If athletes want to reduce games, they should be prepared to reduce salaries/game too. They make so much money because there is so much money to be made. Also, these 10s of millions of dollar stadiums need events to pay the bills. Cities aren't going to be so inclined to fork over bond packages when there is 20% less revenue to be made. I doubt they can make that up with concerts & events. But on the flip side, I think it would be much better for the GAME. Basketball is unlike other sports. It takes time to mesh, and for the most part, serious-injuries are not the norm. However, fatigue and game play are the two biggest factors at play here. By the time we reach the playoffs, many players are fatigued or have nagging injuries. If we shortened the season by 20 games or so, perhaps players would be fresher for the playoffs. Then there is game play, the first half of the season is really hard to watch. Some of it is sloppy basketball because it takes time to mesh in real game circumstances (playing against real defensive schemes), but a lot of it is just star players knowing they don't need to give it 100% every night until after January. There has to be a balance between the fans' perspective, the business' perspective, and the players' perspective.
If you decrease the number of games, the ticket prices are going to go up to compensate that. If you reduce the amount of NBA games that will be aired, you increase the amount of money it is going to take to procure that game for your network. There will be a reduction in revenue, undoubtedly, but it won't be as drastic as some seem to think.
Most certainly ticket prices will go up, but I expect the product to improve as well. Less fatigue, more practice time, SHOULD equal a better product on the court. The reduction in revenue, is exactly why I said the players would need to lower their expected compensation/game. And also why there needs to be a player/fan/business compromise. I'm not sure how it would effect revenue, but I would imagine it would have a significant impact if you take away 20 event days at a stadium. Then you factor in the cost to those who work at the stadium, if they are unable to fill those dates with alternate events, e.g. the residual effects of the lockout to stadium workers. In the end, I believe a min. 10 game reduction in the season would be better for the sport.
There seems to be a lot of disagreement about changing the number of games during the regular season, however, I see that most people (myself included) are in favor of eliminating B2B; would love to see that happen sooner rather than later. The biggest problem I have with teams like the Spurs resting star players is that, as a fan, if I'm going to pay a premium price to see a NBA game live then I want to see a premium product, and that means stars like Duncan and Manu - not their back-ups. It's not necessarily an entertainment issue but rather a value issue... I'm paying to see -in a Bill Walton voice- the best athletes in the world perform on the highest level. If that's not the product that gets placed on the floor, then I don't feel like it's a good value. I mean, I can go watch a very entertaining D-League game for a fraction of what it would cost to see a NBA game. It's one thing if a star player is injured, but it's another thing if that player sits on account of the schedule (i.e. 2nd night of a B2B or 3rd game in 4 nights). It just doesn't seem right to me that the cost is the same, regardless. I think one could also make the argument that it gives one team a competitive advantage over another if one is playing the 2nd night of a B2B while the other is not.
I wonder why American sports don't have cup tournaments. Why have nobody tried? It should attract lots of money. I'd prefer that over the silly All-Star weekend thing.
My suggestion 1. Increase value of divisional games - 20 games 2. Decrease value of conference games - 20 games 3. 2 games per team in Non conference - 30 games Rank top 16 teams for the playoffs from both conferences...may the best team win... 1 vs 16, 2 vs 15...etc Suggestion for Draft overhaul: Spoiler The following is a suggestion that I had to help prevent teams from tanking, and a fair way for teams to determine their lottery pick position. The remaining 14 teams are randomly selected to play one game against another lottery bound team; for a total of 7 lottery games: 17(Suns) vs 30(Bucks) 18(Timberwolves) vs 29(76ers) 19(Knicks) vs 28(Magic) 20(Nuggets) vs 27(Jazz) 21(Pelicans) vs 26(Celtics) 22(Caviliers) vs 25(Lakers) 23(Pistons) vs 24(Kings) The contest will be held at the arena of the team with a higher final season record. The teams ranked 17-23 will only be eligible for the picks between 8-14, and the teams ranked 24-30 will only be eligible for draft picks 1-7. However, the order of these positions are determined by the outcome of these lottery games. After the games are played, the league can then rank the teams accordingly: a. Lottery game's win/loss differential - using the example above, if the SUns played the Bucks at PHX and the outcome of the game was 107-79 Suns...the win/loss differential would be +28(Suns) - If the Pelicans play the Celtics at NO and the outcome of the game was 92-84 NO...the win/loss differential would be +8(Pelicans) - Teams that are ranked 17-23 at the seasons conclusion, can dictate where they pick(btwn draft picks 8-14) by having a larger win differential. - Teams that are ranked 24-30 at the seasons conclusion, can dictate where they pick(btwn draft picks 1-7) by having a larger win differential or lower loss differential. b. Using the 2014 NBA lottery teams as the example, the following is a list of hypothetical game results. - Bucks at Suns: 107-79 Suns +28 - 76ers at Timberwolves: 116-104 Timberwolves +12 - Magic at Knicks: 97-78 Knicks +11 - Jazz at Nuggets: 95-92 Jazz -3 - Celtics at Pelicans: 94-84 Pelicans +8 - Lakers at Caviliers: 87-82 Lakers -5 - Kings at Pistons: 104-92 Kings -12 c. Draft Picks 1-7 for the 7 worst NBA teams would be ranked by win differential or lower loss differential - Pick 1: Kings - Pick 2: Lakers - Pick 3: Jazz - Pick 4: Celtics - Pick 5: Magic - Pick 6: 76ers - Pick 7: Bucks d. Draft Picks 8-14 are for the remaining 7 non playoff NBA teams ranked by win differential or lower loss differential - Pick 8: Suns - Pick 9: Timberwolves - Pick 10: Knicks - Pick 11: Pelicans - Pick 12: Nuggets - Pick 13: Caviliers - Pick 14: Pistons e. If there is ever a tie in point differential, the team with the lower regular season record gets the higher draft pick. f. for any other tie breakers, use the conference record: The team with the lower conference record gets the higher draft pick.
There's a lot of misinformation in this thread. Lotta know it alls with made up information. Teams don't routinely sell out games. OKC is one of the few exceptions. You want to increase the product and quality of it and it will sell itself. A 64 game season is going to have more sellouts, more hype on each game, as well as each game bein b more of an event. That being said, there's definitely goi NC to be a lot less revenue. The new TV deal will have to be amended and the salary cap will stay fixed instead of shooting up. The players need to assess whether they really need the extra houses and luxury cars and rapper groupies. Is it worth it? playoffs are vital to American sports, they aren't going anywhere. Cut the first round to 5 games and keep all else the same. It's just a boring product right now. Less timeouts during games to disrupt the flow. That alone adds huge value to the product. eventually, i think it will allow the nba to capture a wider audience. More interest, better product, more $$ or equivalent despite reducing the games. 64 game reg season 16 playoff teams seeded by record after conf winners 5 game 1st round, 7 there after No back to backs There ya go
