As one of the more progressive leagues in the world, the NBA continues to explore changes to enhance the quality of its product. Altering the schedule to reduce the number of games per season is among the changes the league is exploring, Kevin Arnovitz of ESPN.com passes along.
All conversations are in the earliest of stages, though top executives from around the league recently had a “brainstorming session,” in which ideas on changing the schedule and adding a mid-season cup and/or postseason play-in tournament were discussed. Arnovitz suggests the talks were “very exploratory,” adding that even if changes were proposed and implemented, it wouldn’t happen before the 2021/22 season.
While “load management” issues have caused debate over the league’s 82-game schedule, Arnovitz writes that executives from teams and the league have made an economic case for shortening the number of games. Increasing the scarcity of events and ensuring that each game would be more competitive – with fewer marquee players sitting out – are among the arguments for a change.
Supporters of a schedule alteration believe that the pair of potential tournaments would also help to offset the revenue decline that comes with reducing the games on the schedule.
Arnovitz hears that there isn’t much interest in drastically cutting down the number of games. Options discussed ranged from implementing a 58-game schedule to simply cutting just a handful of contests.
The NBA would need to collectively bargain any changes to the schedule, as the CBA requires the league to make reasonable efforts to increase revenue. A reduction in games could be seen by the players as an attempt to reduce Basketball Related Income.
A reduction from 82 games will never happen. $$$$
So why are they discussing it then? I think they could more than make up for that money by having more meaningful games to take their place. If there were a play in Tournament for the final playoff spots that would give you a half dozen or more nationally televised prime time playoff implication games…that’s money right there. Not the grizzlies playing the suns for the 6th time this season type of money, but prime time playoff advertising type of money. You can definitely cut the regular season from 82 games and still make the league more profitable, they are not mutually exclusive
I’m not so sure.
TV contracts are the main source of revenue, and fewer games would be easier to schedule for primetime with less overlap. Instead of double-headers that start too early for the west coast and end too late for the east coast, TNT/ESPN could go to a single game 3-5 days a week. More overall air time = more revenue.
There could also be more local affiliate money on the table if games were on a more predictable schedule.
I think teams lose ticket revenue, but not much…increase prices 20% and it’s nearly a push. Merchandise and sponsor revenues don’t change.
Players worried about reduction in income? Have they seen their paychecks lately? If you are a super maximum player with at least 10 years of experience that means you can sign this off-season a five year contract paying you $44 million a year. That is higher of a salary than any professional athlete in all of sports counting MLB, NFL and NHL. So, if they lower the games what it goes from 44,000,000to 41,000,000? Even if you are not a super maximum player you are still getting more than 85% a professional athletes. I don’t know about you this is more than enough motivation when you are about seven or eight years old to pick up a basketball.
Only like 1% of players make the super max, most players make near the minimum. Also who cares what other people make, why not try to make as much as you can? This is America
I think you are missing the point. They are not talking about salary. “Basketball related income” is revenue the league shares with the players. Every player in the league gets an equal piece. Whether it’s lebron or the 15th guy on the roster. That is significant for guys not making max contracts
And not to be too petty, but if you break it down, the NFL is by far the highest paying sport on a per game basis. Qbs are taking home roughly 2 mil a game. And they don’t need to wait 10 years to get that either. The nba is no MLB when it comes to limiting players earning potential early in their careers, but if you think about the average career length, most players don’t reach 10 years, let alone good enough to get the 10 year max
Extremely dumb in both baseball and basketball. Leave it alone. Games are competitive every night. If sitting guys is an issue, expand the roster by 1. Games are also really expensive as it is. Ticket prices will continue to go up regardless, but what would happen if there were fewer games? Tickets would be ridiculous prices. The game needs to be even more inclusive than it is. They shouldn’t be stopping people from being able to go to a game. That hurts the growth of the sport, in my opinion
It’s the stars that sit out.
Adding an extra roster
spot is not going to
stop that.
Well it goes back to the perception that people dont think anyone else besides the superstar matters. Role players matter
If ticket prices continue to rise and more people have to stay home and watch on tv, television sponsors love that. There will always be people who can afford tickets, regardless.
Worse idea ever! With sports science being so advanced there’s no reason to cut back as they are paid more if league minimum. Sorry these weak minded players need to earn every dime and play. It’s a privledge to play a kids game and the nba if they want to alter things is expand their rosters. That way the “load management” of star players is minimized to crunch time.
Just use a sick day and play hookie like the rest of us!
How is that going to stop a star player from resting?
“weak minded players” – what does that even mean?
The players aren’t the ones who call the shots, fool (unless maybe you’re Kawhi). It’s the teams that don’t want to risk an injury to their expensive stars.
Play-in tournament? Mid-season tournament? That sounds awful….start with a small cut…go down to 78 or 80 games and see how it works out….I think all fans would be happy if the season was shortened 7-10 days
No I WOULDN’T!!!
I’d rather they add more games of RS than to cut them… So don’t speak for ALL the fans!
So… um… reduce the number of games, but have what seems to be an essentially meaningless mid-season tournament to replace those games?
Not sure I see the sense…
I think they’re looking at it as a way to maximize revenue. If it makes dollars, it makes sense.
Silver is bad news he needs to go
I could see the NBA eventually reducing the number of games by a handful, but nothing more than that. Something like 74-78 games. As a fan, you’d always prefer the number of games to stay the same, but I can see the rationale for such a change.
The bigger question is how many games would the league need to cut in order for teams to significantly curb back on their “load management” schemes? Cutting a couple of games may not have quite the impact they would hope it to have.
How about stopping all the senseless 7 game series? Go to best of 3 and make it worth watching.
What about the fact they already eliminated 4 games in 5 nights and almost all back to backs, and travel is easier now than ever before. Why does the game count have anything to do with keeping players “healthy enough to play.” Also, seeding has come down to the final game the last few years.
Let’s not putz with the 82 game standard. Doing so messes up historical stats and for the powers that be, amounts to little more than a thrill of power-wielding and a false sense of having done something constructive.
The process that led to the 82-game NBA schedule followed an unstable period of power-play pissing contests and mincing incrementalism. We got our standard, let’s keep it, no experimenting. Let’s not do something ultimately just to shine Silver’s resume’.