With several star players, including Pistons guard Cade Cunningham, at risk of falling short of the 65-game minimum required to qualify for end-of-season awards, the National Basketball Players Association issued a statement on Tuesday calling for the rule to be adjusted or eliminated altogether, as Tim Reynolds of The Associated Press relays (via Twitter).
“Cade Cunningham’s potential ineligibility for postseason awards after a career-defining season is a clear indictment of the 65-game rule and yet another example of why it must be abolished or reformed to create an exception for significant injuries,” an NBPA spokesperson said. “Since its implementation, far too many deserving players have been unfairly disqualified from end-of-season honors by this arbitrary and overly rigid quota.”
Cunningham appeared in 61 games before being diagnosed last week with a collapsed lung that may sideline him for the rest of the regular season. Prior to that diagnosis, he was a viable candidate for a spot on MVP ballots and the All-NBA first team. However, it appears increasingly unlikely that he’ll be able to play in the 65 games necessary to qualify for those awards.
The 65-game rule requires players to appear in at least 20 minutes for a game to count toward the minimum, with each player allowed to count up to two appearances in which he played between 15 and 20 minutes. Because Cunningham played just five minutes in his final game last Tuesday, it won’t count toward his total for the purposes of the rule, which means he’s still five games away from reaching the threshold.
The rule does include an exception for a player who suffers a season-ending injury, but only if he has already logged 20-plus minutes in at least 62 games (including 85% of his team’s games to that point). Cunningham didn’t quite get there.
The NBA’s decision to implement the 65-game rule was more about discouraging “load management” than it was about preserving the sanctity of its end-of-season awards, since most media voters already took total games played into account when weighing candidates’ cases. While it’s possible that instances of load management have been reduced as a result of the rule, it has had some troubling side effects, including players pushing to come back from injuries sooner than they otherwise might have in order to preserve their award eligibility.
A player who falls short of 65 games and misses out on All-NBA honors as a result could also face significant financial ramifications, since the criteria for “super-max” and “Rose Rule” contracts are based largely on All-NBA berths. Cunningham, for example, could have become eligible for an extension starting at up to 35% of the salary cap (instead of 30%) by making All-NBA teams in 2026 and 2027. If he misses out this season, he’ll need to make an All-NBA team in 2028 or 2029 to qualify for that super-max extension.
Nuggets center Nikola Jokic and Spurs big man Victor Wembanyama are among the other MVP candidates who would be at risk of missing the 65-game cutoff if they suffer a minor injury in the season’s final weeks. Jokic must appear in nine of Denver’s remaining 10 games to qualify, while Wembanyama has to play in at least seven of San Antonio’s final 10 contests.
The NBPA also put out a statement today about the league’s player participation policy and the Bucks’ reported plan to shut down Giannis Antetokounmpo for the rest of the season.
Part time league lol
And that’s why the NBPA should be careful when they complain about the money aspect of this because the players are benefitting at the expense of the paying fans. Imagine what would happen if the major broadcasters requested a % of the money back for a game if a star doesn’t play in a national prime time game. And there are already ticketing services that allow fans to buy game insurance and get money back to games if stars don’t play. Imagine if Ticketmaster went to the NBA and requested some money back for games stars don’t play. With the costs of these tv deals and the costs of tickets getting so expensive this will be more and more of an issue.
I think 54 would be a good cutoff that’s 2/3 of the season.
The nba should just go to a 65 game schedule…PERIOD
I’m starting to agree with this. The incredibly fast pace of play combined with the amount of games is unsustainable. Your average fan would gladly sacrifice a blowout game against the Nets on a Tuesday night in exchange for better player health. It’s not like load management where you’d show up to the game you payed $600 to see only for the superstars to decide they wanted a night off 30 minutes before tipoff.
The only problem is the league doesn’t want to lose money (which Silver is doing a horrible job at preventing right now).
i don’t think the pace at which the game is played currently should affect the number of games per season. the minimum requirement for games played to qualify seems kind of silly though.
