so why don't they cut the nba...

[Al Ka Pwn]

season in half game wise, so that the teams will actually have some time
to practice. it would also reduce injuries which would further improve the
quality of the leage.
is there a specific reason as to why it has to be 82 games?

[bowdown]

more games to watch for viewers?

[Al Ka Pwn]

maybe it's just me, but seeing 2 teams play eachother 4 times in regular season is a bit boring to me.

[bowdown]

I like all the games. Even if 4 games between 2 teams it is kind of a mini series to see who is the really better one of the two and by how much.

[Al Ka Pwn]

yeah, but so many times the teams are not at full strength when they play due to injuries or some other shit you know. so it really doesn't give you anything decisive.

[tee-pane]

The NBA doesnt have so many back to back games, so watching different matchups playing a series of games at different times are great, i wish they played more then 82 games.

[Al Ka Pwn]

I watch 2 nba games every day. and that satisfies my need.
I mean it's not like they do something different than throw the ball through a hoop all match.

how many games a day do you watch?

[The X]

I too recently thought a shorter season might be better, maybe down to say 58-60 games, instead of 82....but it won't happen....would the players take a pro-rata pay cut across the board to cover the reduced revenues from games & broadcasting rights?!? the answer is no....

I would like to see shorter playoff series, maybe a 5-5-5-7 format rather than 7-7-7-7....

[Drex]

I watch 2 nba games every day. and that satisfies my need.

I watch two games every week. What you watch in a week I get to watch in 2 months.

[The X]

I watch 2 nba games every day. and that satisfies my need.

I watch two games every week. What you watch in a week I get to watch in 2 months.

I get to watch two games a year....I'm going alright & no obvious withdrawal symptons yet

[Andrew]

I think teams have plenty of time to practice and injuries are always going to be a part of the game, no matter how long the season is. Players have suffered serious injuries in the first couple of games of the season; in fact, if you shorten the season you reduce the amount of time they have to recover and return the same season in time for the Playoffs. The longer season also gives all the teams ample time to recover from slumps and to decide playoff seedings without the need for too many tiebreakers.

It'll never happen because it means less revenue and the NBA has to look out for its business interests but I have no problem with the 82 game season. It means more basketball to watch, we get to see teams make improbable runs, and a sprained ankle may only mean a handful of games are missed instead of a larger percentage of the season.

[Al Ka Pwn]

well about practise time. I've heard lot's of different commentators elude to teams not having time for it. so I think you might be mistaken about that one.
and if you lessen the amount of games they have to play, there's less chance of them suffering injuries due to having to play so much and being too fatigued and not properly rested.
if the season was shorter. teams would be able to play at full strenght more, which would lead to less slumps and no need to recover from them. it would also mean more closer games and less blowouts.

yeah I agree that the money means it will probably never happen. it's like a vicious cycle with how much they are paying the players and it's almost impossible to go back from the path they are on.
I don't have a problem with the 82 games a season either. I doubt anyone has the time to watch all the nba games available though and I would rather have less better quality games, than more games of teams that don't have starters or don't know their own defensive rotations and plays.

[Andrew]

well about practise time. I've heard lot's of different commentators elude to teams not having time for it. so I think you might be mistaken about that one.

Or maybe the commentators are mistaken? Just because a commentator says it doesn't mean it's so. Sean Elliott frequently defends Bruce Bowen but he's not necessarily right on that. It depends on the situation they're referring to as well. If key players miss the preseason or training camp with injuries or there's a major trade close to the start of the season then sure, they're not going to have enough time to practice. Sure, they could push the season back or reduce the schedule but players are still going to miss the preseason/training camp with injuries and last minute trades will still go down.

and if you lessen the amount of games they have to play, there's less chance of them suffering injuries due to having to play so much and being too fatigued and not properly rested.

Perhaps, but these are world class athletes with the best medical care possible. A shorter season won't really reduce the risk of stepping on another player's foot, landing awkwardly, suffering a nasty collision, getting taken out by Bruce Bowen etc. There are players who get seriously injured within the first ten games of the season, it can't be avoided. Injuries are a part of the game and always will be, no matter how long the season.

