The 65 Game Rule Has to Go

(Photo Credit: USA Today)

It has become second nature for NBA fans, analysts, and former players to complain about the current state of the game. From grievances about the lack of defense and physicality to excessive three-point shooting. The complaints will never stop. So here I am, complaining some more.

This 65-game rule has to go. A rule created to address the influx of players missing games, hasn't really fixed the problem. Players are still sitting out games. The issue of load management has been prevalent for some time now. This rule hasn’t done anything

Not playing 65 games today will exclude a player from being nominated for regular-season awards. With those award selections and nominations comes financial incentives. The rule is hurting the legacies and pockets of current-day players (not so much on the pockets front, the rich are just getting richer).

Compare that to the 90s where some players who were nominated and selected for regular-season awards played well below that 65-game threshold set today. But you see, that doesn't get spoken about enough. Nostalgia has warped some people's memories of what used to go on in the so-called “golden age” of basketball.

Scottie Pippen could voluntarily miss half a season and still make an All-NBA team. Shaq could come out and admit to missing a good chunk of the season because he would rather recover on company time than his own; and still end the season with awards and accolades. Let's not even get started with the likes of Dennis Rodman and the shenanigans he was in. It doesn't make sense.

In the 1997/98 season Scottie Pippen chose to get surgery during the season instead of the offseason. He played 44 games that season and made All-NBA.

A little more than a quarter way through the season and it's looking like many of the league's best players won't play 65 games. MVP front-runner Nikola Jokic is expected to miss at least four weeks due to injury. Victor Wembenyama has already missed 14 games. Stephen Curry has missed 10 games of his own, and Luka Doncic isn’t too far behind with six games missed. The point being, that many of the league’s best players are on pace to play below 65 games.

Great seasons are about to go unrecognized. The greater impact and value will go ignored for availability. Jokic is in the midst of the best season of his career and his MVP case is at stake. Why? A knee hyperextension from a freak play. Completely out of his control.

Better yet, try to conceptualize how Wemby most likely won’t win Defensive Player of the Year or be included in any All-Defensive teams. Why? Injuries. Uncontrollable variables.

At this very moment, you can easily go to Basketball Reference and look up the 1997/98 season where Scottie Pippen played 44 games and made the All-NBA third team.

Go look up how Shaq has multiple seasons with under 65 games logged during his prime. Five seasons to be exact. In each of those seasons, he ended the year as an All-NBA team member. Seems like the goal posts are being moved for the current generation.

From 1995 to 1999 Shaq played below 65 games. Each of those seasons he was All-NBA

Now imagine 20 years from now, my kid goes on basketball reference and sees that Jokic had an all-time great season but it wasn't fully recognized because he missed around 17 games. Or better yet, they see that Wemby's accolades on the defensive end don’t match the way we speak about him.

The 65-game rule does a disservice to future generations and historians of the game. It puts pressure on players to try and control something that they can't. Feels like the league came up with a solution for a non-problem. Let the analysts and pundits decide whether to punish a player. Don’t hinder legacies because of a game threshold. It wasn't a problem in the '90s, so don't switch up now