Shortening the NBA Season

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
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?
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I don’t think there is any chance that seasons are shortened. There is too much money involved for this to occur. Actually, the NBA has been adding playoff rounds, playoff games and now play-in games to INCREA$E the number of games over the last couple decades….not decrease them. I expect them to continue making travel adjustments like the 2-game series recently implemented. I’ll expect more of that but certainly not fewer.

Look at the NFL when people and players were saying 16 were too many…..they added more weeks to align with the signed of new media deals.

I’d ask self….if this were my business where the investors hired me to maximize their ROI would I shorten the season and why? It’s a no-brainer response.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
I’d ask self….if this were my business where the investors hired me to maximize their ROI would I shorten the season and why? It’s a no-brainer response.
That might be correct in the short term, but for long-term stability of the league, you don't think that they could benefit from making the content a more precious resource and higher quality? They wouldn't be changing the inventory from a national level, they'd just be decreasing inventory on a local level (and that bubble seems to have already burst, so how much money is really available there).
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
That might be correct in the short term, but for long-term stability of the league, you don't think that they could benefit from making the content a more precious resource and higher quality? They wouldn't be changing the inventory from a national level, they'd just be decreasing inventory on a local level (and that bubble seems to have already burst, so how much money is really available there).
The only possibility I could see is if a couple of those games were replaced by an in-season tournament that would result in additional games to generate MORE revenue. I don’t agree with a shorter season having any correlation to a long term financial benefit on its own. On its own it will never happen imo.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
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.
Fewer.

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).
Why do you think the NBA is going to make more money from any of the "other sources of revenue" you mentioned by shortening the season?

The number of games you'd have to drop in order to make the NBA an "appointment watch" is never going to happen. Regular-season NBA is an appointment watch for the average viewer when stars/great teams play each other, there are extenuating circumstances that make the game interesting, or it's the playoff push. Having MORE games makes it more likely that you hit gold with some matchups.

I think you significantly underestimating what "less gate revenue" actually means. For each game you drop from the season, home teams will lose thousands if not millions in concessions, on-site merch sales, and parking fees, not to mention what they make per ticket sold. This is not just a "hit" - it's a massive loss.

Teams have solved a lot of the issues caused by the long season through load management. The NBA can pretend that it doesn't like it, but it's the easiest way to keep 82 games on calendar while also reducing the wear and tear on stars. The people of San Antonio, Detroit, Charlotte and Chicago had better get used to not seeing many stars play in their buildings.

Lastly, I'm not aware of any evidence that fewer games is going to help the "long-term stability" of the league. What evidence do you have for this? In particular, I think you're assuming too much by saying the quality of the product automatically improves if there are fewer games. What if the players traveling less and playing fewer games means they're more likely to get bored with so much time on their hands and spend a lot more time going out? Going out more means more DUI incidents, scuffles when people bait them into fights, etc. What if players being around their significant others and kids more often leads to an increase in domestic violence issues? What if teams practicing more leads to more inter-team scuffles and suspensions? There are all kinds of externalities that could arise from players having more time on their hands that would be more harmful to the league's "long-term stability" than load management.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,898
Austin, TX
I totally agree we don't need 82 games to determine the playoff field. I also totally agree that there's little chance of cutting games.

One radical idea I've toyed with is, what if they ran two shorter seasons in a calendar year? Start in early November and run a 41-game (or whatever) season that wraps up at the end of January. That lets you run your abbreviated playoffs in February and fill the gap between the Super Bowl and March Madness. Then give everyone March and April off, and then you can come back after March Madness/MLB opening day for another 41 game season. Lets you run May-June-July and then do a playoffs in August, wrapping up before football kicks off.

In the end, you have the same amount of regular season (6 months)/playoffs (2 months)/offseason (4 months), but just distributed differently: two sets of 3/1/2 instead of 6/2/4.

Obviously, it would be a complete departure from how American sports are normally organized and I'm sure that would be challenging for fans to appreciate. But it lets you make all the games more meaningful without reducing the number of games, plus it lets you fit the seasons perfectly into the American sports calendar.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Going out more means more DUI incidents, scuffles when people bait them into fights, etc. What if players being around their significant others and kids more often leads to an increase in domestic violence issues? What if teams practicing more leads to more inter-team scuffles and suspensions?
Uh, what? They're not zoo animals. What evidence do you have that this would happen?

What evidence do you have for this?
How could I possibly have evidence for this? It's a thought experiment. My logic, not evidence, is:
- The NBA could make their product available specific nights of the week, with a red-zone like offering that would escort viewers from highlight to highlight. This is likely more entertaining than a single blowout happening at one time and no other games going on. More entertaining would be higher viewership, more fans, more engagement, etc.
- Though they have more games now, they don't sell out every venue every game. I, personally, am less likely to buy tickets for games far out because there's no guarantee the players I want to see will even be on the court. If players play more often, competition is better, it's again more entertaining, and they'll sell more tickets to the games they still have
- The national TV money will not be affected. If anything, they could demand more money from those networks and streaming services by making the inventory more valuable.

