 |
| |
|
 |
 |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conference Call 2003 NFL annual owners meeting preview
March 19, 2003 Joe Browne: Good afternoon. As a publicist, I don't like to start off by saying there's not going to be any news, but there's not going to be any Super Bowl decisions made next week. The next game that's up is February 2007. Our Super Bowl advisory committee of owners continues to feel that that game in February 2007 should be played in a warm-weather city, preferably in Florida. I would think the decision on the 2007 game would be made at our May league meeting, which is in Philadelphia. Then in terms of Super Bowls after that, selections for 2008 and beyond could be made as early as our October meeting this year, but probably more likely a year from now, March of 2004. The one stadium Super Bowl presentation that will be made will be made by the host team, the host city, the host state, Arizona. As some of you may know, they just had recent good news on groundbreaking for their new stadium in Arizona. So the governor is going to head up a delegation, he and Mr. Bidwell and others are going to have a presentation of the new Arizona stadium next Tuesday afternoon. But there are going to be no decisions or no promises made at that point. That's a courtesy presentation, but it is one that we're all interested in because we're excited that Arizona, that the Cardinals will have a new home in the near future. In terms of New York and Washington, we'll have an update not at this meeting necessarily, probably at the May league meeting, we'll have an update on those two cities' interest in a Super Bowl. I would think there would be more action, at least more discussion, I should say, in May as opposed to next week on New York or Washington. Then finally, Greg, on the Rose Bowl, on Los Angeles, we had presentations by two groups, Carson Group, Carson, California, and the Rose Bowl people, we had a presentation made earlier this month to four LA working group of owners in terms of a suitable stadium in either one of those two sites. The commissioner is on record as saying that the league is particularly interested in playing a Super Bowl in the Los Angeles area, especially at the Rose Bowl, if it were significantly renovated. There's been a lot of talk out in Pasadena about doing that. They have some plans. But they're doing that on their own time schedule. So we can take questions later, if there are any questions. Greg Aiello: Rich McKay will comment on the overall state of the game, then we'll take your questions. Rich McKay: Thanks, Greg. I may be a little biased, but I think from the committee's perspective, 2002 was truly a great season for the league, especially when you look at the statistical backup of the season. That's really where we start our process. In 2002, you had total scoring on an average per game basis of 43.3, which is up from 40.4 the year before, and is the 16th highest in league history. Another stat that's important to us within that is there were 4.96 touchdowns per game, which is the most since 1987. That has been a concern of a lot of league members, that being the field goal/touchdown ratio. It was obviously good to see that go back in the touchdown favor. With respect to the closeness of the games, of the 256 games, 49.2 percent were decided by seven points or less, that's the most since 1994. Comebacks this year set an all-time NFL record in that we had 18 games that involved 10-point or more comebacks in the fourth quarter, and we had the most games in the history of the NFL go into overtime, that being 25, which generated other discussions. From the competition committee's standpoint from watching the film, looking at the stats to back up the year, I think the committee was very favorable in saying that 2002 was an awfully good year for the league, and one hopefully we can build off of. Greg Aiello: We can go ahead and take questions. Q. Joe and Rich, can you comment on the Buccaneers' scheduled game in Tokyo, if the military operation is still going, will that process be reviewed? Where does that stand right now? Joe Browne: I saw baseball I guess canceled its Japan game, but that game was scheduled for next week, I think. We're talking about late July or early August. Rich McKay: Right. Joe Browne: We'll continue to monitor the situation, see developments. But as of right now, the game is still scheduled as originally planned. Rich McKay: From the team's perspective, we'll treat it as such, as far as the scheduling of our training camp and going forward. That may change, but we'll treat it as though it's a go. Q. Joe, in regards to the 2007 Super Bowl, would a significantly renovated Rose Bowl be in play for that game? Joe Browne: I'd say no. I mean, I don't have a vote, but I'd say no. Right now the committee of owners is looking toward Florida. You know, things can change, of course. I'd say right now no. Q. What would be the earliest game that the commissioner was referring to last spring? Joe Browne: I suppose if 2007 is not a go, then I would say anything after that would be in play. Q. Could you talk about the possible expansion of the playoff system, both how you felt about it, how the competition committee feels about it, the chances are it's going to pass this time? Rich McKay: The proposal on the table comes I think from