John Clayton: 18-game season off the table.

[Stautner]

It is an additional $1 billion in revenue, which is what we are discussing. Obviously it's not an additional $1 billion in profits and no one is saying it is. But adding $1 billion in net revenue is a good chance to "expand the pie" - i.e. everyone involved will be making more money.
I couldn't find the quote you are referencing so please restate it. Right now the owners are clearly planning on moving to 18 games, but I haven't seen any evidence they are seriously planning on expanding it even further.

Sorry, I quoted from another thread and it didn't only ended up printing the link. Look at post 160 and click to see the full quote I was responding to.

It doesn't tell us that more than 18 games is an immediate concern, but it tells us that they are thinking beyond that - he specically mentions the being able to go to 22 games.

As for the $1 billion, yeahh, I understand it was revenue you were talking about, but revenue isn't tell you haow much money you are making. $1 Billion sounds great, but if after giving the players $600 million, and paying expenses they only have $300 million left to split between 32 teams and the NFL, the teams are left each making about as much as it takes to pay their star QB each year (less if it's Manning or Brady). Then, factor in additional injuries, and maybe paying expanded rosters and bigger salaries to existing players ........ it shrinks pretty fast.

Of course, I don't know all the numbers, and the $1 billion in revenue may not acocunt for things like additional merchandise sales and maybe a hodgepodge of other things, but you can see that the added revenue to each team isn't nearly as impressive as just throwing out the figure of $1 billion in revenue for the league.

 

[Nightman]

Sorry, I quoted from another thread and it didn't only ended up printing the link. Look at post 160 and click to see the full quote I was responding to.

It doesn't tell us that more than 18 games is an immediate concern, but it tells us that they are thinking beyond that - he specically mentions the being able to go to 22 games.

As for the $1 billion, yeahh, I understand it was revenue you were talking about, but revenue isn't tell you haow much money you are making. $1 Billion sounds great, but if after giving the players $600 million, and paying expenses they only have $300 million left to split between 32 teams and the NFL, the teams are left each making about as much as it takes to pay their star QB each year (less if it's Manning or Brady). Then, factor in additional injuries, and maybe paying expanded rosters and bigger salaries to existing players ........ it shrinks pretty fast.

Of course, I don't know all the numbers, and the $1 billion in revenue may not acocunt for things like additional merchandise sales and maybe a hodgepodge of other things, but you can see that the added revenue to each team isn't nearly as impressive as just throwing out the figure of $1 billion in revenue for the league.

I don't buy the additional $1 billion in revenue. All they are doing is making 2 preseason games into regular season games. Those pre-season games are already sold-out at most stadiums, so there is no increase in ticket sales, parking or concessions. The money would come from the TV deals, but again they already pay for 17 weeks(plus the pre-season and playoffs), so an increase to 19 or 20 would be a 10% increase at best, but only on the TV money, not the $9 billion in total revenue. After paying the players' 60%, it's not a whole lot left to divide 32 ways.

 

[Rogah]

Sorry, I quoted from another thread and it didn't only ended up printing the link. Look at post 160 and click to see the full quote I was responding to.

It doesn't tell us that more than 18 games is an immediate concern, but it tells us that they are thinking beyond that - he specically mentions the being able to go to 22 games.

OK thanks for the clarification. I see the quote you are referring to, one I have seen before, and I think the writer of the article completely misunderstood the point Jones was making.

Jones was not saying he wants to go to 22 regular season games. What he was saying is that the old CBA (meaning the one currently expiring) already provided ownership with the permission to expand the season to 22 games, meaning 4 preseason and 18 regular season. Yes, I wrote that correctly: Under the terms of the old CBA, the owners already had the authority to make this change. So that is what Jones means when he says a 22 game season is something "we've already had the ability to do without anybody's approval."

As for the $1 billion, yeahh, I understand it was revenue you were talking about, but revenue isn't tell you haow much money you are making. $1 Billion sounds great, but if after giving the players $600 million, and paying expenses they only have $300 million left to split between 32 teams and the NFL, the teams are left each making about as much as it takes to pay their star QB each year (less if it's Manning or Brady). Then, factor in additional injuries, and maybe paying expanded rosters and bigger salaries to existing players ........ it shrinks pretty fast.

