I am firmly against this new trend of playing the same team back-to-back

Lazy Scheduling. Whoever came up with this lamebrain idea should be fired.

 

Cuts down on team travel a little bit. I'll bet the players like it.

 

I like it for the road team. Not sure about the home team..... especially for the fans. But they do it for the playoffs so why not.
I guess the real question is how they determine when to do it. It seems random.

 

the best solution to this and all other related problems (load management, travel, fatigue, maybe even to curb tanking indirectly, etc) is to reduce the # of games played in the regular season.

Go down to 60-72 games. Add this in-season tournament thing maybe at a central site for 2 weeks. The whole product would get revitalized.

 

Wouldn't fewer games mean less salary? I bet the players would prefer just to sit out. That way they still get paid the same.

 

Maybe you can justify it like this...

more % of games on court --> more engagement from fans --> more indirect income from different revenue sources

But yes, the direct loss of income from reduced games is going to be the biggest hurdle for the players/owners. In the end, if it results in a better overall product with more engaged fanbases, it will be worthwhile, but they all need to recognize that.

 

I think it benefits teams getting practice making playoffs-style adjustments.

 

And legs. You're always firmly up against legs.

 

My first thought. But exactly who wants to be in Oklahoma for 2 straight games?

 

I've been on this idea for a while. 72 games and no more than 2 in 5 days. If they add a tournament then do it at the end of the season so it creates the win or lose atmosphere.

 

As opposed to flying there twice instead of once? Plus if you never played more than 2 in 5 days, wouldn't a team get stuck on the road in these places longer?

 

I'm for it, the travel for 82 games is stupid.

Agree the season should be much less than 82 games. Back to backs don't make sense, although if they are going to have it, its much better to have both teams with same amount of rest.

Going to 60-70 games would probably hurt revenue in the short term for a few years. I think the product would be much improved, and revenue could be increased in the long term. NFL has way more revenue with games once a week for far fewer months.

It's going to be hard for owners and players to accept any short term dip in revenue even if it ultimately makes the product better and improves revenue long term. As well as the history of 82 games, I just don't expect a change any time soon. Instead we'll probably see more and more rest as well as load management in the future.

 

scarcity of product will eventually lead to increased value of the good.

i did take microeconomics at PCC one summer.

 

Could you please explain why its lazy?

im curious if you are taking into consideration a few things:

this means less travel for a team notorious for being one of the most mile traveling teams, something we as fans have regularly noted and barked against?

The pandemic changed everything. This now means less potential to come in contact with someone positive. Less plane flights means less airport time and public exposure there.

You may not like it, but i think its a far stretch to say its lazy.

 

It’s much better for our team. Less back and forth. It’s not lazy. It’s a purposeful decision to cut down on travel for a team like ours.

 

It’s lazy.