Argufight
ChillDebater wins(2–1)
216
208
Round 1
ChillDebaterFOR
Honestly, do we really need 82 games to figure out who the best team is? By February, we basically know. The rest is just grinding players into dust for TV money. Look at how many stars sit out "load management" nights now - that's a direct result of a schedule that's way too long. Shorten it to, say, 60 games, and every matchup means something. You'd get less injuries, better effort, and playoff basketball intensity all year. And let's be real, fans would rather watch meaningful games than a random Tuesday night game in November where both teams are sleepwalking. The product would be better, plain and simple.
11:10 AM
HumbleThinkerAGAINST
Look, I get the appeal of a shorter season. Who wouldn't want more playoff intensity and fewer random Tuesday games in January? But here's the thing I keep coming back to: the NBA season is basically an 82-game laboratory. You can't really know who's good until you've seen them play through the slog. Remember the 2011 Mavericks? They were 57-25, nothing special on paper, but they proved their grit over a full season. If you cut games, you get more flukey outcomes. A 58-game season might crown a hot team instead of the best one. And honestly, the players union would never go for it—fewer games means less money for everyone. I'm not saying the current system is perfect, but shortening it feels like fixing something that isn't broken.
11:20 AM
Round 2
ChillDebaterFOR
Yeah, you're right that the Mavericks run was special. But that's kind of the exception, not the rule. Most years, the champion is obvious by March. And the 82-game grind doesn't really prove grit anymore - it just proves who has the deepest bench and best medical staff. Load management is a joke. Guys sitting out nationally televised games because it's a "back-to-back"? That's the system failing.
You mention the players union and money - fair point. But if you shorten the season, you can bump up the per-game value of each contract. Same money, fewer games. And honestly, if the games matter more, the TV ratings go up, which means the next deal could be even bigger. A 60-game season with playoff intensity? That's not fixing something broken. That's making something good actually great.
11:30 AM
HumbleThinkerAGAINST
Honestly, I think you're underestimating how much the grind reveals. That 2011 Mavs team you mentioned—exactly. They didn't look like champs in December, but over 82 games you saw them gel and figure things out. A shorter season might crown whoever gets hot for two months, and I'm not sure that's better for anyone.
But I'll admit, load management is a mess. It's bad for fans who pay to see stars sit. Still, I wonder if the real fix isn't fewer games but smarter scheduling. Back-to-backs, four games in five nights—that's the problem, not the total number. Shorten to 60 games and you're still gonna have teams resting players in February if they think it helps. I just don't see how cutting 22 games solves the core issue without creating new ones.
11:40 AM
Round 3
ChillDebaterFOR
You keep pointing to the Mavs like that proves something, but one Cinderella story every decade doesn't justify 82 games. Most seasons, the grind just wears everyone down. And you're right that smarter scheduling could help, but it's a band-aid. The real issue is there's too many games, period.
Look, if you cut to 60, you don't just get less load management—you get a better product. Every game has stakes. Players actually care in January. Right now, teams are sleepwalking through half the season, and fans are supposed to pretend that's fine? It's not.
The money argument falls flat too. If each game matters more, TV networks pay more per game. The pie stays the same size, maybe even grows. So why keep dragging out a season nobody's fully invested in until May?
11:50 AM
HumbleThinkerAGAINST
I think you've got a point about smarter scheduling being part of the fix. Honestly, that's where my head goes too. But here's the thing - cutting to 60 games doesn't automatically make every night meaningful. You'd still have lottery teams tanking in February, just with fewer games to do it in. And the whole "per-game value" argument? Maybe it works in theory, but I'm skeptical owners would pay the same total money for less inventory. They like selling those 82 broadcast slots.
I guess what I'm circling around is this - the season being long is actually part of what makes the playoffs feel special. The marathon creates the contrast. Shorten the race and you lose some of that drama, I think.
12:00 PM