The NBA has experienced a never-ending cruise ship full of injuries at the start of the 2026-27 season. Major stars like Anthony Edwards, Tyrese Haliburton, Kon Knueppel, and Stephen Curry have been sidelined with a variety of ailments. In the face of the onslaught, questions are arising (once again) about the grueling nature of the NBA schedule.
Sam Quinn of CBS Sports took a look at one possible solution this week: shortening games to 40 minutes instead of the current 48. Four, ten-minute quarters
might lessen the chances for injuries, if nothing else because playing time would be cut by 1/6. Quinn also highlighted the near-universal presence of 10-minute quarters in every other basketball league and level in the world. He quoted NBA Commissioner Adam Silver saying shorter periods would align with modern viewing habits. He even advocated for the increased randomness shorter games would bring, suggesting that the league is sometimes too predictable, especially in the playoffs.
On the other hand, shortening games would destroy continuity in historical record-keeping, would make roster depth less important, and wouldn’t address the overall length of the schedule or the athletically challenging nature of the current play style.
Personally, I think the roster depth observation is astute. Cutting two minutes off of a quarter doesn’t mean that the main player would play two minutes less. Instead they’d probably end up playing the entire period while lesser-known players sat on the bench. If a superstar plays 36 minutes now, there’s still room for the same 36 in a 40-minute game.
But what do you think? Would you support a reduction of NBA quarters from 12 minutes to 10? Would it help the injury situation at all? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.
