Reply With Quote
Back to backs are ing stupid and cause some very ty games with the road team usually getting destroyed. Just a dumb idea all around.
DALLAS -- Mavericks star Dirk Nowitzki sees no need for the NBA to experiment with the length of games.
The length of the season? Nowitzki would be all for shortening it significantly, although he realizes that business realities make that extremely unlikely.
"I think you don't need 82 games to determine the best eight in each conference," Nowitzki said Wednesday. "That could be done a lot quicker, but I always understand that it's about money, and every missed game means missed money for both parties, for the league, for the owners, for the players. I understand all that and that's why I don't think it's going to change any time soon."
Dirk Nowitzki said he would recommend that NBA schedules be trimmed from 82 games to the "mid-60s."
Nowitzki was piggybacking on the point made by Miami Heat coach Erik Spoelstra when asked about the league's experiment with a 44-minute game, which will be played by the Brooklyn Nets and Boston Celtics on Sunday.
"I don't think it's a matter of how long the game is," Spoelstra said. "I think there's too many games, to be frank. I think if there's some way to find a way to cut out some of the back-to-backs so there aren't 20-plus of them. I think that's the bigger issue, not shaving off four minutes in a particular game. But I'm open to seeing what happens with that."
"I think everybody probably agrees there's too many games in a short period of time."
Nowitzki said he would recommend that regular-season schedules be trimmed from 82 games to the "mid-60s," although he said it's not his place to say. Like Spoelstra, Nowitzki's biggest issue with the current format is the back-to-back games.
"Honestly, I never was a big fan of back-to-backs even when I was 20 years old," said Nowitzki, a 36-year-old entering his 17th NBA season. "I think that you should never have to play at the highest level there is two consecutive nights and flying in between. You obviously make it work. We have the best athletes in the world, we feel, but I think it hurts the product some. Last year, some teams get here for the fourth game in five nights and we've been sitting here on rest and just blow them out.
"I don't think it's good for the product, but I also understand that 82 games is where it's at. It's a business and everybody's got to live with it."
Nowitzki sarcastically suggested that eight-minute quarters should be used for all preseason games, but he doesn't want to see the league shorten the length of regular-season and playoff games.
However, Nowitzki would like the league to look at the possibility of allowing fewer timeouts, especially at the end of games.
"It's such a fun, fast game," Nowitzki said. "Then there's one action and they score, OK, there's a timeout and you sit for two minutes. There's another action, they score, tie it up [and another timeout is called].
"There's no other sport where it's interrupted so much at the end. That's something that I would look at. Both teams are like, 'They have another timeout? Are you kidding me?' That's a little much, but other than that, I think the game's great."
http://espn.go.com/dallas/nba/story/...ing-nba-season
Back to backs are ing stupid and cause some very ty games with the road team usually getting destroyed. Just a dumb idea all around.
Should join the Spurs. He'll get 15 games off easy.
Nothing wrong with back to back games.
Old timers used to play two a days and travel in buses instead of private jets.
Pampered kids.
Who gives a fvck what you think djohnmus ...
Pop hates b2b's and he's gone on record about it. Dirk isn't the only one who feels this way. The NBA season is a grind especially when you're making the playoffs every year.
does not mean it is not stupid
82 games in 6 months is imo too much and BtoBs are most of the time a bad product
Back-to-backs are for the same reason Thursday Night Football is , it leads to a sloppier and less entertaining product due to the lack of rest.... especially when the NBA feels particularly sadistic and makes you go to Denver on the second night of a back-to-back
Dirk's right and others agree:
Would those agree to a shortened season be willing to give up the corresponding salary (pro-rated) also?
BRI would be smaller with all that follows, but the impact of fewer games would be less than a straight pro-rated reduction.
How about keeping all 82, but expanding rosters to 18 and only letting each player appear in a maximum of 66 games in a season? No restrictions in the playoffs.
I wouldn't mind watching 20 something less games per season if every player agrees to cut their pay by 25%. s want to play less games but won't take a dime paycut (I'm not speaking of Dirk obviously), lazy degenerates tbh.
fck 82 games
i prefer super teams playing against each other more then the usual 4 within same conference or 2 outside the conference
wtf wants to watch a super team playin against some team within conference 4 times to stack up wins...
Dirk is a first ballot HOF...we all know this. But, he doesn't have that kind of power.
Now...if Bron Bron said he was in favor of a 65 game season with no back to back games....Silver would start drawing up the paperwork to be signed tomorrow.
Wow...what a burn.Who gives a fvck what you think djohnmus ...
Pretty much agree with everything he said including the timeouts at the end.
Sounds reasonable. They wouldn't have to physically shorten the season, just eliminate the b2bs and plug in a few extra rest days. Playoffs could start at the same time and be exactly the same.
There will still be ty games even if you eliminate back to backs.
theres going to be ty games no matter what you do. i'd be all for trimming a lot of fat from the NBA season. seriously, does anyone want to watch the hornets vs the bucks? the pistons vs the twolves?
i pretty much agree with everything dirk said. the season is too long. too many of the games are totally meaningless. as a fan, i get burnt out watching the 60-some-odd televised regular season spurs games.
when you consider the number of teams, the rookies coming out of college after 1 year, plus the inevitable international play....the end product is going to get ty.
benefactor completely nailed it 2 posts up.
I would agree that the season needs to be shorter. However would all of these players that are crying take pay cuts for it? I honestly dont think so
They don't have back-to-back games in the playoffs anymore right? If that's the case, don't need them in the regular season either. I mean, if it's a handful of them I guess no big deal, but each team generally has around 15-20 back-to-back sets a season I believe. What's even more moronic is I remember the Pistons in the past having among the most number of back-to-back sets in seasons past but then they'd have a couple stretches during the season where they'd have 4-5 days off. Why have so many B2Bs if teams end up with schedules where they don't play for 4 or 5 days?
If they cut the season, the league will find a way to make up the cost somewhere. If they ever cut the number of regular season games, I'd expect tickets, parking, vendor products, and merchandise, and NBA TV cable to take a significant hike in price. That said, it won't happen.
I believe there are still b2b playoff games, usually happens when a team goes 7 games in the previous round, and the schedule requires the winner to play Game 1 of the next series immediately after that.
In terms of the b2b and the long rests, it's about the scheduling program, there are some games that are fixed in (opening night, games on holidays), and there are general rules to minimize the number of b2b games and having no b2b2b games, minimizing travel distances, the Spurs can't play in town during the Rodeo and other special rules, but the program runs, and spits out the final product. There maybe some manual edits after that, but overall the machine dictates what happens.
As for shortened season, never going to happen. Too much money at stake. Sharp hikes in tickets and concessions will likely reduce the market for fans who can only afford to a select number of games (1 or 2), and ultimately hurt demand. Not to mention lesser TV revenues because of less games played on TV.
As long as Kirby doesn't ring.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
