The NBA's 65-Game Rule Is Hurting Its Stars, Not Helping Them
Look, the NBA and the Players Association are in a tough spot with this 65-game rule. It was put in place to ensure stars actually play, to give fans their money's worth. Nobody wants to shell out for courtside seats to watch a bunch of G-Leaguers. But the NBPA's recent push to amend it, specifically citing Cade Cunningham's situation, shows it's creating more problems than it solves.
Cunningham, Detroit's young point guard, played 62 games this past season. He averaged 22.7 points, 7.5 assists, and 4.3 rebounds. Those are All-Star numbers, certainly worthy of consideration for an All-NBA team, especially considering the Pistons' overall futility. But because he fell three games short, he wasn't eligible for any end-of-season honors, including a potential All-NBA nod that would've made him eligible for a supermax extension. That’s a massive financial hit for a guy who was clearly the best player on his team when he was on the floor. It's a penalty for something largely out of his control.
The Unintended Consequences of Availability
Here's the thing: injuries happen. Players get hurt. Cunningham missed 10 games early in the season, including a five-game stretch in November with a knee issue. He also sat out the final two games of the season for "injury management" after the Pistons were long out of playoff contention. That kind of rest at the end of a lost season is smart, especially for a player who missed most of the 2022-23 season with a shin injury. He was trying to preserve his body. But under the current rule, that calculated decision cost him millions.
And it’s not just Cunningham. Joel Embiid won MVP in 2023 playing 66 games. This year, he played 39 games and wasn't eligible for anything, despite averaging a staggering 34.7 points and 11.0 rebounds. He had knee surgery in February. What was he supposed to do, play through a torn meniscus just to hit an arbitrary number? The rule doesn't differentiate between minor tweaks and season-ending injuries. It’s a blunt instrument in a league that demands precision. We saw guys like Tyrese Haliburton clearly pushing themselves at the end of the season to hit the threshold. Haliburton played 69 games, but his production dipped noticeably in March and April. Was that worth it for the Pacers? Maybe. But it puts players and teams in a bind.
A Better Way Forward
The NBPA isn't asking to scrap the rule entirely. They're asking for common sense. Maybe it's a sliding scale for players who miss significant time due to a single, major injury. Or a certain number of allowed absences for "injury management" that don't count against the 65-game total. The spirit of the rule is good – to ensure availability. But its current rigid application punishes players for circumstances beyond their control and, frankly, incentivizes reckless behavior.
My hot take? The NBA needs to implement a "best 60 games" clause for award eligibility. If a player plays 60 or more games, and their per-game stats over their best 60 appearances are All-NBA worthy, they should be considered. It rewards consistent excellence and removes the pressure of playing through minor ailments just to hit a number. It's a player-friendly solution that still ensures stars are on the court a majority of the time.
The league and the union hammered this out in the last CBA. They can do it again. The alternative is seeing more players like Cunningham unfairly penalized, and that's bad for everyone involved.