Each week, we’ll ask our stable of scribes across the globe to weigh in on the most important NBA topics of the day — and then give you a chance to step on the scale, too, in the comments below.
> What are your initial thoughts on a 44-minute game? What’s good? What’s bad? And what do you think of the chances of this ever being adopted?
Steve Aschburner, NBA.com: My first thought on the 44-minute game was, if the NBA sheds four minutes per game, how will MLB manage to add it to its average running time per nine innings? That’s the sport with the real too-long problem. As for this league, while I’m not persuaded that shaving four minutes of game action would matter much, I do think cutting the number of timeouts would help. Eleven-minute quarters won’t change the way teams coach or play the final two minutes, where most of the critics lob their complaints. Call me skeptical, too, that an 8.3 percent reduction would be applied across the board. To the 24-second clock? To the players’ salaries (they’d be working shorter shifts, especially bench guys)? To the owners’ TV revenue (fewer timeouts mean fewer cash-friendly commercial breaks)? And, ahem, to the ticket prices paid by fans?
Fran Blinebury, NBA.com: I’m all for doing anything that will stop regulation time games from dragging on interminably past 2 1/2 hours and toward the 3-hour mark. Frankly, I think that could be accomplished more effectively — and making the product better to view — by eliminating two timeouts per team, especially at the end of games. If the NBA wants to make a move to shorten the overall time of play, I’d make the bigger cut to 10-minute quarters, bringing the game in line with FIBA rules so that game is uniform all over the world.
Jeff Caplan, NBA.com: There’s no need to go from 48 minutes to 44 minutes in the name of shortening the game. If this is really about player health, then find a way to shorten the season. If owners want the players they pay millions of dollars to each season to remain on the floor and not in the training room then they’ll accept a few less home gates for the good of their players and the game. There are too many back-to-backs, too many stretches of four games in five nights when it is really unnecessary. Not only does it put players at great risk of injury, it diminishes the product. In short, don’t shorten the game, shorten the season.
Scott Howard-Cooper, NBA.com: Will teams be cutting ticket prices the same percentage on nights the clock is reduced? Otherwise, I’m not moved either way. On the overall list of things of issues worth a strong stand, I’d put it just in front of advertising on uniforms. There’s nothing wrong with giving a look during one or a few exhibition games or taking a test drive through the D-League a few times. That’s a long way from the NBA making the change during its own regular season. I don’t think it happens soon, if at all.
John Schuhmann, NBA.com: It would make games shorter and reduce injuries over the course of the season, but would also reduce the value of players 6-15 on every roster. I think the Players Association would have a problem with that. To reduce the time of games, I’d leave them at 48 minutes, reduce the number of timeouts (as they have in the 44-minute scenario) and adopt the FIBA rule that timeouts can only be called on dead balls or after a made basket. And to reduce injures, wear and tear and back-to-backs, I’d go to a 72-game season.
Sekou Smith, NBA.com: After watching game after game during the FIBA World Cup (where the games are just 40 minutes long) I gained a new appreciation for the 48-minute NBA game. This 44-minute experiment splits the difference. I’m not sure there is a discernible good or bad to identify in this experimental game until I actually see the game played on the 19th. Whatever the reasons are for messing with this, and I’m sure the competition committee has plenty, I don’t know that it will dramatically impact the game the way people think in the short term. The chance of this being adopted anytime soon would appear to be slim. But if they are experimenting in exhibition games, it’s at least on the radar.
Lang Whitaker, NBA.com’s All Ball blog: Initially, I like the concept of NBA games taking less time to play. But I really don’t like the idea of playing shorter games, particularly when you’re shortening game times by all of four minutes. What bothers me is that NBA games have always been 48 minutes long, which makes comparing stats across decades so easy to do — you always know that someone averaged however many points or rebounds per game in a 48 minute game. If the NBA is really serious about shortening game times, it’s very simple: Have fewer timeouts, fewer commercial breaks, and enforce the actual timeout lengths. Losing a minute of actual game time seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face.
Simon Legg, NBA Australia: I’m for these types of changes being trialed during the preseason, there’s no better format for it to take place but I don’t think I want it introduced. Fewer timeouts is probably a positive but I’m not for it actually coming in. Does the NBA need to be closer to the length of a college game or an international game? How long would it take for coaches to adapt tactically to the changes? Credit to Adam Silver for actively looking to try new things and deliver on proposals he has brought up but I’m not so sure this will ever come into fruition.
Akshay Manwani, NBA India: I’m not a fan of the suggestion to be honest. I can see the positives that come with it, namely fewer minutes per game translate into shorter playing time, which would in some way reduce the workload for players in what is a long NBA season. Also, I see this as the NBA willing to bridge the gap towards FIBA’s playing time which stands at 40 minutes. However, the not-so-good part is that fewer minutes may not necessarily translate into more rest time for key players. Instead, reserve players might see their minutes drop. And then there is the whole stats issue — how do you make comparisons between players who play 44 minutes against those who played 48 minutes? I wouldn’t know the chances of something like this being adopted, but I hope this never comes to pass.
Takuma Oikawa, NBA Japan: This is very interesting. I love NBA’s such unique and flexible idea. If the system is adopted, reducing many top players’ playing time, and they may show higher quality play. But the NBA’s 48-minute game has a long history: the 48-minute frame is not too long and not too short. So I think the game time format should not change. If the NBA wants to adopt short game time anyway, I’d rather it be the 40-minute length, like the FIBA game.
Davide Chinellato, NBA Italy: It’s great to see the NBA taking care of issues and making experiments to solve what is perceived as a problem. But I don’t see a 44-minute game happening for real. Regular season games aren’t too long. Playoffs games are, but not in terms of playing time. Fans want less ads when watching a game on TV, not less time of their favorite star on the court. Plus, a 48-minute game is part of what makes the NBA different from FIBA basketball and its 40-minute game.
Stefanos Triantafyllos, NBA Greece: I am not a big fan of changes, despite the fact that after some years I often admit that they were for the best. The 44-minute idea is very close to the FIBA playing time (40 minutes) and the plus-8 minutes was something that always held the two worlds apart, in a more distinguished way than the Atlantic ocean. Now the trend goes somethink like “less is more,” but I don’t like that minimal aspect when we are talking about the NBA. We want more!
Abraham Romero, NBA Spain : The players will be happy about the rest, but worried about the stats. Less minutes, less points. My thoughts are they are going to have to find a way to make the game faster without reducing the total time of play.