Skip to content

David Stern says NBA not shortening its season again

May 9, 2012, 10:59 AM EDT

NBA And Players Representatives Meet To Discuss Possible Settlement Getty Images

Some people really liked it.

Some casual basketball fans liked an NBA season that started on Christmas rather than Halloween and had more games — and more meaningful games — every night leading into the end of season playoff races. Television ratings were up (slightly but up).

It’s not happening again. Because it’s about money.

David Stern was on ESPN’s Mike & Mike radio show and was more diplomatic in talking about it, while CNBC’s Darren Rovell was listening and tweeting.

David Stern tells @MikeAndMike that he has is skeptical of shortening the # of the games in a season. Might take reopening of the CBA.

But as we told you back in April, Deputy Commissioner Adam Silver was more blunt.

“If you cut the season shorter, we cut our revenues significantly as well. Players would make less, so no, and I think it’s not optimal to play a condensed season in this fashion.”

The regular season is when revenue is generated from ticket sales, and sponsors pay for those 41 home games to reach those ticket buyers. Television contracts local and national pay for a full season. The players salaries were pro-rated this year to 66-games. Nobody made as much money as normal but they wanted to make as much as they could following the lockout, hence the condensed schedule.

But it’s not happening again. The owners and players want to get paid, and that means a full 82 games. It’s about the money. It’s always about the money.

  1. thestudiokida - May 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM

    More meaningful games heading into the playoffs? I beg to differ.

    I canceled my league pass halfway through this season expecting the big games to be televised but found instead that every major televised matchup features playoff bound teams resting their star players. There wasn’t a decent televised matchup for the last 2 weeks of the season. This season is bullocks.

  2. shzastl - May 9, 2012 at 12:08 PM

    Why stop at 82? If they make more money with more games, why not play 98? 114?

  3. Tim OShenko - May 9, 2012 at 1:25 PM

    Also, the fans who want more basketball get more basketball, and players get more of a chance to rest between games, hopefully meaning less chance of injury (or at least players would miss fewer games due to any one injury).

    So yeah, it’s primarily about money, but there are other benefits to the longer season. No reason to be cynical about it.

  4. rollteal - May 9, 2012 at 3:28 PM


  5. david8726 - May 9, 2012 at 3:54 PM

    I’d love it if we had an NBA season that started in November and only had 60 or so games. That way you could eliminate back to backs an ensure that every NBA game is played at max effort since the guys are always rested.

    Unfortunately, greed is probably going to prevent that from ever happening.

  6. gmsingh - May 10, 2012 at 9:42 AM

    Both the regular season and the playoffs are too long, so if it’s all about making money that’s fine, but if it becomes about which team is lucky enough to have the least key injuries to its players I will just stop watching. Clearly Stern shows no concern whatsoever to the health of the players or what the fans are getting for their effing money. He’s a piece of crap.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 NBA Player Searches
  1. D. Rose (2638)
  2. K. Irving (2062)
  3. L. James (1731)
  4. A. Davis (1728)
  5. K. Bryant (1658)