PDA

View Full Version : the NBA should shorten the reg. season



MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:11 PM
think about it. in the NFL the season is only 16 games meaning players dont have to spend the majority of the year in the city they play in. giving small market teams chances to win. like Indy, N.O., Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Kansas city, and New england are all small market teams tht have sucess because players are willing to sign there based on the level of talent and potential, not on the city, location, weather, market.

Now look at the nba. the season stretches from late Oct. to May (not including playoffs). s so the majority of the year they will be living in the city they play in. so players seem like they are more interested in where they are living then winnig. the small markets in the NBA. Cleveland, Minn., Indy, Det., Sac, Jersey, toronto, and memphis are all at the bottom of the league and their divisions. the only smalll market teams tht are in the lead of their divisions are the thunder and jazz. and they have built through the draft and trades, no major signings.

the lakers, celtics, heat and Spurs have won the last 6 ships. the pistons were the last small market team to win a ship and they one with no true star, then stars started wanting to live in better markets and a small market team hasnt won since.

teams like Cleveland and toronto lost their superstars to a city with a bigger market, better weather and better location. Chris Bosh wldnt join Lebron on the cavs because he didnt wanna play in Cleveland. if the season was shorter and the majority of the year wasnt the season, Bosh prly would of gone to cleveland and given a small market team a chance to win

a shorter season will give small market team a chance to win and strech the talent across the league and make it more interesting. thoughts?

B.JenningsMVP
12-31-2010, 10:13 PM
I should shorten my dick

D1JM
12-31-2010, 10:15 PM
No. The NFL plays 16 games because of the brutal contact they receive week in week out. Small market teams need to hire better GMs (look at okc) and stop having owners like Memphis just dishing out money and overpaying.

Bruno
12-31-2010, 10:17 PM
I think it would be better for the players but the league would lose tons of revenue and the record books would be ruined.

MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:18 PM
a player isnt gonna resign with a small market team. OKC hasnt reached the point where there stars are unristricted free agents. look at the melo situation, no teams besides New york and Jersey (who are moving to Brooklyn) are trying to persue him because they know he isnt signing with them at the end of the season

MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:18 PM
I think it would be better for the players but the league would lose tons of revenue and the record books would be ruined.

yea tht wld be one of the downfalls

210Don
12-31-2010, 10:25 PM
no.

jetsfan28
12-31-2010, 10:32 PM
a player isnt gonna resign with a small market team. OKC hasnt reached the point where there stars are unristricted free agents. look at the melo situation, no teams besides New york and Jersey (who are moving to Brooklyn) are trying to persue him because they know he isnt signing with them at the end of the season

They won't do that with a shorter season either. Look at the guys who have left. Bosh wanted to raise his profile instead of staying in Toronto or going to Cleveland. Melo wants to go home to New York. LeBron was, understandably IMO, unhappy with things in Cleveland, yet there are reports that he still wanted to stay with Bosh joining him. Those aren't guys who are going to be swayed by a shorter season. And San Antonio isn't exactly a big sports market, Utah is always good, and Miami isn't a huge basketball market either. Shortening the season won't really accomplish anything.

SA5195
12-31-2010, 10:32 PM
No thanks

NetsPaint
12-31-2010, 10:33 PM
They better be playing this much with how much they're being paid.

MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:38 PM
They won't do that with a shorter season either. Look at the guys who have left. Bosh wanted to raise his profile instead of staying in Toronto or going to Cleveland. Melo wants to go home to New York. LeBron was, understandably IMO, unhappy with things in Cleveland, yet there are reports that he still wanted to stay with Bosh joining him. Those aren't guys who are going to be swayed by a shorter season. And San Antonio isn't exactly a big sports market, Utah is always good, and Miami isn't a huge basketball market either. Shortening the season won't really accomplish anything.

yea but weather, location and a better city is in their favor. melo wants to be in a bigger market and wants to live in NY, going back to his hometown is complete Bulls**t, thts his accuse to cver this up.

jetsfan28
12-31-2010, 10:39 PM
yea but weather, location and a better city is in their favor. melo wants to be in a bigger market and wants to live in NY, going back to his hometown is complete Bulls**t, thts his accuse to cver this up.

What players have gone to weather, outside of the big 3 this offseason, where that was really their only location?

And LOL at you knowing his true intentions better than he does. Especially when New York has awful weather, which is apparently a big factor, and there are places he can go where he would be THE guy, such as NJ which will be a big market soon.

MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:40 PM
They better be playing this much with how much they're being paid.

the highest paid(including indorsments) bball player (Lebron) makes less than 3 or 4 NFL players.
straight up salary Kobe is the highest paid and makes less than Manning (both mannings tht is)

goblazers7
12-31-2010, 10:41 PM
I should shorten my goldfish

jetsfan28
12-31-2010, 10:42 PM
the highest paid(including indorsments) bball player (Lebron) makes less than 3 or 4 NFL players.
straight up salary Kobe is the highest paid and makes less than Manning (both mannings tht is)

Yet LeBron passed up a chance to likely be paid more by going to NY and didn't do it. And shortening the season would mean players make less salary since the league as a whole would make less and players get a percentage of the profit.


I should shorten my goldfish

Why, yes. Yes you should.

MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:42 PM
What players have gone to weather, outside of the big 3 this offseason, where that was really their only location?

And LOL at you knowing his true intentions better than he does. Especially when New York has awful weather, which is apparently a big factor, and there are places he can go where he would be THE guy, such as NJ which will be a big market soon.

NY is NY, no matter what weather, biggest city in the country, one of the most well known cities in the world. dont u think Melo might make a little more from indorsements there then in Denver

jetsfan28
12-31-2010, 10:44 PM
NY is NY, no matter what weather, biggest city in the country, one of the most well known cities in the world. dont u think Melo might make a little more from indorsements there then in Denver

You're right, it is. Which is why if you were right he'd have no problem being right outside of New York and being in Brooklyn within two years. And if he were leaving for endorsement opportunities, those would be the same in a shorter season, so WTF does that have to do with anything?

MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:45 PM
What players have gone to weather, outside of the big 3 this offseason, where that was really their only location?

And LOL at you knowing his true intentions better than he does. Especially when New York has awful weather, which is apparently a big factor, and there are places he can go where he would be THE guy, such as NJ which will be a big market soon.

explain why bosh and 'bron went to MIA instead of Clev. maybe cuz of weather.

MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:47 PM
You're right, it is. Which is why if you were right he'd have no problem being right outside of New York and being in Brooklyn within two years. And if he were leaving for endorsement opportunities, those would be the same in a shorter season, so WTF does that have to do with anything?

the fact tht he has no interest in going to a little market team. notice how barley any small market teams are even cloes to the playoffs. CHI NY LA MIA are places where players wanna live

MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:49 PM
i can guarantee tht most players in the NFL tht play for teams like the colts do not live in indy outside the season

MSU4life
12-31-2010, 10:52 PM
New york has been garbage for years, then they clear up money and get a superstar through free agency and are a playoff team now

kblo247
12-31-2010, 11:13 PM
explain why bosh and 'bron went to MIA instead of Clev. maybe cuz of weather.

Have you ever visited Cleveland, not just drove through or briefly stopped in from a flight but really visited it? Noah didn't lie when he said you don't want to vacation there and the city sucks :laugh2:

Bruno
12-31-2010, 11:42 PM
Yet LeBron passed up a chance to likely be paid more by going to NY and didn't do it. And shortening the season would mean players make less salary since the league as a whole would make less and players get a percentage of the profit.

Why, yes. Yes you should.

You should look up the way taxes work in Florida.

godolphins
12-31-2010, 11:55 PM
Shorten it to 52 games

bears88
12-31-2010, 11:57 PM
A big hell no

RedRicanoBx
01-01-2011, 12:05 AM
ill pass... -_- think about it and as a knicks fan, remember when they won like 10 games in a row almost ?? so u telling me the knicks deserve to be in the top seeds cause they played better or as good as the best teams in the east ? no buddy it takes alot to prove in rankings alot will change think about it Lebron could easily average a triple double if there was a shortened season... it makes no sense and its too easy F that...

jeter 2
01-01-2011, 12:19 AM
You're right, it is. Which is why if you were right he'd have no problem being right outside of New York and being in Brooklyn within two years. And if he were leaving for endorsement opportunities, those would be the same in a shorter season, so WTF does that have to do with anything?

LOLOLOLOL

Melo would not receive the endorsement opportunities playing for the Nets. The Knicks are the Giants and Jets and the Nets are the Buffalo Bills. I'm sorry to be this blunt and rude, but he would probably not make that much money playing in New Jersey. One, they do not carry the New York title two, they don't have the fan base as the Knicks and three, they have an awful team. The Nets only have some hold over New Jersey not New York or Conn. The Knicks pretty much control the market and therefore Melo will only get the endorsement opportunities he wants playing in New York and he doesn't have to wait 2 years.