It's not like an absurd thought. Zach Lowe has mentioned it, as well as pretty much any NBA talking head who's in the know. Will the league do it? Maybe not, but I would probably prefer it as a fan.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I totally agree we don't need 82 games to determine the playoff field. I also totally agree that there's little chance of cutting games.

One radical idea I've toyed with is, what if they ran two shorter seasons in a calendar year? Start in early October and run a 41-game (or whatever) season that wraps up at the end of January. That lets you run your abbreviated playoffs in February and fill the gap between the Super Bowl and March Madness. Then give everyone March and April off, and then you can come back after March Madness/MLB opening day for another 41 game season. Lets you run May-June-July and then do a playoffs in August, wrapping up before football kicks off.

In the end, you have the same amount of regular season (6 months)/playoffs (2 months)/offseason (4 months), but just distributed differently: two sets of 3/1/2 instead of 6/2/4.

Obviously, it would be a complete departure from how American sports are normally organized and I'm sure that would be challenging for fans to appreciate. But it lets you make all the games more meaningful without reducing the number of games, plus it lets you fit the seasons perfectly into the American sports calendar.
I have no problem with a spilt season but you need at least 90 days from ending one year and starting the nextl for drafting and training camp and recharging. Do the above with two weeks instead of two months off and it might work
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Imagine what Ja Morant would've gotten up to if he'd had more days off during his spiral.
I think it's kind of bizarre that you're presuming these players spending more time with their spouses because they're traveling less would have an adverse effect on their relationships.
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,333
The only possibility I could see is if a couple of those games were replaced by an in-season tournament that would result in additional games to generate MORE revenue. I don’t agree with a shorter season having any correlation to a long term financial benefit on its own. On its own it will never happen imo.
Maybe there is some magic combination that could work between more play-in teams/games, an in-season tournament, and/or a consolation tournament that impacts lottery odds. I love the last idea in theory and given how much Tankathon interest there is especially in a year like this, I think it would get far more traction than the average late season matchup between bad teams. The problem of course is incentivizing the players, especially impending free agents, to care about better odds at a rookie who might take their job. But in theory, a consolation finals where you're suddenly Winning For Wemby would be amazing.

Can the above get you down to the 66 games of the lockout season? Probably yes but it's still a good chunk of gate receipts the top teams are giving up. I'm all for dynamic solutions though.

Edit: I'm not sure there is really any solve for what are the actual core issues—that too many teams aren't good enough, and that seeding at the top half of the bracket is not nearly as precious as it is in other sports.
 
Last edited:

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
The problem of course is incentivizing the players, especially impending free agents, to care about better odds at a rookie who might take their job. But in theory, a consolation finals where you're suddenly Winning For Wemby would be amazing.
The players to me try harder than the organizations. The want to sit players/tank starts at the top. I don't think these guys were asking to sit out until front offices and ownership started encouraging them to because of load management and tanking. If the orgs started being more invested in these games, the players would follow suit.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
The players to me try harder than the organizations. The want to sit players/tank starts at the top. I don't think these guys were asking to sit out until front offices and ownership started encouraging them to because of load management and tanking. If the orgs started being more invested in these games, the players would follow suit.
To your first point this is why hearing the term “so and so is tanking” seems so lazy to me. The players on the floor are fighting for jobs and many times those “organizations” who are fine losing field players as hungry as it gets. I mean did the Wizards look like a team playing guys who were tanking? How about the 19-win Hornets who have won 4 of 5? Players fighting for jobs and contracts don’t tank.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
To your first point this is why hearing the term “so and so is tanking” seems so lazy to me. The players on the floor are fighting for jobs and many times those “organizations” who are fine losing field players as hungry as it gets. I mean did the Wizards look like a team playing guys who were tanking? How about the 19-win Hornets who have won 4 of 5? Players fighting for jobs and contracts don’t tank.
Yeah, but the problem is the incentive structure and what it creates. It's great that those guys are playing hard, but people aren't paying attention to the NBA to see who is going to sign Ish Smith or if Drew Eubanks is going to get his payday. They want to see the stars, which they're not getting when Lillard and other players of his caliber are sitting out the rest of the season. Like, I'm likely a top 5-10% NBA fan and I've been tuning out recently because it seems like nothing that happens between now and game 82 really matters in the grand scheme outside of maybe Dallas missing the play in.
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
If anything I'd prepare for more games since it equals more $$$, more records, a larger TV deal, longer rosters & more opportunities for players to play/stay in the NBA. Load management doesn't bother me one whit. Like most fans I root for the laundry, so if Tatum takes the night off and Hauser/PP/Blake/Kornet play more minutes I'm fine with that.

