Sorry to hear about the latest TP injury.
All these damn injuries are ruining the season and the upcoming playoffs
Do u think they would permanently shorten the season? Obviously a longer season makes more money but these team owners must realise the injuries are more costly.
I guess while you have the Heat injury free then Stern won't do a thing.
HGH FTW!!
I think they could possibly have the same length of a season in terms of October/November to April but play less games. So you aren't seeing so many 4 games in 5 nights, or 6 game in 9 nights sort of deal.
It definitely would take an injury to Lebron or Durant for the league to consider it though.
No, league revenue and individual team revenue would be greatly reduced. Some of these teams in low budget markets wouldn't survive with less revenue.
That is, unless player salaries went down
Owners won't shorten the season. Even when factoring injuries, the more games they have the more money they make to make profitable all the money the spend to buy franchises and build arenas. The last time the NBA changed its schedule, it was to lengthen the season by making the playoffs first round best of 7 series. Another example is the NFL, a league with tons of injuries where owners want to lengthen the season from 16 to 18 games.
I see 2 scenarios that could end the 82 games season:
- A player rebellion against it. I haven't seen hints that players want to fight against the schedule and I'm very skeptical they will do that one day. I think it will take Lebron getting a big injury, blaming it on the schedule and federating players around him against it.
- An Euro expansion. If some euro teams are added, the 82 games season should be done because of travels. There then might have talks on what the optimal number of games should be, to have the best money/health ratio. The issue is that an Euro expansion in a close future seems unlikely. Only London and Berlin can currently host a NBA team and Paris should join them in a couple of years. With only 2, maybe 3, landing spots in Europe, an Euro expansion doesn't sound doable.
No, it's been 82 games for decades. If the Spurs can't deal with an 82 game season then they shouldn't win so many games and give people false sense that they're "contenders" then, maybe they're big run last year was because of how short the season was. For all we know the Spurs would've ran out of gas in March-April last year too if it was the regular season just like they did in 2011.
Mentally weak team.
b2b are an abomination, but NBA and owners' revenues trump the health of the players as chattle.
too many teams for the coaching/player/staff/mgmt talent, too many games trying play the too many teams.
When the NFL rumors about an 18-game schedule started flying, I heard an interesting suggestion: have 18 games, but only allow each player to appear in 16. If they're on the field for even one down, it counts as a game appearance. Thus the injury risk to players is the same as a 16-game season, maybe a little higher because more little-known defenders would be looking to make a name for themselves by flying around the field.
One possible way around this is if the players' union can convince the owners to expand rosters to 18. The purpose would be to keep an 82-game schedule, but only allow each player to appear in 66 games (that number is negotiable of course). I can see the owners not liking this because fans won't turn up for games in which the stars don't play, but it reduces injury risk to players and keeps the schedule intact.
The fact that Stern made the Spurs pay after resting the startes means that not only they dont care about the lenght, they also want the best players to play every game, regardless of anything else.
there's not enough talent (let alone salary funds) for 13 now, never mind 18.
People have talked about shortening the season to 70 games for quite awhile now. It's not a Spur thing at all. It's a what's best for Basketball. What's the point of having such a long season only to have players hampered by injuries because of it?
I remember Pat Riley saying that 70 games would be optimal at 1 point and time.
http://blogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports...ba-season.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports...xplained_.html
I think 76 games makes sense. Still a long season, so a relatively small drop in revenue, but it also means you can have all teams play the same schedule.
4 Games vs in Division Teams(16)
3 Games against Conference Foes(Additional Home/Away alternates by year, 30 Games)
2 Games Against non conference teams(30 Games)
I don't think it'll happen, but that seems like the logical number to drop down to.
This isn't strictly a Spurs problem and the OP is a Nuggets fan, you imbecile
Virtually every playoff team in the NBA during last year's playoffs and this year's regular season has suffered major injuries..
If Pop truly cared absolutely nothing about HCA and only about being healthy and in the playoffs, he could just sit every important player 16 games anyway. The Spurs are still talented enough to beat the dregs of the league and get in the playoffs anyway.
There is a lot of talent on those NBA teams. Better minutes managment, no fines for resting players and it all will work.
It only means Gallo would have torn his ACL in a playoff game. I think that's actually worse because you have no time to prepare.This isn't strictly a Spurs problem and the OP is a Nuggets fan, you imbecile
Virtually every playoff team in the NBA during last year's playoffs and this year's regular season has suffered major injuries..
Not gonna happen..
THERE'S PROFIT TO BE HAD
Injuries will occur no matter how many games in a schedule, fatigue and conditioning are key contributors to injuries but players today put so much torque and explosion on there joints that an injury is possible on every single play anytime during the game. The only way to really stop injuries would be to stretch out the schedule, reduce the minutes of a game and/or lengthen the shot clock.
Lengthening the shot clock would slow the game down. Having no back-to-backs would be optimal.
Not a mentally weak team man, just older team! They are older now and yes of course a shortened season would benefit from that there! But you also have to look at a rushed schedule last year too, they played alot of back to backs and rushed schedule too! That is just as grueling, correct? They are not mentally weak though, they just don't have the star power of Tim in his prime anymore nor Manu, period end of story! If they both were 31 or less we are contenders! PERIOD! Age happens, it's not mentally weak unless you are mentioning the role players who choke and fade.
I think the regular season should be shortened to let's say 72 games. And for the owners, play-off series can be length to best of 9 series instead of best of 7 series. So making play-offs will be more attractive for owners. It will be better tor the team who will be eleminated in first round. Playing one more play-off game is brings nearly same profit for meaningless 5 regular season games.
82 is OK but ONLY if B2Bs are totally eliminated.
If eliminating B2Bs can't be done with 82, then reduce the 82.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 04-06-2013 at 03:08 PM.
play every conference team 3 times, every opposing conf team twice, get rid of bbs permanently... 72 games, gg no re
The Spurs have had since '07 to get younger. If they had started the youth movement earlier like they have with Kawhi they would be in a much better position now.
50 games.
8 playoff teams.
if you wanna see regular season games that matter.
Will never happen... But it would produce higher quality games. Total teams cut to 24. We would see some very good basketball.
I loved last season. Game seemingly every night, lots of excitement. Enough to avoid the talk of whether or not the Heat championship should have an asterisk next to it...
Not sure that's better or worse for injuries, but as a fan it was great. What would also be great is not having half the league make the playoffs each year, but that's another story.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
