What's new
By:
Filters

Haberstroh: 82 Games Season Dead

♪alt13 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to follow through and find it (sorry), but there have been pieces written about the rise in ACL injuries.
 
Also, I love it when the "old school" people cite Larry Bird's toughness. The dude's career was probably seriously shortened because of the rigors of an 82-game season.
 
I get the wear and tear aspect of it but why not teach these AAU kids how to treat their bodies to help cull the risk of breakdowns and injuries? Most injuries are caused by body fatigue anyway. Preventative measures can go a long way.
 
RJF said:
I get the wear and tear aspect of it but why not teach these AAU kids how to treat their bodies to help cull the risk of breakdowns and injuries? Most injuries are caused by body fatigue anyway. Preventative measures can go a long way.
Click to expand...

They do but you know, telling a 13 year old how to take care of himself only goes so far.
 
They should make it a 16 game season just like the nfl. Imagine how healthy players would be. And each game would be of the utmost importance.
 
jazzman12 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They don't get paid so much because of the rigors of the game. They get paid so much because that's their negotiated portion of the revenue the league generates.
 
Bulletproof said:
They don't get paid so much because of the rigors of the game. They get paid so much because that's their negotiated portion of the revenue the league generates.
Click to expand...
In that case, less games might mean less revenue and therefore less money (lower salaries) for the players?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
In that case, less games might mean less revenue and therefore less money (lower salaries) for the players?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Not according to Cy. Less games means the games are more 'scarce', 'rare' and the more valuable each game becomes and the more money the League will make as a whole.



Don't ask me how that works though, I'm not smart enough to understand it.
 
fishonjazz said:
In that case, less games might mean less revenue and therefore less money (lower salaries) for the players?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

Potentially, but a large portion of revenue comes from TV deals. If TV ratings are dropping due to players not playing because the schedule is too long, that could eventually drop those profits. They have less games, but amount of TV games dont change, that would make the games shown on TV higher quality and more meaningful which could potentially get higher ratings.
 
fishonjazz said:
In that case, less games might mean less revenue and therefore less money (lower salaries) for the players?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I'd suggest reading the article

ONE LOVE said:
Not according to Cy. Less games means the games are more 'scarce', 'rare' and the more valuable each game becomes and the more money the League will make as a whole.



Don't ask me how that works though, I'm not smart enough to understand it.
Click to expand...

Why are you quoting Cy? I'd suggest reading the article.


Have you guys thought about reading the article?






Carry on.
 
If each team in the league played a home and away that would be 58 games. Get rid of conferences at the same time.
 
fishonjazz said:
They should make it a 16 game season just like the nfl. Imagine how healthy players would be. And each game would be of the utmost importance.
Click to expand...

This is a GREAT point. If Cy wants to replicate NFL's success so much, and want each game to be extremely RARE, why not just do a 16 game season?


NFL teams don't play each other twice a year do they? Why do we need to stick to that? NFL has the recipe to success right?
 
NAOS said:
Also, I love it when the "old school" people cite Larry Bird's toughness. The dude's career was probably seriously shortened because of the rigors of an 82-game season.
Click to expand...

What if he was playing an 82 game season in the era of chartered flights, drastically reducing the amount of time he spent sitting in airplanes with that bad back? What if he played in the era of sports medicine and sports nutrition that we currently enjoy? Is it possible that under these circumstances, Larry Bird could have played a little bit longer while still playing this ever daunting 82 game schedule?
 
Cy,

I'd also like to point out that I'm not against making changes to the NBA regular season. When you're not too busy trying to implicate me as a racist, you make a very good point about NFL Thursday night games, even if it is a different sport with a million different variables in comparison to the debate we're having. Since the NFL adopted this full time Thursday night slate, we've seen nothing but utter garbage and it needs to go away fast.

Back to the NBA, I'm all for looking at ways to get rid of back-to-back and the 3 games in 4 night scenario's. I just feel like that doesn't automatically mean they can't play 82 games. It's going to take some outside of the box thinking. Example: The Utah Jazz are hard to schedule because they immediately request a black-out on any Sunday home date each and every year. This automatically takes 1 day out of the equation when the NBA is trying to make a home schedule for the Jazz and inevitably forces the NBA to make Utah play some condensed games in order to make up for that. I remember going to a Jazz-Suns regular season match-up in SLC in the late 90's on a Sunday afternoon. The game was a sellout, the fans were actually there on time and the atmosphere was awesome. Like the Jazz, every NBA teams requests black out dates for a myriad of reasons. The first thing the NBA should do is look at eliminating (or limiting) black out dates for all NBA teams. This would allow the NBA to make a schedule years in advance, do a better job of spacing out the games, and would afford teams the luxury of having a long enough lead time to schedule other revenue drawing events at their arenas. Basically instead of Utah tweaking their schedule and creating a back-to-back scenario so they could accommodate Disney on Ice when it comes to town, Utah would have a schedule made a few years in advance and Disney on Ice would have to pick a time to visit SLC based on that.

Doing something like that in conjunction with adding 2 or 3 week would allow the NBA to alleviate many of the problems that people are citing with the current schedule. The fact that these ideas exist and should at least be explored is why I'm not ready to throw my hands up in the air and call for the end of an 82 game regular season.
 
jazzman12 said:
What if he was playing an 82 game season in the era of chartered flights, drastically reducing the amount of time he spent sitting in airplanes with that bad back? What if he played in the era of sports medicine and sports nutrition that we currently enjoy? Is it possible that under these circumstances, Larry Bird could have played a little bit longer while still playing this ever daunting 82 game schedule?
Click to expand...

Are you asking if these other things might have helped to alleviate the biggest issue (i.e. the 82-game schedule)? Of course it's possible; I'm going with the 'highly unlikely' option, though.
 
NAOS said:
Are you asking if these other things might have helped to alleviate the biggest issue (i.e. the 82-game schedule)? Of course it's possible; I'm going with the 'highly unlikely' option, though.
Click to expand...

So since it's inception, do you think the 82 game schedule has always been a problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top