What's new
By:

Haberstroh: 82 Games Season Dead

ONE LOVE said:
Also lost in the conversation is star power vs depth.


If you reduce the number of games to say 50 games, teams with super stars are gonna be better off, they don't need to rest their stars and can play them in every single game. Whereas if you stick with 82, it gives teams that don't necessarily have stars but are very deep a chance to get good seeding in the playoffs.


Reducing games is going to tip the scale to the likes of Cleveland, GSW, Clippers, etc, and that's not good for the Jazz or smaller market teams, or teams that don't have 3-4 All Stars on their teams.


What the super teams wants is go straight to playoffs with minimal wear and tear during the regular season as possible, and by reducing games, it's gonna play right into their hands.
Click to expand...

Uhh, not really. It helps everyone pretty much equally. The Jazz rely on two stars if you havent noticed.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Uhh, not really. It helps everyone pretty much equally. The Jazz rely on two stars if you havent noticed.
Click to expand...

Except that small market teams rely on number of games for revenue more than larger markets do. If you drop 20 games you drop 100k tickets while at the same time reducing the number of games for their local tv contract. LA would be fine but smaller markets can't afford to lose the revenue. As far as the scarcity argument it only holds true if you actually make the product scarce. The NBA would have to go to much fewer games than 50 to accomplish that.

They understand their business better than you do or the dude who wrote this article. If they would make more money playing 50 games they would have done it by now.
 
♪alt13 said:
Except that small market teams rely on number of games for revenue more than larger markets do. If you drop 20 games you drop 100k tickets while at the same time reducing the number of games for their local tv contract. LA would be fine but smaller markets can't afford to lose the revenue. As far as the scarcity argument it only holds true if you actually make the product scarce. The NBA would have to go to much fewer games than 50 to accomplish that.

They understand their business better than you do or the dude who wrote this article. If they would make more money playing 50 games they would have done it by now.
Click to expand...

Agreed.


And this issue reminds me of the vote to change the lottery system a few years back (to deter tanking), where 23 votes were needed to change the lottery system but only got 17 votes in support. And the motion to change the lottery system to reduce the incentive to 'tanking' was voted down. I remembered the Jazz voting against the change at the time even though we did not 'tank' and we were on the up and won't be in the lottery much longer in the future (this was 2014), we still voted against the change.


I think if we're gonna reduce games, small market teams that don't currently have 2-3 super stars are gonna vote it down, because to me it tips the scale to the 'Super Teams', their stars won't have to play as many games during the regular season, keeping them fresh for the playoffs. Also the reason you mentioned above is also a good reason for smaller market teams to not support it.


If I were the Jazz owner, even though we have Hayward and Gobert (but Hayward can still walk), I think we will vote against the change.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Think about anything in life. Scarcity makes things more popular. Ever heard the term "too much of a good thing".

Why is basketball popular? What is the driving marketing tool behind basketball? Stars.

If you were a NBA commissioner would you not want to limit things that injure the single most important resource of your game? Would you not want to prolong their careers? I would.

The NBA is different than the NFL in that good/great players are more valuable and more important to the quality of play. The NFL you can plug and play for a bunch of players without affecting the visual appeal, at least from a casual perspective, save for 1 position.

You know the NFL? You know what their biggest resource was? Quarterbacks. So they changed those damn rules so you cant touch quarterbacks anymore.

I dont get how any Jazz fan could be against this, especially after this injury riddled season.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the players will have no problem giving back large portions of their salaries too.
 
Wes Mantooth said:
I'm sure the players will have no problem giving back large portions of their salaries too.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. So far we don't know how the players feel about this. They haven't even complained about this. This was brought about by the trainers, etc.



Guys like Harden, LeBron and Kawhi have come out and actually said they would like to play as many games as possible down the stretch and don't want to rest. And these are guys who are playing the most minutes in the NBA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top