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.

Show Me the Flag

Anyone who follows the NFL has heard plenty this week about vicious hits. The NFL leveled monster fines against three players for tackles made this past Sunday and has threatened to suspend players in the future for illegal hits. Particularly those tackles where players lead with their helmets. Player reaction to this crackdown has been largely negative. But no one reacted more vocally than Steeler bruiser James Harrison, who threatened retirement after being dealt a $75,000 fine by the league. The sports media has sounded a largely hypocritical note by attacking the NFL for compromising player safety at the same time big hits make top play highlight reels nationwide.

Increasingly weighty science on the neurological impact of football injuries strongly suggests that the NFL must continue to pursue policies that protect their stars. If the stringent enforcement of these policies compromises the physicality of the sport, so be it.

However, there is an element of fairness to be considered. Current NFL players have been raised from childhood to pursue and celebrate the big hit. Defensive impact players like Harrison are rightly frustrated that the style of play for which they have been so richly rewarded may become taboo. I suggest the following compromise: A player may only be fined or suspended for a tackle after the fact if the hit in question was penalized during the game. If the NFL truly wants to modify defensive style of play to avoid injury-inducing hits, players must be subject to immediate and consistent consequences. If a player leads with their helmet, hits a defenseless player, roughs a kicker or passer, or otherwise engages in a dangerous personal foul, a flag must be thrown. The league cannot play the role of monday morning referee and expect players to adapt quickly. Bottom line: If a hit is clean enough to go unflagged on game day, the NFL has no right to penalize a player after the fact.

Admittedly, this policy would put an additional burden on officiating crews. If a player cannot be fined or suspended for a hit that isn't flagged, there is potential for a hit to go unpunished due to a blown call. But the NFL should not be allowed to establish a double standard in this regard. In September of 2008, the Denver Broncos were robbed of a potential game winning red zone opportunity due to a blown call by referee Ed Hochuli. Hochuli confessed to the error immediately following the game, but the NFL took no action to amend the game result to reflect the blown call. Nor should it. If referees can be trusted to determine the outcome of a game, with no repercussions for admitted errors, surely the same policy can be applied for enforcing player conduct on the field.

Favregate Over?

Yesterday morning reports began popping up around the web that Brett Favre had been traded to the Jets. I know that throughout this entire saga the Packers had been looking at the Jets and the Bucs as nice safe landing places for their franchise QB. Of course the last thing they wanted was to see Favre end up with division rivals Chicago or Minnesota. For more on that, check the Verbal Currency archives for my "Nightmare Scenario" posts.

And now it appears the Packers have gotten exactly what they want: Brett is going to play on an AFC team that will NEVER be in an position to embarrass the Packers organization. Sure, Brett's got Laveranues Coles and Jerricho Cotchery, but does anyone honestly believe that the Jets are going to beat down the Patriots, the Colts, and the Chargers to be in a position to match up against an NFC opponent in the Super Bowl? Of course not, and that's what Packers management is counting on.

But how does Brett feel about this situation? Let's face it: Minnesota would have been the perfect place for Favre to end up. The Vikings have a fantastic RB duo, a great defense, much improved WR corps and one of the best O-lines in the game. What they're missing is a QB who can exploit defenses that are already shellshocked by the Peterson/Taylor combo. Favre would have been a perfect fit, and the Vikings would have been an immediate contender. Once the Packers made it clear that Favre was not going to be allowed back as the starting QB (Mike McCarthy made that official on Tuesday), why didn't Brett take a hard line? "Trade me to a contender, release me, or watch me sit on the sidelines and lead the Aaron Rodgers second guessing." Instead, he seemed to acquiesce to this trade to the Jets that seems to work out a lot better for the Packers than for Favre. If it were me, I wouldn't have gone quite so quietly into that dark night.

And sure, the Jets could go on a run this year. But it's not likely. And if they do, guess who's going to get all the credit... No, not Brett. It'll be the Mangenius, head coach Eric Mangini, who will get heavy praise for working Favre into a new system so successfully. Part of the reason Brett got so much credit for his MVP-caliber season last year is because nobody thinks of Mike McCarthy as praise-worthy. But Mangini is a different animal. He's gotten a lot of cred for being an uber-talented coach and a disciple of Bill Belichick. So if Brett thinks he can swing the Jets to a winning record, or a playoff run, and bask in all the Jersey accolades, fuhgeddaboudit.

The Nightmare Scenario: Update

Favregate looked like it might get wrapped up over the weekend. But good 'ol Brett decided he was going to further demolish any popularity GM Ted Thompson may have had by asking if he would be welcome at training camp. Of course, Thompson had to say no, so the saga goes on. Now I'm not exactly sitting on the edge of my seat to see how this ends, but I did see one fantastic post on the Sporting Blog today. They had gotten the folks at EA Sports to put Favre on a couple of teams mentioned in trade rumors and then play out the '09 season. Far cooler than the pointless computer generated stats is this picture of Favre in a Vikings uni handing off to Purple Jesus...

The Nightmare Scenario?

Yesterday as I was driving up to Rochester and flipping radio stations along the way, I stopped on the Sirius NFL station to listen to Sirius Blitz for a while. Jim Miller and Solomon Wilcots were discussing Favregate and Miller referred to the possibility of Favre ending up in Minnesota as "the nightmare scenario" for the packers. Jim's back and forth with Wilcots suggested that both personalities felt that Favre ending up a Viking would lead to the undoing of existence as we know it. A true doomsday event.

I agree that it would be embarrassing for Packers management to see Favre sign with an NFC rival and then lose to that rival. The Green Bay fans will immediately question the decision to trade or release Favre in favor of putting Aaron Rodgers under center. But starting fresh this year with Rodgers is the right decision whether Favre wants to play or not. Favre's gunslinger tactics have always made him a high risk-high reward player at QB, and after 17 years in the league, it's time for Green Bay to roll the dice on a new signal caller. Particularly while they have the supporting cast to make their new starter effective immediately.

Whether you agree that it's time for Favre to move on from Green Bay, I don't think there's a legitimate debate that this situation is simply a reflection of the current state of professional sports. Iconic players do not spend their entire careers with a single team any longer. Whether it's for more money, personal issues, increased playing time or the chance to win a championship, stars are no longer faithful to a single city. That doesn't make them bad people. And I think most fans are intelligent enough to recognize that.

When you think of the biggest rivalry in sports, what comes to mind? Probably Red Sox and Yankees. There is no love lost between the respective fan communities of these two organizations. Yet when Johnny Damon left the Red Sox and joined the hated Yankees, the world did not end. Damon was a highly visible, much beloved member of the curse-breaking 2004 Sox. And when he visits Fenway wearing the Yankees uni, he is not reviled. The rivalry between the Packers and the Vikings is not nearly as rabid. So why would Favre's defection be such a tragedy?

I'm of the opinion that if Favre does indeed return to Football, Minnesota is the right team. It features a West coast offense, coaching personnel Favre is familiar with and all the components of a highly successful team, with the notable exception of a solid QB. But unlike Jim Miller, I wasn't a mediocre QB is the NFL for 4 seasons. So what do I know?