Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Preseason...why? Revisited or Finding Allies in Weird Places
In one of my first posts, about a year ago, I stepped out of the Seahawk discussion to voice my dislike of the preseason. Now, I would let the topic die, but Jeremy shock is on my side. I don't know if that makes me feel better, but he makes some good points.
To paraphrase shock, training camp was invented in the days when athletes came into camp out of shape and needed to get there. The players NEEDED two-a-days. Those players also sold cars and insurance in the offseason.
Today's players make more than enough money, and work out year around. Players that come to camp out of shape are, still there, but not as abundant as they once were.
Now obviously, you need some sort of training camp to get players ready. But do we need as many two-a-days? Do we need four meaningless games?
Training camp and pre-season football only bring injuries and holdouts. Fan interest sways away from baseball and back to football, but it would no matter when camp opened.
In this age of instant replay and every game on TV, the league that is the most up-to-date with current trends is dragging its feet with how it prepares for the season.
Training camp can be shortened, teams can play two exhibition games, and the season can be 18 weeks long. Fewer players are invited to camp and coaches don't need the month and a half to look at prospects. If they truly did, what are spring and summer mini-camps for?
All pre-season does is fill the TO-hype machine and bring injuries (Dwight Freeney is the latest big name to drop, albeit with just a sore shoulder). Its outdated and unnecessary in its current form, and now its time for a change.
(to comment, click the green number to the right of the title above)