The NFL owners met this week in St. Petersburg, Fla., and discussed among other things the possibility of extending the regular season, introducing a spring preseason game and expanding the number of teams that make the playoffs.¶ All bad ideas.¶ The NFL is more popular than ever. Why mess it up? One Vikings player told me Wednesday that a spring game for NFL players "is completely insane" and that the league is risking the possibility of "oversaturating" its market.

Yeah, I know that sounds impossible. After all, this is a league in which the fans sit in front of their television sets for two straight days in April watching team executives do nothing more than pick unproven college players.

There is, however, a point at which even the NFL will become overexposed. Apparently, the folks running the show are intent on locating the breaking point.

No votes were taken and no proposals were formulated at the owners meetings. But it's obvious the league wants more, more, more exposure. Let's hope the billionaire boys don't trample the goose laying the golden eggs along the way.

"There's greater interest from our fans of having a longer and deeper relationship with the NFL all year round," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said during the owners meetings.

Is he sure about that? The popularity is intense, but is there really a demand for longer seasons and more offseason exposure beyond the draft, free agency, minicamps, organized team activities and training camp? Don't you want to leave the audience wanting just a little more?

Associated Press, Star Tribune
Can the NFL ruin a good thing with too much exposure? Commissioner Roger Goodell might be willing to find out.

Goodell wants to get rid of one or two preseason games because basically their entertainment value is an embarrassment to the NFL. That's a great idea. The perfect complement to that idea would be keeping 16 regular-season games, although the owners would never do that, for obvious financial reasons.

Making the longer regular season worse is the possibility that the owners would add one or two games at the end of the season. That could push the Super Bowl into late February and the Pro Bowl darn near into March.

And that's assuming the league doesn't expand the playoff field. The league already sends 38 percent of its 32 teams to the postseason. Why water it down and take the risk of rewarding teams that go 7-9?

As for the spring game, which Goodell said was brought up and discussed by multiple teams, what coach in his right mind would play a star player in a spring game, whether it's a game between two teams or an intrasquad game like college football?

With that in mind, why would a league that wants to reduce the number of embarrassing preseason games in August want to add one in the spring? Makes no sense.

"If you had to play in a spring game, you'd have to practice hard and bang around to get ready for it," Vikings linebacker Chad Greenway said. "That makes for a lot more physical offseason. Then you're having to deal with injuries during the offseason instead of training for the next season."

No changes are scheduled for 2009. And, obviously, any changes would have to be negotiated with the players' union and the television networks.

"I think the season is long enough as it is," Vikings safety Darren Sharper said. "You'd probably have to give us two byes if you went to 18 games. That's a long time to play. The owners would have to pay us more. ... And I can't imagine them wanting us to play a spring game. I assume the players would fight that."

Let's hope they win.

Mark Craig • mcraig@startribune.com