PDA

View Full Version : Shortened Season?



Vikes_Fan04
09-24-2012, 08:50 PM
George Karl wants a shortened season that the NBA would never, ever go back to
By Kelly Dwyer | Ball Don't Lie 8 hours ago

Fifteen NBA head coaches spoke at length with NBA.com's Steve Aschburner recently, and that's a significant amount to pull in during the slowest point in the offseason. Fifteen coaches, on record, without the benefit of a hectic NBA schedule bringing a new team (and new coach) into a writer's NBA arena of choice every couple of days. That sort of benefit, apparently, is the only one we can see being created by the NBA's hectic schedule. Save for making more and more money, it seems, for everyone involved from the top of the skyboxes to the helpers in the parking garage, and all those cagers in between.

This is why George Karl's ideas for a better NBA, in the most popular pull from Aschburner's work so far, will never happen. Unless, of course, the NBA decided to lockout its players in a pointless maneuver created to save certain owners from themselves a few months before the next offseason hits and the owners initiate a series of moves bent to circumvent the "help me, we're broke" rules the NBA put into place. George Karl doesn't exactly want a lockout-styled season, he told NBA.com, but he wouldn't mind a shortened term. From Aschburner's piece:

"I'm sure Commissioner Stern won't like this, but I think the product would be better if we shortened the season. When we start playing in late October, the people are thinking football. If you could just get us less fatigue [in a shorter season], I think you'd have a better product. When they started on Christmas Day, I thought, 'This is not a bad idea. This should be the start of NBA basketball ... Maybe start Dec. 1 and play 62 games, whatever number they'd come to."

Commissioner David Stern doesn't like anyone saying anything short of documenting ascending ratings and the latest NBA Cares project his players just took part in. He's certainly not going to like a famous NBA coach more or less writing off the first two months of the NBA's season (including training camp and exhibition time) as football's foothold, but that's what Karl just did.

George isn't wrong, but to be clear the whole of the North American sporting calendar is on Football Time; from the NFL Draft nearly overshadowing the NBA and NHL playoffs, to the latest Jet or Cowboy drama leading the nightly news shows as opposed to detailing actual significant transactions at MLB's trade deadline. Start the games on Christmas again, if you want; even with LeBron and Kobe about to tip off at peak ratings hours, most families are still discussing the Bears' chances that year or next, and if they'd even want to set a place at the grown-up table for Jay Cutler.

What's more interesting is the idea of fatigue, and an NBA coach's role in all of this. Karl went out of his way to point out in his talk with Aschburner that he was as frustrated with the lockout-shortened season as any coach; in spite of his ability to move on the fly, as learned in his time with fly-by-night outfits in the old CBA and overseas.

There is barely enough time to practice and prep once the season gets going, and that's barely getting into the fatigue and frustration that goes hand in hand with an 82-game season stretched from Halloween to late April. No amount of five-star accommodations, million dollar medical staff, and 7:30 tip-offs can make up for the fact that these cats get tired. And though the novelty of a Christmas tip-off was engaging last year, assuming you could forget what led up to that novelty, shoehorning 66 games into that space created some terrible basketball.

The frustrations stems from the fact that coaches rarely have any time to implement anything of substance in midseason practices, once they have to release the hounds following training camp in October. Not even after or during the All-Star break, as the NBA hustles to set up a slate of games numbering in the double-digits on the first night following the lone travel day.

By the time Dec. 1st sparks up in 2012, the Nuggets will have already finished 17 of their 82 games, with a truncated trip along the eastern seaboard already taken care of. That's at about the pace, if maybe slightly ahead, that most teams are working at. Just piling up those games and minutes away from the limelight while the overall sporting public watches football on just about every day of the week (between high school, the pros, and NFL and NCAA teams dropping matchups on Thursday and Fridays more and more often as it moves into winter). Those same fans will get giddy during those first few Laker games, and tune into see if Miami can keep holding Boston off on opening night, but by and large the eyes will be elsewhere especially once the NBA's free League Pass preview clicks off.

The difference between Karl's stab at 62 games, "whatever number they come to," and the 65 his team actually has to play between Dec. 1st and the end of the season might not seem significant, but George would be the first to tell you that three extra nights without a game would mean the world to his team, even if it is only spaced out over 19 weeks. A proper practice and good bit of rest are as highly coveted as a 7-footer that can walk and chew gum at the same time, and given his druthers we're sure Karl would lower that "62" or "65" if he could; even if it meant more overall work for George and his coaching staff.

