The NBA is engaged in serious discussions with the National Basketball Players Association and broadcast partners on sweeping, dramatic changes to the league calendar that would include a reseeding of the four conference finalists, a 30-team in-season tournament and a postseason play-in, league sources told ESPN.

I read this last night and can't figure it out.

These scenarios would come with the shortening of the regular season to a minimum of 78 games, league sources said.
...
Commissioner Adam Silver has been driving this agenda of change -- especially the in-season tournament cup modeled after European soccer -- for years. 

The league is working to make sure the revenue for teams and players with a shortened regular season would be break even or be better initially...

...

In proposals that include the adoption of in-season tournaments and a postseason play-in, the traditional regular-season schedule would be reduced from 82 games -- with most teams scheduled to play 78 or 79 games. There's a small possibility of a team playing a maximum of 83 games based on possible tournament and play-in scenarios, league sources said. For the in-season tournament, the NBA is focused on 30-team participation that begins with a divisional group stage of scheduled regular-season games.

Below is where my comprehension particularly dissolved:

Those pre-knockout-round games would be part of the regular-season schedule. Six divisional winners -- based on home and road records in the group stage -- and the two teams with the next-best records would advance to a single-elimination knockout round, league sources said.

Those teams could each potentially compete in the quarterfinals, semifinals and finals.

So players would be playing MORE games in total? When "load management" is the new buzz phrase?

The play-in proposal is this: two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth and 10th seeds in each conference. The seventh seed would host the eighth seed, with the winner of that single game earning the seventh spot, league sources said.

The ninth seed would host the 10th seed, with the winner of that game facing the loser of the 7-vs.-8 matchup for the final playoff spot.

I think they need to make that more complicated. It's too simple.

This is all Adam's idea? Adam, man. Jeez. To me, a fan, the biggest issue that the NBA faces is the length of the season and the physical and mental toll it takes on the players. It is simply not possible for the players to give forth 100% effort 100% of 82 games. They don’t and that is cheating the fans.

That is also what happens in European soccer. In the English Premier League, a club plays 38 matches over a season about as long as is the NBA's. There are no playoffs. That's a great schedule! So, of course they fuck it up. There are two domestic cup tournaments and for the top six clubs in the Premier League one of two European cup tournaments. The best Premier League club players can play up to 100 matches a season. They get worn out, broken down, injured, mentally exhausted. So what do Premier League clubs do? Load management. They field inferior teams of seldom-used players in the domestic cups, especially the secondary League Cup. Which cheapens those competitions. Then there are the International breaks. Every goddamned season the wonderful rhythm of the league season is broken as the players go off to play for their national teams. Further wear and tear and injury and body fatigue. 

The English domestic cup competitions are overlapping. Having one is sensible, having two is redundant. Same with the pan-European tournaments. The Champions League is awesome; the Europa League is stupid. But at least in soccer, and this goes for the game in America as well, the cup competitions involve more teams than are in, e.g. the Premier League. The FA Cup, all the clubs that are members of the Football Association; the League Cup, all the clubs in the four levels of professional soccer. The U.S. Open is a tremendous tournament, older and more durable than MLS or NASL ever was or will be. The U.S. Open involves every semi-pro and professional club in America. One year I remember the Miami "Fusion" played the Mid-Michigan "Bucks" in mid-Michigan. I was so into it I listened to the match on the radio! Knock-out competitions, like the NCAA basketball tournament, are compelling entertainment. In England though, they are semi-knockout tournaments. The clubs play a "tie," two games. Ugh. 

But at least the domestic soccer competitions involve different clubs. The competitions have different names. In Adam Silver's proposal it's the same damn teams! It is going to be very confusing: "Those pre-knockout-round games would be part of the regular-season schedule." What? Fans, I think, are going to feel cheated, like, "What are you trying to pull over on us? We just saw the "Knicks" play the "Lakers," now we're seeing the "Knicks" play the "Lakers" again in...what? What is this thing?" The other thing I really don't understand is the load management issue. Adam is very sensitive to the demands that the 82 game schedule places on the players bodies. His predecessor, David Stern, was not. When Gregg Popovich fielded a reserve squad for a showcased Christmas Day game against Miami Stern went fucking ballistic. Fined San Antonio. Adam is much more player-friendly. He has reduced the number of the dreaded back-to-back games. This tournament proposal however, while reducing the regular season to 78 "or 79" games (Woww. By a whole three...or four.) will obviously increase the total number of games players play in all competitions. Pre-knockouts, group stages, knockouts: I don't know, because this is not full baked, but it is going to increase the number of total games players play well beyond 82. This is a terrible idea, by a guy who doesn't have terrible ideas very often, for the NBA, the players, and the fans.