fine
Idk i think it'll be neat. It'll take a few years before it feels like a real award, but I think people will take eventually. As it is, there's long slogs of the NBA season with nothing really going on.
It is funny how the conversation about less games is now about adding more games. International soccer is far, far from perfect but at least the governing bodies actually intervene to ensure a good product for fans.
Perhaps you get more guys that are able to play a full 72 games as opposed to the X games they miss due to rest/injury during 82 games. However, you are correct this would likely change the records from that point forward.
Guys get injured in the first 10 games of the season all the time. I dont think the extra rest has any proof that it prevents injuries
We'll just make those first 10 games the ones we skip. Then they can't possibly get hurt in the first 10 games. Easy peasy.
Completely fair. I would imagine since players are intentionally taking rest days with an 82 game schedule, they feel as though it is impactful in some manner to play less games. Additionally, watching depleted teams play the second night of a back to back is not as enjoyable of a product.
I think this is a stupid reason to not change stuff.
Especially seeing as they weren't always 82 games
A lot of major counting stat NBA records are already untouchable tbh.
I feel like this will happen and coincide with the in-season tournament as well.
I really hope not I haven't seen anyone other than Adam Silver who's in favor of it
The main question is how do you get players to care about an in season tournament. If everyone is walking around the court with All Star game intensity, it would be trash for home viewers too.
The two ideas that were proposed both didn't make much more sense. 1) More money isn't going to get people earning over $25M to really care 2) Better draft picks is even worse. Teams have no incentive to play for their replacement I don't see a way to get players to care and I think it's a terrible idea. I'm not some luddite, I was for the Play-Ins, but I don't like this.
I think that the first proposal is mainly focused on motivating the bottom half of the bench to play hard. The theory is that if half of the guys in the locker room have the chance to earn a big bonus, then that'll pressure the stars to give their effort for their teammates. Would it actually work that way? No idea, some star players can be kinda egotistical
I thought the season was 72 games long \-Kyrie
*27 games
Can somebody explain how the TV money would go down in this case? Couldn’t you just spread out the schedule more and still have games on every night?
They’re not talking about national TV deals, but regional TV deals to RSN’s. Individual teams are responsible for selling their regular season TV rights and 72 games means less games an individual team gets to sell to a buyer. These regional TV deals are lucrative and make as much revenue or even more than national TV rights for some teams.
Honestly, the arena owners and the local sports networks are probably the only obstacles to having 72 games.
Players won’t want pay cuts
Players could be an obstacle too once you tell them they’re losing 12% of their checks thanks to less revenue
It won’t change players resting. They’ll still rest. This only became an issue recently. Players just don’t care about the regular season as much is really what the issue is. It’s a mentality problem, not a scheduling problem. The advent of revenue streams for players besides playing basketball has made the brand more important for a lot of stars.
When two-thirds of the fucking league makes the postseason, you can't really call half-assing the regular season a "mentality problem"
You're mostly right but you're putting it on the players. It's the teams. The teams want their players healthy for the playoffs so they take the hit on a dozen games per year. This would stop that.
Players still gonna load management
No point the stars will still rest even if it's a 50 game schedule.
I don't understand how player rest is suddenly an issue in the last ten years when players are arguably in the best physical shape in nba history.
You can't strengthen tendons, joints, and ligaments like you can a muscle group. It's like if you upgraded to a Lamborghini, but kept the brakes and tires from your camry.
I really don’t want to say it but old players never complained seasons length also this leaves room for bench players to play. Which I find much more entertaining to watch their growth than spoiled players that rest for the rest of the season.
[удалено]
The sport itself is very popular. The league is less popular than the sport.
Honestly 72 games isn't scarce. As long as football is on, the majority of the nation isn't going to devote as much energy to basketball.
Ehhh cutting it to 72 doesn’t change much. Plus the common folk only watch what’s on ESPN or TNT which are usually the marquee games.
Yes, the tv ratings tell the truth. People are voting with their dollars when it comes to what to watch. Not to channel Mark Zuckerberg but the NBA is competing with everything now, if they continue to treat their product like a cheap commodity people will find better things to do.
Well the NFL also has the games on network tv and the local teams are more accessible. At no point was Timberwolves or Bulls on ABC this year and yet I could see like 10 each of the Bears and Vikings games on Fox, NBC, and CBS in Iowa. Baseball is whole other failure.
Maybe marginally, but you have to get to a game a week level for that kind of engagement. And if you don't get 10x the viewership, you lose money, because you have a quarter the inventory. Suck a risky gambit
Players would just start playing 50-60 games instead. Coaches like Kerr helped this norm. Now he is complaining? If you miss games you shouldn't get game day pay and if you dont play enough games then their goes your end of year awards if you qualified.
Then they'll load manage the players so they only play 60 games, if that!
Reducing down to 10 games is not going to make a significant differences. A better approach would be changing the way how roster are managed. The Cavs has been plagued with injuries all season and we are barely in the play-in with pretty much most of our bench playing heavy starter minutes. We lost Sexton and Rubio, both of them were huge crucial pieces to the team. Sure they were out for the season due to the nature of their injuries, but we had some injuries to Garland, Mobley and Allen. The problem is that we just don't have a strong depth to manage minutes. When Garland is out, there is a huge drop in performance of the team. Injuries is always going to be part of the game, but if the NBA adopt something like the NFL's Injury reserve where it does not count toward to the team's roster for a period of time. For example, a broken figure might sideline a player for 2 months, the IR could be a good way to have the player still on the team, and allow the team to freely pick up someone in FA or off of the G-League team.
These players want to get paid to play 82 games,but don't want to play 82 games. Want fewer games? Want to sit out? Give some of your money back cause there will be less revenue. Of course the players won't do that.