If the NFL wants to expand its schedule, it should be honest and allow steroids and weed
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell made some news Thursday at the owners' meeting in Dana Point, Calif., saying he'd be in favor of expanding the regular season to 17 or 18 games over the next few years. Under the proposal, which the NFLPA would have to sign off on, every team would get an extra home game, and they would also play another game at a neutral site. I can't imagine why the NFLPA would agree to this, since it would almost certainly shorten the careers of some of its membership, but I assume the few extra dollars dangled in their faces might at least make them consider the proposal.
It's just one more example, though, of the way the NFL (and its fans) view the players as meat to be thrown into the grinder, the wear and tear on their bodies be dammed. We don't like to talk about it, because it falls under the category of not wanting to see how sausage is made, but the life of an NFL player isn't particularly glamorous for 95 percent of those doing it. Yes, they get paid millions of dollars, but that's because billions of dollars are pumped into the game by advertisers who want to sell you beer or erectile dysfunction medication. The idea that players are paid well enough to deal with it -- and that they should simply shut up and ignore the fact they're almost guaranteed to have serious health issues after they retire as a result of the game's violence -- is insulting. They're the ones providing the entertainment. They should be the ones compensated.
The suggestion that these games would just be replacing preseason games already on the schedule is a joke. We all know that most of the people playing in those games won't even be on the roster two weeks after the final whistle. The toll on the starters -- especially positions that regularly require violent collisions -- would be far, far greater than in preseason games.
If the NFLPA does go ahead with Goodell's proposal, they ought to, at the very least, ask for this concession: If we want to take steroids or human growth hormone to stay healthy, or smoke marijuana for medicinal reasons to deal with the pain, let us.
You might laugh, but that's the only way to make this proposal work. It's ridiculous to pretend that drugs aren't already a major part of life in the NFL. Teams could literally not field a full roster each week without painkillers, legal or otherwise. Marijuana isn't just a recreational drug for a lot of NFL players, it's the only way they can get out of bed on Monday mornings. And it's much less addictive than a painkiller like Vicodin, which is legal.
The reason we don't really care about how much punishment NFL players have to endure is because there is always a steady stream of hungry replacements streaming in from college, eager to jump right into the meat grinder as soon as there is a spot available.
You might see the NFL try to make the case that they can simply expand rosters to decrease the wear and tear on the starters, but that's a total farce. You've replaced two games that no one cared at all whether you won or lost with two games that are absolute must wins. Do you think a 35-year-old head coach is going to be able to step back and see the bigger picture and reduce the number of carries his star running back gets? Absolutely not. And why? Because he is under that much more pressure to win those two games. And so any player talented enough to make it eight years in the league essentially has the body of a nine-year veteran. Had Ray Lewis played 18-game seasons throughout his career, he'd likely already be retired right now, costing himself at least $24 million. Ed Reed's neck would have another full season of punishment on it, and he'd be one step closer to walking away. The NFLPA would be insane to approve this proposal without guaranteed contracts in return, but we know that is never going to happen.
For some reason, we've decided we care about the moral implications of MLB players using steroids -- "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???" -- but when it happens in the NFL, we mostly shrug our shoulders. You know why? Because we know the human body shouldn't be able to run a 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds at 265 pounds, but we like watching a guy, like Shawne Merriman, who can. We'd just prefer they do whatever it is they have to do to get ready on Sunday in private, and that we never have to hear about it so we can go on pretending.
Let's at least get it out there in the open. Ricky Williams never should have been driven from the NFL simply because he needed marijuana to deal with the anxiety and pain of getting 400 carries a year. If a player gets hurt, maybe he should be able to use steroids to rehab. The alternative is a bunch of guys using walkers at 38, which might very well happen anyway.
Greed is driving his proposal, pure and simple. And if anyone thinks the NFL has a drug problem now, this is only going to make it worse. Let's at least be honest about it. We're the Romans and we want to see the gladiators chop one another into pieces for our entertainment. At least give them something for the pain.