Well it's not quite $600 million since the players aren't getting 60%. It's closer to 56% and that number is certainly subject to change in the new CBA. But let's assume it is $560 million for the players. That number remains the same whether or not rosters contract, expand or stay the same and it stays the same no matter how big of a raise Tom Brady and Peyton Manning get. Obviously we're looking at rosters expanding but no matter how much they expand by, the collective players' salaries still increases by only $560 million.

Of course, I don't know all the numbers, and the $1 billion in revenue may not acocunt for things like additional merchandise sales and maybe a hodgepodge of other things, but you can see that the added revenue to each team isn't nearly as impressive as just throwing out the figure of $1 billion in revenue for the league.

The league's annual revenue came in at around $9 billion last year. Upping that by $1 billion would be a HUGE increase.

 

[Stautner]

OK thanks for the clarification. I see the quote you are referring to, one I have seen before, and I think the writer of the article completely misunderstood the point Jones was making.

Jones was not saying he wants to go to 22 regular season games. What he was saying is that the old CBA (meaning the one currently expiring) already provided ownership with the permission to expand the season to 22 games, meaning 4 preseason and 18 regular season. Yes, I wrote that correctly: Under the terms of the old CBA, the owners already had the authority to make this change. So that is what Jones means when he says a 22 game season is something "we've already had the ability to do without anybody's approval."
Well it's not quite $600 million since the players aren't getting 60%. It's closer to 56% and that number is certainly subject to change in the new CBA. But let's assume it is $560 million for the players. That number remains the same whether or not rosters contract, expand or stay the same and it stays the same no matter how big of a raise Tom Brady and Peyton Manning get. Obviously we're looking at rosters expanding but no matter how much they expand by, the collective players' salaries still increases by only $560 million.
The league's annual revenue came in at around $9 billion last year. Upping that by $1 billion would be a HUGE increase.

I agree Jones wasn't specifically saying that he wants to go to 22 games, but I think it is a pretty fair indicator that expansion beyond 18 games is in their minds.

As for the $1 billion, your point is well taken about the 56% as opposed to 60% (I thought I had heard 60% before, but I could be wrong), but that isn't all that is factred in. The owners still have other costs associated with playing more games - I couldn't begin to place a number that, but it's not small I'm sure.

Even so, lets say after all is said and done there is $400 million left. Divided between 32 teams that's $12.5 million apiece. Of course, the NFL itself will take some share of that as well. Bottom line is that something in the neighborhood of $10 million isn't something to sneeze at, but it's not the kind of money some probably imagine the teams would make.

I'll just say this: if we do end up going to 18 games, that in itself wont give me a lot of heartburn, and if the NFL truly does stick with that over the long haul it probably wont be a big problem. I just have my doubts that the NFL is looking at it that way, and I feel pretty strongly that the NFL and the owners have more in mind.

 

[Nightman]

The NFL receives around $3.7 billion/yr from the TV deals(including Direct TV). Those deals run through the 2013 season. Most of the increase came from ESPN doubling the payment for Monday Night Football from $550 million/yr to just over a $1 billion/yr. They already claim to lose money on the deal, so how high can they go?

 

[Doomsday101]

The NFL receives around $3.7 billion/yr from the TV deals(including Direct TV). Those deals run through the 2013 season. Most of the increase came from ESPN doubling the payment for Monday Night Football from $550 million/yr to just over a $1 billion/yr. They already claim to lose money on the deal, so how high can they go?

That will be the next battle when the TV contracts come due.

 

[tyke1doe]

]It would be hard to argue that most of these are "compelling reasons".[/b] Suupporting Las Vegas, giving more jobs to marginal players, and raising ticket prices fans have to pay certainly don't qualify. I don't think adding drama applies - the last few weeks have the same dramatic affect whether in an 18 or 16 game season, meanwhile the early to middle of the season will actually have less drama because each loss or win isn't going to have as much of an effect on the season since it only affects 1/18 of the season rather than 1/16.

Can't the reverse be asked also? What is the "compelling reason" to keep the schedule at 16 games? It seems to work both ways.

 

[Stautner]

Can't the reverse be asked also? What is the "compelling reason" to keep the schedule at 16 games? It seems to work both ways.

