Title

Hit ‘em where it hurts

By TheDarkHorse

Brief thought: The NFL currently suspends players at the beginning of the NFL season. A suspended player typically is allowed to train with their teams, and participate in training camp and preseason games. With the real games start, the suspension hits and the player misses anywhere from one to four (or more) weeks. In most cases, even with a rocky start, the player and his team have the entire rest of the season to recover. I don’t find this severe enough.

Case in point: If Big Ben wants to head down to Georgia and cause utter chaos during the offseason, he’s still back in the saddle by (probably) Week 5 of the 2010 NFL season (although if he botches up again, it could be later). Realistically, if the Steelers can get out of their first four games at 2-2 — even 1-3 — they’ll be fine.

I’d like to see the league play with the idea of suspending players at the end of the season. Or, perhaps a combination of two games to start the year and two games to end it.

Naturally, if a suspended player is trapped on a terrible football team, there’s less to lose if the team is 1-11 when a four-game suspension would commence.

On the flip side, it would make the game’s stars think twice about their behavior if they’re forced to bail on their teams in the critical final weeks of the season.

I don’t propose hanging a mistake over a player forever. There is something natural about paying your fine and moving on. With that aside, a system of late-season suspensions might have more impact on the game. I guess it all depends if the guilty party is on my team — or yours.

One man's appeal to up the stakes by have suspended stars benched at the END of the season. (Source: static.nfl.com)