Ideally a mix of the 2 would be the best : shorten the season by a few games (say go from 82 to 72/75) and make the season a wee bit longer, say 3 to 4 weeks. That way instead of being more or less 82 games over 24 weeks like it has been for the last 40 years or so, it would be 75 games over 28 weeks. That would make it go from 3.41 games per week to 2.67... that's a good 20% decrease of the rythm with only marginal adjustments. It would allow suppression of back to backs.
But as others have said, stats (ie the cult of comparison between season based on the same 82 games format) and money are big big issues so this remains unlikely and we will probably only see the season extended by a few weeks to spread the load a bit more (see what has already been decided).
Stat comparison is to some extent disingenuous : when coaches are already resting their players more and more, when guys like Lebron James have missed on average 5 games per season for rest or minor ailments (aka counts as rest to me) for the last 5 seasons, is it really relevant to stick to the 82 games for stat comparison ? Aren't averages per game the main tool of comparison between individual seasons and totals only really used to make comparisons at the end of a career ?
add to that that while the best players used to play 40 to 42 minutes back in the day, they hover around 35/37 now... So where is the relevance of comparing stats in that context ?
Really a marginal adjustment would have such massive benefits that I don't understand why it can happen. Stakeholders not wanting to go all the way to 60 games per season, I can understand. Them resisting a move to 72/75 games ona slightly longer period of time, it's not only regrettable, but silly.
