RealGM

Personally, I loved have Lakers games on a near nightly basis. The downside of course is the injuries, but I feel some injuries would have still happened. However ESPN did a montage of the injuries on SportsCenter today and some of the injuries were pretty rare/bizarre.

Some injuries like Rubio's would have potentially happened anyways (knee on knee hits aren't uncommon). However something like the torn pectoral of Horford or torn achilles of Billups aren't common. Even the severity of Howards back is most likely due to the shortened schedule and less time to rest. Some injuries are most likely due to improper pre-season preparation as much as the shortened schedule. Was it worth it though? Would the league have been better off keeping a normal schedule and played less games, or should teams and players have prepared and better managed their time on the court?

i really enjoyed the fast pace nature of the games and truly enjoyed being lakers stress free for the holidays.

Too many injuries. But it allows teams like the Pacers and Jazz to slip into the playoffs which is kinda cool.

I'm cool for the league to shorten the 82 to maybe 65-70.
Just to give a little bit more longevity for all the players. Young or Aging.

It's just 66 games in like 100 days is ridiculous.
Billy Hunter is the Devil. GET EM FISH!!!

It was great having games more often, but it's bad for the game in terms of the amount of injuries which can occur. I'd rather have the season spread out more (with more games) and have everyone healthy for the post season where the game becomes most enjoyable to watch.

hell no

noooooooo way. 82 games is perfect.

I think the the NBA would be better off with a shorter season of 60 games because the level of play will go way up. It won't be as crazy as a schedule as this year if they plan it right they could have a 60 game season and not have team play more than 2 games in row. But it probably won't happen the owners dont want to lose 10 home games.

Imagine the NBA starting on Christmas day every year and then playing 15 games a month from Jan-Apr and the playoffs starting in May and finals ending in early July.

Did not like...

It was too fast paced to really get into any of the games or to really care about the various ups and downs of the season.
Also, I didn't think the game play was at as high a level as it has been in the past.

In fact, as a result of all this, I'm only generally interested in the playoffs. I'm usually pretty up for the post season at this point. But this season, I'm just not feeling it that much.

I loved the fast paced ups and downs. It reflected on the rapidly changing opinions on the board.

I'm all for a shorter season if it means my team can be well rested for a Finals run

Naaah cos everyone was Fat and slow at the beginning of the year. It was like watching a league full of Baron Davises and Boris Diaws.

wait the argument for more games is that less injuries will happen?


shorter would be nice, but it won't happen- money is at stake

The argument being made by many (and somewhat me) is that increasing the game to day ratio leads to more injuries. That being said I really liked having Lakers games virtually daily.

Nay - it will make Kobe retire quicker and may cause injury

hermes wrote:wait the argument for more games is that less injuries will happen?


shorter would be nice, but it won't happen- money is at stake

Less games in a condensed season still means less rest. Having more games (82) with more time for players to rest in between games is the actual discussion.