PDA

View Full Version : Can The NBA Do A Better Job Balancing NBA schedules Out?



Clippersfan86
01-29-2015, 01:56 AM
Clippers stay getting screwed over by the NBA every year when it comes to scheduling. Easier schedule early on, with tons of excessive rest. Followed by insanely brutal scheduling last 2+ months of the season. It makes me think not just of my own team, but in general could the league stand to balance this out more? I notice certain teams annually seem to get more favorable scheduling than others.


Here's the source for my example.

http://www.clipsnation.com/2015/1/28/7930795/los-angeles-clippers-nba-season-most-challenging



"Post-ASB the Clippers only play three sub-.500 teams, but of course one of them is Sacramento (a team that's always relished playing the Clips), and the other two, while both Minnesota, also both come on SEGABABAs, pushing a war-weary squad by dint of uptempo play and the boundless spirit and athleticism only found in youth (to be fair, this won't negate the fact that they're possibly the worst team in the league this year).

But the rest of the matchups offer no cupcakes either, no middling teams to cruise against. Again, apart from Oklahoma City (who should be rounding into form by then), every team on the docket is .600+ and a power player to be reckoned with. And apart from a sorely needed three-day break before driving up Highway 1 to the Bay, the Clippers will face another December-esque stretch where they won't get more than a single day of rest between games (which might be important as it comes during buyout season, so any new acquisitions by the team during this team won't have a chance to practice and familiarize themselves).

Even accounting for Minnesota (twice!), the Clippers' SOS over this span is still an astounding .580 (338-245), and if you exclude the Wolves it's a jaw-dropping .655. Overall, from now until March 15th, opposing teams have an average winning percentage of .571 (about a 26-19 record)."



PS. Lakers play in same building and don't have any road trips longer than 5 games and they don't play anywhere near as many B2B's or 4 in 5's. This seems to be the norm.

lakerfan85
01-29-2015, 02:33 AM
I think the NBA is out to get the Clippers..

tredigs
01-29-2015, 03:09 AM
You should double check your sources at "ClipsNation", because a 15 second glance at their post ASB schedule shows the "post All Star Break the Clips only play 3 games against teams under .500!" line to be completely false.

Post All Star Break 4 of their last 8 games of the season alone are against teams with a sub .500 record. Denver 2x (currently 19-27 record) and the Lakers 2x (currently 12-34 record). The Lakers game may be tough as it is a road back to back... to your own stadium.

In the week leading up to that final week? Three of their games are against Boston, Philly and the Knicks... Anddd I'm done looking at their schedule.

albertajaysfan
01-29-2015, 05:44 AM
You should double check your sources at "ClipsNation", because a 15 second glance at their post ASB schedule shows the "post All Star Break the Clips only play 3 games against teams under .500!" line to be completely false.

Post All Star Break 4 of their last 8 games of the season alone are against teams with a sub .500 record. Denver 2x (currently 19-27 record) and the Lakers 2x (currently 12-34 record). The Lakers game may be tough as it is a road back to back... to your own stadium.

In the week leading up to that final week? Three of their games are against Boston, Philly and the Knicks... Anddd I'm done looking at their schedule.

While I agree with your point about the whoa is me tone of the OP. I do think the NBA should do a better job of balancing out the schedule in terms of back to back and 4 games in 5 nights. I think those should be avoided as much as possible.

Goose17
01-29-2015, 07:43 AM
They need to keep the season the same length (in terms of weeks/months) but shorten the amount of games in the season. 82 is just ludicrous when really the regular season isn't that important.

tredigs
01-29-2015, 08:03 AM
While I agree with your point about the whoa is me tone of the OP. I do think the NBA should do a better job of balancing out the schedule in terms of back to back and 4 games in 5 nights. I think those should be avoided as much as possible.

It wasn't the "woe is me" so much as the fact that it is a lie.

