What's new
By:

Should the NBA get rid of back to backs?

I always thought that B2Bs are more reasonable if the game is played by both teams who are on a B2B. B2Bs would even be intriguing if the same two teams played each other on each other's court.
 
sahlensguy said:
I always thought that B2Bs are more reasonable if the game is played by both teams who are on a B2B. B2Bs would even be intriguing if the same two teams played each other on each other's court.
Click to expand...

The main problem with back to backs is when there is travel involved... If you play both games at home, it's not ideal, but it's doable, you finish the game, get some physio and a shower, home and bed. But when there is travelling either to go back home or go to another city, the players have to play the second night on 4/5hours of bad quality sleep, cramped up legs that have been folded in a plain in the middle of what should have been a night of sleep, etc...

back to backs without travel wouldn't be a massive issue.
 
Cappy_Smurf said:
Yeah, they should add more games so that Utah can have the entire team injured instead of half...

There's no doubt that overplaying guys increases the chance of being injured, but sure, you want to watch more games of Utah having to depend on backup players logging significant minutes. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

you know what causes these injuries. wrong weightlifting/strengthening regimes! most of these guys do the wrong stuff in the gym.
hell malone and stockton played back to bakc to back at end of their carreers!
but yeah that was baby boomer and gen x!

these generation snowflakes are soft as ****
 
veji1 said:
The main problem with back to backs is when there is travel involved... If you play both games at home, it's not ideal, but it's doable, you finish the game, get some physio and a shower, home and bed. But when there is travelling either to go back home or go to another city, the players have to play the second night on 4/5hours of bad quality sleep, cramped up legs that have been folded in a plain in the middle of what should have been a night of sleep, etc...

back to backs without travel wouldn't be a massive issue.
Click to expand...


you can reduce that by traveling home the next morning, not after the game
 
DutchJazzer said:
you know what causes these injuries. wrong weightlifting/strengthening regimes! most of these guys do the wrong stuff in the gym.
hell malone and stockton played back to bakc to back at end of their carreers!
but yeah that was baby boomer and gen x!

these generation snowflakes are soft as ****
Click to expand...

when exactly did you "go off the rails"...
 
veji1 said:
The main problem with back to backs is when there is travel involved... If you play both games at home, it's not ideal, but it's doable, you finish the game, get some physio and a shower, home and bed. But when there is travelling either to go back home or go to another city, the players have to play the second night on 4/5hours of bad quality sleep, cramped up legs that have been folded in a plain in the middle of what should have been a night of sleep, etc...

back to backs without travel wouldn't be a massive issue.
Click to expand...

But if both teams had the same travel itinerary, then both teams would be relatively equally rested. The first night on the B2B in say Dallas and then the next night both teams play in Salt Lake. Both teams would be equally tired which could reward the team that has more depth/endurance.
 
sahlensguy said:
But if both teams had the same travel itinerary, then both teams would be relatively equally rested. The first night on the B2B in say Dallas and then the next night both teams play in Salt Lake. Both teams would be equally tired which could reward the team that has more depth/endurance.
Click to expand...

sahlensguy said:
I always thought that B2Bs are more reasonable if the game is played by both teams who are on a B2B. B2Bs would even be intriguing if the same two teams played each other on each other's court.
Click to expand...
If you're going to have back to backs then I think this is a pretty cool idea.
 
Siro said:
I found this video, where a guy suggests a way of eliminating back to back games. His argument is basically that preseason is shortened, and the season starts earlier and finishes later. I'm aware this isn't a new idea, but I think it's time the NBA considers it seriously.

Tonight the Jazz looked exhausted. They are on a road trip, playing back to back. So they're much more likely to suck, and are at a higher risk of injury. There is no need for this to happen.

Wonder what others think.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk9OGqNfi3o
Click to expand...


nothing to see here, move along
 
sahlensguy said:
But if both teams had the same travel itinerary, then both teams would be relatively equally rested. The first night on the B2B in say Dallas and then the next night both teams play in Salt Lake. Both teams would be equally tired which could reward the team that has more depth/endurance.
Click to expand...

both teams wouldn't be equally rested, they would be equally tired and primed to enjoy, together, a slugfest of turnovers, bad shots, and with a bit of luck injuries... The problem with the back to backs or travel isn't a problem of fairness, it's just that it is bad for the athletes and their performance both short term (tired, sloppy) and long term (injury risk heightened).
 