65 games wouldn’t even make sense for the simple reason that each team would require an equal number of home and away games right? Let’s say you settle on 66 as opposed to 82. Now every NBA team needs to make 41 games worth of gate revenue in 33 games, or 8 less home games for each team. The only way that sensibly happens is to rise the average ticket prices at the gate so it’s a lose-lose-lose for everyone involved (owners-players-fans). If you expanded the playoffs somehow, maybe make the play-in a full fledged round, then you can start cooking with gasoline and maybe shorten the regular season somehow. I think the NBA needs to focus on allowing more development throughout their regular season by having more two way players, allowing more injury exceptions, maybe allow teams to expand rosters for back to back nights? Idk, but asking each owner to give up eight or more games of home ticket sales just doesn’t seem like an idea that’s ever getting off the ground imo
agree. 18 guys can be used these day. Stretching the season a little with 82 could be an option. Giving up cash isnt.
Yeah, easily right? And why not invest more in the g league, drum up more interest in that, and probably make tanking more interesting at the same time if it also feels like prospect development? Seems like an overhaul of the existing GLeague is overdue since the expansion a while ago but it’s a work in progress I get! They may yet figure it out but I won’t hold my breath
Silver is investing in Europe apparently. Not sure basketball in his country is on the top of his list. Oops, oh expansion.
And maybe elite professional boxers should replace sparring with film sessions and pedicures?
where was this uproar last year when Dunn got robbed of All Defense team?
And when Embiid was gonna win MVP over Jokic again 😂
Total agreement here. Why do the voters not get blamed for picking stars who don’t play in a sufficient amount of games? If the voters can’t be trusted to do that much what are we doing here? Maybe take a look at reforming them instead of using an arbitrary figure that incentivizes players to put their health at risk.
Or, better yet, deal with the tanking issue so there is less incentive to not play in general, chop down on the playoff field (never gonna happen of course), or include additional contract language for bonuses based on games played.
I’m a fairly liberal guy but this is amount of government overreach is ridiculous (you know what I’m trying to say).
I mean… the NBAPA agreed to this…
Oh, yeah, they’re totally at fault here too. Just think it’s a dumb rule all the way around even though I understand the intention. But these arbitrary patch jobs aren’t going to cut it.
The league has to address the underlying issues, and the biggest one here is guaranteed contracts disincentivize players to play, particularly in a league where it’s almost hard to miss at least making the play-in. With a smaller playoff field most of this would be solved, but that ain’t happening as much as I wish it would.
Granted, missing too many games could effect future earnings if teams would be concerned about a player’s injury history, and maybe properly dealing with the tanking issue will be enough. But if it isn’t, then you need to figure out a way to less arbitrarily incentivize playing despite those guaranteed contracts. Bonuses are the best of both worlds because the players can still get their guaranteed salaries while potentially earning a little something extra.
Note that I’m not suggesting the league should reduce guaranteed salaries for the sake of larger bonuses, which would be a non-starter I imagine. But during the next CBA negotiations, allocate more of the pie to the players in the form of those bonuses while forcing the players to give in on other fronts to maintain a balance.
Not saying it will work or that I have any idea of what I’m talking about (lol), and I know there would be pushback regardless any time you could have players playing through injury for monetary reasons. But a) NBPA did agree to this rule so it’s obviously not a red line for them, b) it wouldn’t be as arbitrary as a random number limit with potentially huge financial implications depending on awards won/lost.
Just playing devils advocate. I’ve long shared the opinion that if the NBA had such a problem with who voters were giving awards to at the end of the year, they should probably be looking at the voters instead of trying to lock in some arbitrary number that signifies that you tried hard enough to be an award winner. Either you trust who you are allowing to vote or you find someone else.