I don't have a problem with the 82 games a season either. I doubt anyone has the time to watch all the nba games available though and I would rather have less better quality games, than more games of teams that don't have starters or don't know their own defensive rotations and plays.

Whether or not one person could watch all 82 games for one team is irrelevant. More games gives more people a greater chance of seeing their team play and more importantly, gives teams plenty of time to a) compensate for a shaky start, b) have players who got injured early return to the lineup and c) seperate themselves from one another in determining playoff seedings.

Point B in particular relates to your assertion that lesser games would mean higher quality games and fewer games with missing starters because if a star player suffers an injury early on, a shorter season could mean they miss the rest of the year and the Playoffs so you end up with fewer quality games and plenty of games where starters are absent anyway, because injuries are an unfortunate part of the game. A longer season gives them time to recover, rehab and return (depending on when the injury occurred and how severe it is, of course) or at least a chance to do so.

Besides, you're still going to have woeful teams who get blown out, players who slump and games that aren't particularly noteworthy. In fact, with a shorter schedule there's fewer chances for classic matchups since the best of the best wouldn't play each other as often and when they do, it might not turn out to be a classic anyway. If there are 20 clunkers every year and you're only playing 50 games, that's two fifths of the games that aren't enjoyable to watch as opposed to just under a quarter of an 82 game schedule. The great games are going to be there no matter how long the schedule is and so will the more mundane games. Like injuries, that's unavoidable because a shorter schedule and more practice time won't make up for the fact some teams are just flat out bad or missing players for one reason or another.

[Al Ka Pwn]

well commentators talk to players and coaches directly. so it's a pretty safe bet that if they say
that teams don't have enough practise time, they heard it from the coaches and players.

did you see delonta west smacking his head on the floor a while back? now that looked
like it hurt. I am not saying that these kinds of injuries won't happen with a reduced schedule.
but you can't tell me that a fit and well rested player isn't less likely to get injured though.

I'm sorry for repeating myself, but with more practise time the chance of a shakey start
could be significantly less. and with less games, there is a chance there won't be as many injuries.
I see how you mean that the amount of games will provide a bigger chance for seperation. but I
would prefer giving teams 2 or even 3 instead of 4 chances against eachother thusly making
them have to play harder get the win in order to gain the coveted playoff places and insuring
the fans more hard fought battles. basically it would make every regular season game more
meaningfull.

you go with the assumption that a shorter season won't mean less injuries. which is fair I suppose,
as I have no way of proving that less games would mean less injuries.
I agree that injuries will happen no matter what, but I think that 82 games and being on the road
as much to boot is quite a strain on the nba players, even if they have the finest medical staff
backing them up.

yes, a shorter season won't mean that teams that suck will stop sucking or make players who can't
catch a ball to save their life all turn into lebron or kobe. and you are right about that there are going
to be classics and blowouts no matter how long the season. I just really like seeing well executed
plays in be it either defence or offence.

I am not going to say that there's anything wrong with your reasoning,
but I still stand by my point that less games could improve the overal quality of the nba.

and don't get me started on last minute trades or even mid season ones for that matter.

[Andrew]

well commentators talk to players and coaches directly. so it's a pretty safe bet that if they say
that teams don't have enough practise time, they heard it from the coaches and players.

Maybe, but that's not a given. Commentators make their own assumptions too and players and coaches can make all kinds of excuses as well, so I take it with a grain of salt.

did you see delonta west smacking his head on the floor a while back? now that looked
like it hurt. I am not saying that these kinds of injuries won't happen with a reduced schedule.
but you can't tell me that a fit and well rested player isn't less likely to get injured though.

Fair enough, but you can't tell me that a player landing awkwardly after a collision and injuring himself is the result of him being unfit or tired. If a player sprains his ankle stepping on another player's foot, it's not because he's out of shape or not well rested, it's because the pace and physicality of basketball placed him a position to step on another player's foot and roll his ankle. Delonte West's injury is a particularly bad example to use because he had a nasty fall after a bad collision on a block attempt. Same as Elton Brand's seperated shoulder. It doesn't matter how well rested they are (and it's worthwhile noting that both of these injuries happened in a span less than 40 games, so a 50 game schedule wouldn't have helped them and would currently have them benched the Playoffs), the worst injuries tend to come from freak accidents and no amount of rest will prevent that.