"Are you not entertained watching Tom Brady's knee buckle?"
Comments
Great article, Kevin. Love the blog. This is the kind of thing newspapers need to do to stay alive - be edgy and funny, and transition to the new media. Keep it up!
Posted by: Brian | March 27, 2009 12:03 PM
A lot of cogent, if ranted, information. Here's a solution that allows NFLers their greed and preserves the athlete's bodies for an 18 game schedule: Every player on the 53 man roster MUST be inactive two games a year.
It would keep the wear and tear at the same 16 game level; it would introduce an element of strategy when to "rest" players vs. what opponents; it would develop little-used players into frontline performers, sink or swim - new stars would be born. I'm sure there are other benefits and certain drawbacks: when are active rosters announced?; I paid good money to see Joe Flacco and I got Joe Shlobotnick!; etc.
BTW, I disagree with your marijuana conclusion; not as prevalent as you infer.
Million dollar solution to your rant: for you? no charge.
Posted by: Drewdy | March 27, 2009 12:14 PM
There going about this whole thing totally wrong. They should expand the playoffs by 2 rounds instead of extending the regular season. It will be like hockey, the top 60 % gets in. Hell, even Detriot might make the playoffs now. What a concept.
Posted by: tevonaustin | March 27, 2009 12:49 PM
Great points. PEDs and other pharmaceuticals are rampant in the NFL (and in most sports) and are responsible for the increasing "quality" of play in the league. Let's stop the charade that somehow these athletes have leapt ahead on the evolutionary scale thanks to nutrition and training as there haven't been any revolutionary training methods/philosophies in at least 30+ years.
Posted by: sal m | March 27, 2009 1:39 PM
Drewdy, just plain dumb. Tevonaustin, NOT!! Basketball and Hockey seasons are meaningless, which neither I tune into. If the NFL season were just as meaningless, it would be a tragedy. This new commish is dong all possible to ruin the NFL starting with the Pro Bowl a week before the SB, which means those players in the SB will be a no show and the new convoluted rules about hitting and blocking.....I'd just like to see them play football and get the calls right for once. I am glad to see that Perreira arse go. He could spin a reason why his refs made the right call when in reality they were dead wrong many times
Posted by: GHT | March 27, 2009 1:40 PM
To protect the players how about inserting bye weeks into the schedule to get to 18 weeks. Then the players would have time during the season to rest and heal. The NFL could still get more money out of the networks because there would be 18 weeks of regular season product. The teams would not have to share as much with the players as they would still only be playing 16 games.
Posted by: BC | March 27, 2009 2:06 PM
You are a big fat Pu**y. I gladly do simalar things to my body as a professional skier for next to nothing. Millions would be like a motivation to destroy myself. players choose the life
Posted by: Drew | March 27, 2009 3:56 PM
GHT, why "just plain dumb"?
Drewdy
Posted by: Drewdy | March 27, 2009 4:24 PM
I feel your pain Kevin. I think this is a greedy, terrible idea that will water down the league while making the regular season product worse & less meaningful. If the owners hadn't gotten away with charging regular season gate prices for preseason scrimmages, we wouldn't even have this problem. Why couldn't they have been satisfied with charging HALF as much as regular season games, and they'd still get their $10 hot dog and $14 beer profits?
Nobody told Geerra Jones to build a Trillion dollar stadium, just his sunken-faced, bug-eyed vanity. And now we've got to destroy the game to pay for it??
The preseason was & is for the coaches and players, not for entertaining the fans & NOT FOR THE OWNERS TO MAKE A BUCK!! If preseason games start to go away, we're gonna see even worse QB play & decision-making than we already do. Plus that game experience is necessary for new draft choices along with new free agents to learn a new defensive scheme under possibly new coaches...
I don't know what the he** Goodell is thinking, other than he wants to drive the wonderful league he somehow inherited into the ground. Mid-season games on a London bog? SURE! Take the Pro Bowl out of Hawaii and make it before the Super Bowl? You betcha!! How about a team in Uzbekistan?!?
