I think you're missing my point. He asked what would entice the teams to play - I responded with revenue sharing. Fans would go for the simple reason fans love to watch their teams and a good number would be dragged in by the hype.
NBA Considering "Dramatic" Schedule Changes For 2021-22 Season
- Thread starter Capt. Factorial
- Start date
I think you're missing my point. He asked what would entice the teams to play - I responded with revenue sharing. Fans would go for the simple reason fans love to watch their teams and a good number would be dragged in by the hype.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
from a financial standpoint, sure, but what good does it really do for a franchise in terms of seeding, draft position, etc. this is a cash grab opportunity, it's a business at the end of the day. Fans' interest and opinions are moot.
Not everything is about seeding, draft position, etc. See All-Star Weekend.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
then eliminate All-Star Weekend in place of an in-season tournament?
You're entirely missing the point. The NBA is looking for ways to make MORE money. They're not gonna eliminate a cash cow like ASW.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
I'm not missing the point. I'm simply pointing out why would teams allow their star players to play in a meaningless in-season tournament which does not dictate playoff seeding or anything of the sort that is beneficial to that franchise. The big markets are always going to have money, regardless of if they are relevant or not.
SLAB
Hall of Famer
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
And my point was I just think it’s stupid.
I agree with you. I hope Silver doesn't go through with it.
Iced Espresso
Starter
This is a lame idea.
For the simple reason each team has a contract with the NBA.
And my point was I just think it’s stupid.
I also think it's dumb ... and have from the beginning. That doesn't mean, however, that the NBA won't do it. $$$$$ is a powerful motivator.
kingsboi
Hall of Famer
do you think the NBA would go over all 30 NBA owners and get the thumbs up before deciding on this?
I think it's entirely possible. I also think you're underestimating the greed of most owners. Guess we'll see what happens.
burekijogurt
Starter
They were talking about paying paying the winning team's players 1 million each. For the end of bench guys this is a lot. The stars on the team try to get their end of bench guys some money and play harder. As players play hard, the competitive juices start flowing. As the competitive juices start flowing tempers flare. The games are hard fought! The fans like this and participate by making a lot of noise and packing the house every night. A playoff atmosphere develops! The winning team celebrates! The in-season tournament now matters after only one iteration.
Meh. Brian Windhorst had it right: that **** wasn't ever going to happen. The only teams that want this to happen are all in the western conference. You would need all fifteen of those, and five teams from the eastern conference, to vote 'Yes' on that kind of change.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Don’t see what the fuss is all about re: mid season tourney.
College basketball has tournaments in November, December and even in March. Even though none of those tourneys determine the EOY champion, fans still watch and attend.
Why would this be any different? If anything, it breaks up the monotony and status quo of the long 82 game marathon. Even reduces the season by a few games.
I just don’t see what the problem with it is.
Now, admittedly, I’d like to see some added benefit given to the winning team that aids them at the end of the season heading into the playoffs (Should they make it) Gotta have some extra incentive aside from $$$. IDK what would be most reasonable, but something.
Just spitballing here, but what if playoffs participants were determined by a ‘point system’ that was derived from a combination of total wins during the regular season and finish in the tournament or by the amount of tournament wins (e.g., advancing past group stage or knockout round)? The further a team advances in the tournament or the more games they win the more points they‘re awarded that is then added to their regular season win point total.
Doing that would make all regular season games and the tournament games mean something while providing incentive for both.
College basketball has tournaments in November, December and even in March. Even though none of those tourneys determine the EOY champion, fans still watch and attend.
Why would this be any different? If anything, it breaks up the monotony and status quo of the long 82 game marathon. Even reduces the season by a few games.
I just don’t see what the problem with it is.
Now, admittedly, I’d like to see some added benefit given to the winning team that aids them at the end of the season heading into the playoffs (Should they make it) Gotta have some extra incentive aside from $$$. IDK what would be most reasonable, but something.
Just spitballing here, but what if playoffs participants were determined by a ‘point system’ that was derived from a combination of total wins during the regular season and finish in the tournament or by the amount of tournament wins (e.g., advancing past group stage or knockout round)? The further a team advances in the tournament or the more games they win the more points they‘re awarded that is then added to their regular season win point total.
Doing that would make all regular season games and the tournament games mean something while providing incentive for both.
Last edited:
It’s kinda cool, only shows how American’s r too old fashioned.
In season tournament will be better than most regular season when top3 teams play bottom 3 teams for example when Milwaukee plays kings... change that game for idk. LAL vs bucks in in-season top 6 teams match up.... that means more competitive games and more money.
