-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Not Wanting to Write About Nothing Good
April 30, 2013 | 126 comments
-
Perez Abomination Grows
April 23, 2013 | 81 comments
Streetcar Line
‘Bye’ Means Hello to an NFL Solution
The season can be extended, as the owners wish, without exposing the players to still more wear and tear.
Only the owners, the players, and the TV networks really have all the numbers available to know the parameters limiting any solutions to the National Football League’s labor unrest. Yet, after spending yesterday blasting the greed and posturing of both owners and players, today I offer my own humble idea for at least a partial way out of the morass.
The key lies in the four-game pre-season. The owners say it’s too long; what they really mean is they can’t make as much money off pre-season games as they do off real contests, so they would rather have an 18-game (instead of the current 16-game) regular season with just two pre-season matches. Many fans say they resent being charged full ticket prices for games that don’t count; what they mean is not that they want more games to count, but that they want to pay less money. (Those fans are justified.) The players may not like the full-length pre-seasons as they are now, but they sure as heck know they don’t want to put their bodies on the line for an extra two play-to-win games each season. The players’ concerns are more than justified; they are humanely and even morally unassailable.
What’s needed is not two extra regular season games, but one more week in which to play the same 16 games. In other words, an extra bye week. And I write this as somebody who has always hated the bye week that already exists — but who, the other night, suddenly figured that the answer to one bad bye week isn’t elimination of that bye, but the addition of another.
Here’s how it would work, and why it’s a win-win for everybody:
First, nobody should argue that pre-season games serve no purpose: Every fan who has gotten excited by an unexpected rookie standout, along with every undrafted free agent who suddenly shines in the spotlight and thus finds a roster spot, all know how crucial those testing grounds can be. Most fans I know even enjoy at least the first three pre-season games, because they are so eager to see how the team’s new additions look under actual game conditions. Really, it’s only the fourth pre-season game that seems like overkill.
Therefore, instead of a four-game pre-season, each team would play three. Teams that host two of those games one year would host just one the next. The regular season would then start one week earlier. The teams, however, would still play just 16 “real” games. The extra week would be used for a second bye.
Why? First, because the problem with the current “bye” system is that it isn’t really fair. Byes are spread out over about seven weeks through the luck of the draw, so some teams benefit more from the timing of their byes than others (because of when they particularly need the bye to have their players recover from injuries). Worse, it’s almost always the case that one team coming off a bye week gets to play a team still banged up from playing the week before. Byes give a marked advantage in the week afterwards — making the bye an offense against the level playing field that any athletic competition should feature.
But with two byes, the problem is solved. In each of weeks 5 through 8, every team in one division in each conference would get a bye. Then in each of weeks 11 through 14, the same system would play out — with the same teams facing the same teams after the second post-bye week that they faced in the first post-bye week. In other words, the post-bye weeks would be shared by division rivals in their usual home-and-home scheduling. Nobody would have an advantage due to a fluke of timing. So, to take the NFC South for example, in year one the Saints’ post-bye weeks would feature home-and-home matches against the Falcons, and in year two it would be against the Bucs, and in year three against the Panthers. Scheduling fairness would be renewed. In addition, there would be more of a chance for key players to avoid missing games due to injuries, because there would be an extra week within each season for recuperation. That would be good for the players, for the fans — and for the owners, who could save cash by not needing to churn their rosters so often and not needing to put so many players on injured reserve and replace them with others. For that matter, it would mean a slightly greater chance that a good team wouldn’t miss the playoffs because of injuries to, say, a star pass-rusher or a starting quarterback.
All fine and dandy, you might say — but how does this solve the league’s financial impasse?
Extra TV revenue, that’s how. The network will pay more for 18 weeks of regular season than for 17 weeks. They don’t like being forced to carry pre-season games as part of their NFL contracts. Add another week of meaningful games, and they could make, and pay the league, a lot more money — and, frankly, for less cost. Think about it: For each of eight weeks of the year (both sets of four bye weeks), not just seven, the networks all combined would need full crews and full tech support not for 16 games but just for 12.
Granted, the owners would be collecting game ticket-sale revenue for one fewer game (a pre-season one) each year. But they also would pay less of all the attendant costs for putting on those games that are often less well attended and less likely to generate ancillary revenue for souvenirs, etcetera. Plus they would save, as mentioned, by presumably needing a lesser total number of players during the year; and they might even generate a larger number of season tickets — because an untold number of people decide to forgo season tickets only because they so resent having to pay full price for two home pre-season games each year that mean nothing. Heck, the one home game saved from the package every other year could subtly be worked into the per-game ticket for the games that do count — and most fans probably would either not notice or not complain.
