Very quick thoughts on the NFL labor dispute and what might be ahead...
1. The long-awaited March 4 deadline is here, and we now have a 24-hour extension under which both sides get a chance to regroup after what was reported as progress Thursday. Was there actual progress, enough to think we may avoid a lockout? Only the folks in the room actually know as neither side is saying much and there have been signs this week that a lockout of some sorts is just fine with the ownership side. We know both sides have plenty to lose as the league has never been more popular or profitable. That, of course, is the problem, too. There are billions to be divided.
2. Billions. That's the NFL, in the news 364 days a year and obviously making plenty of trips to the bank, too. It's thriving, and the owners voted to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement because they want their share of the billions to be bigger. The TV money is streaming in, and all these new stadiums need to be newer and fresher to compete with their rivals. Understandable. A rookie wage scale -- putting the brakes on grossly overpaying high draft picks long before they ever play a single down -- is also on the slate and is overdue.
3. Here's the sticking point, and here's where I side with the players. The owners want to go to an 18-game regular season schedule. They see dollar signs, obviously, and players see a season that's already plenty long. I agree. It's a brutally violent game, and injuries not only affect every team every season, but they cut guys' careers (and lives, in some cases) short. Having worked for the Browns for nearly a decade as I did, I've seen the locker rooms and plane rides on Sunday evenings. I've seen what guys go through to get themselves ready for Sunday, every Sunday for months. Yes, they're well compensated and, yes, they know what they're signing up for. But 16 games, to me, is a case of it-ain't-broke-so-let's-not-fix-it.
4. Another side of the 18 games argument: You've seen the Browns on Christmas Eve, right? Getting smacked around by the Steelers? That "instant classic" between three-win teams with Tampa Bay a few years back, the one in which Daven Holly danced in the endzone down by four touchdowns? You really want two more games of that? The Browns don't want that. Fans already paying top dollar to freeze their butts off don't want that. You've seen the NFC West, right? You want a division title game between 7-10 teams? You want backup quarterbacks making the playoffs? The preseason is broken and needs fixing, and that's a terrible, terrible product. There might be some resolution and middle ground there, but the NFL has a pretty good model of starting the weekend after Labor Day and rolling through January. Sixteen is more than enough for the players' bodies and health, and it's more than enough for the health of a season in which every game means something.
5. In an 18-game model, roster sizes would likely be expanded and the league would present a case for increased player safety measures and other steps that, on the surface, would seem to be made with keeping guys fresh and available for the really big ones. An extra bye week and a couple extra gameday active players seems nice, but these defensive ends aren't getting any slower or weaker. The collisions are still going to be nasty. The push for roster spots is still going to include guys throwing themselves into harm's way. And these well-paid, uber-competitive head coaches are still going to try to win every game; they have to if they want to keep their jobs. And every coach in NFL history besides Eric Mangini knows that the best way to win those games is to have the best -- the fastest, the strongest, the meanest -- players on the field for as many plays as possible.
We'll stay tuned to every bit of this -- we always do with the NFL -- but only time will tell how this thing gets resolved.
