PDA

View Full Version : NBA Season - How many Games should it consist of?



JordansBulls
10-08-2010, 04:12 PM
In NBA 2k11 they have it where you could run a NBA season to be 29 games, 58 games or 82 games. If this were possible which would you prefer to have for a number of games in the ACTUAL NBA now?

Baller1
10-08-2010, 04:18 PM
It's perfect where it's at. 29 or 58 is simply not enough.

HeatBBall
10-08-2010, 04:31 PM
It's perfect where it's at. 29 or 58 is simply not enough.

Exactly what I think to.

homestarunner93
10-08-2010, 04:32 PM
CPU Teams also willingly trade expiring contracts for horrible ones in NBA 2k11. That doesn't mean its realistic.

mjt20mik
10-08-2010, 04:33 PM
It's perfect where it's at. 29 or 58 is simply not enough.

This.

tangent12
10-08-2010, 04:34 PM
82 sounds just about right.

JordansBulls
10-08-2010, 04:38 PM
Example: With 58 games you would have one home game, one away game against every team in the league.

BOSTON617
10-08-2010, 04:47 PM
good where at

Jewelz0376
10-08-2010, 04:49 PM
It's perfect where it's at. 29 or 58 is simply not enough.

this

Hellcrooner
10-08-2010, 05:00 PM
58

two games against each team.

the top 16 make the playoffs regardless of conferences.

much more balanced.

MOre meaningfull games.

Less Injrys.

More time to practice and work on tactics and player developemente.

Btter product.

MrFastBreak
10-08-2010, 05:02 PM
If there were less games, there would be different variations of teams winning the championship and different teams winning the standings as basketball, more than any other sport, is a game of momentum. There should be 82 games as it'd paint a better picture of a team's true skill and capability to perform well in a generous amount of games.

carter15
10-08-2010, 05:10 PM
82 is so useless. The top teams can coast the whole 2nd half of the year and nobody cares until the playoffs. Make it 58.

Mudvayne91
10-08-2010, 05:30 PM
I'd chose 29 if the NBA Season occured more than once a year like 3 months on 6 months off. I know it's not very logical, but it would be a lot of basketball. If once a year, 58 seems pretty solid.

Bruno
10-08-2010, 05:38 PM
How would teams make up for lost revenue from less games played in their arenas? I like 58; less injuries, a more balanced schedule, fresher players for playoffs. But it ruins the record books. I don't see how they could ever change it.

GSW Hoops
10-08-2010, 05:39 PM
I like 82, but I think the NBA should ban back-to-back games.

Extend the season a few weeks and give players time to recover. I hate watching a game when one team is playing a back-to-back and the other team has had two or three days' rest.

Bruno
10-08-2010, 05:49 PM
I like 82, but I think the NBA should ban back-to-back games.

Extend the season a few weeks and give players time to recover. I hate watching a game when one team is playing a back-to-back and the other team has had two or three days' rest.

Good call. I wonder what the players would say if somebody polled their opinions on this. Get rid of back to back and start the regular season in early/mid October, or keep it the way it is.

Burkey3472
10-08-2010, 05:52 PM
Obviously it's never going to change but 58 sounds like a good idea.

NYKalltheway
10-08-2010, 06:34 PM
58 is the ideal.

You play each team twice. And as Crooner said, it would be much better if the Playoffs were not divided into West and East but as a whole. Why punish a better team on one conference just because it's immediate rivals are better?
Also no special seeds for division winners. Just top 16 teams...

And to make things more interesting, add a few more teams... (assuming VS is twice a season instead of up to 4)
somewhere below 65 games would be ideal, then playoffs.

Chacarron
10-08-2010, 07:04 PM
58 is the ideal.

You play each team twice. And as Crooner said, it would be much better if the Playoffs were not divided into West and East but as a whole. Why punish a better team on one conference just because it's immediate rivals are better?
Also no special seeds for division winners. Just top 16 teams...

And to make things more interesting, add a few more teams... (assuming VS is twice a season instead of up to 4)
somewhere below 65 games would be ideal, then playoffs.

I really like this idea.

NBA-GMaster
10-08-2010, 11:30 PM
Hmm.. 88..

