Commissioner Tagliabue Press Conference
League Meeting--Phoenix, Arizona 3/24/03

PT:  We had a long session this morning and got a lot done.  You’ve received some of the key parts of my opening remarks and comments on the state of the league.  The feeling around the room is what we all felt right after the Super Bowl that the 2002 season was a tremendous season of competition.  As I said, there were more overtime games than ever.  There were more of the come-from-way-behind comebacks late in the game.  There’s a very strong feeling among the coaches, the Competition Committee and the owners that it was a tremendous season, one of the best ever.  Someone said that on a scale of 10, it was an 11, so you can’t get better than that. 

We reviewed some of the business accomplishments of the last year, including the launch of the Houston Texans and the new stadiums that opened last year.  We looked ahead to the Super Bowl being played in Houston at the end of this season and then some of our key priorities, which are to continue to be the best programming on television.  We talked at some length about the NFL Network that will be launched this fall.  We talked about new stadium construction continuing to be a priority.  And even longer term than that is how the Collective Bargaining Agreement is working and in what areas there may need to be some refinement.

On decision to play NFL Europe overseas this season:
There was a very strong consensus to go forward and play the season.  That decision was made and the feeling was that we’re an American business doing business in Europe, albeit a sports business.  But like so many other American businesses in Europe, we need to go ahead and continue to operate.  The world changed with the first attack 10 years ago on the World Trade Center.  And we all know how the world has changed.  But that’s the environment in which you have to operate. 

So there was a very strong consensus to go forward and play the season, which in part was a recognition that the fans over there embrace NFL Europe football, and the players in the past, as well as currently, view it as a real opportunity to develop.  And, so, we’ll be proceeding on that basis.

On anti-American attitudes facing NFLEL players and personnel:
I think we all know that there have been months of discussion in the U.N. and differences of opinion, but the world will pull together.  People around the globe are still entitled to be anti-war, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that individual Americans are going to be held in disfavor.

On extra security protecting NFLEL players and personnel:
We have, over the years, done a better and better job with security in NFL Europe, trying to bring it up to the standards that we have here in the United States for our NFL teams.  There was a considerable additional effort on that last year, post-September 11, and that will continue.

On the diversity hiring issue and the Detroit Lions:
We’re going to be discussing that on quite a comprehensive basis at several different sessions, including with the coaches on Wednesday morning.  We’ll be outlining some additional initiatives.  We’ll be continuing the coaching seminars that we have at the May meeting and a number of other initiatives going forward.  We’ll include a career development program at the Stanford Business School for NFL club executives in late June, open to executives of all groups, but certainly with significant minority participation.  And, so, we’ll be talking about a wide range of things.  The discussion is really going to focus on most of these league-wide initiatives and not on any individual club matters, so at this point, I don’t really expect that we’ll have anything definitive on any aspect of the Lions this week.

On interviewing process implemented by the Diversity Committee:
The interview process that was adopted in December was a positive.  It’s a complex type of circumstance, and it’s not an easy process to manage.  But I think it is a positive step and it will work.  There was a certain element of newness.  There was a certain element of transition.  There was a certain lack of an opportunity to discuss some of these initiatives in depth with the teams because we didn’t have a league meeting after our October meeting.  So I think that going forward there will be a better understanding of some of the complexities as to how to make this work, and people will make it work.
 

On the Fritz Pollard Alliance and the NFL’s relationship with such organizations:
People who can form organizations should form organizations if they feel those organizations serve a purpose for them.  How we as a league deal with organizations is a judgment we have to make.  I don’t envision that going forward we’ll be dealing with any particular organizations whether they are internal or external to the league.  The Fritz Pollard Alliance is a little bit of each, a little internal, a little external.  The emphasis is going to continue to be on leadership by owners and the normal patterns that we have of how the teams relate to the league and we work as a collective, without too many additional organizations serving as intermediaries.

On issue of additional risk of injury associated with prolonged overtime period:
It’s been a discussion point.  It’s always been a discussion in pro football and in college football, probably at all levels, whether once you get into overtime the wear and tear and the fatigue factor result in significant additional risks of injury.  The Players Association is very emphatic in support of some changes that would involve possessions beyond our current overtime system, and they don’t see that there is a significant additional risk of injury, certainly not with the two-possession concept.  Some other concepts that would prolong the game to a much greater degree, I think the Players Association would have some concern.  It’s been looked at but it doesn’t seem to be a big factor on the types of concepts that are under discussion, including the Kansas City proposal, which the Competition Committee has looked at.

On the idea of a new overtime system and the possibility of more ties as a result:
A lot of the discussion of what would happen with a different system is under the heading of “informed speculation,” because the short answer is that nobody knows.  When I was with the Competition Committee at the Combine in Indianapolis, there was discussion about whether a second-possession concept would lead teams that won the toss to kick off rather than receive.  We have that type of system in Europe and teams still win the toss and receive, rather than kick off.

There isn’t any basis that I can see for expecting that a different approach will produce a lot of ties.  People are still going to play to win, and once you’re into a sudden-death environment, there are going to be winners and losers.

On the proposal to extend the number of teams in the playoffs:
There are three reactions.  One, it’s quite a complex subject.  I know that most of the concern that I hear about our current playoff structure is the fact that certain teams get byes, and that the bye, coupled with homefield advantage, is becoming a big competitive edge that needs to be addressed and minimized or eliminated.  By adding a seventh team from each conference to the playoffs, at least under the current proposal, you would be at the point where one team from each conference would have a bye.  And I think many clubs are going to view that as moving the competitive disadvantage in the wrong direction; not ameliorating it, but exacerbating it.  So that’s just one aspect of the complexity of this issue. 

The second issue is that it’s quite clear from history, including last season, that the thing that generates the great interest in the NFL late in the season is the closeness in the won-loss records of the teams competing to get into the playoffs.  It’s not the number of teams in the playoffs.  We had 19 teams in the last week competing for the Super Bowl with two weeks to go.  It’s hard to see how you can improve upon that, but that grows from the fact that as you come toward the end of the season, you have a lot of teams at 9-6 or 9-5 and you don’t have 15-1s and 1-15s.  So the critical thing in terms of excitement at the end of the year is the strength of our competition league-wide.  And I don’t think you improve upon that by just adding a couple of teams from the lower end of the won-loss line to the playoffs.

The third thing is television, and where do the games fit in, and would the fans view them as additional attractive games over and above what we already have on the opening week of the playoffs.  Those issues are significant as well and need further study.

On renewed fan interest in the Dallas Cowboys:
The Cowboys have obviously been a legendary franchise, not only under Jerry Jones, but going back earlier than that.  It’s great for Dallas and great for the National Football League for a lot of excitement to be centered on the Cowboys and on Bill Parcells coming back to coaching.  What more can you say?  If they win, the excitement will build.  If they don’t win, people will be more interested in other teams that are winning, like the Buccaneers and other teams that don’t have the same long history of success.  Ultimately, sports comes down to the winners being hot and the losers being not quite as hot.

On the overtime debate:
I expect to be active in the debate.  I expect to be active in listening in the first instance.  It’s going to be a very active debate because it’s an issue where from a competitive standpoint I think there is a growing feeling among ownership that too high a percentage of the games are being inordinately influenced by who wins the toss of the coin.  You don’t have to be a football expert to make that judgment, so owners are prepared to make this judgment on their own.

Secondly, there seems to be a strong perception among fans, and certainly among players, that has been expressed to us that too high a percentage of games  are being influenced by who wins the toss of the coin.  On the flip side of the coin, no pun intended, the coaches seem to be preoccupied with the status quo and the notion that it’s easier to deal with what you know that what you don’t know.  So there is going to be a lot of discussion and there could be considerable support for a change.  Whether is gets to 24 votes the first time around, I don’t know.

On the Rose Bowl:
We had a good presentation from the Rose Bowl representatives at some committee meetings down in Florida in the first week of March.  I think everyone was impressed that they are continuing to address their design issues, their traffic issues and their other issues in a real thorough and professional way.  That process is going to continue and we’re going to continue to work with them.  But there are still a number of issues that people feel have not yet been fully explored, and certainly from our side, we still have a lot of work to do.

On Randy Lerner:
I’ve known Randy for a number of years.  While Al Lerner was alive, I had very positive impressions of Randy and those have continued as he’s become the successor to his father.  We’ve met a couple of times through the winter and into the spring.  He’s a real quick study.  He loves sports, particularly the Cleveland Browns. He’s got a real good sense of balance in terms of what his role as the steward for his family is as opposed to the role of the club management and the coaching staff.  So I think the prognosis is very positive.

On the issues surrounding the use of the Rose Bowl as a fully functioning NFL stadium:
They are the same issues that everyone has been discussing for quite a while.  And they relate to some of the things I just mentioned: traffic patterns, ingress, egress, design elements, whether you can make it into a true state-of-the-art stadium consistent with the historic preservation objectives that everyone recognizes are so important, and other such issues.

On whether the diversity issue is the number-one concern facing the NFL:
No.  It’s one of our top priorities, but the biggest concern that we all have is one that all Americans have about the state of world affairs and military conflict.  Obviously those are the priorities for all Americans, and they in turn temper everything that we do.  As everyone knows, from the President on down, they have ripple effects through the economy, and those are concerns for all people in America, including NFL fans.  So I’d say the state of world affairs and the state of the national economy are our biggest concerns.

And then among our priorities, certainly, is enriched diversity in everything that we do, a continuation of labor peace and many other priorities.

