In their July issue, Pro Football Weekly, via NFLLabor.com, is repeating their push for the NFL to move to an 18-game regular season.

"With summer heating up and teams making final arrangements for the start of training camp, we can’t help but get more excited by the day about the start of the 2010 NFL season," PFW writes. "What we aren’t so excited about is the five-week stretch of faux football played in August and early September that is the preseason.

"We’ve gone on record before in favor of shortening the preseason by two games and extending the regular season from 16 games to 18. Our opinion hasn’t changed, despite the fact that some high-profile NFL stars have recently sounded off against any such plan…citing the increased risk of injury."

I'd submit that there's nothing fake about August or early September football to the 864 NFL hopefuls struggling to make an NFL roster, but that's just my inner undrafted free agent coming to the surface.

Why does Pro Football Weekly not view the increased injury risk--which is a concern of all NFL players, not just those with lots of zeroes in their bank account--as a valid argument against the "enhanced" regular season?

"Injuries will always be an issue in the NFL, whether the 20-game schedule is comprised of 16 real games and four fakes or 18 real games and two exhibitions," Pro Football Weekly writes.

PFW at least acknowledges that the players will need to be compensated more for playing two additional meaningful games.

"We understand that players will deserve to be compensated more by playing two additional meaningful games, and the NFL knows that it will be necessary to achieve its goal. We urge both sides to make progress on these negotiations, and we hope that they end with a new CBA that both the owners and the players are happy with – and an 18-game regular season that will thrill the league’s rabid fan base."

Two points of contention:

1. Injuries will always be part of the game. However, key players appear in about 25-40% of their team's pre-season games. Exposing them to two additional regular season games will, in many cases, add well over 100 snaps to their season total, sharply increasing the likelihood of injury and reducing the longevity of playing careers.

2. Those additional regular season games will count in the standings, and in NFL record books, but they're not necessarily meaningful.

Right, Cleveland Browns Pro Bowl tackle Joe Thomas?

"Once you shorten the preseason to two games, it’s going to be better for everyone," Thomas told The Capital Times recently. "But there’s no reason to go to an 18-game season. All it means is two extra games at the end of the year that are watered down.

"For those teams that are out of the playoffs, they’re meaningless. For others, they could lead to injuries to key players knocking them out of the playoffs."

Everyone agrees that the pre-season can be shortened, but I'm of the opinion that a 16-game regular season is perfect.

I'd actually like to see a 3-game pre-season, where that first game helps coaching staffs and personnel departments shake out the first round of pre-season cuts, while the second and third games would be tune-ups for the start of the regular season. Each team plays one game at home and on the road, with one neutral-site game to help locate viable cities/areas to host teams in an NFL-sponsored developmental league.