Even though this topic
has been discussed more lively in the beginning of the NBA season, I consider
it worth bringing up again. After the NBA experimented with shortening game
time (the NBA reduced the playing time to 44 minutes in some preseason games),
some players, including LeBron James and Dirk Nowitzki, mentioned that they
would prefer a reduction in the number of games over shortened playing time
(Herbert, 2014). This idea was immediately opposed by Michael Jordan (team
owner of the Charlotte Hornets), who pointed out on the economic deficits the
NBA and its team owners would have to deal with. Furthermore, Jordan mentioned
the “love for the game” he as a player had and that if he would not play in NBA
games, he would play somewhere else (Broussard, 2014). For me the reduction of
NBA games makes sense for two reasons:
First, by playing up
to a hundred games (including the palyoffs), NBA players put their health at
risk, because they simply do not have enough time to recreate and recover after
games. Even though the following situation is even rare for a crammed NBA
schedule, I would like to point out on a situation the Detroit Pistons had to
deal with in February: After loosing to the New York Knicks in double overtime in
Detroit (starting time 7.30 pm), the Pistons had to play the Wizards in
Washington the following day at seven pm (NBA.com, 2015). This means, that
after an exhausting double-overtime game the players did not even have 24 hours
to recover and prepare for the next game. Thus, from a medical standpoint, the
high number of injuries among (star) players (Kevin Durant, Derrick Rose,
Dwight Howard) is not surprisingly, even though other factors may add to that
as well.
Second, the high
number makes games unattractive and fans often seem to be exploited. Or, in
other words, fans often do not get what they pay for. For example, coaches rest
their star players for entire games or bench them as soon a game is decided
(which can often be midway through the third quarter). This means that fans who
bought expensive tickets to see LeBron James or Russell Westbrook, often only
see parts of them or they do not see them at all. Furthermore, an 82-game
schedule takes away a lot of excitement from games, since a loss does not hurt
a team too much in the big picture. On the opposite side, it also seems that
wins are not really cherished too much by many teams. To sum it up, the extended
NBA schedule takes away the value of many games.
After I have followed
the NBA more actively than in previous years (mainly because I have lived in
the US for the past year), I can only agree with players like LeBron James or
Dirk Nowitzki that the season is too long. What do you think about that issue?
Is it justified from an ethical standpoint to put players’ health at risk by having
them play so many games? Do you agree that fans are often exploited during NBA
regular season games, in that they “don’t get what they pay for”? Are there any
other arguments that speak for or against shortening the NBA schedule?
References:
Broussard, C.
(2014, October 16). MJ mystified by shorter season talk. ESPN[online]. Retrieved from
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11709451/michael-jordan-disagrees-talk-shortening-season-games
Herbert, J.
(2014, October 15). LeBron James wants a shorter season to protect players. CBS-Sports [online].
Retrieved from http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24753782/lebron-james-wants-a-shorter-season-to-protect-players
NBA.com (2015).
Scores and Schedule – Detroit Pistons. NBA.com. Retrieved from http://www.nba.com/gameline/pistons/
If it’s the NBA, MLB, NFL, or NHL, you will see the same arguments. The players will always be in favor of cutting down the number of games, while the owners will always be in favor of possibly increasing the number of games. I personally believe that the number of games should be reduced. Especially in the NBA. Their regular season begins in late October and lasts until April. If a team were to advance to the NBA Finals then their season is not over until mid-June. This only gives those players 3 months off, that is if they do not participate on their respective National teams. This same argument of time off can also be made for NHL players. I believe that MLB and NFL players get a fair amount of time off between seasons.
ReplyDeleteThis issue is arguable obviously but I think it's ridiculous. If they want to play less games then they should also expect less pay. If having less pay for less games is worth it to them then sure, I guess cutting the season down could be considered. However, my issue with it is that you didn't hear other players dating back to Jordan, Magic, Larry Bird, and other greats or players for that matter complaining about the length of the season. Let's also consider that these are two veteran players who are now looking toward the back end of their career, of course they're for cutting games because it gives them an opportunity to have a longer career and possibly achieve greater milestones that they have yet to achieve. With that said I wonder what their true intentions are and if they're actually concerned with injury or just using it as a good argument to mask their real desires. I'm a football fan before I'm a basketball fan but I don't believe that fans don't get what that pay for. Fans aren't forced to purchase tickets and for that reason it makes it hard to believe that they would purchase a ticket in the first place if they didn't think they'd be entertained. I can say that less games would decrease the risk of injury but injuries are just another nature of the game. Players know that playing poses a risk for injury, therefore the league shouldn't be penalized for that. I just believe that if it's something you are really passionate about and love you'd actually want more games, not less, at least that's what I desired when I played football.
ReplyDeleteJonathan Robinson