Players' union proclamation shows Polian got it wrong

March 10, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It appears Indianapolis Colts President Bill Polian got a little ahead of himself when he said in September that expanding the NFL schedule from 16 to 18 games was “fait accompli.”

Translated into modern American vernacular, fait accomplish means it’s a done deal.

“I think that the owners, and principally the commissioner, have decided that it’s the way to go, and so the debate, such as it was, is over,” Polian said on his weekly radio show. “I’ve heard recently, and I’m sorry that this didn’t get more coverage earlier, some really, really interesting commentary on it. ... I wish some of that dialogue had taken place earlier.”

Apparently the NFL Players Association didn’t get the message.

On Wednesday, NFLPA boss DeMaurice Smith said an 18-game schedule is “off the negotiating table” in collective bargaining talks with NFL owners.

Smith, speaking to a gathering of about 100 people at the union’s Washington D.C. office, said that it was “categorical that the players won’t expand the regular season from 16 to 18 games.”

“The league has never presented a formal proposal for 18 games,” Smith told Sports Illustrated. “But more importantly, it’s something that our players don’t want.”

Smith also added that the NFL owners have lowered from $1 billion to $800 million the amount of additional revenues they want to take off the top of their $9 billion business. That’s in addition to the $1 billion owners already get off the top before sharing revenue with players.

The owners have indicated that an expanded regular season schedule is one way to raise revenue to help cover league expenses—including building new stadiums.

But some players have come up with an interesting alternative that some fans are apt to like. They suggested taking regular-season games only seen on the NFL Network and packaging them as part of a regularly played Thursday night game. There’s no shortage of fans that still don’t get the NFL Network, which is usually offered as a premium cable channel, so I’m guessing that move would be a popular one.

Given that more Americans watch television on Thursday than any other night of the week, the NFL could easily raise more than the $500 million that owners project would be generated annually by expanding the regular season by two games.

ESPN pays the NFL $1.9 billion annually just to air Monday Night Football, so the projection is not a stretch.


 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Liking the Players' Proposals
    Glad to see they're nixing the idea of an 18 game season. Also, moving the Thursday night games to regular networks is a good move as well - not all of us get the NFL Network and are not willing to pay for another channel just to watch a couple of extra games a year.
  • 18 game schedule
    Who is glad to see the 18 game schedule off the table? Certainly NOT season ticket holders, like me, who have to pay full price to watch practice players on the field during two of 10 games each year. I wish those involved would remember who is supporting their $9 billion dollar enterprise.
  • step in the right direction
    I love watching the nfl network for everything except a live game. The same goes for ESPN, bring it back to ABC. The producers of NFL Network and ESPN do not know how to manage the camera angles very well - nor how to use the re-play. I do not even want to mention how the announcers of the two inferior station are substandard to the other networks.

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Of what value is selling alcoholic beverages to State Fair patrons when there are many families with children attending. Is this the message we want to give children attending and participating in the Fair, another venue with alooholic consumption onsite. Is this to promote beer and wine production in the state which are great for the breweries and wineries, but where does this end up 10-15 years from now, lots more drinkers for the alcoholic contents. If these drinks are so important, why not remove the alcohol content and the flavor and drink itself similar to soft drinks would be the novelty, not the alcoholic content and its affects on the drinker. There is no social or material benefit from drinking alcoholic beverages, mostly people want to get slightly or highly drunk.

  2. I did;nt know anyone in Indiana could count- WHY did they NOT SAY just HOW this would be enforced? Because it WON;T! NOW- with that said- BIG BROTHER is ALIVE in this Article-why take any comment if it won't appease YOU PEOPLE- that's NOT American- with EVERYTHING you indicated is NOT said-I can see WHY it say's o Comments- YOU are COMMIES- BIG BROTHER and most likely- voted for Obama!

  3. In Europe there are schools for hairdressing but you don't get a license afterwards but you are required to assist in turkey and Italy its 7 years in japan it's 10 years England 2 so these people who assist know how to do hair their not just anybody and if your an owner and you hire someone with no experience then ur an idiot I've known stylist from different countries with no license but they are professional clean and safe they have no license but they have experience a license doesn't mean anything look at all the bad hairdressers in the world that have fried peoples hair okay but they have a license doesn't make them a professional at their job I think they should get rid of it because stateboard robs stylist and owners and they fine you for the dumbest f***ing things oh ur license isn't displayed 100$ oh ur wearing open toe shoes fine, oh there's ONE HAIR IN UR BRUSH that's a fine it's like really? So I think they need to go or ease up on their regulations because their too strict

  4. Exciting times in Carmel.

  5. Twenty years ago when we moved to Indy I was a stay at home mom and knew not very many people.WIBC was my family and friends for the most part. It was informative, civil, and humerous with Dave the KING. Terri, Jeff, Stever, Big Joe, Matt, Pat and Crumie. I loved them all, and they seemed to love each other. I didn't mind Greg Garrison, but I was not a Rush fan. NOW I can't stand Chicks and all their giggly opinions. Tony Katz is to abrasive that early in the morning(or really any time). I will tune in on Saturday morning for the usual fun and priceless information from Pat and Crumie, mornings it will be 90.1

ADVERTISEMENT