Warriors' Steve Kerr says he'd take a pay cut to shorten the NBA schedule
It seems like 82 games is simply too many
•
3 min read
As the debate about resting players rages on, Golden State Warriors coach Steve Kerr said Tuesday that he would be willing to take a paycut in order to reduce the number of games in the NBA schedule. This builds on the obvious point that has been made all over the place in the past few days: 82 games might be too many, but fixing that problem would decrease the league’s revenue.
“I wouldn’t be opposed to it, even at the expense to my own salary, but it’s something that everyone would have to agree to,” Kerr said before Tuesday night’s 112-87 win over the Dallas Mavericks. “I think even just going down to 75 games, I think that would make a dramatic difference in schedule. Now I don’t see that happening because there is money at stake for everybody.
“I do think this can be remedied though -- maybe not remedied -- but I think it can be dramatically helped with what the league is already working on for next year and the consideration of geographics when it comes to the schedule.”
Kerr also said that he does consider the fans’ perspective on this issue, which should have already been clear when he sent gift packages to fans who were upset about not seeing Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson play in Denver two seasons ago. He also called NBA commissioner Adam Silver’s memo to league owners “smart,” saying everybody involved had to figure out what’s best for the league, via ESPN.
“I do feel bad for the fans. I also know resting those guys last week was something that was beneficial, and I think it’s shown to be so this past week. You can see our guys are fresher, their legs. So what can we all do, together? And I think that’s where Adam is really good in terms of taking a lot of opinions and finding solutions. This is not a right-or-wrong issue. It’s what can we do to best serve the league, best serve the players’ health. Is there a compromise?
“We’re already working on that by extending the season next year by 7-10 days. I think that’s going to be very helpful, and I think the broadcast partners and the league can pay closer attention to the schedule when it comes out next year as they put that together. These are all things that we all have to work on.”
A few thoughts:
- Eighty-two is an arbitrary number of games, but whenever the idea of shortening the schedule comes up, it is accompanied by something like what Kerr said here: “I don’t see that happening because there is money at stake for everybody.” Why must this be the case? Shouldn’t the quality of these games and the health of the players matter? The NBA adopted an 82-game schedule in 1967-68 -- almost five decades later, there is no consensus that this is the ideal number. I would like for the league to look at this again, consulting sports scientists, and start with the question of how many games would be best.
- While I would say that the health of the game and its players should be a higher priority than simply making as much money as possible, I would also like economists to be involved with this process. If the league is going to take a fresh look at the schedule, then it should ask another question: At what point will scarcity make each game significantly more important to the point where fans care about the regular season more? There’s an argument that, along with rested players being able to put on a better show, decreasing the number of games would drive demand by virtue of the simple fact that they would be more consequential.
- Silver has said that he’s aware of the correlation between back-to-backs and injuries, and the league has indeed taken steps to lighten the load on its players next season. This is a good thing, but it is only a start. It is an open question as to whether Silver and the board of governors would consider doing something radical.
