In a recent interview, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver, brought up the idea of another change for the NBA. In recent years we have had the Play-In Tournament for the playoffs. The Emirates NBA Cup, which crowns an early season winner of a handful games and something few fans really understand, but the league deems exciting even though it leaves most fans scratching their heads trying to understand its relevance. The players on the winning team like it too because they get a healthy $500K check if they win it.
Now it seems that Adam Silver, as he stares into the future of the NBA, has thought about another change and he envisions the future NBA game shaved down from 12 minute quarters into 10 minutes quarters and a 40 minute game. Not because it will improve the actual basketball occurring on the floor but because it would be a better formula for television. Silver believes that a two hour broadcast format just fits with “modern television habits.”
Silver states he is a fan of the new idea but he is not sure that many others agree at this point. This makes sense because why would you mess with the format of a game that has just rewarded your league (nicely negotiated by Silver) a $76 billion media rights agreement over the next 11 years, which works out to about $2.5 billion for each team. Yearly each team will receive about $230 million or so beyond their usual seasonal revenue.
To give you an idea how that can affect the bottom feeders in revenue let’s take the New Orleans Pelicans, which, according to reports, had $272 million in revenue which landed them in last place among the 30 teams. Now if we add the $230 million from the media agreement (this is an average yearly guess as the league will take some kind of cut) their revenue bumps them up to a total of $502 million which would have placed them 5th right behind the Lakers. It is also expected that the league may add 2 new expansion franchises within the next 2-4 years, and those franchises may go for an entrance fee of $5 billion each so the 30 teams will split up that $10 billion among each other adding another $333 million or so to their coffers.
It’s a good time to be an NBA owner.
With the new media deal there are no poor NBA teams anymore. In fact, because the League is going to smooth the salary cap by allowing it to be increased no greater than 10% per year of the agreement, could we see at some point in 10 years or so the first player earning $80-$100 million a year?
It’s also a good time to be an NBA player. Unless they go to those 10 minute quarters.
Silver admits that the league is in a really good place overall right now and he has had a lot to do with that but maintains that all the other basketball leagues like College, Europe and the Olympics are all 40 minute games and he feels that’s the model the NBA should embrace.
That would mean upending 78 years of a 48 minute game and once that domino falls the after effects become really uninviting.
With a 40 minute game the teams starters can play most of the minutes and sometimes will play the full 40 minutes. Most of the top players and starters in the league are playing 33-38 minutes a game now. Playing an extra 2-7 minutes more for a number of games may not be difficult for many of those players.
One possible negative effect will be that it could definitely devalue every team’s bench depth. How much bench do you need to give guys a few minutes of rest a game? The answer is- not many.
Let’s just look at some minute math and I’ll use the Celtics and the Knicks as examples. Obviously, each team in the league will be a little different.
A 48 minute game (12 minute qtrs.) is a total of 240 minutes in the game. 48 minutes x 5 positions. A 40 minute game (10 minute qtrs.) is a total of 200 minutes. 40 minutes x 5 positions. So, a 48 minute game has 40 more minutes in it. This is key for bench players.
The Celtic starters play an average of 164 minutes per game when you add up their avg minutes for each of the starters. So, in a 48 minute game there are an extra 76 minutes of game time (240-164) which players like Pritchard (28), Horford (27), Hauser (20.4) and Kornet (17) can roughly fit into as they average about 92 minutes together off the bench and the difference in the averages gets made up game to game by a starter getting in foul trouble or playing poorly and getting a few less minutes.
But in a 40 minute game for the Celtics there are only 36 extra minutes left. This won’t even fit Pritchard and Horford’s average minutes. Their minutes would have to be by 19 minutes between them and would leave no minutes for Hauser or Kornet except for a stray minute here and there. These are key players for the Celtics but 10 minute quarters will drastically either reduce their court time or some of the starters time none of which is a positive development. And don’t forget that those reduced minutes mean that they are not in the court very long each time they go in, which can really mess with their consistency.
The Knick’s starter’s play 182 minutes a game as we know Head Coach Thibs usually plays players for longer stretches. In a 48 minute game that leaves 58 minutes left for the bench which Thibs squeezes in 6 players with double digit minutes. McBride averages about 24 minutes and Achuiwa averages about 22. Then Thibs squeezes in 4 other player who each contribute minutes in the low teens. But in a 40 minute game for the Knicks there are only 18 minutes left for the bench which only would allow their top two players off the bench, McBride and Aciuwa, to play and their minutes would be cut to about 9 minutes each, less than half of what they usually play.
When you devalue a team’s bench you also lower their salary value. A decision might be made by owners that rosters don’t need more than perhaps 10 players instead of the 15-17 currently (which may include two-way players on some rosters).
