The Non-Jazz NBA Thread in the Jazz Section

[fishonjazz]

If the highest seed got to pick their opponent, and the brackets weren’t pre-determined, meaning that once the first round is done, the remaining matchups are again decided by ranking, this would add a lot more interest and competition into the regular season and also add a lot of drama that could build storylines and dominate media for weeks when teams are having to tip their hands about what they think about others. It would then add a lot of drama and chips on shoulders to each series of the first round and at least one series per conference in the second round. This would be a huge money maker.

Yep. It would be awesome.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

In my opinion changing the criteria for minimum numbers of games played for NBA awards was enough.

Yeah this extra fine stuff seems to be pure fluff... pandering to their broadcast partners more than anything. The designations are so dumb imo... the biggest draw this year will be Wemby... he doesn't fit the star criteria and we all know how Pop roles.

If you want Steph or Lebron to play in a nationally televised game make sure it isn't on a back to back. If a team sits stars have the ability to flex that market out of national broadcasts and pivot. Other teams will gladly take the exposure... exposure = dollars. Give TNT the ability to pick between two games instead of only scheduling one game that night and forcing us to watch the Zionless Pelicans.

This stuff just smells so much like lawyer dumbassery and we have way too much of that already.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Yeah this extra fine stuff seems to be pure fluff... pandering to their broadcast partners more than anything. The designations are so dumb imo... the biggest draw this year will be Wemby... he doesn't fit the star criteria and we all know how Pop roles.

If you want Steph or Lebron to play in a nationally televised game make sure it isn't on a back to back. If a team sits stars have the ability to flex that market out of national broadcasts and pivot. Other teams will gladly take the exposure... exposure = dollars. Give TNT the ability to pick between two games instead of only scheduling one game that night and forcing us to watch the Zionless Pelicans.

This stuff just smells so much like lawyer dumbassery and we have way too much of that already.

Completely agree with everything here.

 

[KqWIN]

Some sports are just going to be different. Unless the teams and players are willing to take a decent revenue cut in the short term then shortening the season is out. Some sports are low volume high stakes regular seasons and others are high volume low stakes. Imagine football trying to go to 32 games to get more revenue… wouldn’t work. Just need to accept that they are different and deal with it inside the sports constraints. Cutting the schedule down to 60 games will still make for some meaningless basketball games.

I think the league is kinda focused on the wrong things at times. The in season tournament should help with competition. Resting players is fine as long as it’s not in national tv stages.

I think they should make the easy changes… seed playoffs 1-16 regardless of conference and let the teams with better records pick their opponent. Creates a lot more potential competition and post season benefit. Easy past.

Second… tackle the officiating issue. The foul baiting flopping and complaining just takes away so much and gives the league an wwe feel and not in a good way. Can’t get rid of it all but eliminate the Harden/Young/CP ********. If you are trying to trick the refs you get a rep. It’s just weird in the postseason that those fouls go away… why not make them go away in the regular season.

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.

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.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

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.

Well they did fire JVG. Not much they can do about TNT dudes with how popular they are.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

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.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

And LeBron retiring will do nothing to impact ring culture. Ring culture was cemented when Jordan went 6/6 in thr Finals.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

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.

 

[LogGrad98]

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.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

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.

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.

 

[KqWIN]

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.

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.