Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
SALT LAKE CITY -- I like the number 60. Sixty seconds in a minute. Sixty minutes in an hour. It's a nice orderly number.
I think sixty is a number the NBA should adopt. They'll play 66 games this abbreviated season, down from the normal 82, but how about 60 on a regular basis?
Think about a 60 game season from Halloween until March. Games would mean more; salaries could be reduced, and less wear and tear on players could produce longer careers to make up for the pay cut. I should confess at the outset, the idea isn't an original. My longtime broadcast partner and former Jazz coach Frank Layden spelled out the advantages for me years ago. His idea is to start the NBA playoffs the weekend after the NCAA Final Four.
Genius!!!!!
Basketball is at a fever pitch and the NBA on center stage. Instead we get another month of regular season before the "real season" begins.
Now, I haven't run this by the Miller family, or anyone else with a stake in the game. I'm just riffing here. There would be arena dates to consider, more opportunities to book other events. Could you make up for 11 less home dates with concerts, tractor pulls and motocross? I don't know. Would memorabilia sales drop with fewer games or would that kind of secondary income sources maintain their viability and still produce? If so, a significant reduction from salary adjustment and no loss of retail sales might be an attractive combination.
Player reaction might be negative. After all, who likes to hear their salary is going to be cut, even if the work load is reduced? The chance for less annual miles on the body notwithstanding, it could still be a hard sell. How many times have we heard the mantra "we only have a narrow window to make our money?"
It's time to challenge that notion.
First, why does anyone have the right to expect a lifetime of financial security from their first job? Sure pro athletes are special, but even an average-salaried NBA player earns more in five years than most people earn in a lifetime. Nothing wrong with that, but if you can't survive on that kind of an income, who's to blame? And what's wrong with a 32-year-old who might not still be able to cut it in the NBA getting another job?
I do know one thing. This past lockout has produced a lot of "out of the box" thinking. NBA owners and players were both dissatisfied with the status quo and the result is a business agreement that seems to most average fans as a lot closer to sanity.