If they reduce rosters it will reduce costs in the millions of dollars in salary for owners. The costs for players, besides the loss of their jobs and millions in salary would include insurance, medical care and other perks. If rosters are reduced from 15 to 10 that’s 5 jobs for each team. A total loss of 150 jobs. I’m sure the NBA Players Association would not be happy about either lower salaries or less players. The initial reaction from a number of NBA Head Coaches was also negative. They understand the value of their bench play and appreciate the history of the game especially if the change is not to improve the game.
I’m just going to mention that the other main professional sports leagues in the US have all retained their usual length of games. The NFL is still 4 quarters of 15 minutes each. Baseball is still 9 innings although they have instituted a pitch clock and other adjustments to speed up those 9 innings. Hockey still has 3 periods of 20 minutes which means two half times which I would never have survived as a coach trying to think of a new motivational speech for the second half time.
The other problem with 10 minute quarters is that it would cause true havoc trying to figure out scoring records and individual player rankings when you are now playing 40 minutes instead of 48. Do we use some algorithm or AI to convert the 40 minutes into 48 minutes to just compare fairly? Would fans really buy that?
I think the NBA has made a long standing mistake by not currently recognizing pre-3 point scoring totals as a separate career total. In other words, take a point off every 3 made by a player and see where they stand in the career rankings. You will find some surprises. Have two lists. One where you count the 3’s and the other where you deduct a point because those players played in the era before the 3 was allowed.
Maybe Adam should give another idea more thought and try to convince the other leagues to move to 48 minutes like the current NBA. Why follow the herd instead of getting the herd to follow you? I think this could actually solve some problems.
If we add 8 more minutes to the college game it would allow coaches to play a few bench players longer and more consistent minutes, which might change the mind of some who want to head for the transfer portal because they were not getting enough minutes, enough shots, enough recognition or a shot at some NIL money without getting more time on the court.
For the European Leagues, they would have more minutes to develop some of their young players that often have to wait for the senior players to struggle before they can move into a starting or key back up role and get consistent court time. It would also give the team a few more time outs to sell some products.
As for the Olympics? We are still going to have a full bench so let’s keep this one at 40 minutes.
I want to segue for a minute to discuss the format for the Play-In tournament. I’m not sure about the logic of changing the normal playoff format where the top team plays the worst team, then the next best team plays the second worst, etc. I’ve heard their explanation, but the logic escapes me. The Play-In currently forces the two top teams, 7 and 8, to play each other first and the two worst teams, 9 and 10, play each other.
The 7 and 8 teams should simply play 10 and 9 like normal playoff pairings because there really should be some benefit to finishing in those positions as they earned those positions through their play over 82 games. If 7 beats 10 and 8 beats 9 then 7 and 8 play for those two spots. And 9 and 10 play to fill those last two spots in the standings. Pretty straight forward.
If 10 beats 7 and 8 beats 9 then 8 plays 10 for the 7 spot and the loser gets 8. Team 7 and 9 play for their final spots in the standings. Upsets happen but the two best teams in this little dance should not have to face each other in the initial play in round. Especially because the 10th team might have lost a lot more games than the #7 team. As I write this the Chicago Bulls are in 10th place with 7 more games in the loss column than Miami who sits in 7th.
The other talking point that Adam Silver mentioned that was discussed was awarding only 2 foul shots on missed 3 point shots. But he says he might not want to do it in the last 2 minutes. I wonder who brought this one up at their meeting and hopefully it was a very short discussion and quick death. The logic escapes me on this one, too. Does shooting only two foul shots save valuable minutes to get Adam closer to his 40 minute TV block?
I think this will certainly lead to more fouls in close games on 3 point shots even before you get to the 2 minute mark. One of the big questions for a coach when he is up 3 points as minutes are ticking down in the 4thquarter is does he just defend well on a 3 point shot or does he foul prior to a shot going up and give up the 2 foul shots but preserve the lead? This would make it an easy decision. Foul the 3 point shooter when you are up 3 or more and he only gets 2 foul shots and you still protect the lead. Or Steph Curry is on a roll shooting 3’s and you just start fouling him to give him 2 foul shots for the next few to try and take him out of his rhythm. It would seem like this rule would take away some of the advantages of the 3 and encourage some more fouling- which would lengthen the game when we are trying to stuff it into that 40 minute box. However, it might encourage more bench players who just come on the court at various times in the game to foul 3 point shooters.
Time to review the Laker trade with Dallas that brings them the just turned 26 year walking triple double, young Luka Doncic. I’ve been involved in many trades and watched a lot of trades take place in the NBA. But this one is really hard to understand from the Dallas side.
