NBPA exec James Jones dislikes idea of shorter games, says union might agree to shorter schedule

While his name may not carry the weight of a LeBron James, Dirk Nowitzki, or Carmelo Anthony, James Jones' opinion on the matter of adjusting the workload of NBA players is an important one.

Jones, who followed James from the Miami Heat to the Cleveland Cavaliers this summer, serves on the NBPA executive committee as the union's secretary-treasurer. Given that position, he probably has a better handle on the pulse of the player populace than most.

As the league explores ways to possibly lighten the load on players, Jones stands opposed to a shortened game, like the 44-minute outing that was trialed on Sunday. His main concern is that it could hurt reserve players, as it's unclear if teams would actually play their best players less or simply use the shorter games to rely on their bench less.

Limiting the utility of role players limits their opportunities and likely their earning power, which could stand as a concern for the union. As Jones explains:

If there's 44 minutes in a game and teams decide to play their starters the same exact way, you limit four minutes a game from a reserve. If you extrapolate that over a course of a season, you're talking 328 minutes. That's a lot when you're talking about value. I think anytime you start talking about shortening games, extending games, there has to be a thorough conversation between the league and the players. Limiting minutes has a bigger impact on reserve players.

A 44-minute game may also be aimed at creating a shorter television broadcast - Sunday's exhibition clocked in at just under two hours, 17 minutes shorter than the league average - but if its aim is to lessen player workload, Jones prefers the idea of shortening the schedule.

That is, if the money's the same. 

Jones doesn't buy the suggestion that fewer games should mean less money, as he feels a shorter schedule would actually improve the quality of the product. The league's new $24 billion, nine-year media rights extension suggests that a shorter schedule may not harm the league much fiscally, as nationally televised games - a number that wouldn't necessarily have to change under a shortened schedule - make up such a significant chunk of league-wide revenues.

It's an idea that Jones realizes is a complicated one, but one he thinks the players would be in favor of:

I would go as far to say if you ask players if they would be in favor in a reduction of games, if that reduction meant an increase in the quality of our product, I can say players would agree to it. But I get it. It's very, very complex, but we found a way to solve some very complex issues in the past and I'm pretty sure we can find a way to do it now. My position is after you examine everything, both sides need to sit down and talk about what is realistic, what's good and what makes the most sense.

All of this is just conjecture until 2017, when both the owners and players have the option to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement.