More lockout woes

I've been doing some reading on Twitter and internet sports sites that after yesterday's 15-hour marathon negotiating session, there is actually cause to have to hope for the NBA Lockout to be ending soon. I'm even told there is a possibility of the season still going 82 games. This all sounds very exciting initially. But is it?

First, the negotiations aren't even close to being over. According to the news outlets, during yesterday's session many things were agreed upon between the owners and the players, but they still are in different camps when it comes to the issue of basketball-related-income. This is the problem that anyone following the lockout hears about during every TV segment or reads about in an article or blog. The players used to get 57% to the owners' 43, and now the owners want it to be split down the middle, 50/50. The players have bent to 52/48, but no lower yet. The fact that this has not been agreed upon says to me that these negotiations have awhile to go. It is a good sign that the owners and players were able to set that issue aside and discuss other things, to hash out the other issues that need hashing. But BRI is the biggest issue. To say this lockout is close to being over is tantamount to the U.S. and Iraq negotiating while Saddam was still in power, and coming to friendly agreements about how Iraq would handle its oil and how Saddam was allowed to treat the people of his country, but not have the issue on WMDs figured out yet. Yeah, they've worked some problems out, but there are still NUKES IN THE COUNTRY. I'm not buying that we've got an end that close.

The other issue here is the possibility of still playing 82 games. It would be great to have a full NBA season, but that should only happen if there was a full preseason of preparation and a full allotment of months to fit those 82 games into. If the lockout were to be solved today, the season still would not start for a few weeks (after the last lockout, the procedures to get ready to a month, according to Henry Abbot), and if the NBA wanted to have an 82-game season, they would have to pack it into the amount of time they set aside for something more like 65-70 games. That is the best case scenario.

Doesn't that sound a little bit insane? As it is, NBA players already endure some nightmarish segments of the season, doing things like playing 10 games in 15 days, all while traveling in between. Playing 82 games with a start of the season at the end of November would mean those types of roadtrips (or even homestands) would be even worse. There's no way that is the best bet for the NBA. Players would be worn completely thin, and the quality of basketball would suffer.

Last year's NCAA Tournament was an excellent example. Connecticutt won 5 games in 5 days in the Big East Tournament, then got into the grueling NCAA Tournament less than a week later. Butler had to play three games in four days in order to secure a berth in the tournament, then killed itself in the tournament as well. The result? Two below-average Final Four games and probably the worst championship game in the history of the tournament since its expansion from 32 teams. And the reason was clear as day: the players were exhausted. They couldn't keep doing what they had been doing any longer. What happened? We the fans suffered. That championship game was unwatchable.

I don't want half an NBA season to be unwatchable because they wanted to play 82 games. Give me 65 games over the originally designated amount of time, and I'll be happy to have any games at all.