This morning, ESPN’s Zach Lowe and Adrian Wojnarowski reported that serious discussions were transpiring between the NBA, the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) and their television partners about making dramatic changes to the NBA season.
Those modifications apparently include: a reduced regular season schedule (which seems savvy), a postseason play-in tournament for lower seeds (which sounds fun), a conference finalist reseeding (all 16 playoff teams should be reseeded, in this writer’s opinion), and a midseason playoff tournament (which feels pointless and desperate).
One of the big elements on the table is shortening the regular season game count from 82 to 78. Since the 1968/69 NBA season, the 82-game regular season has been the norm.
The league played as few as 60 or 61 games (it varied amongst the 11 teams) in its inaugural 1946/47 season. The game count gradually grew, reaching 72 by the 1953/54 season, the end of the George Mikan‘s Minnesota Lakers dynasty. In the 1959/60 season (year three of the Bill Russell-era Celtics reign), the tally expanded to 75 games. The next season, that number hit 79, before stabilizing at 80 from 1961/62-1966/67. For one lone season (1967/68), the NBA had an 81-game regular season before making the pivot to its current 82-game schedule when it expanded to 12 teams.
Under the leadership of commissioner Adam Silver, the NBA has already taken steps to reduce the grind of the 82-game schedule. It shrank teams’ preseason commitments. It has taken pains to decrease back-to-back games. The NBA experimented with shortening game lengths from 48 minutes to 44 minutes.
Knowing what we know now about the “load management” era, where certain superstars opt to avoid playing in at least one game of a back-to-back tilt and teams liberally rest healthy players in advance of the playoffs, is reducing the full game tally the right move?
Business Insider’s Cork Gaines has noted that Bill Simmons of The Ringer has long advocated for a schedule reduction, arguing that modern NBA players actively try harder during the regular season than their predecessors in the 1980s and 1990s. Simmons also has been a proponent of a play-in tournament in the past.
How many games should the NBA season last? The Ringer’s Rodger Sherman proposed a radical shortening, to 58 games (so that every team players every other team exactly twice), after watching injuries befall several core Warriors in the 2019 NBA Finals.
This writer votes for reverting back to the 72-game model, completely excising the preseason, and eliminating back-to-back games. The latter two items were not discussed in the Lowe-Wojnarowski report this morning, but I’m hoping they are given fair shrift during these upcoming negotiations.
If the season is condensed much beyond 72 games, the opportunity exists for this era’s players to make unfair statistical gains on prior player generations. A midseason tournament seems like a method to placate middling franchises with meaningless award hardware. Essentially, it would only yield the equivalent of a “Conference Finalist” banner for its “winning” team.
What do you think? How many games should the NBA season last? Would you eliminate back-to-backs and/or the preseason? Would you be interested in watching a midseason tournament?
Head to the comment section below to weigh in with your thoughts!
I agree with you, the mid season tournament is unnecessary and reaks of desperation. Hope the NBA doesn’t decide to go with that.
I think the whole thing is a little silly — like dropping 5-10 games from the schedule just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Idk maybe I’m wrong but it just feels like players ought to be able to play the full 82 that they have been for the past 50 years without complaining. I guess I kind of understand the player’s desire to eliminate/reduce back-to-backs but I also think they add a level of additional strategy coaches need to consider about having to improvise if guys might be tired on the second night of a back-to-back or preemptively giving guys a few extra minutes rest on the front half of one. But if players/coaches continue this trend of “load-management” by completely resting stars for entire games in back-to-backs then I suppose eliminating them from the schedule is better than that.
as far as the mid-season tournament goes I find the entire idea totally absurd. I don’t really see any way in which it could be done and not just seen/feel like a cheap/overly-commercialized event with no real value to either the league or the players/teams. Idk I just think any “playoff” type event in the middle of the year when the real championship is at the end is just absurd.
Lastly – – I’m not sure I really see what/why the playoffs need to be reseeded… is the idea that they want to eliminate “conferences” ? so two “eastern conference” teams could play in the finals or is there some other motivation? I suppose it’s not a terrible idea to give everyone a fair shot at the finals in situations where the two best teams are clearly in the west/east having that game be the Finals vs ‘just’ the conference finals thus allowing the actual “finals” to be the best possible match-up is something that could be kind of cool.
I agree with everything you wrote. The mid-season tournament sounds incredibly dumb.
Removing the entire preseason is a nice idea but I would like to see the league do due diligence before doing that, since there could be injury risks and such associated with that.
The 78-game schedule makes perfect sense. There would still be 30 non-conference games and 16 division games. Then the non-divisional conference games would just be reduced from 36 to 32.
That makes for even fewer back-to-backs and they could even reduce the preseason down to just 4 games to help with that. The play-in tournament for the 7-10 seeded teams (single-game with the 7/8 seeds having home court) would also help to offset the reduction of regular season games by expanding the postseason by a few games.
I’d like to see the change of the players for the NBA draft. I hate that a player can get drafted by the Pistons but still has to go up and wear a Lakers hat. Wish they could wear the team hat to where they’re really going, unless of course they get traded post the draft.
the player has to wear the hat of the team that officially drafted him
Most of it seems really unnecessary. For example if the TWolves (9th In the West) get in above the Magic (8th in the East) they will still have to play a top seeded team and let say the Celtics and will get smoked in the first round.
Making the preseason shorter is a good thing. Most good players if not all, play games over the offseason or pick up games and keep fit and ready to go.
