Celtics to play Nets in "shortened game experiment"

[Mencius]

Televised games are getting too long so the solution is not cutting down on mandatory timeouts for television advertising its cutting down on actual game time played. Unreal.

Have they actually said anywhere the the reason for reducing the game by four minutes is because they think the games are too long?  Or is it because of wear and tear on the players.  I have no idea what their rationale is.  NBA games don't even last that long compared to other sports.

[nickagneta]

Televised games are getting too long so the solution is not cutting down on mandatory timeouts for television advertising its cutting down on actual game time played. Unreal.

Have they actually said anywhere the the reason for reducing the game by four minutes is because they think the games are too long?  Or is it because of wear and tear on the players.  I have no idea what their rationale is.  NBA games don't even last that long compared to other sports.

Per the attached article they said the games were too long.

[ballin]

Honestly, they should reduce the schedule to just 66 games so that each team could play the other teams in their division three times, and everyone else two times.

Casual and semi-casual fans lose interest and won't watch a losing season because 82 games of "suck" is too much to endure. Secondly, 82 games essentially removes the excitement of the playoff race, since the huge volume of games makes things very predictable (the larger the volume of games, the more space emerges between teams). Plus, it will reduce the risk of injury.

But back to the topic at hand: I'm not opposed to reducing the length of games, but 11 minutes is just idiotic. If you're going to do it, make it congruent with FIBA and go to 10, like kozlodev said. Saving 4 minutes measly minutes isn't enough to justify changing the length of the game. Shaving 8 minutes off is a somewhat different story.

[guava_wrench]

Fewer minutes will mean less money going to bench players. It will also mean really short playoff rotations.

I don't think this will change wear and tear as the main guys will still play a lot of minutes. Those minutes will in many cases be trimmed off the minutes of more marginal guys.

[kozlodoev]

What's next? Let's eliminate all traveling, double dribble, offensive fouls, back court violations, and video replay to cut down on game stoppages and speed the game along that way?

I thought they did away with half of those already. Travelling, double dribble, and offensive fouls, in particular, are always iffy.

[guava_wrench]

Honestly, they should reduce the schedule to just 66 games so that each team could play the other teams in their division three times, and everyone else two times.

Casual and semi-casual fans lose interest and won't watch a losing season because 82 games of "suck" is too much to endure. Secondly, 82 games essentially removes the excitement of the playoff race, since the huge volume of games makes things very predictable (the larger the volume of games, the more space emerges between teams). Plus, it will reduce the risk of injury.

But back to the topic at hand: I'm not opposed to reducing the length of games, but 11 minutes is just idiotic. If you're going to do it, make it congruent with FIBA and go to 10, like kozlodev said. Saving 4 minutes measly minutes isn't enough to justify changing the length of the game. Shaving 8 minutes off is a somewhat different story.

Does it matter if people lose interest? They will still lose interest if it is 66 games. This is even worse in baseball.

The regular season SHOULD be a good method for sorting the wheat from the chaff. I want the best teams to win. And I don't see how more or less games diminishes the playoffs. Teams still get eliminated and upsets still happen. Is there really that much of a difference between the teams considered the best at the 66 game mark and the 82 game mark?

[Mencius]

Televised games are getting too long so the solution is not cutting down on mandatory timeouts for television advertising its cutting down on actual game time played. Unreal.

Have they actually said anywhere the the reason for reducing the game by four minutes is because they think the games are too long?  Or is it because of wear and tear on the players.  I have no idea what their rationale is.  NBA games don't even last that long compared to other sports.

Per the attached article they said the games were too long.

Yeah, I read the article, and it's reasonable to presume that it's because they think the games are too long, but it doesn't specifically say that.  It still seems stupid to me, as cutting four minutes of play won't reduce game time very much anyway.  As compared to the other major pro sports, using 2013 data, NFL games last 3:10:34, MLB games last 2:57:33, and NBA games last 2:17 (during the regular season).  Combined with the fact that they are already shorter games compared to other sports, and considering there's way more action vs in-between plays time in the NBA, I really don't see any reason to shorten games.  Then again, I'm not exactly a casual fan, and they may think differently.

Here it is; they really don't address why they feel the need to try this:

The league announced the decision Tuesday, with NBA president of basketball operations Rod Thorn saying it will test out the idea of playing a shorter game, a notion that was broached during offseason discussions.

"At our recent coaches' meeting, we had a discussion about the length of our games, and it was suggested that we consider experimenting with a shorter format," Thorn said in a statement. "After consulting with our Competition Committee, we agreed to allow the Nets and Celtics to play a 44-minute preseason game in order to give us some preliminary data that will help us to further analyze game-time lengths."

[Nerf DPOY]

This is going to go over with the public about as well as Chris Gaines.

[D.o.s.]

SHOT CLOCK? WHAT'S A SHOT CLOCK? AND WHAT ABOUT THIS NEWFANGLED THREE POINT LINE?!

[nickagneta]

Televised games are getting too long so the solution is not cutting down on mandatory timeouts for television advertising its cutting down on actual game time played. Unreal.

