CRAZY IDEA

by 1974spurzfan on Feb 28, 2010 9:24 PM CST

I have to come clean..I'm a Spurs fan. Having said that, I think this applies across the board, especially as most of the teams are drafting guys with unpronouncable names from other countries.

We've suffered some, especially lately, from our players playing for their Country, only to come hobbling back to the Spurs, almost useless for quite some time. BTW, this also applies to US players. Coaches, owners and fans are all frustrated and upset. Do you realize what some of those salaries could do for the Budget of the US?

Here's my suggestion (only slightly tongue in cheek): Any player who plays for their country and comes back, beat up, exhausted or just not in the mood to put out at 100%, could take the year off. The would NOT receive a pay check but their team would retain their rights for one additional year over their current contract. I would hope that most of these guys have some savings or their wives could work or they could do color commentary. BUT, they could not play basketball for ANYBODY during that year.

Any comments?!?!?

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Sounds completely reasonable.

by LatinD on Feb 28, 2010 10:18 PM CST reply actions

I agree completely. Hell, I’d like to take a damn year off. I’ll talk to my wife about it.

We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.

by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Feb 28, 2010 10:29 PM CST up reply actions

Most players in their right mind would not forego millions of dollars no matter how beat up or exhausted they were. ( Then there is the fact that alot of these guys have a ton of pride, and would still gladly play hurt )

Now, if you had stipulated that the it was within the power of the owners,coaches and team physicians to deduce if the play was too exhausted, hurt or not willing to give 100%, that would be a more plausible scenario.

...Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is forty five.

by alamobro on Mar 1, 2010 2:08 AM CST reply actions

Bad idea.

I’m guessing this also applies for the USA Olympic team too. This rule would require the USA Olympic team to revert to using college players only. And with the majority of good players declaring for the NBA in their sophomore or even freshman season, it would leave the USA out of contention for Olympic competition. If you think that is a good idea say so.

by jimjule on Mar 1, 2010 11:37 AM CST reply actions

a year off is evidently too long vacations after 2 weeks of international play. but giving them an option to take couple of months before Christmas would be a reasonable compromise. The country would need to pay their salary for those couple of months and the team should be able to sign some prospects for 2-month contracts.

by Kondor on Mar 1, 2010 2:05 PM CST reply actions

I like this idea. Or possibly reducing the NBA schedule by 10 games or so. International competition occurs every off-season, and with more and more players coming from other countries, this is going to continue to be a problem. Shortening the schedule would give everyone another month to rest up and recuperate.

by CapHill on Mar 1, 2010 3:03 PM CST up reply actions

4 games against division opponents, 1 against everyone else. Comes out to 66 games, I think.

Spurs Basketball. Improving [other] NBA teams since 2010! - swgeek

by Tim C. on Mar 1, 2010 3:08 PM CST up reply actions

4 games against each division opponent, 2 against everyone else = 70 games, 12 games less than the current 82 and still allows for a home & home series with all teams

by CapHill on Mar 1, 2010 3:57 PM CST up reply actions

errr, 2 against everyone else… that’s what I meant.

4 division opponents x 4 = 16.
25 out of division opponents x 2 = 50

16 + 50 = 66 games. Take that, engineer. :D

Spurs Basketball. Improving [other] NBA teams since 2010! - swgeek

by Tim C. on Mar 1, 2010 4:33 PM CST up reply actions

She’s an engineer. Not a programmer. Engineers play against themselves.

We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.

by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Mar 1, 2010 5:47 PM CST up reply actions

Apparently, I suck™ at Math. But if we did play ourselves, who would win?

by CapHill on Mar 1, 2010 5:57 PM CST up reply actions

Pop

"I will five all over this blog." - JRW

by Manuwar on Mar 1, 2010 9:57 PM CST up reply actions

+ 1

"Mr. Gilmore deserves to be in the Basketball Hall of Fame damnit. Highest field goal percentage EVER"

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/g/gilmoar01.html

by Joe deLarios on Mar 2, 2010 8:57 AM CST up reply actions

there are two problems with shorter season. one is that many team records are tied to 82 games. with 66 games, nobody would ever win 70 games in a season like Chicago did. even worse problem is that shorter season means less tickets sold and less games shown on TV. so the owners would get hit, and they would reduce player’s pay. nobody would want it. if only biggest stars sit, the revenue could still drop a bit, but usually fans are excited at the start of the season and they would want to see new guys. it also would level the field quite a bit, and allow bad teams to have good starts, making the competition closer and more exciting (Lakers beating Nets by 30 in December is boring, Lakers without Kobe and Gasol makes it more interesting). Of course, the league would schedule most lopsided match-ups to the first couple of months, as they do already. and then the all-stars would return around Christmas giving the league additional mid-season boost.

by Kondor on Mar 2, 2010 1:21 PM CST up reply actions

The regular season is too long as it is now. I think that 76 games would be ideal. I realize that would mess with all the records that were established with the 82-game season, but the positives would outweigh that issue, with the end result being a better product on the floor and therefore more fans in the stands. And players and teams would be better prepared for the grind of the games that really count. However, I guess as long as money is the bottom line, the NBA won’t do what is in the best interest of its own league.

by 4Him on Mar 2, 2010 2:17 PM CST up reply actions

For the NBA “bottom line” and “best interest” is the same thing, and the only thing. NBA is a business. They sell basketball.

by Kondor on Mar 5, 2010 3:46 PM CST up reply actions

I wouldn’t mind less games. 82 is a long season for the players and even for the fans. 66 to 70 games is much more reasonable. I’d love to get season tickets, but there’s just no way to get to 40 + home games, with everything else in life. As far as records, just start new ones.

by Spurlady on Mar 2, 2010 7:48 PM CST up reply actions

Sports really is for the fans and many fans would not be happy to have less basketball every year. Remember how painful the offseason was when there was no basketball to watch. No way the season is reduced.

"I've got Tim (Duncan) and you don't. That's the difference." -Gregg Popovich

by bj1der on Mar 3, 2010 11:00 PM CST up reply actions

Sports really is for ~~the fans~~ making money

FTFY

by swgeek on Mar 4, 2010 12:14 AM CST up reply actions

It’s about 2 months of international play. Not two weeks.

We specialize in misinformation around here. Facts and stats just get in the way.

by Wayne Vore (ATS) on Mar 1, 2010 5:48 PM CST up reply actions

I thought international competitions tended to be short. it’s probably two months counting the training camps?

by Kondor on Mar 2, 2010 1:23 PM CST up reply actions

Crazy idea

Hey, thanks for the feedback. As a newbie here, I wasn’t sure what would happen, but it’s good to see that I’m not the only Frustrated Fan. Manu is playing lights out while Parker is having one problem after another….coincidence? I think not!

1974Spurzfan

by 1974spurzfan on Mar 2, 2010 12:29 PM CST reply actions