Comments about ‘Mike Sorensen: Shorter NBA season made it better for everyone’

Ultimately, I think less is more. If the NBA season were cut to 58 games (home and away for each team), with all but a few games being played on the weekends (Thursday/Saturday and Friday/Sunday schedules). The overall product would be better, because more games would be competitive (i.e., no throw-away games). Having the games on the weekend would allow more time for discussion and analysis during the week, creating the same sort of anticipation that collegiate and professional football enjoys.

I like the long season. I grew up in the SF Bay Area where we had two pro baseball teams, two pro football teams and the Warriors. The seasons overlapped and you could pretty much always listen to, watch on TV or visit professional games. Here in UT, all we have is the Jazz. The BYU Utah rivalry is over, even though people who grew up in UT and went to high school here don't know it yet. Utah in the PAC 12 is interesting, but only in a few sports. BYU needs to get in a conference for football before they wreck their program. So I like the fact that there are lots of Jazz games. In fact, I wish the season were longer. UT will never get major league baseball or pro football. I mean really, would you rather watch a Jazz game or reruns and boring shows on TV? I will take a Jazz game any day of the week--or time of the year. Let's enjoy the well managed, well coached Jazz!!

Mike, you said "shortening the schedule by even 16 games a year, would improve the overall NBA product on the floor, save wear and tear on the players and keep a few bucks in the fans' pockets". If I am reading you correctly, I disagree.

You said you liked the 4 month season and you said you liked the 66 game schedule in separate parts of your column. You didn't say you liked them together but one can only assume. If that's what you are proposing then you are absolutely wrong if you think this schedule format saves wear and tear on players bodies.

Yes, the season was shorter (66 games is less than 82), but but the condensed schedule we had this year had more games played in a shorter time in comparison to the normal season. The NBA had more back to backs this year, and back to back to back games were a first. If you want less wear and tear this is not the formula.

With a shorter season, players might have more recovery time in the offseason, but quality of play during the year would decrease (meaning bad entertainment and more injuries).

I like less games but not 66 in four months. It's imbalanced in time frame for players to be productive.

How about the season be 5 months with 66 games. It's not going to happen because of money but more time between games means less wear and tear on players.

I actually like the 2 games a week proposal (mid week and weekend games), but that is too much of a college schedule. If you play 3 games a week for 5 months you could get 60 to 66 games.

I did like dropping the preseason this year, but players do need camp and maybe two preseason games.

It's interesting that the league dropped back to backs out entirely in the playoffs years ago. Games often have three day breaks now. I like avoiding back to backs but three day breaks gives an advantage to veteran teams in recovery. Every other day is good come playoff time. It's not like the regular season where a team travels all over the place. You get settled on the road for two games and come home for two games with a day off in between (good balance).

The NBA season is way too long. Games should start in mid-November and playoffs should be wrapped up by May 1. There is too much overlap for all sports. Players health would be improved and the product would be better. I am tired of seeing hockey on TV when the outside temp is 90 degress. Hockey should start in late November and be over by April 1. I loose all interesting when the temps hit 75 degrees.