|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ArminNBA
Star Player
Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 2173
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:19 pm Post subject: Malaise Has Overrun the NBA’s Regular Season; Here’s How to Fix It |
|
|
Here's a snippet of a piece I wrote on how to fix the NBA's regular season:
| Quote: | Put simply: the NBA’s regular season has a stakes, intensity, and interest problem. These problems aren’t new. In 2019, Ben Golliver wrote an article for The Washington Post entitled, “The NBA isn’t surprised its TV ratings are way down. Radical change already was afoot.” The NBA desperately needs to address its critical shortcomings if it wants to blunt the festering apathy and generate real, heart-pounding excitement.
I believe I have a set of solutions that will add stakes, spur intensity, and generate significant interest in the NBA’s regular season. I’m going to provide a light outline of the solutions, and before you close your tab and dismiss them outright, I suggest you read the rationale for the proposed changes and why they will work to fix the NBA’s woes.
1. Expansion: The league must expand to 32 teams.
2. New Divisional Alignment: 4 divisions, each comprised of 4 teams, in each conference.
3. New Schedule Format: Teams will face their division opponents 5x each throughout the season (15 total games), their non-division conference opponents 3x (36 total games), and their non-conference opponents 1x (16 total games). In a 32-team league, this creates a 67-game schedule.
4. New Playoff Seeding Rules and Play-In Tournament: Division winners are automatically in the playoffs and guaranteed one of the top four seeds (their record will then determine seeding within the top four). The New Play-In Tournament will include six non-division-winning teams (based on record):
— The 5th overall seed will play the 10th overall seed and the 6th overall seed will play the 9th overall seed.
— The 5th and 6th seeds are automatically in the playoffs if they win Game 1. However, if the 5th and/or 6th seeds lose Game 1, a best-of-three game series is automatically triggered and the result of Game 1 would count towards the series score (leaving the 5th and/or 6th seed in a 0-1 series hole with Game 2 on the road and a potential deciding Game 3 at home). Games 1 and 3 will be home games for the 5th/6th seeds, while Game 2 will be played on the home court of the 9th/10th seed if the 3-game series commences.
— The 7th overall seed will automatically play the 8th seed in a best-of-three series. The 7th seed will have Games 1 and 3 at home, while the 8th seed will host Game 2.
— The three series will result in three winners. Who gets the 8th seed, you ask? I have two solutions and I’m not married to either. The NBA can go the NFL route and provide a Bye Round to the 1st overall seed in each conference. The alternative is that the 8th seed is determined by differential score (think the group stage in the FIFA World Cup).
— Once the tournament winners and the differential scoring winner are determined, the final 5th-8th order will be determined based on the teams’ regular season record. |
Full Article: https://arminyourfeed.substack.com/p/how-to-fix-the-nba-regular-reason
I'm very curious to get your thoughts, LG! Please read the entire piece for a full explanation if these proposals aren't quite resonating with you. I totally get that they are quite radical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
venturalakersfan
Retired Number
Joined: 14 Apr 2001
Posts: 144474
Location: The Gold Coast
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only negative that jumps out is eliminating the home and home series between East and West. Let’s say that you are a Knicks fan, you only get to see Lebron once every two years. I have no issue with shortening the season but start it in mid-December instead of October. That way you avoid conflict with the NFL.
The NBA has a ratings solution and that is China, I read that there were more Chinese fans than US/Canada fans. Eventually all games will likely be on a streaming service or two, with the networks getting the scraps.
_________________
RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. Quit focusing on TV ratings. This is 2023. TV ratings are relevant, but they are no longer a barometer for popularity. It may be hard for some people to wrap their heads around this. This is understandable. But the NBA is as popular right now as it has ever been, the revenues are gushing, and the league is shooting for a $75B media rights deal. There is no festering apathy.
2. I would like to see the divisions go away. They haven't been meaningful for 40 years or so. I see what you're trying to do by cutting the divisions to four teams and increasing the number of head-to-head contests, and I can see how that might make divisional rivalries more significant. I don't think it would have much of an effect, though, because most NBA fans don't think that way. You also get the spectacle of giving a top 4 seed to a team with a losing record. This will happen, and it will not be rare.
