How a 72-game season would reignite interest in the NBA

The idea of shortening the NBA season has become increasingly popular, with many arguing that it would be better for the game. The 82-game schedule has been around for 55 years, so there is definitely a sense of history that comes with it, but it’s also arbitrary. Commissioner Adam Silver left the door open to changing the schedule by stating:

"“And I’m saying we’re paying attention to that and want to make sure that the number of games we’re playing isn’t just a result of the fact that that’s what we’ve been doing for 50 years.”"

While that’s encouraging, it doesn’t mean that a change is imminent. Moreover, if the schedule does change, it may not be in the way that proponents want it to. A 72-game season appears to be the most common number thrown around, and it would be the perfect number of games. It would decrease the need for load management, which has become a problem for the NBA and also allow them to space their games out more.

That would ensure that players don’t get as worn down over the season, and if players do miss extended time with an injury, they’d actually miss fewer games. Injuries obviously affect team records more than anything, and having key players miss fewer games means teams play up to their full potential.

Are there downsides to the NBA shortening the season?

Critics would argue that changing the season’s length would minimize the importance of the regular season, affect statistics, and, of course, decrease revenue in terms of ticket sales. They might also argue that there were still several injuries to stars during the 2020–21 season when the NBA played 72 games due to COVID-19.

The counter to that would be that permanently trimming the season might lead to increased ratings because every game matters more and it is easier for casual fans to follow. Also, the NBA appears to be pushing streaming by slashing the price of NBA League Pass, which could more than offset the cost with more fans signing up.

After all, League Pass is a monthly or yearly subscription that allows fans to watch every team while not affecting the league’s massive media rights deal. The NBA would be able to appeal to its target audience more effectively and may even see an increase in jersey sales and other merchandising with fewer games to watch and more affordable streaming options.

As for statistics, few players actually play more than 75 games anyway, and a shorter season means that they could put up bigger numbers while appearing in a higher percentage of games. Additionally, injuries can happen at any time, including in off-season pro-am games, but cutting the season does minimize the risk.

The NBA is looking to add more games, not fewer.

While shortening the duration of the season might be better for the game, the NBA doesn’t appear to agree. In 2020, they added the play-in tournament, which actually adds games to the schedule for the teams participating in it.

Also, it appears increasingly likely that there will be a mid-season tournament. That would reportedly shorten the season to 78 games, but only to accommodate the tournament, and would mean teams would play an uneven schedule.

There doesn’t appear to be any real purpose behind the tournament, but the NBA seems determined to have one just to increase revenue.

In that case, who’s to say that they won’t end up keeping the 82-game format and tacking on more games with the in-season tournament? At least shortening the season ensures that the quality doesn’t wane and limits the risk of season-ending injuries.

All in all, it seems unlikely that the NBA will shorten the season. Despite that, given the clear benefits, perhaps they should at least consider it.