The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

[KqWIN]

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.

I honestly think 40 minute games > 48 minute games due to the time box, but I think the players (well LeBron at least) have already came out against that and prefer less games instead.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

Its a truly horrible analogy. So the answer for the pasta restaurant is to make less pasta or be open less because sometimes you feel like eating fish and chips (soccer). Even if we increase the quality of the food by a lot you will still want to go elsewhere at times.

IF they have a quantity problem merely reducing quantity does not fix a quality problem. Its hard to argue they have a huge problem when the revenue pie is growing in huge increments.

Look with sports and entertainment there will be the competition side of things and the business side of things. Many times the interests of both will align... sometimes they will not and the league will need to make decisions. Less games likely improves competition but I don't think its the first item on the list of things that I'd change to improve things on that side... business-wise its one of the last things I'd consider. At very most I would remove 3-4 games to ensure that ESPN, ABC, and TNT games aren't scheduled on back to backs, which removes the key problem the league has with load management. The most recent changes are to pander to their media partners with a side of pandering to the gambling markets. Its not about the quality or increasing the meaning of the regular season.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

And I think there is merit here. While all sides might understand the long term improvement in player health with come with restrictions or reduced games... if it comes with a pay cut it will meet a bunch of opposition on both sides. What is good for the competition quality will not always match perfectly with what works for business.

I just think its naive to think that all parties will do what is in the best interest of the sport and that it will have not detectable impact on the business. Certainly there is balance and you can kill the golden goose but with the current revenue and value growth its hard to argue that there is a huge issue there. Not that you think this way.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

And I think there is merit here. While all sides might understand the long term improvement in player health with come with restrictions or reduced games... if it comes with a pay cut it will meet a bunch of opposition on both sides. What is good for the competition quality will not always match perfectly with what works for business.

I just think its naive to think that all parties will do what is in the best interest of the sport and that it will have not detectable impact on the business. Certainly there is balance and you can kill the golden goose but with the current revenue and value growth its hard to argue that there is a huge issue there. Not that you think this way.

Yeah, I don't actually think guys sitting out of games is a huge issue. I do think an increase in injuries is a huge issue.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Yeah, I don't actually think guys sitting out of games is a huge issue. I do think an increase in injuries is a huge issue.

I think it's a pretty big issue regarding ticket value for games.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Yeah, I don't actually think guys sitting out of games is a huge issue. I do think an increase in injuries is a huge issue.

I agree. I think they don't want coaches completely throwing away games... especially nationally televised games. Having a star injured should be the bigger concern.

I also think the new requirements are also to help satisfy gambling partners. Its all kind of a dog and pony show tbh.

 

[KqWIN]

Its a truly horrible analogy. So the answer for the pasta restaurant is to make less pasta or be open less because sometimes you feel like eating fish and chips (soccer). Even if we increase the quality of the food by a lot you will still want to go elsewhere at times.

IF they have a quantity problem merely reducing quantity does not fix a quality problem. Its hard to argue they have a huge problem when the revenue pie is growing in huge increments.

Look with sports and entertainment there will be the competition side of things and the business side of things. Many times the interests of both will align... sometimes they will not and the league will need to make decisions. Less games likely improves competition but I don't think its the first item on the list of things that I'd change to improve things on that side... business-wise its one of the last things I'd consider. At very most I would remove 3-4 games to ensure that ESPN, ABC, and TNT games aren't scheduled on back to backs, which removes the key problem the league has with load management. The most recent changes are to pander to their media partners with a side of pandering to the gambling markets. Its not about the quality or increasing the meaning of the regular season.

If you say so. I was simply saying, if you aren't enjoying pasta because you're eating too much of it, maybe eat is less often. Replace pasta with anything you enjoy. I like hiking, I would enjoy it less if I was hiking at a rate that was putting me at injury risk and/or I no longer enjoyed it. It's just the basic concept of there can be too much of a good thing.

Like I said before, there's a happy medium to all of this. And for the NBA in particular, there's a happy medium to the amount of games where the number of games best aligns with the interests of the league, owners, and players. There are certainly other ways to tackle the current issues the league is facing. And yes, the league has an issue with viewership and players sitting. Otherwise they would not be addressing it. The revenue pie growing does not mean it is growing as much as it could have. It is obvious that with better viewership and interest in the league the revenue growth would be even greater. I think it is very easy to say the NBA has a problem because their problem is well known and they are actively trying to address it.