3. Cutting the season to 67 games is a non-starter. In your format, we'd play home and home with teams in the other conference, resulting in an 83 game season. We'd cut a game somewhere (maybe one of the conference teams that is not in your division) and get to 82.
4. Expanding the play-in tournament is not something that anyone is asking for. A play-in tournament with a weird format is definitely not something that anyone is asking for. In this case, a 10 seed could make the playoffs while a 5 seed doesn't. This would actually happen, and it wouldn't be rare. This cheapens the regular season. You could have a 55 win team get upset by a 35 win team in a three-game playoff and go home. (In this case, the 55 win team would play in a division where another team wins 56 games.) There's a reason why the NBA got rid of short playoff series. You can say that this would be exciting, but it would get a hard thumbs down from most fans.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArminNBA
Star Player
Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 2173
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | 1. Quit focusing on TV ratings. This is 2023. TV ratings are relevant, but they are no longer a barometer for popularity. It may be hard for some people to wrap their heads around this. This is understandable. But the NBA is as popular right now as it has ever been, the revenues are gushing, and the league is shooting for a $75B media rights deal. There is no festering apathy. |
I'm not singularly focusing on TV ratings, and it's not hard to wrap one's head around assessing the collective data for reach and engagement — social, streaming, highlight videos, etc. However, as stated in the piece, fan sentiment is down on the quality of the product in the regular season. As someone who listens to numerous NBA podcasts on a daily basis, it is sadly a fact that "the most talked about feature of the NBA is its ever-growing malaise — and yes, unfortunately, the malaise is discussed even more than the product on the floor." On Sunday's Bill Simmons podcast, Simmons, House, and Jacoby spent a good 10 minutes lamenting the state of the NBA and how regular season games have become meaningless. This is the most popular sports podcast in the world. Simmons, who has long advocated for only reducing the regular season to 75 games, said in this podcast that he's now supporting a 60-game season because the product on the floor is so poor and a shorter season would mean that the "regular season games are just more important where you have to play because you have a much smaller sample size.” Silver has also acknowledged the growing regular season apathy and stated that shortening the season would create more meaning to each game (the NBA's proposal is 78 regular season games).
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | 2. I would like to see the divisions go away. They haven't been meaningful for 40 years or so. I see what you're trying to do by cutting the divisions to four teams and increasing the number of head-to-head contests, and I can see how that might make divisional rivalries more significant. I don't think it would have much of an effect, though, because most NBA fans don't think that way. You also get the spectacle of giving a top 4 seed to a team with a losing record. This will happen, and it will not be rare. |
This is wrong. For example, as it stands today, 5 of the 6 division leaders are the absolute top seeds (Bucks - #1, Celtics - #2, Nuggets - #1, Grizzlies - #2, Kings - #3). The only division leader outside the Top 4 is the 33-30 Miami Heat who are in 7th place and poised to take over 6th. In any case, you mention a "losing record." I went all the way back to the 2009-2010 season and I couldn't find one single division winner with a losing record.
And yes, while an NBA division winner could theoretically pull a 2022 Tampa Bay Bucs, the motivation of this proposal is to generate tons of excitement and engagement, as explained in the piece. This is why the proposal is so heavily influenced by the NFL and how that league does such an excellent job of drumming up interest and building intradivision rivalries.
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | 3. Cutting the season to 67 games is a non-starter. In your format, we'd play home and home with teams in the other conference, resulting in an 83 game season. We'd cut a game somewhere (maybe one of the conference teams that is not in your division) and get to 82. |
I don't know where you're getting 83 games from. The schedule format is explained in the piece. 67 games is not a non-starter. The league is already having active discussions on shortening the season. Again, the purpose behind the 1/3/5 schedule format is to more heavily weight intraconference and intradivision play. If the NBA wants to adopt Morey's plan (home/away against every team, so a 58-game schedule with a 30-team league or a 62-game schedule with a 32-team league), I'm not opposed, but the NBA should simply get rid of divisions AND conferences at that point. If every team has the same schedule, why define conferences? At the end of the day, shortening the season is certainly the starting point for making the regular season more meaningful. However, I believe additional inducements are necessary.
