The progress of the last 24 hours or so has people on both sides of the negotiation contemplating (or not completely eliminating the possibility of) a full, 82-game schedule if a deal can be had by early next week. I'd be surprised if something is struck that fast and the logistical issues in preserving every game -- arena availability, realities of travel, next summer's Olympics in London, etc. -- are still significant, despite whatever contingency plans the league surely has in place. But given the equally significant financial incentives to get 'er done, for argument's sake let's say the i's get dotted, the t's crossed, and the league's supercomputers figure out how to squeeze a full slate into something resembling a normal NBA calendar. From a competitive standpoint, this is the worst possible outcome for the Lakers.
Start with the wear and tear. It's one thing to play a compressed 50-game schedule, as was the case in '98-'99, when on a games-per-day basis the season was played about 20 percent faster. No easy task, but the tradeoff came in shortening the marathon. A compressed 82-game slate delivers all the bad stuff with none of the relief.
For most teams, there's no upside. For the Lakers, an older, elite team with championship aspirations, even less so.
Starting the season in early December would, if my math is correct (normal caveats apply), mean adding an extra game about every eight or nine days, or just over a game a week. This is a huge change, cutting down on off-days dedicated to recuperation and unfavorably tilting the ratio of travel-to-terrestrial days. Yeah, they travel in style, but constantly crossing time zones does goofy things to the human condition.
Cleveland Cavaliers Miami Heat Shaquille ONeal Kevin Garnett
Times are tough for business owners both big and small in 2011, and Basketball Hall of Famer Julius Erving is no exception. The former