FlashBolt
01-29-2015, 09:04 AM
They need to keep the season the same length (in terms of weeks/months) but shorten the amount of games in the season. 82 is just ludicrous when really the regular season isn't that important.

I completely agree but there is zero incentive for them to do that. You know how much revenue NBA would lose if that happened? Not to mention the millions of lawsuits they would have.

Goose17
01-29-2015, 11:01 AM
I completely agree but there is zero incentive for them to do that. You know how much revenue NBA would lose if that happened? Not to mention the millions of lawsuits they would have.

I agree about the money. Why would they have so many lawsuits though?

Personally I think there's a lot of factors playing into this right now and within the next 5 years I predict some big changes; Shortened seasons, sponsors on jerseys to balance the losses made from shortened seasons and changes to the playoff format, top 4 in each conference advance. Final 8 comes down to record.

Just my opinion. I don't like all of it but I can see it happening.

Clippersfan86
01-29-2015, 11:32 AM
Tre thanks for pointing out the fallacy. I missed that one and got lazy fact checking. As Albert mentioned I just think in general some of these schedules are insane. For a long while I've been all for cutting down on the number of games. 4 games in 5 nights and B2B's should be eliminated all together. I think it would benefit the fans too because we'd likely see teams at their best more often. Obviously less injuries and more energetic playoffs as well most likely.

mightybosstone
01-29-2015, 11:45 AM
Every fan base in the league could have a gripe about their schedules, particularly in the Western Conference. It's impossible to please 30 fan bases with scheduling.

Bramaca
01-29-2015, 12:57 PM
They need to keep the season the same length (in terms of weeks/months) but shorten the amount of games in the season. 82 is just ludicrous when really the regular season isn't that important.

Been wanting them to shorten the season for a long time. We are currently about 45-50 games into the season and like every other year you can see interest dropping off. For the most part the playoffs are already set outside of a couple battles for 8th in each conference. The last 20-30 games of the season are completely useless IMO and seriously lack entertainment value.

Having the season at 56-62 games would help out the quality of ball in so many ways IMO. Also think that despite less games to produce revenue it could help in the long run. Might see tv ratings go up.

Clippersfan86
01-29-2015, 01:21 PM
Every fan base in the league could have a gripe about their schedules, particularly in the Western Conference. It's impossible to please 30 fan bases with scheduling.

In general western teams have it worse, but the Clippers have it particularly bad with the Staples Center hosting all of the award shows, Grammy's etc. It seems like every year recently they set some kind of record, such as longest road trip in NBA history two years ago, most miles traveled over a road trip, less rest in between sets of 4 in 5's etc. So while you're right, everyone cannot be pleased, some have it far worse than others.

If you're going to push a team through this, at least give them some easier opponents mixed in. I suppose the real alternative would be for the Clippers to build their own arena, but I know that won't happen unfortunately.

JustinTime
01-29-2015, 02:16 PM
NBA should expand or contract 1 team, get rid of conferences and divisions and than switch to a 90 game schedule where each team plays each other 3 times in series format. This would be way better for travel and more fun for fans.

Sanjay
01-29-2015, 06:56 PM
NBA should expand or contract 1 team, get rid of conferences and divisions and than switch to a 90 game schedule where each team plays each other 3 times in series format. This would be way better for travel and more fun for fans.

90 games playing as much across the other side of the country as your own!? There are already so many injuries and fatigued performances on back-to-backs/four games in five nights with 82 games and divisions/conferences. Or do you propose a longer regular season to account for the extra games? Playing everybody three times would be fairer, but the logistics would be extremely tough. Out of curiosity, which team would you cut and/or what city would you give a new team?

Federal Reserve
01-29-2015, 07:03 PM
How could the NBA know what the record of an NBA team will be before the season starts?

IndyRealist
01-29-2015, 11:31 PM
Every fan base in the league could have a gripe about their schedules, particularly in the Western Conference. It's impossible to please 30 fan bases with scheduling.