DeyAce
01-01-2011, 12:27 AM
They should shorten the pre-season

210Don
01-01-2011, 12:35 AM
lets just forget the regular season and just got to playoffs

Flash3
01-01-2011, 12:38 AM
think about it. in the NFL the season is only 16 games meaning players dont have to spend the majority of the year in the city they play in. giving small market teams chances to win. like Indy, N.O., Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Kansas city, and New england are all small market teams tht have sucess because players are willing to sign there based on the level of talent and potential, not on the city, location, weather, market.

Now look at the nba. the season stretches from late Oct. to May (not including playoffs). s so the majority of the year they will be living in the city they play in. so players seem like they are more interested in where they are living then winnig. the small markets in the NBA. Cleveland, Minn., Indy, Det., Sac, Jersey, toronto, and memphis are all at the bottom of the league and their divisions. the only smalll market teams tht are in the lead of their divisions are the thunder and jazz. and they have built through the draft and trades, no major signings.

the lakers, celtics, heat and Spurs have won the last 6 ships. the pistons were the last small market team to win a ship and they one with no true star, then stars started wanting to live in better markets and a small market team hasnt won since.

teams like Cleveland and toronto lost their superstars to a city with a bigger market, better weather and better location. Chris Bosh wldnt join Lebron on the cavs because he didnt wanna play in Cleveland. if the season was shorter and the majority of the year wasnt the season, Bosh prly would of gone to cleveland and given a small market team a chance to win

a shorter season will give small market team a chance to win and strech the talent across the league and make it more interesting. thoughts?


when did Toronto become a small market ?

i think alot of small market teams don't want to spend too much (memphis) and just plain and simple don't know how to run a winning franchise.

abe_froman
01-01-2011, 12:40 AM
:facepalm:

Flash3
01-01-2011, 12:42 AM
explain why bosh and 'bron went to MIA instead of Clev. maybe cuz of weather.

um his name is Mr.Wade

Flash3
01-01-2011, 12:43 AM
New york has been garbage for years, then they clear up money and get a superstar through free agency and are a playoff team now

amare is a superstar now ?

TopsyTurvy
01-01-2011, 05:20 AM
Inter-conference games draw too much business for the schedule to be shortened in any way...

JJ81
01-01-2011, 10:54 AM
If it aint broke...

Gram
01-01-2011, 12:10 PM
think about it. in the NFL the season is only 16 games meaning players dont have to spend the majority of the year in the city they play in. giving small market teams chances to win. like Indy, N.O., Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Kansas city, and New england are all small market teams tht have sucess because players are willing to sign there based on the level of talent and potential, not on the city, location, weather, market.

Now look at the nba. the season stretches from late Oct. to May (not including playoffs). s so the majority of the year they will be living in the city they play in. so players seem like they are more interested in where they are living then winnig. the small markets in the NBA. Cleveland, Minn., Indy, Det., Sac, Jersey, toronto, and memphis are all at the bottom of the league and their divisions. the only smalll market teams tht are in the lead of their divisions are the thunder and jazz. and they have built through the draft and trades, no major signings.

the lakers, celtics, heat and Spurs have won the last 6 ships. the pistons were the last small market team to win a ship and they one with no true star, then stars started wanting to live in better markets and a small market team hasnt won since.

teams like Cleveland and toronto lost their superstars to a city with a bigger market, better weather and better location. Chris Bosh wldnt join Lebron on the cavs because he didnt wanna play in Cleveland. if the season was shorter and the majority of the year wasnt the season, Bosh prly would of gone to cleveland and given a small market team a chance to win

a shorter season will give small market team a chance to win and strech the talent across the league and make it more interesting. thoughts?

Playoffs start in April. ;)

Gram
01-01-2011, 12:11 PM
I should shorten my dick

:laugh2:

NYKalltheway
01-01-2011, 12:21 PM
58 games would be the safest bet. Play eachother twice

millerandco
01-01-2011, 12:44 PM
why would any basketball fan want less games????