If we act fast I think we can still reserve the Tokyo Dome for the 2015 Super Bowl on St. Patty's Day!!
Posted by: Stillerz6 | March 27, 2009 7:12 PM
This would be a fantastic article... if not for the rediculous comparisons and stretching of truth.
First and foremost, I agree that expanding the season is a just plain bad idea. There's no doubt about it. But instead of letting the point stand on it's own (strong) merits, you sully it with exaggeration.
Extra games = extra $: If the NFL did expand the season, the income generated goes up. In turn, the flat rate given to the teams goes up, the salary cap goes up, the players get paid more. Yeah, your 8 year career would put 9 years of wear and tear on you, but at least you would be getting paid for 9 years. And if you consider that the majority of NFL players are only in the league for 2 years, averaging under a million per season, the NFLPA has plenty of reason to at least look at this offer. The 'star' players would see almost nothing, but all the others would end up seeing more in thier pockets during thier short career.
Drugs: The NFL has very strict drug policies. Unlike Selig and his rape of baseball's integrity, the NFL has subjected thier players to both fixed and random screening ever since steriod use was brought to public attention by Lyle Alzado (RIP).
Ricky Williams?!?!: What possesed you to use Ricky Williams as an example? First and foremost, he was not driven out for his pot smoking. Teams didn't like him because of his social disorders and suspected closet homosexuality. The players were not kind to him and THAT is what drove him out. The pot smoking was an excuse used by Williams to leave a situation that only served to accelerate the deterioration of his mental health. The only reason he returned was because he had so much debt, and no way other than football to pay it off.
Posted by: Marcus | March 28, 2009 3:24 AM
What about all the college players that do this for 4 years and don't get paid anything? NFL players get millions of dollar a year to play 16 games. 18 won't make it suddenly immoral, like all the sudden we're watching gladiators. You'r average 40 y/o retired NFL player is probably much healthier than the 40 y/o couch potato NFL FAN.
Posted by: jwb | March 28, 2009 8:40 AM
If the point is to add games, instead of adding 16 or 32 games they should add 4.
Add a #7 and #8 to the playoffs, and eliminate the bye weeks for the #1 and #2 seeds. Some say that playing for best record and a bye to give the team a rest is a good thing... Or is it? More wildcard teams are going to the Superbowl and the last time two #1 seeds made it all the way to the superbowl was 1995.
Lets take Tennessee last year. Best record in the NFL. The city of Nashville is buzzing. So what happens when the playoffs starts? Shut the stadium down. Everybody go home, there is nothing to see here. Plus, viewers in the rest of America still has no idea how good the Titans are, because they don't get on national TV. Instead of seeing the best four teams, they are held hostage on the sidelines, while we watch Arizona and Atlanta. And one of those lousy teams ended up in the super bowl. Sorry Arizona, but I watched your very overrated team win three games in which THE OTHER TEAM PLAYED POORLY which enabled you to get to the Super Bowl, simply based on POOR SEEDING and having TWO playoff games at home when you had a WORSE WON-LOSS RECORD (falcons/eagles were better). You're not gonna win your division next year.
Tennessee at #1 would have faced San Diego at #8 and probably creamed them. Then a game against the ravens where they wouldn't have made so many mistakes and perhaps won. Then possibly, a rematch with the steelers who they trashed earlier.
Nobody uses BYES except the NFL. Not MLB...Not NBA...not NHL...not even March Madness...It's just plain stupid to not watch the best football teams play.
A #1 seed would get not one, not two, but THREE consecutive playoff games at home. Who wouldn't want that? The city makes money, the team, and the fans...its all win win, even if the team gets upset. Lets take the Patriots two years ago. 16-0 then 3 more wins at home ...they would be 19-0 shooting for a perfect 20 in the superbowl. Imagine that a 20-game winner! Sounds like a baseball term.
