The 1999 lockout season was absolutely not great. The 66-game 2011-12 season wasn't great, either, but it was better than the '99 season, by an order of magnitude.
You could maybe talk me into a 66-game season
Well, agree to disagree on that one. Other than it being truncated into a short timeframe, I believe it was pretty great. Each game meant a lot more. Thus there weren’t a lot of players taking nights off, whether it be actually resting or just not playing with the same intensity.
FWIW, a 60 game schedule with the in-season tournament would be 68+ games. According to the proposal, the group/divisional stage is 8 games minimum. 4 home, 4 away. So any team not advancing past the group/division stage would play at least 68 games.
If they went 66, as your minimum suggests, then the least amount of games a team could play would be 74.
I’m not married to a specific number, I just believe less would be more so-to-speak. Places greater emphasis and more value on each and every game while also reducing the players work load and travel dates.
That‘s one thing I’ve always preferred about the NCAA and WNBA. The shorter season placing greater emphasis on every game. While I subscribe to the notion that those seasons are too short, I think they’re better than 82 plus a long postseason.
I believe a better balance can be found somewhere in between.