It is very funny to see them try to back out of it now though. The PA I mean. Everyone with a brain saw this coming and they looked the other way. I really wonder if they cared enough about this to say anything before the salary cap stuff came out. Between this and complaining that Bucks don’t want their only asset to rip his legs apart for 11 games of a lost season, seems they just feel the need to make noise.
Does Stephen A get a vote? Enough said.
Bill Simmons belongs in the same category as
It should be 60 games, 15 minutes played per game so star players on minute restrictions doesn’t hurt them
65 games isn’t even 80% of the season. It’s the equivalent of a traditional 40-hour a week worker getting every Friday off. I don’t think the requirement is unreasonable. And the NBAPA agreed to it.
What they need to do is eliminate all back-to-backs. Start the season a couple of weeks earlier or ditch the NBA Cup that blocks out almost a week of scheduling. Drop the silly play-in tournament that costs almost another week. Make playoff games every other night instead of stretching it out for TV (weekend games get higher ratings). For example, last year the Knicks played their final regular season game on April 13. Because of the play-in and extra off days for TV, their first round series against the Pistons didn’t finish until 18 days later on May 1st.
You can cut injuries and fatigue down by eliminating B2B and additional (meaningless; the Cup and the play-in are meaningless as no 9 or 10 seed is ever going to win anything) games.
less back to backs than ever. Training/practise is lighter intensity than ever. More film sessions and pedicures than ever. More stoppages during the games than ever. More load management than ever. Silver is not giving up dollars, neither are the players.
Imo, Also cut the AS game and competitions.
If the best players don’t participate, it has little credibility. They keep trying to polish this thing.
As long as they players dont want to get injured on AS weekend or try or dont actually play.
Give up trying to “make” people and players care. If demand grows organically again later, then let it happen that way.
Never gonna happen. For one thing, it means a lot less $ for these guys.
The players’pay is one thing. The owners will never agree to this because they get most from attendance and media deals.
As for the eligibility-65 games subject, at what point did the nbapa realize ‘oh… yeah, we were short-sided in agreeing to this lolz.’ It feels like anyone can do this job and make serious mistakes and complain after the fact. The NBA would also like to fix this. The NBA wouldn’t want historians to look back at this era and see solid all stars as All NBA because top 10 players like Giannis, Wemby, Cade, etc had to be eliminated from consideration.
Yep, it’s never going to happen. The owners definitely don’t want it and the players, regardless of what they’re pitching, don’t want it either. These leagues are about growth, not taking steps backward. I have a feeling this is the nbapa using it as a bargaining chip for something else.
A shorter season would solve several problems: it would reduce load management, eliminate the need for dumb and arbitrary rules like this, and it would likely decrease tanking because fewer teams would just be playing out the string of a season.
It of course won’t happen for financial reasons, but if that’s the case then load management and tanking aren’t the MOST important things to the league.
The NBAPA does not want a shorter season unless the regular season revenue stays consistent which is almost impossible without pissing off even more fans. Only Steve Kerr, the inventor of load management (something the NBA league office opposes) and a guy who never qualified for a regular season award because he wasn’t talented enough thinks a 65 game season is good; Kerrs been a great coach, and was a really really nice player when I got his autograph as a kid once, so not trying to shade him, but he’s infected the common NBA fan to think this is a sensible solution but it’s just delulu unless you can make the money make sense, which I can’t see personally
I maybe a minority in this, but I like the rule. Players are being paid to play. If they get injured and don’t qualify for any awards then so be it. Part of the job. If I were to pay to attend a game and I see them sitting on the bench due to load management I wouldn’t be too happy.
The last NBA game I went to, I paid full price to watch the Mavs play without Luka. He wasn’t hurt – it was ‘load management.’ The game was fine, but Spencer Dinwiddie led both teams in scoring and that was NOT what I wanted to go see.
I haven’t been back. To Dallas, or any other city as I’ve traveled (and I attend live sports a lot). I’m just not going to get burned again at NBA prices. And I cannot be alone here.
