Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now that the 66 game schedule is almost over - what do you think? Is it better than the 82 game schedule?
It seems like a lot more strategy now comes into play with personnel choices and time management.
With the 82 game schedule, teams went about 7 or 8 deep through the season. With the condensed schedule, you need to be 9 or 10 deep - and coaches have to manage the time of their star players so they are not overused - which I like.
What about the fact that the season is only 4 months long with 6 weeks of playoffs? Is that better or does it seem like the season didn't last long enough?
If they're going to do 66 games, you'd have to spread out the season a little more. They basically squeezed 66 games between Christmas day and whenever the season is due to end. If they start the season on,say, Dec 1st and then run 66 games, maybe.
Actually, I would prefer trimming the fat in the postseason moreso than making the regular season shorter. Maybe the top 4 teams in each conference, as opposed to top 8, though I'm sure many would disagree with that. We know things don't really get interesting till the 2nd round anyway, though that idea does rob us of some potential '8th seed taking out the 1st seed' upsets.....as few and far between as that occurs.
While it will never happen thanks to the almighty $$...would love to see a shortened season that starts around Thanksgiving, ends the weekend of the Final 4, and the NBA Finals completed by Memorial Day.
I really don't get into the NBA until after the all-star game anyway so by that default I would say I like a shorter season. I didn't necessarily like this 66 game format though. It just seemed rushed... And the level of play has been awful at times this season.
I also like the playoff season. It's a little long (especially the first round), but its my favority post season in any sport. Maybe its because my buddies and I do brackets for the nba playoffs similar to college except we have bonus points for getting the series length correct for bonus points to separate similar sheets. Then a tie-breaker for the finals if needed by over/under scores. We have been doing it for 10 years. It keeps us glued in to the playoffs... makes it much more exciting!
If they're going to do 66 games, you'd have to spread out the season a little more. They basically squeezed 66 games between Christmas day and whenever the season is due to end. If they start the season on,say, Dec 1st and then run 66 games, maybe.
Actually, I would prefer trimming the fat in the postseason moreso than making the regular season shorter. Maybe the top 4 teams in each conference, as opposed to top 8, though I'm sure many would disagree with that. We know things don't really get interesting till the 2nd round anyway, though that idea does rob us of some potential '8th seed taking out the 1st seed' upsets.....as few and far between as that occurs.
im ok with either one really, but i think the games need to be spread out more if shorter. as stated, 66 games with not every team playing 2 B2B2B, or what not sucks. i would say the shortened season has caused more players to be injured as well. this is either the schedule or the lack of a preseason/training camp to speak of.
now i am a fan of shortening the playoffs but i would not go top 4 in each. maybe top 6 in each? i have long been an advocate of playing the top teams in the league not east vs east west vs west. how many seasons in the last 10 yrs has the west had 10 seeds with winning records with east teams having 6 or 7 seeds with losing records. this would totally change the dynamics of the playoffs imo. could you imagine boston/lal in the 2nd round? or miami vs dallas in the 1st round and it only getting better from there. i mean for years it was SA and LA as 2 of the best teams knocking each other out or what not. well this could potentially have a spurs lakers final. or all those spurs mavs series that went 7 games and OT and everything i mean those could/should be finals series and seeding top 12-16 in the league could make it happen. make the opening round a best of 5 again would shorten things as well. or the 1st 2 rounds best of 5 and the finals best of 9. thats what im talking about! lol
also if the seeding stays the same, make the allstar game worth something like MLB give the winning side home court for the finals.
now i am a fan of shortening the playoffs but i would not go top 4 in each. maybe top 6 in each? i have long been an advocate of playing the top teams in the league not east vs east west vs west. how many seasons in the last 10 yrs has the west had 10 seeds with winning records with east teams having 6 or 7 seeds with losing records. this would totally change the dynamics of the playoffs imo. could you imagine boston/lal in the 2nd round? or miami vs dallas in the 1st round and it only getting better from there.
Agree, I've always wanted to see that kind of thing. The main thing to overcome would be travel logistics, especially when you have teams from opposite coasts matched up. But you're correct, you're far more likely to have stellar matchups in the first round, instead of things not getting 'really' good until the conference semifinals and beyond. How about a scenario where you cut down the number of teams, and have the top seeds in each conference get first round byes? Would certainly give even more incentive to giving your all to get that #1 seed. I mean, that idea needs some tweaking, but I'd definitely like to see some kind of shakeup.
I also think they need to stop playing teams 4 times in the regular season. It would make tie breakers easier to play 3. No more playing opposite conf teams twice. Pretty much play everyone 3 times to eliminate all the funky tiebreaker stuff.
I like 82 games better, since I'm a big basketball fan. The 66 game schedule has seemed to make it more competetive, but the injuries have been annoying. I think that's probably due to conditioning, and the lack of getting as much practice time. I like to see teams playing at the highest possible level.
No first round byes. If you are playing 4 out of 7, how long would the bye teams be off - a couple of weeks? Too long.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