First, Dallas got to the NBA Finals with Doncic last season despite his faults of mediocre conditioning, smoking hookah and drinking beer that have been leaked. The Lakers, with both Anthony Davis and Lebron didn’t even get out of the first round of the playoffs losing 1-4 to Denver.
Davis will turn 32 in mid -March and is sidelined again with an injury for probably another few weeks. He has averaged only 60 games a season due to injuries over his career and as Father Time marches on and eventually takes over that number could easily limit his time on the floor. Doncic is just entering his prime years which is kind of amazing when you look at what he has done so far. It’s easy to make the case that when Doncic turns 30 and is still playing at a high level that AD may be out of the league at 36 or just not producing nearly enough to have an big impact on his team. I think it’s an easy case to argue that Doncic is among the top 5 players in the league and on any given night might be the best of those 5.
The Lakers desperately needed another young star. Desperate is not too strong a word. With LeBron possibly done in another year or two this roster is not ready for prime time once he leaves without this trade. So, it would seem that for Dallas the Lakers were a perfect team to grab a whole bunch of assets because it would have been very difficult for the Lakers to admit publicly they didn’t get Doncic because they wouldn’t add in another unprotected 1st round pick or add a quickly improving Austin Reaves to the deal or both. Instead, they got away with adding Max Christie who has also improved since he was inserted into the Laker starting lineup in the back court with Reaves.
What we don’t know is if Nico Harrison actually asked for more and Rob Pelinka just said no. We don’t know what the back and forth discussion was between the two who are friends and have known each other a long time. If Pelinka balked at adding another 1st or Reaves, then Harrison should have upped the pressure. He should have told Pelinka that he really didn’t want to open up discussions with other teams, but he felt he wasn’t getting enough in the deal and would have to talk to other teams unless Pelinka gave him more.
It's hard to imagine if Pelinka knew he could close the deal with another unprotected 1st that he would not have jumped at the chance. Adding Reaves into the deal instead of the extra 1st would have been a tougher choice but we are talking about Doncic. Pelinka had to know that there were other teams out there that could have offered packages that might have been enticing especially once word got out. We probably will never know if Nico Harrison did or did not push for more or if he did would Pelinka have pushed more chips onto the table?
The other unanswered question is why trade Doncic in the first place? We have heard rumors about his lack of conditioning. That he didn’t fit the culture. That he smokes and drank beer. I guess Red Auerbach must have just closed his eyes and looked the other way when Larry Bird was tossing down brewski’s in Bean Town.
Harrison believes Dallas can win with defense and AD could provide that. Or did the new owners not want to pay Doncic the reported $345 million on his next contract?
The thing about the complaints against Doncic is that these are personal behaviors that can be improved, modified or curtailed as a player matures or gets traded to another team where the player understands how those behaviors are hurting the team. Doncic can certainly improve those behaviors but when you make this trade you are also trading away the elite one of a kind all-around skills that can impact every game and help get you to the NBA Finals and possibly a title. Those are incredibly hard to find.
Doncic’s conditioning can be improved. He will always have a doughy type body and never be the slim 6 pack player. As far as culture there were never any rumors that he was a bad guy in the locker room or in Dallas. Yes, he should cut down on bitching at the refs about getting fouled but that’s like looking for reasons that don’t make much sense to trade him. Does Dallas know something that no one else knows? It’s always possible but in this case, I wouldn’t hold your breath.
The new owners have almost no experience in the NBA, especially in analyzing trades. A few of the comments from the team’s Governor showed himself to be less than knowledgeable about how to build a championship team than trade away the key guy who got you a chance to win it all last year. And they recently showed how tone deaf and unaware they are when they announced they were raising ticket prices 8.61% due to ingoing investments in the team and fan engagement. This was laughable. You have just traded away the player who you could build around for a possible long run as a contender, you have just about everyone hurt on your roster and are going to end the year on a sour note but you decide it is the right time to hit your enraged and angry fans with an increase in ticket prices? And who decides it should be 8.61%? I mean was 8.5% not good enough?
And where was Mark Cuban during this time? Cuban said he found out about the trade when it was announced. When he sold off part of his ownership for a few billions it sounded like he was still going to be overseeing Basketball Ops for a few years, but it now appears Harrison is the man calling the shots and Cuban will have no impact.
A strange trade and a poor one no matter how you spin it around and try to look at it from different angles. The only way Dallas comes out looking good on this is if Doncic gets a serious injury. It will be hard to see how Dallas gets back to the Finals and the Lakers now have the pieces to try and make at least a deep run in the playoffs if they stay healthy.