PDA

View Full Version : How Many Games should Nba Regular season have?



Hellcrooner
10-27-2011, 10:26 PM
Heres an interesting discussion bout the subjetct.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32294/why-is-there-an-82-game-schedule

Some advocating for 44 others for 76.

Ill say i THINK 58 is the perfect number

THose 58 games during the same time span November-April that the current 82 are played.

Why 58?

That is 1 home and one away game against Each team in the league.

This also means that the records of each team will be realisitic regardless of how balanced or unbalanced the Conferences or divisions are.

( well imo in terms of playoffs and lottery all the conference thing should be scrapped but thats not the issue being discussed now.)


58 games means several weeks with just two games for a team and only a couple with three games,

this means.

less games may make more affordable for fans to go to the games only 29 times in the season instead of 41.

Also fans that also like nhl or nfl may be able to attend the games since there are less games, less money to be spent less time to be spent.

both things may raise the incomes from tickets by filling the arenas instead of playing more games in half deserted ones.

The show woudl also be benefited as in :

Less game means every game is worht more and more important wich makes loses matter more and wins matter more, so more exciting games.

more time to COACH/TRAIN team abilitys and tactics and players skiks wich means , quicker adaptation of rookies ( with no rookie wall), better and more fluid team play instead of so much isolation.

Injurys less likely, allowing the stars to be on the court for more minutes and giving a better show.

The only thing that woudl suffer would be of coruse the book records, yep with so little game maybe player x does not become the top scorer ever, or the top rebounder ever, or whatever.

But you know? this is a TEAM game and Stats SUCK SALTY balls.

I want 58 good games better than 82 boring ones.

I want all the playoff teams with their full stranght roster with RESTED plaeyrs instead of worn out players and injured stars distorting playoff resulsts.

Soż? what do you think? How many?

thenetslegend
10-27-2011, 10:36 PM
82, 58 is way too short

NYKalltheway
10-27-2011, 10:45 PM
82, 58 is way too short

can you name me a league other than MLB that has more than 58 games IN TOTAL? You're saying 58 + PLAYOFFS is way too short? Please tell us with what leagues did you compare that figure

Chacarron
10-27-2011, 10:57 PM
As a fan I want to see as much basketball as possible.

Ezio
10-27-2011, 10:57 PM
Are you saying for this upcoming season or for like a while?

Bramaca
10-27-2011, 11:00 PM
I always thought 56 would be good, 58 is in the same range and may be better for scheduling. Less games equals more time to prepare and rest between games which whould make them more entertaining. Playoff races would be a little more interesting too. Way too often the playoff positions are decided long before the end of the regular season. With 82 games it seems most of the time games have more of a pickup game feel then an actual competitive game.

I also wouldn't mind seeing the first couple rounds of the playoffs dropped to best of 5.

thenetslegend
10-27-2011, 11:03 PM
can you name me a league other than MLB that has more than 58 games IN TOTAL? You're saying 58 + PLAYOFFS is way too short? Please tell us with what leagues did you compare that figure

sorry, i just wanna see as much nba as possible :D why would they change it now though anyway?

SportsFanatic10
10-27-2011, 11:04 PM
can you name me a league other than MLB that has more than 58 games IN TOTAL? You're saying 58 + PLAYOFFS is way too short? Please tell us with what leagues did you compare that figure

NHL has 82...

the better question would be out of the 4 major american sports other than the NFL, can you name a league with less than 82 lol.

NHL isn't the most popular i know, but its a good comparison since many cities with both an NBA and NHL franchise share arena's and both have 30 teams.

LOOTERX9
10-27-2011, 11:13 PM
82 games cause i don't want an asterix put on the KNICKS title when they win this year

Bramaca
10-27-2011, 11:14 PM
sorry, i just wanna see as much nba as possible :D why would they change it now though anyway?

To make the product better

LA_Raiders
10-28-2011, 12:43 AM
82, 76 sounds good

Bruno
10-28-2011, 12:46 AM
For the sake of the players still having enough in the tank for playoffs/not being injury-ridden by the most important time of the season, I think 65 games would be ideal.

That way it's a near guarantee that nobody plays anymore than 90 games in a season, playoffs included.

