What's new
By:

The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

Thee Idiotic Minivan K said:
What’s the reason for this mid season tournament?
Click to expand...
Try to incentivize competition because tanking is a thing but so is contenders replete with 30-something year old stars resting their guys a third of the season in preparation for the playoffs.

I know reducing the number of regular season games inextricably reduces revenue, but 82 games a year is seriously stupid. Hurts the product, hurts the competitiveness of each game, and literally hurts the players.

Here’s an idea: make a rule that eliminates back to back games without expanding the duration of the season. Use that to set the number of games (something like 75? IDK, but B2Bs are such an unnecessary risk).
 
NUMBERICA said:
Try to incentivize competition because tanking is a thing but so is contenders replete with 30-something year old stars resting their guys a third of the season in preparation for the playoffs.

I know reducing the number of regular season games inextricably reduces revenue, but 82 games a year is seriously stupid. Hurts the product, hurts the competitiveness of each game, and literally hurts the players.

Here’s an idea: make a rule that eliminates back to back games without expanding the duration of the season. Use that to set the number of games (something like 75? IDK, but B2Bs are such an unnecessary risk).
Click to expand...
Neither side wants to give up games and revenue. Eliminating back to backs seems like a reasonable amount of reduction… and maybe you could get there with 75 games.

I think they also want to mimic soccer… I just don’t think it will help all that much but whatevs. I’m generally for trying stuff and if it floos get rid of it.
 
Jazzmix said:
$$$
Click to expand...

NUMBERICA said:
Try to incentivize competition because tanking is a thing but so is contenders replete with 30-something year old stars resting their guys a third of the season in preparation for the playoffs.

I know reducing the number of regular season games inextricably reduces revenue, but 82 games a year is seriously stupid. Hurts the product, hurts the competitiveness of each game, and literally hurts the players.

Here’s an idea: make a rule that eliminates back to back games without expanding the duration of the season. Use that to set the number of games (something like 75? IDK, but B2Bs are such an unnecessary risk).
Click to expand...
That’s it? No other reason. No other benefit to winning other than money?
 
NUMBERICA said:
Try to incentivize competition because tanking is a thing but so is contenders replete with 30-something year old stars resting their guys a third of the season in preparation for the playoffs.

I know reducing the number of regular season games inextricably reduces revenue, but 82 games a year is seriously stupid. Hurts the product, hurts the competitiveness of each game, and literally hurts the players.

Here’s an idea: make a rule that eliminates back to back games without expanding the duration of the season. Use that to set the number of games (something like 75? IDK, but B2Bs are such an unnecessary risk).
Click to expand...
Modern training techniques are likely hurting players. Rest isn't the solution.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top