The 16 game schedule works. You don't need any more of a compelling reason to stick with a successful business model than that. On the other hand, you should never stray from a successful business model unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

 

[Rogah]

I agree Jones wasn't specifically saying that he wants to go to 22 games, but I think it is a pretty fair indicator that expansion beyond 18 games is in their minds.

I disagree, because when he said 22 games, he meant 4 exhibition plus 18 regular.

As for the $1 billion, your point is well taken about the 56% as opposed to 60% (I thought I had heard 60% before, but I could be wrong), but that isn't all that is factred in. The owners still have other costs associated with playing more games - I couldn't begin to place a number that, but it's not small I'm sure.

Yes, obviously, there would be other expenses, but they would be miniscule compared to the dollar figures we're talking about. Paying all those parking attendants $12/hour is just not a significant expense.

Even so, lets say after all is said and done there is $400 million left. Divided between 32 teams that's $12.5 million apiece. Of course, the NFL itself will take some share of that as well. Bottom line is that something in the neighborhood of $10 million isn't something to sneeze at, but it's not the kind of money some probably imagine the teams would make.

Actually, that's pretty much the same neighborhood I had in mind. After all was said and done, it would be about $10 million profit per team. And that's a lot of money. Again, using Green Bay as a reference, that would double their profits from 2010.

I'll just say this: if we do end up going to 18 games, that in itself wont give me a lot of heartburn, and if the NFL truly does stick with that over the long haul it probably wont be a big problem. I just have my doubts that the NFL is looking at it that way, and I feel pretty strongly that the NFL and the owners have more in mind.

Well, I am not worried about that since it would be several decades in the future.

 

[Rogah]

The NFL receives around $3.7 billion/yr from the TV deals(including Direct TV). Those deals run through the 2013 season. Most of the increase came from ESPN doubling the payment for Monday Night Football from $550 million/yr to just over a $1 billion/yr. They already claim to lose money on the deal, so how high can they go?

I believe all the networks claim they lose money on their deals. So why do they all love the NFL so much? Because broadcasting the NFL brings tremendous ancillary benefits; in other words, the network's other programming does better.

CBS was a top network through the 80's. Then they lost the NFL to FOX and fell to the bottom. Then they took the NFL away from NBC and rose to the top again while NBC sank to the bottom.

 

[Rogah]

The 16 game schedule works. You don't need any more of a compelling reason to stick with a successful business model than that. On the other hand, you should never stray from a successful business model unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

In the business world, increased profits are always considered a compelling reason. You don't see Apple or Microsoft or McDonald's saying "well, we're making enough money... let's stand pat with what we have..."

 

[Stautner]

In the business world, increased profits are always considered a compelling reason. You don't see Apple or Microsoft or McDonald's saying "well, we're making enough money... let's stand pat with what we have..."

But, again, if it is based on a short sighted viewpoint without due regard for what kind of potentially dmaging path it is starting the league down, then then added short term profits really aren't so compelling.

that apparently is the point you are missing.

As for Apple or micorsoft, they are in a highly competative industry that is changing all the time and new advancements and products are an absolute requirement. The NFL, on the other hand, is essentially a monopoly that doesn't have to change to keep the consumer from taking it's business to a competitor. Not exactly the same thing, is it?

In addition, the public wont keep buying Ipod after Ipod after Ipod - as more people get an ipod they wont need another one. Multiple products are a necessary part of their business. The NFL only has one product to sell, and if they screw up that one product they have nothing left to fall back on.

 

[BrassCowboy]

If youre really that jealous then take your time and money and donate it to firemen and police officers

does this even make sense? where do you get that from what I said?

 

[Rogah]

But, again, if it is based on a short sighted viewpoint without due regard for what kind of potentially dmaging path it is starting the league down, then then added short term profits really aren't so compelling.

that apparently is the point you are missing.

And you apparently are missing the parts where I write that 18 games isn't going to represent any sort of tipping point where the product suffers noticeably. On that point, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As for Apple or micorsoft, they are in a highly competative industry that is changing all the time and new advancements and products are an absolute requirement. The NFL, on the other hand, is essentially a monopoly that doesn't have to change to keep the consumer from taking it's business to a competitor. Not exactly the same thing, is it?

Actually they are very much similar things. The NFL doesn't have any other football leagues that they are competing with, but they are most certainly competing with other outlets in the entertainment industry. People are perfectly free to spend their free time and disposable income elsewhere.

