Is 82 games too many?

[da ThRONe]

I was of the mindset that there is nothing good that can come from contracting teams or the season. While I still am against contracting teams, contracting the season on the other hand may be more beneficial for the league and fans. I have some reason to show why knocking 20+ games off the season would be a good thing.


Reason 1

Too much of anything is a bad thing.

Now an arguement can be made what "too much" actually is. However there's no doubt that the more you have of something the more it depreciate. I think this is clear with the MLB and may be the case with the NBA. For most casual fans there is no sense of urgency to go to a game when you have 41 of them.

Reason 2

Adding more longevity to players careers.

I think most people would agree the road trips are grueling on the older players. One of the reason Phil Jackson(not even a player) is leaving the game is because of the wear-and-tear it has on the body. Reducing the season would reduce road trips and elimate back-to-back games. As a result we would see guys like Shaq and Duncan stick around longer, Guys like Kobe would have more prime years and maybe guys like Yao, Oden, and Roy career's would be healtier through out.

Reason 3

Not competing against the NFL.

The NFL is king in this country. Most hoops fans favor the pigskin as well. Reducing the season and starting in December would mean less competing against the NFL for revenue.

Reason 4

Having set days.

I think one of the reasons the NFL is so popular is they have set days. We know sunday is football day. Monday nite is prime time football. I think the NBA would be better served picking two or three days out of the week that's NBA days. Where all fans know they can turn on the t.v. around a certain time and find there team and maybe more important prime time games.

Reason 5

Maximizing revenue.

Not competing so much with the NFL and focusing more on the time of year basketball is in full swing will maximize profits. The teams that don't have a problem with attendance can increase the price on tickets(example of less being more) teams with attendance problems won't have to suffer through 2 months of low attendance. Season ticket will probably be the same for the popular teams and for the less popular teams the can be more affordable.

Reason 6

Improving product.

Less games equal more practice time which usually leads to better on court product.

Reason 7

Less games less player salary.

The owners would have a more legit reason to reduce players salaries because their playing less games. At the same time they would increase/maintain their current revenue by either raising ticket prices or reducing losses.

[wwharton]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

Very well thought out. I think I agree with most of that. I already thought the season was too long but you added some things I didn't think of. Personally I'd shorten the playoffs too, but that's an entirely different discussion.

[Drewski]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

Solid, well laid out discussion here. All of your points sit well with me.

In particular, I like the idea of "set" days of NBA - though as it currently is there's generally a few games every night (albeit there's always a few nights where my NBA league pass is filled to the brim with games) which is also a positive thing for those who like watching basketball on a daily basis.

I also don't think it's terrible to have the NBA running while the NFL runs, but as far as not competiting for "fans'' through those windows to maximize revenue and minimize losses, I can understand that.

The concept of a shorter season having less wear and tear on a player is also a very valid point of discussion. Lets cut 20 games, and over a span of 4 years, thats an entire season's worth of ball. I don't think there's any denying that guys who have 12+ years on them as it stands could use a fountain of youth. Having, more or less, 3-4 years on their clocks added back in if the seasons were shorter through that time period could make a huge difference for some guys. And yes, it would provide a larger "prime" window.

Thinking about cons to it, will be back with some points of rebuttal for the sake of discussion.

[Outcast]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

Well said. Agree with everything... 82 games is just too much

[Yeah...THAT Guy]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

The only things I see wrong with this:

1. I question whether or not the players would want to take a hit in their salaries for this. Perhaps they would, but I'm not sure about that one.

2. It would mess up records and stuff. Suddenly it might not be as impressive if a guy averages 30 points per game in a 58 game schedule compared to someone like MJ that did it in an 82 game schedule. Career records would most likely never be broken because guys would have to play into their 40s to get the number of games played as guys like Karl Malone did and stuff like that. And obviously nobody would break Chicago's 72-10 record or whatever it was (I can never remember if it was 72-10 or 70-12).

Those are really the only things I question about shortening the season.

[da ThRONe]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

Very well thought out. I think I agree with most of that. I already thought the season was too long but you added some things I didn't think of. Personally I'd shorten the playoffs too, but that's an entirely different discussion.

I agree from a fan stand point the post season is too long and almost ensure the better team wins which in my opinion gets a tid boring. But the NBA makes too much off the postseason to shortened it and I'm sure they prefer to have the better teams advance.

[Drewski]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

The only things I see wrong with this:

1. I question whether or not the players would want to take a hit in their salaries for this. Perhaps they would, but I'm not sure about that one.

2. It would mess up records and stuff. Suddenly it might not be as impressive if a guy averages 30 points per game in a 58 game schedule compared to someone like MJ that did it in an 82 game schedule. Career records would most likely never be broken because guys would have to play into their 40s to get the number of games played as guys like Karl Malone did and stuff like that. And obviously nobody would break Chicago's 72-10 record or whatever it was (I can never remember if it was 72-10 or 70-12).

Those are really the only things I question about shortening the season.

That's really all I could come up with as well. Point 2 is a very legitimate thing, because there's just no way anyone could break all-time records, let alone SEASON records. I mean, maybe the argument to be made there is since the season is shorter, guys have larger windows since they're essentially knocking years of play off of guys over the span, but there'd definitely be a curve to consider where Age simply dictates the decline regardless of playing less games over that time.

And right, averaging X per game over 58 games doesn't hold a candle to doing it over 82 grueling games (which will obviously be the argument in regards to a player having a higher per game average in any stat over a condensed season).

Point 1, I agree. I'm not sure players would want to give up say.. 3 million of potential salary a year... in order to have a longer summer vacation after they miss the playoffs.

