For the last year and a half we have continually heard whispers that the NFL may be looking to eliminate a number of preseason games to add more regular season contests. Over the past few months the discussion has gotten louder as the NFL owners have started the discussions necessary to get the ball rolling on such a move.
Many of the Denver Broncos have recently spoken out against the schedule change, contending that the league isn't making this decision in the best interest of it's players (which it definitely isn't):
"People have no clue what your body feels like after a football season," Bannan said. "I think you need to cut two preseason games out and still have a 16-game schedule."
That proposal would never happen. The NFL is all about making more money, not less. The expanded regular season is about increasing the television and radio rights fees. The networks in turn will charge more for commercials. The sponsors will increase the price of goods. And, no doubt, ticket prices would go up.
In the end, guess who would pay for the expanded schedule? The players feel they would, with little in return.
"Plus, for those guys who make teams in those third or fourth preseason games, they're not going to be able to show what they can do," Dawkins said. "To me, there are too many negatives. It's not an even swap."
More after the jump...
As much as I love football, I personally don't think that this change should happen. If it does, it should be one game at most. With the wear and tear that NFL players take in this era, the life expectancy of their careers is shrinking to smaller and smaller numbers. Combine that with the fact that the last preseason game is the only opportunity for many players to experience some significant game time and it's pretty easy to see that the NFL is looking for an opportunity to increase it's owners revenues even higher.
Where do you stand?