Of course, that would just about eliminate any insistence on intra-conference and division play, as each team would be charged with meeting every other team once or twice, with the four-game pairings with Denver's divisional mates limited to the same amount of times the Nuggets take on the Orlando Magic or Philadelphia 76ers.

That's the tiny problem, in the NBA's eyes. The bigger issue is 20 (or more) nights of revenue to go bye-bye, "merely" for the sake of increased rest and a better product for the 55 or 60 times these players actually do suit up.

The NBA doesn't mind it when NBA players, out of absolute necessity, pace themselves over the course of a nearly seven month season (not including the playoffs, which more than half the league's teams participate in), and live up to the stereotype created by the ham-brained fair-weather fan the NBA is continuing to try to court with counterintuitive Stern-styled zeal. Just as long as they hit 82.

(Unless there's an NBA-created lockout, 'natch.)

Just as long as those 10-game ticket plans give you the chance to see not only Kobe but also Hedo Turkoglu and Tyrus Thomas, or Karl's gang of Nuggets that nobody in the opposing audience can name despite the fact that they just beat the home team by 20. The rafters may not be packed, but people turn out for Cavalier and Rocket games too, because those tickets are sold. As are the airings on the hard-to-find local cable sports affiliates. As are the ads featuring that shiny Lexus wrapped in a big red bow. The December to Remember Sales Event is only a few months away, friends.

The financial stake is too great to write off in favor of the increase in efficiency and improved product. Not when those tickets are already sold, and those arenas booked. Even in the heart of a football season that only seems to hibernate in May. Unless Tim Tebow takes his shirt off, again.

Whatever Karl's impetus being it the futility of going up against football, or the improved play that comes from more rest and more time spent practicing it's a noble cause. One that NBA wouldn't ever dream of considering, or even commenting on.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/george-karl-wants-shortened-season-nba-never-ever-161247242--nba.html

Thoughts?

I actually liked that the NBA season started on Christmas Day.

SugeKnight
09-24-2012, 08:53 PM
I'm too greedy. I want there to be games year-round

Raps08-09 Champ
09-24-2012, 08:59 PM
Nah. Play 82 games. But maybe stretch it out to a longer time frame.

KB-Pau-DH2012
09-24-2012, 08:59 PM
That's fine, start it on Christmas, but still have 82 games and let the season go deep into late August or early September. No 66-game crap with back-to-back-to-backs in the regular season and back-to-backs in the postseason. :mad:

StarvingKnick22
09-24-2012, 09:03 PM
As long as its 82 games and the season starts earlier than it ends. Anything less is unacceptable.

NYKnicksAllDay
09-24-2012, 09:26 PM
That's fine, start it on Christmas, but still have 82 games and let the season go deep into late August or early September. No 66-game crap with back-to-back-to-backs in the regular season and back-to-backs in the postseason. :mad:

That would never happen. No way the players give up their summer.

--23--
09-24-2012, 10:22 PM
I'm a NBA junkie so I don't want anything less than 82 games

douglas
09-25-2012, 12:25 AM
I don't want a shortened season because I like to watch NBA basketball.

kobe4thewinbang
09-25-2012, 12:31 AM
I don't think any of the players are complaining about 82 games. It worked just fine before. That's how you tell who the real #1 team is in each conference and it gives more time for the lower ranking teams to outmatch each other for the bottom rungs.

PleaseBeNice
09-25-2012, 12:35 AM
The length of the season is fine the way it is. Karl just wants to be paid to sit around more

WaltonSystem
09-25-2012, 12:55 AM
I could go for a shortened season with more games televised, which i believe would be the case. How many people actually watch all 82 games or have the capability to do so?

Hopefully that would mean a higher level of play, seeing as each game is more valuable.Also less injuries if they start the season at the same point with longer breaks for teams in between games.

naps
09-25-2012, 01:17 AM
NO thanks. Keep it as it is. The period from June to October is already tough enough to deal with since there's no basketball.

IndyRealist
09-25-2012, 01:55 AM
I don't think any of the players are complaining about 82 games. It worked just fine before. That's how you tell who the real #1 team is in each conference and it gives more time for the lower ranking teams to outmatch each other for the bottom rungs.