I agree. A year or two ago Ant said something similar. He said some fans save up all year and get to only go to one game and then they go only to find out their favorite player isn’t playing. It’s obviously one thing if you’re legit injured and need the rest but these stars are making more in one game than most people make in several years.
Nah keep it… makes the MVP meaningful…
How about if the player doesn’t play 65 games they don’t get paid. Fans show up only to find their player is in street clothes because of .
Those having issues with the rule likely don’t understand the real nature of the awards to which it applies. MVP is NOT a best player award. It’s a seasonal award, about the relative value of players for the REGULAR season in question, with value measured by impacting winning games that regular season. Sorry 2k’ers, but it’s not about who you like to take, think will win it all, etc. A player has ZERO impact in games he does not play.
Of course, 65 games is arbitrary, but at least it’s an objective standard. I can think of only a handful of instances in the history of the league where a player who played even 10 fewer games than their competition during a regular season would have a credible case that they were more valuable than that competition over the course of the entire season. There is an intelligent tweak out there that would cover those guys, but Silver & Co. aren’t up to crafting it.
I agree an objective standard is good and the best ability is availability ultimately; I also think I agree that there’s a particularly nuisanced solution out there that Silver & co can’t be trusted to find lol; idk personally but maybe there’s advanced stats like raw win shares that could adequately compensate or be better markers for overall season long impact on winning? Maybe players deserve .5 credits if they hit certain benchmarks or accomplishments, either in individual games or season long (for instance scoring the most regular season points etc)? Iirc the in season tournament already awards a half game to the two teams that face off in the final? It’s gotten so convoluted tbh
Agreed. Assuming everyone could agree that WS actually measures what it claims to, it would be the best stat to suggest a player should be eligible for MVP and/or 1st team All NBA even without playing in 65 games. Something like, either 65 games OR top 5 in WS overall to be eligible? Probably not, since I think that the league wouldn’t want to tie itself to a single super stat. FWIW, that wouldn’t help Cade or Wemby this year.
IMO, the most deserving Under 65 guy was Bill Walton in 1978. He played only 58 games. But his team was 48-10 in those games, and had essentially locked up the #1 seed in the West before his injury. Their record without him (below .500) drove home the point. Some voters still held the missed games against him, as he didn’t get a majority of the first place votes.
I have no problem with an alternative path(s) to eligibility, as long as they are rooted in trying to get to the most impactful player in the league that year.
True true, and seeing that Cade and Wemby neither are in the top 5 of total win shares makes me think that stat can’t be a good enough marker; appreciate the research for sure! Walton was such a great player whose career got undermined by injuries, and a unique personality that was eventually beloved by all, even, or especially maybe John Wooden lol
65 is just an arbitrary number anyway so I think they should just get rid of the rule entirely; the voters of these awards should have to be smart enough to consider games played as a raw stat and adjust accordingly; nothing about the rule has curbed ‘load management’ as much as it’s robbed deserving players of recognition so it’s a bit of tinkering that didn’t work as intended; get rid of it and stop these silly patches to echo someone above
Walton won the MVP playing the lowest games ever 58, and to qualify for a statistical category like scoring, rebounds and assists you need to play 58 games… so wouldn’t it make sense that the award threshold is 58 games instead of 65, right?
Get rid of it, but in return, players only get paid for the games they actually play
62 games would be 75% of the season, but I’m not sure if making the requirement 3 games less would be enough to satisfy the union (although this 100% is something the union should have handled in collective bargaining if it had an issue)
Add a 3rd round of drafting and lower it to 60 games with at least 55 games having played 20min +
Ultimately we know who the best is after that sample.
MVP should lose the criteria completely unless people start fanboying over a player with only 30 GP. Hopefully these critics know how to scrutinize the word valuable.
I think it would be better to just tweak the rule so that players must be in the top 25% of games/minutes played to be eligible for any award (besides 6th man).
The problem with choosing any specific number is that the injuries vary year to year. Last year lots of great players played 70 games and this year almost no one is on pace to do it.