Why 70? Why deem 70 as important? Knocking 12 off will suddenly make players try to play every game? What makes 70 more palatable than say, 40? Isn't 40 a good enough gauge to determine who the best teams are, while keeping players engaged & healthy?
In your 70 game scenario, will fans tune in to the first 20-30 games of the season any more than they do now?
What about history? Do we start a new record book calling this a new era separate from others, since certainly 70 games will make most current records unattainable.
.........
Don't take my post as an attack, they're not really pointed at you, just at short season advocates in general. Just my ranting thoughts.
I don't think a shortening to 70 games (which I agree seems a likely number, or in that neighborhood), really moves the needle at all. 70 games is still very long. That's just basketball. You like it or you don't. Unless you're cutting that number by a significant amount, it doesn't change anything. People will still be less engaged in the early-mid season. That's just how it is in long season sports (ie everything except football).
We're not saving or extending careers here by cutting 10-20 games off a schedule. Guys are already playing for 20 years now, occasionally into their 40s.