During the NBA lockout, I remember Paul Pierce said that a 60-something (i believe he suggested 66) game season would be better for the NBA. I personally agree with him, as it would make regular season games actually mean something. But it seems as though he suggested the move more for player safety. Is a season of 82 games too long--physically--for basketball? Especially with the style of the game it it has become? Let's be honest--the playoffs is what people care about. But how important are the playoffs if key players keep getting injured, possibly due to exhaustion? No Kobe, WB, Rondo, David Lee, D Rose, Rondo...the list goes on. What's clear is that the teams best suited for playoff success are those with...wait for it...rest. The heat and spurs both being atop that list, as both have decided to sit players in these meaningless regular season games. The NBA is obviously sucking the life and careers out of the players to get more money...but should the players unite and try to demand less games?
To add--I think this is a move that most, if not all, fans would unite WITH the players about...kind of forcing the leagues hand if that's possible.
Injuries could happen at any time to a player though. If the scenario was reality (66 games, for example), and star players STILL got injured, then there would be cries to push the total games down into the 50s. Then people still get injured, and down into the 40s, and so on. Sure, the more games one plays, the more one could have a chance of stepping on a foot and twisting your ankle, or coming down wrong on the court, or something. But this can happen even if it was just a 1 game season.
