I was just wondering what all your opinions were on this subject. I have heard from different people that the reason they don't like the NBA and they like college basketball more is (this is just one reason) because each college basketball game means something, you have to win each one because you never know which loss will ruin your season. In the NBA, since there is so many games, it is almost like the games are meaningless until the end of the season. If you lose two games in a row, or even five during the middle and begining of the season, it isn't to much of a big deal depending on your record. People have also told me that they are convinced (due to the fact there are so many games and they think some of the games are meaningless) that a lot of the players don't start playing real hard for the win until the end of the season.Now, I am not saying those are my views, although I sometimes wish there were less games in a season too, but I have heard these opinions the most when I ask people why they don't like the NBA.What do you guys think? I know the biggest problem with changing the games is all the records and achievements by players and teams will be completely out of proportion. But, pretending that didn't matter, would you want to change the amount of games played in the NBA regular season if you could?
Good topic, drake.I think 82 is just fine. It has been that way for so long, and the players can handle it. No reason to change it, I wouldn't if I was commishioner. Yes, it's a very long and grueling season, but nobody has ever complained about it before, and it's been this way for decades. The only number of games I would change in the NBA would be 5 games series' in the first round of the playoffs instead of 7.
I disagree with your point that one loss in college basketball can ruin your season... this isnt college football. There is still a playoff, a bad loss could only drop u from a 1 to a 2 seed in the tournament.And in college basketball, the games dont really mean that much until conference play starts anyways. Most of the games going on now ( I know there are a few exceptions) they are major confernce teams beating other teams by like 40. Only like 4 to 5 non conference games are actually against a competitive opponent.
it's the most physically taxing season around. Baseball may have double the games but is far easier physically. Football has more injuries but is only sixteen games. I think if there were less NBA games statistics would become a lot more boring as the NBA has some of the biggest stats sample sizes around.I have no problem with 82 games. Some day they may even have to lengthen it if all the arenas begin selling out consistently (since basketball is a game that you can't really make the arenas any bigger because you have to see it up close)
I mean, it doesn't seem to bother the players, so in that sense, there is nothing wrong with it. I just wonder sometimes if we could get more fans with a shorter season. This isn't really a question to benefit the players, but the fans.I have noticed that people love college basketball, football, NFL, and stuff like that because they are able to follow their team and see just about every game without it taking over their lives.I myself don't mind the 82 game season. But I can't help wondering (with hearing it from so many people) if a shorter season would bring in more fans. It would surely bring a new meaning to each game, which wouldn't be all that bad. But the downside of course would be the history and records.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (drake24 @ Nov 22 2006, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I mean, it doesn't seem to bother the players, so in that sense, there is nothing wrong with it. I just wonder sometimes if we could get more fans with a shorter season. This isn't really a question to benefit the players, but the fans.I have noticed that people love college basketball, football, NFL, and stuff like that because they are able to follow their team and see just about every game without it taking over their lives.I myself don't mind the 82 game season. But I can't help wondering (with hearing it from so many people) if a shorter season would bring in more fans. It would surely bring a new meaning to each game, which wouldn't be all that bad. But the downside of course would be the history and records.</div>It may bring in more fans per game, but would destroy the NBA's profits. There are about 17,500 people per NBA game, probably about 1500 empty seats per game on average. So that's like 21,525,000 tickets the league sells that season. Now lets assume that if the season was cut in half the arenas would sell out every game. That's like 11,685,000 tickets sold. No matter how you slice it that's a pretty big loss. And how are you going to make up for it? Charge the fans more per ticket and lower the players salary. A new league rises up funded by a guy like Mark Cuban or Larry Ellison and the fans are pissed because they're expected to pay more money for an inferior league with less games. They start charging way more for advertising and now nobody wants to advertise during NBA games, and even if they do advertise there are less games to advertise in so the NBA loses money there. What do they do now? They make more mandatory "official" timeouts to have more advertisements. They extend the already extended halftime. They get rid of analysts at halftime for more advertising minutes.In other words. Cutting the number of games would be a disaster financially for the NBA
Hmm. Good point. I guess I am sold on the 82 games. I will just have to use that example to people that use the 82 games as an excuse to not like the NBA.
that many games weeds out the good teams from the bad teams though, you know what teams are good and which teams are not so good by the end of the year
I agree with crazy kicks. Over a long season, the "real" good teams rise to the top. You can say that in college football or college sports in general, each game accounts for more. But you could also take it in the sense that a very good team could have a very bad game and totally lose a chance at a high bowl game. Look at the Texas Longhorns football season for example...Their starting quarterback goes out one game and they lose to an average Kansas State team. Now, their season is over in their minds because they cant go to the National Championship Bowl Game. Also, injuries would be a great factor if the season was shortened. Players injuries would be way to key and if a player went down for a couple games, and the season wasnt as long, it could be alot more influential. I think it is good the way it is. This way, the money flow is the same and the records can still be contended with.
