PDA

View Full Version : Should the NBA have made a shorter schedule???



Ty Fast
01-26-2012, 01:41 AM
This NBA schedule is ridicules. Back to back to backs. 4 games in 5 nights. Last time there was a strike they only played 48 games so I think this time they could have got away with fewer than 66 games. Even 60 games would be better because it would give teams more rest. The only fair thing is that every team has the same kind of schedule but I think they could have done a better job constructing it. What do you think?

Cal827
01-26-2012, 01:44 AM
Yup. The Injuries are piling up. Some teams are absolutely terrible (Charlotte, Washington). Should have just played it like a regular season that had lost the previous two months worth of games.

Also, I think it was 50 games last time there was a lockout.

Ty Fast
01-26-2012, 01:49 AM
Yup. The Injuries are piling up. Some teams are absolutely terrible (Charlotte, Washington). Should have just played it like a regular season that had lost the previous two months worth of games.

Also, I think it was 50 games last time there was a lockout.

ya man. you are right. it was hockey that had 48 games in 95. nba did have 50. my bad.

Cal827
01-26-2012, 02:04 AM
ya man. you are right. it was hockey that had 48 games in 95. nba did have 50. my bad.

No worries man, sorry if it seemed like I was trying to be a dick lol. I still agree with you on the main point. The season should be shorter. As mentioned, some of the best players in the League now aren't able to produce the same great product that they have been b/c in injuries, while others are nursing lingering injuries (Kobe, Rose, Wade), that they might not recover from fully for the rest of this season. But that's David Stern for ya. :shrug:

Ty Fast
01-26-2012, 02:06 AM
No worries man, sorry if it seemed like I was trying to be a dick lol. I still agree with you on the main point. The season should be shorter. As mentioned, some of the best players in the League now aren't able to produce the same great product that they have been b/c in injuries, while others are nursing lingering injuries (Kobe, Rose, Wade), that they might not recover from fully for the rest of this season. But that's David Stern for ya. :shrug:

o no. not at all. no worries man.

THE GIPPER
01-26-2012, 02:13 AM
yes. i was saying this right when i heard how many games they were playing this season. too many injuries and a lower quality of bball

mngopher35
01-26-2012, 02:22 AM
Yup, I agree with you guys. Injuries and lower quality games seem to be alot more prevalent this year. Tonight the wolves had 9 players suited out of a 15 man roster (although half the injuries were from before season started). Older teams seem to come out flat more often and some games even young teams look very tired.

Raps08-09 Champ
01-26-2012, 02:26 AM
There was a post in a thread that showed that injuries weren't the main reason for injuries.

Mudvayne91
01-26-2012, 02:30 AM
The thing that has to be considered is the $. How much does an additional 16 games bring the NBA?

Raph12
01-26-2012, 02:38 AM
The quality of play has dropped a little, but watching game after game all day is pretty fun.

heyman321
01-26-2012, 03:06 AM
The quality of play has dropped a little, but watching game after game all day is pretty fun.

Amen!

da ThRONe
01-26-2012, 05:24 AM
IMO Not only should this season be reduced every season should be reduced. The money in sports is in tv. If they put out a better product that's easier to follow the money will follow. Imagine if basketball was played on Wednesday's and Saturdays. Ratings would be through the roof. People would have NBA party's every week like football. Guys would be healthier year round and will be better ball player with more work within the team system and individual workouts with position coaches. And mostly your tv wouldn't be over saturated with bad basketball every nite. You would be fiending for Wednesdays and Saturdays like you do for Football Sundays and Mondays.

Bruno
01-26-2012, 05:29 AM
they should have done 55. 2/3rd of a normal season. lose all the back to back to backs, and make it so no team ever plays more than four games in one week. or at least down to 60.

as a fan i love how many games we see in such a compacted time, but come playoffs i dont think well get the most honest reflection; it will be dominated by the young teams. thats how a 8th ranked NYK team made it to the finals in 1999. that team had no buisness making it that far, but the older (better) teams were just burnt out by then. IMO.

bmd1101
01-26-2012, 05:58 AM
Wtf? I wish it was still 85.

DerekCzajkowski
01-26-2012, 06:07 AM
Yes....the more games the less meaningful they are...nba season has always been to long

TRF929
01-26-2012, 08:00 AM
Yes it shouldv'e been shorter but the owners wanted as many games as posible so they get more money. NBA doesn't care for quality of the game as long as theyre getting the most money they can

new york blue
01-26-2012, 08:20 AM
I think they should both have had a longer training camp and fewer games. It would be interesting to see if you can quantify the damage to the game, either in terms of injuries, both those enough to get players off the court and those that just have them playing hurt, like Carmelo Anthony and Kobe Bryant; and the number of blow-outs when one time is tired from playing back to back to back.

And greedball, for those of you who are not Knicks or Mike D'Antoni fans, is a take off on speedball, a reference to what used to be his seven seconds or less offense.

Fnom11
01-26-2012, 08:26 AM
I don't really care if they shortened seasons as long as there are more televised games.