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | 4. Expanding the play-in tournament is not something that anyone is asking for. A play-in tournament with a weird format is definitely not something that anyone is asking for. In this case, a 10 seed could make the playoffs while a 5 seed doesn't. This would actually happen, and it wouldn't be rare. This cheapens the regular season. You could have a 55 win team get upset by a 35 win team in a three-game playoff and go home. (In this case, the 55 win team would play in a division where another team wins 56 games.) There's a reason why the NBA got rid of short playoff series. You can say that this would be exciting, but it would get a hard thumbs down from most fans. |
I disagree. For one, change is often weird until it is implemented. I remember when the current play-in tournament was adopted and so many people were upset by this strange format of 7/8 one-win-and-in game + 9/10 two-wins-and-in + loser of the 7/8 has two opportunities to win one and be in. Now? It's extremely popular. A playoff format of 5 vs. 10, 6 vs. 9, and 7 vs. 8 is actually much more classic.
Also, more importantly, the race to the playoffs would be much more exhilarating. I truly believe shortening the season is not enough. As stated in the piece, the "pendulum has swung so far into the territory of indifference towards the regular season that the NBA needs radical inducements to generate excitement and interest from not only fans, but the players and organizations." With this playoff format, all 67 games would be like the Lakers' last 23 games this season. Why? Because we'd desperately want the Lakers to win their division and guarantee their playoff spot. And if their division is out of reach? Then we'd want a higher seed due to the built-in incentives for the higher seeds. There is no breathing room to take games off. The NBA could replicate the week-to-week thrill of the NFL in which each and every game matters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArminNBA wrote: |
I'm not singularly focusing on TV ratings, and it's not hard to wrap one's head around assessing the collective data for reach and engagement — social, streaming, highlight videos, etc. However, as stated in the piece, fan sentiment is down on the quality of the product in the regular season. As someone who listens to numerous NBA podcasts on a daily basis, it is sadly a fact that "the most talked about feature of the NBA is its ever-growing malaise — and yes, unfortunately, the malaise is discussed even more than the product on the floor." On Sunday's Bill Simmons podcast, Simmons, House, and Jacoby spent a good 10 minutes lamenting the state of the NBA and how regular season games have become meaningless. This is the most popular sports podcast in the world. Simmons, who has long advocated for only reducing the regular season to 75 games, said in this podcast that he's now supporting a 60-game season because the product on the floor is so poor and a shorter season would mean that the "regular season games are just more important where you have to play because you have a much smaller sample size.” Silver has also acknowledged the growing regular season apathy and stated that shortening the season would create more meaning to each game (the NBA's proposal is 78 regular season games). |
Complaints about the regular season being meaningless and too long are nothing new. I remember people saying this 20 years ago.
-- In 2010, Bleacher Report said shortening the regular season was the #1 change the NBA needed: "Instead of 82 games, why not limit the season to 67? Fifteen games less would essentially take away an entire month of the season, so fans would still be treated to NBA action for a significant portion of the year."
For three decades at least you have only needed to be a .500 team, or slightly better than .500, to make the playoffs. So, yeah, the regular season has been a little perfunctory for quite a while.
I have a hard time seeing the NBA significantly shortening the season, because that would significantly reduce the revenues.
I know the NBA is pondering all sorts of gimmicks -- more play-ins, a mid season tournament, etc. I question whether the gimmicks would really generate much interest.
Is this even a problem? I don't know. NBA revenues are great. Attendance is fine. TV ratings are down, but that's true for all sports, and it's more about changing TV viewing habits and the changing entertainment landscape than the sports.
