I was thinking, with the amount of pounding players are taking, is the NBA regular season simply too grueling and in the end preventing good basketball from being played? How so - we all see the tired efforts on the back-to-back or 4 games in 5 nights. We all see the injuries to great players and we see how in just a few years guys who were super atheltic become slower and less dynamic from the wear and tear of the years of balling - even if they came into the league at 18. So this raises the question - is it time to shorten the NBA season to 62 games in order to preserve players? Maybe we have to pay higher ticket prices. Maybe players make a bit less. But if the game is going to go international, how can players keep this up?>
i personally think its too short. Now baseball, that season last forever. Its like a 600 game season or something.
I've wanted to see this for about 30 years. It's just closer to the NFL model. More practice, more at stake in each game, more excitement. Prices would have to go up, but really only 15-20% or so (since the playoffs and merchandise would still be just as valuable). And then the playoff format could remain as is and seem more sane. I don't think it'll ever happen though. I wish the players union would make it job #1.
The 50 game season was exciting because it was shorter (of course, it was still grueling). I thought that was better than 82 games because teams lose focus in the winter months. I remember someone started a thread during that season saying it was better to have fewer games, and he was shouted down. I don't know if prices "have to" change. It may go up because there is less supply of games, but it won't go up to cover the fixed costs. The fixed costs are why we'll never get fewer than 82 games.
That's true, but if you said that if you cut games down by 20% you'd actually would only need to increase ticket prices 15%. Because you'd need less revenue to cover the same profits since your variable event costs would go down. Plus, with less supply, you'd actually have higher attendance numbers which should offset costs for a team that doesn't sell out (hint hint). And the playoffs would draw higher ratings as well since you'd actually have more healthy stars. Imagine - a shorter season would have likely meant Yao would still be playing.
No question. THey should cut the regular season to 65-70 games. That would make regular season games more competitive and more important. Players would be able to get a little more rest in between games.
I could see where y'all are coming from, considering our 2 stars are always injured, but how would scheduling go? In a shorter season, MANY teams would play each other 3 times probably so a team would have an advantage in playing 2 homecourt games versus the 1 away game. This would only matter in tiebreak situations, but it still seems unfair. We have this today, but it's only a few matchups for each team where there's only 3 games played. I think they should make the season a little longer where you play 4 games against each team in your conference and keep it where you play 2 games against each team in the opposite conference.
Not necessarily for a couple of reasons. Players would not be paid the same for a 62 game season as they would for a 82 game season Attendance per game would be higher (more sellouts) if the season was shorter. Less injuries, meaning more competitive basketball, meaning higher interest in the NBA.
I know I'm in the minority because most people think "why would I want LESS basketball?" but I'd definitely be in favor of a shorter season. Not in length, but in number of games. Somewhere in the 60 to 65 range would be perfect as far as I'm concerned. That's still 3 games a week, so over the 23 week season (minus All-Star break) it comes out to 60-some-odd games. Also, knock the preseason down to 4 games or so. Keep the season shorter so players stay healthy and games mean more, then let the playoffs be the grueling part of it all. As for ticket prices, I don't think they'd have to go up that much really. You have to remember that every game (only 8 home games a year) that you cut out of the schedule is one less game that the franchise has to pay to be televised and pay their staff to work. It also allows concerts and other live shows to be borrow the space, and correct me if I'm wrong (I may be VERY wrong) but I think since the Rockets have the lease they get paid whenever someone uses Toyota Center for other purposes. Sure, they definitely make money on each game (or else the league wouldn't exist) but they would still save some operation costs from cutting those 8 games. Since home games is about 20% of the current total, they could just raise ticket prices to 120%. I wouldn't mind paying extra because it would be a better product.
50 games, what are you watching the CBA? NBA from the start was around 70 games played. NBA's been around 80 and above for almost 50 years so you're right not only will fixed costs prevent it but it'd go against the long going "tradition". Even the old ABA was over 70 games played. I still think they could shorten it to around 65, especially with the LONG playoff format. But I could see the league and owners suggesting coaches to play subs more minutes or something...
Yea i love all the basketball games.....but i hate seeing people getting hurt and end up washed up getting there carreeers screwd and end up in free agency.......VInce carter is heading down that road........but the NBA is tough
Count me in for a shorter season. I'm personally a die hard fan of the Rox and Cavs so I try to watch most of their games. But all my friends, who are basketball fans, rarely watch games unless it's on national tv. They all have the same reason, and I don't blame them: individual games aren't very significant, the intensity of the games vary greatly (teams are content to write-off a bad day and move on), and the only time it matters is near playoff time. I think it would be in the NBA's best interest to shorten the season and people would start paying attention much earlier in the season. No one cares about the NBA until football season is over. And even now the attention given to the NBA is mediocre.
If I had it my way, these guys would play at least 100 games. No way in hell would I be in favor for shorter games. What are we suppose to do with the rest of the time? Watch baseball?!? WNBA? . Sorry but Basketball > any other sport or anything else on TV. The more bball, the better.
I'm fine with an 82 regular season. Now, I do know what is long. The NBA Playoffs....which takes FOREVER. I want the old format of best of five series in the first round back.
I'm in complete agreement. They need to find a way to put a premium on regular season games. They can do that in one of two ways: 1. reduce the number of teams getting in the playoffs; or 2. decrease the number of games. I'm for #2. But to play a long 82 game schedule and then still let in more teams to the playoffs than they exclude is beyond me. That makes little sense to me, other than the bottom line. But I think raising ticket prices a bit for less games and raised excitement from game-to-game would cover that....I think they'd have a better product overall.
