Photo

Shorten the NBA season?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 11 March 2014 - 01:45 PM

CBS SportsThree-fourths of an NBA season is enough; let's stop here

 

The fact is, there is too much NBA regular season. The final 20-25 games are a bore fest, and worse, they come at a time when the nation's eyes turn to college basketball. The incredible success of March Madness is proof alone that watching paint dry is more interesting than NBA regular season games in March. The NCAA has taken immature, unfinished "student athletes" (LOL) playing a game that barely resembles basketball and turned it into something that captivates a nation. Seriously, strip the NCAA tournament of its made-for-TV drama, its seedings and rankings and Cinderella stories, turn the volume down on your TV, and what do you have? Bad basketball.


If the world's foremost professional basketball league can't compete with that in March, it's time to re-evaluate things.

 

One of the unintended benefits of the 2011 lockout was seeing that the sky didn't cave in when the NBA played a schedule reduced from 82 to 66 games. In many ways, a 20 percent shorter regular season in terms of the number of games was perfect. Every game, and every stretch of the season, had more urgency packed into it. Those final 16 games weren't needed to determine which 16 teams were deserving of advancing to the postseason; the only race that might've turned out differently with an 82-game schedule involved the final two spots in the West, where Dallas and Utah beat out Houston by two games and Phoenix by three. And with fewer games, there was more urgency.

 

The biggest obstacle to shortening and spreading out the NBA regular season is, you guessed it, money. By losing 20 percent of the season in 2011-12, the players and owners theoretically lost 20 percent of the revenue. As it turned out, though, by starting the season on Christmas Day, the league actually suffered only a 10 percent decline in revenue because it was able to negotiate keeping the full rights fees from its broadcast partners. Still, that was a one-time deal and 10 percent of what is now a $5 billion pie is nothing to sneeze at. The next broadcast and digital rights agreements are under negotiation now and will kick in with the 2016-17 season. What better time to discuss how best to package the product that the NBA is selling?


@levineps

#2 BaltBird 24

BaltBird 24

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,836 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 02:58 PM

One could argue that the entire NBA season is a bore fest.



#3 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,848 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 11 March 2014 - 03:21 PM

One could argue that the entire NBA season is a bore fest.

 

Although one wonders if "War and Peace" would has been as highly acclaimed as it was if it was published under it's original name "War---What Is It Good For"?


  • Adam Wolff likes this

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#4 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,424 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 11 March 2014 - 03:59 PM

This argument can just as easily be made about MLB and the NHL. In all 3 cases, money is a huge roadblock to change. Maybe a league would be able to offset any losses in revenue by earning more per game and in creative ways, but I don't see any taking that risk anytime soon. 

 

As a fan, I'd be happy with a shorter season with the only real detriment being comparing players stats across eras, which would be the biggest deal in baseball where the cumulative numbers are so important. 



#5 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,701 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:01 PM

This argument can just as easily be made about MLB and the NHL. In all 3 cases, money is a huge roadblock to change. Maybe a league would be able to offset any losses in revenue by earning more per game and in creative ways, but I don't see any taking that risk anytime soon. 

 

As a fan, I'd be happy with a shorter season with the only real detriment being comparing players stats across eras, which would be the biggest deal in baseball where the cumulative numbers are so important. 

 

Agreed. It's not just an NBA problem... it's more of just a money hungry problem. If anything the NBA needs to find a way to cut into their 2-month post-season. God I hate that.


  • BaltBird 24 likes this

#6 mweb08

mweb08

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,424 posts
  • LocationRidgely's Delight

Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:13 PM

Agreed. It's not just an NBA problem... it's more of just a money hungry problem. If anything the NBA needs to find a way to cut into their 2-month post-season. God I hate that.

 

They are considering some shorter series'.



#7 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:24 PM

Agreed. It's not just an NBA problem... it's more of just a money hungry problem. If anything the NBA needs to find a way to cut into their 2-month post-season. God I hate that.

NHL has that same problem. I'd like to see playoff teams reduced in both cases. I actually liked when the first round was best of 5 games in the NBA, although by making it longer it gives the team with homefield advantage a better chance IMO because the more games, the more likely the better team will win (not always the homefield advantage but in theory it should be).


@levineps

#8 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,701 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:26 PM

NHL has that same problem. I'd like to see playoff teams reduced in both cases. I actually liked when the first round was best of 5 games in the NBA, although by making it longer it gives the team with homefield advantage a better chance IMO because the more games, the more likely the better team will win (not always the homefield advantage but in theory it should be).

Yep, agreed. NHL even has more of a case for regular season and playoffs, given how physical it is. I still can't believe they play an 82 game schedule. Some nights, those guys take more of a beating than football players.



#9 Oriole85

Oriole85

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,321 posts
  • LocationNorthern VA

Posted 11 March 2014 - 04:30 PM

Yep, agreed. NHL even has more of a case for regular season and playoffs, given how physical it is. I still can't believe they play an 82 game schedule. Some nights, those guys take more of a beating than football players.

Yeah it's amazing to me, how tough the NHL players are with that kind of grind -- a little blood, no problem it seems. I think the NHL has a compelling case for reducing the season. In the NBA, it might be fatigue but I don't think they take the physical toll that hockey players do.


@levineps




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=