Gregg Popovich not a fan of making the NBA season longer

Although, you included the merchandise/parking/concession sales in your above figures. If 65% is attending even with 90% of the seats sold out, teams aren't necessarily losing revenue.

Its the nature of economics, supply and demand. Increase supply and prices drop, decrease supply and prices increase. Decrease supply and demand increases for the product. NBA definitely knows a number of their games may be sold out on paper, but night after night at least half the teams in the league have really poor actual attendance figures. 65% actual capacity, for a team with the 2nd best record in the NBA (Atlanta for example) or with the future face of the NBA (New Orleans for example) is definitely concerning for the league.

 

They are losing revenue, it's just a matter of how much and the math assumes the average of $20 given w/e attendance was there.That said, if you're conservative and knock 1/3 of concession + parking off, we're talking about maybe $1MM less of $13MM per game they need to make up, doesn't change the argument.

The point with the 90% figure is that the demand for the tickets (regardless of actual use by the fans) is already maxed (sold) out or close to maxed out for most teams. Thus to break even, the owners will have to raise price fairly significantly on a per game basis.

Now, you can argue that the decrease supply, increase in play, and etc. would raise demand enough that fans are going to be willing to pay the extra price. That could also be true, but why would owners take that business risk? How significant is the upside vs. downside? Also, it would suck as a fan.

Lastly, what you see on TV are mostly lower bow seats on the TV, the $150 to $350+ seats, which from most of the board complaints are usually corporate seats, which might also explain why they go unused even if sold. It might be that a good chunk of the companies would be willing to pay a higher price (especially for a market like LA), but some teams might be having trouble getting the most price sensitive of their corporate customers (let's say 1/5 were borderline on tickets purchase, how can you be certain those guys would be willing to pay 20% to 30% more per game).


Once again, it's really quite simple:

If you believe that the reducing 25% of of the games will be fine for the owners then you have to believe:

• Fans are going to be willing to pay the same amount for 30 games as they do for 40 games because fans are not as price sensitive.
• Local TV sponsors are willing to pay the same amount for 30 games as they do for 40 games because the ratings will increase enough that they can pass it on through advertisers.
• And that they can get additional revenue from other events in the arenas (though I think that it's different team by team depending on the referendum when building the Arenas).

It could be your belief that's what will happen, and it even might be true. I just think it's questionable enough that I would not do it if I was a NBA owner.

 

82 was good enough for Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan, it's good enough for me...

 

Those people have certain stressors, but it's not like life for an NBA coach is all fun and games either. You're coaching arguably the greatest franchise since the millenium - one that is always expected to go far into the playoffs with an aging roster. You may not get to see your family after work, and on top of all that, the guy is 66 - not exactly spry young Spoelstra.

Just like there's pressure on those that have 2 jobs, there's also pressure on Pop.

 

Show respect


Nah, screw em

 

But you are not an owner, you are a fan. Forget this financial crap...do you or don't you want less games. Do you or don't you see the value of the NBA having 20 more days of practice in the regular season to improve team chemistry and construct offenses and defenses that we've never seen before at this level...like the NCAA and Euroleague does, who both only play about 32 games each season.

Practice ....
We're talking about practice

not just technically selling out games, but fans actually coming to ALL the games, because there is less of them. Let's get LOUD

Practice
We're talking about practice



p r a c t i c e

 

I love this game

 

I like having Rockets games every day in reality. They should just suck it up, get some Lebron "Juice" and get out there playing :grin:

In all seriousness I don't get the 82 games gripe, listening to some former players, it shouldn't be that big of a deal really. I wonder how big of a deal this would be if the players had curfews and can't go out after the game.

 

That's kinda like a kid saying to his kid friends "Okay we're not parents, forget our parents money its not ours anyway - Do you WANT to get a new Ferrari?!"

Want and Attainability are 2 different things. Have to figure in the provider's resources and motivations to see if the want is attainable (which you did do in previous comments)

My opinion in that same "fan" approach is - I want to see games ALL the time ALL year round. Forget offseasons I don't get much NBA fatigue, I will take off The Voice or Modern Family to watch a normal Rockets game any time of the year.

That said, I don't like watching any shows/games/performances where the participants are coasting and not giving it their best. So I could support not having back to backs if it means shortening the season or stretching it out over the calendar

 

They've been playing the game this way (82 games) since before I was born. The quality of play has been fine. I'm all for expanding the number of days and eliminating more back-to-backs but reducing the total volume doesn't do a damn thing for me as a fan. More practice? Yipeeeeee.

 

82 games is just fine for the league.

If it's reduced, then the 1995-96 Chicago Bulls' 72 wins record would be unbreakable forever.