two teams. It is a proposal that will take our current playoffs from 12 teams to 14 teams. We discussed this very proposal probably two years ago at the same time we were discussing the reformation of the divisions, going to eight divisions of four. The feeling of the committee at that time, I think the feeling of the membership at that time, was that we would wait a couple years, probably two at the minimum, into the new divisional format before we would try to deal with the issues of playoffs, expansion or reseeding or any of those issues. I think the committee remains in the same position as it was then. This is a proposal that's on the table, though, so there will be a vote, and the membership is going to eventually say yea or nay. I say from the committee's perspective, we look at it the same way we did when they went into this eight division of four: Let's give it two years, see if there are inequities in this system, see if it's appropriate to expand the playoffs. Q. Did you like the way it looked last year? The teams with the best records made the playoffs. Then the situation of one team getting a bye. Rich McKay: Good questions. Last year we felt like when we looked back at every team that got in, every team that didn't get in, it worked exactly as it should work. It was no different really than our prior system when we had divisions of five teams, and even one division of six. We felt like there was no inequities that showed up this year. We think part of that is based on the new scheduling format that creates a very even schedule within the division. You know, that did work very well, and I don't think anybody is looking to change that yet. Greg Aiello: The proposal was submitted by New England and Kansas City. Q. Regarding the hiring and the Detroit Lions. Has there been any decision if there's going to be a penalty against the Lions or Matt? When will that be announced? Where does that stand right now? Joe Browne: The diversity committee continues to speak to the Lions and exchange information. There was a recent conference call amongst the committee, without the Lions, amongst the committee of owners. That will certainly be discussed next week. The diversity issue is one of the priorities of the meeting. But when a decision is going to be reached or when a recommendation is going to be reached by the committee, chaired by Dan Rooney, I'm not certain. As I say, it's one of the priorities of the meeting, it's a very important issue, but at the same time we're not exactly in our hiring season right now. We do have some breathing room here before the next round of hires will take place. But it is something that will be discussed next week in Arizona probably on Monday. Q. Do you think this whole issue might further define what the committee proposed last December? Joe Browne: Well, at the time that the commissioner named the committee in I think it was October, October 31st, the thought was that we were going to start with this, let's get the committee together. But no one ever said it was not going to be an evolving -- it was not going to be a committee with an evolving agenda. There are nuances in any new system or any new policy that may or may not be anticipated. We now have one hiring season under our belt, and we'll work from there. Q. Could you go a little farther into what came up in the overtime discussion and also in the expanding of the challenge, how would that be done? Rich McKay: Let's start with overtime. The proposal before the membership is one by Kansas City. That proposal is a two-possession proposal. Let me give you a couple of the committee's views. First and foremost I think we looked at I don't know how many different proposals from fans, from media. We saw some very interesting ones, to say the least. We did come to the conclusion I think unanimously within the committee that the only one that really is worthy of consideration, if we're going to make a change, is the two-possession format. The committee itself remains split on support of that, and it will be interesting to see how that vote comes out. But that's kind of where we stand. Now let me talk to you a little bit about the issues. The issues in overtime are this: the statistics have clearly changed. Since overtime came in in '74 versus today, the statistics have changed where it's 58 percent to 60 percent of the time where the winner of the coin flip is winning in overtime. That is somewhat problematic. The percentages now show that 38 percent to 40 percent of the time we're up to where the team is winning on the first possession. That's problematic. The reasons for it really are quite simple. It's the kicking game. We looked at the drive-start where teams are starting their drives from today versus the '70s, and there's been a dramatic increase, even an increase we've seen since '97 because of the advent of the K-ball, where kickers are actually asked to kick a real football. And the field goal percentages made, I was looking at those stats while we were down there. If you just look at that stat alone, you're startled by the change. I mean, if you look at 50-yard plus field goals, in 1974, you find out that basically about 13 percent of those were made. You look at that same percentage today, and 51 percent of those, 52 percent of those are made, though the games have a chance of ending on the first