NBA Could Improve Quality of Play, Marketability by Permanently Decreasing Number of Games to 74 Per Season

Almost everyone has seen it, although they might not have realized what they were seeing. They've turned on an NBA game featuring some of the best athletes in the world, but the players seem to be moving as if underwater. In the second quarter or early in the third, one team goes up by about 10 points and the other side tacitly agrees to sleepwalk through the rest of the game en route to a loss.

The reaction from fans is invariably that these players are lazy, overpaid, self-absorbed jerks. In certain cases, that's true. (Hello, Andray Blatche!)

Much of the time, though, the slogging play is the result of a three-game, four-night gantlet that leaves the players physically and mentally exhausted. As the NBA lockout threatens to wipe out the entire season, the league could dramatically improve its product by taking the unprecedented step of permanently cutting down its regular season to 74 games. File this under things that will never happen, but should.

With the first month of the 2010-11 season already canceled, owners reportedly are still trying to salvage an 82-game slate by playing more games on consecutive nights and even three to four straight nights this winter if the labor dispute is resolved soon. At a time when the league will be trying to rebuild its image, that would mean more sluggish players and more opportunities for fans to be disgusted.

Shortening the season to 74 games would mean fewer opportunities to sell tickets, but would improve the image of the league overall by creating a standard schedule of three games per week (Sunday, Tuesday, Friday) for 25 weeks. From Nov. 1 to late March there would be built-in travel days and zero back-to-backs, which would improve the quality of play noticeably. Scoff if you want at the idea that three games and four plane trips in four nights is demanding, but the facts are indisputable.

The Celtics were 56-26 last season. By an unofficial count, they played on consecutive nights 17 times and were 8-9 on the second nights. They were 11-9 in the third game of each three-in-four stretch — a 13.9 percent decrease in win percentage compared to their overall mark. Over the course of a full season, that's more than 11 wins.

Granted, the Celtics were old and ill-suited to the grind of a long season, but that is exactly why a shorter season would benefit the league. Fans want to see stars, even aging ones, competing for the championship, not hobbling into the second round after a torturous regular season that sapped them of their strength.

The NBA should know this given the wild popularity of the sport in the 1980s and '90s, when the Celtics, Lakers and Bulls won 14 of the 20 titles. A schedule that benefits Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant's creaky knees benefits the league as a whole.

The normal, 82-game slate was scheduled to open Tuesday. Fans would probably settle for games in any format, but if the league's goal is to come back stronger, fewer games could prove more beneficial than an extra 2.5 percent of basketball-related income or a stricter luxury tax.