Lakers Schedule

[DallasFrank]

Is anyone tired of the safe and protected schedule the receive each year from the league? I mean 43 home games and only once do they play 4 games in 5 nights compared to most teams playing 2. There is actualy a one month period from November to December where they don't leave the state of california. How nice has that ever happened in any sport?

[Rondo2287]

Is anyone tired of the safe and protected schedule the receive each year from the league? I mean 43 home games and only once do they play 4 games in 5 nights compared to most teams playing 2. There is actualy a one month period from November to December where they don't leave the state of california. How nice has that ever happened in any sport?

The home games is just a result of the clippers though, thats not the lakers fault.

[Donoghus]

Well, I'm not going to find issue with the fact that they play at Staples with the Clippers.  Probably makes more sense then building two separate arenas in LA.  

[bdm860]

2. There is actualy a one month period from November to December where they don't leave the state of california. How nice has that ever happened in any sport?

Ya know all those home games in November and December just equal a lot of away games later, so it all balances out.  I actually think they're worse off for all the away games later on.  If I was the team, I'd prefer a more balanced schedule.

And do you know how big California is?  It's actually closer for Boston to play NY or NJ then it is for the Lakers to go to Golden State.  They may stay in the state, but they're still traveling a good distance. It's pretty much the same difference as Boston going to play Philly.  How is that an advantage?

[QuinielaBox]

2. There is actualy a one month period from November to December where they don't leave the state of california. How nice has that ever happened in any sport?

Ya know all those home games in November and December just equal a lot of away games later, so it all balances out.  I actually think they're worse off for all the away games later on.  If I was the team, I'd prefer a more balanced schedule.

And do you know how big California is?  It's actually closer for Boston to play NY or NJ then it is for the Lakers to go to Golden State.  They may stay in the state, but they're still traveling a good distance. It's pretty much the same difference as Boston going to play Philly.  How is that an advantage?

It takes me about 10 hours to drive from LA to the Oregon border and that is peddling at 75 MPH or greater. Besides, there are plenty of Laker fans on the west coast.

[nickagneta]

I haven't looked at the schedule this year but remember last year that the C's had a schedule where they played 3 games in 4 nights like 6 times last year before the Lakers did it twice. It kinda bugged me and I have always had problems with ANY professional sports league that allows two different teams to call one arena home. It is just an unfair advantage no matter how you look at it.

That said, it always evens out in the end. Though I will say this about the NBA. Would they ever allow a second franchise to move into Madison Square Garden, the United Center or the TDGarden. No they would not. Never ever. But they never had a problem sticking the most pathetically run franchise in sports history into the same arena as the beloved and easily marketable Lakers and giving them two extra home games a year.

Could you imagine the outcry if the NFL allowed the Buffalo Bills to move to Boston and play their home games at Gillette? The fact that the Pats, the NFL's best marketed team, could get another home game would send most NFL fans not fans of the Patriots off the deep end.