Usually, Roger Goodell takes care of this during Super Bowl week, but with the steady stream of headlines in the last few months about how both owners and players are posturing in advance of a potential lockout, now seems like a good time to address the state of the league.
Why is the NFL preparing to lock out the players union? This reeks eerily similar to the infamous NHL lockout and lost season of 2004-2005. During that entire ordeal, Gary Bettman preached "cost certainty." While the NFL is not using those exact words, if your read Greg Aiello's piece on ESPN.com, you certainly get the sense that cost certainty is what he is preaching. What the NHL was ultimately after was a salary cap. The players wouldn't budge, and the end result was not pretty for the sport of hockey. Now, thanks to the likes of Alex Ovechkin and even Sidney Crosby (gag me), that sport has enjoyed a very nice rebound. Events like the 2011 Winter Classic (take that Pittsburgh...HA!) will ensure that hockey has a strong future. Nevertheless, a lost season is a lost season, and the NFL...the golden goose of professional sports leagues...is staring straight down the barrel of one. My take on a couple key issues after the jump.
So let's take a look at the actual issues and both sides' stances on them. The first thing that seems to always be mentioned is the prospect of the 18 game season. The league believes that by adding 2 regular season games (and eliminating 2 preseason ones) more revenues will be generated and fan interest will be strengthened. The union counters by saying that more regular season games will mean more injuries and more lost pay for their employees. The union claims that an average of 9.5 games were lost per man in 2010 due to players being placed on IR. While the league questions how that number was calculated, the fact is this: injuries happen. That's part of the risk of playing tackle football (and why contracts have never been fully guaranteed). Now, even with that being said...I DO NOT SUPPORT the 18-game season. The reasons are fairly simple. I like it the way it is with 16 games. With 32 teams and 8 divisions of 4, it makes scheduling relatively simple. I'm mostly afraid of diluting the product. I love pro football. Even though my team is once again staying home for the playoffs (grumble grumble), I always enjoy this time of year because the games mean so much. I feel like with the current structure of the season, it is just enough to make me (and other fans...especially those of teams who have been eliminated) keep craving more. By adding extra games to the schedule, the league runs the risk of having fans like me start thinking "I've had enough." I don't EVER want to feel like I've had enough. This is significant financially as well. The more fans feel like they've had enough (again with special emphasis on eliminated teams in December), the less likely they are to buy tickets to meaningless games at the end of the season, therefore decreasing revenue and going against the whole purpose of the 18 game season in the first place. With 18 games, teams are not going to be eliminated (and clinch) sooner, increasing the chances that late season games are meaningless (while at the same time increasing injury risks as the union claims). Just look at baseball with 162 games, teams are eliminated at the beginning of September, rendering a whole month meaningless. Something tells me the Orioles and Nationals didn't sell out a whole lot that month...
The other issue I'd like to address here is that of the rookie wage scale. The union claims that nobody is twisting teams' arms forcing them to give #1 draft picks $50 million guaranteed. While that may be true, if you don't pay the kid, he's going to hold out. And if you look at Michael Crabtree and Jamarcus Russell (two players who probably could have benefitted from a little training camp their rookie years), you run the risk of wasting a top ten draft choice. With the profusion of viral agents, contracts across the board have skyrocketed (especially in terms of guaranteed money). Now, who would you rather pay $50 million to: a proven veteran (i.e. a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady) or a rookie who has never played a professional down (Jake Locker)? To me the answer is simple and for that reason I SUPPORT the rookie wage scale. For evidence, I look no further than that bastion of entertainment: the NBA. I don't usually go to the NBA for economic advice, but this is one thing they got right. LeBron took his talents to South Beach, and got paid a king's ransom to do it. It's safe to say that he turned out alright. However, in his first 3 seasons he got paid just like any other rookie would...which is to say not much (by pro sports standards...I'm sure there's a postal worker out there who would LOVE to trade places). If it works for the NBA, why can't it work for the NFL? Don't you think the Raiders or the 49ers would have loved to save a little coin on their prize investments instead of forking over tens of millions of dollars only to watch them trip all over themselves? They certainly did not earn those humongous signing bonuses. Give them to players who have.
OK, that's all I got for now. It was long, but as you can see, I got a lot to say......and I didn't even touch on revenue sharing. I think a deal will get done and there will be NFL football in 2011. Both sides know that a labor stoppage is the worst thing that can happen to the league right now. It probably will not happen until 11:59PM on March 3rd though, that's just the way it is.
