What's new
By:

The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

Handlogten's Heros said:
Also maybe work with your broadcasters to not have every analyst just bad moth the game and the officiating all night. I liked Jeff Van Gundy but his whining was bad for the game. Chuck and the TNT guys are great but maybe like 50% less “back in my day we weren’t so effing soft” stuff.
Click to expand...
Well they did fire JVG. Not much they can do about TNT dudes with how popular they are.
 
KqWIN said:
IMO, there's no reason to believe that sweet spot for the NBA maximizing revenue is 82 games. I just can't imagine that the best way for the NBA to maximize revenue to is trot out a boring season. You can "force" the players to play during the national televised games, but I think the fundamental problem is that there is not enough incentive for them to play in the first place. When two great teams/players matchup, it doesn't fell like an event because we all know the real season is the playoffs. While the NBA is and will always be about stars, it needs a better narrative throughout the season. Will less games do that? IDK, but I know for damn sure more games wouldn't do that. I think less games would at least be a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Less games equals less money... at least in the short term. Cutting 10 games may not make the other 72 more meaningful enough to compensate for the loss of inventory. 82 may not be the sweet spot but telling everyone you have 15-20% less game time to sell and less tickets to sell does not mean revenue will jump up enough or quickly enough to compensate. In the end the less games thing doesn't change the championship or bust narrative that you and others seem to think is a big issue. So why voluntarily give up the money?

KqWIN said:
Some of this isn't just scheduling either, I do think the way the league is covered by the media makes a big difference. It is their job to create narratives and make things interesting. I think the first step would be to stop having commentators who have extreme contempt for the game and/or want to use the broadcast as their personal podcast. The only time they are invested in the game is when they are complaining about something. They are miserable and insufferable. Watching the games is trash, and then the biggest story on sportcenter is about if Kyrie thinks the world is flat or whatever other clickbaity material they can scrounge up. Anything and everything except for the sport of basketball. I think Gus Johnson can be a little extra, but damn he makes it seem like every game he works is a spectacle. It's such a contrast from listening to people complain the whole time and downplay anything that happens.

I'm hoping that once LeBron retires we can get rid of this extreme, "championship or bust" narrative. Of course that will always be the main story, but right now it is the only story and it's set up for failure because most teams will lose and the focus becomes on the teams that lose. LeBron is chasing Jordan, I get that. But do we really need to perpetually **** on guys like Dame, Derozan etc. because they aren't much in the context of the title? There were a few times I checked reddit this summer and I saw posts along the lines of "we should have slandered TMac more" or "we should have slandered VC more". Like what? So what if they didn't win a title and were never close to it. Those were two of my favorite players ever growing up but if they were playing in today's media circus they probably would be relentlessly **** on. Not everyone needs to stack themselves up against Jordan.
Click to expand...

They can cover the league differently and most will still really care and want to win a title. Not sure how that issue gets fixed. Its the pinnacle of the sport and its crazy hard to do ... that is a big reason it is so celebrated.
 
Less games and no incentive to lose. Those are the only two ways for the regular season to improve dramatically. So makes individual games have a higher weighted impact and cutdown on the slop that happens with tanking.

The "how it's covered" thing does matter to an extent, but it's hard to have impassioned coverage for a sport where teams are playing 3-4 times per week.
 
Last edited:
And I still think incentives for losing is still what makes regular season American sports so bland.

Everything else is mostly just cultural and almost impossible to truly change with any rule.
 
The way for the NBA to maximize profit is to generate more revenue, and that is done primarily by televising games, then merchandise, then ticket sales, iirc, then endorsements, etc. So the best way to do that is to...dun dun dun...play more games. More games = more televised games = more merchandise sales = more ticket sales, etc etc. Fewer games will absolutely not increase revenue or profit. This isn't a rolls royce they are selling with value that increases with scarcity, not even with marginally increased quality. No this is a commodity, and for many acts as a drug, so more is wanted. A lot more. You would have to show a DRAMATIC increase in perceived quality to be able to raise prices on all that stuff to get you even equal profit if they cut games. So that just isn't going to happen. I'd love to see them cut it too 72 games if it means Star players give better effort and we get better games, but that isn't the driving force for the majority of the fan-base that pays to see games or buy jerseys. So cutting games will do nothing but cut revenue and profit, so it isn't going to happen.
 
