Union Winning Battles; NFL Winning War
Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports reports that the NFL and the NFLPA are seemingly close to agreeing on going to an eventual 18 game regular season.
By PackerAaron
Mike Silver has an absolute must-read this morning over at Yahoo! Sports for anyone who wants to know the latest on the negotiations between the NFL and the NFLPA.
From Silver:
The owners would indeed get more money off the top before splitting “adjusted gross revenues” with the players – more than the $1 billion they received annually under the current deal, but less than the $2 billion they’d been demanding until recently. In simplistic terms, the owners would achieve an agreement they believe is roughly equivalent to the one that was on the table in 2006 before, they feel, Upshaw took advantage of outgoing commissioner Paul Tagliabue’s desire for labor peace at any cost and skewed the deal toward the union’s interests.
In this case, the hit to the players would be somewhat mitigated by an increase in revenue driven by the move to an 18-game regular season. The addition of two games (and elimination of two preseason games) might not be immediate, and the players would receive concessions such as limitations to offseason workouts and training camp practices and a new formula allowing them to qualify for certain benefits with fewer seasons played than in the past. However, in the end, the union is likely to capitulate and agree to the “enhanced” season in exchange for other considerations – again, something that was predicted months ago.
In all probability, there will also be a rookie wage scale that increases revenues while playing to the popular sentiment among fans that the guaranteed money received by top draft picks is exorbitant when compared to the salaries of accomplished veterans.
What does all this mean?
To me it means that, yes, while the Union has done a good job of avoiding a lockout of its players (challenging the league's right to collect money from its television partners whether games are played or not pretty much saved them in this regard) the endgame here will still be a "win" for the league overall if what Silver describes above comes to fruition.
No, the league won't be getting an additional $1 billion off the top, as has been widely reported as one of their demands. They will get the "Enhanced Season" they've been pitching publicly since last year, enabling them to add two regular season games to the television packages that provide the league its lifeblood, as well as line the owners' pockets.
Sure, they may be forced to cut back on some offseason workouts and make some concessions on roster sizes - but overall, getting to 18 regular season games would be a considerable victory, one the league has been looking for this entire time. From the start, the NFL has maintained that "the current model is unsustainable". Going to 18 regular season games would be a dramatic shift in "the model" - one that favors the owners.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHEESEHEAD NATION WEEKLY NEWSLETTER HERE.
__________________________
Comments (25)
March 04, 2011 at 11:15 am
If this season had been 18 games plus playoffs, I don't think we could have won it all. As it is, by the end of 20th game we would have been adding Woodson and possibly Driver and Shields to the 15 guys on IR. The total randomness of injuries already plays a big role in determining the outcome of seasons; it's only going to get worse with 18 games.
March 04, 2011 at 12:18 pm
I'm not sold the 18-game schedule makes THAT big of a difference in terms of injuries. Obviously it makes the chances increase, but not as much as everyone makes it seem.
High-caliber players can get hurt in training camp and preseason games, too. And not every NFL team had injury woes like the Packers did last season. There's usually one or two teams like them each year.
March 04, 2011 at 12:48 pm
While I'm not a proponent of going to an 18 game season, taking your logic to it's extreme, we should go back to a 12 or 14 game season to minimize injuries.
An interesting exercise might be to look at this question: Of the 15 IR players, at what point in the season did the bulk of these injuries occur? My gut says more injuries occurred in the 1st half of the season than in the last half. I'm not saying those extra 2 games don't represent significantly higher risk of additional injuries, but the Barnett, Finley, Grant, Burnett ect injuries still would have occurred as they were early in the season.
PackerAaron
March 04, 2011 at 01:10 pm
Exactly.
March 04, 2011 at 01:49 pm
My point is simply that the more games there are, the more you risk injury. Many of our injuries happened early on, but I don't think there's any reason to think that wasn't random. An injury like Grant's, where he got tackled oddly from behind, could happen at any time. With 16 games we're already teetering on the edge of the point where the team who wins the Super Bowl is often a good team who didn't have too many injuries to overcome (this year's Packers being a glorious exception). I'm all for having lots of football to watch; I just don't want it to get to the point where the team who randomly had the fewest injuries that year wins almost by default.
March 04, 2011 at 03:23 pm
"...it’s only going to get worse with 18 games."
Nothing wrong with this logic. The more playing time a player sees, the higher his risk for injury. Simple probability right there.
But the true question is: where is the best balance point? It could be 16 games, it could be 18, it could have been 12.
No matter what, you saw what injuries players reveal after their season ends (Super Bowl or otherwise). The longer they play with those minor injuries, the greater chance something serious happens.
Like I said, it's about finding the right balance. And if not for injury's sake, then for the meaning of each game. More games = less meaning per game. Just look at baseball, basketball, hockey, etc.
March 04, 2011 at 11:40 am
I thought that all along the 18-game schedule was just a trump card to force the players to give the $1BI the owners wanted. A lesser of two evils. It is all about the money anyway.
Then, one could say it's a draw, really. The owners don't get all the money they wanted, the players don't get to keep the status quo.
March 04, 2011 at 12:32 pm
The problem is, what stops the owners from playing the same trump card the next time around? And the time after that?
It seems the owners have an easier time of pulling these cards out of the air than the players do.