As a fan I want 82. As a fan of the record books, I want 82.

THE MTL
10-28-2011, 01:16 AM
Heres an interesting discussion bout the subjetct.

http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/32294/why-is-there-an-82-game-schedule

Some advocating for 44 others for 76.

Ill say i THINK 58 is the perfect number

THose 58 games during the same time span November-April that the current 82 are played.

Why 58?

That is 1 home and one away game against Each team in the league.

This also means that the records of each team will be realisitic regardless of how balanced or unbalanced the Conferences or divisions are.

( well imo in terms of playoffs and lottery all the conference thing should be scrapped but thats not the issue being discussed now.)


58 games means several weeks with just two games for a team and only a couple with three games,

this means.

less games may make more affordable for fans to go to the games only 29 times in the season instead of 41.

Also fans that also like nhl or nfl may be able to attend the games since there are less games, less money to be spent less time to be spent.

both things may raise the incomes from tickets by filling the arenas instead of playing more games in half deserted ones.

The show woudl also be benefited as in :

Less game means every game is worht more and more important wich makes loses matter more and wins matter more, so more exciting games.

more time to COACH/TRAIN team abilitys and tactics and players skiks wich means , quicker adaptation of rookies ( with no rookie wall), better and more fluid team play instead of so much isolation.

Injurys less likely, allowing the stars to be on the court for more minutes and giving a better show.

The only thing that woudl suffer would be of coruse the book records, yep with so little game maybe player x does not become the top scorer ever, or the top rebounder ever, or whatever.

But you know? this is a TEAM game and Stats SUCK SALTY balls.

I want 58 good games better than 82 boring ones.

I want all the playoff teams with their full stranght roster with RESTED plaeyrs instead of worn out players and injured stars distorting playoff resulsts.

Soż? what do you think? How many?


Less games means that teams need to make more money with less available games. Thus ticket prices AUTOMATICALLY increase. Iono where u got the affordability concept from?

Less games, means less revenue and then we are in another lockout disaster. Less money will be made in total. Players, owners, teams, stadiums, concession workers.

Btw, I dont see how having 58 games makes things more exciting than 82? Games are exciting due to the level of talent not the amount played. I remember watching a Nets-Phoenix classic in November.

And...yes basketball is a team game. But stats are fun! Thats one thing that sets basketball apart from the other major sports is the STATs and coming from a fantasy basketball player, I love stats lol.

Also, ur rookie wall concept has nothing to do with tactics, skills, etc. Rookies hit the wall cause of experience or should I say lack thereof. That comes with years of playing basketball. It is something that cannnot be easily fixed with some skill training.

Anyway, a real fan would want to watch as much basketball as possible. With my Knicks on the rise, I wanna see Stat and Melo crap over everyone the whole entire year lol.

Twista
10-28-2011, 02:05 AM
76 is a good number

Sadds The Gr8
10-28-2011, 02:08 AM
70

beasted86
10-28-2011, 02:31 AM
can you name me a league other than MLB that has more than 58 games IN TOTAL? You're saying 58 + PLAYOFFS is way too short? Please tell us with what leagues did you compare that figure

NHL?

Surprised at you.

5ass
10-28-2011, 02:58 AM
i say 69 is a good number.. not too many games missing and not too many games played on a shortened period.. 69 just works for everybody LOL

thenetslegend
10-28-2011, 03:00 AM
i say 69 is a good number.. not too many games missing and not too many games played on a shortened period.. 69 just works for everybody LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz-9WeHDPV4

jay87shot
10-28-2011, 04:34 AM
The season is almost 2 months to long, basketball should be done no later than April at the worst case. I voted for 58 that's seems about right. After watching March Madness the NBA looks like a bunch of clowns pretending like they are important.

NYKNYGNYY
10-28-2011, 04:52 AM
can you name me a league other than MLB that has more than 58 games IN TOTAL? You're saying 58 + PLAYOFFS is way too short? Please tell us with what leagues did you compare that figure

terrible argument, nhl is the same 82(pretty sure dont really watch it) and football is once a week 16 because it is so physical

010957
10-28-2011, 06:27 AM
I'm not sure whether or not 82 games is too much for the players, but for the fans no way. Unless people are getting bored around the last few games, then I don't think the amount of games should be reduced.

barreleffact
10-28-2011, 12:18 PM
58 is perfect (and I have thought that for a few years now):
1- More people will go to or watch the games- People can save up for games they choose more easily because they will be spaced out. Plus, they will know only 29 games will be played in their city instead of 41.

