18 game update

One update/correction to my earlier analysis of the players' share of any new money from an 18 game schedule.

I initially calculated each players' share of the $6.6 million per team a new 18 game TV contract would generate based on a 55 man roster (presuming that rosters would be expanded by two to account for the extra games). Since the 8 player practice squad is also counted under the salary cap, the $6.6 million should not have been divided by 55 but by 61. Note, I am presuming that in exchange for the two extra roster spots, the owners will commensurately reduce the practice squad roster from 8 players to 6. 

So under this new math, the average player salary would increase by $106,000 ($6.6 million divided by 61). 

No to 18 games

Despite ongoing labor negotiations, it appears that - at least by most press reports - that the league is moving inexorably to an 18 game schedule despite concern by the players union and a complete lack of demand by fans. 18 games certainly doesn't make sense from a labor standpoint - the two extra games only add to the wear and tear of what is already a debilitating 16 game season for players (63% of all players were injured in 2010-11 season). (And the NFLPA needs to be doubly sure to reduce the vesting time for an NFL pension from the current 4 years down to 3 years and perhaps 2 if they are going to increase the season by 12%.)

18 games doesn't make sense from a competitive standpoint either. For many teams - and fans - the additional two games means having to endure an even longer slog to mediocrity and what had previously been a 6-10 season, into a 7-11 season. Ugh.

No, the reason the 18 game season is even in play is for money, pure and simple.The owners see it as a way to increase revenue as a bargaining chip in reducing the players' share of revenue. But even from a financial standpoint, the 18 game schedule doesn't make sense.

First off, these aren't "new game" but essentially the "repurposing" of 2 preseason games. Since preseason games are a required purchase in every team's season ticket package, transforming the preseason games, er, "exhibition" games, to actual games will have very little impact on the live gate. Since many of the purchased seats go unused, teams will probably see an increase in concession sales, but that extra money on a single home game would be peanuts relative to the gains hoped for in the television revenue.

No, the real projected money comes in the form of increased fees for the television contracts. But even these projections are questionable.

The NFL currently receives $3.085 billion per year from their broadcast "partners" - CBS, Fox, NBC, and ESPN/ABC. 

This works out to $193 million/week based on a 16 game schedule. So the addition of two extra games/weeks, should increase potential rights fees by $386 million ($193 x 2).

Wow, that sounds like a lot. But when you break it down, it may be a windfall to the owners (essentially free money) but it isn't a very good deal for the players.

Presuming that player salaries would be 55% of league revenue in a new CBA, these additional two weeks only amount to $212 million. Divided by 32 teams, it is only an extra $6 million to each team's salary pool. Divided between 55 players (one of the NLFPA's positions is that in return for an 18 game schedule, teams would add two roster spots to their 53 man rosters), it amounts to only $120,000 per player. Admittedly, $120,000 is a sizeable increase to the median player salary, which for most teams is in the $800,000 range, But it is less for the average team salary, which is roughly between $1.6 and $2 million/year. Of course, the $6.6 million is not going to be distributed equally among all roster players meaning that most journeyman players will see only minimal increases. Indeed, the NFLPA would be wise to increase the minimum salary requirements to ensure most of this increase is fairly disseminated.

Having said all that, the projected revenue numbers I used are probably higher than they actually would be. For some of the reasons stated above, TV networks likely wouldn't just proportionally increase their payouts for the two additional games. Most teams will be out of the playoffs by then, so the two additional weeks would likely see lower ratings. Also, the increase chance of injury would also have a negative impact on ratings for teams whose major contributing players are out.

Also, and this seems to get lost in all the talk about the extra money generated by the two extra games - those games are already being broadcast and the teams are getting payouts from local affiliates to do so. I haven't been able to find information about the preseason television contracts but these are certainly worth several hundred thousand dollars per game and should be subtracted from any potential gains of a new 18 game television contract. 

NFL and TSA

The most interesting tidbit about this investigation of Chiefs' players after a November game is the nugget about TSA security regarding NFL teams.

TSA agents pre-screen players on visiting NFL teams at the stadium, so that they can be taken straight to their airline gate by bus.

Union Brotherhood

I wonder if the Packers, and particularly Charles Woodson, would be taking such a high-profile stand (or any stand at all) in support of public-sector union workers in Wisconsin, if there wasn't a looming labor war in professional football.

No Nova D-I Football

As a Villanova grad, the pending decision by the Board of Trustees as to whether to step up and become a member of the Big East's Division I football conference is a big deal to me. It would be a big mistake for Villanova to make that move.

The Inqy has an article that covers several of the main concerns of such a move. Unfortunately, most get short shrift or just a cursory mention without further exploration. The main thrust of the article is how much it will cost Villanova to compete in D-I as opposed to D-IAA (I know it's called the football championship subdivision, but i'm old school when it comes to college football. Call it whatever "championship" or subdivision you want, it's still Double A football).

The school already has paid out over $4 million a year lately to play I-AA football. What's the price tag for I-A?