Again, though, the main benefit would be that the league could probably bilk the TV networks for even more extravagant packages, a difference big enough to make up for the lost ticket sales. If my hunch on that is right, the owners could still allow the players the same 60 percent of the total take without stretching the less successful owners in whatever way they claim now to be stretched.
THERE… THAT SHOULD do it for now. All the other issues are easily solvable. Of course there should be a rookie wage scale, with the savings funneled toward veterans who have proved themselves. Of course there should be a reinstatement of the salary cap, but perhaps with fewer chances for the owners to game the system by writing exorbitant dollar numbers into the last year of (non-guaranteed) contracts they fully expect to void. In return, perhaps the players would agree to some limitation on allowable signing bonuses, but an expansion of allowable incentive clauses.
The point is, there should be lots of play in the joints of the NFL’s labor negotiations. But there is no reason for any work stoppage at all. A little creativity, and a lot less posturing, could keep the NFL’s good thing going.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (38) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/10/bye-means-hello-to-an-nfl-solu
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.10.11 @ 6:32AM
Sounds good to me, but since taxes will most not likely be cut in D.C., I wonder if the public will be able to afford the extra tickets, or even be concerned since many are unemployed.
Let me explain further.
There are those who claim that cuts in the size of government can wait, and therefore any real relief from the tax code or regulatory authority is not forthcoming before the next football season.
To clarify this point, let's say you have a losing team in D.C. who claims that a 32 billion dollar cut in a 3.7 trillion dollar budget is meaningful.
If that were considered a movement in a football game you would have moved the ball 4 inches towards your 10 yard first goal.
Most fans would boo or wouldn't care. Unless you were part of the ruling class team.
My point is simply that unless more responsibility is forthcoming from Washington, many in the business sector will suffer.
That will include the sports sector and soon.
I won't have much sympathy for unemployed millionaires or billionaires but it's all connected.
In the meantime think of progress in D.C. relative to reducing the size of government as progress for us all.
mames| 2.10.11 @ 10:32AM
Hello! These teams have never been "ours". If so where is my cut of the box office. No govt in sports in any way.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.10.11 @ 11:02AM
Please wake up. Many of these teams receive huge government subsidies by regulation or direct tax reductions or support in the terms of building their stadiums. In that sense you have been ripped off since you have no ownership but are generously contributing to their bottom line.
So, hello to you. You fool.
john| 2.14.11 @ 4:50PM
Why do all you people really give a rats ass about a bunch of glorified millionaires, who have their pic on their locker so they know which one it is.
Old Soldier| 2.10.11 @ 8:35AM
The pre-season has a purpose for actual fans of the game.
I used to watch pre-season games to see who could earn a spot on the roster. Later draft picks, free-agents, and walk-ons played their hearts trying to make the team.
Now pre-season is where you will see the December starters - before they are relegated to the practice squad - then promoted back to the roster after all the starters get season-ending injuries.
Ryan| 2.10.11 @ 9:17AM
What we'll also probably see is an expanded roster, which will be sorely needed if the season is extended.
MikeBee| 2.10.11 @ 9:24AM
I would add one more improvement and change: if the home team's stadium is not sold out, the game should still be shown on TV. Then, an owner doesn't lose the TV revenues on that game. The TV revenues far surpass revenues at the stadium, from all sources.
Capt G| 2.10.11 @ 9:31PM
The league, not the individual owner, collects the TV revenues and they are paid by the networks irrespective of blackout in the local market.
Joe| 2.10.11 @ 9:31AM
They could get some of the preseason revenues from the missing exhibitions by selling seats and entrance to limited open practice sessions. The fans get to see the new guys work. They can can provide meet and greet opportunities building fan loyalty. They would create great marketing and public outreach events. And, they would be cheap to organize and run. Intra-squad scrimmages would be fun to watch. Over several events, they might even generate similar revenue.
Doctor Right| 2.10.11 @ 9:44AM
Didn't we beat this dead horse yesterday?
Tim the Enchanter| 2.10.11 @ 12:45PM
Must've needed to be beat again...
LarryK| 2.10.11 @ 1:36PM
And then shot!
Eric Damon| 2.10.11 @ 10:09AM
How does this plan address another of the NFLPA's biggest problems with the addition of two regular season games, namely the fact that games are being added but no extra pay is forthcoming. The owners will increase their earnings by adding two games, but they insist that the players should continue to be paid the same as for a sixteen game season; they will get 18 game checks, but the amount will be smaller because their original pay is divided over 18-20 weeks instead of 17.
Also, I believe that Quin misunderstands how the roster process works in the NFL. Many times when a player goes down with an injury, the player taking his roster spot is a practice squad player. These guys don't cost the team any extra money because they are already on the team payroll; their being placed on the active roster on counts as a cap hit, but does not actually cost the owners any extra money. In the cases where a player is signed during the season, usually it is going to be at or near the minimum salary level for that player's experience level, and even then the contract is prorated so that the new player doesn't receive a full year salary, just checks from that point on and a small guaranteed bonus.
If I were a NFL player I wouldn't be keen on a longer season at the same pay either. There's nothing fair about an employer demanding that an employee work extra hours for free.
Tim the Enchanter| 2.10.11 @ 12:49PM
I "love" all this stuff about "work stoppage" and "labor", et. al. These guys are PLAYING a GAME. It's not work, per se. How many times have you ever heard someone say: "Let's go out and work a game of football." It's just one more choice in an already over-saturated entertainment market. Let's call it what it is.
Capt G| 2.10.11 @ 9:38PM
Players "work out" and before they play a game they often say, "let's go to work". Show up for an NFL training camp as a walk-on and get back to us at the lunch break. If you then say what you've been doing all morning doesn't seem an awful lot like work, we'll revisit the matter.
Mark30339| 2.12.11 @ 1:01PM
Funny how players posture about working extra games "for free" when all of them crave the opportunity to extend the season in the playoffs for nearly free. I say add the bye week like Quinn suggests AND add another game; this would be a 17 week season, it removes 2 preseason games and starts the season 2 weeks sooner. Starting only 1 week earlier conflicts with the college start. As for working for "free," give the players a raise equal to the wild-card round bonus. If the union continues to whine about extra playing time, then make a prorata cut in the 60 minute game clock -- make quarters 14 minutes or 13 minutes and have announcers remind viewers that players are too fragile to go the full 15 minutes.
Mark30339| 2.12.11 @ 1:03PM
I meant to say a 17 game season lasting 19 weeks -- thus 2 more weeks of TV broadcasts.
Curly Smith| 2.10.11 @ 10:15AM
If, as you say, the players position on adding two more games is humanely and morally unassailable then we must immediately cancel the league. How can we in good conscience allow the players to place themselves in danger for 16 games? Players can suffer career-ending injuries in the first game, in training camp, and in OTAs. Basic humanity requires that we end their careers before they suffer career-ending injuries.
Derek Leaberry| 2.10.11 @ 11:29AM
Few things could make me happier than see the NFL self-immolate. The players, with a few exceptions, are athletic thugs you wouldn't want your daughters to associate with. The owners, with a few exceptions, are high-ego jerks like Dan Snyder in Washington and Jerry Jones in Dallas. With its slavish devotion to affirmative action and political correctness, the NFL is institutionally left-wing. It isn't Vince Lombardi's or Bart Starr's game any longer.
Capt G| 2.10.11 @ 9:40PM
Sounds a lot like a description of the US Congress. The NFL is far more innocuous.
Oldefarte| 2.10.11 @ 11:54AM
Damn, Quin, you'll be forcing us to buy a Black's Law Dictionary and an NFL Playbook to understand your point next? Let's make it simple: Only one exhibition game, which is free or nominally priced [as with pre-season exhibition baseball games in Florida etc]. Keep the 16 regular season games. Every team gets a BYE AT THE SAME TIME/WEEK during the season [ie no NFL games scheduled]. Eliminate the players' union and have the NFL Commissioner's office regulate legally equitable/fair terms for all teams. Substitute a superior type health insurance policy/contract and long-term disability insurance coverage for each player for part of their excessively exorbatant received salaries. Reduce and structuralize salaries for players. Eliminate bonuses and excessive salaries for drafted rookie players out of college, and instead pay them a minimum type wage for one/mininal years [until demonstrated proof of their athletic talents within the NFL can/should be demonstrated]. Reduce fan taicket prices/cost of game attendance accordingly from these cost savings!!!!!!!!!!!
Capt G| 2.10.11 @ 9:43PM
....moving adeptly from the avocation of slavery into communism.
Oldefarte| 2.11.11 @ 10:27AM
Yeah, right,.....AND THE COW JUMPED OVER THE MOON, WHILE THE DISH RAN AWAY WITH THE SPOON!!!!!!
Shamus| 2.10.11 @ 1:27PM
Go to 17 regular season games but play just two games in the preseason. Work in two bye weeks in the schedule for each team (and try to make it so losing teams get byes at the end of the year). The owners would get more revenue, players would play one less game and have an extra bye week.
