The 65-Game Fiasco: Why Cade Cunningham is the Poster Child for a Broken Rule

By Alex Kim · Published 2026-03-24 · NBPA calls for 65-game rule change, citing Cunningham's case

The NBA's 65-game eligibility rule for end-of-season awards feels like a solution in search of a problem, or maybe a hammer that keeps hitting the wrong thumb. Now the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) is pushing back, citing guys like Cade Cunningham as prime examples of why it needs a serious re-think. Cunningham, the Detroit Pistons' young star, played 62 games this past season, missing out on All-NBA consideration by a whisker. He averaged 22.7 points, 7.5 assists, and 4.3 rebounds, posting a career-high 40 points against the Bulls on April 14th. That's a good season, even if it was on a bad team.

Real talk: the rule was brought in to combat "load management," a league-wide issue that saw stars routinely sitting out games, often healthy. The league wanted to ensure fans got to see their heroes. Fair enough. But what about the guys who are genuinely hurt? Cunningham's season was derailed by an injury that kept him out for a stretch, not a strategic decision to rest on a Tuesday night. Look at Joel Embiid, who missed 29 games this year due to a meniscus injury. He was averaging a ridiculous 35.3 points per game and looked set to win back-to-back MVPs before getting hurt on January 30th against the Warriors. He played 39 games. Under the current rules, his incredible individual performance is essentially nullified for award purposes. This isn't about load management; it's about bad luck.

The Spirit vs. The Letter of the Law

The NBPA's argument isn't revolutionary: they want more flexibility. They're not asking to scrap the rule entirely, but to at least consider exceptions for legitimate injuries, or perhaps a sliding scale based on games missed due to documented medical reasons. Think about it: Nikola Jokic played all 79 games he was available for in 2023-24, leading the Nuggets to 57 wins. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander played 75 games for the Thunder, pushing them to the top seed in the West with 57 wins. Those guys deserve their accolades. But what about Tyrese Haliburton? He played 69 games for the Pacers, leading them to the Eastern Conference Finals, but a hamstring issue kept him out of four more games that would have made him eligible. He still put up 20.1 points and 10.9 assists per game.

Here's the thing: the current rule punishes players for circumstances often beyond their control. It also creates a weird incentive structure. Imagine a player on the cusp of 65 games, playing through a nagging injury just to qualify for an award, potentially exacerbating the issue. That's not player welfare; that's forced participation. The rule should encourage health and competitive balance, not become another hurdle for deserving talent.

Who's Really Benefiting?

Honestly, who is this rule really serving in its current form? It's certainly not the fans who want to see the best players recognized. It's not the players who are busting their tails and getting sidelined by legitimate injuries. It feels like a blunt instrument trying to solve a nuanced problem. The league implemented the In-Season Tournament to add excitement to the regular season, and it was a success, culminating in the Lakers beating the Pacers for the inaugural title on December 9th. That showed innovation. The 65-game rule, however, feels like a step backward, a rigid response to a complex issue.

My hot take? The NBA needs to implement a system where a player's *percentage* of available games played is considered, not just a flat number. If a player misses, say, 10-15 games due to a single, documented injury, they should still be eligible if they played 80-85% of their *other* games. This would protect the integrity of the awards while acknowledging the realities of an 82-game season. Otherwise, we're going to keep seeing deserving players like Cunningham and Embiid get unfairly penalized.

My bold prediction: The NBPA's pressure will lead to a significant amendment to the 65-game rule by the start of the 2025-26 season, likely involving a tiered system for injury exceptions.