How Can The NFL Have More Meaningful Games

I don't think you'd find many Steelers or Texans fans who would agree with you. The Jets got 2 pre-season games in December to get into the playoffs. It screws with the competitive balance of the league IMO. I would like to see the NFL do something to address this but realistically there's no way to force a team to play their starters.

My problem with the competitive balance argument is this...

People get all up in arms over a team that has home field wrapped up and nothing to play for. But how about a team that is 6-8 with 2 games to go and they've been eliminated from the playoffs. While they may be playing their starters realistically that team has checked out and is just going through the motions. Do you gig that team just as you would for gigging the 14-0 team that is resting their guys? One team is playing their starters, one isn't, same results. A team that isn't going all out to win a game.

In the end I believe it all comes out in the wash. The good teams make the playoffs, the bad ones don't, and the ones on the fence really only have themselves to blame.

The NFL season is meaningful enough to me. Don't need to change it. Making the season longer isn't the answer.

I thought it was kind of interesting how the Colts wanted to rest their starters and not worry about going 16-0..yet they had no problem playing Wayne and Clark in blizzard like conditions last weekend to get some individual stats

I think the NFL should consider allowing teams to expand rosters once they've clinched a playoff spot

I'd say rosters should be expanded all around. 45 on the game-day roster simply isnt enough. 53 doesnt appear to be enough for active rosters either.

In theory, I understand limiting the number of players keeps the overall talent in the league higher. In practice, it doesnt work that way. practice squad players are snatched up and dropped so much that they can't truly be developed. players get injured and their replacements are often picked up "off the street" mid-season because a team wants a player thats familiar with their system - even though he wasn't good enough to make any teams practice squad.

The practice squad should be done away with entirely. Teams should have rosters of 60 or 61 and all of them should be able to be active on gameday.

IMO, the league is fine the way it is.

the late-season resting of players is a little annoying to me, but i don't think it's a big enough problem to require new rules. ideally, if the fans want the starters in week 17, they should be vocal about it and the team should listen.

i'd like to see international expansion...but realistically, football isn't ingrained in other cultures like it is with ours. it would be a LONG time before football flourishes elsewhere. i say keep up with the international games; one a year in tokyo, london, maybe others; but that's it for now.

I thought it was kind of interesting how the Colts wanted to rest their starters and not worry about going 16-0..yet they had no problem playing Wayne and Clark in blizzard like conditions last weekend to get some individual stats

I think the NFL should consider allowing teams to expand rosters once they've clinched a playoff spot
I think in haste, Caldwell benched the starters against the Jets because they weren't getting the job done and were taking a beating. Not sure why he marched them out last week unless you could getting game reps in.

The roster expansion isn't a bad idea, however, the owners would never agree because they'd have to pay those added (I'm assuming you take the PS and add them to the active roster) game money instead of PS or no money.

I don't think you'd find many Steelers or Texans fans who would agree with you. The Jets got 2 pre-season games in December to get into the playoffs. It screws with the competitive balance of the league IMO. I would like to see the NFL do something to address this but realistically there's no way to force a team to play their starters.
Maybe the Steelers should have helped themself and not relied on another team to get them into the playoffs. Its their fault for loosing 5 games in a row.

My problem with the competitive balance argument is this...

People get all up in arms over a team that has home field wrapped up and nothing to play for. But how about a team that is 6-8 with 2 games to go and they've been eliminated from the playoffs. While they may be playing their starters realistically that team has checked out and is just going through the motions. Do you gig that team just as you would for gigging the 14-0 team that is resting their guys? One team is playing their starters, one isn't, same results. A team that isn't going all out to win a game.

In the end I believe it all comes out in the wash. The good teams make the playoffs, the bad ones don't, and the ones on the fence really only have themselves to blame.

except when we lose to the chargers second and thrid teir guys

i like the league the way it is right now, , the one thing they could do is charge less for the preseason as a season ticket holder i think it is a big effing joke to pay full price for a terrible preseason game, i couldn't even give them away this year

and as far as taking it overseas and into different countires f that, i would be pissed if the skins lost a home game so they could play in englan witha bunch on fguys who don't really give a rat ass about the teams playing watching

if it ain't broke don't fix it

Maybe the Steelers should have helped themself and not relied on another team to get them into the playoffs. Its their fault for loosing 5 games in a row.

Yeah, I completely get that and you're right. I just don't like to see a team like the Jets get into the playoffs when they didn't really "earn it". At the end of the day though, you're right, if you take care of business in October and November it makes December moot.

I don't think you'd find many Steelers or Texans fans who would agree with you. The Jets got 2 pre-season games in December to get into the playoffs. It screws with the competitive balance of the league IMO. I would like to see the NFL do something to address this but realistically there's no way to force a team to play their starters.

The Steelers also had a 5 game losing streak that included loses to the Browns,Chiefs, and Raiders so i don't wanna here anything from Lamar Woodley about teams having it in for them.

It doesn't really look like anyone is arguing that a team should be punished for benching starters once they have their playoff seed wrapped up, but if anyone was I'd show them this: New Orleans Saints place starting defensive end Charles Grant on injured reserve - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4798182)

Grant, one of the few starters the Saints did not rest during the final game of the season, was hurt in New Orleans' 23-10 loss to the Carolina Panthers.