Last edited by activeverb on Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ArminNBA
Star Player
Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 2173
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | ArminNBA wrote: |
I'm not singularly focusing on TV ratings, and it's not hard to wrap one's head around assessing the collective data for reach and engagement — social, streaming, highlight videos, etc. However, as stated in the piece, fan sentiment is down on the quality of the product in the regular season. As someone who listens to numerous NBA podcasts on a daily basis, it is sadly a fact that "the most talked about feature of the NBA is its ever-growing malaise — and yes, unfortunately, the malaise is discussed even more than the product on the floor." On Sunday's Bill Simmons podcast, Simmons, House, and Jacoby spent a good 10 minutes lamenting the state of the NBA and how regular season games have become meaningless. This is the most popular sports podcast in the world. Simmons, who has long advocated for only reducing the regular season to 75 games, said in this podcast that he's now supporting a 60-game season because the product on the floor is so poor and a shorter season would mean that the "regular season games are just more important where you have to play because you have a much smaller sample size.” Silver has also acknowledged the growing regular season apathy and stated that shortening the season would create more meaning to each game (the NBA's proposal is 78 regular season games). |
Complaints about the regular season being meaningless and too long are nothing new. I remember people saying this 20 years ago.
For three decades at least you have only needed to be a .500 team, or slightly better than .500, to make the playoffs. So, yeah, the regular season has been a little perfunctory for quite a while.
I have a hard time seeing the NBA significantly shortening the season, because that would significantly reduce the revenues.
I know the NBA is pondering all sorts of gimmicks -- more play-ins, a mid season tournament, etc. I question whether the gimmicks would really generate much interest.
Is this even a problem? I don't know. NBA revenues are great. Attendance is fine. TV ratings are down, but that's true for all sports, and it's more about TV viewing habits and the entertainment landscape than the sports. |
Right, and that’s why the NBA and its owners would have to be convinced that any change that involves shortening the season would lead to a significant increase in ad revenue, which would mitigate the loss in ticket revenue. In my view, less games would equate more meaningful games, and the viewership and general interest would drastically increase. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dont_be_a_wuss
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 21501
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don’t think they necessarily need to have an increase in revenue to make up for the decrease in games. But there is no guarantee that a decrease in games will stop load management. BRI has increased at a very high rate. Going to 67 games would put BRI about where it was in about 2019. Not a tough pill to swallow in my opinion, but I think there is still a risk that players will load manage, or be perceived as load managing when they are sore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArminNBA wrote: |
Right, and that’s why the NBA and its owners would have to be convinced that any change that involves shortening the season would lead to a significant increase in ad revenue, which would mitigate the loss in ticket revenue. In my view, less games would equate more meaningful games, and the viewership and general interest would drastically increase. |
None of that seems likely to me.
Say you changed to a 60 game season. The notion that fan interest would spike so much that you could raise ad rates by enough to make up for losing 25% of the games doesn't seem realistic to me.
In fact, if you made the NBA a 60 game season, I question whether TV ratings or interest in the individual games would change significantly.
As I said before, I don't think lower TV ratings are a reflection of dissatisfaction with the games as much as they are a reflection of changing viewing habits. Shortening the NBA season isn't going to impact that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dont_be_a_wuss wrote: | | I don’t think they necessarily need to have an increase in revenue to make up for the decrease in games. But there is no guarantee that a decrease in games will stop load management. |
I think the term "load management" should disappear.
No one uses it in the way its meant: a strategy to reduce the amount of stress on player's bodies so they can stay healthier, be more productive overall, contribute more to the team, and make their teams more successful.
Load management has become some kind of boogeyman. Fan think of it as players being lazy and not caring. I can see why so many teams and players have stopped using the term, even if they embrace the concepts behind load management, because hardly anyone understands what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 43990
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don’t see viewership increase with fewer games. Maybe extend the games from 48 minutes to 60 minutes (15 minute quarters), that way pretty much every record will be broken! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8352
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adding more teams would dilute the product. I read that when four teams were added at the end of the '80s and then two more were added in the mid-90s it was a factor in the decline in quality of play.
I agree Seattle deserves a team, it's a great city. Just move a team like the Kings there, since there's no way Steve Ballmer would move the Clippers there.
And please don't add more play-in spots. The play-in tournament is questionable to begin with, because it allows a team that wins, say, 35 games to make the playoffs (and yes I realize the irony in saying that since the play-in can help the Lakers this season).