LogGrad98 said:
The way for the NBA to maximize profit is to generate more revenue, and that is done primarily by televising games, then merchandise, then ticket sales, iirc, then endorsements, etc. So the best way to do that is to...dun dun dun...play more games. More games = more televised games = more merchandise sales = more ticket sales, etc etc. Fewer games will absolutely not increase revenue or profit. This isn't a rolls royce they are selling with value that increases with scarcity, not even with marginally increased quality. No this is a commodity, and for many acts as a drug, so more is wanted. A lot more. You would have to show a DRAMATIC increase in perceived quality to be able to raise prices on all that stuff to get you even equal profit if they cut games. So that just isn't going to happen. I'd love to see them cut it too 72 games if it means Star players give better effort and we get better games, but that isn't the driving force for the majority of the fan-base that pays to see games or buy jerseys. So cutting games will do nothing but cut revenue and profit, so it isn't going to happen.
Click to expand...
It’s pretty simple. The amount of games they’d have to cut to make each game matter as much as other some other sports is likely way more than 10.

Clear a few of the low hanging fruit items by all means but don’t try and be a rolls Royce when you are a Honda.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Less games equals less money... at least in the short term. Cutting 10 games may not make the other 72 more meaningful enough to compensate for the loss of inventory. 82 may not be the sweet spot but telling everyone you have 15-20% less game time to sell and less tickets to sell does not mean revenue will jump up enough or quickly enough to compensate. In the end the less games thing doesn't change the championship or bust narrative that you and others seem to think is a big issue. So why voluntarily give up the money?



They can cover the league differently and most will still really care and want to win a title. Not sure how that issue gets fixed. Its the pinnacle of the sport and its crazy hard to do ... that is a big reason it is so celebrated.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a given that less money will come in. The number of National NBA TV games would remain the same and scarcity could increase interest in all games. It's not as simple as less games equals less money. If the NBA added 10 games, I do not think they would be adding more money even in the short term. Right now, the NBA has a really poor product when it comes to the NBA regular season and making the NBA regular more interesting/important should be the league's biggest concern IMO. It is a tough problem to tackle, but it's definitely something the league cannot sit idle on.

The championship will always be the pinnacle of every sports league, but my issue is more about the regular season being mostly meaningless. The "or bust" part. These other sports also have championships and they are not watered down by also having important games throughout the year. I honestly think the championship in itself is devalued when there are no interesting storylines throughout the year and the regular season effectively turns into a preseason.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
And I still think incentives for losing is still what makes regular season American sports so bland.

Everything else is mostly just cultural and almost impossible to truly change with any rule.
Click to expand...

Incentive for losing is obviously a big contributor, but I also think the lack of incentive for winning is the other part of this. There is barely any reward for winning during the regular season, and it actively works against a team's interest to compete hard throughout the year. I'm a big proponent of ideas that give bigger rewards to regular season performance.
 
KqWIN said:
I don't think it's a given that less money will come in. The number of National NBA TV games would remain the same and scarcity could increase interest in all games. It's not as simple as less games equals less money. If the NBA added 10 games, I do not think they would be adding more money even in the short term.
Click to expand...

Yeah you are wrong… the gate receipts and in arena sales would go up even if the tv money didn’t. If this were a perfectly efficient market where scarcity, supply, and demand all meet then maybe it’d all even out. They’d add more games if the calendar, player health, etc allowed it. Not that 82 is the ideal amount to maximize profits but once you are locked into a certain number or revenue/income… it’s hard to accept less. Even if you knock off 10-20 games it won’t automatically make the other 60-70 12-25% better or more profitable automatically.

KqWIN said:
Right now, the NBA has a really poor product when it comes to the NBA regular season and making the NBA regular more interesting/important should be the league's biggest concern IMO. It is a tough problem to tackle, but it's definitely something the league cannot sit idle on.