March 04, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Good point, but then again, what stops them from demanding a 20-game schedule the next time?
PackerAaron
March 04, 2011 at 01:13 pm
The CBA currently allows for 20 games - you can bet that's one of the things they're negotiating.
March 04, 2011 at 11:44 am
Historically, the 18 game schedule will allow players to shatter previously untouchable records. I know it's all about money, but I do like having the historical reference points to look back to.
On the PLUS side, Rodgers could be the all-time everything pass record holder by the time he retires with the extra two games each season. Old #4 would still have the interceptions record, however. *happy face*
March 04, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Don't know.
Can anyone do the math? Even with 18 games, averaging the same ypg and td/g he has right now, for how long would he have to play?
Peyton Manning, on the other hand, seems closer to it, if he keeps playing.
March 04, 2011 at 08:17 pm
One thing is for sure: a 1,000 yard season by a running back will be an indicator of very little. In college, when you used to get 10 games a season, it meant a lot. Even with 14 pro games a season it was a fair dividing line between the regular and the good. With two extra games it will merely be the line between the good and the not.
March 04, 2011 at 11:56 am
so assuming there's an 18-game season, who do we on those 2 extra games? just random opponents or what?
March 04, 2011 at 01:46 pm
On the injury questions, I bet there will be expanded rosters. Is that what you were referring to when you mention they might "make some concessions on roster sizes." My guess is that rosters expand from 53 to 55 or 56, so more union employees are employed. This could help on the injury front mentioned earlier.
Let hope that the extra 2 games go to the gold package ticket holders! Or maybe they will open up 2 more games to people on the waiting list. I think my kid is around 20,000 and my nephew is in the 70's somewhere. Does anybody want to trade 4 45 yard line seats for the Jan. 15th 2012 Lambeau game for a September game?
March 04, 2011 at 08:21 pm
I'd like to see it go to something more like 60. Teams should not have to scour the waiver wire and pray that they are lucky enough to find a guy who fits their system, and is smart enough to get ready to play in a short period of time. Expanded rosters = a better opportunity to develop players = a more consistent quality of product. As a fan, that's something I think we all deserve.
March 06, 2011 at 02:29 pm
If the NFL does go to an eighteen game regular season, it would be nice if the Packers either:
awarded that extra home game to Gold package ticket holders as a reward to the old Milwaukee faithful,
Or,
they could use the extra home game like a "Waiting room" game for the first 35,000 people on the season ticket holder list.
The idea would be that if you are one of the 35,000 fans at the front of the season tickets waiting list, you are given the immediate opportunity to purchase two tickets to that extra home game. When your name comes up, and you start paying for your full season tickets, the next guy in line starts to get two tickets to that extra game..
Just sort of help sate the unquenchable thirst for tickets to those on the waiting list.. :)
March 04, 2011 at 02:55 pm
Any rumors of number of players being discussed for roster and PS?
March 04, 2011 at 10:47 pm
The only info I've heard quite a while back, is that owners would allow 46 players active and 54 overall. They want more games, but no real increase in players.
March 04, 2011 at 06:01 pm
Some great points concerning the move to 18 games ....... These are pretty much the same arguments used when switching from 12 to 14 in '60 & 14 to 16 in '78 ( I was there for both) ......
Although the law of probability says more injuries will happen with a longer season ..... I would contend that the over-riding factor in injuries (especially debilitating injuries) over the last few decades has been simply because players are bigger, faster & stronger than ever before ..... The physics of the game has changed .....
Case in point ..... Scott Wells is considered 'smallish' at center at 6'2" - 300# in today's NFL ...... HOF'er Jim Ringo played ten years at center for GB ('54 - '64) measuring in at 6'1" & around 230# ....
March 04, 2011 at 10:48 pm
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/nfl-lockout-2011?click=main_sr
Anyone concerned with injuries can view an exhaustive study. Season-ending injuries tend to happen early and brain injuries seem to explode as time wears on.
March 05, 2011 at 09:13 am
If the Packers blew that game agaist the Bears in the Championship game the Superbowl would have featured a third string quarterback agaist the 1# defense in the NFL.A Bears /Steeler Superbowl would have been unwatchable.If they expand to 18 games it will further risk starting quartebacks not only missing playoff games but Superbowls.
March 05, 2011 at 09:51 am
Whether there are 16 or 18 games, injuries will happen, and some teams will basically have their seasons ruined by excessive injuries either way. We cannot guess if 2 more games will mean more teams will befall this fate.
The Packers just proved that a championship-caliber team can still get that championship even with a titanic amount of injuries.
The one thing I'm sick of hearing, though, is that "the league doesn't really care about player safety if they want 2 more games." Workplace safety is about making the workplace safer WHILE YOU'RE WORKING.
Does any other industry on earth that requires dangerous work try to make the job safer by cutting a 40 hour work week down to 20, or making overtime illegal? No. It's not about "more safety by less time working."
March 05, 2011 at 11:58 am
"limitations to offseason workouts"
Bad news for the Packers, who have structured contracts to highly incentivize offseason workouts ever since Andrew Brandt.
MM truly believes in year round football.
March 05, 2011 at 08:39 pm
Cheesehead TV already has great coverage of the 20 pre-playoff games, so an 18 game season wouldn't be much of a change.