The Absurdity of the NBA’s 65-Game Rule: It’s Time for Change

Tying awards like MVP and All-NBA teams to an arbitrary number of games is nonsensical and outdated. A change is urgently needed, as highlighted by the case of Luka Doncic.

It was recently confirmed that players like Cade Cunningham and Anthony Edwards will lose eligibility for end-of-season awards because they won’t reach the required number of games. Just hours later, Luka Doncic also faced this predicament, likely to be ineligible because he’ll be one game short. This is a significant drawback for the league and underscores the absurdity of the current regulation.

Alongside the controversial practice of «tanking,» hardly any topic in the NBA is debated as controversially as the 65-game rule. This threshold was originally intended to curb «load management.» However, recent cases involving Cunningham, Edwards, and Doncic demonstrate that the rule, in its current form, does more harm than good – to players, teams, fans, and even TV broadcasters.

The NBA’s 65-Game Rule: A Completely Arbitrary Number

The rule was introduced before the 2023/24 season as part of the Player Participation Policy to counteract the seemingly arbitrary resting of stars, especially in crucial nationally televised games. This was done with an eye on upcoming negotiations for a new TV rights deal. The strategy seemingly paid off: more star appearances guaranteed higher value for rights holders, leading to a record $77 billion deal over eleven years, further fueling the rise in player salaries.

So, a win-win, right? Not entirely. Even in its first season, Indiana Pacers star Tyrese Haliburton admitted that he returned too early from a hamstring injury to avoid jeopardizing his award eligibility and thus significant financial benefits from his upcoming contract extension. His performance suffered considerably, and in the Conference Finals, he ultimately had to withdraw due to injury, as the improperly healed injury flared up again.

But how was the number 65 even decided upon? Apparently, there was no evidence-based foundation. According to Joe Dumars, then Head of Basketball Operations for the NBA, the number simply seemed appropriate, as players are still allowed to miss 17 games. He emphasized that missing 20 percent of the season does not constitute unfair treatment.

The NBA’s 65-Game Rule: Scoring Champ Yes – All-NBA No?

Professionals like Boston’s Jaylen Brown, Vice President of the players’ union, criticized the number and its consequences from the outset. He advocated for a reduction to 58 games (approximately 70 percent of the season), aligning with the existing rule for official statistical leaders. It seems inconsistent that a player with 58 appearances can be crowned a scoring champion but not qualify for an award.

A look back at the 2022/23 season, before the rule’s introduction, illustrates this point: Luka Doncic (64 games), Damian Lillard (58), and Giannis Antetokounmpo (61) were top scorers and deservedly made All-NBA Teams. None of these superstars should have been excluded from consideration for an arbitrary threshold due to a handful of missed games.

Tyrese Maxey serves as another current example. The Sixers star has averaged the most minutes per game and has spent many more hours on the court overall than, for instance, Victor Wembanyama. A scenario could unfold where Wemby makes an All-NBA Team while Maxey, the consistent cornerstone of his team, is excluded due to missing games, despite playing significantly more basketball. This would certainly be unfair.

«The best ability is availability,» is often heard. However, «availability» has many facets.

The NBA’s 65-Game Rule: But Didn’t the Players Agree?

It’s important to remember that players agreed to the rule as part of the current CBA. Therefore, attributing blame solely to the NBA would be unfair and inaccurate. However, even during the decision-making process, the active professionals in the NBPA, who are primarily athletes, struggled with balancing risk and reward. Grant Williams, First Vice President of the players’ union, described the difficulty of neither jeopardizing a player’s health nor risking their financial future.

In light of recent developments, the union recently called for the rule’s abolition or reform. A spokesperson stated that since its introduction, too many deserving players have been unfairly excluded from end-of-season awards due to this arbitrary and overly rigid quota. The case of Cade Cunningham, potentially excluded despite a career-defining season, is clear evidence of the rule’s weaknesses and another example of why it must be abolished or reformed to include an exception for severe injuries.

Awards retrospectively help describe seasons and eras in the Association. The narrative would be distorted if a player like Cunningham, who leads his team to prominence, were excluded from the All-NBA First Team simply because of 61 games played.

The NBA’s 65-Game Rule: Urgent Need for Change

Is there hope for change after all this uproar? Probably not immediately. Commissioner Adam Silver primarily focuses on economic growth and the role of TV and streaming providers. His response to the NBPA’s demands last week was quite clear.

Silver said they always knew that if a line was drawn, someone would end up on the other side of it. He regretted Cade’s injury, but if a player isn’t eligible, another player will be voted into the All-NBA Team and take his place. Therefore, he wasn’t yet ready to say it wasn’t working; in fact, he thought it was.

For Cade, «Ant-Man,» and «Luka Magic,» it’s now a reality. And others could follow, as stars like Nikola Jokic and Victor Wembanyama also have little room for maneuver.

Distorting award distribution through arbitrary rules is questionable. The selection is made by media experts who should be trusted to objectively assess MVP or All-NBA worthy performances. If not, the panel’s composition should be changed, rather than excluding players from the outset with an arbitrarily chosen number.

Furthermore, the dubious contract requirements should be re-evaluated, where a single, albeit qualified, journalist’s vote can ultimately decide tens of millions of dollars in a professional athlete’s salary. There are good reasons why this is not handled this way in any other major US league. Several approaches exist, but they must also be pursued.

It remains to be hoped that the right people will eventually seriously ask themselves whether they could tolerate reducing the inflated regular season schedule. Or seeing superstars in street clothes five more times during the grind of an 82-game season, but ensuring they are fit for the showdown in the playoffs – and not with one leg in a special boot, as was the case last season with Jayson Tatum, Haliburton, or Lillard. Because this harms not only the true fan of the game but also the NBA product. And this argument should ultimately carry weight with streaming and TV providers as well.

It remains to be seen how the situation will develop. Many agree that something needs to change.

The NBA’s 65-Game Rule: These Stars Could Also Be Affected