18 Game Conspiracy Theory

As NFL collective bargaining agreement (CBA) negotiations enter a mediation phase this week, I decided it was high time that I put my conspiracy theory about the proposed 18 game schedule in print. I mean, I can't claim credit for it if I don't get it out there before a deal is done.

So here's the theory: The NFL owners have prioritized and publicized the 18 game schedule over the past year solely to create CBA negotiating leverage. Don't believe me? Consider the following:

• Timing. The pace of change in the NFL is glacially slow. Just look at overtime rules and instant replay. These two concepts, relatively simple in execution, took years to achieve owner support and implement. An 18 game schedule would fundamentally change the nature of the NFL product, and yet the owners are looking to slam it into place by the start of the 2012 season. That fact alone suggests this is more of a stunt that a legitimate consideration. If the NFL owners were serious about an 18 game schedule, the transition would be a gradual (17 game season, then 18 game season), multi-year process.
• Money. NFL negotiator and outside counsel Bob Batterman publicly valued the additional two games at $500 million in incremental revenue for the owners. While that sounds like a lot of money, divvy it up 32 ways (of course the actual share per team would vary considerably) and each team is looking at just over $15.5 million in additional revenue. That's not a significant increase given the risk involved when tampering with the most popular sports product in the US. And those revenue projections are likely based on a best case scenario where fans don't balk at increased ticket prices and television audiences aren't diluted by the extended season. Bottom line, the risk vs reward for the 18 game proposition doesn't look all that attractive.
• Safety. Roger Goodell is not stupid. He has to know how it looks to the fans and pundits when he is preaching safety awareness, pushing concussion protocols and fining violent hits with one hand, while looking to add two hours of regular season playing time with the other. League officials have made the argument that the players are already committed to 20 games a year (16 regular season, 4 pre-season), they just want 2 of the pre-season games to count. But this argument only looks reasonable to the most casual of fans. Anyone with genuine interest in the league knows that the starters who will be on the field for the majority of the regular season minutes will play sparingly (if at all) during the pre-season. The limited playing time for starters is specifically to avoid the injuries that will certainly accrue with the addition of two games that "count." The whole safety dilemma that Goodell has allowed to manifest only makes sense if he knows that the 18 game schedule will be off the table before the 2011 season gets underway.
• Fan support. When I discussed the money issue above, I noted that the rosy financial projections for an 18 game schedule are dependent upon a scenario in which fans embrace a longer regular season and the escalating ticket prices that come with it. In addition, TV ratings must remain strong throughout the extended season. So if fans start to tune out as the season meanders towards week 18, ad revenue and TV dollars may diminish as well. This is bad news considering that an AP fan poll revealed what ESPN characterized as "lukewarm" support for the new schedule.
• Logistics. So far, the details of the 18 game schedule have been limited to the conversion of two pre-season games into regular season games. Fans have heard nothing about the details of the proposed schedule. When will the new regular season start? What will the impact be on OTA's? Training camp? Playoffs? The draft? The combine? Will a second bye week be added to allow for more recovery time? If so, that stretches the actual duration of the regular season to 20 weeks. These are all questions of major importance to players and fans. Is the NFL really suggesting they're going to have all this worked out AND achieved player and fan buy-in by August 2012?

So if the timing seems off, the money is a gamble, the safety issue makes the league look foolish, fans aren't crazy about the change and the implementation looks daunting, why are guys like Bill Polian calling the 18 game season a "done deal"? The answer: Leverage. In a potential lockout situation, NFL players know they have the fans on their side. While financial pressure may ultimately force concessions from the NFLPA, the union is poised to dominate the owners in the PR skirmish. In an age where players can spin with their Twitter accounts, it is simply too dangerous for the owners to allow a lockout to occur. So when the chips are down and it's time to deal or start missing games, the owners need to have something to concede. How about the 18 game schedule?

Picture it: The NFL and NFLPA negotiators in a swank hotel room in NYC. Terms have been reached on rookie salaries and limited OTA's, but the players won't budge on profit sharing. With a weary sigh, the NFL negotiator offers, "If you can move on the profit sharing, we are prepared to postpone the implementation of an 18 game scheduled until the next CBA." The NFLPA negotiators smile, concede some of the profit sharing and a CBA is reached.

The owners are able to seal a new deal by conceding an 18 game schedule that nobody really wanted in the first place. Brilliant.

So that's my theory. If a CBA is reached and all sides report that the NFL's concession of an 18 game season was at the heart of the compromise, I'm right. If the dust settles and we're looking at an 18 game schedule in 2012, I was wrong. Either way, I'm on the record.