I've also read that people have complained about the regular season being "meaningless" going back to the 70s. Gimmicks like the one Armin suggested won't do anything to help that. The only thing that would help is an improvement in attitude among both players and fans, which has to include an end to "load management." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dont_be_a_wuss
Franchise Player
Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 21501
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | dont_be_a_wuss wrote: | | I don’t think they necessarily need to have an increase in revenue to make up for the decrease in games. But there is no guarantee that a decrease in games will stop load management. |
I think the term "load management" should disappear.
No one uses it in the way its meant: a strategy to reduce the amount of stress on player's bodies so they can stay healthier, be more productive overall, contribute more to the team, and make their teams more successful.
Load management has become some kind of boogeyman. Fan think of it as players being lazy and not caring. I can see why so many teams and players have stopped using the term, even if they embrace the concepts behind load management, because hardly anyone understands what it is. |
Sure that’s one argument. Im not sure what it means exactly, but the bottom line would be, if they lower the number of games would the top players play in a higher percentage of games. The owners and players Union could agree to fewer games, but their major complaint seems to be that not enough of the top players are playing in enough games. I think both sides would be willing to revert to 2019-2020 revenue/salary levels if they had some assurance of a better product, but you really can’t assure a better product. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8352
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ArminNBA wrote: |
Right, and that’s why the NBA and its owners would have to be convinced that any change that involves shortening the season would lead to a significant increase in ad revenue, which would mitigate the loss in ticket revenue. In my view, less games would equate more meaningful games, and the viewership and general interest would drastically increase. |
Number one, if you shorten the season, everything would have to get more expensive, including ticket prices, the price for streaming services, maybe march prices, etc. Inflation is bad enough, and over the last 10-15 years, people have been spending less money on having fun, whether it's vacations, dining out, partying/drinking and the like because of increasing income inequality.
Number two, I doubt even a 60-game season would make games seem more significant. Once everyone gets used to it, maybe each game would seem about as "insignificant" as they do now.
In fact, when coupled with higher prices for tickets and watching games at home, maybe viewership and attendance would actually go down.
I'd be down to shorten to season to ~60 games if money weren't an issue, and then start the season only a little bit later so that there would (hopefully) be no more back-to-back games. That way, players' sleep schedules would be better, which would reduce the risk of injury. Their testosterone level go way down several weeks into the season, which supposedly increases their injury risk.
But unfortunately, the almighty dollar rules all in our society and messes things up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dont_be_a_wuss wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | dont_be_a_wuss wrote: | | I don’t think they necessarily need to have an increase in revenue to make up for the decrease in games. But there is no guarantee that a decrease in games will stop load management. |
I think the term "load management" should disappear.
No one uses it in the way its meant: a strategy to reduce the amount of stress on player's bodies so they can stay healthier, be more productive overall, contribute more to the team, and make their teams more successful.
Load management has become some kind of boogeyman. Fan think of it as players being lazy and not caring. I can see why so many teams and players have stopped using the term, even if they embrace the concepts behind load management, because hardly anyone understands what it is. |
Sure that’s one argument. Im not sure what it means exactly, but the bottom line would be, if they lower the number of games would the top players play in a higher percentage of games. The owners and players Union could agree to fewer games, but their major complaint seems to be that not enough of the top players are playing in enough games. I think both sides would be willing to revert to 2019-2020 revenue/salary levels if they had some assurance of a better product, but you really can’t assure a better product. |
I think a lot of people miss the point of the 60 game season idea. It isn't so much that the 60 games would be significantly better than the 82 games they play currently. The level of play wouldn't change much. It's just you would cut out a bunch of games you really don't need and you would get to the games that matter, I.e the playoffs, sooner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakez34
Star Player
Joined: 24 Apr 2001
Posts: 6101
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's arguable how many games you really don't need. 82 has been fine for as long as it has, and only in the past 5 to 10 years become an issue because of our new generation of players who have decided load mgmt is necessary despite limited proof it's resulted in fewer injuries and/or fewer serious injuries. When the games were played with all the players it built up inter conference rivalries, gave teams and fans previews of playoff matchups and energized fans for the playoffs or the "big games" during the regular season.
