NBA Season Size

[jacobdrj]

Do you like the length of the NBA regular season?

If you could change it, how would you do it?

My View
I feel the season is far too long. I thought the lockout season was a lot of fun at 50 games, and made every game far more important.

I can't think of a truly equitable way to distribute the games, however, I think by at least following this scheme, the season can be more realistic.

First, I am a firm believer that every team should play every other team at least twice, so the fans can get their options. I also believe that conference should have some strong meaning, as should division.

Here is what my schedule would look like, and why it is that way:

NBA Setup

Keep the 15 * 2 Conference System.
Keep the 6 * 5 Division System.

Season Setup

Each team plays every other team 2 times = 2 * 29 = 58 games

Each team plays each division member an additional 1 time = 4 games

The additional division game would alternate year to year, as far as which venue they are played in.

Total: 62 games.

As scheduling allows, it should try and have games every other day. I know this is hard, and reality says this will not be a rule, but there should be incentive to do this from the L... I know some owners (Davidson, Buss as examples) likes avoiding Saturday games for doing other events, however, incentive will help alleviate this problem.

Rationale:
Division rivalries are important, in that each game determines a tie breaker, and you see them more often, breeding some kind of rivalries during the season. These are ultimately meaningless, but are fun, and keep some importance, along with the division winner still getting a guaranteed spot. Alternating year to year seems the most equitable solution without bloating the season too much.

The Conference is respected by still seeding based on your own conference, and because you play in the playoffs, often good teams will meet, assuming there is consistent excellence on given franchises. In a 1-16 seeding system, this would not occur.

The playoffs would have the teams seeded based on record, and would reseed every round. They would also go back to 1st round 5 game series. This would breed a more exciting 1st round, as well as limit silly early series to a max of 3 games for teams that have earned it, and both not risk as much injury, yet still keep them loose for their next opponents, as opposed to a 1st round break weak, as is in the NFL, which IMHO sucks royally, as it is a momentum killer. Playoff games must be as close to every other day as scheduling would allow.

I am against 1-16 seeds by record straight. It is a hassle in travel, and does not take into account the styles of play in the different conferences, as well as takes away from the conference fun. Conference fun and meeting teams a lot with player rivalries is what make the playoffs truly great. That would almost never happen in a 1-16 playoff system, as is in the NCAA. It works in the NCAA, because they are 1 and done. The thrill of elimination alone makes the tourney special.

I am fully aware that this will never happen, especially since games mean revenue, on TV and in the stadiums. This is purely hypothetical, and a means of exchanging some good ideas in light of the upcoming playoff race.

[Allanon]

Shorter season makes for a much longer offseason. Like a kid waiting for Christmas, you have to wait every once in awhile for an awesome game which builds more excitement. Unless you're in the West where almost every WC vs WC game these days is pretty good.

Shorter season makes for less revenue for teams.

Maybe I'm selfish but I wish they had NBA all year round

[jacobdrj]

I won't argue that the NBA should be all season long. I hate there being an off season. I don't need anticipation.

[boutons_]

Too many teams, note enough talent in players and coache and GMs. 24 teams max, 12/conference.

The number of games isn't so bad, but the B2B are bad for players and fans. What do they prove?

Drop the divisions, a meaningless banner.

Widen the court by 8 feet to accommodate bigger, faster players and reduce the congestion in/around the lane.

To address badly unbalanced records between the conferences and to reward strong-conference non-playoff teams who have a better record than the other conference playoff teams, the 9th, 10th teams in the stronger conference get to playoff in the other conference, seeding according to their record. A 10th place WC team could be 4th seed in the EC.

[Gino]

Less games = less money = no way its going to ever happen.

[ajh18]

Too many teams, note enough talent in players and coache and GMs. 24 teams max, 12/conference.

I really don't agree with the assertion that the NBA's talent is spread too thin. There are many, many more good players today than there were in the 50s or 60s. Expansion of the game stateside, as well as into Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America means that the pool of available good players is much, much larger than it was in previous decades.

The big difference today is that it is much harder for players to stand out today than it has been in the past. With a higher level of all-around talent and with modern weight-training and vitamin supplements, athletes that reach the pro level are able to maximize their talent much more easily. I think this creates a plateau affect, where you get more players who are better than ever before, but fewer players that really can distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack.

On the coaching and GM front, modern schemes and computer analysis make these jobs much harder today, at least in terms of sorting through the various pieces of data available. I would be willing to bet that you give a mediocre GM or coach from today's NBA the knowledge and technology they have available to them now, and put them in the 70s or 80s, and they would absolutely dominate the compe ion. THe problem, again, is that everyone has that data available now, so it's much harder to distinguish yourself.

[jacobdrj]

I really don't agree with the assertion that the NBA's talent is spread too thin. There are many, many more good players today than there were in the 50s or 60s. Expansion of the game stateside, as well as into Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America means that the pool of available good players is much, much larger than it was in previous decades.

The big difference today is that it is much harder for players to stand out today than it has been in the past. With a higher level of all-around talent and with modern weight-training and vitamin supplements, athletes that reach the pro level are able to maximize their talent much more easily. I think this creates a plateau affect, where you get more players who are better than ever before, but fewer players that really can distinguish themselves from the rest of the pack.

On the coaching and GM front, modern schemes and computer analysis make these jobs much harder today, at least in terms of sorting through the various pieces of data available. I would be willing to bet that you give a mediocre GM or coach from today's NBA the knowledge and technology they have available to them now, and put them in the 70s or 80s, and they would absolutely dominate the compe ion. THe problem, again, is that everyone has that data available now, so it's much harder to distinguish yourself.

This is sort of the premise I am going on

Less games = less money = no way its going to ever happen.

Yeah, I covered that in my initial post.

Drop the divisions, a meaningless banner.

When it guarontees you a spot in the playoffs, it has more meaning. The banner is a team by team thing, not an NBA thing.

[manufor3]

I won't argue that the NBA should be all season long. I hate there being an off season. I don't need anticipation.

ummm the players need to rest...

[jacobdrj]

The have multiple lines in a round season play. Besides, the whole jist of my post isto reduce season size to 62 games...