Could This Be What Goodell Really Wants? Part II - The Quickening

[mayoclinic]

Back when the replacement ref saga was at it's height, I posted the following thread:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england.../948976-could-what-goodell-really-wants.html

It was part tongue-in cheek, but clearly the NFL was willing to sacrifice game quality and possibly player safety for a power struggle with the refs and revenue.

Now we've finished Wild Card weekend, with the 16 game season having drawn to an agoniing but exciting close in which we've seen some of the following:

- The Ravens nearly collapse due to injuries, but pull themselves together and make the final 8
- Minnesota thrillingly upset Green Bay to make the playoffs with Adrian Peterson almost breaking Eric ****erson's rushing record, only to go out with a whimper against the same Green Bay team a week later with a backup QB starting
- Robert Griffen III lead Washington past Dallas into the playoffs, while clearly not at full strength, and then collapse injured against Seattle the following week playing on a gimpy leg, with what looks like a serious leg injury.
- 3 very boring playoff games featuring at least 3 teams that didn't look particularly playoff-worthy

Meanwhile the Commish continues to foster grandiose ideas of further expanding the season and further expanding the pool of playoff times, thus increasing the attrition that occurs during the regular season and/or diluting the quality of playoff games, all the while increasing the likelihood of injuries. All because it adds games and increases revenues, while keeping costs relatively flat.

The NFL season has already become as much about who is the most adept at band-aiding their roster together as who is the most adept at building a roster in the first place.

Would playing 2 more games really have added anything to the NFL season other than to utterly beat the crap out of teams that are already pulverized? Would adding 2 or more teams to the playoffs add any quality games, and do anything other than continuing to wear down teams that are already exhausted?

Do the Commisioner and owners really give a damn about player safety unless it costs them revenue?

Feeling kind of cynical today.

 

[manxman2601]

Not sure what the controversy is. A business tries to improve revenue without seriously impacting costs is hardly a shocker. In fact, they'd be dumb not too. As for the millionaire players, my heart bleeds that they have to do two extra weeks work a year.

I too am feeling cynical.

 

[Deus Irae]

Both the Packers and the Patriots took it in the shorts over the replacement officials. The Patriots would have had the #1 seed, and the Packers would have had a bye.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

It's 100% clear we do not need to expand either the length of the season or the number of teams making the playoffs.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's 100% clear we do not need to expand either the length of the season or the number of teams making the playoffs.

The quality of play would probably be improved by going back to a shorter schedule with fewer playoff teams, but that's not going to happen.

 

[Ivan]

Expanding either is a bad idea. They are in great shape they don't need to do either and will hurt the product if they do.

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Not sure what the controversy is. A business tries to improve revenue without seriously impacting costs is hardly a shocker. In fact, they'd be dumb not too. As for the millionaire players, my heart bleeds that they have to do two extra weeks work a year.

I too am feeling cynical.

If you really want to feel cynical you should look into how many of the "millionaire" players are actually millionaires. Most of those guys are thousand-aires, but not in the eyes of jealous fans.

I fail to understand how making a certain amount of money means that their safety is less important than someone making less.

 

[manxman2601]

If you really want to feel cynical you should look into how many of the "millionaire" players are actually millionaires. Most of those guys are thousand-aires, but not in the eyes of jealous fans.

I fail to understand how making a certain amount of money means that their safety is less important than someone making less.

I'm fully aware of the pay structure. The "millionaire" comment was a flippant one made deliberately. As for being "jealous", if you knew my politics, then you'd know that that's a long way from the truth.

But this talk about the safety of the players is ridiculous. They get compensated significantly for doing something voluntarily. It's up to them to decide the right balance between risk and reward. If the league or the Players Union want to address player safety, then that's fine but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it because all the parties involved are voluntary and know the risks going in.

 

[Patsrock]

I think people always forget this when it comes to adding games, playoff teams etc. That Goodell just can't do it, he needs 24 owners to approve changes.

 

[Deus Irae]

If you really want to feel cynical you should look into how many of the "millionaire" players are actually millionaires. Most of those guys are thousand-aires, but not in the eyes of jealous fans.

I fail to understand how making a certain amount of money means that their safety is less important than someone making less.

He's trolling today.

 

[manxman2601]

He's trolling today.

LOL. Just because you aren't intelligent enough to understand the points I'm making does not make it "trolling". Find me one post where I am:

One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.

or

A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread.

