Reply With Quote
The league would go broke at 50 games. Half the teams are broke now at 82.
In the Yao-China thread, an interesting point was brought out about the length of the NBA season.
Most of us remember the lockout shortened NBA season of 98-99... That season, what was played of it, was intense. Much like Football, fewer games means more games with meaning. With the 3 division winner +5 wild card system the NBA already has, why not shorten the season? Obviously this means less revenue for the owners, but from a qualitative standpoint, would you prefer one of the following systems over the current NBA regular season?
1) One and One Plus One: Every team plays every other team at least twice. Home and away. Add 1 additional game for teams in the division, with home floor alternating every year. This reduces the games per season to 63 games (assuming 30 teams), promotes division rivalries, and increases the intrigue of who happens to get HCA in the regular season that year. The NBA already has 3 game series, usually to in conference, out of division teams. The conferences basically determine playoff seeding, where as divisions determine playoff entrance, just like it is now. Even if there are expansion teams, until you reach 2 more, you are still reducing the game load.
2) 50 Games: This replicates the 50 game season of the lockout. 50 games is enough season to let the cream rise to the top without having the downside of the wear and tear of the season completely obliterating the rosters' depth. You get better playoff play because teams are just hitting their stride at 50 games. You can alternate teams that no-play, and have a max of 2 games between teams.
3) Other: Any ideas?
This is the off season, I know this will never happen (even pre-expansion, there was 82 games) but it is fun to ponder...
EDIT: This isn't intended as a business thread. Just a quality of play thread.
Last edited by jacobdrj; 07-22-2009 at 12:44 PM. Reason: Addendum
The league would go broke at 50 games. Half the teams are broke now at 82.
Just have every team playing each other twice (one at home one as the visitor)
I was under the impression teams 'made their money' for the most part in the playoffs. Also, you can charge more for tickets if you have fewer games. More marquee games, more at stake.
Teams are loosing money because the economy is bad and the product is a little diluted. It is expensive to have a game that nobody attends, even with TV revenue. Just look at Atlanta and New Jersey. (Those cities, IMHO, don't deserve a team to begin with).
And have the 14 teams that don't get into the playoffs play for the lottery (the winner gets the 1st pick, the runner-up the 2nd, etc) so they can have more games and make more money.
Whups! I was thinking about that one, and forgot to list it. My bad.
Interesting: Would anyone go for that? Would the PLAYERS play without the chance at any glory?
Most of the players do that under this current system, besides they're a profesionals so they should.
Good point.
BTW, This years slam dunk players are:
LeBron James
Nate Robinson
Dwight Howard
Russell Westbrook
It's not broken. There's no need to change it.
I like the long season. It gives a team a chance to put it all together to make a stretch run at the end. With a 50 game season LA probably doesn't have enough games to get in sync and make their blitzkrieg through the league to end the 01 season once Fisher gets back, the Pistons probably don't get Rasheed integrated well enough to win in 04, the Spurs don't iron out the kinks and thus continue sleepwalking in 07, and so on.
82 games is nice. 70 or 62, minimum, would be best IMO.
How interesting.. so would it be a free for all bracket or would the 4 worst teams play for picks 1-4? It's definitely an intriguing idea but the 17th seed would almost always get that 1st pick if there wasn't a some type of tier system.
If they have a two man dunk this year. Howard should get his assistant to hold a camera, then wait for lebron to finish his dunk and then immediately go in and dunk on lebron. Then his assistant will sprint off the court with his camera...
If in baseball is 162 games, then basketball should get at least half as many games. 82 is fine.
I like this idea, but i think they should play division teams 4 times, everyone else only twice, so thats what 66 games if my math is right. It would ensure:
A completely even schedule with everyone playing everyone the exact same number of times and equal home/away games.
You can keep the season the same length and cut down on back to backs and travel
Less wear and tear on the players, even if a team went a full 7 games in the first and second round game 82 would have them in the Conf Finals already.
and I think most importantly you put more emphasis on every game, which is not currently the case, especially pre All-Star break.
As said before the owners wont like it, its 7 less home dates which equals a lot of revenue....but these are tough times, most of them arent making money anyways and many big $ players are getting hurt, and with the looming salary cap decreases and new CBA I think this could be the best time ever to move towards a shorter season.[/quote]
Baseball is obviously different: Different leagues have different rules. More teams. Outdoor play. Variable field size/materials. Some of your roster doesn't play but once every 4-7 games. No set time to the games. , you can even play 2 games in the same day! IMHO there are too many games in baseball, by about 100... But because you can play MORE than every day, it balances itself out.
I'd love for NBA guys to repeat the 50 game season, play every other night, and march into the playoffs at that mark.
Football has 16 games (for obvious reasons). It is the most successful sport. A part of that comes from the importance of every single game in that 16 game season. Now, that isn't everything, not by a long shot, but it is a huge factor in it.
Why Westbrook? Did I miss something?
Coaches, FO's, and the medical staff have to be more aware how to manage minutes and injuries. I don't necessarily think that changing the schedule will keep star players from getting injured. Injuries are bound to happen no matter how many games they play. Besides, this is the NBA (men's league) not Euroleague.
And during that rush to get in 50 there were many sequences of 3 games in 3 straight nights for teams. I liked that a lot.
You want the NBA season to last three months?
No thanks. This offseason thing is killing me as it is.
I think it's silly that because one player, albeit an international star, has broken down under the rigors of the long NBA season (plus national team play every summer, ho hum), China thinks they should shorten the NBA season. Like every other player doesn't have to deal with the 82 games.
Basketball is a long season, and it always has been.
It was exhilarating!
Nice thread.
I like the 1 and 1 idea. Still a long season, but reducing by @ 20 games would help tighten things up a bit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
