Stephen A. Isn't Wrong About the NBA's 65-Game Mandate
Look, Stephen A. Smith gets a lot of flak, often deservedly so. But on this 65-game rule, he’s hitting the nail on the head. The NBA implemented this thing for a reason: to get stars on the court. And frankly, it’s working. We saw a dip in load management this past season. Guys like Joel Embiid, who missed 29 games in 2022-23, played 39 games before his injury this year. Anthony Davis suited up for 76 games, his most since 2017-18. That’s not a coincidence.
The league offices in New York City weren't just twiddling their thumbs when they brought this in. They were looking at empty seats and declining TV ratings for regular season games. Fans pay good money, sometimes hundreds of dollars, to see their favorite players. When Luka Dončić sits out a Tuesday night game against the Pistons, it’s a gut punch to the ticket holders. The rule, which ties players to awards like All-NBA and MVP if they play 65 games, actually incentivizes participation. Nikola Jokić played 79 games this year, winning his third MVP. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander played 75 games and was first-team All-NBA. The connection is clear.
The Cost of Casual Absences
Before this rule, it felt like every other night a star was out for "rest." Remember when Kawhi Leonard played just nine games in 2017-18? Or when he missed 20 games in 2022-23? That kind of absence, especially from a marquee player, dilutes the product. The league just signed a new media rights deal reportedly worth over $70 billion. They can't afford to have their biggest draws sitting on the bench in street clothes for a quarter of the season.
Thing is, players are paid an astronomical amount of money. LeBron James made over $47 million this past season. Kevin Durant pulled in over $47 million too. Part of that compensation package should absolutely include a commitment to playing the vast majority of games, barring legitimate injury. Fans aren't paying $200 to watch deep bench guys go at it. They're paying to see the stars. The NBA needs to protect its investment, and the 65-game rule does exactly that.
It's About the Fans, Not Just the Players
I hear the arguments about player health. And yes, player health is important. But these guys have access to the best medical care, nutritionists, and training staff in the world. They're not playing 82 games straight with no days off. There are travel days, practice days, and often multiple days between games. The idea that playing 65 games, roughly 80% of the season, is some insurmountable physical challenge for elite athletes making tens of millions of dollars, is frankly a bit overblown.
Think about the casual fan. Maybe they only get to one game a year. If Giannis Antetokounmpo or Steph Curry is "resting" that night, it's a huge disappointment. This rule is a nod to those fans. It's a recognition that the NBA is an entertainment product, and the stars are the main attraction. The league saw a 7% increase in regular season viewership on TNT and ESPN this year. You think that's just random? No, it's because more stars were on the court, playing meaningful basketball.
The Rule Stays, The Stars Play
Getting rid of this rule would be a step backward. It would open the floodgates for more load management, more missed games, and ultimately, a less engaging regular season. The NBA has found a sweet spot here, a way to balance player well-being with fan expectations and the integrity of the game. If anything, they should consider making it 70 games.
My bold prediction? The 65-game rule isn't just here to stay; it will become even more entrenched in the collective bargaining agreement, possibly with even stricter penalties for non-compliance.