possession a lot easier than they did back then. That's caused a lot of teams to support the two-possession format. I think there's concern in supporting that system that we don't get back to a situation that creates more ties. The reason they passed overtime initially in '74, we actually went back and read the report, did a little research on how they got there, it wasn't unanimous, that's for certain, was that the 10 seasons prior to '74, there had been 78 ties. Fans and members did not like the ties and the effect they were having on the game. 10 seasons after overtime was put in, there were only seven ties. So the system has worked pretty well. It's just that there is a concern statistically now that the first possession is becoming too much of an advantage. I couldn't give you a prediction on whether it will pass or not. I know as a committee we felt like it needed to be discussed, it needed to be discussed on the floor. I'm sure it will be debated. We'll have a vote. Joe Browne: Make a prediction. Rich McKay: It's going to be close. The history of our league tells us that rules that have been in place this long, it takes two to three years before they get changed. They don't tend to happen the first year that something's voted upon. Q. Is there any chance you would, say for the kick-off and overtime, move it back to the 35 or 40 just to level out the field position issue? Rich McKay: Good question. No, we kind of said no. The one thing we like about our overtime versus other overtimes is that ours is football, real football. You know what I mean? The rules are the same. We don't modify the rules for overtime. So I don't think there would be any sentiment to do that. I think the real issue is do people feel like the inequity that now appears to be showing up in these numbers means we need to give the other team a chance at a possession? Q. Joe or Greg, on the minority, diversity hiring, how much time is going to be spent on that? Is that scheduled for a specific day? What is the league's position on the new Fritz Pollard alliance? Is that a welcome thing for the league? How are you going to deal with that? Joe Browne: In terms of how much attention is being given to the minority hiring, I believe on the last draft that I saw, it's going to be discussed all three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, with different groups. We're starting on Monday I think with just the primary owner, one per club, on several topics. That is going to be one of them. Then I know on Wednesday, Wednesday morning when it's just the owners and the coaches, I know that that also is on the agenda for that meeting. Greg Aiello: It's on the agenda Tuesday afternoon, diversity committee as well. Joe Browne: With the club presidents and the owners. So all three days. As far as the alliance, we've been in touch with their lawyers. They've spoken to our lawyers. There really is -- I don't have any reaction or comment at this point. Q. You obviously are recognizing them as a viable institution? Joe Browne: Recognition? I mean, they're not a union. Q. You are prepared to deal with them? Joe Browne: We recognize their names. Q. In connection with the Rose Bowl, you mentioned a Parsons group that I'm unfamiliar with. Can you explain what that might be? Joe Browne: It's Carson as in Harry Carson. South of the airport. Michael Ovitz had a group that had this Carson site 20 minutes south of LAX. Michael is back with a different group which has the site now. It was Michael and one other fellow, a land developer, who made the presentation to this LA working group in early February. Q. The San Diego City Council yesterday voted 7-2 to proceed with the Chargers in discussions that could lead to the building of a new stadium in San Diego. Would you remark on that? Joe Browne: The reason I hesitate to remark on it is it's an evolving situation. You're right there in the middle of it. Things change every day. I think what you said, 7-2 in favor to speaking to the Chargers about a new stadium, is that it? Q. Yes. Joe Browne: That's certainly a positive development. You can quote a league spokesman as saying that's a positive development. I can't see how that's a negative development. Q. If you guys put 14 teams in the playoffs, then you will have 42 percent of the membership of the NFL playing in the playoffs. I think there are folks that think being in the playoffs should be a reward for excellence during the season. How do you rationalize that? Rich McKay: Well, first I'd say to you it's not my proposal, and nobody ever said I was in favor of it. But I would say this to you, firsthand: If that did happen, if the membership did vote that, you would be back to the same percentages you were at prior to expansion, prior to expansion from 28 to 30, then to 32 teams. There is an argument that if you're just going to look at percentages, you're really going back to the percentage you were at, or at least close to the percentage you were at, prior to the last two expansions. The question was asked earlier that I didn't answer, I'm remiss, about the playoffs, is there is some concern among the members that when you give one bye, if you go to 14, go to one bye, that is a tremendous advantage. Of course, the converse argument to that is that maybe that team earned it. It will be an interesting discussion, but I don't think the