Imagine All-NBA teams without Nikola Jokic, Luka Doncic, Giannis Antetokounmpo, Anthony Edwards, Victor Wembanyama and Stephen Curry.
No need to tax your brain. There’s a real possibility that each of those superstars, as well as several others, won’t be eligible for postseason awards this season.
The 65-game rule built into the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement prohibits players who don’t take the court for at least that many regular season games from most postseason honors.
The spirit of the rule, if you will, was to discourage load management and tanking. However, the frequency of injuries across the league could severely impact those awards, which include Most Valuable Player, Defensive Player of the Year, Most Improved Player, the All-NBA teams and the All-Defensive teams.
Jokic will almost certainly not qualify this season, as he’s currently rehabbing a knee injury that will keep him out a month.
Doncic has already missed seven games. Antetounmpo and Wembanyama are teetering on the brink, having missed 14 games apiece. Edwards (8) and Curry (10) are also in danger of failing to meet the criteria, considering the season is just approaching the halfway point.
There are some minor exceptions to the rule – for example, a player who falls short of the 65-game minimum can also file an “Extraordinary Circumstances Challenge” in an effort to regain his award eligibility. But it’s likely that if a player doesn’t suit up for 65 games, they’ll be disqualified for those coveted awards.
There are also, of course, some financial implications regarding the awards, such as qualifying for super max extensions.
The flip side is that the league wants to give its paying customers the best product possible. All too often, fans are paying big bucks, only to see their favorite players sitting in street clothes due to a minor ailment or load management.
That brings us to today’s topic: Do you like the 65-game rule for postseason awards? If not, what would be a fairer system for eligibility – should the rule be tweaked or scrapped altogether?
Please take to the comments section to weigh in on this topic. We look forward to your input.
How about getting rid of it and just shortening the season a little ? Not gonna happen unf
Too many meaningless games. We aren’t there yet, but the final 20 games of the season go on forever. How about fewer regular season games and even more playoffs?
this is an unbelievably dumb rule. i STRONGLY dislike it. jokic missing an all-nba team this year would be the perfect example of why it should be eradicated. scrap it altogether.
This is a dumb rule and it WILL impact salary for the worse. Guys get to be on those max level salary bumps due to these awards. Guys that that are more on the borderline will get on the All Star team and All NBA list then command max even if paid slightly less than max they get the bump.
Bigger issue is the bonuses the alternatives will receive bc Big Dawgs are not on list
I’m a Bill Simmons fan but theres no way his vote (or any other media member’s) should effect pay scales at an NBA level
Its why many of them (Ryan Rusiilo I believe is one ) abstain from the process of voting as they see its flaws and don’t want to participate in the process
It’s a great rule, even though it will cost some stars their Nth All-NBA appearance every year.
All-NBA appearances are a zero-sum game. None of those five guys mentioned at the start of the article need yet another All-NBA to cement their legacy. Try to be happy for the Deni Avdijas and other first-time honorees who have tirelessly worked on their craft and finally been recognized too. The regular season awards will start to trend younger, and older stars will prioritize their health to cement their post-season legacy. Nothing wrong with that, all rational actors there and good for the growth of the game to recognize some new guys in their 20s.
The rule is kinda growing on me. If a player only plays 60 out of their team’s 82 games how valuable would you actually be? Why would you deserve All-NBA? On the other hand the writers who vote usually take games played into account when voting so it would have to be an extreme case to get a regular season award without playing a certain amount of games.
The problem I see is that with Jokìc, Giannis, Curry, Luka, Wembanyama and Edwards all already in jeopardy what happens if heaven forbid SGA were to miss a big chunk of the remainder of the season. I really don’t like the idea of these accolades being decided on attrition.
A part of the “ extraordinary circumstances challenge “ should take into consideration the average games played per year in the last 10 seasons.
For example, Jokić should be able to play only 55 games this season to be eligible, because he’s appeared in 745 games in the past 10 seasons prior to this season – equal to a 74.5 games played per season. Rounding up to 75 Games per season..
75+55 = 130
130/2 = 65.
Of course this rule shouldn’t be applied against a player. For example; a player who averaged only 60 games per season, wouldn’t need to play 70 to qualify.
Keep the rule. Eliminate the back-to-back games.