PDA

View Full Version : NBA Needs Revenue? Expand the regular season!



JasonJohnHorn
10-24-2011, 06:10 PM
I realize that a lot of people think 82 games is more than enough, but lets face it, Baseball plays double that!

Owners want more revenue? Extend the season to 100 games, give each team 9 more games to generate revenue with. Baseball doesn't have a cap, and their 160+ games a season allows those teams to generate revenue, despite the dismal ratings baseball gets (the NBA needs to work on better TV deals, they get more fans watching games than any sport save football).

And while we're at it, lets add something to the playoffs. Perhaps a couple of wild card series? Perhaps teams that don't make the cut can fight it out for the rights to the first overall pick?

Sure, sure, careers stats records will bend in favour of the new generation, but we won't forget how great Kareem and Wilt were.

Best way to help the owners make more money is to help them generate more revenue. Simple enough. No?

RekeHavoc
10-24-2011, 06:12 PM
its long enough as it is, the last thing i need to see is my bulls playing the raptors, twolves ,and bobcats more, im fine with 82, thx for asking tho

ShakeN'Bake
10-24-2011, 06:19 PM
82 is already long enough. Dont compare it to baseball as baseball so many games that it feels like most of them dont matter.

PhillyFaninLA
10-24-2011, 06:26 PM
The NBA is losing money.

I'm going to explain this in an overly simplified way I don't mean to offend just spell it out so 3 year old can understand:

- Lets say that 1 game by each team equals 1 dollar of total revenue for the entire league
- that means 82 games equals 82 dollars revenue
- Lets say the playoffs generate 18 additional dollars
- that means 100 dollars revenue for the entire year

- Now lets say that each game when all expenses are taken into account equals a total cost of 1.01 for each game
- that means you lose .82 for the entire year
- that would be an additinal .18 for the playoffs
- that means the league loses $1 for the year

- basically they league generates $100 but loses $101 that is the problem and why adding more games is a bad idea.

If you add games that you lose more revenue...adding more games would actually cost the league more money and hurt the league even greater. You need to strongly consider contraction and get control of the business practices of the league so it can become profitable. You need a better business and marketing model and better people following them or the league goes bankrupt.

RekeHavoc
10-24-2011, 06:30 PM
The NBA is losing money.

I'm going to explain this in an overly simplified way I don't mean to offend just spell it out so 3 year old can understand:

- Lets say that 1 game by each team equals 1 dollar of total revenue for the entire league
- that means 82 games equals 82 dollars revenue
- Lets say the playoffs generate 18 additional dollars
- that means 100 dollars revenue for the entire year

- Now lets say that each game when all expenses are taken into account equals a total cost of 1.01 for each game
- that means you lose .82 for the entire year
- that would be an additinal .18 for the playoffs
- that means the league loses $1 for the year

- basically they league generates $100 but loses $101 that is the problem and why adding more games is a bad idea.

If you add games that you lose more revenue...adding more games would actually cost the league more money and hurt the league even greater. You need to strongly consider contraction and get control of the business practices of the league so it can become profitable. You need a better business and marketing model and better people following them or the league goes bankrupt.

and on that note, i think we can lock this thread now :clap:

sixer04fan
10-24-2011, 06:34 PM
If teams are already losing money, wouldn't prolonging the system that is causing them to lose money just make them lose even more money?

Increased traveling costs, increased stadium lease costs, paying stadium workers more because they work more games, paying referees more because they would have to do more games, paying players more because they have to play more games, etc.

And with a longer schedule, each game is less important, meaning less fans in attendance per game.

I think your "solution" would actually hurt the league substantially and probably cause the entire league to fold.

Congratulations, you just destroyed the NBA.

KnickNyKnick
10-24-2011, 06:36 PM
hmm problem is this wont help the little market teams. its would just be more games for fans not to go to lol. Plus basketball is waaaay more exhausting than baseball where your standing around most of the time. and basketball arenas are normally used for other events/sports so the scheduling would be disastrous. no thanks. more revenue sharing for poor teams plz. or combine some teams to make them more profitable maybe move them to dif states.

itsripcity32
10-24-2011, 06:40 PM
.... joke

Tony_Starks
10-24-2011, 07:08 PM
injuries?

MrfadeawayJB
10-24-2011, 07:51 PM
seasons long enough. If they want revenue they should just settle on a new CBA and allow the NBA popularity continue to grow

da ThRONe
10-24-2011, 08:32 PM
I would say shortening the season would be better. The cost of operating games has grown that coupled with player salaries all of which would be cut with less games. Unfortunately it would mean ticket prices would go up, but it would be about the same amount season ticket holder pay now just less games.

This would most likely raise rating and thus generate more advertising money and bigger network deals where the real money is.

GREATNESS ONE
10-24-2011, 08:49 PM
I realize that a lot of people think 82 games is more than enough, but lets face it, Baseball plays double that!

Owners want more revenue? Extend the season to 100 games, give each team 9 more games to generate revenue with. Baseball doesn't have a cap, and their 160+ games a season allows those teams to generate revenue, despite the dismal ratings baseball gets (the NBA needs to work on better TV deals, they get more fans watching games than any sport save football).

And while we're at it, lets add something to the playoffs. Perhaps a couple of wild card series? Perhaps teams that don't make the cut can fight it out for the rights to the first overall pick?

Sure, sure, careers stats records will bend in favour of the new generation, but we won't forget how great Kareem and Wilt were.

Best way to help the owners make more money is to help them generate more revenue. Simple enough. No?

:laugh2: this one is awesome, definitely would make it interesting.

ink
10-24-2011, 09:24 PM
The player's union would LOVE to play more games. /irony

king4day
10-24-2011, 09:44 PM
You're not an idiot but I picked that there's too many games.
If you add say 10 more games, what does that mean to teams long out of it? Unless your sending the Lakers to Charlotte a second time where it'll help bring in fans (even if they aren't charlotte fans), it won't do anything. Imagine the 92nd game being Raptors/Bobcats? How does that help either team?

NYKalltheway
10-24-2011, 10:07 PM
dont wanna call you an idiot, but it's too many games already, and I'm against contraction. I'd actually prefer more teams as well

KnickNyKnick
10-25-2011, 12:53 PM
:laugh2: this one is awesome, definitely would make it interesting.

lol there should be a side playoffs NFL style 1 game. bottom 6 teams :clap: for picks 1 to 6

Shmontaine
10-25-2011, 01:01 PM
i get what the op is saying... the salaries of the players stay the same, but the revenue increases with more games... it makes sense in theory.. and there has been 82 games for 30+ years now, and there has been a 30% increase in teams since then, maybe a 30% increase in games will work... i think injuries would become an issue with this, though... and not sure if players would agree to play 100+ games for the same pay as 82...

ink
10-25-2011, 01:20 PM
i get what the op is saying... the salaries of the players stay the same, but the revenue increases with more games... it makes sense in theory.. and there has been 82 games for 30+ years now, and there has been a 30% increase in teams since then, maybe a 30% increase in games will work... i think injuries would become an issue with this, though... and not sure if players would agree to play 100+ games for the same pay as 82...

Guaranteed that the union would fight this at the bargaining table as unfair labour practice. If the players are complaining now about salaries, imagine what their reaction would be if someone asked them to play an extra 10-20 games with no more pay.

Any time someone proposes more games the players of any league do everything they can to resist. Injuries, inadequate rest, too many back to backs, too long a season, too long away from home on longer road trips. They're already maxed out at 82 games. It's not like baseball where you sit or stand for 2 hours and 48 minutes out of a 3 hour game right? lol.