66 vs 82

I loved this year how teams played like 4 or 5 games a week. Rather watch that then 2 or 3 games a week, but if they went to a real non lockout 66 game schedule it would probably be the same as a 82 game season. 2-3 games a week, but just 16 games shorter. If we are only getting a few games a week I would rather have an 82 game season.

I think the normal 82 game season is too long.  This 66 game season had too many games over too few days — it really turned into a grind and it really put a beating on the players.

I like the 66 game schedule.  But you could start the season a week or so later (after the World Series ends) and then maybe end the season a week earlier so they can get the Finals over with before mid-June.

That would mean cutting 16 games off the schedule and cutting 2 weeks off the schedule; a slightly more streamlined schedule.  Slightly fewer games per week than a regular 82 game season but the season wouldn’t last as long.  At the end of 66 games I think you can tell who the best teams are.  Rotations are pretty much set and rookies should have enough time to get into the flow of the season.  I think that with a more managable schedule, players would be fresher for the playoffs.

i think for the benefit of the game having a 66 game season is better. People get more reps, train more, study more , and dont punish their bodies as badly as they do in the 82 game season , and i agree it will make the games for competetive and exciting to watch. However a lot more money is made from an 82 game series because there are more exciting matchups and more games on a daily basis. So it would be difficult to see if it was ever considered a possibility .. which one would be chosen…

My vision for the NBA is for less games in the regular season (66 games will do), and then a shorter length for the playoffs. I would even consider having a best of 5 format for the first 2 rounds.

IMO, the NBA would be be a more compeitive and compelling league if there were less foul calls and a bigger emphasis on defense and ball movement. In other words, I like games where people are hussling and focused. (i.e Grizzles and Clippers Game 7….ok maybe that hard-nosed). When the NBA encourages guards to glide into the lane because they know they can draw a fouls, the game becomes akin to an exhibition. Even though Reggie Evans and Dennis Rodman types have glaring offensive flaws, they do provide a certain intensity and free-flow the game that I think is important.

This type of NBA that I would like to see is only possible if the number of games is cut down.

IDK but what I do know, regardless of what David Stern says, that lockout is the reason so many people were injured, that man just don’t want to admit it.

How could you love this season’s schedule? Sure I loved the constant games as well, but the quality of play was pretty bad comparatively to past years, guys were gased, I never saw so much walking up and down the court. I know we all loced the quantity of games oer a short period of time, but did you see the starting lineups the last week of the season?

That would cut salaries atleast 20 percent

I don’t think it would cut the salaries. If they make the 66-game schedule the standard, then that means that they would be payed more for each game because they’re adjusting the salaries to the 66-game sched rather than this past season where it was adjusted to 82 games (because that is the current standard).

Sup is right. Salaries would decrease.

Most people agree that less games would be better for the game. Both players and analysts have said so. The only group of ppl that have fought this move are the owners. They want to most games as possible because each game nets them a chunk of change…. Not much as a football game of course.

So less games in a season means less money, which means they will most likely pay their players less. Just all part of the game.