The mid season tournament sounds stupid. For most teams it’s all about making the playoffs and winning rings. No body cares about some mid season cup, owners will want to win money and players can earn more money but I think you’ll see so many players sitting and resting for the postseason during that time.
A player on a max deal earning 30mil a year plus endorsements won’t care about winning an extra 500k for playing the equivalent of 5 back to back to backs in a tournament.
Are their contracts going to be reduced to reflect less games? Will tickets go up because there are less games? I don’t like this idea at all of less games. How about adding a 16th player to the roster to accommodate for injuries.
Teams already have 17 players including ones with two-way deals.
The only change they need to make is eliminate the preseason to get rid of back to backs. It will also add more days off. Reducing the games is dumb these players get paid more and want to work(play)less its ridiculous. People put their bodies on the line everyday to provide meager means for their family and ghese guys cant play a kids game 82 times a year for a kings ransom. I dont understand it at all.
Comparing the rigors of the modern NBA game to “a kid’s game” is a pretty ignorant statement.
A change in the schedule needs to also include a change in the divisional—or even conference—arrangement. If the conferences stay as-is, go back to 2 divisions or just scrap them altogether. Reducing the 82 game schedule to the mid/upper 70s is fine by me, but are the owners actually willing to sacrifice the revenue of 3 home games? If so, good for them.
Play-in tourney for the last 2 seeds is a good idea, but this could result in some pretty bad East teams making the playoffs. The last few years, 7 and 8 in the East have been within a game or 2 of .500 on either side. The 9 and 10 teams have been several games below. This doesn’t seem likely to change anytime soon, it’s been this way for over 10 years. Let’s say the 7 is 42-40, like Orlando last year. They beat the 8 and 40-42 to claim the 7 seed. But if the 8 loses to the 9 or 10 in the game to claim the 8 seed, that could be a 37 win team in the playoffs, about to be smoked by the 1 seed.
I like the idea for sure, but I think it’s better off in the West. But there have been recent years where even in the West, the 10 has 33 wins.
I like frequent games, so 82 is fine; I would call scheduling less than that the opposite of ‘savvy’.
The games can be shortened IMO. They may as well play a ‘JV’ game first, or a short ‘prospect’ game to make up for a shortened game, but that idea is not being considered.
Reseeding playoffs at any level is more good than bad. But extending the playoffs is a bad idea. A midseason trny would help that, giving a bad team a reasonable goal.
The midseason tournament could easily be screwed up from the getgo from Silver. He would approve anything in that area. I have comments after the HR espn regular article.
The play in tournament for lower seeds seems utterly ridiculous to me. The 7 & 8 seeds spent 82 games proving they are more deserving than the 9 & 10 seeds, so now instead of rewarding them with playoff money you put them in a 3 game series with those same teams they just spent 82 proving they were better than?
You might as well just scrap the regular season altogether and put all 30 teams in a tournament. Last year’s champ gets a bye in the 1st round all the rest play a series. The whole season would be over in 2 months.
Totally agree dude! Every single one of the suggestions are garbage, as stupid as they can be!
Look the NBA ain’t broken, actually is at it’s best ever, so why on earth do they wanna break it! SMH!!!
A mid season tournament is the dumbest idea ever floated. Like a turd that won’t flush.
Could buy into 80 games with 2 preseason games and 5 extra days of training camp. Reduce the 1st round of the playoffs to best of 5 games is workable enough. This would buy them 7 or 8 games to help work out scheduling issues.
The NBA has Max players making stupid money and they think the problem is in the scheduling.
Sure don’t see the players or the owners giving up any money in this bright idea. Means cost to everyone else is going to go up.
Also not a great idea ether.
The League Cups, as they are called in European soccer, has a long history across the pond. Plopping that idea into the current NBA is misguided. I think that a worldwide club (not national team) tournament would help the NBA build its global brand and be much more interesting. I realize that the talent gap is huge but sometimes the minnows pull off the upsets especially when the favorite does not to play its A team in hopes of resting their stars. What do you say to Real Madrid vs. Houston or LAC vs. Dijon? Do you load manage your stars and risk not being upset? I think a World Club Champion is more interesting than the FIBA championship.
England’s FA Cup makes sense because it has backing from historical (almost the first thing) and philosophical (everyone gets a chance) reasons. Other nations follow. But the NBA would be starting from scratch and trying to justify financially instead.
Silver will have to ram this through. I almost root for him so he leaves other things alone! (like 82 games)
It is possible but should be based on hard-core foundations, and start early in the season when little matters anyway.
Why not shorten the season considerably and simply have all the teams make the playoffs? Seed the teams by regular season record, have the first rounds best of three then escalate to best of five and only the finals are best of seven. With this you could then base the draft order on the playoff outcome with all first round losers going into the lottery.
The FA Cup does that, but it starts at the same time as the RS, and allows all levels.
Why not play a normal amount of time… I mean is ridiculous that half of players season is only 6 months long, the rest up to 8. Why don’t add 2 months & play 8 of RS & 2 of playoffs (like now). That way instead of 14 games a month teams will play 10, they get much more rest. Also pros don’t need 4-6 months off, I mean is ludicrous. With 1 month off very tops & 3 weeks training camp + 1 week preseason sounds about right! Having up to 6 months off means players get into trouble as they are bored & need to play pick up games anyway not to lose it, then they get injured anyway, it really is a pointless situation having such short season. Add time, you could even add games, instead of taking them off.