Less basketball isn’t the right move

Less+basketball+isn%E2%80%99t+the+right+move

By Spencer Brown

The NBA regular season is set to tip off this week. It is the beginning of a long, but exciting 82-game season.

Lately, some high profile names have voiced their opinions on the length of the NBA season.

Most notably, LeBron James and Dirk Nowitzki have argued that 82 games are a bit too much on the players. A few coaches have agreed with the two players, citing past grievances with the NBA schedule.

Nowitzki even went as far as suggesting the NBA trim the schedule to about 60 games. 

With that in mind, let’s play the “Why a 60-game NBA season is a bad idea” game.

Get The Daily Illini in your inbox!

  • Catch the latest on University of Illinois news, sports, and more. Delivered every weekday.
  • Stay up to date on all things Illini sports. Delivered every Monday.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Thank you for subscribing!

History

The NBA has been playing 82 games since 1967. If it’s not broken, then why fix it? It’s been 47 years, but should time dictate change or necessity?

Continuing with the historical context, a large percentage of Hall of Famers endured this supposedly ‘grueling’ stretch of games year-in and year-out without complaining of wear and tear. With the advances in technology and health research, today’s athlete is far better conditioned for an 82-game season than the players of the 1960s.

There are also the record books to consider. Again, we’re talking close to 50 years of NBA records based on an 82-game schedule. A 60-game schedule would introduce single-season records and milestones cluttered with asterisks; records and milestones that will not be highly regarded because of an amended amount of games.

Second point: Money

As Michael Jordan so eloquently pointed out, if you want a shorter schedule, you better be ready to take a pay cut. Let’s start with team revenue. The 41 home games that each team plays is used to generate revenue for the team. Simple math tells us that fewer games means limited money to pay the players. What that does for the owners, especially in a collective bargaining scenario, gives them leverage to lower the salary cap and the contract terms, (years and dollars per year) which would likely lead to a lockout. Despite what people may think, lockout or not, the owners will find a way to get their money.  

Secondly, let’s take the contract of Cleveland Cavalier LeBron James. James is set to make $20,644,400 this year. That’s $251,761 per game. Let’s shave 22 games off of James’ contract at that rate. If he were paid on a per-game basis, he would lose $5,538,742. 

You could argue that LeBron could make that loss up in endorsements, which is very true. So, let’s take the contract of Cleveland Cavalier Matthew Dellavedova. Dellavedova is set to make $816,482 this season. That averages out to $9,957 per game. If the season was trimmed and his contract terms remained the same, he’d lose out on $219,056. Dellavedova, to my knowledge, doesn’t have any endorsement deals and I don’t suspect he ever will. 

Third point: What else would they be doing?

This is my biggest pet peeve. NBA players play basketball for a living and I’d guess 99 percent of the players in the NBA love basketball. That means, NBA court or not, they are going to play basketball. Could it be media pressure, expectations or considerable practice time that make players want to shorten the season? Maybe. I can almost live with that excuse. But the fatigue excuse isn’t much of an excuse. Not that the players aren’t tired sometimes, but to say “we want to play less basketball” doesn’t make any sense.

There is also this unspoken belief that players’ only opportunity to get injured is on an NBA court during a game. Truthfully, it’s impossible to know when players will get hurt. NBA players play a lot of basketball, and even fluke injuries happen. Steve Nash got hurt carrying bags. Nick Young got injured in practice. A few years back, Carlos Boozer had an accident in the kitchen. An 82-game schedule should be the least of players’ concerns.

Teams playing four games in five nights against top-level competition seems very difficult. If the NBA can address that issue and the amount of back-to-backs scheduled or when they are scheduled, the players may compromise. 

But please, please, please, NBA headquarters, stay away from altering game length.

11-minute quarters just aren’t natural.

Spencer is a senior in LAS. He can be reached at [email protected]