But players want to have the cake and eat it too (pay me for 82, I'll play the ones I feel like) and I see no reason they wouldn't load manage in a 60 game season as well. Then what's the consequences? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8352
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakez34 wrote: |
But players want to have the cake and eat it too (pay me for 82, I'll play the ones I feel like) and I see no reason they wouldn't load manage in a 60 game season as well. Then what's the consequences? |
This. Seems like load management has become a mindset and attitude, instead of a practical thing. Shortening the season won't do anything to change that attitude or mindset because by now it's baked in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ArminNBA wrote: | | On Sunday's Bill Simmons podcast, Simmons, House, and Jacoby spent a good 10 minutes lamenting the state of the NBA and how regular season games have become meaningless. This is the most popular sports podcast in the world. |
Oh, good heavens. You're basing your perception on Bill Freaking Simmons. I have no idea why some of you still listen to his podcast. Simmons is a bombastic fool who ceased to be relevant about ten years ago when ESPN booted him.
Anyway, the stuff you are saying about Adam Silver is incorrect. At the all-star break, Silver said that there is no plan to reduce the number of regular season games. The concern is not apathy on the part of fans. It's the number of back to back games and the rise of load management. The league and the union are looking at extending the season again to spread out the games more.
| ArminNBA wrote: | | This is wrong. For example, as it stands today, 5 of the 6 division leaders are the absolute top seeds (Bucks - #1, Celtics - #2, Nuggets - #1, Grizzlies - #2, Kings - #3). The only division leader outside the Top 4 is the 33-30 Miami Heat who are in 7th place and poised to take over 6th. In any case, you mention a "losing record." I went all the way back to the 2009-2010 season and I couldn't find one single division winner with a losing record. |
Sure, but you're expanding the league to 32 teams and reducing the size of the divisions from 5 to 4. What you just showed is that it doesn't happen under the current system.
| ArminNBA wrote: | | I don't know where you're getting 83 games from. The schedule format is explained in the piece. 67 games is not a non-starter. The league is already having active discussions on shortening the season. |
67 + 16 = 83. The league is NOT having active discussions on shortening the season.
| ArminNBA wrote: | | I disagree. For one, change is often weird until it is implemented. |
Of course you disagree. It's your idea.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | In fact, if you made the NBA a 60 game season, I question whether TV ratings or interest in the individual games would change significantly. |
I don't see why it would. In particular, the NBA is targeting $75B for its next media rights package. That's the proverbial elephant in the room. Whether the league actually gets to $75B remains to be seen, but they aren't getting there by cutting the inventory of games by 25%.
_________________
Internet Argument Resolved |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 43990
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | In fact, if you made the NBA a 60 game season, I question whether TV ratings or interest in the individual games would change significantly. |
I don't see why it would. In particular, the NBA is targeting $75B for its next media rights package. That's the proverbial elephant in the room. Whether the league actually gets to $75B remains to be seen, but they aren't getting there by cutting the inventory of games by 25%. |
I think they need to partner with Meta and crack into VR. They could sell virtual tickets to games, create a virtual world using the hundreds of stadium cameras. I think Golden State already did something like this five years ago. They could start with Warriors games, then spread into other teams. I think that was a missed opportunity during COVID lockdowns.
They could get closer to that $75billion mark with that Meta partnership. Not with current TV deals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 7:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JUST-MING wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | In fact, if you made the NBA a 60 game season, I question whether TV ratings or interest in the individual games would change significantly. |
I don't see why it would. In particular, the NBA is targeting $75B for its next media rights package. That's the proverbial elephant in the room. Whether the league actually gets to $75B remains to be seen, but they aren't getting there by cutting the inventory of games by 25%. |
I think they need to partner with Meta and crack into VR. They could sell virtual tickets to games, create a virtual world using the hundreds of stadium cameras. I think Golden State already did something like this five years ago. They could start with Warriors games, then spread into other teams. I think that was a missed opportunity during COVID lockdowns.