THINKBLUE15
10-08-2010, 11:49 PM
82 is fine. Back-to-backs are part of the game too. Baseball plays 162 games in like 180 days...I think basketball players can play half those games. Yes, baseball isn't as physically demanding with running up and down the court, etc, but it's still 162 games which takes just as big of a toll on guys. 82 is perfectly doable.

The difference I would make is have less teams make the playoffs. Half the teams should not make the playoffs. That is absurd. Making the playoffs in basketball isn't even an accomplishment. It should be 8 teams. That will never happen unfortunately so eliminating that pointless first round will suffice for me.

Wade>You
10-08-2010, 11:53 PM
I don't think the NBA would ever change it (too much $$$ to lose) but I think 82 is fine either way.

Jewelz0376
10-09-2010, 02:09 AM
I like 82, but I think the NBA should ban back-to-back games.

Extend the season a few weeks and give players time to recover. I hate watching a game when one team is playing a back-to-back and the other team has had two or three days' rest.

It would probably be way to hard to ban back to backs... If Nba teams had their own personal arena then yea, but schedules are made based around when the arena is available...If they took out back to backs it would prolong the season a month at the min....

The main problem I have with 58 games injuries would have a much larger impact...because if a team had a bad stretch with injuries they could be knocked out of the playoffs much easier because of a shorter schedule.

mynameismo
10-09-2010, 02:29 AM
82 should be fine. But I like the no Back to back games, I doubt it happening though.

NBA is run by Money
And Money says 82 with back to backs

kArSoN RyDaH
10-09-2010, 02:51 AM
i agree with bruno.

i dont see how they could change the nba schedule at all. it would just ruin every record. it would make the records impossible to reach which makes basketball exciting to watch teams try and break records as well as players.

i would be all fr a 58 game season but i wouldnt want it to interfere with the history.

NYKalltheway
10-09-2010, 06:01 AM
That's a good point as well.. But 82 is too much!

You see fans of teams that are certain playoff teams not even caring about the regular season.

If they actually had less games, and make it harder to get to the playoffs (total of 8 as someone said, no conference interference or division and twice vs each other) then arenas would have less empty seats in the regular season. But 8 teams in playoffs will never happen as playoffs is the milk cow of the NBA, but still, less games in the regular season makes it actually count ;)

HoopsMachine
10-09-2010, 06:24 AM
I like 82, but I think the NBA should ban back-to-back games.

Extend the season a few weeks and give players time to recover. I hate watching a game when one team is playing a back-to-back and the other team has had two or three days' rest.

This, I'm actually in favor of lessening the season below 82, but only to eliminate back-to-backs which imo play a heavy factor in a teams performance.

godolphins
10-09-2010, 11:06 AM
82 is good

IrespectNumber3
10-09-2010, 11:11 AM
You guys havent watched basketball that long...The year after Jordan retired we had a 50 game regular season...hated it...

82 games is a lot don't get me wrong. But in the 58 game format, I think it's a strategy for weaker playoff teams to win. Essentially at the 50 game mark is when teams tend to get streaky.

I like the fact in the NBA the best team wins and not the best team at the moment

IrespectNumber3
10-09-2010, 11:12 AM
This, I'm actually in favor of lessening the season below 82, but only to eliminate back-to-backs which imo play a heavy factor in a teams performance.

Back to Backs suck

Hellcrooner
10-09-2010, 11:33 AM
Who cares for individual records?

oh yeah the ballhogs and me first palyers.

Im not going to give out any names but we all know.

pd1dish
10-09-2010, 12:01 PM
the season length is perfect right now. 82 games isnt too much or too little. players arent suffering too many injuries because of a long season and the nba season is spread out a pretty long time so they get a lot of days off. if it were any less, it would be too short. i cant think of any good reason to change it

eXpLiiCt
10-09-2010, 12:10 PM
100 games would be cool but 82 is good

kgjfan243
10-11-2010, 08:23 AM
82

JordansBulls
10-11-2010, 03:18 PM
Who cares for individual records?

oh yeah the ballhogs and me first palyers.

Im not going to give out any names but we all know.

There are team records as well.

xxcubs22xx
10-11-2010, 05:03 PM
82 without question.

JordansBulls
10-19-2010, 05:14 PM
Playoffs should go back to 5-7-7-7