 

[NSPF]

I have to agree. Honestly all four of the games this weekend were garbage, and had predictable outcomes. I'm not just saying that by hindsight either, I was 4-0 picking winners on nfl.com this week! The Vikings had no chance without Ponder, the Bengals are garbage, the Colts were extremely overrated garbage (Luck for ROTY with one of the worst passer ratings in the NFL? Really?). Washington's defense is garbage, and their offense relied too much on gimmicks and big plays. The only interesting thing that really happened this weekend was that Clemons got hurt for Seattle. Speaking of which, I felt like injuries were the only thing I had to root for... I was hoping maybe JJ Watt would get some sort of injury that prevented him from lifting his arms above his head...

 

[crew1954]

I'd be for going back to the original wildcard system: 3 divisions in each conference, with the winners and 1 wildcard with the best record filing out the field.

We would be where we are now without this past weekends trash games.

 

[lamafist]

I'm fully aware of the pay structure. The "millionaire" comment was a flippant one made deliberately. As for being "jealous", if you knew my politics, then you'd know that that's a long way from the truth.

But this talk about the safety of the players is ridiculous. They get compensated significantly for doing something voluntarily. It's up to them to decide the right balance between risk and reward. If the league or the Players Union want to address player safety, then that's fine but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it because all the parties involved are voluntary and know the risks going in.

That may be your moral philosophy, but it's not how things work in this country, not since the turn of the century, at least. Employers cannot purchase their labor's right to a safe workplace at any price. The right is unwaivable, whether by union or individual.

The onus is entirely on the employers, so it's actually up to the owners consider the risk-reward balance of voluntarily entering into the business of football, where worker safety concerns will affect the bottom line.

 

[manxman2601]

That may be your moral philosophy, but it's not how things work in this country, not since the turn of the century, at least. Employers cannot purchase their labor's right to a safe workplace at any price. The right is unwaivable, whether by union or individual.

The onus is entirely on the employers, so it's actually up to the owners consider the risk-reward balance of voluntarily entering into the business of football, where worker safety concerns will affect the bottom line.

Good post but I respectfully disagree. If I decide that working down a coal mine is too dangerous for me. Or if I decide that joining the military has too high a chance of death for my liking, then I can choose not to go into either industry. There's nothing forcing me in to either. The same applies to NFL players.

 

[UK_Pat37]

Both the Packers and the Patriots took it in the shorts over the replacement officials. The Patriots would have had the #1 seed, and the Packers would have had a bye.

If Gostkowksi hits a routine kick, we're the #1 seed. Go figure

 

[lamafist]

Anyway, even without getting into the players' best interests, I think it's pretty clear that expanding either the regular season or playoffs would be bad for the NFL's product.

At present, I think the NFL has a pretty good balance between having a long enough season to be a satisfying investment of our attention, while not being so long that too many playoff contenders enter as shells of the teams they were when they earned their post-season berth.

A team's injury luck is already a big factor in their chance for success. Adding more games and more postseason teams just makes is more likely that an entirely mediocre team will make the playoffs and end up going to the super bowl just because they happen to have stayed the healthiest.

 

[Bill Lee]

Meanwhile the Commish continues to foster grandiose ideas of further expanding the season and further expanding the pool of playoff times, thus increasing the attrition that occurs during the regular season and/or diluting the quality of playoff games, all the while increasing the likelihood of injuries. All because it adds games and increases revenues, while keeping costs relatively flat.

Goodell is perfectly capable of killing the goose laying the golden eggs.

His willingness to go with the replacement refs speaks volumes.

Goodell knows that if he doesn't push for more games etc then the NFL owners can replace him with someone who will. He also knows if he gets the extra games/revenues he'll get increased bonuses/rewards in the short term, whereas negatives like the dilution of the game and increasing injuries to star athletes will happen after he's cashed the checks.

I have no doubt he's the kind of guy who will give the owners what they want, even if that means ruining the game.

Sorry, guess I'm cynical today too!

 

[ATippett56]

NFL Player Safety:

Implement the college football rule, the knee or elbow touches the ground the play is called dead.

 

[lamafist]

Good post but I respectfully disagree. If I decide that working down a coal mine is too dangerous for me. Or if I decide that joining the military has too high a chance of death for my liking, then I can choose not to go into either industry. There's nothing forcing me in to either. The same applies to NFL players.

Again, that's fine for your personal conception of natural law. It's just not actually the law of the land, and the history of mining safety is a perfect illustration of that. No industry has had to continuously do (and spend) more to improve the level of occupational health and safety it offers its workforce.

(And the military is an entirely different thing altogether. I'm pretty sure it would never be legal for the NFL or any mining operation to draft you into its service.)