Take 2 of them and add to the season?
2006-08-17 04:56:54 · 16 answers · asked by busterp 3 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
no
2006-08-17 06:21:51 · answer #1 · answered by B pyro 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No preseason games is the way to go. Ya, lets give em time to warm up, crap, lets see whos the most talented and can step up right away. It will seperate the players that really care about the game from the ones just there for a paycheck. And when players get hurt in preseason it only makes my point more clear. Preseason is S***, it should be changed and the players and coaches should have some say in this. Then we could have longer seasons with a few extra REAL games.
2006-08-17 12:08:10 · answer #2 · answered by Later Me 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Should there be less pre-season games - yes.
Will there be no due to $$ most teams make their seasons ticket holders buy tickets for the preseason games and thus make too much money on them to remove them.
Adding them to the schedule would be a way to alleviate the above so it might work though that would require approval from the Union I think. To get that to work they might have to go to 1 preseason game per team and then add the two games to the season.
If they do one preseason game at neutral site it might be fun. Say Cincy vs Indy in Columbus or 49ers vs Seattle in Portland. Would probably draw pretty good.
2006-08-17 12:17:49 · answer #3 · answered by SoccerClipCincy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wish there were fewer preseason games, but teams do need them to set depth charts and settle position battles. Also, these games are probably the highlight of a backup player's or rookie's year.
And I agree partly with DesignR. I still think they should be on TV (its still football) but the tickets should not be full price.
2006-08-17 12:57:26 · answer #4 · answered by DaClint 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
now that's an interesting thought. good idea. so far all I've heard was that there should be less preseason games to which I say; "Players make like what a half a million per week give or take a couple hundred thousand, they should play every second." you should recommend the idea to the nfl. I'd get behind that.
2006-08-17 12:04:22 · answer #5 · answered by SST 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The preseason games are a good opportunity for players to prepare for the regular season and give new players a chance to prove themselves. You don't have to watch them if you are not interested.
2006-08-17 12:01:06 · answer #6 · answered by Plasmapuppy 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Preseason is fine, just dont put them on TV and make the fans pay full price for a ticket!
2006-08-17 12:18:11 · answer #7 · answered by DesignR 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, there should be fewer pre-season games, and those that are left should not be televised. As its, nobody watches them and those who do get to see the 2nd and 3rd strings for most of the game, who would want to see that?
2006-08-17 12:03:05 · answer #8 · answered by Jason F 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no, i like it the way it is. lany fewer games would result in less evaluation of young players. the injury argument for fewer games is weak because coaches don't have to play key players if they are that concerned, and injuries can happen at any point (practice).
2006-08-17 12:04:44 · answer #9 · answered by David S 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Seems to me that pre season games have become money makers for management and the League, without offering competitive, meaningful entertainment.
More scrimmages, less games make sense to me.
2006-08-17 12:09:28 · answer #10 · answered by ElOsoBravo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Naahh preseason is a good way to test players out b4 it counts..
2006-08-17 12:01:20 · answer #11 · answered by ۞ JønaŦhan ۞ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