Cavs sitting LeBron, Love and Irving in prime time against the Clippers tonight. ABC must be absolutely livid.
Totally. They just got over the Spurs/Warriors Restening game. I think ABC/ESPN complains (again?) to Silver and something gets done at least with National TV games with rest rules.. This is bad for everyone.Cavs sitting LeBron, Love and Irving in prime time against the Clippers tonight. ABC must be absolutely livid.
It would be awful for the league to pass rules governing teams resting players. Especially if they only impacted national broadcasts. If the networks have a problem with it, let them flex in games featuring teams fighting to get into the playoffs instead of those resting in advance of them. (If the rest rule is simply one requiring sufficient notification for the flexing to happen, I am ok with that.)Totally. They just got over the Spurs/Warriors Restening game. I think ABC/ESPN complains (again?) to Silver and something gets done at least with National TV games with rest rules.. This is bad for everyone.
As Pop would likely say, "too fucking bad."Totally. They just got over the Spurs/Warriors Restening game. I think ABC/ESPN complains (again?) to Silver and something gets done at least with National TV games with rest rules.. This is bad for everyone.
It's bullshit. The networks and the fans pay to watch the best players. If ownership wants to rest their players let them charge exhibition game prices and give the networks and their advertisers a refund.As Pop would likely say, "too fucking bad."
The owners, advertisers, networks, sponsors, etc. run the show in any sport and this is losing them money. They will be heard from and they have way more power than Pop if they decide to put a foot down.As Pop would likely say, "too fucking bad."
Sounds great and tough and all but these networks are your business partners. If you don't formulate a plan to correct this soon you are shooting yourself in the foot. Tweaking the schedule to eliminate these featured teams having their 3rd game in 4 nights, 4 in 5 or the dreaded 5 in 7 on that day over the second half of the season fixes this issue. It literally is only a small handful of games we are talking about here.As Pop would likely say, "too fucking bad."
I haven't seen whether or not this is a done deal, but they're looking to cut preseason games to help with this.The fix plan is one that all parties should want- fix the terrible schedule. Too many games, too many back to backs. Fewer games would mean better rested players and a better quality product.
The NBA and its players are expected to agree to start future regular seasons a week to 10 days earlier than they have in the past as part of the impending new CBA, according to ESPN’s Marc Stein.
This, in turn, would shorten the preseason and make it easier to eliminate more of the debilitating back-to-back and four-games-in-five-night stretches that take a toll on teams.
Opening night fell on Oct. 25 this season, but would instead happen anywhere from Oct. 15 to Oct. 20 in 2017-18, according to Stein.
They'll never cut games, because fewer games means lower revenue. The easiest fix to the national TV problem is just not to schedule marquee TV games when one of the teams is on a B2B. That wouldn't address the bigger schedule issues, but it would at least avoid a lot of the PR mess.The fix plan is one that all parties should want- fix the terrible schedule. Too many games, too many back to backs. Fewer games would mean better rested players and a better quality product.
Then what exactly is everybody (players/coaches, not people here) whining about? The number of games aren't going to be reduced for the obvious financial reasons. Cutting preseason games doesn't really do anything because the good players hardly play in those anyways. Back to back games consist of around 20% of an NBA team's schedule. Sure you could reduce that a bit with creative scheduling but other than that, not sure what else can be done if you don't touch the calendar.The NBA season is already too long as it is.
Less games doesn't automatically mean less revenue. Fenway park generates more revenue than Coors Field. The league can figure this out if they really want to without losing money.They'll never cut games, because fewer games means lower revenue. The easiest fix to the national TV problem is just not to schedule marquee TV games when one of the teams is on a B2B. That wouldn't address the bigger schedule issues, but it would at least avoid a lot of the PR mess.
This would be crazy, the too long season has already sapped a lot of my interest, and I am a hardcore NBA fan going back decades.The only solution that doesn't hit the owners and players in their wallets is to extend the season an make the playoffs end at the end of June rather than the start.
They broke down earlier too.Then what exactly is everybody (players/coaches, not people here) whining about? The number of games aren't going to be reduced for the obvious financial reasons. Cutting preseason games doesn't really do anything because the good players hardly play in those anyways. Back to back games consist of around 20% of an NBA team's schedule. Sure you could reduce that a bit with creative scheduling but other than that, not sure what else can be done if you don't touch the calendar.
Guys like MJ, Bird, and Magic used to play 38-40mpg without much rest in a much more physical era and would be making deep playoff runs every year. Why is this such a big issue now?
Did they? Obviously Bird had his back problems but they may have been part genetic and part his maniacal training. Guys like Malone and Stockton played in that era and played forever. Guys today have access to much better technology, travel accommodations, etc. I don't think the schedule is causing any early retirements. Elite guys are still playing into their mid-to-late 30s. They're also getting longer all-star breaks now. I think the league has been more than accommodating, particularly since Silver took over.They broke down earlier too.