Handy| 2.10.11 @ 2:22PM
I simply could not finish the article, although I did read part 1. Everyone has a solution to a non-existent problem. Quin is no exception.
Why make it so complicated? Let me stipulate that there are simply too many teams. 30 going on 31? Nutz. But, even with 31, each team could play all other teams once every two years. 15 regular season games.
How about this, though? Split the leagues in half; East vs. West, or North vs. South. It makes no sense that we have four divisions, or that the Packers play two games per season against the Bears. Once is enough. More on the line for that single game, eh? Fan enthusiasm anyone?
Post Season: Let the first place teams play off against the runners-up. One game to see who meets the other league's winner. Then, Super Bowl time.
And maybe, just maybe, we could all get over this most boring of sports a little earlier. I mean, 8 minutes of action for an hour on the clock? C'mon.
Capt G| 2.10.11 @ 10:01PM
Lack of knowledge being no apparent impediment to comment, the writer should note that there have been 32 teams, since 2002, and divisional rivalries such as Packers-Bears are the most popular, and most viewed, games.
Enjoy your soccer match undisturbed by the fact that the rest of America is watching football.
Oldefarte| 2.11.11 @ 10:30AM
Asinine comments regarding 'slavery' and 'communism' is KNOWLEDGE????????
Mike Giles| 2.10.11 @ 2:25PM
This is a labor negotiation.
Management starts out asking for something, and the Union says: "this is beyond the pale, it's nothing more than slave labor", etc., etc.
The Union asks for something and Management says: "no way we can afford this, it will put us all in the poor house", etc., etc.
And then they meet somewhere in the middle - which is what both sides wanted in the first place - they shake hands and then go back to their respective membership, and tell them how they fought, bled, and died for this victory.
And both sides are cheering.
Handy| 2.10.11 @ 5:58PM
You are correct, of course, but fans are left wanting. There is no team loyalty on the part of players any longer. As many as half the starting line-ups can be made up of free agents year-to-year. And, just how many of the players actually live in their teams' hometowns?
I remember the last strike in 1987. The interim games were a lot more interesting; and that year inspired a great movie, "The Replacements."
It would be super if the pampered stars sat out a whole season only to watch UPS delivery guys and maintenance men take their places. As I recall, there was even a convict that played in '87. Oh wait. Lots of the regulars are convicts, too. LOL.
Much ado about nothing.
Capt G| 2.10.11 @ 10:08PM
There has never been team loyalty to the player; free agency just made it a two-way street. Out of a 45 man roster, even a team desperate for improvement will have at most 2-3 free agents on it. Many, if not most, players do live in the hometown of the team, even Green Bay.
Your memories of the 1987 season are unique to you.
Another non-fan post unencumbered by an acquaintance with the facts.
Oldefarte| 2.11.11 @ 10:34AM
We obviously see you every Sunday on TV wearing some ludicrous home team outfit symbolic of your desire for socialization!!!!!!!!!
Capt G| 2.11.11 @ 8:10PM
Ask your nurse attendant to change the channel.
Larry| 2.11.11 @ 5:01AM
Quin, I think two preseason games are enough for a team to evaluate talent, along with the May mini-camps and July/August training camp. I also think that while the two bye system might work, they will have to start the season earlier, like in late August. I'm frankly tired of having to watch the Super Bowl in February. And being from the Dallas/Fort Worth area, I can tell you the risks of unpleasant weather increase that time of year. February, even with a domed stadium, anywhere but Southern California or South Florida, is a dice roll for field sporting events.
bee free| 2.13.11 @ 1:11AM
---Keep a sittin' ---keep a watchin' THE GAME
---Sterillity ---Nachos and TREASON---
---JUST KEEP A SITTIN' ----KEEP A WATCHIN'! ---KEEP A GOIN'!
Flagstaff| 2.14.11 @ 12:44PM
Have there been any studies that indicate there are more serious/game-missing injuries in the final two weeks of the season than there are in the first two weeks? It seems that there are more injuries at the season's end, but is it true? If not, maybe the season could be longer (more games).
I does seem that games have sloppier play in December, but not the playoffs in January. Does this mean the season already has too many games, or just that teams with no reasonable chance to win it all don't play very well once they realize that?
I like Quin's idea for scheduling 16 games over 18 weeks. Now if he could just do something for the team that plays one Sunday and then has to play the next Sunday against a team that's been resting since the previous Thursday.
Reebok | 8.11.11 @ 3:56AM
is good
العاب | 4.11.12 @ 4:31PM
I simply could not finish the article, although I did read part 1. Everyone has a solution to a non-existent problem. Quin is no exception.