NFL will not have 18 game schedule in 2012

on 08 26, 2010

I cannot believe all the media hype about the NFL’s owners wanting to move to an 18 game schedule has been centered on who does and who doesn’t like this change. Also, how will this be brought about? What about compensation?

Jeebus, there’s a lot of speculation. It’s exhausting.

So here’s some more!

I say the NFL owners do not actually want this schedule change, so it doesn’t matter if fans want it or not, or if it would help or hurt the league. At least not for the 2012 season, as has been reported.

Now, I don’t remember what ESPN Radio show first brought the possibility to my attention that the schedule change could just be used as a bargaining chip. It was a few weeks ago, at least. And given that my job can have me in my car at anytime during normal business hours, I picked up the idea from either Mike & Mike, The Herd, The Jim Rome Show, or The Scott Van Pelt Show. So kudos to whatever show first brought this up weeks ago, though I haven’t heard this idea repeated since that one time during a short segment.

Anyway, there are a couple reasons that lead me to think this could just be a ruse, just something the owners put on the bargaining table so they have something to take off in exchange for some concession they actually want from the players in the new collective bargaining agreement.

First, the owners have not actually voted on this. All reports say the owners want to do this but that they have not actually voted on it. If they don’t vote on it, it’s a lot easier to get rid of in exchange for a higher portion of revenue or a rookie wage scale or whatever they want. This way it’s just a threat, just an idea, a dagger gleaming in their back pocket  to keep the other side honest.

Secondly, according to Commissioner Roger Goodell, the owners have the authority under the current CBA to stretch the season out to a 22 game season. Yup.

That means the owners have chosen right now, when there is already apparently a daunting gamut of tough issues to work out, to introduce another issue that only complicates things. Instead of doing it at any other time when it could be done peacefully and in full compliance of the contract players agreed to, they want to do this when the possibility of coming to an agreement is already seemingly low.

After all, it’s the players who want to keep the contract status quo. So the owners could likely have left this section of the contract untouched, unnoticed and then extended the season after the agreement was signed. They could have just copied and pasted it and then enforced it afterward. I think a lockout or strike would be less likely if the owners did something that was allowed under an agreement the players endorsed and on which they signed off. The players’ hands would be tied by that point.

Instead, the owners want to demand a huge change from the players at a time when there are a lot of other things they probably want even more? Seems unlikely to me.

Other awesome content to check out: