82 games are fine if you ask me. Better personnel and rotation management should resolve this. To me the greater issues are: * the current play-off seeding format--> seedings should be base on W-L only * the 7 game format for the first round series--> go back to 5 games * the days off between play-off games --> it's not a soap opera, get on with it! * the disparity between the East and West elites--> is it just a cyclic pattern?
Totally agree. It's downright boring most nights. I always follow the Rockets, but even then I don't get too sky high over the regular season wins. I just think the 82-game schedule makes most NBA nights a little boring during the season. I've felt that way since I was a little kid. In the NFL (and I'm not even a big football fan), I enjoy at least reading the recap of *every* game b/c they all matter each week. They're rare and interesting events.
Good luck getting players union to take an annual salary cut, that's not going to happen. Only a very select amoung of players have international concerns. A lot of top players that's going to skip the international games will not do it(KG, Duncan etc...). Average non-international will not care about it since they wont get invites (Rafer, Bobby Jackson, etc.). For those players (I'm guesstimating at 80% of the NBA), playing in the NBA is their only full time job. They will not be willing to take a salary cut in exchange for a shorter season. I don't know if shorter game will generate more interest, I suppose as supply gets lower the demand would higher, though I think the demand curve for NBA is going to be pretty flat until you reach a critical point of something like 40 games. I think a good thing to do is look at how the strike season affect the ratings and attendance, though either way the data would be flawed since it was a strike shorten the season. Injuries might be lower, but as I've stated above, the interest might not neccessarily be significantly higher either way. Lastly, you have to weigh those against television revenue, both national and local. With less game to air, it would mean less television revenue, and that is one of the bigger pieces to the business model of the NBA. I just don't see it happening.
The season is waaaaaaaaaaay tooooooooooooooooo looooooooooooooooong. The back to backs are ridiculous! Pure greed. Players are being driven into the ground.
They just start the preseason a couple weeks early and/or shorten it. That will give more time for the regular season, so they can cut down the number of back to backs. I think this was Jonathan Feigen's suggestion.
I don't think people were complaining about this around here in the 90s. Making regular season games "mean more" is what the BCS is all about, yet people rail against that constantly. Baseball teams play twice as many games and each one is every bit as meaningless until the last couple of months in the season, just like the NBA.
better players last longer. that's what sport's about. shorter season only seems to benefit players like yao who has stamina issues and takes away the durability advantage of superior athletes like lebron and kobe. it's not fair.
actually they were. an 82 game basketball season is too long, especially now that the game is going international. Club seasons should be limited to 60-some games, which is still too long. Basketball is the most grueling sport on the planet - causing more injuries than football or soccor. We'd have a better product because players would last longer and play better because they could practice more and spend less time recovering their bodies. Baseball is a completely different sport. The game is only grueling for a pitcher and that pitcher may only pitch in 30-some odd games. A first baseman gets most of his excercise swinging a bat a few dozen times at most. Maybe you could argue that it's taxing on a catcher - or a center fielder....but really? Isn't this a bit of a strech?
Ironically this season in the Western Conference may have extremely meaningful regular season games even with the 82 game schedule,but you're right that's what the argument was all about and it has some merit too.
less 2-3 days rest between games, less back to backs. there should be at least 1 day between every game. and the postseason is too damn long.
How many of the NBA player is going to play internationally? If the NBA shorten the season, I gotta believe that the TV and ticket money is going to be lower (I don't believe that a decrease of 20% in games viewed will command a 15% increase in viewership per game or a 15% premium on tickets). So you either have to take the revenue's lost from either the owners profit or players salary. Neither of which I can see happening.
I agree, much less back-to-back games. Home/home is fine, but never home/away or away/away (unless you're playing the same team b2b). Post season definitely too long. Since there will never be fewer teams in playoffs, I propose first two rounds at 5 games. After regular season, 3 days off for all teams. Then Game 1/Game 2 back-to-back. One day rest/travel. Game 3/Game 4 back-to-back. One day rest/travel. Game 5.
Actually in baseball, they play 3 to 4 game series against each other. There's a little more so-called pride to win 2 out of 3. Can you imagine a 3 game series matchup against the Jazz in Utah? Then they play another 3 game series 2 months later in Houston? I dont see the NBA ever doing that, or the fans going for that though... Jordan was enough draw in the 90's, along with the last years of Bird and Magic to make 100 games be compelling. Not the case now, though NOW is the only time I've felt like a fan of the NBA because the competition in the West is so tight. Like someone mentioned, a longer is also a bit of a POSITIVE. A player goes down in January for 12 weeks there's a difference in we'll have Yao in time for the playoffs compared to see you next year Yao. But if they play fewer games over their career the wear and tear might not happen anyways... It can go either way. Isnt it supposed to be a GOOD THING that people get their daily exercise?
The season doesn't need to be shortened, players should embrace a lifestyle of chastity and moderation.
less games = less fatigue = higher intensity = more dunks = more block attempts = games mean more = more exciting watching!!!! high flyers have better long longevity too...
This just isn't true, as much as you wish it were so. There is a premium on playoff spots in MLB. 8 teams make the playoffs and get a chance at the championship in MLB...and you only get that by winning regular season games. 82 games to still allow in over half the teams into the playoffs is utterly worthless. It's happened over time and it's driven by money...but you'd never logically design a system like that. So cut down on playoff teams to put a premium on the 82 games....or cut down on the 82 games, to put more urgency on making the playoffs in fewer games. I believe the NBA product would be better with fewer games in the regular season. I think it would drive up interest for each individual game.
What isn't true? That having only 8 MLB teams make the playoffs doesn't make the games before August/September any more exciting? It's not like you can measure that, but I think it's obvious. It doesn't get really interesting until teams are fighting for playoff spots. This is true in all sports. Then when it does get more interesting, it's only that way for the teams that have a shot at the playoffs. For the teams that are already out of the race, it pretty much sucks. This would be the case for twice as many teams in MLB than in the NBA. You may think it's better for more teams to have their seasons end early, but not everyone may agree. Currently, there's at least some reason to watch, say the 7/8 seeds in the East play each other right now. Why would anyone care if those teams were already eliminated from contention?
