More excited about the NBA this year

[enigmaboy89]

I do not know if it is just me, but I am more excited with the NBA this year than previous years. In my opinion the delayed season start worked out very well, in fact I would not object if season starts at Christmas. Just feels so much better - holidays, done with classes, games every other day, etc.

Who feel the same way? Would you object to start the season in late December every year?

[kjk2241]

I voted yes. I just think the season is too long much like baseball. The shortened season for me is great. I have the Panthers and when its winding down I have the Bobcats!

[Chef]

start at christmas 55 game season.

[Plowright]

i think less games, but stretch it over a longer time. Make games more special. Thats why i think football is so successful in England. We have 1 game a week, so everyone waits the whole week and the anticipation builds up

[JamieMcNeill]

i think less games, but stretch it over a longer time. Make games more special. Thats why i think football is so successful in England. We have 1 game a week, so everyone waits the whole week and the anticipation builds up

Exactly, I know what you mean about football (soccer) games. Think about the build up we Americans give NFL games. Now imagine only 1 game a week for the nba.


Perpetual Optimism

[Chef]

2 basketball games per week from christmas until mid april.

[Zoolander]

If they did that, no individual records would ever be broken.

[JamieMcNeill]

Then NBA records would be just as pointless and hopeless as MLB batting records.


Perpetual Optimism

[Plowright]

Yer i get what you mean, i just think sometimes people dont pay attention as if they miss a game or two it doesnt matter. But maybe that is a good thing.... I just love the build up to the game, in the NBA there pretty much is none tho

[Chef]

Then NBA records would be just as pointless and hopeless as MLB batting records.


Perpetual Optimism

people really don't care about records in basketball or football nearly as much as baseball. i think that point is not a big deal in the long term.

[JamieMcNeill]

people really don't care about records in basketball or football nearly as much as baseball. i think that point is not a big deal in the long term.

I agree. Just couldn't resist taking a jab at steroid-ball


Perpetual Optimism

[SWedd523]

One game a week in basketball? No thanks.

[Chef]

One game a week in basketball? No thanks.

2-3 just no back to backs.

[BlockParty]

This is a mute point, neither the players or the teams will take a reduction, and a reduction would be huge from the TV money they'd lose for playing less games. This is similar to the topic of changing the Bobcats name to the Hornets...it's nearly logistically inconceivable based on the current NBA restrictions~and common sense.

Additionally, even though it's not mentioned directly in this thread, the notion that the players are going to be 'so exhausted' because of the compressed schedule misses the reality that the opponent they are playing is playing under the same circumstances. Certainly it will impact strategy, but the teams with the best GM's and Coaches will win a few more of the close games. The best GMs will have athletic reserves to compliment the starting rotation and the best Coaches will make sensible use of rotations (getting a victory, then resting starters).

[TheBeagle]

One game a week in basketball? No thanks. Word! That's just wrong. I do favor the 66 game schedule over 82 but not sure I want to wait until Christmas for it to start. Maybe around Thanksgiving as a compromise.

Ultimately, BP is right, it is a "moot" :p point, but a shortened number of games with less back to backs would be ideal.