Commissioner Tagliabue Press Conference
 League Meeting, Phoenix, Arizona, 3/26/03

PT:  We finished the meeting and have covered a lot of ground since Sunday morning.  I’d be happy to take any questions you have now. 

On the expansion of the playoffs:
We had the understanding as a league when we voted on it about three or four years ago, on the eight-division structure and the new scheduling formula, that we would wait to have two seasons of won-loss records under our belt before we considered the addition of teams to the playoffs.  We approached this meeting on the basis of that understanding among the owners. 

So the Competition Committee had some discussion but it was limited discussion.  Our staff did a relatively small amount of work on the issue, and we didn’t come in here to make decisions.  Some owners felt that we might want to revisit that and possibly make a decision at the May meeting with only one season under our belt.  Other owners felt that was premature.  We’ve undertaken to have the Competition Committee do analysis of the competitive aspects of the seven-team playoff format, including the single bye.  And we’re also going to study it from the standpoint of television and we’ll come back with recommendations of alternatives at the May meeting and then take a vote.

I don’t have any sense on where it might go, other than there are lots of different opinions, some of them focusing on television, some of them focusing on the competitive aspects, including the one bye.

On the overtime vote:
As you know the committee was divided.  There was a lot of discussion and the prevailing sentiment was that the current rule provides for tremendous excitement, the sudden-death element of it.  Teams have the incentive, if they win the toss and receive, to go for the victory. 

Bill Polian gave an example of the Indianapolis-Denver game in the snow where [the Colts] went in there, they attempted a field goal, and won.  A big victory, an upset you may say.  If you had the proposal in place, his guess, and Tony Dungy shared the point of view, was that they would have been more conservative.  They probably would have punted, because the kick would not have won the game.  The kick would have put them three points ahead with the other team having the ball.  He’s concerned, and coaches are concerned, that it would institute an element of conservatism into overtime play.  Steve Spurrier expressed that point of view. 

So there’s an element of drama, excitement and aggressiveness in the game now that many people felt would disappear.  Others felt it would not disappear. 

The other issue was the overtime with two possessions guaranteed leading to more ties.  That can be an unfair competitive advantage in qualifying for the playoffs.  This year Atlanta finished 9-6-1.  So you have one fewer loss than a divisional rival or someone else who is trying to qualify for a wild-card spot, but you don’t have one more win, you just have a tie.  People felt if there were a proliferation of ties, you could have that type of situation with teams getting into the playoffs because of the tie as an anomaly rather than because they won more games.  

The short of it was that people felt we’ve got the best rule right now and there’s a lot of excitement.  We’ve been bragging all year about overtime games and we’ll continue to be bragging next year because it’s exciting.

On the replay challenge system:
I don’t think there was much sentiment for the idea of getting the challenge back if you’re right.  Some clubs voted for it, but it was rather soundly rejected, partly because the committee’s view was that we should not deal piecemeal with replay, partly because there’s an element of chance there.  Every coach is making a good-faith judgment about replay.  The calls are sometimes hairsplitting calls, frame-by-frame.  And to have one club lose a challenge because of that fine judgment on slow motion and another club to keep the challenge because they turn out to be right, I would suspect that is an element of unfairness in the minds of some coaches, but again, they can speak. 

Replay comes up for revote next year, and the broadest sentiment was if we’re going to change it, we should do it as a package and not piecemeal.

On having championship games at neutral sites:
Over the years, some clubs have felt neutrality, such as exists with the Super Bowl, is a big factor, in terms of fairness.  With the twelfth man on the field being the home-team fans, noise can sometimes be a factor.  If you had neutral sites, presumably you could pick sites where you could guarantee weather.  So, therefore, you might not have inclement weather conditions.  So there are a lot of advantages to neutral sites.

There are a lot of disadvantages, too.  I don’t think there is a lot of sentiment right now to move the championship games to neutral sites.  Probably the biggest current advantage is that it’s an incentive to play and win and get homefield advantage.  It makes late-season games important, keeps the competition going to get the homefield advantage and it’s a reward to the fans.  They get to see the biggest game for their team, next to the Super Bowl, without having to travel away from home.

On diversity initiatives:
There was good, healthy discussion each day about our diversity initiatives.  We started on Monday with the owners.  We continued yesterday with owners and club executives and an outside consultant who has advised many companies and gave us a good, historical and very broad perspective of good, sensible career development policies for employees, including in the area of diversity. 

I had an additional discussion last night with the Diversity Committee and with the Competition Committee.  And then this morning it was discussed as part of what we discussed with all the coaches in the session we had with head coach and principal owner only.  I think there was a lot of good understanding at this meeting, and clearly a very strong commitment from everybody as to diversity across the board in all that we do and not simply in the coaching ranks.

