“A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall.”
-Vince Lombardi*
Football fans have no idea if we’ll see NFL football played in 2011. Right now, I’d estimate the chances are 40/60 in favor of a lockout. We’re more likely to see a shortened season, but I’m not sure that’s a better situation. Thankfully, we will have the NCAA game (watch how many FCS games find their way onto the air) and even the UFL to fall back on, but it’s a sad time for NFL fans.
As you’ll read below, I’m not really interested in the labor talks. I’ve begun tuning out of Sportscenter and similar programs when the topic comes up. John Clayton and Adam Schefter used to be mandatory listening on the ESPN airwaves, but lately, I don’t go out of my way to hear the news. Unfortunately, my blog will lose some of its luster if I don’t want to harp on the daily banality of the labor dispute, so don’t be surprised to find some non-football pieces. It’s not that I’ve lost my love, it’s that my desire to write is forcing me to find another, less odious topic. The Draft is still of great interest to me, and many fans, so I’ll do my best to cover the event and include plenty of Mocks and player analysis. Hopefully once July rolls around, we’ll be on here discussing training camps and the merits of the pre-season and not how deleterious a locked out season may be.
The following may be a long read (1400 words total), but you may find it interesting if you’re a “regular” fan and are frustrated with the goings-on. I’m not an anti-trust lawyer. I’ve never read a CBA in my life. Like I mentioned, I’m not even paying 100% attention on the newest announcements coming from the NFL’s mediation sessions. So, you may disagree with what I’m saying, but keep in mind it’s just an opinion on how I’d like things to play out.
I’m not a fan of all the back and forth banter about who is saying what, to whom and what impact it may have. Major US sports have been down this road before. We’ve lost full seasons (the NHL is so far the only major league to do so), partial seasons (NHL, NBA, MLB) and even played with replacement players (NFL, MLB). None of the current issues are surprising, groundbreaking or all that difficult to figure out. Ultimately, it comes down to Billionaires arguing with Millionaires over hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Both sides are looking for resolution for their “needs” and “wants.” I see four major issues, two per side, which fit well together to form a compromise.
First and foremost, the NFLPA wants a larger share of the profit for its players. Fine, I can see their argument. Truthfully, owners really don’t have a leg to stand on here. If the NFLPA were asking to double their current share, I could see the reservations; a gradual increase, to go along with increases in inflation and cost of living makes sense to me.
When the owners concede to the increase, and I believe they will, they’ll immediately ask for one thing in return: an 18 game schedule. There’s obviously no direct research or evidence yet into the possible effects of an 18 game regular season versus a 16 game regular season over the course of a career; simple logic, though, tells us it’s more wear and tear for a player and will ultimately lead to a shorter amount of years in the league. The average NFL career is somewhere around 3-5 years (I’ve heard just about every possible decimal in between), so players are looking at an average of 6-10 more games over the same career length. It’s more than a 10% increase in games played (or decrease in career length, if you’re pessimistic) and would put the average player on the shelf a half-season earlier. (See my below note regarding this point, I didn’t want to clog up my four point plan here with it)^
The players got what they wanted, so they’ll have to cave into the owners on the extended schedule. Knowing the NFLPA, they’ll hit their next hot button issue: player benefits. For as violent as the game is, the NFL does a poor job of keeping up with player health after they retire. I think it’s partly due to the anonymous nature of many players (other than the big name QBs, RBs and WRs, could you pick anybody out of a lineup?) and the fact that career length can vary greatly and end for many different reasons (including injury, off-field legal issues, etc). I’m a firm believer that the NFL needs to step up and figure out a way to help out its former employees. Tragic cases such as the recent suicide of Dave Duerson, which has been allegedly tied to his NFL career, are a constant reminder of how real the post-career traumas are for players.
Finally, the NFL will fire back and propose one more compromise to level the CBA. The extra money will have to come from somewhere and I think that will come from one of two places (or both). First, the NFL needs a rookie wage scale desperately. Boys (yes, boys) three years out of high school should not be making tens of millions of dollars in the NFL. Your first contract should be somewhat predetermined (based on draft position and on-field position) and if you play well, then you cash in for the big bucks. The high salary going to the top draft picks has made those selections undesirable and flies into the face of the NFL’s presumed parity. If the Panthers save $5 million on their #1 overall pick, they can place it elsewhere. I’m not an expert, but that money could go to other veteran players, or maybe the salary cap is re-structured to reflect the lessened amount young players will earn. For example, if teams would save, on average, 10% per year due to lesser salaries for rookies, that money should be put somewhere else. Either the league’s cap could be lessened (and the difference be put towards player benefits) or the veteran minimum salary (and as the dominoes fall into one another, all veteran salaries) be increased. Either way, the veteran players would benefit. As it stands right now, a player is better off being drafted in the Top 10, never playing a down, taking the guaranteed money and retiring than attempting to play out a successful career. Players who have put in the time and effort in the NFL, should be rewarded, not somebody who got lucky with a soft non-conference schedule at a BCS school.
There’s my plan. Until we have some sort of resolution, I won’t be speaking of the madness. It frustrates me and forces me to face the reality of a lost season. Working with kids for the better part of my life has taught me that sometimes the best way to move along from a temper tantrum throwing toddler is to ignore them and pretend that they aren’t getting to you. Maybe the NFL and the NFLPA will heed my silence and work this thing out.
*Most credits I’ve found online have this as a Lombardi quote, but I did find one site that noted Frank Leahy as the speaker.
^My thinking regarding the extended season is that it also benefits the player. We know that NFL contracts aren’t “guaranteed” so one could argue that playing as many games (and, in turn, earning as many game checks as possible) at a younger, presumably healthier, age could help you earn more. For example, consider that in the current 16-game format Player X (barring injury) will play his 100th NFL game in Season 7, Week 4; in an 18-game format, however, he’ll play that game in Season 6, Week 10. If you could stay injury-free, you’re looking at getting to that milestone about a year earlier and an entire training camp and pre-season sooner. Again, that is if you stay healthy, if you’re injury prone and your individual game checks are diluted by 10% you will suffer in the new format. I just want to prove that you can flip just about any argument in labor talks so it fits your side of the coin. (My thought process here is for the average player, who if they suffer a major injury, will likely be cut by the team at some point. Remember, players are paid for pre-season games, however, my thinking is that if they add more “real” games in place of “fake” ones the players will request some sort of salary restructuring. It would be tough to argue that the 2nd pre-season game is “worth” the same amount to a player as a game on Week 19)