The championship will always be the pinnacle of every sports league, but my issue is more about the regular season being mostly meaningless. The "or bust" part. These other sports also have championships and they are not watered down by also having important games throughout the year. I honestly think the championship in itself is devalued when there are no interesting storylines throughout the year and the regular season effectively turns into a preseason.
Click to expand...
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Yeah you are wrong… the gate receipts and in arena sales would go up even if the tv money didn’t. If this were a perfectly efficient market where scarcity, supply, and demand all meet then maybe it’d all even out. They’d add more games if the calendar, player health, etc allowed it. Not that 82 is the ideal amount to maximize profits but once you are locked into a certain number or revenue/income… it’s hard to accept less. Even if you knock off 10-20 games it won’t automatically make the other 60-70 12-25% better or more profitable automatically.
Click to expand...

If I’m wrong, then why not increase to 100 games? Short term, immediate profit is obviously not the goal of decreasing games. It’s about building long term interest and quality in the league. But at the same time I’m still not convinced that the hit would be so drastic in the short term.

In any case, a 10-20% decrease in games does not mean a 10-20% decrease in total profit. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the revenue streams that would theoretically lose out (gate etc.) from less games is minuscule compared the national TV deal.
 
KqWIN said:
If I’m wrong, then why not increase to 100 games? Short term, immediate profit is obviously not the goal of decreasing games. It’s about building long term interest and quality in the league. But at the same time I’m still not convinced that the hit would be so drastic in the short term.
Click to expand...

I already told you why. If they thought the calendar would allow it and the players would hold up they would.
KqWIN said:
In any case, a 10-20% decrease in games does not mean a 10-20% decrease in total profit. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the revenue streams that would theoretically lose out (gate etc.) from less games is minuscule compared the national TV deal.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't just be gate or live game revenue though. The local media deals would also take a hit.

I'm told by you and others all the time that "30 teams passed on player X there must be a reason why". So you mean to tell me 30 owners with all the brain power and consulting they employ and the players and player unions are looking at the schedule and trying to find a ton of ways to reduce load, travel, etc. When they could make essentially the same amount of money playing 12-15% less? Maybe you should share your theory with them and get em a little education.

Every time the issue of shortening the season comes up both sides end up passing cuz they know it requires a paycut in the short term.
 
I don't think any proposal to reduce the amount of games has ever gotten any kind of serious attraction... for very obvious reasons. If it was a wash money wise or close to it they would have done it years ago.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I already told you why. If they thought the calendar would allow it and the players would hold up they would.

It wouldn't just be gate or live game revenue though. The local media deals would also take a hit.

I'm told by you and others all the time that "30 teams passed on player X there must be a reason why". So you mean to tell me 30 owners with all the brain power and consulting they employ and the players and player unions are looking at the schedule and trying to find a ton of ways to reduce load, travel, etc. When they could make essentially the same amount of money playing 12-15% less? Maybe you should share your theory with them and get em a little education.

Every time the issue of shortening the season comes up both sides end up passing cuz they know it requires a paycut in the short term.
Click to expand...

Local media deals are tiny compared to the national NBA TV deal, it's not even remotely close. If reducing the amount of games can improve the quality of the product and result in greater viewership for the league's biggest money maker that is a win. A 10% increase in National TV viewership is significantly more important than a 10% loss to gate receipts, concessions, local TV deals and other smaller streams of revenue. You could also say the calendar does not allow for an 82 game season, which is why players are resting in the first place.

As far as the 30 teams saying no.....you don't actually know that. Some teams may be in favor, others may not. This is a completely different situation, and I still don't know what made you so upset about that comment anyways. How dare I assume that there might be something preventing an unsigned player from being unsigned and how dare I say it cannot be a Jazz specific issue if all teams have made the same decision. It's also just one thing to consider when talking about unsigned players, not a hard rule. It's still a fair point, however, but the NBA has made many mistakes before. It's not a rule that is gospel and if you go back and read the posts I assure you it never was presented that way.

