The NBA's 65-Game Rule Isn't the Problem, It's the Symptom
Stephen A. Smith, for all his bombast, actually hit on something important when he backed the NBA's 65-game minimum. Everyone's screaming about player availability, about how fans are getting cheated out of seeing stars like Joel Embiid or Giannis Antetokounmpo. They're right to be frustrated. Embiid played just 39 games this season. Antetokounmpo missed 17 games himself. Those absences sting, especially when you're paying top dollar for tickets.
But let's be real, the 65-game rule didn't just materialize out of thin air. It was a direct response to a real issue: the league's biggest names sitting out games they probably could've played. Remember LeBron James missing 27 games in 2022-23? Or Kawhi Leonard's "load management" saga that felt like it lasted half a decade? Fans were fed up. TV partners were definitely fed up. The league had to do something to ensure its product was actually on the court.
The Money Talks, or Sits
Thing is, the players agreed to this rule as part of the new Collective Bargaining Agreement. They knew what they were signing up for. The financial incentives are clear: if you don't hit 65 games, you're not eligible for those All-NBA teams, MVP awards, or Defensive Player of the Year honors. And those awards trigger massive contract bonuses and escalator clauses. For example, an All-NBA selection can mean tens of millions of dollars on a supermax extension. Nikola Jokic’s current deal, signed in 2022, was worth $276 million over five years. Imagine if he missed out on an All-NBA spot and lost out on future earnings because he sat too many games.
Look, I get it. The NBA schedule is a grind. Eighty-two games is a lot. Travel, back-to-backs, the physical toll – it’s immense. But these guys are compensated extraordinarily well for it. Jaylen Brown just signed a deal worth up to $304 million over five years. That's life-changing money. Part of that deal, part of that expectation, is being available to play. The league is a business. Its primary asset is its star players performing in games.
Blame the Calendar, Not the Rule
My hot take? The 65-game rule isn't the problem, and getting rid of it won't fix anything. The real issue is the 82-game schedule itself. It's a relic. In an era of advanced sports science, player tracking, and injury prevention, we're still running a marathon schedule that was designed for a different time. Shaving off 10-12 games would make a far greater impact on player health and availability than any minimum game threshold ever will. Imagine a 70-game season. More rest, fewer back-to-backs, and theoretically, more star power on the court when it matters most.
The NBA tested a shorter season during the COVID-19 bubble, playing 72 games in 2020-21. It wasn't perfect, but it showed a path forward. We saw fewer nagging injuries, even with the condensed schedule. The league should explore a permanent reduction, perhaps even a mid-season tournament with real stakes to make up for some lost revenue.
What's Next for Player Availability
The current rule is a stop-gap measure. It forces accountability, yes, but it doesn't address the root cause of player wear-and-tear. We saw Brandon Ingram miss 27 games this year, falling short of eligibility for any potential bonuses. Trae Young played 64 games, just one short of the mark. These are real consequences.
But the league needs to think bigger. Shortening the schedule would improve the product across the board, not just for award eligibility. It would lead to higher quality play in the games that are played, and fewer instances of fans showing up to see a "load managed" lineup.
I predict that within the next five years, the NBA will agree to a reduced regular season schedule, likely between 70 and 75 games, rendering the 65-game eligibility rule largely moot.