Put yourself in Nikola Jokic’s shoes; he is currently one of the best players in the NBA and is having an amazing season averaging 28.8 points per game, 12.6 rebounds per game, and 10.5 assists per game, but he is forced to play every single game left in the season if he wants to be considered for the MVP Award due to the “65-game rule”. The 65-game rule was introduced in 2023 and required players to play in 65 games or more in order to be eligible for any and all post-season awards. Additionally a game does not count toward a player’s total unless they are present in the game for 20 or more minutes. The rule was passed to combat “load-management” and encourage star players to play more regular season games. The 65-game rule is unreasonable because it unfairly penalizes players who are injured, ignores modern sports science, and reduces award voting to a formality instead of rewarding true performance.
The 65-game rule is unreasonable because it unfairly penalizes injured players. In most sports many injuries are unavoidable and are a part of the game. A player can dominate in 64 games and be recognized as the best player in the league, but be ineligible to awards due to injuries that the player has no control over. One example of this is Joel Embiid’s 2023-2024 season where he led the league in points per game, was ranked 7th in the league for rebounds per game, and led centers in assists per game, but was ineligible for the MVP due to a left knee injury. The MVP should measure excellence, not durability. Beyond injuries, the rule ignores how the modern game has changed.
The 65-game rule is unreasonable because it ignores modern sports science. Teams use load management to prevent serious injuries due to overexertion. The NBA season is 82 games long which is physically demanding even for NBA stars. Forcing star players to play at least 20 minutes in 65 games can pressure them into returning too early from injury which can lead to reinjury. One example of load-management is Kawhi Leonard’s 2018-2019 championship series where he rested to manage chronic knee injuries. Today this strategy would prevent a player from winning MVP which means players are playing more games now than in the past. The 65-game rule discourages smart health decisions which can lead to injury. Not only does the rule ignore player health, but it also changes how awards are decided.
The 65-game rule is unreasonable because it reduces award voting to a formality instead of true performance. Awards like MVP or all-NBA should recognize impact, skill, and value not durability. The 65-game rule introduced a strict cutoff of 65 games that removes nuance from voting. This newly introduced rule treats an all-star level player who missed 18 games due to injury the same as a scrub who played 15 games. One example of this is Jokic’s current season where he has missed 16 games and missing one more would result in him being eliminated from MVP contention despite him ranking top three in assists, points, and rebounds. MVP voters should weigh games played as a factor that should be taken into consideration, not an automatic disqualification.
Even though supporters of the rule say that the rule discourages players from skipping games and ensures that fans see stars play, most missed games are due to injury, not laziness. Most fans would rather see healthy stars long-term than forced participation that can lead to worse injuries. A better solution could be lowering the requirement or allowing exceptions to the rule for serious injuries. Overall greatness should be measured by performance and impact not by who played the most games or was the most durable.