[wwharton]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

The only things I see wrong with this:

1. I question whether or not the players would want to take a hit in their salaries for this. Perhaps they would, but I'm not sure about that one.

2. It would mess up records and stuff. Suddenly it might not be as impressive if a guy averages 30 points per game in a 58 game schedule compared to someone like MJ that did it in an 82 game schedule. Career records would most likely never be broken because guys would have to play into their 40s to get the number of games played as guys like Karl Malone did and stuff like that. And obviously nobody would break Chicago's 72-10 record or whatever it was (I can never remember if it was 72-10 or 70-12).

Those are really the only things I question about shortening the season.

Records don't mean as much in the NBA as they do in MLB, or even NFL really. Hell you couldn't even remember the Bulls record season, lol. The "what ifs" would certainly be talking points but no different than the ones we have now (what if Wilt played today, what if there was always a 3 point line, etc, etc).

[da ThRONe]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

That's really all I could come up with as well. Point 2 is a very legitimate thing, because there's just no way anyone could break all-time records, let alone SEASON records. I mean, maybe the argument to be made there is since the season is shorter, guys have larger windows since they're essentially knocking years of play off of guys over the span, but there'd definitely be a curve to consider where Age simply dictates the decline regardless of playing less games over that time.

And right, averaging X per game over 58 games doesn't hold a candle to doing it over 82 grueling games (which will obviously be the argument in regards to a player having a higher per game average in any stat over a condensed season).

Point 1, I agree. I'm not sure players would want to give up say.. 3 million of potential salary a year... in order to have a longer summer vacation after they miss the playoffs.

As far as the record book goes the era would call for it's own record book. Not that big on records anyways. There's always some reason to dispute or inflate numbers.

As far as the players being on board from a salary standpoint. IF it comes down to a reduced salary and extra time off or just a reduced salary without the extra time. I'm sure I know which one they'll choose.

[tehova]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

If we could have games 365 day a year that would be better

[phenom1990]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

I don't think you can shorten the season from 82 to 58 for two reasons:

1. If it gets shorten to 58, that would mean that every team plays every other team twice. That would essentially make having conferences irrelevant since there is no difference in a schedule that Sacramento plays compared to Boston.

2. If it got shorten to 58 and the NBA decided to get around what I just described, then that results in a couple teams not coming to visit your team every year. Imagine if in one year that by the luck of the draw a market like Sacramento didn't have the Heat, Celtics and Bulls come to visit. The Kings owner would complain they didn't get 3 of the best road draws in the league that year and that it hurt them financially.

Therefore, I think the only realistic solution that could happen is to reduce the season to 76 games.

Play everyone in your division 4 times= 4 x4= 16
Everyone in your conference but not in your division 3 times= 10x3=30
Everyone in the other conference twice= 15x2=30

16+30+30= 76 games, which would shorten the season probably by a week and half to two weeks. Which the NBA could either start the season a week or two later, finish it a week or two earlier, or spread the games out more over the same amount of time.

One other thing, hasn't the NBA always been an 82 game schedule? If it has, how long has it been a complaint that the season is too long?

[Drewski]

Records don't mean as much in the NBA as they do in MLB, or even NFL really. Hell you couldn't even remember the Bulls record season, lol. The "what ifs" would certainly be talking points but no different than the ones we have now (what if Wilt played today, what if there was always a 3 point line, etc, etc).

Right. At some point the league/fans need to drop what if situations and do what's best for the sport as it stands in the present. That's how things advance in sports, or wed still not have a 24 second shot clock, for example. And what, worse case it doesnt pan out it'd be easy to reverse. Pro-rate contracts by dividing annual salary by number of games and tack that back onto contracts. Just unlikely to change any time soon with the cba mess ongoing, which will remain on a lot of peoples minds for some time.

Sent from the free throw line

[da ThRONe]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

I don't think you can shorten the season from 82 to 58 for two reasons:

1. If it gets shorten to 58, that would mean that every team plays every other team twice. That would essentially make having conferences irrelevant since there is no difference in a schedule that Sacramento plays compared to Boston.

2. If it got shorten to 58 and the NBA decided to get around what I just described, then that results in a couple teams not coming to visit your team every year. Imagine if in one year that by the luck of the draw a market like Sacramento didn't have the Heat, Celtics and Bulls come to visit. The Kings owner would complain they didn't get 3 of the best road draws in the league that year and that it hurt them financially.

Therefore, I think the only realistic solution that could happen is to reduce the season to 76 games.

Play everyone in your division 4 times= 4 x4= 16
Everyone in your conference but not in your division 3 times= 10x3=30
Everyone in the other conference twice= 15x2=30

16+30+30= 76 games, which would shorten the season probably by a week and half to two weeks. Which the NBA could either start the season a week or two later, finish it a week or two earlier, or spread the games out more over the same amount of time.

One other thing, hasn't the NBA always been an 82 game schedule? If it has, how long has it been a complaint that the season is too long?

I would make a case that the league is better not having every team come to town. That there should be more importance on division and rivalries in basketball. It's that passion that generates revenue.

[Drewski]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

I would make a case that the league is better not having every team come to town. That there should be more importance on division and rivalries in basketball. It's that passion that generates revenue.

Just to throw fuel into that fire there - like the NFL's divisional rivalries matter because you see them twice a year each + the other games - so you definitely don't get to see every team. But the divisions really matter in the NFL.

I think there would need to be division re-assignment if that were to happen in the NBA though, look at the pacific division for example.

[23]

Re: Is 82 games too many?

No its not