What's new
By:

The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

Saint Cy of JFC said:
I never said they haven't considered it. I said they have never had a serious cost benefits analysis conducted. No one owner could do that as it would take access to every teams financials which NBA team are never going to be fully transparent about.
Click to expand...
Yeah I mean these teams never open up the books and share financials… oh wait they do it every ****ing year when a third party goes through it with a fine tooth comb. Just because you don’t get access to the info doesn’t mean it’s not there. Maybe you should sit this one out while the adults talk.
 
KqWIN said:
Reducing the games does increase the importance. You cannot create these hypothetical anecdotes to argue that it makes no difference. The chances that Steph is playing in a game because it is important to him to win is greater in a 72 game season. The chances that Kawhi or Zion is playing in a game because the are healthy is greater in a 72 game season than an 82 game season. The incentive to play because it's important to win is always greater in 72 than in 82 and the chances of sitting due to inadequate health are always lower. I don't believe it is a complete solution, but I find it hard to believe that reducing amount of games does not make the games more important. I also think the Fast and the Furious movie is a dreadful comparison because while people line up for movie stars, explosions, and actions they do not line up for worse basketball compared to better basketball. If you can have some skepticism that better basketball may not produce better viewership, I have some skepticism that 82 games is the best way to generate revenue for the NBA long term.

This discussion is still fairly new and such a large change would take time. Adam Silver has stated he is open to the idea. CJ McCollum (speaking for the players) have said the players have discussed but no conclusion yet. It's not as if it is being voted on regularly and can be implemented in an instant. I'm pessimistic about it happening, but I don't take the fact that it hasn't been passed as an indication that it is a bad idea. I bet you can't find a single NBA fan who can't name something they wouldn't change about the league, but that doesn't mean all of the changes are bad idea. The financial implications of this move (both in short and long term) are not concrete. But the quality of the NBA product is something they should always be conscious of and increasing the quality of their product is the best way to keep revenue healthy.
Click to expand...
Here is how far that discussion goes… lots of discussion then the talk of a pay cut comes up…


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=35&v=fBW2i7Jbefw&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F&source_ve_path=MzY4NDIsMjM4NTE&feature=emb_title
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Yeah I mean these teams never open up the books and share financials… oh wait they do it every ****ing year when a third party goes through it with a fine tooth comb. Just because you don’t get access to the info doesn’t mean it’s not there. Maybe you should sit this one out while the adults talk.
Click to expand...
Oh, how naive
 
For @infection

Imagine your spouse comes to you with a plan to improve sexual satisfaction… at the top of the list is a 15% reduction of frequency. The rest of the list has some interesting things and ideas… how are most of us going to respond? Going to start with why the reduction… well it will increase the meaning and quality of the other sex we do have. Is it? Or would the other things be what change the actual satisfaction. I don’t know about y’all but I’m pushing for the bullet points after the first one… and we will circle back to that one later okay.

I mean arbitrarily reducing the number of encounters by 15% is not going to change the fact you have a headache or are tired certain nights. So what am I signing up for?
 
These are legitimately some of the worst analogies I have ever seen hahahaha. Sometimes you gotta consider that quality > quantity. If you’re at the point where you are physically incapable of doing something at the same quantity or that you are uninterested in doing it at that quantity….yeah it might be time to consider that the quantity may be too high. I love pasta, probably wouldn’t enjoy it if I had it every meal every day. There’s a happy medium for everything.

If NBA ratings were in a better spot and players didn’t have to sit/want to sit we wouldn’t be having this conversation would we.
 
Last edited:
KqWIN said:
These are legitimately some of the worst analogies I have ever seen hahahaha. Sometimes you gotta consider that quality > quantity. If you’re at the point where you are physically incapable of doing something at the same quantity or that you are uninterested in doing it at that quantity….yeah it might be time to consider that the quantity may be too high. I love pasta, probably wouldn’t enjoy it if I had it every meal every day. There’s a happy medium for everything.

If NBA ratings were in a better spot and players didn’t have to sit/want to sit we wouldn’t be having this conversation would we.
Click to expand...
That's kind of HH and Infections thing. They love terrible analogies
 
KqWIN said:
These are legitimately some of the worst analogies I have ever seen hahahaha. Sometimes you gotta consider that quality > quantity. If you’re at the point where you are physically incapable of doing something at the same quantity or that you are uninterested in doing it at that quantity….yeah it might be time to consider that the quantity may be too high. I love pasta, probably wouldn’t enjoy it if I had it every meal every day. There’s a happy medium for everything.

If NBA ratings were in a better spot and players didn’t have to sit/want to sit we wouldn’t be having this conversation would we.
Click to expand...
They are not... quality is important... less quantity does not automatically fix quality. If there are other things you can do to fix quality you do those first before reducing quantity.

Then you throw in an analogy about pasta that is not relevant at all. That is a variety issue not a quality issue. Hilarious to see someone simultaneously throw shade on an analogy and come up with a far worse one.
 
I think it's worth it for the league to consider that the modern game has changed when thinking about this stuff. There are more possessions and guys are doing way more than in the past. The human body is only able to handle so many miles, so if players are logging more miles per game, then they are not going to be able to play as many games. On top of that they are competing against the most athletic players there have ever been, so there is just much more wear and tear that has to be considered.

The league is also the deepest its ever been as well. Maybe another way to handle this is minute restrictions on regular season games. Everyone would hate that, but it would allow for more even competition, while preserving health, and since counting stats continue to be important for some reason would give everyone a more level playing field for awards.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
They are not... quality is important... less quantity does not automatically fix quality. If there are other things you can do to fix quality you do those first before reducing quantity.

Then you throw in an analogy about pasta that is not relevant at all. That is a variety issue not a quality issue. Hilarious to see someone simultaneously throw shade on an analogy and come up with a far worse one.
Click to expand...

When there is too much quantity, going for more quality seems like a good idea. The NBA clearly has a quantity issue when players are sitting out. The pasta issue is relevant because the NBA has too much of one thing. It’s about the enjoyment of pasta, basketball, whatever. If you have too much of it, you will enjoy it less. If there was no issue with too much, there would be no discussion to be had at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top