The National Basketball Players Association isn't happy, and frankly, neither are a lot of fans. Their latest target? The NBA's 65-game eligibility rule for end-of-season awards. The NBPA recently made it clear they want changes, and they've got a pretty compelling case study in Cade Cunningham. The Detroit Pistons guard played 62 games this season, averaging 22.7 points, 7.5 assists, and 4.3 rebounds. He was on a tear, showing real growth in his third year, but because he missed three games too many, he's out of the running for All-NBA honors or even Most Improved Player.
It's a frustrating situation for everyone involved. For Cunningham, it’s a hit to his wallet – an All-NBA nod could have meant an extra $40 million on his next contract. For the Pistons, it’s a blow to their franchise player's recognition. And for the fans, it's another layer of complexity in an already confusing awards landscape. This isn't just about Cunningham, though he’s the poster child right now. Joel Embiid, the reigning MVP, played only 39 games this season. He wouldn't have been eligible under the current rule. Last year, he played 66 games, just barely clearing the bar.
The league introduced the 65-game threshold to encourage stars to play more, to combat "load management" and ensure fans saw the best players on the court. Commissioner Adam Silver has been vocal about wanting to keep the regular season meaningful. And to some extent, it has worked. Fewer healthy scratches were reported this year. But the unintended consequence is penalizing players for legitimate injuries or even minor ailments that sideline them for a week or two. Cunningham missed games due to a knee injury he suffered in January. He wasn't sitting out just to rest.
Thing is, 65 games feels arbitrary. Why not 60? Or 70? The MLB requires 502 plate appearances for a batting title, a specific, quantifiable metric. The NBA's rule feels like a blunt instrument. It doesn't differentiate between a minor tweak and a season-ending injury. Look, I get the league’s desire for stars to play. We all want to see Nikola Jokic and Luka Doncic on the floor every night. But basketball is a contact sport. Injuries happen. And sometimes, a player needs a few extra days to recover from a sprained ankle or a hyperextended knee.
The NBPA isn't asking to scrap the rule entirely. They're suggesting amendments. Maybe a tiered system, where a player needs 65 games for MVP, but 60 for All-NBA. Or perhaps a "hardship" clause for players who miss significant time due to a single, long-term injury. Think back to Kevin Durant's MVP season in 2013-14 when he played all 82 games. That was a different era. The pace of play is faster now, the athletes are bigger, stronger, and the wear and tear is real.
My hot take? The 65-game rule should be scrapped for All-NBA and All-Defense teams. Those awards are about performance, not availability. If a player puts up historic numbers in 55 games, they should be recognized. For MVP, maybe keep the 65-game rule, but make it a hard limit, no exceptions. The MVP should be the player who not only performs at an elite level but also consistently leads their team throughout the majority of the season. Otherwise, we’re just penalizing players for bad luck and robbing deserving individuals of recognition and significant earnings. The league and the players need to find a middle ground here, and soon. This conversation isn't going away, especially with a new CBA on the horizon.