Buried in this season’s regulations is a small change to how games are scheduled. Under 17.9 in the SLB operating rules, teams will no longer be required to play two domestic fixtures on consecutive days — commonly referred to as back-to-back games.
Last season, back-to-backs were one of the clearest pressure points in the calendar — and they were not evenly distributed. Some teams avoided them entirely, while others absorbed multiple.
That imbalance had practical consequences. Back-to-back games place a strain on performance and recovery, and that strain was concentrated on teams trying to hold onto fixed Saturday home nights.
How Performance Drops
Evidence from professional basketball shows that back-to-back games reduce the quality of play. One of the clearest demonstrations comes from a 2021 study by Yang et al., which analysed all 1,230 NBA regular-season games from the 2016–17 season.
The study compared team performance in back-to-back games with games played after two or more days’ rest. All statistics were normalised per possession and analysed at team level, accounting for opponent quality, match pace and match location.
Across eleven basketball metrics, seven show clear movement in back-to-back games.
| Metric | Change in back-to-back games | p-value |
|---|---|---|
| Paint scoring | -2.4 | 0.001 |
| Three-point scoring | -0.9 | 0.011 |
| Turnovers | -0.4 | 0.087 |
| Personal fouls | +0.6 | 0.118 |
| Blocks | -0.3 | 0.152 |
| Steals | -0.4 | 0.254 |
| Assists | -1.2 | 0.260 |
*Only metrics from the study with a p-value below 0.30 are included.
Only two metrics — paint scoring and three-point scoring — meet conventional thresholds for statistical significance. These are the clearest and most reliable performance declines associated with back-to-back games.
Beyond scoring, high-energy defensive actions also slip. Blocks and steals both fall, while foul counts rise, pointing towards defenders arriving later, contesting less cleanly, and compensating with fouls.
Turnovers decline, but so do assists and scoring in the paint and from three. In context, that suggests a shift towards safer, lower-reward possessions — fewer risks, less ball movement, and fewer high-quality shots.
Taken together, the evidence shows that back-to-backs don’t radically change how teams play. They subtly lower the level at which they can execute, particularly in actions that rely on physical and mental freshness.
Injuries Are More Complicated
The injury case around back-to-backs is less clear-cut than the performance decline. Across basketball research, overall workload is credibly linked to injury risk. Minutes played, training volume, travel demands and recovery time all matter.
That distinction helps explain why the evidence looks mixed. When back-to-backs are examined in isolation, the signal is often weak. When they are considered as part of a wider load profile — particularly alongside travel and high individual minutes — the relationship becomes clearer.
Removing back-to-backs does not eliminate injuries. It reduces one contributor to overall load.
How the Calendar Has Shifted
Compared to last season, the SLB calendar leans a little more heavily on Friday and Sunday, with fewer fixtures scheduled midweek.
| Day | 24/25 Season | 25/26 Season |
|---|---|---|
| Monday | 1.0% | 0.0% |
| Tuesday | 2.0% | 3.2% |
| Wednesday | 7.0% | 1.3% |
| Thursday | 2.5% | 0.6% |
| Friday | 37.7% | 43.9% |
| Saturday | 11.1% | 7.1% |
| Sunday | 38.7% | 43.9% |
* 2024/25 figures are from games played across Championship, Cup and Trophy competitions. 2025/26 figures are from scheduled fixtures in the same competitions, excluding later rounds that have not yet been fixed.
Last season, Surrey were the clearest example of how Saturday basketball was accommodated under the old calendar. They hosted thirteen Saturday home games — more than every other club combined — and played five domestic back-to-backs across Championship, Trophy and Cup competitions, the league’s highest total. By contrast, Cheshire and Bristol were the only other teams to play more than one.
This season, Surrey are still trying to hold onto that space. Of the eleven Saturday fixtures scheduled across the league, nine are Surrey home games. Sheffield and Leicester home games account for the other two.
That commitment comes with trade-offs. Holding onto Saturday fixtures reduces flexibility elsewhere in the calendar, particularly under rules designed to avoid consecutive-day games. The identity remains, but the margin for accommodating it is smaller.
Improving the Product
Removing back-to-back fixtures addresses one of the clearest pressure points in the calendar. Consecutive-day games consistently lower execution quality, and this season’s schedule reduces how often teams are asked to play under those conditions.
The trade-offs are real. Calendars compress, and identities built around certain nights become harder to sustain. But the basketball itself improves.
It’s a small, practical adjustment — one that shows how incremental decisions can raise the level of the league without needing to be dramatic.