MSU4life
01-01-2011, 12:53 PM
amare is a superstar now ?

look at his stats, then look at quote on quote superstar boshs stats over his career:facepalm:

MSU4life
01-01-2011, 12:54 PM
Playoffs start in April. ;)

my bad, the pistons havent been in the playoffs for awhile;)

NYKalltheway
01-01-2011, 12:56 PM
why would any basketball fan want less games????

So that there is ACTUAL COMPETITION and some relevance in the regular season.
The regular season is a stats collection for players and lower seed teams challenge for a spot.
By shortening the rs you have competition between teams for a better seed and fans actually care about team winning rather than player x having triple double or 30+ points...

MSU4life
01-01-2011, 01:05 PM
So that there is ACTUAL COMPETITION and some relevance in the regular season.
The regular season is a stats collection for players and lower seed teams challenge for a spot.
By shortening the rs you have competition between teams for a better seed and fans actually care about team winning rather than player x having triple double or 30+ points...

exactly, thank you:clap:

tcav701
01-01-2011, 01:14 PM
If they change anything it should be less playoff teams. Doing so would make the regular season more competative. Having more teams make the playoffs than miss out has never made sense to me.

Flash3
01-01-2011, 01:59 PM
look at his stats, then look at quote on quote superstar boshs stats over his career:facepalm:

who said bosh was a superstar ?

Kakaroach
01-01-2011, 02:33 PM
Shortening it to say 70 games wouldn't hurt. You still have a pretty long regular season but you lower the chance of injury and whatnot.

todu82
01-01-2011, 02:34 PM
It's perfectly fine at 82 games, leave it as is.

da ThRONe
09-01-2011, 08:10 PM
Know I'm super late to the discussion, but here's my two cents.

The NBA is losing close to a billion dollars since the last CBA sign(or so their claiming). Currently this system isn't working sure they can take a larger % from the players and share revenue, but this still isn't generating more revenue just shifting it. I think by reducing the season by 1/3 it could not just shift the BRI, but increase it close to what NFL generates. After all how many fans (even the most die hard) watches every one on there teams 82 games? Some smaller market teams don't even air all 82 games in their own market.

The reason the NBA doesn't net the money the NFL does is mainly because it's a league built around attendance while the NFL is built around tv. Only average to hardcore fans attend games, causals watch on tv. This is were the money is. When I interaction with the majority of causal pro hoops fan they feel like the NBA regular season is irrelevant. And based on what I see from the players they treat chunks of the season like it's irrelevant. No urgency=less viewers.

Reducing the season means you can have set days for basketball. Start in Jan. once college football is over and pro football is in the playoffs. Guys will stay healthy longer. Give guys more practise time to improve inseason. No back to back, or 3 games in 4 nights on the schedule.

The league needs less dependance on big market teams and more on divisonal rivalries and competitive balance. With fair scheduling and less complacency amongst the better team will lead to more sports betting. Which means better tv ratings and more money.

Reducing the season by 1/3 gives causal fans a sport they can 1st can watch more easily and 2nd watch more consistently knowing every game counts significantly more than in the 82 game format. It gives gamblers/fantasy sports buff a fair and balance schedule to operate with. Lastly for hardcore fans we get a better product on court where guys are giving there all unlike every before, and are able to work on their craft as individuals and a team mid-season like never before.

beasted86
09-01-2011, 09:15 PM
No. The NFL plays 16 games because of the brutal contact they receive week in week out. Small market teams need to hire better GMs (look at okc) and stop having owners like Memphis just dishing out money and overpaying.

You pick OKC who only has players on rookie salaries, totaling to one of the lowest payrolls in the NBA as they finished the season below the salary cap... they have a MVP caliber player, went deep into the playoffs....and unmiraculously still lost money. Overpaying, underpaying, or tanking... they will still lose money in a bad market.

Even if the Dan Gilberts of the league had their way in the new CBA, no amount of witchcraft is going to help them break a profit. Even if you hard capped the NBA at $58M they still wouldn't make money in OKC... doesn't matter how good the team is because they're already pretty damn good.

Shortening the season doesn't help. We need to contract teams or move them to better markets.

Fnom11
09-01-2011, 10:09 PM
Only way I'd like this idea is if more games/teams were televised. I'd definitely like to watch more Warriors/Grizz games.

Fnom11
09-01-2011, 10:14 PM
Honestly contraction is pretty much the best way to make more revenue.

