Having less games in the NBA regular season is something that I've seen kicked around in a lot of NBA content recently and I was curious what the board thinks about this. I think I lean toward it being a positive idea, though I'm sure some of that is due to recency bias driven by the Celtics not bringing their A game to some weaker opponents lately and marquee NBA games, like Sixers/Nuggets, not living up to expectations because players are sitting out.
The argument for broadly breaks down like this:
- 82 games is too many, as evidenced by the fact that most star players are taking games off for "load management"; if the season were shortened with a less demanding schedule, load management would cease being a thing
- The NBA would lose inventory by shortening the season, but the quality of their product would improve because there would no longer be national games with top ten players sitting out
- The end of the season is a drag anyway, with tanking teams like Portland offering automatic Ws to their opponents.
- Also, the overall seeding of the playoffs doesn't really seem to matter. Outside of matchups, the difference between being a 2 or 5 seed is minimal in a year like this
- Shortening the season would limit fans exposure to the last two bullets and not force teams to run out the string for as long
The argument against seems to be:
- Less games = less money, both from gate revenue and regional television revenue
- Shortening the season would do nothing to stop teams from tanking
- It also wouldn't make the regular season any more interesting from a "this matters" perspective
- So what if there's load management? If Giannis only plays sixty games, it doesn't matter if he's sitting out or if there's a shorter schedule - the fans are still getting less Giannis
- For whatever it's worth, we have decades of stats and records built against 82 game seasons. Players coming up wouldn't have a chance of sniffing something like the points record if they play less games
I think it makes sense to shorten the season because 82 games was meant for a league that relies on gate revenue, and that's now a much smaller slice of the pie with the amount of money they make from TV. Back in the day, NBA players were not expected to play as hard. The possession to possession defense and offense was nothing like it is today, so I understand from a player's point of view that much more is physically required from them and the league hasn't responded to the change in gameplay outside of culturally saying it's okay to sit out. Also, there are constant eyes on players - one loaf on D will become a viral video that creates a narrative for the rest of the season. This was not the case in the 80s/90s when games would be televised and forgotten outside of the amazing highlights that live on through ESPN packages. Lastly, sports science has improved significantly, and though it hasn't necessarily created a decrease in injuries, I think players are much more attuned to what they're risking if they play injured.
Less gate revenue would be a hit, but I think that making the NBA much more of an appointment watch - "Red Zones" on Tuesday and Friday during the week say - would help build interest in the league, improving the TV product and other sources of revenue (fantasy, gambling, merch). If the season were 56-66 games (whatever makes sense), star players would play much more, overall team health would likely improve, and the quality of basketball could get even better because these guys would have time to practice. If the NBA could reliably tell fans, "Celtics and Bucks are playing on Thursday, and you will 100% see Giannis vs. Tatum", I think that's much better than me wondering if the Cs will bother now that they seem locked into the 2 seed.
Lastly, I think this would have to go in tandem with a change to the lottery and the playoffs. My galaxy-brained way of doing that is:
- Make the playoffs six teams in each conference. Top two seeds get to sit out round one. 3-6 play each other, then top seeded team plays the lowest winner of the first round, the two seed plays the other. Those are stakes teams would actually give a shit about.
- Give higher lottery odds to the teams who have the best record but don't make the playoffs. This does two things - it ensures teams keep trying, and it also ensures that high lottery picks aka the future of league don't end up in crappy situations with no foundation (and no way out of that situation for 7 years). You would still have flattened odds, but it would be much harder for orgs to thread the needle of being a team in 7th place vs. a team in last place. It's not perfect, but I think it's much better and fairer than the current strategy.
So, apologies for the super long post here, a lot on my mind with this topic - what do you think?
The argument for broadly breaks down like this:
- 82 games is too many, as evidenced by the fact that most star players are taking games off for "load management"; if the season were shortened with a less demanding schedule, load management would cease being a thing
- The NBA would lose inventory by shortening the season, but the quality of their product would improve because there would no longer be national games with top ten players sitting out
- The end of the season is a drag anyway, with tanking teams like Portland offering automatic Ws to their opponents.
- Also, the overall seeding of the playoffs doesn't really seem to matter. Outside of matchups, the difference between being a 2 or 5 seed is minimal in a year like this
- Shortening the season would limit fans exposure to the last two bullets and not force teams to run out the string for as long
The argument against seems to be:
- Less games = less money, both from gate revenue and regional television revenue
- Shortening the season would do nothing to stop teams from tanking
- It also wouldn't make the regular season any more interesting from a "this matters" perspective
- So what if there's load management? If Giannis only plays sixty games, it doesn't matter if he's sitting out or if there's a shorter schedule - the fans are still getting less Giannis
- For whatever it's worth, we have decades of stats and records built against 82 game seasons. Players coming up wouldn't have a chance of sniffing something like the points record if they play less games
I think it makes sense to shorten the season because 82 games was meant for a league that relies on gate revenue, and that's now a much smaller slice of the pie with the amount of money they make from TV. Back in the day, NBA players were not expected to play as hard. The possession to possession defense and offense was nothing like it is today, so I understand from a player's point of view that much more is physically required from them and the league hasn't responded to the change in gameplay outside of culturally saying it's okay to sit out. Also, there are constant eyes on players - one loaf on D will become a viral video that creates a narrative for the rest of the season. This was not the case in the 80s/90s when games would be televised and forgotten outside of the amazing highlights that live on through ESPN packages. Lastly, sports science has improved significantly, and though it hasn't necessarily created a decrease in injuries, I think players are much more attuned to what they're risking if they play injured.
Less gate revenue would be a hit, but I think that making the NBA much more of an appointment watch - "Red Zones" on Tuesday and Friday during the week say - would help build interest in the league, improving the TV product and other sources of revenue (fantasy, gambling, merch). If the season were 56-66 games (whatever makes sense), star players would play much more, overall team health would likely improve, and the quality of basketball could get even better because these guys would have time to practice. If the NBA could reliably tell fans, "Celtics and Bucks are playing on Thursday, and you will 100% see Giannis vs. Tatum", I think that's much better than me wondering if the Cs will bother now that they seem locked into the 2 seed.
Lastly, I think this would have to go in tandem with a change to the lottery and the playoffs. My galaxy-brained way of doing that is:
- Make the playoffs six teams in each conference. Top two seeds get to sit out round one. 3-6 play each other, then top seeded team plays the lowest winner of the first round, the two seed plays the other. Those are stakes teams would actually give a shit about.
- Give higher lottery odds to the teams who have the best record but don't make the playoffs. This does two things - it ensures teams keep trying, and it also ensures that high lottery picks aka the future of league don't end up in crappy situations with no foundation (and no way out of that situation for 7 years). You would still have flattened odds, but it would be much harder for orgs to thread the needle of being a team in 7th place vs. a team in last place. It's not perfect, but I think it's much better and fairer than the current strategy.
So, apologies for the super long post here, a lot on my mind with this topic - what do you think?