NBA commissioner discussed shortened season and axing All Star game

[Gnashville]

With more parity it'd be more interesting.

The NBA needs to have a hard cap instead of a soft cap, and also remove the "max salary" rule.

You do both these things, and in five years the NBA has a LOT more parity, and is a lot more interesting!

I agree but the sport needs to rethink everything stop giving star players preference in fouls, call traveling per the rules, and make it where fans follow teams not players.

This is the 1st time I have looked at the NBA standings in years, but I see 3 teams in playoff spots below, at, or 1 game over .500. Those teams are just fodder anymore and have no chance at a playoff win.
Cut the playoffs down to 8 teams instead of 16 and eliminate the usless 1st round.

 

[romba]

I see many comments indicating a lack of interest in the NBA due to the disparity of teams and non-competitiveness. But this really isn't the case. Many many NBA fans are less tied to a specific team, and are more invested in the stars. So even though the league isn't that competitive and the playoffs tend to be blowout ridden especially in the first couple of rounds, people still tune in to see the stars perform. I personally don't get it, I think it's a generational/demographic thing related to social media and following everyone's twitter and instagram and constant highlights and snippets of the stars perform but who knows. Also many immigrants and their children love the NBA, it's easy to pick up or they were already fans prior to coming, it's seen as very 'American' but there's a heavy European presence and flair to it as well especially in more recent times.

 

[Acesolid]

I disagree about the talent pool. The issue is just the nature of the sport itself. The star players can often play the entire game and their team's offense will run through them on almost every possession. Secondly, the NBA is a league where the star is going to get the call, giving a greater advantage to the best players.

In the NFL, the best players only play 1/2 the game (offense or defense) and it is much easier for coaches to scheme to take away the opponent's best player (keeping an extra blocker to help against a stud edge rusher, not running at stude defenders, stacking the box against a great running game, doubling the great receiver, etc). Plus, you have 11 guys on the field at one time and the positions are more specialized. Much harder for a teammate to "cover for" or replace another. If a defenseman in hockey pinches, a forward can cover the point. Or, I think of the 80 NBA finals. Kareem as hurt, so Magic played Center that game. If Odell Beckham is hurt, Saquon Barkley is not going to just play WR with their 12th guy filling in at RB. Sterling Shepard becomes the primary receiver, and the 3rd or 4th gets on the field to replace Beckham. Talent drop-off is much greater.

In baseball, the best hitters only bat 4 times a game and the best pitchers only pitch once every 5 days.

In hockey, the best forwards play 20 minutes a game and will have shifts where they are pinned and playing D for most of it. You have 18 skaters who all have to contribute in some way.

Point is the star in bball will have A LOT more influence over the outcome of each game than in any other sport.

But, if say.. Lebron were paid his real value (say 45% of cap space)... then the rest of the team would be so weak that it'd even out!

 

[Gnashville]

I see many comments indicating a lack of interest in the NBA due to the disparity of teams and non-competitiveness. But this really isn't the case. Many many NBA fans are less tied to a specific team, and are more invested in the stars. So even though the league isn't that competitive and the playoffs tend to be blowout ridden especially in the first couple of rounds, people still tune in to see the stars perform. I personally don't get it, I think it's a generational/demographic thing related to social media and following everyone's twitter and instagram and constant highlights and snippets of the stars perform but who knows. Also many immigrants and their children love the NBA, it's easy to pick up or they were already fans prior to coming, it's seen as very 'American' but there's a heavy European presence and flair to it as well especially in more recent times.

The problem is fans don’t care about their teams anymore and follow players. There are only 5 or 6 of those players out there and only the teams that have them are relevant. No one cares about the Charlotte Hornets, or Memphis Grizzlies. Having 25 or so irrelevant teams in the league is just crazy. ESPN and Turner pays billions for the TV deal and the league parity is ridiculously bad. The off-season is more interesting when players choose free agency than the regular season. Everyone knows Golden State wins another Championship this year and the games are meaningless. Plus given how the league was caught fixing games in the past and it’s nothing but an boring WWE knockoff.

 

[Cellee]

Start the season mid September and end mid May

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I have been saying that the NHL should do away with the All-Star game for ages.

Replace it with a tourney:

Year 1 Olympic Qualification
Year 2 Olympics
Year 3 WC Qualification
Year 4 WC

Then repeat.

That's great for international hockey. What's the draw for the NHL? There isn't one. That's why you won't see any of that.

If we're going to have an All-Star Game, I'd rather make it more like a pick-up game. Line players up, draw two names at random to be captains, have them pick rosters like it's grade school [this probably gets done the day before so jerseys can be made, so the day of is "for show"], play a couple halves of 30 minutes, players largely call their own penalties, otherwise really relax the rules [7-on-7? OK. No blue line or red line, no offsides? Sure, why not?] and let the players have fun.

Shortening season in hockey: BAD IDEA!!! For the following reasons:

1. The price of a ticket just escalated a minimum of 15%, which probably reduces overall revenue as less people can afford the games.

2. Welcome to the Dead Puck Era 2.0. With fewer games, each game takes on more importance. 1-0 games will be commonplace with even harder traps. The game will be UGLY. It will be worse than an Italian League soccer match.

3. The only way a shortened season works is if the playoffs are expanded to 24 teams. That way, there's a little bit of wiggle room in games so each one isn't played so close to the vest defensively.

1. All player salaries would get cut by X/82, where X = number of games reduced off the schedule. So, any increase in tickets won't be because "we're trying to pay players the same salary with revenue from fewer games." However, that "cut player salaries by X/82" thing is probably the drawback, because the players won't want to take a "pay cut" ignoring that no matter what, they're still getting 50% of HRR.

2. This is arguable. I could see it going the other way, where guys aren't ground down from a compressed schedule and so fresher legs mean more chances to create scoring opportunities. [I've got other ideas here, but I'm keeping them to myself until I can think through them more.]

3. I don't see an expanded playoff happening any time soon, mainly because there's no appetite for it from the owners.

 

[Ted Hoffman]

I dont like it. All the NHL records will be strongly affected. Goodbye for 100 point seasons, 50-goals seasons.

Once upon a time, 50-goal and 100-point seasons were exceedingly rare. They became more common because the talent level increased, but also because the schedule expanded from 50 to 84 games in stages. Are scoring totals today cheapened because guys are able to play more games a season than Howe or Mikita or even Phil Esposito?

 

[Tom ServoMST3K]

A group of people have to come together and agree to reduce everyone's salaries by 20 per cent.

Not going to happen, although I would love it.