percentages are going to be the alarming thing because I think history says we have been at these percentages before. Q. Which team is going to get the bye? Rich McKay: The No. 1 seed in both conferences. Q. That's the division champion with the best record? Rich McKay: That's correct. In this instance, it would have been Philadelphia that had the bye in the NFC. We would have played week one as opposed to having the bye. Q. Has anything been discussed about the pool system during Super Bowl week in light of what happened? Greg Aiello: It hasn't been discussed in terms of the agenda for the league meeting, so it's not part of next week's meeting. We've had some internal discussion about it, yeah. Q. Has anything been decided? Greg Aiello: No. We have plenty of time. We want to talk to the PFWA about it. We have our PR meeting. It will definitely be a subject there. Yeah, we will be discussing it. Q. Joe, if you could address the G-3 program, in particular what business will take place regarding it? Where does that program stand? Joe Browne: Greg was just speaking to the commissioner about this yesterday. Go ahead. Greg Aiello: The finance and stadium committee have recommended a one-year extension of the program. That is part of the agenda and it's part of the material that was sent to all 32 clubs, the resolution that proposes a one-year extension. The G-3 program has been viewed as being very successful and very important in the success of stadium development in the league in the last 10 years. To give you a couple of numbers, it has contributed $650 million in league funds towards eight projects so far. The sun sets at the end of this month, that's why it has to be taken up at this meeting, the owners have to make a decision on the future of the program. Q. I know back at the Super Bowl, the commissioner was pretty outspoken about the unresolved stadium situation in San Diego in regard to a future Super Bowl. Does the league share that same view toward New Orleans and its situation with the stadium? Joe Browne: I don't want to draw comparisons between San Diego and New Orleans or San Diego and New York. We're keeping abreast of the situation. In New Orleans the commissioner I think, as you know, was down there a couple weeks ago. He spoke at the University football banquet, went down the next day to meet with the governor, mayor and Mr. Benson. They had a good meeting. We know we're working with the state, with the city. We're keeping abreast. There's mention of that bill being introduced down there in the state that would force any game that was played in a new stadium to be -- whether the game was sold out or not, to be televised. We're against that down there, just like we were against it in Seattle and Arizona when there was mention of it. We believe a bill like that is an anti-stadium bill. Regardless of who owns the stadium, who builds the stadium, regardless of where the revenues go, you're counting on packed houses and ticket sales to help pay off the bonds and the debt on any new stadium. We don't think that would be helpful. Q. I couldn't hear about you about the overtime, 60 percent of the teams that have won the coin toss have won the game? Rich McKay: Let me give you the exact stats. That's true in 2002. Since 1994, I think the stat that was a little alarming is since 1994, 58.9 percent of the teams winning the toss have won the game. Joe Browne: That's either eventually or on the first --. Rich McKay: That's correct. What you're up to now is since '97, you have 37.5 percent of the teams winning the game on the first possession. Q. Laveranues Cole situation has been resolved in terms of where he's going to play. What is the situation in terms of possible punishment by the league on the Redskins and when would that be announced, if at all? Greg Aiello: There's nothing to report on that, David. I could not give you a timetable at this point. It's under the jurisdiction of the management council. That's the investigation that we have still not acknowledged. Joe Browne: You're speaking for the management council when you say that, too. Greg Aiello: Right. Q. For Joe and Rich, could you talk about the replay challenge, the possibility of expanding it? Rich McKay: The replay challenge proposal that is on the books, that is being submitted, I believe it's being submitted by Cleveland. In essence, their proposal is one that says if you challenge, if you use a challenge, I remember the rule is you get two challenges per game, that's it. Their proposal was if you use a challenge and you're successful in that challenge, then you should keep the challenge. We as a committee, you know, did not support that proposal because our view as a committee is twofold. Number one, this year is the final year of our three years that replay has been approved for. We're not necessarily comfortable in tinkering with the rule this year, if you will. We think any modifications that occur with respect to the rule should be done next year when we have another vote to approve it. It seems to us that's the cleaner time to change the rule. Secondly, with respect to any more challenges, the one thing that is apparent to us as a committee is we always reflect back on when we passed this rule. The purpose was to correct the obvious error on the big play. The one thing we did not want to do was encourage challenges. One