I would not even say reducing the games is first on my list either, but I still believe 82 games is too many for the NBA and I mean that from a sport perspective and a long term business perspective. "There's no guarantee that this is better"....yeah yeah I know you want to say that again. There is no evidence that 82 is the best either. 82 is just as arbitrary as 78, 72, 66, 58 etc. This is just one way to improve the quality and as a consequence improve the viewership and revenue. There have been plenty of ideas listed in this thread that I believe would be steps in the right direction. But I guess the NBA should just do nothing at all because revenue still going up!!! /s

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

If you say so. I was simply saying, if you aren't enjoying pasta because you're eating too much of it, maybe eat is less often. Replace pasta with anything you enjoy. I like hiking, I would enjoy it less if I was hiking at a rate that was putting me at injury risk and/or I no longer enjoyed it. It's just the basic concept of there can be too much of a good thing.

Like I said before, there's a happy medium to all of this. And for the NBA in particular, there's a happy medium to the amount of games where the number of games best aligns with the interests of the league, owners, and players. There are certainly other ways to tackle the current issues the league is facing. And yes, the league has an issue with viewership and players sitting. Otherwise they would not be addressing it. The revenue pie growing does not mean it is growing as much as it could have. It is obvious that with better viewership and interest in the league the revenue growth would be even greater. I think it is very easy to say the NBA has a problem because their problem is well known and they are actively trying to address it.

I would not even say reducing the games is first on my list either, but I still believe 82 games is too many for the NBA and I mean that from a sport perspective and a long term business perspective. "There's no guarantee that this is better"....yeah yeah I know you want to say that again. There is no evidence that 82 is the best either. 82 is just as arbitrary as 78, 72, 66, 58 etc. This is just one way to improve the quality and as a consequence improve the viewership and revenue. There have been plenty of ideas listed in this thread that I believe would be steps in the right direction. But I guess the NBA should just do nothing at all because revenue still going up!!! /s

They discuss viewership and revenue growth whether it is a "problem" or not. Its just like how Apple tries to increase sales and growth even though sales and growth are good. It could always be better.

The NBA is trying things right now. They have adjusted lotto odds, play in tournament, and an in-season tournament... you can't try everything at the same time. They are trying the best ideas they believe in currently.

And I know you are mocking my simple analysis of revenue is going up but you keep pushing this narrative that there are too many games... its hard to argue there is a giant issue if customers are still lining up to buy all this "excess inventory" at premium prices. Maybe someday the bucks stop rolling in... but it will likely be due to other market factors and not necessarily the product not being as good as it could be.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

They discuss viewership and revenue growth whether it is a "problem" or not. Its just like how Apple tries to increase sales and growth even though sales and growth are good. It could always be better.

The NBA is trying things right now. They have adjusted lotto odds, play in tournament, and an in-season tournament... you can't try everything at the same time. They are trying the best ideas they believe in currently.

And I know you are mocking my simple analysis of revenue is going up but you keep pushing this narrative that there are too many games... its hard to argue there is a giant issue if customers are still lining up to buy all this "excess inventory" at premium prices. Maybe someday the bucks stop rolling in... but it will likely be due to other market factors and not necessarily the product not being as good as it could be.

They are trying the *easiest to implement* ideas, not the best.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

They are trying the *easiest to implement* ideas, not the best.

Sometimes the best ideas are the ones you can easily implement... that is part of what makes them the best.

 

[KqWIN]

They discuss viewership and revenue growth whether it is a "problem" or not. Its just like how Apple tries to increase sales and growth even though sales and growth are good. It could always be better.

The NBA is trying things right now. They have adjusted lotto odds, play in tournament, and an in-season tournament... you can't try everything at the same time. They are trying the best ideas they believe in currently.

And I know you are mocking my simple analysis of revenue is going up but you keep pushing this narrative that there are too many games... its hard to argue there is a giant issue if customers are still lining up to buy all this "excess inventory" at premium prices. Maybe someday the bucks stop rolling in... but it will likely be due to other market factors and not necessarily the product not being as good as it could be.

Yeah I'm pretty sure they talk about it because viewership is down and the large majority of people think that players sitting out sucks. It isn't the only reason ratings may be down, of course, but I feel pretty confident in calling it a problem because they are in fact trying to address the problem. You can agree to disagree, but I find it very easy to argue. If it wasn't a big issue, it wouldn't be talked about so much and the NBA would not be constantly trying to innovate and address the problem. Changing the NBA schedule to lessen games would be a drastic change and difficult to implement even if it is better long term. Truthfully, I do not think it can happen until local TV contracts are put into the dirt....but I don't think that part is too far fetched.

And if you think media partners are paying a premium now, imagine what they would pay for even more viewership. The National TV product should always be the biggest concern when you're talking about revenue, it is by far the league's biggest money maker.

 

[One Brow]

They are trying the *easiest to implement* ideas, not the best.

Because reducing the number of games in schedule is so difficult? Yes, I know you didn't say that would be hard, but in the context of this discussion and absent a qualification, that was the inevitable inference.