Well, I think the Pacers only have like 3 more games against West teams, so here comes the playoff push! :clap:

Though two years ago, the Pacers were the only team with a back-to-back-to-back. I think it was because a game @Chicago was rescheduled due to snow.

JasonJohnHorn
01-30-2015, 09:34 AM
It's hard with the concert scheduling and other sports teams... and LAL is especially hard since Staples shares the place with the Lakers and is a major venue in one of the country's biggest cities...

The other thing is, you don't know who is going to be over and under .500 when the season starts. OKC and CHA may have looked like contending teams early given how well they each did last year, but both were awful to start the season, so teams that had to play them early instead of later lucked out. Likewise, teams sometimes take a dive in the second half of the season, like Indy did last year. So one team might match up with other teams while they are not playing well, and another team might face the same teams when they are play well. No way to tell.

The only think you can really hope for is consistent spacing of games. The rest is guess work.

JustinTime
01-30-2015, 05:03 PM
90 games playing as much across the other side of the country as your own!? There are already so many injuries and fatigued performances on back-to-backs/four games in five nights with 82 games and divisions/conferences. Or do you propose a longer regular season to account for the extra games? Playing everybody three times would be fairer, but the logistics would be extremely tough. Out of curiosity, which team would you cut and/or what city would you give a new team?

Travel would be a lot easier because you would basically play 3 games over 5 or 6 days and stay in the same city for a week at a time. If I were to do a 90 game schedule I'd bring back Vancouver and Seattle to make the travel better for western teams and I'd probably relocate Minnesota to Vancouver and expand to Seattle. If I were to go with the 87 game schedule I'd just probably contract the Wolves because of their location and because they have the worst attendance combined with the cheapest tickets in the league.

beasted86
01-30-2015, 05:41 PM
So, essentially what you're asking is can the NBA pretend they are psychic and make a schedule based on more guesses of who they think will be good or bad for the betterment of your team?

Unrealistic. The NBA has some general idea who is going to be the better teams and the worse teams, but still anything can happen to change that. Them playing "Ms. Cleo" is exactly what has us watching a Rose-less Bulls multiple times over the past 2 years on national broadcast, or Kobe-less Lakers or the current Knicks or a number of other similar situations that leave you thinking "why did they pick this crap?".

I'd rather less of that than more of that guesswork. Schedules should be setup in a way that doesn't abuse travel of the team...Ex: having a back to back where say the HEAT play in Portland then fly to Miami at 3 am for a game the same night. Those are the types of things they need to focus on, just being smart in that way. And probably less games would make things better for everyone except the owners and arena staff/surrounding businesses. Players would have less wear, and more urgency in regular season games.

Clippersfan86
01-30-2015, 06:17 PM
So, essentially what you're asking is can the NBA pretend they are psychic and make a schedule based on more guesses of who they think will be good or bad for the betterment of your team?

Unrealistic. The NBA has some general idea who is going to be the better teams and the worse teams, but still anything can happen to change that. Them playing "Ms. Cleo" is exactly what has us watching a Rose-less Bulls multiple times over the past 2 years on national broadcast, or Kobe-less Lakers or the current Knicks or a number of other similar situations that leave you thinking "why did they pick this crap?".

I'd rather less of that than more of that guesswork. Schedules should be setup in a way that doesn't abuse travel of the team...Ex: having a back to back where say the HEAT play in Portland then fly to Miami at 3 am for a game the same night. Those are the types of things they need to focus on, just being smart in that way. And probably less games would make things better for everyone except the owners and arena staff/surrounding businesses. Players would have less wear, and more urgency in regular season games.

It's really not fully guess work as you and a couple others are exaggerating it to be. Base it on how tough the teams were last year. Will still be a hell of a lot more balanced/fair than how they do it now. It's extremely rare that you have a Knicks type situation where you go from 50+ wins to lottery the next year. Most good teams have a few year window of at least being competitive. It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be. Sure some of it may be wrong with surprise teams (good and bad) but it should be better than it is and more prediction based than this random ****.