On medical issues involving players:
We are having discussions about these medical issues, including the malpractice insurance issues.  I have been involved in some of them, but not recently.  Three things are being explored.  One is the availability of insurance.  Two is the changes in our relationship with our Players Association in the area of medical care, including some potential sharing of cost of self insurance or external insurance.  And three, we’re looking at some concepts of self insurance.

On overtime proposal:
The proposal put in by Kansas City was to make that change on a permanent basis.  There was a lot of interest in seeing whether it might be adopted as a one-year experiment.  In order to change the resolution, we had to get a majority of the clubs to agree.  So we got a majority vote to amend the resolution to say that it would apply only to this season, such as we did with replay for many years.  We got the affirmative vote to say that the proposed resolution would be for the 2003 season only, we discussed it and it was voted down.

On television opinions about expanded playoffs:
We don’t know.  We have not spoken to the networks.  At least I haven’t.

On the resolution of the Detroit situation:
We really didn’t spend much time on it here this week.  I’m going to talk to Dan Rooney this week and then we’re going to talk to Bill Ford Jr. and settle on a process and bring it to some sort of conclusion.  We spent our time on all the league-wide aspects of diversity and we’re just going to move forward.

On the extension of G-3 financing:
As to whether any of it goes toward current projects or future projects, it’s for future projects.  The current eight projects are all fully funded.  As you know many of them are completed with the stadiums up and running.  We’ll have three more next year: Philadelphia, Chicago and Green Bay.  So this is for future projects.

On the Indianapolis Colts stadium situation:
I have had some discussions going back several months with the mayor.  I know that our staff has had some discussions with the mayor’s staff.  And I’ve had some discussions with Jim Irsay, as has our staff.  But I’m not really current on where things are today. 

On the issue of banned substances and the suspensions that result from using them:
You’d really have to ask Harold Henderson.  Gene Upshaw and Harold and I have discussed it a few times, whether we should shorten the suspension for the first violation on supplements.  Those discussions kind of got overtaken by the broader discussion about whether we could have a manufacturer or manufacturers whose products would be, in effect, pre-approved so that training staffs and physicians and players know that if you use this brand, you’re ok.  Those discussions are going on and we feel that we are going to have that kind of solution going into the season.

Everyone’s concern was once again heightened with the death of the Orioles’ player.  I know that Harold and Gene and I will get back on the suspension issue, but we have not had any recent discussions.  It’s been again on the broader discussion of whether we can provide a certified, safe product, which would be a big step in the right direction.  Hopefully that would eliminate suspensions because players wouldn’t be misled as to what it is they are using or not using.

On the presentation of the Glendale Stadium project in Arizona:
On the Glendale project here, we had some opportunity for some discussion yesterday with the governor and the mayor about the stadium and about the Super Bowl.  Everyone has worked real hard to finally bring to reality a very exciting stadium.  And we’re going to be looking forward to considering when we can play the Super Bowl there.  It was a good, strong presentation and a very impressive one.

On evaluating referees as a crew:
The change on the officiating was really the recommendation that Mike Pereira and Larry Upson raised with me in the middle of the season last year.  When we reviewed officiating at midseason, they said they were really looking at all the crews performing very well.  The experience that officials were getting in NFL Europe was a very valuable supplement to collegiate officiating because they were officiating NFL rules with players at a higher level; bigger, faster.  These are very similar conditions to what they see in the NFL in terms of the rules and the mechanics. 

Mike and Larry felt that all of our crews were very strong and it probably made sense to evaluate crews as a whole and make a judgment on that basis.  Which, in reality, is a relatively modest extension because under the old approach we frequently had the core of the crew together and then we added some people on a selective basis.  And they felt there was no longer a need to do that.  The entire crew was performing well and everyone could be rewarded on a group basis.

On bids for upcoming Super Bowls:
For the Super Bowl bid process for ’07, ’08 and ’09, we’ve had discussions with the Super Bowl Advisory Committee and we’re going forward on the basis of what we told the clubs at the league meeting last fall.  The first priority would be south Florida, and we’ve had discussions with both Miami and Tampa as to where that might be.  Tampa has had the Super Bowl more recently than Miami.  So the league discussions at the moment are with the South Florida Host Committee, and we may make a decision on the 2007 Super Bowl at the May meeting.  And then 2008, ’09, and ’10 would be later.  Probably next March.  No earlier than that.

On the pros and cons of expansion:
One of the pros is that you don’t have to move a team.  One of the cons is that you’ve got to create another team.  And that’s not easy.