Posted by: doug | March 28, 2009 12:03 PM
doug stop whining,the cardinals beat those teams fair and sqaure.get a offense in tenn first.you should have taken cutler instead of vince.the real deal outside tom brady kurt warner is the best qb in the nfl in big games and playoffs are big games.shove that could have should have crap
Posted by: satch | March 28, 2009 9:24 PM
Drewdy, every player must be in activated at least one game? Which game does Ray Lewis sit? How about Joe Flacco? That would be OK if they played 162 games like the O's, but, in the NFL, every game counts. You can't sit your superstar if he's healthy. I'd rather go to 14 games than that stupid proposal.
Posted by: GHT | March 28, 2009 10:43 PM
Well, Satch, I'm not a Tennessee Titan fan...i just want to see the best teams play in the superbowl...the NFC was horribly weak last year. I don't think the cardinals would have won 3 straight road games (as a #8 seed) to get to where they got.
When does a team not win fair and square in your estimation? The NFL seems to keep changing its rules year in and out; apparently, some teams aren't winning fair and square.
Posted by: doug | March 29, 2009 12:08 AM
Kevin,
I agree with almost everything you say, but this particular article is far, far off the mark.
First, the owners don't stand to make any more money from ticket revenues because they already charge regular season prices for pre-season games. Maybe they make a few extra bucks from television revenue, but the key word there is few because the games are televised anyway (many nationally), so they make the revenue there as well.
Second, you know what I say about these players who have health issues after their careers are over. I could care less. Look, these guys are 21 years old when they come out of college. Having played 4 years of high school football and 4 years of college football, they are well aware of the punishment their bodies will take. As adults, they have the option of foregoing the NFL for a professional career in another non-contact profession. I am a CPA. My high school coach recruited me for the football team, and I turned him down because I was aware of the punishment my body would take. It is a grown up choice. If these guys choose to go into the profession, they should do it full-well knowing what their bodies will feel like after their careers are over.
As for the drugs...shame on them. Yes we make a big deal out of it in MLB. If there are players in the NFL doing drugs, that should be exposed to Congress too.
Enough excuses!
Posted by: Scooter | March 29, 2009 11:05 AM
Kevin, I should have known you wrote this piece when I started reading it. I enjoy most of your writing more than anyone else at the Sun. This is well written and hits the nail on the head.
Most of the NFL fans I know hate the idea of extending the regular season. Our favorite players would have shorter careers and records and statistics become much harder to compare. 16 seems like the perfect number for the NFL. I hate the idea of a 10-8 record, or a 3-15. My whole life has been spent in the 16 game era and I would hate to see it change.
But again, great piece.
Posted by: Dan | March 29, 2009 4:37 PM
A better solution would be to increase the number of players on a team from 53 to 60 or 70 players in an 18 game season. Surely, this is preferable to drugs and steroids. Then again this is a really lame counterpoint that the blog author should have considered.
Posted by: abercrom | March 29, 2009 6:11 PM
I felt the same thing when I heard the news. You are right on point. Someone needs to look past their selfish need to be entertained or to make yet another dollar and think about the players future.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 29, 2009 9:02 PM
I think more games is foolish and they are working there way to saturation point. They create more ways to make the game less violent so they can extend the product. Unfortunately I believe both will water down the best league in football.
On the PED and weed front, I'm stunned that marijuana is not legal and is thrown into the class of all the other LEGAL drugs out there (opiates for pain, you name it for depression/aniexty, ridilin etc for kids). Heck even HGH and Steroids are "legal drugs". So let's see I can drink a 6 pack after shooting HGH(no tests for it) and then I can take some vicodin for my physical pain and drop a zoloft for my mental anguish(the coaches yelling at me) but I'm banned from the league if I hit a weed pipe (with all natural substance) (ala michael phelps)?
Makes perfect sense to me!
Posted by: jamaltimore | March 30, 2009 1:56 PM