Thoughts on the NFL Owners Meeting...

So far, here are some of the main debates being talked about during the NFL's annual owners meeting...

1) Having players cut their hair so it doesn't cover their name on the back of their jerseys
2) Reseeding the playoffs so that teams that don't win their divisions still have a chance to gain home-field advantage
3) Increasing the rosters from 80 to 86 players
4) Allowing defensive players to wear mics in their helmets
5) Force-out rule
6) Replays for field goals

Let's get into each of these topics one-by-one:

1. Vote: No on hair cutting

Despite looking sloppy and unkempt, NFL players should have the right to wear their hair as long as they want to--it's not something that gives them an advantage over another player, although some would argue it gives defenders more of an option when trying to tackle a ball carrier who likes to keep his locks long (Troy Polamulu, anyone?). However, I'm not surprised this issue is being discussed because we are talking about the same league that fines players for having their socks sag to a certain level below their shins. In my opinion, there are bigger fish to fry within the NFL.

2. Vote: Yes to reseeding

Forcing teams to try throughout their entire 16-game schedule will only enhance the level of competition and entertainment for fans and players if this rule is changed. If owners vote to change this rule, every game will count, meaning teams won't have the luxury of resting their players before the postseason and such. Also, it awards teams in competitve divisions to earn home-field advantage over a lackluster division champion.

3. Vote: No to roster extension

More players means more depth, you would think. But ponder this: imagine your the star player on your favorite team having to take a pay cut because they want to sign a fourth-string tight end for depth, since the rule will give them the freedom to do so. That doesn't paint a pretty picture for the future--a future that will most likely happen if this rule is enforced.

4. Vote: A 100% yes to audio for defenders

This rule should have been instituted when the NFL made it legal for quarterbacks to wear microphones in their helmets. Having an every-down defender wear a mic means no more sign stealing (that goes for you, New England), and will only level the playing field for defenses, who've already had to suffer through pass-happy ruling changes like illegal contact and the force-out rule (I'll get into that in a little bit).

5. Vote: Yes to eliminating force-out rule

As if NFL offenses needed anymore help these days. Getting rid of this rule will end speculation to whether or not a receiver caught a ball, which should --and always be-- defined by a player getting two feet in bounds. Just think: what is a defender supposed to do? That's basically telling a defensive back or linebacker that he shouldn't tackle the receiver.

6. Vote: Yes to replays for field goals

I don't even think I need to divulge into this topic. This rule wasn't in play when Phil Dawson made a suspect field goal to put the Browns into overtime against the Ravens, but the referees did the right thing as they went back to review if the ball had crossed the bottom crossbar (which it did). How could this rule not have already been in the rule book?