Steve Kerr, head coach of the Golden State Warriors, recently called for a reduction in the NBA’s regular-season games, suggesting the league eliminate 10 games to protect players from injury and maintain competitive balance. Speaking after a close loss to the Utah Jazz, Kerr argued that the modern game’s fast pace and physical demands make the current 82-game schedule unsustainable.
He acknowledged that this idea is unlikely to be welcomed by everyone, especially those focused on revenue, but insisted that fewer games would lead to a healthier, more competitive league.
I know this will not be a popular opinion in the league office, but I will continue to say it because it’s obvious we need to play fewer games, we need to take 10 games off the schedule,
Kerr told reporters.
I get it, it’s revenue, and you’d have to get everybody to agree to take a little less money, and that’s a really hard thing to do. But what I know about the league, about coaching and how hard it is to play the modern game with the pace and the space, I think it would be a more competitive and healthier league if we played fewer games.
Stephen A. Smith Responds with Criticism and Disappointment
On ESPN’s First Take the following day, analyst Stephen A. Smith reacted strongly against Kerr’s proposal, labeling the idea of reducing the NBA schedule as disappointing and hypocritical. Smith questioned Kerr’s stance, pointing out that despite the physical toll of the sport, other professional athletes, such as hockey players, do not call for fewer games.
I don’t hear hockey players talking about playing less games.
– Stephen A. Smith responds to Steve Kerr suggesting a 72-game NBA schedule
Smith urged viewers to pay attention when Kerr speaks, acknowledging Kerr’s reputation for substantive commentary, but argued that having history on one’s side must apply to all issues across eras, something Smith believes Kerr ignored in this case.
Incredibly disappointed to hear Steve Kerr say what he said,
Smith started.
When Steve Kerr speaks, we should listen, because he always has something substantive to say. But just because it’s substantive, doesn’t make you right. And I think the part that disappoints me about Steve Kerr on this particular issue is that Steve Kerr is one of those dudes that will lean on history to justify what’s happening in the modern-day era, but he doesn’t do that with this issue.
Concerns Over Salary Implications and Player Perspectives
Smith underscored the stark rise in NBA salaries as an argument against reducing the schedule, noting that players regularly secure massive contracts nearing $350 million. He challenged Kerr’s call for fewer games, implying that it conflicts with the financial gains players have made.
And now you come to us talking about there should be 10 less games?
Smith asked sarcastically.
What the hell you want next, you want us to put a diaper and a bib on these guys?
Smith further argued that players chasing lucrative contracts have no incentive to support a shorter season and criticized Kerr for not advocating for reduced games during his own playing days, time as a general manager, or early coaching career. He suggested Kerr’s willingness to push this idea now is tied to the security from his nine championship rings, contrasting with his past positions.
The NBA just signed an 11-year $77 billion contract. How do you get that if you don’t play those games? And oh, by the way, let me make people very, very uncomfortable with what I’m about to say. I don’t hear hockey players talking about playing less games. They play 82 games,
Smith ranted.
If you’re Steve Kerr, don’t talk about what’s good for the game while talking about keeping the money…your argument would be far more profound if Steve Kerr came out and said, ‘You know what? Let’s give back some of these monies…’ But when you never talk about giving the money back, but you talk about giving some of the workload back, that is more than hypocritical. And that’s where the disappointment lies.
Context of Player Workload and Financial Realities
While Smith emphasized the financial gains in the NBA, the comparison to hockey players overlooks key differences. Hockey athletes typically spend fewer minutes on the ice per game and generally earn less than NBA players, making the two sports’ schedules and economics difficult to align exactly. Kerr himself acknowledged the difficulty of convincing stakeholders to sacrifice revenue for a lighter schedule.
Reducing the number of games could allow players more recovery time naturally, without relying heavily on load management strategies. Fans might welcome a slightly shortened season, as demonstrated in 2012 during the lockout-shortened 66-game schedule, which heightened competition and excitement. Still, as Kerr pointed out, cutting games equates to cutting revenue, which poses a significant challenge in today’s NBA business model.
Potential Consequences and Future of NBA Scheduling
The debate ignited by Kerr’s comments and Smith’s response highlights ongoing tensions between player health concerns, competitive quality, and financial interests within the NBA. While there is recognition that fewer games could benefit player wellbeing and possibly game excitement, entrenched financial structures and player contract expectations make change difficult.
Given the NBA’s recent massive broadcasting agreements and high-profile player salaries, any move to reduce games will require consensus among players, owners, and the league office. For now, the NBA schedule reduction debate remains unresolved, with passionate voices on both sides emphasizing health, money, and legacy as central factors.
"I don’t hear hockey players talking about playing less games." – Stephen A. Smith responds to Steve Kerr suggesting a 72-game NBA schedule pic.twitter.com/rAoUhmX6Bc
— Awful Announcing (@awfulannouncing) March 10, 2026