On the Cardinals’ new stadium in Glendale:
We’re going to have a presentation tomorrow from the Cardinals and I believe the governor is going to participate.  There is a lot of excitement about what has been accomplished, and I’m sure there will be a lot of excitement about the prospect of playing a Super Bowl in the Cardinals’ new stadium.  There has always been a strong feeling about the attractiveness of this area as a Super Bowl city, other than the stadium.  And now that the stadium is there, the enthusiasm is going to be redoubled or even magnified exponentially.   So that’s a positive and we look forward not only to tomorrow but to further presentations down the road as we start making decisions on future Super Bowls.

On the extension of the G-3 program:
We had a lot of discussion yesterday with our committees on G-3.  There was a unanimous sense to extend the program, and my sense is that will get done this week.

On expansion of the playoffs after just one year of realignment:
I don’t have a favorite one way or the other.  I do know that when we looked at realignment and the new scheduling formula, we felt that it was not smart to expand the playoffs at that point because we did not know how that would all work out in terms of competitiveness within divisions, who would qualify, what the spread in terms of won-loss records might be from different divisions to different divisions.  And we basically told the membership then that we would not make any decisions on expanding the playoffs until we had two seasons under our belt with the new divisional alignment and scheduling formula.

I still think that’s a prudent place to be because as I said before, once you do take that step, the issues that do need to be addressed are not fully studied or not fully explored in terms of the current proposal.  And again, I think from a competitive standpoint, the biggest factor is having one team in each conference with a bye.  I know there are some owners who believe that’s a way of foreordaining the two teams that are going to be in the Super Bowl, and that’s not going to be a positive.

On a one-year experiment with a new overtime system:
It’s conceivable.  No one has really discussed that yet, but in situations where it’s hard to anticipate the consequences of a rule change, certainly some experimentation that would illuminate how things might evolve could be useful.

On expansion of the playoffs:
There’s always support for expanding the playoffs from teams that don’t make the playoffs.  The questions is, from a fans standpoint, we’ve got a pretty good system now.  And I say pretty good as a form of understatement.  I think everyone in sports recognizes that we have the best playoff system, that the regular season actually means something, and that we do not have an inordinately high number of teams get to the playoffs.  To get to the playoffs, you have to be a good, strong football team.  So you have to make a judgment about whether going a little bit deeper into the won-loss records to have an additional opportunity for a team to play really enhances your overall product, or in the aggregate does it just pull you down. 

When we expanded the playoffs last time, one of the big concerns on the prior system was the wild-card weekend was viewed widely by the fans as “also-ran” weekend.  And people took a week off from NFL football when the wild-card weekend was viewed as “also-ran” weekend.  We changed that and it’s become continuous interest from the end of the season through the Super Bowl.  It doesn’t help to go back to “also-ran” weekend in terms fan interest and enthusiasm. 

On who would enforce the diversity policy:
The general feeling is that under our Constitution and Bylaws, enforcement of all league policies and all league initiatives is principally the commissioner’s job.  Normally we don’t have club owners playing the role of evaluating discipline with respect to other club owners or employees, and that’s true whether it’s a violation of our Constitution and Bylaws or cap circumvention under the Collective Bargaining Agreement or anything else.  So I think we’ll probably stay in the framework as we go forward in this area.

On loss of draft choices as punishment for failing to interview minority coaching candidates:
We would be looking at going forward in this area, as in most other areas, with fines and not draft choices.  Our Bylaws are specific that draft choices are limited to competitive offenses, and that means things that directly affect the game on the field or the ability to compete on the field.  Diversity under that heading in most contexts goes beyond the currently accepted scope of our Bylaws.

On the possibility of a Super Bowl in Washington, D.C. or New York:
We’re really going to focus on that at the May meeting and are going to have some reports then, but not at this meeting.

On increasing team rosters on game day:
I don’t think it’s likely to pass.  Just a wild guess.

On statistical objectives in terms of minority hiring:
That’s one of the things we’re going to be looking at.  That’s kind of customary as you try to have diversity initiatives that are concrete and don’t have just broad goals.  You normally try to make certain you are making progress and have various measures, some of them qualitative and some of them quantitative, which means statistical.  But that’s something we’re just starting to scratch the surface on.

On the NFL Network:
It will launch initially on DirecTV.  It will be available to all DirecTV subscribers as part of their basic service.  As we consider where it goes in cable, our goal would be to have very broad distribution and not to have restricted distribution.  But those are decisions that are still ahead of us.

On concerns about expanding playoffs:
I think the concerns are twofold at the core of it.  Number one, we don’t know enough about the current divisional alignment, the current scheduling formula, to make informed judgments about the risk of having marginal teams in the playoffs with marginal records.

And secondly, I think the bye week is the biggest concern that most people have.  And until we can figure out a way of addressing that, I think there is going to be resistance to any piecemeal changes in the playoffs.  Maybe we can never address that, and that’ll be the answer, but that I think is the number one concern that people have.

#   #   #