Mark Curnette, of the Cincinnati Enquirer, has a
long article today on the length of the preseason, a familiar topic this time of year. Several Bengals are quoted, and not surprisingly none of them like the current four game preseason structure.
Carson Palmer said "One game, two games at the most," Palmer said when asked how long the preseason should be. "But if I'm an owner, I'd want it to be four games or six. They're trying to make a ton of money. But it doesn't need to be four games. What ends up happening is the guys who play on Sundays during the season aren't even playing in one of them."
He's right of course, if owners didn't make so much money with the extra two home games then they wouldn't exist. It's common sense that more games increase injury risk for no real reason. I'll never forget Ki-Jana Carter blowing out his knee early in his first ever preseason game for the Bengals. Maybe with no preseason he gets hurt anyway in the regular season, but maybe not, and really I'm not sure it would have hurt as much as a fan if he'd at least been injured in a game that counted. A season/career ending injury is bad enough, having it essentially happen in practice is just an extra kick in the teeth.
And I love this idea: "The prevailing wisdom among many players is a two-game preseason slate would be preferred, even if it means extending the regular season to 18 games." That seems like a great solution to me. Doesn't cut down on the number of home games and it increases the amount of football (that counts) we get to watch every year. And I'd be all in favor of the NFL starting two weeks earlier. Win - win all the way around.
More:
We're talking 'bout practice - Cincinnati Enquirer
Now, this is a good idea.