Why is the NFL preparing to lock out the players union? This reeks eerily similar to the infamous NHL lockout and lost season of 2004-2005. During that entire ordeal, Gary Bettman preached "cost certainty." While the NFL is not using those exact words, if your read Greg Aiello's piece on ESPN.com, you certainly get the sense that cost certainty is what he is preaching. What the NHL was ultimately after was a salary cap. The players wouldn't budge, and the end result was not pretty for the sport of hockey. Now, thanks to the likes of Alex Ovechkin and even Sidney Crosby (gag me), that sport has enjoyed a very nice rebound. Events like the 2011 Winter Classic (take that Pittsburgh...HA!) will ensure that hockey has a strong future. Nevertheless, a lost season is a lost season, and the NFL...the golden goose of professional sports leagues...is staring straight down the barrel of one. My take on a couple key issues after the jump.
So let's take a look at the actual issues and both sides' stances on them. The first thing that seems to always be mentioned is the prospect of the 18 game season. The league believes that by adding 2 regular season games (and eliminating 2 preseason ones) more revenues will be generated and fan interest will be strengthened. The union counters by saying that more regular season games will mean more injuries and more lost pay for their employees. The union claims that an average of 9.5 games were lost per man in 2010 due to players being placed on IR. While the league questions how that number was calculated, the fact is this: injuries happen. That's part of the risk of playing tackle football (and why contracts have never been fully guaranteed). Now, even with that being said...I DO NOT SUPPORT the 18-game season. The reasons are fairly simple. I like it the way it is with 16 games. With 32 teams and 8 divisions of 4, it makes scheduling relatively simple. I'm mostly afraid of diluting the product. I love pro football. Even though my team is once again staying home for the playoffs (grumble grumble), I always enjoy this time of year because the games mean so much. I feel like with the current structure of the season, it is just enough to make me (and other fans...especially those of teams who have been eliminated) keep craving more. By adding extra games to the schedule, the league runs the risk of having fans like me start thinking "I've had enough." I don't EVER want to feel like I've had enough. This is significant financially as well. The more fans feel like they've had enough (again with special emphasis on eliminated teams in December), the less likely they are to buy tickets to meaningless games at the end of the season, therefore decreasing revenue and going against the whole purpose of the 18 game season in the first place. With 18 games, teams are not going to be eliminated (and clinch) sooner, increasing the chances that late season games are meaningless (while at the same time increasing injury risks as the union claims). Just look at baseball with 162 games, teams are eliminated at the beginning of September, rendering a whole month meaningless. Something tells me the Orioles and Nationals didn't sell out a whole lot that month...
The other issue I'd like to address here is that of the rookie wage scale. The union claims that nobody is twisting teams' arms forcing them to give #1 draft picks $50 million guaranteed. While that may be true, if you don't pay the kid, he's going to hold out. And if you look at Michael Crabtree and Jamarcus Russell (two players who probably could have benefitted from a little training camp their rookie years), you run the risk of wasting a top ten draft choice. With the profusion of viral agents, contracts across the board have skyrocketed (especially in terms of guaranteed money). Now, who would you rather pay $50 million to: a proven veteran (i.e. a Peyton Manning or Tom Brady) or a rookie who has never played a professional down (Jake Locker)? To me the answer is simple and for that reason I SUPPORT the rookie wage scale. For evidence, I look no further than that bastion of entertainment: the NBA. I don't usually go to the NBA for economic advice, but this is one thing they got right. LeBron took his talents to South Beach, and got paid a king's ransom to do it. It's safe to say that he turned out alright. However, in his first 3 seasons he got paid just like any other rookie would...which is to say not much (by pro sports standards...I'm sure there's a postal worker out there who would LOVE to trade places). If it works for the NBA, why can't it work for the NFL? Don't you think the Raiders or the 49ers would have loved to save a little coin on their prize investments instead of forking over tens of millions of dollars only to watch them trip all over themselves? They certainly did not earn those humongous signing bonuses. Give them to players who have.
OK, that's all I got for now. It was long, but as you can see, I got a lot to say......and I didn't even touch on revenue sharing. I think a deal will get done and there will be NFL football in 2011. Both sides know that a labor stoppage is the worst thing that can happen to the league right now. It probably will not happen until 11:59PM on March 3rd though, that's just the way it is.
You are being pretty optimistic for a March 3rd deadline. I contend that players have to start actually losing money before all this sinks in. I'll be honest...if the NFL went away for a year, I would get over it pretty fast. It needs a lesson in humility, something that is in short supply.
ReplyDeleteAs much as would love to see all parties involved get a cold hard dose of humility (and reality), there is still a part of me that wants to see them work it out. I'd survive the Fall if there is no football (I'd have no other choice), and I always got my MD season tickets, but there would be a void on Sunday afternoons that I don't know could be properly filled....
ReplyDelete