I don't have a problem with tons of games, but is 82 games really necessary? Take a look at this:<u>Team A</u><ul>[*]Plays each team within division three times for a total of 12 games[*]Plays each team inside of conference but outside division three times for a total of 30 games[*]Plays each team outside of conference twice for a total of 30 games[/list]<u>Grand Total: 72 Games</u>This takes ten games off of the schedule, and takes ten games off of required "back - to backs". This means that instead of having between 13 - 15 games every year where a team will generally play like sh*t, many times predictably losing, you only have between 3 - 5. Perhaps, the NBA could even destroy the "2 games in 2 nights" scheduling, keeping the NBA running for the same length of time. This means you would have zero "back - to back" games in a season. Maybe it's just me, but I'm tired of seeing a team play the night after they won, and playing like total scrotum. You'll still have a long season, teams will just be playing better... earlier. And because the season will be just as long, its not like you'll have much less basketball.Basically, shorter schedule means a tad more energy and a ton less sh*tty back-to-back games that are almost guaranteed drop-offs for 90% of NBA teams. The length of the season (month-month) will be just as long, but teams and players will be more energized. Did I mention it would eliminate back-to-backs - hence cutting down immensly on decrease in play?Ten less games, still November - April, few if no back-to-backs, more urgency to play better... Yes, I like this
I love KMart's idea, would work well IMO...But yes, the season, and playoffs, should be cut shorter. A shorter season would keep more players fresh, it would make the meaning of each game more important, and would hopefully somewhat eliminate players taking off games or not giving it their all. But the best thing it would do is eliminate a lot of the fatigue and injuries the players experience through 82 games. I feel anywhere between 55-70 games would be enough for the season.As for the playoffs, I feel the should be rennovated. There is no reason the playoffs should be 2 months long. To keep things MUCH more exciting, I feel first round should be 3 games, semi's and conference finals 5 games, and Finals 7 games. It would allow more chance of upsets, it would be more exciting, and wouldn't be nearly as drawn out.
More games equals more money... longer playoffs equals more money... and that is all Stern cares about.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Nov 23 2006, 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>More games equals more money... longer playoffs equals more money... and that is all Stern cares about.</div>hit the nail on the head. end of discussion
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Nov 23 2006, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>More games equals more money... longer playoffs equals more money... and that is all Stern cares about.</div>And who can blame the man? If I were him, I'd want the schedule extended.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart @ Nov 24 2006, 10:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And who can blame the man? If I were him, I'd want the schedule extended.</div>I agree. Hell, as a fan I want the schedule extended. I'd love to watch the NBA all year round, but that is never going to happen.I hate it when people say that the length of the schedule needs to be shortened because of injuries, etc. All that is part of the game! I mean, if we wanted to see every team at full strength and 100% in the playoffs then why not just do away with the regular season? Part of being able to win a championship is to overcome fatigue, overcome injuries, etc. and come together as a team and win it all.The length is fine...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Nov 24 2006, 11:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I agree. Hell, as a fan I want the schedule extended.</div>And this here is why David Stern probably wants 100 games a year. So many times hardcore fans overlook the fact that 90% of fans at NBA games are just there to have a good time. They're there to cheer on the home team, get a beer in and perhaps ask a girlfriend out to a game. If you extended the chedule, you'd only have more people coming by and for the most part, contributing to solid attendance.
<span style="font-family:Book Antiqua">I would keep the games at 82 a season because it only seems fair. MLB has about 110 or so games. That's a lot more than the NBA. Also, playing 82 games keeps the players fit and ready for the next game. A serious loss makes every player want to do better the next go-round, you know?Now if the NBA did decide to cut the games to a shorter amount, teams would have to try too hard to win and a single loss would basically mean the end of their season. I think the NBA would also lose fans that way, too, don't you agree? Fans would be pissed if their team did turn out to lose 5 games in the first week. Those 5 games would mean more than they would if the L was up to 82 games. It'd mean the end of the season for a couple of teams.Basically, 82 games is perfect.</span>