They could get closer to that $75billion mark with that Meta partnership. Not with current TV deals. |
The NBA already has a multi-year partnership agreement with Meta. I don't think it's a big money generator yet but maybe in the future |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vadorojo
Star Player
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 1507
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 7:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Elam ending for all NBA games. No more long, drawn-out 4th quarter foul fests and boring clock manipulation games. Actual basketball. The product improves and the viewers' time is respected. Win/win.
_________________
"I like looking at a guy's face when he realizes that even his best moves aren't going to work on me all night. They look depressed." - Ron Artest |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakesGnrLake
Star Player
Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 1296
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a wild idea. Implement a points system like soccer. Two tournaments in the year. One League Champion. You have a midseason tournament and the winner is given bonus points to their total. At the end of the year the team with the most points is the League Champion. Then have a post season tournament with the top teams and the winner of the is the Finals Champion.
This gives teams that are hanging around the middle a reason to play in the middle of the year because winning the midseason tourney gives you better chances to win the League Championship. Top teams will be able to secure a top spot sooner and it makes being the best team in the league at the end of the year worth something. You are still given a post season tournament with the top teams.
Incentive winning these tournaments by giving the OWNERS financial incentive. Such as not having to pay luxury tax if you win a tournament. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JUST-MING
Retired Number
Joined: 23 Jun 2005
Posts: 43990
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakesGnrLake wrote: | I have a wild idea. Implement a points system like soccer. Two tournaments in the year. One League Champion. You have a midseason tournament and the winner is given bonus points to their total. At the end of the year the team with the most points is the League Champion. Then have a post season tournament with the top teams and the winner of the is the Finals Champion.
This gives teams that are hanging around the middle a reason to play in the middle of the year because winning the midseason tourney gives you better chances to win the League Championship. Top teams will be able to secure a top spot sooner and it makes being the best team in the league at the end of the year worth something. You are still given a post season tournament with the top teams.
Incentive winning these tournaments by giving the OWNERS financial incentive. Such as not having to pay luxury tax if you win a tournament. |
Champions league. I like that idea. Then we wouldn’t have to watch so many meaningless games from teams like Houston and Oklahoma City that are deliberately tanking. Maybe a financial incentive to the teams in the champions league, since they have higher payrolls, a larger share of the revenue sharing. Maybe like 80/20 split, where the tanking teams only get 20. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ocho
Retired Number
Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 53836
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | dont_be_a_wuss wrote: | | I don’t think they necessarily need to have an increase in revenue to make up for the decrease in games. But there is no guarantee that a decrease in games will stop load management. |
I think the term "load management" should disappear.
No one uses it in the way its meant: a strategy to reduce the amount of stress on player's bodies so they can stay healthier, be more productive overall, contribute more to the team, and make their teams more successful.
Load management has become some kind of boogeyman. Fan think of it as players being lazy and not caring. I can see why so many teams and players have stopped using the term, even if they embrace the concepts behind load management, because hardly anyone understands what it is. |
I think everyone understands what it is, it’s just not much consolation to the fan that paid $600 for two tickets.
_________________
14-5-3-12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 03, 2023 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LakesGnrLake wrote: | I have a wild idea. Implement a points system like soccer. Two tournaments in the year. One League Champion. You have a midseason tournament and the winner is given bonus points to their total. At the end of the year the team with the most points is the League Champion. Then have a post season tournament with the top teams and the winner of the is the Finals Champion.
This gives teams that are hanging around the middle a reason to play in the middle of the year because winning the midseason tourney gives you better chances to win the League Championship. Top teams will be able to secure a top spot sooner and it makes being the best team in the league at the end of the year worth something. You are still given a post season tournament with the top teams.
Incentive winning these tournaments by giving the OWNERS financial incentive. Such as not having to pay luxury tax if you win a tournament. |
The NBA is supposed to implement some kind of in-season tournament, possibly next season. I think it is a test run to see if American fans will care as much as European fans. I believe they are debating if and how the tournament should affect the playoffs, so they might well do something like you are suggesting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