But in return there should be less regular season game’s.
Like 76 games. So bad teams will play 6 games less per season and top teams will remain playing 82 games before PO.
Don’t look too bad
In season tournament will be better than most regular season when top3 teams play bottom 3 teams for example when Milwaukee plays kings... change that game for idk. LAL vs bucks in in-season top 6 teams match up.... that means more competitive games and more money.
But in return there should be less regular season game’s.
Like 76 games. So bad teams will play 6 games less per season and top teams will remain playing 82 games before PO.
Don’t look too bad
Any games played during the season that do not contribute to the eventual championship add to the risk of injury for no good reason, especially in the middle of the season. Your changes notwithstanding, players are already being subjected to "load management" because the season is too long/grueling.
Excuse me?
I've got an idea for a "dramatic" change that could make NBA games more interesting, but it's not a schedule change: power play for flagrant fouls. Instead of free throws and/or ejection for flagrant fouls, the offending team has to put the player who committed a foul in the penalty box, like in hockey, and the other team gets to play 4-on-5 for two minutes.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
But they'd be playing LESS games under the new proposal. That's a good thing, isn't it?
If my idea was adopted, then the tournament games would count just as much, if not more, than any single regular season game toward earning a playoff spot.
I'm not sure I'd go for that, but I do kinda like another hockey rule - on a defensive foul the play continues until the fouling team possesses the ball. For one thing, it's a better way of dealing with "breakaway" fouls. Once the fouling team gets possession of the ball, the fouled team gets to choose the outcome they prefer - the result of the play, or the foul. If there are multiple fouls, the fouled team could choose which foul to accept. And of course, if you were fouled on a three-point shot and your team got the rebound and say a putback, your team could still choose to take the three free throws instead of the dunk. Clock goes to the time of the foul, if the foul is accepted.
That would make intentional fouls at the end of the game...interesting to say the least.
Not necessarily. Can we both agree that tournament play would be more intense than regular season play? If so, one might argue that those tournament games would be a potential for more injury...
If they're going to do that, then why not just divide the season into two halves? Winners of the first half could face the winners of the second half to determine playoff seedings...
bottom line for me is that I'm not convinced any of these proposals would be any better than what we have right now.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Well, I think we could both agree that reducing the season by like, say 20 games would be a great place to start. But they're not gonna do that. Revenue loss. But if they were truly concerned about player safely, health and quality of the games, they'd find a way to do it.
82 games is far too many. And the fact that you acknowledged the difference in 'intensity' proves as much. When intensity is lacking in so many games, you know there are too many. And the fans/sponsors are being overcharged for subpar efforts and, in many cases, absences from key players.
I remember the 50 game season back in 1998/99 (as I'm sure you do too). I thought that was a great season sans that the games were all sandwiched between February and early May. If they had a 50-60 game season run from Nov through April + midseason tournament that counted toward playoff points, I think it would have the potential to be pretty cool.
The 1999 lockout season was absolutely not great. The 66-game 2011-12 season wasn't great, either, but it was better than the '99 season, by an order of magnitude.
You could maybe talk me into a 66-game season, even though it would suck for me, personally (since, unlike most people who self-identify as sports fans in the U.S., I have nothing but contempt for football). But, appreciably less than that? No way!
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Well, agree to disagree on that one. Other than it being truncated into a short timeframe, I believe it was pretty great. Each game meant a lot more. Thus there weren’t a lot of players taking nights off, whether it be actually resting or just not playing with the same intensity.
FWIW, a 60 game schedule with the in-season tournament would be 68+ games. According to the proposal, the group/divisional stage is 8 games minimum. 4 home, 4 away. So any team not advancing past the group/division stage would play at least 68 games.
If they went 66, as your minimum suggests, then the least amount of games a team could play would be 74.
I’m not married to a specific number, I just believe less would be more so-to-speak. Places greater emphasis and more value on each and every game while also reducing the players work load and travel dates.
That‘s one thing I’ve always preferred about the NCAA and WNBA. The shorter season placing greater emphasis on every game. While I subscribe to the notion that those seasons are too short, I think they’re better than 82 plus a long postseason.
I believe a better balance can be found somewhere in between.
Last edited:
kb02
All-Star
The NBA would need to expand team rosters to accommodate an in-season tournament or tournaments. It can be done, but players health will suffer from high stress games. Soccer is a good proxy for how it could work n the type of demand it would generate. The problem is almost all of the elite teams in soccer also end up being the richest. You need a deep bench to compete in your own league and in tourneys. Not sure how that will impact the league n tourneys with a level financial playing field.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
