One-on-One: Bold proposals to save us from soul-sucking NFL preseason

Tunison: Unfortunately, the fact that the preseason does serve some boring utility to teams in terms of setting the depth chart and final roster, it eliminates the possibility of implementing any truly wacky Rock 'n' Jock-style ideas to make it fun. To some degree, you could maybe try with the first of four preseason games since the first is the most pointless and the NFL altogether does not need four preseason games. Still, you'd be turning something the regular players already disdain into a farce. For the marginal players whose one brush with glory these games are, it would do little to give them an inside edge toward a good job.

Instead, I think you could borrow a phrase from former MLB commissioner Bud Selig and make the preseason games count a little more than they do. It's bizarre that media outlets and the league itself even tabulate preseason records. The vast majority of fans realize these wins and losses mean absolutely nothing, and there's plenty of precedent that shows that preseason success or failure bears little predictive ability over how any team will fare once the regular season begins, most infamously in 2008 when the 0-16 Lions went 4-0 in the preseason.

Most casual fans, if they tune into the preseason at all, check in to see how the starters do, then mosey on out. I think if you can apply some meaningful stakes, you could boost interest a bit. Obviously nothing too much, because after all, this is the preseason, but there could be some incentives that mean something without being ridiculous. Perhaps the team with the best preseason record could have the ability to reject "Hard Knocks" or a London game within the next few years after that season.

In particular, I think you could do something with compensatory draft picks. The teams with the five best preseason records could be awarded with a third-, fourth-, fifth-, sixth-, and then seventh-round compensatory pick. An extra third-round pick is nothing to sneeze at, and could draw more interest from hardcore fans. In the event of a tie between 4-0 teams, make the owners do rock/paper/scissors or do the Oklahoma drill.

Mueller: The real problem here is the fact that four of these games exist. It’s probably two too many, as most established starters need little to no time to get up to speed, and most guys trying to make the roster at the edges can only prove so much before whatever they’re doing becomes redundant. That particular piece of status quo won’t change unless the league moves to an 18-game regular season, and as Richard Sherman said, that would take an astronomical concession from the league. 

I’m not on board with compensatory draft picks as an incentive, mainly because teams covet picks, and it might entice some coaches to be riskier with their roster usage in order to win games, which might give us more Avery Williamson situations. 

Instead, why not do something that owners might find odious, but would give fans an incentive to watch, and some players an incentive to go hard? I’m talking about adding one man to rosters to bring the number to 54, and let each team’s fans vote in that player. There is the risk that it turns into a popularity contest, but in most cases, hardcore fans would jump at the chance to prove they know more than the coach and general manager, and place their favorite camp standout on the team.

The beauty of this is twofold: one, it makes garbage time much more entertaining, as every player is trying to make his mark, but with a more emotional, less analytical crowd, and two, coaches wouldn’t be forced to play the 54^th man. They could make him inactive on game day, but the incentive in the form of a league-minimum salary would still be there. Plus, it’s nearly guaranteed that some of those players picked would end up succeeding in the league, further validating the concept. Fans already have a role in selecting Pro Bowl rosters — why not involve them in a different kind of exhibition game? 

Tunison: You make a fine point about potentially endangering significant players for the prize of a third-round pick, which coaches and GMs might covet enough to take that risk, so perhaps that's too high of an award, though I still think there's potential in creating incentive for teams to really try in the second half of preseason games, which are usually low-energy affairs toward the end.

As for the extra roster spot via vote, I'm assuming that would have to be restricted to someone who has played at some level of organized football, either college/CFL/Arena/etc, or else you're going to get some attention-starved YouTuber on the field. As much fun as it would be to watch one of them get their clocks cleaned, I doubt the NFL would be on board with turning it into that much of a circus and worrying about the liability issues for someone unequipped to play the game. That said, it might be a solid way ensure the woman who earlier this year signed a letter of intent to play safety for a college team gets a chance on the field if she gets resistance at the combine in a few years.

At the very least, I think the NFL should experiment with the idea of a running clock in the second half of preseason games. Not only would it speed along a broadcast that has limited appeal, it would give strategic insight to coaches if the league ever felt like trying the idea on a wider level with meaningful games. Speed and faster tempo is the way of the future in the NFL, and this would be a incremental way to push that concept forward. 

Mueller: The extra roster spot vote would only be for someone invited to camp by the team, which would swiftly take care of the Logan and Jake Pauls of the world -- though since you mentioned it, watching one or both of those two try to catch a pass over the middle has plenty of appeal. 

The running clock is very enticing, and not just because that's the direction the league is headed overall. If the conceit for using it in blowout high school games is that there is nothing to be gained by dragging out the process, the same theory should apply for the preseason. Plus, it means fewer opportunities for sloppy play on account of there being fewer plays in general. Plus, fewer plays means healthier players, something everyone could get on board with. Anything to make this four-week slog less tedious is fine by me.