Quite honestly, I do feel as though it's the best counterpoint. If it was good, they would have done it already....that's a fair argument. I don't doubt that teams would take a hit in the short term and that fear is preventing it from happening, but that doesn't mean it's the best decision long term. It seems like we're talking past each other at this point. I do not think it will happen and I do not necessarily increase short term profits. But I do believe it is best for the league long term. I believe the short sightedness that you've pointed out as far as short term losses is a mistake.

Oh, and by the way, there was something we didn't know about Shaq Harrison at the time :p
 
Last edited:
KqWIN said:
Local media deals are tiny compared to the national NBA TV deal, it's not even remotely close. If reducing the amount of games can improve the quality of the product and result in greater viewership for the league's biggest money maker that is a win. A 10% increase in National TV viewership is significantly more important than a 10% loss to gate receipts, concessions, local TV deals and other smaller streams of revenue.

As far as the 30 teams saying no.....you don't actually know that. Some teams may be in favor, others may not. This is a completely different situation, and I still don't know what made you so upset about that comment anyways. How dare I assume that there might be something preventing an unsigned player from being unsigned and how dare I say it cannot be a Jazz specific issue if all teams have made the same decision. It's also just one thing to consider when talking about unsigned players, not a hard rule. It's still a fair point, however, but the NBA has made many mistakes before. It's not a rule that is gospel and if you go back and read the posts I assure you it never was presented that way.

Quite honestly, I do feel as though it's the best counterpoint. If it was good, they would have done it already....that's a fair argument. I don't doubt that teams would take a hit in the short term and that fear is preventing it from happening, but that doesn't mean it's the best decision long term. It seems like we're talking past each other at this point. I do not think it will happen and I do not necessarily increase short term profits. But I do believe it is best for the league long term. I believe the short sightedness that you've pointed out as far as short term losses is a mistake.

Oh, and by the way, there was something we didn't know about Shaq Harrison at the time :p
Click to expand...
We really aren't talking past each other. Its simple... you are wrong. In one post you say you don't think it would be a given that less money would come in and in one post you say you don't doubt it would be a short term revenue hit. You are talking past yourself.

Even if it isn't the BIG ticket item the local tv deals, gate receipts, gambling money, all adds up to billions if 10 games were cut... and there is zero guarantee you get that back in a national tv deal. Also because of fixed costs a 10% drop in revenue may equate to a 20% drop in bottom line. If the numbers were close they'd have gotten serious about pulling the trigger and shortening the season.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
We really aren't talking past each other. Its simple... you are wrong. In one post you say you don't think it would be a given that less money would come in and in one post you say you don't doubt it would be a short term revenue hit. You are talking past yourself.

Even if it isn't the BIG ticket item the local tv deals, gate receipts, gambling money, all adds up to billions if 10 games were cut... and there is zero guarantee you get that back in a national tv deal. Also because of fixed costs a 10% drop in revenue may equate to a 20% drop in bottom line. If the numbers were close they'd have gotten serious about pulling the trigger and shortening the season.
Click to expand...

Maybe you have convinced me that it will decrease in the short term, but I still believe it is to a lesser degree than you seem to present. It's not an interesting point of discussion for me because it is not why I advocate for a shortened season and I do not believe short term revenue should be the deciding factor. When making a decision to shortened the season, I think the obvious concern is long term and not the short term. I don't think it will happen, but it really doesn't change my opinion that it should. To me, you have provided the reason why NBA teams are making the mistake (scared about short term loses), but what I really care about is if it is better for the league long term. The National NBA TV deal is by far and away the biggest money maker, it should be the main focus of the NBA and the best way to drive viewership up is to improve the quality of the product.

You are very focused on the short term and IF it will happen. I'm focused on the long term and if it SHOULD happen.
 
I doubt there has been any serious cost-benefits analysis in shortening the season. They arent doing it simply because people dont like change because with change there is always risk.

The owners also always love playing poor too, so they will say that a shortened season equals less profits no matter what and that will cause the players to veto any proposal.
 
If the NBA put harsher penalties on missing games, maybe the players would be more serious about shortening the season, but they have no reason to when they can collect checks regardless of them playing or not. Owners will use any change to act like it's hurting them so they can get a better share of the profits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top