There was a time when baseball fans had the same "we're untouchable" attitude that you have, but their sport was too slow in adapting to changing times. The NFL has become the most successful pro sports league because of how much they have adapted over the past 50 years or so. The NFL is constantly changing their rules, moving things here, tweaking things there to improve the product. Your attitude that they are not in a competitive industry shows a lack of understanding simple economics. The entertainment industry is very competitive.

In addition, the public wont keep buying Ipod after Ipod after Ipod - as more people get an ipod they wont need another one. Multiple products are a necessary part of their business. The NFL only has one product to sell, and if they screw up that one product they have nothing left to fall back on.

People don't buy iPod after iPod? You're joking right?

 

[tyke1doe]

The 16 game schedule works. You don't need any more of a compelling reason to stick with a successful business model than that. On the other hand, you should never stray from a successful business model unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

I disagree. McDonald's is a successful franchise and has a successful business model. It is always testing the waters with new products and innovative marketing strategies.

In business, status quo means stale. The same arguments for holding the season at 14 games could have been said in opposing a 16-game season. The league was playing six preseason games during a 14-game season. The league merely converted two preseason games to regular season games. There wasn't a compelling reason to do that was there?

I don't see any different in this case. Besides, making games more meaningful may not be a "compelling" reason (however we're defining that), but it is a valid one. I'd rather see more games that matter personally.

 

[tyke1doe]

But, again, if it is based on a short sighted viewpoint without due regard for what kind of potentially dmaging path it is starting the league down, then then added short term profits really aren't so compelling.

What damaging path is it starting the league down?

I keep hearing that it will lead to more injuries, but where is the data examining teams that play more than 20 games a season and their injury rates?

I keep hearing that it will dilute the talent, but the NFL has added teams throughout its history and yet the popularity of the NFL has not only increased but the league still produces dominant teams, see the 80s Niners, 90s Cowboys, the 2000 Patriots.

As for Apple or micorsoft, they are in a highly competative industry that is changing all the time and new advancements and products are an absolute requirement. The NFL, on the other hand, is essentially a monopoly that doesn't have to change to keep the consumer from taking it's business to a competitor. Not exactly the same thing, is it?

What about McDonald's? What innovative, competitive changes are occurring in the fast-food industry that necessitates McDonald's offering new products and increasing its advertisement?

Second, the NFL may not have another league it competes with, but it does have other entertainment and sports leagues it competes with.

Third, if we took your "monopoly" argument to its conclusion, why would the league need to move the draft to prime time? Why seek a "Sunday Night Football" contract with NBC? Why open the season on Thursday Night?
The league does so because it's trying to market itself and reach a wider audience and a younger audience. Monopolies don't have to do this. They exist based on necessity. Before divestiture, AT&T didn't need to market itself because it owned the phone franchise. If you wanted phone service, you had to go through AT&T. Since divestiture, phone companies have had to advertise and market themselves to compete not only against other land-line companies but cell phone companies too.

In addition, the public wont keep buying Ipod after Ipod after Ipod - as more people get an ipod they wont need another one. Multiple products are a necessary part of their business. The NFL only has one product to sell, and if they screw up that one product they have nothing left to fall back on.

But you need to sell football for all the other non-football fans or kids being raised to be interested in other sports such as soccer and lacrosse and other non-traditional sports. When you and I were growing up, we had the three major sports. But with ESPN and satellite television, the younger generation is getting exposed to other sports entertainment.

The NFL simply cannot rest on its laurels, assuming our generation's passion for football will be the next's generation's passion for football. It must continue to improve itself, and the best way of marketing a product is to make it more available for consumption.

Increasing the games from 16 to 18 does just that.

 

[Stautner]

What damaging path is it starting the league down?

I keep hearing that it will lead to more injuries, but where is the data examining teams that play more than 20 games a season and their injury rates?

I keep hearing that it will dilute the talent, but the NFL has added teams throughout its history and yet the popularity of the NFL has not only increased but the league still produces dominant teams, see the 80s Niners, 90s Cowboys, the 2000 Patriots.



What about McDonald's? What innovative, competitive changes are occurring in the fast-food industry that necessitates McDonald's offering new products and increasing its advertisement?

