Gregg Popovich not a fan of making the NBA season longer

Yeah. There's really no way to lengthen the season in an attempt to eliminate back-to-backs to correct the mistake of making the season 82 games in first place

Players use the summer to work on their game
National teams would be screwed
And shortening the preseason is counter-productive and would not be enough to eliminate all back to backs anyhow

Owners just need to swallow the pill and reduce the number of games. It will improve the product enough for me to pay more per game, but owners will still whine about a drop in food sales

 

It's not just owners. A drop in games = a drop in TV revenues = a drop in the salary cap. Players like to say they want fewer games, but when they see the potential impact on their paychecks, they may very well reconsider.

 

Actually I think an argument could be made that less games increases the demand for the product, and could actually increase tv revenue.

With fewer games being played, more is at stake for each game during the regular season, means more fans engaged on a Wed. night for a random game of basketball.

 

I respect the hell out of Pop but his complaining about this is distasteful...

People wake up at 4:00am every day and work their asses off at two jobs to support their families basic needs and he is on record whining about the length of the NBA season? He coaches a sport and is paid a kings ransom...

like Mchale said, "they are playing basketball, its not like they are laying bricks in the hot sun all day"

Get a grip Pop.

 

Of course he is not he is washed and old. Retire bro.

 

You'd think that, but it doesn't seem to be how any of these sports TV contracts work - volume seems to be the name of the game. There's no way ESPN/TNT/etc will not demand to pay less if they are getting less games. I agree with you in theory, though, for the long-term.

 

It would also be a difficult position for the NBA to argue, because it would set a bad precedent for them and other leagues if they ever try to add games down the line.

 

I'm okay with a longer season if we can cut out B2B's and 4 games in 5 nights.

 

Also a drop in jobs for the workers at the games.

 

I don't give a **** what Pop thinks, but a longer season is stupid imo.

62 games, no b2bs. Fewer games makes each game a bigger deal and more important and increase exclusivity for ticket buyers and TV watchers. more games would be sold out. Healthier teams in the playoffs means more competitive series' , better games and a bigger audience

 

I wouldn't pay more just to watch the sixers tank on the road.

 

It would not drop the major TV contracts, and those are the ones that are contributing the most. They would still have their same number of games, and they would be better games with fresher players.

Plus, players aren't going to vote for a longer season, either.

Maybe it lowers the local revenue. For Local games not nationally broadcast, the name of the game is Premium Games (i.e., Lebron). It would mean less Lebron games for opponents to sell. But I would still say that is debatable You are diluting the product with back-to-backs. It is conceivable local TV ratings would increase per game enough to maintain sponsor revenues. I doubt there is very many people out there watching every game.

The indisputable logic behind less games is it makes a better product, especially for the season-ticket holders, Nationally televised games and Playoffs.

 

Also, imagine a world of no more Monday games. Probably the worst selling game of the week.

 

Neither owners nor especially players would be willing to sacrifice revenue and salary for fewer regular season games. The whole thing is a non-starter.

I don't want an extension into July. They should consider starting the season earlier by reducing pre-season games. They could play 3-4 games instead of 8.

 

Local revenues are what I'm talking about - that's a major part of a team's TV revenue - approx 38% of the total TV revenue. The Lakers, for example, get $200MM per year. The Rockets are around $50MM, I believe. And as you said, if national TV deals don't change, that means local TV deals are disproportionately impacted.

There's just no real player pushing for this - just a few annoyed players and fans who have no power. Otherwise, players and owners are on the same page to keep the season as-is.

 

82 games isn't that bad, it's baseball's 162 game season that needs to be reduced.

 

Look at the attendance numbers:
http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance

For this to be a break even business decision for the owners, they would need to make up 32% in per game revenue. Given that most teams are having 90%+ attendance, we're talking about 25% to 32% increase in ticket pricing/concession without the attendance going down, which might not be that likely and would suck for the fans regardless.

Before you say owners might be willing eat the cost of the cost of this, if we assume an average ticket prices of about $55 + $20 concession/parking and an average attendance at ~17.5K, 20 games is ~$26MM less in revenue or about $13MM per owner. Add to ~ 32% decrease in local TV games (assume 1/4 decrease in of say $40MM average revenue), we're talking about $23MM a year. Even the billion-aire owners would hesitant to give up that much revenue a year. And even if they would, it's still a bad business decision.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/193720/average-ticket-price-in-the-nba-by-team-in-2010/

 

So this is my gripe.

(Leaving hockey aside, because who cares) NBA is the only USA sport where the pro level is playing a schedule that no other amateur level below it plays...HS, NCAA. They are playing a schedule that the game wasn't designed for.

Sure, baseball's 162 game schedule is out of whack with HS and college, but the hitters and fielders really are not being stressed out at all. Baseball stress is about pitchers. At every level, the pitchers can have 4 to 5 days of rest. In MLB, they just have much more starting pitchers than any other level...so it works.

So,
Baseball = 4-5 days for starting pitchers at all levels
Football is once a week at all levels
HS and NCAA basketball is twice a week, never back to backs (except maybe early season faux tourny's that act as pre-season games)

NBA is 3-4 games a week, sometimes 5

The NBA schedule is out of whack with the way the game is meant to be played.

Likewise, Soccer makes club players play National games in the middle of their regular season. That's wrong, too.

The game of bball is not meant to be played this much. Euro League only plays (what?) 32 games a season?

Does this not make sense. I've said this to many people over many years, and few disagree. Basketball is not designed for 3-5 games a week.

 

You are applying bad business math. It does not work by your linear extrapolations. Business Value per Game will not operate as you say.

This is not the way it will play out. For instance, National TV Contracts will not be affected negatively at all by less regular season games. In fact, their value may actually go up.

For instance, let's just consider season ticketholder sales as a part of this math. I'm a season-ticketholder, for 18 years. If the NBA reduces my amount of games, I will still be fine paying the same full cost of ownership price. And I'm not alone. Very few people go to all games. This isn't football...where there is only one home game every two weeks (essentially).

Are you a season ticket holder?