concern about giving challenges back, even when they're successful, is you might in some way be encouraging challenges. If there was a five-yard play, it didn't really mean a lot in the context of the game, and there's a challenge, you don't want to encourage somebody to challenge that play. You'd like the challenges to occur on changes of possessions, touchdowns, bigger plays that impact the game more directly. There's definitely some hesitancy. There are some people on our committee that do support Cleveland's proposal, but I think overall this is not a rule we will tinker with, if you will, this year. The changing of the rule, the modification of the rule, I think will occur next year. Joe Browne: Mr. Chairman, do you see any way instant replay will not be back in 2004? Rich McKay: I would hope not, Joe. In other words, I would hope there's no chance it would come out of our game after 2003 because I think it's become a part of our game that's been accepted by our fans, and it's certainly accepted by our viewers and even the operators within the system, meaning the coaches. I do think there's a lot of concern with replay in that it's a system that has had a lot of attack, if you will, because there's been plays we didn't necessarily contemplate. I think as a committee and as a membership during this season, the 2003 season, we've got to pay very close attention to how do we want this system to operate going forward? Do I think we play will be part of our game in 2004? Yes, I do. Greg Aiello: It was Cleveland that submitted the proposal. Next question. Q. I was curious if and when a decision about NFL Europe would be made, will there be any sort of general discussion about security for the upcoming season, given recent events? Greg Aiello: NFL Europe, nothing has changed from what we have been saying, which is that we are continuing to monitor developments. But at this point there has been no change in our plans to go forward with the NFL Europe season as scheduled. The six NFL Europe teams are in Tampa in training camp right now. They're scheduled to depart for Europe next Tuesday and Wednesday, with the first games being opening weekend in Europe April 5th and 6th. Yes, there will be discussion about the NFL Europe seen and NFL International in general at the meeting next week. Joe Browne: Early next week. Greg Aiello: Right. Q. Follow-up on the overtime proposal. Under the two-possession proposal, what happens if the game is tied after two possessions, for example team one takes the kick-off, kicks a field goal, the second team gets the ball, kicks a field goal, the score is tied? Rich McKay: Sudden death. Basically all the two-possession rule provides for, as used in NFL Europe and as posed by Kansas City, is that the team that does not get the ball first has an opportunity to have a possession to match, but after that all bets are off, it's sudden death. Q. After that, the first team to score would win? Rich McKay: That's correct. Joe Browne: You're dad was a coach, a great coach, Rich. If there were a two-possession rule in our game, would you, if you won the coin toss, kick off or receive? Rich McKay: Coach Dungy and I argued that in Naples long and hard. I would receive because that would say to me that I have two chances to win it. In other words, I get it first. If they do match me, I get it third. Tony's position was, I think some of the coaches on the committee was, no, you would kick off because then you know what you have to do to keep the game going. In other words, if you kick off, you know that you have to make a field goal, or you know you have to go ahead a get a touchdown, or you know you don't. It gives you an extra fourth down in that possession to determine what you have to do to keep the game going. Q. Rich, on overtime, you said the percentages of teams that won the first possessions in '97 is 35 percent, 37.5 percent. Rich McKay: That's correct. Q. Do you know how many games were won this year on the first possession? Rich McKay: I believe it's 10 out of 25. One of those games, the coin toss was the team elected to kickoff. The team that won the flip of the coin, that's 36 percent of the time that that happened on the first possession, but it's really 40 percent of the time. 10 out of 25. Q. Was there any discussion about the kicking game, the fact that special teams have been pretty bad as far as kick-off coverage, I don't want to say in general, but in a lot of places, that that is leading to better field position for the offensive team, plus the fact that offenses are better, that's a new trend, and you don't want to institute something artificial when this could very well be a trend of the game that the pendulum may swing the other way in a couple years? Rich McKay: Right. And, Bob, one of the ways you deal with that is that's when you start to talk about if you tweak this rule this year, next year or the year after, do you say, "Let's try this rule for a year or two?" That's what we've done. We got nervous about: Is this an anomaly or really a trend? The only thing I'd say to you when is you look at the numbers and you go back since '94, this is a trend. I mean, these numbers have been running in this direction now for eight years. This isn't just something that happened in 2002. So that's a little concerning. But as far as kick coverage goes, I think