2- Less rusty games. Fewer or no back to backs means the players have time to plan, practice, rest, etc. No more team X will have an easy win because team Y is still exhausted from a double overtime game last night.

3- Each conference will be able to be evenly compared, and parity will peak. Each team will have the same SoS at the end of the season. There will be no advantage for being the best team in the worst division and beating the other teams in a division or conference multiple times. Conference records could be compared head to head. The old "Team x would not have even made the playoff in the west" would no longer be viable.

4-Players would have potential for longer careers. Less wear and tear and chances for injuries would increase the prime of most players. Yes, they would lose statistical totals like trying to beat Kareem's scoring total, but those stats are irrelevant. We have better statistics per game, per minute, pace adjusted, etc than ever before to more accurately rank players.

5- More competitive games. Not only will the fans realize the importance of each game, but the players will too. They will know that they can no longer feel as lackadaisical just because this game is meaningless. They will have to perform against the Cavs with the same intensity as the Heat. With the current 82 games, the playoffs are largely decided at the mid mark. The only ones that fight down to the wire are teams that will not advance past the first round anyway. There is the occasional battle for top seed placement like this year with Chi and the Spurs, but usually the top team is already cemented by at least a few games.

IMO the NBA would not only be business smart, but would be benefiting themselves, true fans (thanks to competition), and the players by decreasing the amount of games.

Edit: Can anyone imagine how strong defenses would become thanks to having more rest? The entire game could become more appealing.

Hellcrooner
10-28-2011, 12:25 PM
58 is perfect (and I have thought that for a few years now):
1- More people will go to or watch the games- People can save up for games they choose more easily because they will be spaced out. Plus, they will know only 29 games will be played in their city instead of 41.

2- Less rusty games. Fewer or no back to backs means the players have time to plan, practice, rest, etc. No more team X will have an easy win because team Y is still exhausted from a double overtime game last night.

3- Each conference will be able to be evenly compared, and parity will peak. Each team will have the same SoS at the end of the season. There will be no advantage for being the best team in the worst division and beating the other teams in a division or conference multiple times. Conference records could be compared head to head. The old "Team x would not have even made the playoff in the west" would no longer be viable.

4-Players would have potential for longer careers. Less wear and tear and chances for injuries would increase the prime of most players. Yes, they would lose statistical totals like trying to beat Kareem's scoring total, but those stats are irrelevant. We have better statistics per game, per minute, pace adjusted, etc than ever before to more accurately rank players.

5- More competitive games. Not only will the fans realize the importance of each game, but the players will too. They will know that they can no longer feel as lackadaisical just because this game is meaningless. They will have to perform against the Cavs with the same intensity as the Heat. With the current 82 games, the playoffs are largely decided at the mid mark. The only ones that fight down to the wire are teams that will not advance past the first round anyway. There is the occasional battle for top seed placement like this year with Chi and the Spurs, but usually the top team is already cemented by at least a few games.

IMO the NBA would not only be business smart, but would be benefiting themselves, true fans (thanks to competition), and the players by decreasing the amount of games.

Edit: Can anyone imagine how strong defenses would become thanks to having more rest? The entire game could become more appealing.

well this would need another change to be implemented too, not only the 2 games vs every team thing, because if it still is divided in two conferences you can still qualify with less wins if your conference is weaker.

To make sure that " you wouldnt hav emade it in x conference" does nto happen again league should make it so the top 16 teams make playoffs REGARDLESS of COnference 1 vs 16 2 vs 15 3 vs 14 etc

this way also PARITY, the so much spoken this days PARITY woudl be granted because good teams would not receive lottery picks as opposed when one conference is stronger and that 9th of 10th from that stronger conference gets say the third pick when in reality they were a better team than all the lottery teams and half the playoff teams from the other conference.

uprightciti
10-28-2011, 12:47 PM
76 would be much better for the players and the league