Comments on: George Karl thinks NBA would be better with shorter season

By: 00maltliquor

00maltliquor — Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:31:38 +0000

Hate the idea of less games, but it makes waaay to much sense in so many ways. Therefore, I think I DO like it!

Games spread further apart, games mean a little more, less injuries (in theory), gives me a little more time to focus on the football season (file that under personal reasons ), players playing with more energy, thus putting out a better product. Me likes.

By: michaeljordanseviltwin

michaeljordanseviltwin — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:59:37 +0000

Well said. And you’re right.

By: shzastl

shzastl — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:22:45 +0000

It always comes down to money, but why is 82 the magic number to maximize earnings? Wouldn’t they make still more money if they had 100 or 120 games?

By: whodatnhollywood

whodatnhollywood — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:18:13 +0000

62 games with the regular season starting Thanksgiving week would be great. By Christmas, most of the teams should be tuned up by then.

By: somekat

somekat — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:38:02 +0000

If the producet is better, and interest is higher, TV deals should cancel out. Networks will pay the same amount for 60 games getting 20% viewership than they would for playing 80 games at 12% viewership

By: nbascreed

nbascreed — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:28:27 +0000

NBA tickets aren’t commodities and your normal supply/demand won’t just magically apply b/c you artificially reduce your supply. I’m sure the league models this scenario every year with every input imaginable and it always comes back as no dice. It would take too long (my guess is about 8-10 years) to change both the local and national perception of the value of a single game.

By: paleihe

paleihe — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:34:30 +0000

“That said, the problem with the shorter schedule last year from a quality perspective was how condensed it was, the back-to-back-to-backs and so on.”

There’s no law that says the regular season has to end mid April. They can extend that to not have all these back-to-back-to-back games.

By: ulyses20

ulyses20 — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:19:40 +0000

I disagree with the part of “Shrink the schedule and you shrink how much season ticket holders have to pay”. If they shrink the schedule each games become for important for each team, therefore the teams could charge more for each game which will add up to the say amount if they were paying less for more games. Similar like the NFL, they can charge more for each game because they have fewer games to play. The same thing goes for endorsements, they can charge them more.

By: money2long

money2long — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 14:50:14 +0000

less games probably mean more stamina/less injuries, which contribute to better quality of play
more games mean more fan opportunities/more money and a happier david stern.

i like more games. but i think less games would actually make guys play better because they won’t be so burned out. maybe even better post season. but the beauty of more games mean GMs put more thought into the supporting cast. more games make role players more valuable. coaches will try to find more players that can contribute to preserve their more important players as much as possible. in this case, i would think role players would like more games because it makes them a commodity.