all of us tie it to the kickoffs, where the kickoffs are landing, as opposed to the guys covering the kicks. Also I think there is a lot more emphasis on the kicking game and on the return game which probably does give you better opportunities for returns. But it will be interesting. As I say, this is going to be an interesting topic to be discussed next week. Joe Browne: Do you think there's a chance the change in the overtime rule can be put in for one year only? Rich McKay: I don't think anybody wants to start at this basis, but I think that is sometimes where you end up. If people are concerned, that these are temporary trends, we shouldn't drastically modify the game as we might be by modifying overtime, let's just look at it and see how this operates. One of the other things that you do in that is if you do something for a shorter term like one year, two years, whatever you do, you do then have an opportunity to deal with what's known as unintended consequences. There may be some unintended consequences when you make a rule change such as this that nobody envisioned. What's nice is when you pass for it a year, you can go back and try to fix some of those unintended consequences. Q. Rich, on the overtime deal, back at the combine when we spoke to you and Jeff, it seemed he was somewhat surprised that it seemed like an overwhelming number were against making a change. That's probably some of the debate you and Tony have had with each other. Is your experience when it comes to an on-the-field rule like this, if their coach is against something, that most owners will side with their coach on an issue? Rich McKay: Yes. I hate to be as direct as that, not give you a better answer, but that is my experience. Most times in football on-the-field decisions, it's always his vote, and ultimately he will cast it, he usually will look over to the coach and say, "How do you feel about this?" Yeah, the coach has a great influence in it. The one thing that was good about Naples was, talking with Tony, talking to Mike about it and so forth, there are many different ways to look at this, many different arguments you can make. I think the nice thing about the way the meeting sets up for us is you get to kind of discuss it on Sunday, we're going to discuss it again on Monday. On Tuesday there will be more backroom discussion. By Wednesday, you'll have a pretty good feel for where it's going. The coaches will definitely have a say in this. If you remember, the two-point conversion passed I think when the coaches were on the golf course. It was a unique time. But that will certainly not be the case this time as this is one that I think merits a lot of discussion. I think the coaches have a pretty good viewpoint here, "Let's not rush into it; let's make sure we know what all the consequences are." Q. The two-point conversion from the coach's standpoint, one more thing for them to be second guessed about, like the debate with Tony, do you take the ball first, if you take the ball first, do you settle for the field goal? Rich McKay: Your point is well-taken that there's no question if you change to this format, the strategy angles of a game as far as overtime go definitely increase. There are many different ways to go now based on wind, based on weather, based on your decision to take the toss. There's a lot of things that go into it, whereas in a sudden death format, it's a little more simplistic. Q. New England and Kansas City putting the proposal forward with extending the playoff format. Am I correct in remembering that one of those teams would have made the playoffs last year? Rich McKay: Yes. I believe New England would have made the playoffs. Joe Browne: Is that an editorial comment? Rich McKay: He was nice enough. Q. I just asked the question (laughter). Rich, on your stats, you said 10 and 25, but one team won the kick-off. The teams that won the coin toss, it was 9 and 25? Rich McKay: That's correct. Hear me out. That is won by the team winning the toss on the first possession. Q. Yeah. Rich McKay: The teams winning the toss won 15 out of 25. They won 60 percent of the time. See the difference? Q. Yes. I wanted to check on how you were counting the game where it's kicked off. So 9 of 25 that won the coin toss and elected to receive? Rich McKay: Yes. Just won on the first possession. Taking that game, the coin toss out of it, it's 10 of 25. Q. Extending the playoffs, does it get brought up in the discussion, so far, since you went to 12 teams, the bottom four haven't made the Super Bowl much less won it since 1990? Does that get brought up in discussion that it wouldn't make that much difference one way or another? Rich McKay: Most definitely. It definitely gets discussed. It was discussed in the committee long and hard. You know, it will absolutely be discussed on the floor as to the quality of the game, the issues you're pointing to. Q. Is that a problem that the last four teams don't make it anyway or is that the way the game goes? Rich McKay: I think it's the way the game goes. I think we all know it can easily change. For instance, all you need it to be is that fifth or sixth seed that has the quarterback out for a few weeks. That's how you got into that position. The statistics say that since '90, but I would tell you we all know circumstances could dictate that. Nobody begrudges a fifth or sixth