There's a lot of grind/wear-and-tear on NBA players. Shorter seasons would mean longer careers. And while it wouldn't matter much to teams that always sell out, smaller markets would benefit from less games/week, since the fans that would go to games that week will likely just pick a different game to go to, thus lowering costs.

I think 72 games is the magic number. A home and away vs. each team in the opposing conference, and 3 games vs each team in your conference (alternating who gets the extra home game from year to year in each matchup). An added benefit is that there will be NO tiebreakers except head to head matchup, until the Finals.

If that's still too many, you could go with home and away vs. every team in both conferences except for your division, which you would play either 3 times (62 games) or 4 times (66 games). Division rivalries would mean a lot more then, but some extremely weak divisons would pad the standings.

Lakers4life08
09-25-2012, 02:21 AM
and offcourse,he wants same money for shorter season,like he is getting now......

Manimal
09-25-2012, 05:13 AM
Start at the same time. Reduce the number of games to 58. Each team plays home and away against the other teams. No ******** weak schedules, weak conferences and weak divisions. More rest equals better quality of basketball. Longer careers. Less injuries.

Dr Seuss
09-25-2012, 10:50 AM
A shortened season would be a bummer,
Its rough enough to wait the summer,
If Id have to wait til Christmas hits
Id must admit my wrists Id slit

da ThRONe
09-25-2012, 05:03 PM
I'm a quality over quantity person. Life doesn't allow me to watch a certain percent of the season anyways. I won't miss 20 games especially versus what I'll get in return. Guys giving it their alls every game. Each game meaning much much more.

da ThRONe
09-25-2012, 05:25 PM
Start at the same time. Reduce the number of games to 58. Each team plays home and away against the other teams. No ******** weak schedules, weak conferences and weak divisions. More rest equals better quality of basketball. Longer careers. Less injuries.

Yes I wouldn't say start at the same time. I think the end of the December would be better for the league finacially.

This would be better for them. The NCAA makes more tv reveune for March Madness than the NBA regular season makes in tv revenue.

Burgo
09-25-2012, 05:30 PM
Why change things when the product is so great? Leave the game alone.

Procision
09-25-2012, 05:31 PM
Back2Back2Backs and 5 in 6 nights are way too hard on players.

pinhead
09-25-2012, 08:52 PM
I have always thought that 82 games was a bit much until I noticed the MLB season.

NoahH
09-25-2012, 10:05 PM
NO! I need more basketball

Victimize
09-25-2012, 10:11 PM
82 games is fine.

gwrighter
09-25-2012, 10:58 PM
Hell no, I'd rather the same games spread over a longer period of time so the players can rest more and perform harder every outing. Last year was garbage.

ldawg
09-25-2012, 11:18 PM
i am pulling my hair already. I am not a football fan and HBO/showtime/Skinamax show the same old *** boring movies over and over again. I dont know why those channels cost so much they are a waste of money.

seikou8
09-25-2012, 11:35 PM
i like 82 games better more basketball my favorite sport

Bramaca
09-26-2012, 12:38 AM
I would love to see the league go with shorter season. 56-62 games would be about right but would prefer to see it start about the same time giving a little more rest between games. Also prefer if they dropped down to 8 teams making the playoffs, the 9-16 teams have no chance of winning a title anyways there is no need for them to be there.

In the long run I think it could result in not only better and more meaningful basketball throughout the whole season but also better tv ratings which is where the reall money is as compared to an extra 10 home games per season.

NYYCowboys
09-26-2012, 04:01 AM
I don't want a shortened season because I like to watch NBA basketball.

This.

YoungOne
09-26-2012, 04:32 AM
hell no, dont want to wait half a year...

JayW_1023
09-26-2012, 07:11 AM
I'm all for a shortened season. More rest for the players, less risk for injuries and more competition earlier on.

Badluck33
09-26-2012, 07:46 AM
I'm from Chicago and something about falling leaves, sweat pants and hoodie while drinking a Sam Adams sure does remind me of opening tip off.

I dont want to give that up. Plus its right when MLB is finishing up so it works out perfect to me IMO.

thenaj17
09-26-2012, 07:46 AM
66 to 72 sound like good numbers to me over the same time span so we don't have to wait as long in between. More matchups would mean more for the standings with less injuries to stars, better product.

da ThRONe
09-26-2012, 11:22 AM
I would shorten the playoffs as well. Make it best of 5 the whole way through.