The only way to cut down on the injuries would be to make basketball a truly non-contact sport but that would be very limiting and even Netball players suffer rolled ankles, knee injuries and the like.

I'm sorry for repeating myself, but with more practise time the chance of a shakey start
could be significantly less. and with less games, there is a chance there won't be as many injuries.
I see how you mean that the amount of games will provide a bigger chance for seperation. but I
would prefer giving teams 2 or even 3 instead of 4 chances against eachother thusly making
them have to play harder get the win in order to gain the coveted playoff places and insuring
the fans more hard fought battles. basically it would make every regular season game more
meaningfull.

I agree there, it certainly makes each regular game more significant if teams have less time to recover from slumps but then you kind of eliminate the "Cinderella team" aspect of the game and as I said before, reduce the amount of time players have to come back from injury so that teams are at full strength. I see the benefits of the shorter schedule, don't get me wrong, but I don't think they outweight the benefits of the longer schedule to the point where I think the schedule should be cut.

I do see your point about fewer games potentially improving the quality of the NBA season but I just don't think it would improve things all that much. Teams will suck and players will get injured no matter what. If practice time is an issue then maybe they could extend training camp and the preseason back into the offseason. But that brings up another point; if the amount of games is an issue, maybe they shouldn't have so many preseason games or summer leagues.

[Al Ka Pwn]

I take almost anything any commentator says with a grain of salt.
there's only a few I genuinly enough listening to and won't get annoyed by.

I didn't use delonte west injuring his wrist by doing a headplant as a example
for an injury that resulted from being not well rested. lol. I just had to think about
it because of all the injury talk.

I don't want to make basketball non contact by all means. I like the way it is now.
I am kind of bummed that you can't commit flagrant fouls in 2k9 to be honest.

true enough and lol.
that's the wonderful thing about debating and arguing theoretical stuff.
if you have people skilled enough at it, you could keep talking till infinity.
but we might have all bases covered on this particular talking point.

[Andrew]

Absolutely, we could stand to have a few more people who disagree in the NBA section because it's fun to discuss these things rather than just comment/essentially blog about a topic.

[Patr1ck]

Cut the games in half and the business of the nba is gone unless the tickets double in price.

We talking bout practice...not a game. Practice...

These players have had years to practice. This is professional basketball, and they have done it this way for years. The difference in the amount of college games and NBA games is a good way to weed out the inconsistent, overprojected, non-commited, injury prone players.

[Al Ka Pwn]

every team runs different plays and no matter how many years of practice
you've had in college, you'll still need time to get accustomed to a new team
and new players. it's true that the better the player the less practice they'll
probably need, but they aren't all allen iverson you know.

[[Q]]

well then the question would be why don't they cut the baseball season from a whopping 180 games to 82? good lord, the baseball season is coming. nothing is worse than turning on SportsCEnter (which i hate already) and watching an hour of stupid baseball highlights.

[Al Ka Pwn]

hahaha. hahahaha. baseball. that's funny.

[Andrew]

baseball highlights.

Definitely an oxymoron in my book.

[[Q]]

you're talking about a 2 second clip of a hit out of a 3 1/2 hr game.

[Andrew]

One of my friends who I grew up with is a huge baseball fan - which made us both oddities, our favourite sports being American sports (even though most "Australian sports" weren't invented in Australia or by Australians) - and he often argued with me that baseball was the more exciting sport. I don't see eye-to-eye with people who think basketball is boring at the best of times but I could never figure that one out. It's seems like it'd be more fun to play than watch, though I guess you could say the same of most ball sports.

[Al Ka Pwn]

I think it's the repetitive nature of some sports that adds to their boredom factor.
with baseball this is more prevalent than with basketball. I am not saying
baseball IS boring. but rather than watching a game I'd prefer watching paint dry.