NBA_Starter
09-01-2011, 10:31 PM
I wouldn't like shortening it, maybe extending the season!

theheatles
09-01-2011, 10:43 PM
nba season length is fine, the mlb should cut out 40-50 games but they never will cuz of "precious" records

da ThRONe
09-01-2011, 11:05 PM
The talent level isn't the issue. Contraction just takes the NBA out of more markets and will alienate current/potential fans. I think contraction hurt the league way more then it helps. Stream lining the season IMO is the only way the league can increase revenue significantly.

Contraction leaves you with greater holes in markets of potential fans. Also contraction does nothing to make the league more tv friendly, still leave the players in the physical grind, still leave too many irrelevant stretches in the season, still leaves the schedule unfair, and still doesn't create a since of urgency amongst the players. Only thing eliminating franchises will do is increase the on court product(which IMO isn't an issue), but reducing the season can give you a better product and much more.

SportsFanatic10
09-02-2011, 04:56 AM
i'm fine with basketball/hockeys season length. i like the 16 games in the nfl the most though because every game is so meaningful.

baseball should definately shorten the crazy seasons they have. i can't even stand to watch it untill its near to the playoffs since each game seems so meaningless with such a long schedule in the early going.

LongWayFromHome
09-02-2011, 08:14 PM
lets just forget the regular season and just got to playoffs

This.

Infact just skip right to the last 2 minutes of every game. And only playoffs.

mjokc
09-02-2011, 10:39 PM
Wouldn't the NBA lose even more money if the number of games was shortened. How much average revenue do they make per game? Quite a bit I would think.

GoPacers33
09-02-2011, 10:43 PM
Nope

LosDoyers1
09-02-2011, 10:44 PM
Instead of shortening the regular season, they need to cut the amount of teams. The league is watered down. You take out about four teams, then the league should be much more competitive.

1DROSE1
09-03-2011, 02:24 AM
ARE you NUTS? You have got to do a little research buddy! Like someone said earlier football is different because of how brutal it is for the body. Imagine them playing 82 games i guarantee more than 80 percent of the players will suffer an injury. Basketball is different because it is not as brutal or painful to the body. As for records your going to see guys gettin 10,000 points to make the HOF. Why change something that ain't broken. All sports have suffered a lockout! And why lose way more money, than they are right now!

DJakk
09-03-2011, 02:56 AM
The main problem I see in the NBA is the fact that players always slow down towards the end of the year if their age is anywhere close to 30.

NYKNYGNYY
09-03-2011, 03:37 AM
lost all credibility when you send new england is a small market team...nice try tho...the nba season is fine, i just hope there is one this season

knightstemplar
09-03-2011, 04:16 AM
uhhh NO

da ThRONe
09-03-2011, 02:39 PM
The league operate under a 82 game schedule, but still are claiming losses of a billion dollar.

The reason why the NBA regular season isn't anything more than an attendance league is the majority of the games only attract medium to hardcore fans. Many causal to hardcore fans/gamblers don't feel a since of urgency. Contracting the league does nothing about urgency. You can reduce to league to 20 teams, and you would still have the same problems if the league operates under the same salary structure and under the same amount of games. Same teams would be drastically better same teams would be bottom feeders, guys still won't take the regular season serious, injuries will still leave many stars sidelined, schedules will still be unfair/unbalanced and none conducive to tv viewing(and ultimately sports betting).

Do your history this is the way it's always been. What saved the league wasn't contraction after the league merged it was tv. Televising Bird & Magic saved the league then televising Jordan made it boom. Now the key to reaching the next level is to televise parity, rivaliries, and urgency. The problem marketing a league around players are they get hurt, retire, or fall out of favor with the public.

Raps18-19 Champ
09-03-2011, 03:43 PM
30-40 players get severely injured in the NFL every week. And that's just 1 game per team.

The reason they only play 16 games is so the players get a good amount of rest.

The NBA doesn't need to rest their players like the NFL does.

IndiansFan337
09-03-2011, 03:46 PM
It won't ever happen, for monetary reasons. I don't think any league will ever shorten their season again. You saw the NFL in the past year discussing extending their regular season to 18 games, MLB discussing adding an additional wild card playoff team and therefore another playoff series.

DR_1
09-03-2011, 03:59 PM
I think it would be better for the players but the league would lose tons of revenue and the record books would be ruined.

Pretty much this

lakersfan01
09-03-2011, 04:06 PM
What real fan would call for a shorter NBA season. 82 games!!!

Anyways, when you start messing with the length of the seasons, you can't compare today's stats versus the best of other decades.

Keep it 82!