Have they actually said anywhere the the reason for reducing the game by four minutes is because they think the games are too long?  Or is it because of wear and tear on the players.  I have no idea what their rationale is.  NBA games don't even last that long compared to other sports.

Per the attached article they said the games were too long.

Yeah, I read the article, and it's reasonable to presume that it's because they think the games are too long, but it doesn't specifically say that.  It still seems stupid to me, as cutting four minutes of play won't reduce game time very much anyway. 

Here it is; they really don't address why they feel the need to try this:

The league announced the decision Tuesday, with NBA president of basketball operations Rod Thorn saying it will test out the idea of playing a shorter game, a notion that was broached during offseason discussions.

"At our recent coaches' meeting, we had a discussion about the length of our games, and it was suggested that we consider experimenting with a shorter format," Thorn said in a statement. "After consulting with our Competition Committee, we agreed to allow the Nets and Celtics to play a 44-minute preseason game in order to give us some preliminary data that will help us to further analyze game-time lengths."

I don't know. Call me crazy but when the league comes out and says they are looking at shortening games because the games are too long, I generally think they are saying that they are shortening the games because they feel like the games are too long, not because it is having a deleterious effect on their players health. Maybe this is a huge assumption but if they were thinking of shortening games because it was having adverse effects on player health, they would say so.

[Fafnir]

I'll oppose anything that increases the ratio of Commercials to Basketball. Which seems to be the approach this proposal will end up going.

[Mencius]

Televised games are getting too long so the solution is not cutting down on mandatory timeouts for television advertising its cutting down on actual game time played. Unreal.

Have they actually said anywhere the the reason for reducing the game by four minutes is because they think the games are too long?  Or is it because of wear and tear on the players.  I have no idea what their rationale is.  NBA games don't even last that long compared to other sports.

Per the attached article they said the games were too long.

Yeah, I read the article, and it's reasonable to presume that it's because they think the games are too long, but it doesn't specifically say that.  It still seems stupid to me, as cutting four minutes of play won't reduce game time very much anyway. 

Here it is; they really don't address why they feel the need to try this:

The league announced the decision Tuesday, with NBA president of basketball operations Rod Thorn saying it will test out the idea of playing a shorter game, a notion that was broached during offseason discussions.

"At our recent coaches' meeting, we had a discussion about the length of our games, and it was suggested that we consider experimenting with a shorter format," Thorn said in a statement. "After consulting with our Competition Committee, we agreed to allow the Nets and Celtics to play a 44-minute preseason game in order to give us some preliminary data that will help us to further analyze game-time lengths."

I don't know. Call me crazy but when the league comes out and says they are looking at shortening games because the games are too long, I generally think they are saying that they are shortening the games because they feel like the games are too long, not because it is having a deleterious effect on their players health. Maybe this is a huge assumption but if they were thinking of shortening games because it was having adverse effects on player health, they would say so.

They don't actually say that they feel that the games are too long, but it is implied.  What I don't understand is why they feel that way,given that:

As compared to the other major pro sports, using 2013 data, NFL games last 3:10:34, MLB games last 2:57:33, and NBA games last 2:17 (during the regular season).  Combined with the fact that they are already shorter games compared to other sports, and considering there's way more action vs in-between plays down time in the NBA, I really don't see any reason to shorten games.  Then again, I'm not exactly a casual fan, and the NBA may think that reducing game time from 2:17 to 2:05 or so might give them a bigger audience.

[gpap]

Yeah, I don't get this at all.

If any sport needs to be shortened, it's baseball, not basketball.

[Mencius]

...I don't know. Call me crazy but when the league comes out and says they are looking at shortening games because the games are too long, I generally think they are saying that they are shortening the games because they feel like the games are too long, not because it is having a deleterious effect on their players health. Maybe this is a huge assumption but if they were thinking of shortening games because it was having adverse effects on player health, they would say so.

From another article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nba/2014/10/14/nba-44-minute-game-experiment-nets-celtics/17246813/

The Nets and Celtics volunteered to participate in the 44-minute game experiment, which will include a different mandatory timeout schedule.

Each quarter will have two mandatory timeouts at the first dead ball under 6:59 and the first dead ball under 2:59, and the game will have two fewer mandatory timeouts than a normal game. In a 48-minute game, there are three mandatory timeouts in the second and fourth quarters, and the first mandatory timeout comes at the first dead ball under 5:59.

The league will pay close attention to the length of that game. The total time of an average NBA game is about two hours, 15 minutes.

USA TODAY

NBA's huge TV deal means more for players and owners to fight over

Also, if the NBA played 44-minute games for an 82-game season, it would eliminate about seven games worth of a minutes from a regular season. However, that doesn't mean a coach would play certain players fewer minutes.

For example, LeBron James still might play 38 minutes per game. But maybe he plays less, which would take some wear and tear off of players not only during a single season but the length of a career.

"The reality is that we don't know," Thorn said. "But the probability is that they're going to play a little bit less."

It appears wear and tear may well be a consideration, too.  The reality is that they don't say why they want to shorten the game.  It is left to us to speculate.

[KG Living Legend]

 HOOOOOOOOORAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!