When Steve Kerr speaks, people listen. And what he just said about the NBA schedule is going to start one hell of a conversation.
The Golden State Warriors head coach — a guy with nine NBA championship rings as a player and coach — went on record saying the NBA needs to cut 10 games from the schedule.
"We need to play fewer games," Kerr said. "We need to take 10 games off the schedule. The modern game with the pace and the space — I think it would be a more competitive and healthier league if we played fewer games."
Now, before you dismiss this as a coach protecting his aging stars, let's look at the numbers. The modern NBA is different. Players are running more miles per game than ever before. The three-point revolution has turned basketball into a sprint-and-space game that's physically exhausting. And let's be honest — we've all noticed the load management era, where stars sit out games to preserve themselves.
Kerr isn't wrong. If you want your best players on the floor for the games that matter, maybe you shouldn't be grinding them down over 82 games plus playoffs.
But here's the rub: the NBA isn't going to cut games. Why? Money. An 82-game season means more tickets sold, more TV broadcasts, more revenue. Cutting 10 games means cutting revenue, and the owners aren't exactly lining up to do that.
Still, Kerr raises a legitimate point about competitive balance. How many times have we seen a marquee matchup where half the stars are sitting out for "rest"? How many times have playoff teams looked gassed in the Finals because they've been playing since October?
The NBA already tried to solve this with the In-Season Tournament and play-in games. But maybe the answer isn't adding more bells and whistles — maybe it's just playing fewer games and making each one matter more.
Look at the NFL. Seventeen games, and every single one feels like life or death. The NBA? Game 23 of 82 in January against a lottery team doesn't exactly get the blood pumping.