The expectation is that if Villanova moves up, it will cost a cumulative $5 million during the three years (2011-13) before the school starts collecting Big East revenues. After that, one working estimate floating around is that Villanova would have to spend about $1 million more than it has been paying for the lower level, even with their share of Big East revenues. Since the Big East's TV deal is still to be negotiated, that figure isn't definitive. There is no definitive number.

First, these numbers are (purposely?) confusing. Villanova currently spends $4 million a year in I-AA. They will only be spending $1.6 million per year in the first three years in the Big East ("it will cost a cumulative $5 million during the three years before the school starts collecting Big East revenues." Does the reporter mean to say that it will be an extra $5 million above and beyond the current $4 million annually? Perhaps, but that's not how it's written. As presented, moving to the Big East is a savings of more than $2 million annually just on expenses alone (not counting additional revenue).

Later, comes this

After that, one working estimate floating around is that Villanova would have to spend about $1 million more than it has been paying for the lower level, even with their share of Big East revenues.

This suggests that net Big East conference revenue, it will still cost $1 million more (or put into perspective, an additional 25% (based on the current $4 million annual expenditure) to play big-time Big East football.

Regarding attendance

A consulting firm hired by Villanova also has looked at potential attendance. Villanova draws 7,000 or 8,000 for a strong I-AA team. Can the Wildcats double or almost triple that in the Big East playing at PPL? Surveys have been done working with different price points. The results, according to one Villanova source, were "pretty positive . . . there is a substantive demand for this product." By that, the source said, there is probably "sufficient interest among our core constituents" to remove attendance as an area of concern.

I don't believe these numbers for a second. Maybe Villanova could double attendance - to 14,000. But triple it? I think that is a huge stretch. More importantly, at best that would place Villanova attendance at 24,000 per game. But it is focusing on the wrong benchmark. The 24,000 may be very impressive from the current baseline but 24,000 pales in comparison to the attendance of established D-I schools. I'm not even talking about the 100,000 that weekly attend Michigan games, but even the 35-40,000 that watch Syracuse play. In short, 24,000 is a pittance in D-I, and that is Villanova's best case scenario. This is the key point. Notwithstanding the big Philadelphia TV market (which they share with Temple in football), there simply aren't the fans or desire to fully support Villanova D-I football on the scale necessary to compete, much less succeed, against the likes of Pitt, WVa, Tennesse, Florida St. et. al. The fact of the matter is that D-I football is played by large state schools with lots of resources, alumni and infrastructure (Notre Dame the notable exception). Add in that Philadelphia is clearly a pro football town, and it is hard to see how Villanova football can hope to thrive in this environment.

And then, of course, there is the impact on the real issue - Villanova basketball. Or as the university refers to it, the school's meal ticket. Will D-I football drain resources, attention and tarnish (presuming Villanova gridironers' perform middlingly on the field) the basketball team's reputation.

I remember when Villanova first disbanded football and then restarted it. Andy Talley has succeeded beyond anyone's dreams. But let's not mistake success at the I-AA level into thinking that it will translate to D-I. Villanova simply doesn't have the resources or support to sustain such a program. They are fine just where they are, and where they belong.

The Perfect 21st Century American Marriage

Super Bowl+Patriotism+Celebrity+Gambling= Controversy!

This week's sign of the Apocalypse: the betting controversy surrounding Christina Aguilera's muffed national anthem. Per Business Insider:

If you haven't heard by now, Christina Aguilera messed up the words to the National Anthem before last night's Super Bowl.
The mistake was widely criticized by patriotic citizens, but was met with even more anger from bettors who were screwed by Aguilera's rendition of the song.
She skipped a full line, instead singing some combination of words from the second line, which skewed the length of the anthem.  The over/under for the Anthem was set at 1:54 and Aguilera's version clocked in at separate times of 1:53 and 1:54 according to Sportsbook.com.  Initially it appeared likely that the under was going to be declared the winner while those that chose the over were going to get hosed.
But, Sportsbook.com recognized the problem and has decided to pay winnings to both sides of the prop.  We'll see if others follow suit.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/christina-aguilera-prop-sportsbookcom-2011-2#ixzz1DNVDS9ki

Random Super Bowl Thoughts

* Clay Matthews saved his reputation by forcing what turned out to be thee decisive fumble/turnover of the game. Up to that point, Mathews had pretty much been a non-entity and the Steelers had shown that the best way to neutralize Mathews was to run right at him. I don't have the exact stats in front of me, but it seems that most of the Steelers' running plays were to their right side - especially off tackle...or right at Mathews. Indeed, Mathews made the key play of the game because the Packers had adjusted to the Steelers game plan/Mathews ineffectiveness by playing a 4-3 defense on that specific play and moving Mathews off the line of scrimmage and into a more conventional outside LB position.

 

* The officiating was just a bit below sub-par. The two most notable calls were the first down the Steeelers were awarded on a very generous spot when their receiver caught the ball for the first down but double back BEFORE the defender made contact and was subsequently spotted the first. It was a typical NFL officiating ruling in giving the offense a generous spot/benefit of the doubt - particularly as such passes are often completed and the receiver driven backwards by the defender.. Unfortunately, in this instance the defender didn't initiate contact until after the receiver had already conceded the yardage himself.

 

The second questionalbe call was the play in th the Packers' challenged. To me, it looked clear that the Packers receiver had secured the ball with two feet onthe ground and had taken a full step before fumbling. I'm not sure what Aikman and Buck were talking about regarding the play being whistled dead since the Packers did recover the football anyway. To compound the confusion, former NFL head official Mike Perreira said he thought it was a good call and then offered a surprisng nugget - that the refs review challenged plays at full speed?! Whoa!? Perreira said that the ref would look at the play at full speed to determine if he had possession. The refs don't look at replays in slo-motion?

 

* The Groupon ads absolutely blew. The Chrysler commercial was pretty cool. And what in the hell was about the pompous and blatantly, over-the-top patriotism of reciting the Declaration of Independence? When I think football, i think the founding fathers?

 

* Christina Aguilera would have won the over on the 1:54 national anthem if she hadn't blown a whole verse of lyrics. As it was, it was hard to tell when she ended the song - very close to 1:54 - because the flyover drowned her out a bit.

 

* the halftime show highlighted that most of America knows only one Black Eyed Peas song - so much so that they sang it twice during their short set.

 

* Yesterday was the sixth anniversary of the Eagles' Super Bowl loss to the Patriots.

 

 

My pick

Packers 34
Steelers 30

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

Eagles All-time (losing) record

So I got an Eagles desk calendar for Christmas, which is great in and of itself, but even better for providing content for this blog.

For instance, the Eagles all-time record is now 528-561-26, including the post-season.

A Weighty Matter

Aside from the long-term concussive damage of larger and larger men slamming into each other and faster and faster speeds, the enormous physical growth of players is also, in my opinion, one additional factor in the eventual slide in popularity of the NFL. More and more, players do not resemble actual human beings - certainly not the average size - but rather a different species entirely. It was not always so, as the average player in the '60 was not the freakishly large behemoth that romps on the gridiron today.

It will become increasingly difficult for the typical fan (or schoolboy) to identify with (or play) football players at the pro level and increasingly at the college and high school levels as well.

From the Times:

In 1970, only one N.F.L. player weighed as much as 300 pounds...and 532 as training camps began in 2010.

The average weight of an NFL player is now 252 lbs!

And like steroids, the pro problem is leaking down to the amateur level.

The issue of weight and heart risks has spread even to high schools, where studies indicate that more than half of linemen are overweight. Some medical experts have called for weight limits on players, though that seems unlikely in the immediate future.

Think about that for a second. Half of high school linemen, the position with the most players on the field (offense and defense), are overweight. Amazing.

NFL-Union

Interesting article in yesterday's NY Times about the NFLPA's attempts to have the owners open their books to prove their poor mouth claims and the meager financial information they are able to get from the publicly-owned Packers' required, albeit limited, financial reports.

The key info from the Times:

The Packers earn much less than they did four years ago. Their operating profit fell 71 percent from $34.2 million in the year ended March 31, 2007 (which coincides with the start of the current collective-bargaining agreement), to $9.8 million in the year ended last March 31. Revenue rose 18 percent in that period to $257.9 million.

The primary reason for the sharply reduced profit was player costs (salaries and benefits), which swelled in those years to $160.8 million from $110.7 million....Murphy said, "Our player costs are growing at twice the rate our revenue is growing."

These are some interesting numbers and the reporter fails to put them into context.

For starters, their was no salary cap this year - which was the result of the owner's prematurely opening up the collective bargaining agreement. So yes, of course salaries went up or "swelled" as the Times' reporter puts it, especially in the most recent year. Until then, however, salaries were kept remarkably stable and pegged to league revenues. Indeed, the salary cap prevented player costs from growing at twice the rate of revenue growth. The league can't complain that salaries are skyrocketing when it is the owners themselves who eliminated the barrier that had previously prevented it from happening.

Second, where did this $160.8 million figure for player salaries and benefits come from? According to the salary information resource page from USA Today, the Packers "total payroll" was $113,959,603 in 2009-10. That is salaries, not including benefits. Is it really the contention of the Packers, league, and NY Times that player benefits add another 41% to their labor costs, especially when they are considered independent contractors?

Packers' WRs

One of the arguments people make in claiming how great Aaron Rodgers, and he is a top QB, compared to his peers is how "lousy" the rest of his supporting cast is, especially his wide receivers. I've heard this several times in debates over Rodgers vs. Vick this year. What's interesting is how little respect the Packer WRs get considering how good they are. Greg Jennings was 4th in the league in receiving yards, 15th in receptions, and 2nd in TDs. Yes, Rodgers makes Jennings better, but it's pretty clear that Jennings is one of the top receivers in the entire league. And he gets paid like it too. 

Interestingly, Jennings is the highest paid Packer. He makes more than Rodgers, Woodson, et. al..  is,