Second, the NFL may not have another league it competes with, but it does have other entertainment and sports leagues it competes with.

Third, if we took your "monopoly" argument to its conclusion, why would the league need to move the draft to prime time? Why seek a "Sunday Night Football" contract with NBC? Why open the season on Thursday Night?
The league does so because it's trying to market itself and reach a wider audience and a younger audience. Monopolies don't have to do this. They exist based on necessity. Before divestiture, AT&T didn't need to market itself because it owned the phone franchise. If you wanted phone service, you had to go through AT&T. Since divestiture, phone companies have had to advertise and market themselves to compete not only against other land-line companies but cell phone companies too.



But you need to sell football for all the other non-football fans or kids being raised to be interested in other sports such as soccer and lacrosse and other non-traditional sports. When you and I were growing up, we had the three major sports. But with ESPN and satellite television, the younger generation is getting exposed to other sports entertainment.

The NFL simply cannot rest on its laurels, assuming our generation's passion for football will be the next's generation's passion for football. It must continue to improve itself, and the best way of marketing a product is to make it more available for consumption.

Increasing the games from 16 to 18 does just that.

I'm not talking about injury "rates", I'm talking about more gross injuries. Any injury sustained in games 17 and 18 are injuries that would not have occurred had the season stopped at game 16. In addition, any injuries in those games that occur with playoff teams will mean that many more important players teams will have to go into the playoffs without. If the league were hurting, then I coud understand taking chances, even if it adds risk to the players health, because without a viable product the players wont even have a job, but with the NFL doing well I don't see that path as a good choice.

Now, I should address an apparent misconception many seem to have with what I am saying. I am not saying the league should stagnate, and the league is not stagnating with a 16 game schedule. They have added the NFL Channel. They have turned the draft into a bigtime TV event (as you mentioned), and they have added Thursday games to reach more viewers (as you also mentioned). They have made deals with every major department store to sell their merchandise, and have sponsorship deals with car companies, soda companies, beer companies and companies in all sorts of other industires. It's not as if by staying at 16 games the NFL has to stand still and watch it's product stagnate. It isn't doing that, and it should not do that, yet apparently that's what many think I am saying.

Also, remember, I'm not saying 18 games is going to do major harm the the NFL. I'm just saying that it is starting down a path that can lead to that. If we were to go to 18 games and that was the last we heard about expansion for another 15+ years, then it probably is no big thing. I just don't think the owners are thinking that way. I think they are looking for more and more, and are going to push more and more. It's a different era than when expansion occurred in the 1970's - mass media and access to the public is greater, and people have dramatically more disposable income. I think the owners want to tap into that more and more and more, and I don't think it's the right path to go down.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'm not talking about injury "rates", I'm talking about more gross injuries. Any injury sustained in games 17 and 18 are injuries that would not have occurred had the season stopped at game 16. In addition, any injuries in those games that occur with playoff teams will mean that many more important players teams will have to go into the playoffs without.

So you're talking hypotheticals?

Second, is there any data involving injuries to players in games 17 and 18 (playoff games)? If not, what is there to support your hypothetical?

Third, if player injury is a big concern, then if a team is out of the playoffs, a coach can simply put in other players to evaluate the talent on his roster.

Fourth, it's not like playoff teams don't sit their starters after they've clinched the division or a bye or a playoff game. They're getting the necessary rest.

I don't see the data to support why the league shouldn't move to 18 games.

Now, I should address an apparent misconception many seem to have with what I am saying. I am not saying the league should stagnate, and the league is not stagnating with a 16 game schedule. They have added the NFL Channel. They have turned the draft into a bigtime TV event (as you mentioned), and they have added Thursday games to reach more viewers (as you also mentioned). They have made deals with every major department store to sell their merchandise, and have sponsorship deals with car companies, soda companies, beer companies and companies in all sorts of other industires. It's not as if by staying at 16 games the NFL has to stand still and watch it's product stagnate. It isn't doing that, and it should not do that, yet apparently that's what many think I am saying.

Fair enough.