Did they? Obviously Bird had his back problems but they may have been part genetic and part his maniacal training. Guys like Malone and Stockton played in that era and played forever. Guys today have access to much better technology, travel accommodations, etc. I don't think the schedule is causing any early retirements. Elite guys are still playing into their mid-to-late 30s. They're also getting longer all-star breaks now. I think the league has been more than accommodating, particularly since Silver took over.
Plus the league didn't get super physical until the late 80's with the Pistons and they were traveling to less locations for parts of their careers due to expansion.With some back of the envelope math, about 9.5% of minutes in the last five seasons have been played by guys 33 or older. That's up from about 7.3% from 1989 to 1993 (picked because there was no expansion during this time). So it does look like the league is getting a bit older.
Looking at BPM, there's also a slight uptick in the quality of play from older players recently, but that's a pretty small effect.
So, what exactly is your solution then? The games just aren't getting cut and we all know that.Plus the league didn't get super physical until the late 80's with the Pistons and they were traveling to less locations for parts of their careers due to expansion.
Also just because players did something before doesn't mean players should be doing it now. I don't see anyone pining for Rick Porcello to throw 400 innings this year.
Nothing. I don't think it's that big a problem. Or just make preseason shorter.So, what exactly is your solution then? The games just aren't getting cut and we all know that.
Do you mean superseding overall record? So if Denver is the #8 seed but they win the season series against Golden State, they get home court advantage even though their record was 20+ games worse? I hope you don't mean that, because that is ridiculous. If you mean use head-to-head as a tiebreaker if teams have the same record, pretty sure they already do that.One potential solution for intra-conference games would be to use head to head record to determine which team gets to host the deciding game. That would provide a bit of a carrot for teams to try to win against their conference rivals.
It's ridiculous in the sense that it gets rid of seeding, but it would fulfill the NBA's objective of getting teams to play their starters against other contenders within the same conference. Teams would rest their starters against the crap teams that people aren't watching on TV instead of the marquee television games.Do you mean superseding overall record? So if Denver is the #8 seed but they win the season series against Golden State, they get home court advantage even though their record was 20+ games worse? I hope you don't mean that, because that is ridiculous.
In the memo, Silver informed teams that the issue will be a prime topic of discussion at the next NBA Board of Governors meeting April 6 in New York and warned of "significant penalties" for teams that don't abide by the league's standing rules for providing "notice to the league office, their opponent, and the media immediately upon a determination that a player will not participate in a game due to rest."
Now next year Lebron Curry etc will get 5-10 games off with the hellenic flu instead of being tagged dnp rest, you can't tell teams when to play or not play their playersSilver memo: resting players sucks as currently configured and will end: http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/18962901/resting-star-players-significant-issue-league
There is a diff between sitting Ortiz and sitting Ortiz, pedroia, Betts, and Bogaerts on The same night.Does ESPN complain if the Sox sit Papi on Sunday Night Baseball vs. the MFY? Or if Kris Bryant sits vs. the Cards?
AKA the "Tito Sunday/Getaway Day Lineup"There is a diff between sitting Ortiz and sitting Ortiz, pedroia, Betts, and Bogaerts on The same night.
Ha! Nice one.
But unlike in baseball, resting one player significantly decreases your chances of winning. I think teams prefer to give their best 3-4 players the same game off, effectively tank the game, but go 100% in the other games.Sometimes we overthink this. No one is saying that players can't rest. But don't rest them all the same game. Every player can have 5-10-15 games off, just, in rotation
I bet you Silver can put a lot of soft pressure on owners to reign in their coaches. I agree any kind of rigid rule is essentially impossible to implement, but I bet if every time this happens, the owner gets an earful from the commissioners office, it would have some real impact. With only 30 teams, that sort of hectoring approach can work, even without any enforcement mechanism.I think nothing comes of this. They will talk it up in the offeason, mainly as a way of keeping the NBA in the news, but next year same thing will happen.
This plus they don't want their stars working harder because another is resting.But unlike in baseball, resting one player significantly decreases your chances of winning. I think teams prefer to give their best 3-4 players the same game off, effectively tank the game, but go 100% in the other games.
As someone who likes basketball, I hate ideas to reduce the season length.
I don't follow. They had to play hard, very hard to beat LA that game. They were down 10 points going into the 4th quarter. Seems as though the rest may have helped them eek out that win in the 4th.Given that Irving/LeBron/Love all played a night later against the Lakers and had monster games, it's hard to look at the Cavs' decision to rest them in prime time as anything other than selfish and also kind of stupid.
I would miss these games, yes. I like the grind of the NBA season, and I don't see what benefit as a fan I get out of a shorter season.I like basketball too. You really would miss October/November games from the slate? Going from 82 to 66 games would be a month's worth of games.