On another thread there are people arguing for fewer (or even NO) preseason games. Let's deal with some arguments in order from (what I see as) least to most important.
1. No entertainment value.
Well, it depends. It's a different kind of entertainment. I suppose that the fan who is really into roster moves and player strategies will like preseason better than some other fans. It's not as exciting but I do find it interesting. It's kind of like the Christmas stocking before one gets to the presents. Preseason games are an appetizer. They're a way for the fan to get back into the game and to get ready for all the crucial arguments to come.
2. Not Important
Whew... don't know how stron I can be about this one. When we went to fewer preseason games (to save money and up revenues by converting two preseason games to regular season ones) there were two results that - IMHO - hurt the game.
a. Veterans got an easier ride at the beginning of the season. There just isn't enough time to have youngsters push the vets and so I think that we've seen more coaches playing it safe at the beginning of the season and going with known quantities.
b. In a related manner, we see a lot more games playing with the Practice and Injury Reserve rosters as coaches try to figure out how to keep younger potential players around. Kids are kept, released, re-signed, put on I.R., etc. This hurts the game (and those players) because it's that much harder to come down with a clear decision on 'keepers' at the beginning of the season.
3. Quality of Play As Dust says in the "earlier Season" thread. Right now the first few weeks of the season are hard to watch as the calibre of play is often terrible. I almost think that coaches treat these games as if they WERE preseason tilts... but they affect the final standings.
Me... I'd go back to 4 full preseason games. Even if I yawned a bit at times I think it would be good for the teams and the calibre of play... if (sadly) not for revenue streams.