Re: Would you be in favor of a shorten regular season?
This needs to happen and relatively quickly.
The game has changed and the ground that is covered requires immense amount of pressure to be placed on the joints of players. In most games guys might as well be playing with warmups on for the first 28 min. And only if it is close do the teams ever work themselves into their best selves.
In college, most teams avg ~35 games at 40 min. That is 1400 min per season. For a 20 year old to come into the league and play SL (often two teams playing ~12 games), 5 pre-season games, 82 reg season games, then up to ~25 postseason games we are talking about 124 games at 48 min or 5952 min. That's over 4x as long a season, at a more competitive pace. Even without ANY playoff games we are talking about 4752 min, or 3.4X as long a season as they had the previous year. Its absurd.
Moving to 66 games would actually INCREASE the Nat'l TV viewership, BY FAR the best revenue driver of the league. The number of games shown by TBS/TNT/ABC/ESPN would not lessen AT ALL. And the quality of the games would improve dramatically. Now, that is 8 home games/team and for teams like Golden State that is a sizable reduction of gate receipts, etc. And the crunch to the local TV deals would be significant (16 fewer games, with none being removed from Nat'l games means the entire hit is a blow to the regional TV deals). Still, the end cost would be marginal in the short term and would drive the league in the long term because the quality of play would be better, the demand for tickets would improve (because of the limited supply) and you are removing most of the risk to fans of buying tickets for a game only to watch the B team play.
It largely depends on how the regional TV deals are contracted and what the impact would be to owners (and players) bottom lines. Players have it their way now as they are paid for all 82 and aren't (except in rare cases) playing all of them.