I also think the G-League is being underutilized and should be used a month after the draft when the NBA is quiet

The demand for professional basketball is there and growing on a global basis.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,947
Yeah, but the problem is the incentive structure and what it creates. It's great that those guys are playing hard, but people aren't paying attention to the NBA to see who is going to sign Ish Smith or if Drew Eubanks is going to get his payday. They want to see the stars, which they're not getting when Lillard and other players of his caliber are sitting out the rest of the season. Like, I'm likely a top 5-10% NBA fan and I've been tuning out recently because it seems like nothing that happens between now and game 82 really matters in the grand scheme outside of maybe Dallas missing the play in.
Is that any different from how the NBA has always been? Is the regular season any less meaningful than 10-20 years ago or is it just easier to tune out because there’s an infinite number of competing entertainment options? I don’t see how regular season NBA/MLB/NHL can ever feel as big as it used to.
 

chrisfont9

Member
SoSH Member
In a perfect world they move to 72 games. However, I really like this guy's 76-game idea once the NBA expands to 32 teams:

My 32-Team NBA plan with expansion (Las Vegas and Seattle) : nba (reddit.com)
This is mostly good but I don't think you can tell the top teams to play a midseason tournament. The entire problem is that the human body is not designed for this volume of extreme activity, so players lose energy or focus as the season wears on and more games = more chances to get hurt. Why punish the top teams by increasing their risk in this way with a tournament. If you put lower ranked teams into a midseason tournament with some playoff incentive (e.g. a play-in spot), then you would get a whole different level of energy.

I'd love for the season to lop off 10 games or more -- it would likely increase the intensity of the remaining games, which gain importance and which the players don't tune out as easily. Tying it to expansion probably eases the financial hit. Because let's face it, ownership greed and player salaries (greed-ish) is the sole reason not to do this.
 

ManicCompression

Member
SoSH Member
May 14, 2015
1,352
Load management doesn't bother me one whit. Like most fans I root for the laundry, so if Tatum takes the night off and Hauser/PP/Blake/Kornet play more minutes I'm fine with that.
Do you really think a majority of Celtics fans feel this way? IMO, most fans probably show up to the arena and say, "When did we get Blake Griffin?" - we on the board are in the minority in terms of our attention span with the team
 

benhogan

Granite Truther
SoSH Member
Nov 2, 2007
20,124
Santa Monica
Do you really think a majority of Celtics fans feel this way? IMO, most fans probably show up to the arena and say, "When did we get Blake Griffin?" - we on the board are in the minority in terms of our attention span with the team
I think the majority of fans root for the laundry.

Buying tickets to the game is a much different experience than watching it on TV. The majority of fans watch on TV and that's really where the NBA makes most of its $$$.

High-class problems, if the casual fan is lucky enough to see Jaylen Brown, in person, put up 40 while Tatum is out.
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,770
Pittsburgh, PA
Borrow an idea from certain European soccer leagues: Split the regular season into two phases.

Phase 1 is the ordinary pseudo-round-robin played today. Limit it down to 40-50 games, but get in most of your inter-conference play. Nobody plays the same team in the same location more than once.

Phase 2 would then split each conference into Lottery and Championship pools, 7 and 8 per conference respectively.
- Lottery teams would play each other (mostly within the conference but some cross-conference).
- Championship teams play a home-and-home round robin (14 more games) against the other teams in their conference, which serves to replace the first round of the playoffs.
- We can't threaten lottery-phase teams with relegation (the way it works in European soccer) but we can make them do increasingly humiliating things like play tournaments against Euroleague teams, play in college all-star or charity games, etc.

Then restructure the playoffs:

- Take the top 4 teams in each conference. Primary ranking is done by the record in the Championship Round, you may need to mix in Phase 1 results, or perhaps just Phase 1 results against each other. Pick your favorite formula..
- This cutoff serves to reduce the playoffs in that conference to conf semifinals, since they basically played a 14-game slate as a first round. They play off in the 7-game series -> NBA Finals, same format as today.
- Teams 5-8 in each conference can either be excused or you can make them do other stuff for final placement, minor salary cap relief, byes in a midseason tournament, whatever.
- Both the Champ Round losers (teams finishing 5-8) and the Lottery Round teams can also fill in on off-days in the playoff schedule as they round out their (now much more spread-out) schedule.
- You can also give teams finishing higher some rights to more favorable treatment the next season, around issues like back-to-backs, national TV appearances, marquee dates, etc. It doesn't change everything but you give them a reason to care.

