Homepage
Facebook
X
Nov 29, 2011, 1:41 am
[quote name='Raze Lupin' timestamp='1322495354' post='36357']
This makes too much sense Skangles. <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rofl3.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> One thing I don't think we've mentioned (although I'm sure its been thought about)is the NBA's desire to promote "headline" games. Headline meaning games that get the most press. There are 18 non-conference games 3 more than there are teams in a conference. Using the Lakers as an example, I would say that there 3 extra games will be 1.Celtics, 2.Heat, 3.Bulls or Knicks. I doubt the Lakers will play The Bobcats, Wizards, Raptors for the 3 extra non-conference games. Those 3 extra games will be used for television spots by elite teams. Likewise Dallas extra 3 will probably include the Heat. Miami's 3 extra games will included Dallas, Lakers, OKC!?. Now the smaller market/less competitive owners will complain some about this and grab a bit of the 3 game pie. Still I don't see Dallas/Miami, Lakers/Celtics only playing once. I don't believe that 18 number is random at all.
I believe a 65 game season is perfect for the NBA. Every game counts in 65 especially the 50 conference/division games. A few NBA media pundits have said a shortened season is best for the NBA.
[/quote]
If my assumption is correct then I would imagine that out of the 2 same-conference teams that a team will face 4 times, one will come from each division within the conference. Out of the 3 opposite conference teams that a team will face 2 times, I would imagine that one would come from each division.
I think we can pretty much guarantee that the Mavericks and Heat will be playing twice. I also would put money on the Heat playing the Cavs 4 times. The league should try to balance the number of quality teams and sh*t teams that each team faces to avoid an unfair balance in schedule. While you bring up a good point about revenue, as a Bucks fan I'd be thrilled if the Bucks extra games were against the Bobcats, Kings, etc.
I think that the NBA will put money first Boston vs. LA, Miami vs Dallas, etc. but will still try to avoid having all the good teams play each other and all the bad teams play each other.
Here is my prediction on the teams that the Bucks will play an extra time.
Eastern Conference - 4 games:
Atlantic Division = Toronto Raptors (Bucks fans and Raptors fans hate each other for some unknown reason)
Southeast Division = Atlanta Hawks (Atlanta was our last playoff opponent and nobody cares about either team so the NBA is happy)
Possible Alternative = Boston Celtics (the Bucks always seem to play the Celtics on national TV and Bogut/Garnett like to punch each other. This could also serve as one of the Celtics' "easy" competition to avoid the clear bias accusations)
Western Conference - 2 games:
Northwest Division = Minnesota Timberwolves (there is a huge Minnesota vs. Wisconsin rivalry. This will draw local interest for two teams that otherwise will struggle to fill the stands)
Southwest Division = San Antonio Spurs (the Bucks play them well, there is a grudge after Ginoboli took leisurely stroll with the ball in hand to hit a game winner last year and the Bucks were supposed to start the season against the Spurs under the original schedule)
Pacific Division - Golden State Warriors (Jennings scored 55 against Golden State. Again nobody cares about either team so it doesn't disrupt the overall league planning and the NBA will assume there is some sort of bullshit rivalry between Jennings and Curry because they were both part of the same draft class).
Also, I've heard a lot about shortening the NBA season, not just on this board but in the media. While I think that it would make the games more meaningful, I don't see why the league would entertain this from a financial perspective. Think about it, if you are an owner of a team going nowhere that plays in a stadium with a capacity of 18,000 and because the team isn't great they regularly fill 12,000 to 13,000 per game, why would you want to sacrifice any of your 41 home games? You certainly won't do that because it makes the league more interesting. You're not going to get more than 1,00 additional fans per game if the season is shorter and even that may be a stretch. You're also not going to pay the players 75% of the current wages because they're playing in 75% of the games. It's just a quick way to ensure that the league loses money.
This makes too much sense Skangles. <img src='http://www.talkbasket.net/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rofl3.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> One thing I don't think we've mentioned (although I'm sure its been thought about)is the NBA's desire to promote "headline" games. Headline meaning games that get the most press. There are 18 non-conference games 3 more than there are teams in a conference. Using the Lakers as an example, I would say that there 3 extra games will be 1.Celtics, 2.Heat, 3.Bulls or Knicks. I doubt the Lakers will play The Bobcats, Wizards, Raptors for the 3 extra non-conference games. Those 3 extra games will be used for television spots by elite teams. Likewise Dallas extra 3 will probably include the Heat. Miami's 3 extra games will included Dallas, Lakers, OKC!?. Now the smaller market/less competitive owners will complain some about this and grab a bit of the 3 game pie. Still I don't see Dallas/Miami, Lakers/Celtics only playing once. I don't believe that 18 number is random at all.I believe a 65 game season is perfect for the NBA. Every game counts in 65 especially the 50 conference/division games. A few NBA media pundits have said a shortened season is best for the NBA.
[/quote]
If my assumption is correct then I would imagine that out of the 2 same-conference teams that a team will face 4 times, one will come from each division within the conference. Out of the 3 opposite conference teams that a team will face 2 times, I would imagine that one would come from each division.
I think we can pretty much guarantee that the Mavericks and Heat will be playing twice. I also would put money on the Heat playing the Cavs 4 times. The league should try to balance the number of quality teams and sh*t teams that each team faces to avoid an unfair balance in schedule. While you bring up a good point about revenue, as a Bucks fan I'd be thrilled if the Bucks extra games were against the Bobcats, Kings, etc.
I think that the NBA will put money first Boston vs. LA, Miami vs Dallas, etc. but will still try to avoid having all the good teams play each other and all the bad teams play each other.
Here is my prediction on the teams that the Bucks will play an extra time.
Eastern Conference - 4 games:
Atlantic Division = Toronto Raptors (Bucks fans and Raptors fans hate each other for some unknown reason)
Southeast Division = Atlanta Hawks (Atlanta was our last playoff opponent and nobody cares about either team so the NBA is happy)
Possible Alternative = Boston Celtics (the Bucks always seem to play the Celtics on national TV and Bogut/Garnett like to punch each other. This could also serve as one of the Celtics' "easy" competition to avoid the clear bias accusations)
Western Conference - 2 games:
Northwest Division = Minnesota Timberwolves (there is a huge Minnesota vs. Wisconsin rivalry. This will draw local interest for two teams that otherwise will struggle to fill the stands)
Southwest Division = San Antonio Spurs (the Bucks play them well, there is a grudge after Ginoboli took leisurely stroll with the ball in hand to hit a game winner last year and the Bucks were supposed to start the season against the Spurs under the original schedule)
Pacific Division - Golden State Warriors (Jennings scored 55 against Golden State. Again nobody cares about either team so it doesn't disrupt the overall league planning and the NBA will assume there is some sort of bullshit rivalry between Jennings and Curry because they were both part of the same draft class).
Also, I've heard a lot about shortening the NBA season, not just on this board but in the media. While I think that it would make the games more meaningful, I don't see why the league would entertain this from a financial perspective. Think about it, if you are an owner of a team going nowhere that plays in a stadium with a capacity of 18,000 and because the team isn't great they regularly fill 12,000 to 13,000 per game, why would you want to sacrifice any of your 41 home games? You certainly won't do that because it makes the league more interesting. You're not going to get more than 1,00 additional fans per game if the season is shorter and even that may be a stretch. You're also not going to pay the players 75% of the current wages because they're playing in 75% of the games. It's just a quick way to ensure that the league loses money.