THE MTL
09-03-2011, 04:16 PM
think about it. in the NFL the season is only 16 games meaning players dont have to spend the majority of the year in the city they play in. giving small market teams chances to win. like Indy, N.O., Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Kansas city, and New england are all small market teams tht have sucess because players are willing to sign there based on the level of talent and potential, not on the city, location, weather, market.

Now look at the nba. the season stretches from late Oct. to May (not including playoffs). s so the majority of the year they will be living in the city they play in. so players seem like they are more interested in where they are living then winnig. the small markets in the NBA. Cleveland, Minn., Indy, Det., Sac, Jersey, toronto, and memphis are all at the bottom of the league and their divisions. the only smalll market teams tht are in the lead of their divisions are the thunder and jazz. and they have built through the draft and trades, no major signings.

the lakers, celtics, heat and Spurs have won the last 6 ships. the pistons were the last small market team to win a ship and they one with no true star, then stars started wanting to live in better markets and a small market team hasnt won since.

teams like Cleveland and toronto lost their superstars to a city with a bigger market, better weather and better location. Chris Bosh wldnt join Lebron on the cavs because he didnt wanna play in Cleveland. if the season was shorter and the majority of the year wasnt the season, Bosh prly would of gone to cleveland and given a small market team a chance to win

a shorter season will give small market team a chance to win and strech the talent across the league and make it more interesting. thoughts?

1. First of all, Cleveland did not lose LEBRON JAMES for that reason! And I personally dnt think its a significant road block to a team signing a player. I think a much bigger issue is the amount of money a small market teams brings in compared to a larger market.

2. Shortening the season actually would make things worse. Imagine all the lost revenue from the 20 or so games that you wanna get rid of.

3. Also, if your a professional basketball player making millions of dollars each year...thats what you should be doing for the MAJORITY of the year "PLAYING BASKETBALL".

4. The NBA has seen many small markets do well recently outside of your referenced Thunder and Jazz. Portland was set to break-out until injuries. You forgot that Toronto used to own the Atlantic divison. Cleveland was the best team in the league. San Antonio is not considered a large market (maybe medium but DEF NOT LARGE).

5. The NBA is back to how it was in the 80s. Multiple HOF's on the same team and large markets dominant. Think who won the championships in the 80s....Celtics, Lakers, Pistons (considered a large market btw), and Sixers. BUT YOU DONT SEE ANYONE KNOCKING THAT ERA OF BASKETBALL DO YOU?

NYKalltheway
09-03-2011, 04:23 PM
you can't compare the 80s with today... multiple HOFs on the same team? Back then it was in their prime, in the 2000s and today it's aging guys next to new stars. Also you had less teams then...

3mikee_
09-03-2011, 04:27 PM
Yea... can't understand the justifications of shortening the season. NBA is already at a loss, less games = less fans, less money, less exposure. The NFL works with 16 games because theirs are spread by a week and the national media exposure for the NFL games are significantly higher than the NBA games. It's not even a valid comparison..

NYKalltheway
09-03-2011, 04:40 PM
less games = more/better exposure ;)

eibbor
09-03-2011, 04:57 PM
i can guarantee tht most players in the NFL tht play for teams like the colts do not live in indy outside the season

Only because you are talkin out your azz, assuming and have no clue what you are talking about.

Majiik819
09-03-2011, 05:25 PM
Would this improve the quality of play? Most likely. Unfortunately, this will never happen because owners will just lose more money.

da ThRONe
09-03-2011, 06:15 PM
I agree I think owners and players are both too short sighted to see the long term value in reducing the season.

But the owners biggest expenses come from games(hosting games and paying for road trips) and players salaries. Cutting games would cut both expenses for the league. Not only would it cut those expenses but a reduce season would allow them to start near or at the end of the NFL. In medium to small markets where football takes priority not having the seasons compete would help average attendance around the league. There plenty of monetary value in reducing the league. Also with less games owners could afford to raise ticket prices to compensate for the lost games. Which equals to less expenses more revenue.

Football has less games and more exposure so the two are none related. You can televise a similar amount of games. The NBA will be restructuring it's tv deal in 5 years. If they cut games and rebrand the league as "Every game counts" or some other cheesy slogan. Maybe even change the logo to Jordan something that's been discussed before and increase ratings significantly they can secure an NFL type TV deal. As long as the NBA felts on attendance as its main source of BRI it will always have revenue issues.

