NEW YORK -- For the first time, some of the more forward-looking people around the NBA are having thoughtful -- if very preliminary and still somewhat theoretical -- conversations about the length of the schedule.

Commissioner Adam Silver said Friday following the NBA’s Board of Governors meeting that the league’s younger owners are more open to innovation, and because of it, there’s a newfound sense that few issues are off the table.

“I’d say the new generation of owners who have come into the league are incredibly open-minded on all issues,” Silver said of the composition of the 82-game schedule. “We’re open-minded on it. It’s something we’ll continue to look at.”

There are plenty of qualifiers here, and Silver enumerated them at length.

“We haven’t had a discussion as to a different number of regular-season games, and a lot of the economics of this league and the investments that go into our arenas are built, are predicated on the current regular season we have now,” Silver said. “And same for the players, by the way, because they’re sophisticated as well, and they understand that if you reduce the number of games in the season, there will be an economic impact on us both.”

Money is still the driver in the NBA, but in 2015, both the league and its athletes are cognizant of fatigue and player well-being as more than peripheral factors in the health of the product. The NBA is consulting with specialists to glean data about how denser elements of the NBA schedule impact performance and injury. The players union has hired a full-time sports scientist, Joe Rogowski, formerly of the Houston Rockets, and the league formed a 20-person injury prevention committee in early July headed by Dr. John DiFiori, the NBA director of sports medicine and a former president of the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine.

The union was long thought to be a natural opponent of any reduction of games, the thought being that fewer games would inevitably mean smaller paychecks. Players may rue the wear-and-tear of an 82-game schedule, but the grind becomes a lot more tolerable if the alternative is a pay cut. However, in February, union chief Michele Roberts told ESPN’s Kate Fagan that, “The schedule is ridiculous. Now I know that decreasing the number of games decreases potential revenue, but if, at the end of the day, players are too tired or too injured to play, how does that affect the game?"

Roberts’ opinion is shared by future Hall-of-Famers. Last October, LeBron James told ESPN’s Dave McMenamin, "The minutes doesn't mean anything. We can play 50-minute games if we had to. It's just the games. We all as players think it's too many games.” Dirk Nowitzki suggested a slate of games in the “mid-60s.”

Many coaches who, on a daily basis, have to manage the injuries and exhaustion of their players, agree. Miami Heat coach Erik Spoelstra said “everyone agrees” there are too many games packed into the NBA schedule. Prior to the Grizzlies’ preseason matchup with the Hawks in Atlanta on Wednesday night, Memphis coach Dave Joerger was asked whether 82 games is too many. “Depends on what you want to accomplish,” he said. Told the criteria was the best product, Joerger replied, “The best product? No question.”

But the best way to gauge sentiment is to look at behavior, and with each passing season, more and more star players are taking DNPs in order to rest. James was out of action for two weeks last winter. The nominal reason was to cope with back and knee injuries, but it was the NBA season’s most open secret that James was conserving his energy in the spirit of his October comments. The best player of his generation understood that 74 regular-season games was his maximum.

From the commissioner’s office on down, the practice of deliberately keeping the best talent off the floor is not only accepted, but applauded as best practice. San Antonio Spurs coach Gregg Popovich is widely applauded for his prudence, and coaches all over the league have followed by strictly managing the wear-and-tear of their key players. Fewer than three years after the league hit the Spurs with a $250,000 fine for resting their core starters on a night when they’d appear on national television, Silver praised the league’s “sophisticated teams” who follow this practice. He sounded the same refrain again Friday.

“As a result that’s why you see much more sophistication, minutes-management by coaches and general managers in this league right now,” Silver said. “So the league has taken a new approach to the schedule.”

Just to clarify, the intelligent thing to do is deprive the audience of the main attraction. It’s also the right thing to do, because there’s a growing body of sports science that shows a regimen like the current NBA schedule is not conducive to world-class performance and, more importantly, puts players at a greater risk of injury.

Owners who are impervious to the player-health argument should consider that a reduction in schedule would create greater scarcity. This translates into more meaningful games, with fewer stars in street clothes. When games are important, NBA players can hit an otherworldly level of performance. Fewer games would allow for more randomness over the course of the season, which would conform to the league’s precious desire for competitive balance. Middling teams would linger in the playoff race longer, which would undoubtedly contribute to more robust viewership numbers and gate receipts. All the while, the national broadcast slate wouldn’t change, except that those games would be more eventful and feature heightened intensity.

The issue of the schedule will remain sticky, largely because it will require concessions from the league and the union, as Silver pointed out from the podium Friday. Both sides will need to be convinced that any reduction of games won’t come with a significant reduction in revenue and salary. Would players accept raises in the coming years that are sizeable rather than enormous if in return they could extend their careers with Tim Duncan-like longevity and reduce debilitating injuries? Would owners sacrifice a small handful of home dates in order to create an even better product in which the league’s elite talent played at peak levels in more meaningful games?

Perhaps those unconvinced by rhetorical arguments can be persuaded by results. The Spurs are the NBA’s model franchise, and much of that success can be attributed to a commitment to rest, recovery and, in effect, shortening the schedule of their key contributors. Meanwhile, the NFL has ruled the North American sports landscape for a generation, with every autumn Sunday practically a national holiday because of the scarcity of games. Maybe there’s something to learn here?

What makes some of the league’s stronger advocates slightly optimistic about the casual conversation about schedule reduction is the confluence of new revenue and the emerging focus on health and performance optimization. There will never be a more advantageous moment for sensible reform, where both sides could gain so much while giving up less than they could ever imagine.