Boom, fewer games, more of them meaningful, for more of the teams. Can market the Championship Round as an expanded-size replacement for the play-in and first round (and you get many more games overall). Can make the "regular season" (Phase 1) as meaningful as you like by increasing or decreasing its weight in the how the standings get ranked post-Phase 2. Want the Champ Games to be more of a clean-slate 14-game test? Weight Phase 1 lower. Want more attention paid to Phase 1? Weight it higher.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,649
Arkansas
it will never happen but i would do this

add vegas and seattle put them in the west
break the div like this
East A Bos NY PHILLY Brook
East b CHI DET TOR CLE
East c INDY MIL WASH MINN moveing from the western conf
East D MIA ATL ORL cha
west A DAL HOU SA NO
WEST B OKC MEM SEA POR
WEST C DEN PHO UTAH VEGAS
WEST D LAL LAC SAC GS


divion teams 6X 18 GAMES
non divion teams 4x 48 games
insta-conf 1x 16 games
82 games
12 teams in each conf make playoffs
top 4 seeds get 1st round byes
5 vs 12 6-11 7-10 8-9 are best of 5

if i ran the NBA season wouild start on dec 25th all 30 teams wouild play that night
season wouild end around april 30th
playoffs wouild end between july 3rd-15th
draft wouild be around july 8th-20th
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,649
Arkansas
no sunday games utail after feb 20
teams wouild only play back-to back with their travel parner like so
Bos ny ' philly NY BOS BROOK PHILLY BOS WASH BROOK NY TOR
CHI DET CLE MIL DET CHI CLE TOR CLE DET CHI TOR BROOK DET
INDY MIL MINN MIL INDY CHI MINN WAS MINN PHILLY MINN WASH MIL
MIA ATL ORL ATL CHA MIA ORL MIA CHA CHA ATL ORL
DAL HOU SA HOU NO DAL SA SA DAL HOU NO HOU MEM
MEM OKC NO SEA POR OKC OKC MEM SEA POR SEA SAC
DEN PHO UTAH VEGAS GS PHO DEN LAC UTAH VEGAS LAL UTAH DEN PHO VEGAS LAC VEGAS PHO UTAH DEN SAC
LAL DIV + PHO LAC DIV + UTAH SAC DIV + POR VEGAS GS DIV + DEN
 

Smokey Joe

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 9, 2001
1,155
Fewer.



Why do you think the NBA is going to make more money from any of the "other sources of revenue" you mentioned by shortening the season?

The number of games you'd have to drop in order to make the NBA an "appointment watch" is never going to happen. Regular-season NBA is an appointment watch for the average viewer when stars/great teams play each other, there are extenuating circumstances that make the game interesting, or it's the playoff push. Having MORE games makes it more likely that you hit gold with some matchups.

I think you significantly underestimating what "less gate revenue" actually means. For each game you drop from the season, home teams will lose thousands if not millions in concessions, on-site merch sales, and parking fees, not to mention what they make per ticket sold. This is not just a "hit" - it's a massive loss.

Teams have solved a lot of the issues caused by the long season through load management. The NBA can pretend that it doesn't like it, but it's the easiest way to keep 82 games on calendar while also reducing the wear and tear on stars. The people of San Antonio, Detroit, Charlotte and Chicago had better get used to not seeing many stars play in their buildings.

Lastly, I'm not aware of any evidence that fewer games is going to help the "long-term stability" of the league. What evidence do you have for this? In particular, I think you're assuming too much by saying the quality of the product automatically improves if there are fewer games. What if the players traveling less and playing fewer games means they're more likely to get bored with so much time on their hands and spend a lot more time going out? Going out more means more DUI incidents, scuffles when people bait them into fights, etc. What if players being around their significant others and kids more often leads to an increase in domestic violence issues? What if teams practicing more leads to more inter-team scuffles and suspensions? There are all kinds of externalities that could arise from players having more time on their hands that would be more harmful to the league's "long-term stability" than load management.
You underestimate coaches. When players travel less and have more time on their hands, that means more practices and film sessions, not more time with their families or at the local watering hole. Coaches complain bitterly about how the NBA schedule does not allow enough time for regular practices. Think about how the NFL is run: Game, Day Off, get ready for next game x 5 days, repeat.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
I would go back to 60 games like the early days. Shorten the season by a few weeks and spread the remainder out. Would that happen? Absolutely not. But it would make a better product, reduce fatigue and injuries as well.
 

TripleOT

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 4, 2007
7,758
I like watching the Celtics, and would rather have the opportunity to watch them play 82 regular season games, over 76 or 72 games, even if the team’s stars miss a few games to load management.
 

NomarsFool

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 21, 2001
8,160
It would be interesting to have some kind of mid season tournament that has some kind of implication. For example, winning team gets some extra ping pong balls in the lottery or something.