I am no less of a fan then anybody in here. But nothing as a fan pisses me off more than to spend my hard earn money to see my Hornets play and have guys taking it easy. It's a crap shoot at times. The one time I've seen LeBron in the Hive he acted like he could care less about the game. Sure as a Hornets fan I appreciate the win, but guys coasting is an insult to every fan more than anything. But how can you blame them for picking there spots when the schedule is so unbalanced and grueling?

JWO35
09-03-2011, 06:46 PM
I have no problem with an 82game season, I wouldn't mind shortening the season to like 50 or 60 games but I doubt that ever happens.

I think the NBA faces the same problem as the MLB when it comes to length of schedule....toward the end of the season most of the games are completely worthless and just a tankfess for the bottom feeders.

da ThRONe
09-04-2011, 01:13 PM
Something is inherently wrong with a sport that the schedule plays as much of a part in who wins and loses a game as much as the players themselves.

ne3xchamps
09-04-2011, 01:25 PM
think about it. in the NFL the season is only 16 games meaning players dont have to spend the majority of the year in the city they play in. giving small market teams chances to win. like Indy, N.O., Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Kansas city, and New england are all small market teams tht have sucess because players are willing to sign there based on the level of talent and potential, not on the city, location, weather, market.

Now look at the nba. the season stretches from late Oct. to May (not including playoffs). s so the majority of the year they will be living in the city they play in. so players seem like they are more interested in where they are living then winnig. the small markets in the NBA. Cleveland, Minn., Indy, Det., Sac, Jersey, toronto, and memphis are all at the bottom of the league and their divisions. the only smalll market teams tht are in the lead of their divisions are the thunder and jazz. and they have built through the draft and trades, no major signings.

the lakers, celtics, heat and Spurs have won the last 6 ships. the pistons were the last small market team to win a ship and they one with no true star, then stars started wanting to live in better markets and a small market team hasnt won since.

teams like Cleveland and toronto lost their superstars to a city with a bigger market, better weather and better location. Chris Bosh wldnt join Lebron on the cavs because he didnt wanna play in Cleveland. if the season was shorter and the majority of the year wasnt the season, Bosh prly would of gone to cleveland and given a small market team a chance to win

a shorter season will give small market team a chance to win and strech the talent across the league and make it more interesting. thoughts?

??? small market? I don't know what rock you live under. Those cities LOVE their football.

ne3xchamps
09-04-2011, 01:26 PM
No. The NFL plays 16 games because of the brutal contact they receive week in week out. Small market teams need to hire better GMs (look at okc) and stop having owners like Memphis just dishing out money and overpaying.

this.

I don't understand why people don't get why the NFL has only a 16 game season. Seems like it would be common sense? :shrug:

millerandco
09-04-2011, 01:30 PM
i can never understand why a basketball fan would want less basketball and fewer games

da ThRONe
09-04-2011, 01:40 PM
The same way a fan of steaks would prefer less oz., but a better cut of meat than more oz. steak thats fat and bones.

More is not better it's just more!

I'd much rather 56 games of fully intense/focus players than 82 where you never know when guys are going to get bored, or conserve effort for more meaningful games.

MJ-BULLS
09-04-2011, 02:37 PM
there is no doubt that the season is going to start, but the question of it being shortened, that is most likely going to happen. How many games? Who knows. But shorten the season period? I am against it. How about if we expand the season even more. 85 games, that would be splendid in my opinion.

NYKalltheway
09-04-2011, 04:53 PM
Shortening the # of games doesn't mean the season will start later and finish earlier.. it means that the schedule won't be as congested. More time for teams to have practice sessions, hence improve tactical awareness and build up chemistry.. better product for sure.

da ThRONe
09-04-2011, 05:20 PM
Shortening the # of games doesn't mean the season will start later and finish earlier.. it means that the schedule won't be as congested. More time for teams to have practice sessions, hence improve tactical awareness and build up chemistry.. better product for sure.

It would eliminate back to back games and 3 games in 4 nights thus significantly lowering injuries and adding to players prime years and overall longevity. We are losing arguably the games greatest coach because his body can't handle the road trips. The coach!

Every team would have adequate and equal amount of rest in between games.

I do think the season will start later, but that's not a bad thing IMO. That creates urgency amongst fans and players. Which would be just one of many positives for shortening the season. As a dual die hard fan of both hoops and pigskin I can wait til one is finished then jump right into the other.