DutchJazzer said:
you can reduce that by traveling home the next morning, not after the game
Click to expand...

It creates is own set of issues : travelling the next day means that minor plane delays could cancel the game, means that the team has slept but has hardly had anytime to train and wake up the muscles and body, which is what the shootaround is for. It would be a bit less bad, I agree, but still back to backs remain an incongruity for such a professional league.
 
sahlensguy said:
But if both teams had the same travel itinerary, then both teams would be relatively equally rested. The first night on the B2B in say Dallas and then the next night both teams play in Salt Lake. Both teams would be equally tired which could reward the team that has more depth/endurance.
Click to expand...

But this isn't a dynamic that teams face in the playoffs. To me, there's very little point in regular-season challenges that have no relationship to post-season challenges.
 
NAOS said:
But this isn't a dynamic that teams face in the playoffs. To me, there's very little point in regular-season challenges that have no relationship to post-season challenges.
Click to expand...

So? It looks like B2Bs are here to stay. Might as well make the best of it and have both teams on equal rest. It's better than what we witnessed last night which never mimics what happens in the playoffs either. Besides there would be a chess match of playing time in game one of the 'home and home' to keep fresh legs for the next night. And it would be great to see players emotions going head to head with who they got punked by the night before. It's much better than what we have now.
 
Let me handle this excellent post in two parts:

sahlensguy said:
It looks like B2Bs are here to stay.
Click to expand...

The commissioner himself has talked about eliminating or drastically reducing B2Bs, so coming up with a full list of cogent arguments against them is sort of rational. That also seemed to be the question in the OP.

sahlensguy said:
So?
Click to expand...

this isn't a dynamic that teams face in the playoffs. To me, there's very little point in regular-season challenges that have no relationship to post-season challenges.
 
Siro said:
Because the NBA would lose money. It's a pointless suggestion. It's like sending the NBA a letter titled "A way to lose 1/3rd of your revenue right away". I already explained why extending the season is better. The question is what is the advantage of a shortened season over an extended one?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get why they wouldn't. I think it would improve attendance for regular season games though. Players would definitely lose money, but I think owners might make more profit by having lower operating cost, at least for the teams that struggle to sell tickets. There seems to be an inherit competitive advantage in the long schedule. W/ less games each game becomes more important, less incentive to "Rest" players.
 
New CBA addressed this issue. Pre-season is shortened and there will be fewer (not zero) B2Bs.
 
I definitely think the NBA should get rid of back to backs - maybe take it down to a 70 game season but it might not be for some time if they do at all. In the meantime maybe they could at least find a way to make the matches more even. If you are the Sixers playing the Warriors after playing the Spurs the day before when the Warriors have been resting for four days it's not really a fair match. If the teams that played back to backs though both played the night before then at least they have roughly the same amount of rest.
 
DutchJazzer said:
NO!!!

seriously whats up with snowflakes these days!!!!!!!
i miss the god old hard playoff foul days!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

I find this kind of pining for the good ol' days to be so asinine and tiresome. Things change, and more often than not, IMHO, for the better. For example, our understanding of the human body, health perservation, etc. has advanced significantly since the Stockton/Malone era. We know more now how to protect/advance the health of players than we did back then, and the NBA is using this information to make changes that better protect players' health.

Moreover, generalizing from a sample set of 2 (which are clearly pretty extreme outliers to boot) is just dumb. Can we please stop using Stockton and Malone as the prototypes for everything that needs to be done in the modern-day NBA? Please!

If we have information about how to protect players' health better, and the means to to use this information, why the hell not use it? Just because some dolt misses the goold ol' days when players were allowed to beat up on each other and get away with all sorts of cheap shots is insufficient reason not to make a change, if the change makes sense in today's environment.
 
Hey guys, have you all considered the implications of a long road trip without B2Bs?


I mean a road trip of 5 games might take 7-8 days with B2Bs, but if we eliminate B2Bs it could take up to 11-12 days if we count travelling days as well?


That's quite a long time away from home. It also affect the home crowd not being able to see their team play for a long time?


If you say we can make the road trips have less games - doesn't that mean more trips for the players, causing more fatigues?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top