Also, remember, I'm not saying 18 games is going to do major harm the the NFL. I'm just saying that it is starting down a path that can lead to that. If we were to go to 18 games and that was the last we heard about expansion for another 15+ years, then it probably is no big thing. I just don't think the owners are thinking that way. I think they are looking for more and more, and are going to push more and more. It's a different era than when expansion occurred in the 1970's - mass media and access to the public is greater, and people have dramatically more disposable income. I think the owners want to tap into that more and more and more, and I don't think it's the right path to go down.

I'm okay with your reasoning. I'm not saying injuries couldn't occur, I just don't see the data to support it. I could be wrong. Of course, I'm also selfish and would like to see more meaningful games than more preseason games.

I also would like to see an expanded roster and more guys get chances at their dream of playing in the NFL.

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Stautner]

So you're talking hypotheticals?

Second, is there any data involving injuries to players in games 17 and 18 (playoff games)? If not, what is there to support your hypothetical?

Third, if player injury is a big concern, then if a team is out of the playoffs, a coach can simply put in other players to evaluate the talent on his roster.

Fourth, it's not like playoff teams don't sit their starters after they've clinched the division or a bye or a playoff game. They're getting the necessary rest.

I don't see the data to support why the league shouldn't move to 18 games.



Fair enough.



I'm okay with your reasoning. I'm not saying injuries couldn't occur, I just don't see the data to support it. I could be wrong. Of course, I'm also selfish and would like to see more meaningful games than more preseason games.

I also would like to see an expanded roster and more guys get chances at their dream of playing in the NFL.

But that's just my opinion.

Hypotheticals? When has there EVER been 2 weeks of NFL play where there haven't been injuries? There are multiple injuries EVERY SINGLE WEEK in the NFL. Surely you wouldn't suggest that games 17 and 18 would be different?

If there have been injuries in the NFL every week for the last 30 years, it really isn't much of a stretch to say there will be injuries in games 17 and 18 too?

Use a little logic. There can't be data to support how many additional injuries there would be from games 17 and 18, because so far ther have been no games 17 and 18 to get data from. Right? But there are injuries in games 15 and 16 every year - so more injuries than if we had stopped at week 14. Every year - no exception. In fact, there are injuries in every 2 week period of games - again, no exception. Is it really that hard to come to the conclusinog there will be injuries in the added 2 week period of games as well? At what point does that need to reach a limit?

Now, before you take the tack of saying that if injuries are such a concern why not shorten the season to 14 games or 12 or whatever, I have repeatedly said that enough games have to be played to make the regular season meaningful, and on top of that all the money and contracts and everything else is based on 16 games, so you can't really go back anyway. Plus there are more teams in the NFL than when we had 12 and 14 game seasons - everyone needs to play a broader schedule than they did 35 years ago. I'm just saying that there is a point where the NFL is going to create problems if they push things too much - again, maybe 18 games isn't that point, but it's a step toward it.

 

[tyke1doe]

Two points I want to address.

Hypotheticals? When has there EVER been 2 weeks of NFL play where there haven't been injuries? There are multiple injuries EVERY SINGLE WEEK in the NFL. Surely you wouldn't suggest that games 17 and 18 would be different?

That's just it. Injuries are a part of the NFL. So the question then becomes what is so significant about injuries in week 17 and 18 that would support an argument against adding two more regular season games, especially if injuries are par for the course?

The injuries aren't happening merely because you add two more regular season games. The injuries are a part of a violent sport.

If there have been injuries in the NFL every week for the last 30 years, it really isn't much of a stretch to say there will be injuries in games 17 and 18 too?

Of course, you understand the reverse logic here? You're arguing that the league shouldn't add two regular season games because of the injury factor. You also argue that injuries happen in every week of the season. So why not REDUCE games if you're so worried about injuries?

IMO, you just argued yourself out of not only a 17, 18 game season but also a 16 or 14 game season. Of course, if there's no difference, then why not add two more regular season games.

Use a little logic. There can't be data to support how many additional injuries there would be from games 17 and 18, because so far ther have been no games 17 and 18 to get data from. Right?

Wrong. The Cowboys routine played more than 18 games in the 90s. So did the Bills. So did the Patriots 2000. So did the Steelers 2000. So did the Colts in 2000. So did the Niners in the 80s. So did the Cowboys and Steelers in the 70s/80s.

One could look at those squads and study the injury rate on those teams to determine whether, indeed, adding additional games result in more injuries. Whether that study has been done, I don't know.