NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has revived the idea of shortening games from 48 to 40 minutes as the league grapples with an unprecedented early-season injury crisis. Silver previously expressed support for four 10-minute quarters, stating that a two-hour format aligns better with modern television habits and global basketball standards. The proposal has gained traction among figures like Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, but faces significant hurdles.
Potential Benefits
Reducing games to 40 minutes would cut regular-season minutes per team from 3,936 to 3,280, a 17% decrease that could lower injury risk by limiting player workloads. The change would also align the NBA with college basketball, the WNBA, and FIBA, all of which play 40-minute games. Proponents argue shorter games could increase competitive randomness, potentially creating more upsets and entertainment value.
Major Drawbacks
Critics highlight that star players already average under 40 minutes per game — Jamal Murray leads the league at 38.4 minutes — meaning a shorter game could further marginalize bench players and incentivize superteam constructions. The NBA Players Association would likely resist a change that devalues role players. Additionally, shortening games would not address grueling travel schedules, back-to-backs, or the increased physical demands of modern play. It would also reduce commercial inventory, impacting revenue, and render historical statistical comparisons meaningless.
While the injury crisis demands solutions, the league has not indicated readiness to implement such a fundamental alteration. Alternative measures, such as adjusting the schedule or modifying rules to reduce defensive intensity, may be explored first.
