https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents19071734/end-82-game-nba-season
Great article on the case to end the 82 game regular season.
Great article on the case to end the 82 game regular season.
Haberstroh: 82 Games Season Dead
- Thread starter Saint Cy of JFC
- Start date
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
I've tried to see this from the "pro-resting" point of view, but I just can't wrap my mind around it. I think back to the 80's when teams didn't have chartered flights (making travel much more difficult) and I don't remember Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, or Karl Malone openly campaigning for shortening the season. I hear players complain about back-to-back or 4 games in 5 night stretches and I think about working class people who toil for much less money and I just can't find the sympathy.
The level of athleticism, and thus wear on the athletes' body, has grown considerably across the league.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I agree.
It's lame but it is what it is.
Bigger/faster athletes, more international basketball during the off-season, and AAU/year round basketball starting very early in life.
Also not sure how this pertains to the article at all or how your complaints make any sense.
"I hear players complain about back-to-back or 4 games in 5 night stretches and I think about working class people who toil for much less money and I just can't find the sympathy."
Players arent really complaining, they are just doing what management and trainers are telling them to do for the best chance to win a championship, which our NBA society has placed the utmost importance on as far as legacy and greatness.
This isnt about making things "easier". It's about delivering a better product for the fans. Do you want to see players getting so banged up by the time the playoffs come they can barely even play? It makes no sense. I dont get why so many people are stuck to convention of how things use to be. **** changes and you should change the rules to compensate to make the best possible product. You can beat your chest and say "Oh well back in my day players were tough". So you really think basketball players have evolved into wimps? That doesnt seem likely.
Holy ****. Again, this is nothing to do with the players. This is what management and MEDICAL EXPERTS are suggesting. So people who study the body for a job are telling these managers to sit if their ultimate goal is winning in the playoffs/prolonging their million dollar investments. No idea why people always bring it to the players being "weak".
Also, pretty crazy, but getting paid more doesnt prevent injuries.
Then just stretch the season so there are no back to backs. Which the league is trialing next year.
I still stand by my proposal:
1. Stretch the season a to liminate back to backs; and
2. Have a 2 weeks break between the regular season and the playoffs
I'd be surprised if teams still rest players during the season if you do this.
Why do we need 82 games?
A huge break between playoffs/regular season is stupid and would be awful for interest.
It's good for the fans, the more games the more fun.
It's good for the NBA, the more games the more money they make.
It's good for the teams, the more games, the more popcorn they sell.
It's good for the players, the more games, the more money they make overall (provided there is enough rest time in between which is what I suggested above).
Win/Win/win/Win
All those things are proven wrong by the NFL. Did you even read the article when it explained the value of scarcity?
If that is your reasoning, why not play 100 games?
You're talking about 2 different sports and 2 different markets. You can afford to make your product more scarce and premium if your product is already the most popular on the market.
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.
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
So players were in worse shape back in the day, and that made it easier to complete an 82 game season?
Yes we have better athletes in the here and now but don't we also have better sports medicine? Better sports science? Better nutrition? Isn't it all relative?
7StraightIsGreat
Well-Known Member
Look, I understand there's a point/counterpoint to every argument. I've really tried to look at this from all sides objectively and every time I come to the conclusion that this is a manufactured argument coming from spoiled millionaires. I do disagree with you that players aren't the ones complaining. Is it coming from every player in the NBA? Of course not but the quotes are out there if you care to look for them. As far as the doctors chiming in, I'm sure an NFL player would perform better and stay healthier long term if he only played 10 games per season. Wow, what a stunning revelation!! Nobody's disputing that. My argument is, aren't these players getting payed millions because of the grind that they subject them to? I don't cling too much to the "back in my day" argument, but I think the NBA was much more watchable in the 80's and 90's and every single "problem" with an 82 game season existed then just as it does now.
So at what $ amount does this phenomena occur?
And yes, the NFL is starting to do dumb **** like put Thursday games in which limits rest between games for players and creates a worse product. There is pretty uniform agreement that Thursday games suck *** and that is largely because teams dont have enough time to rest and gameplan for their opponent on a short week.
Again, teh NBA players want to play. The teams and doctors are holding them out. So maybe a better explanation is that since the players are getting paid more money, team officials are more protective of them since they are huge assets. But ofc you want to blame it on the players being "soft". Could be racial implications in this.
I just have a hard time believing you have really looked at this from sides objectively when your final conclusion was money makes them want to play less games. If money was the primary factor then wouldn't they want to play more games? Your reasoning has too many holes.
What about other highly paid sports? Are NFL QB's complaining about too many games and sitting with injuries all the time because they get paid so much money?
You seem to equate the argument for less games to players being whiny bitches instead of players wanting to play at a higher level for fans so they can compete at a higher level? Why is that?
Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app
Last edited:
^Doctor opinions > random theory on more money making you more whiney about playing 82 games^
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Are there actually more severe injuries happening more often? That's your argument right? It seems like there would be data to show that but all I ever hear/read is vague and seemingly subjective statements like the one you posted. Maybe its true but I have yet to see evidence to back it up.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
The answer is No.