seed team going in there. I've been there. It's a lot better than being home. Q. Joe, is there any goal for the minority coaches? Say it got to be 10, would you still think you need a program, or at that point you think it's a moot point? Are you aiming for anything in particular? What is the goal of the program? Joe Browne: The goal of the program is to have the widest and most diversified pool of applicants involved in head coaching openings. There is no magic number. Greg Aiello: The goal is focused on the process, not the outcome, in other words, having a fair, open, inclusive hiring process, then the best candidate gets the job. Joe Browne: Supplementing what I said? Greg Aiello: Yes. Q. Is there any discussion now what happens in the future in a situation where the minority candidates decline to be interviewed? Is that on the table for discussion? Joe Browne: It's part of the committee's discussion as we speak. Your friend will be in Arizona, as will your friend the commissioner. You can discuss that with him on Monday after they've had a chance to speak to all 32 owners. The last time all 32 owners were together was in New York the end of October in our league meeting when this committee was announced. They have not been together since. That's why on Monday morning the commissioner plans to discuss this issue with them right at the start of the meetings. Greg Aiello: On the overtime, we'll put some of these key overtime statistics up on NFLmedia.com after the call. Q. Joe, just to clarify the situation with the Lions and diversity committee, after the meeting in Palm Beach last week, Mr. Rooney indicated there would be a decision before the league meetings started. Am I correct in assuming now that that timetable has been extended and maybe it's a little more open-ended? Joe Browne: It may still happen. I was there with you when Dan Rooney said that. There have been discussions back and forth. The Lions have submitted some information. There have been more questions from the committee, routine questions from the committee. The process has just taken a little longer than Mr. Rooney had anticipated. Whether anything comes out between now and next Monday, I'm not certain. If I was pinned to the wall, I'd say probably not, but anything's possible. Q. Has the NFL been in discussions with its broadcasters about a possible expansion of the playoffs? How much extra money would that mean with additional playoff games to the league? Greg Aiello: You can ask that question next week. I don't think we're in a position to comment on that. Q. You can't say whether the broadcasters have been approached? Greg Aiello: I don't believe they have. You know, again, I'm not certain about that. Why don't you call me afterwards. We're talking about the league meeting agenda next week, and that's not part of it. Q. Will there be a report or decision on the commissioner's decision in January putting a moratorium on trades of draft choices for personnel other than head coaches? Joe Browne: Did you guys talk about that, Rich? Rich McKay: Yes, we did. We will give a recommendation, and I hope I can find it here, to the commissioner concerning that, at least what our position would be, realizing that it is within his purview and his discretion. But he did ask that we give him such a recommendation. We will recommend to him that he maintain that moratorium except as it applies to head coaches and to what is defined in the policy as high-level employees. But otherwise, the moratorium, if you will, with respect to any other league employees and the exchange of draft picks should be maintained. That will be in our report next week. Q. You mentioned there were no inequities the way it worked out with the playoffs. There was the one situation with the Colts went on the record to play the Jets, and the Colts had a better record. Has there been any discussion about seeding the playoffs regardless of whether a team has won a division in the first round? Rich McKay: Yeah, there has been. That was mainly had two years ago. We had long discussions about it because there were even some owners that had written to us, e-mailed us, gotten word to us that they wanted to consider the idea of straight seeding as opposed to divisional seeds, the way we'd done. We basically took the decision, as we have with respect to the playoffs, let's let this system operate and let's see how it works out. If an inequity does show up in a couple years, then we'll consider it. But for now we're going to go with the way it had been done before, seeding the division champions first and work it in the traditional fashion. There's nothing on the table this year to address that. We did talk about it again in Naples and kind of said that next year when we look at this eight divisions of four setup, does it work. Q. Is there any chance that you would announce the regular season schedules next week? If not, when would it be? Greg Aiello: I don't believe there's any plan to announce it next week. So not until after the league meeting. There's no specific timetable or specific date. We think it will be shortly after the league meeting, possibly early April. Joe Browne: Somebody said when the snow melts. Greg Aiello: We appreciate your time, look forward to seeing you in Phoenix. -- FastScripts by ASAP Sports
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
