COMMISSIONER TAGLIABUE
NFL MEETING -- WASHINGTON D.C.
OCTOBER 14, 1997
PAUL TAGLIABUE: Yesterday we had a number of meetings and covered a lot of ground. We had a number of owners and club executives at the Redskins’ game at the new Jack Kent Cooke stadium last night. Today we spent a great deal of time discussing where we are on television and how the new stadiums and television relate to the labor agreement.
The concept we are talking about is the economics of the 90s versus the economics of the 80s. We want to project forward into the economics of the next decade, starting in the year 2000. This afternoon we had a few discussions about scheduling issues that we are looking at involving some minor adjustments to the regular season schedule, and possibly some more significant changes in the preseason format. We expect to play 16 games in 17 weeks as we have been doing. We expect that we’ll continue with the same number of playoff teams as we have and with the same format involving television. One thing we are talking about on the regular season that is a minor change possibility would be moving some of those Saturday December games to prime time.
The one more substantial concept we discussed at some length to get club reaction was the possibility of opening the season the week after Labor Day rather than on Labor Day and then concluding the regular season in the week between Christmas and New Year’s. This has advantages in terms of weather, access to stadiums that are used by baseball teams as well, and television because TV viewing grows during the fall and into the winter, especially after daylight savings. That is a change that could be significant because we could start the preseason later and avoid games in July.
As far as the preseason, we had discussions on reducing the number of preseason weeks from four to three. Secondly, we discussed keeping it at four weeks, but having the league identify one or two of the matchups and the teams individually scheduling some games as they do now. There is growing interest in that from a number of standpoints. Number one, competitively you would have a more balanced schedule. The way it ends up now is that strong teams schedule strong teams and weaker teams end up scheduling weaker teams. If the league designated some matchups you would have a more balanced schedule in terms of opponents.
Secondly, there would be more promotional opportunity for teams, especially those trying to rebuild. If you hit a down cycle now chances are you end up with a weak preseason schedule. That gives you promotional difficulties in terms of launching your preseason into your regular season as it relates to your fans. Third, there are some financial consequences. Big-market teams schedule each other because they can balance out their distribution to the visiting team at high levels, while some lower-revenue teams, or small-stadium teams, get far less revenue out of the four preseason games. That concept is something we are going to develop and present to the owners at an upcoming meeting. Tomorrow we’ll discuss where we stand in terms of Cleveland and Houston, and where we stand with the Green Bay "stock" plan.
Q: Will you have a recommendation on the plan itself?
PT: Right now the Finance Committee is meeting with the Packers. Right now we should strive to try to assist the Packers. It’s a unique situation that they are in and no one else will ever be in the situation of being not-for-profit. Different clubs have had different approaches to building stadiums. Carolina did it with the PSLs, while other situations have blended public-private money. They are looking to develop some private money from within the state that would basically be an investment in a future stadium, or in strengthening the capital structure of the team. We’ll be responsive to their unique situation and their needs.
Q: Will you have a timetable on Cleveland?
PT: The timetable on Cleveland is pretty specific now. We are on target to have the stadium open in 1999. We made a lot of progress this summer working with the city of Cleveland. We reached an agreement some weeks ago that defines the contents of the stadium in a very specific way so that the construction can proceed on a solid timetable. Everything is moving along. We’ve been very successful in terms of selling tickets there and with the PSL program. The agreement we have with the city requires us to make a decision by November 1998, so either tomorrow, or at another league meeting we are going to have to make some decisions so that we can look ahead to November of 1998 in an intelligent way.
Q: What are you going to do to make sure the Oilers situation in Memphis doesn’t happen again?
PT: We’re working hard right now to turn it around this year. I’ve had a lot of discussions with Bud Adams and the political leadership of Tennessee, and the business leaders in Memphis. I’ll be in Memphis in early November myself. We are striving to make this a much more positive experience than it has been to this point and we think it can be done. We think in the weeks ahead we’ll see a difference in attendance and the kind of experience that it is. The Oilers have a good solid schedule with attractive opponents so we think this can be made successful and positive this year.
Q: Have you talked about the Oilers playing at Vanderbilt next year?
PT: No. What I’ve been talking to the mayor about is the long term. How can the NFL, the team and the city and state make the franchise a very successful franchise. We’ve talked about other franchises that are the same in terms of market size -- someone like the Kansas City Chiefs who are a small-market team with state-wide support. We’ve talked to the club, and Bud Adams, about the team name. Changing the name is a difficult decision. There are pluses and minuses. There’s an element of tradition which has prevailed in sports, in our league as well as other leagues. The Utah Jazz have done well keeping their original name. We took the opposite approach in the Ravens’ situation, keeping the Browns’ name in Cleveland.
Q: What did you think about the LA presentation?
PT: It was a good presentation and there are some new elements in there. We didn’t have a chance to analyze the numbers before their presentation but it was positive.
Q: Can an expansion vote be taken as early as the March meetings?
PT: I would think so. We might end up in March voting on expansion, but I don’t know if it is likely.
Q: What was the sentiment about shortening the preseason?
PT: If we moved the start of the season until after Labor Day, it would probably start next year. That would require us to eliminate the open week between the conference championships and the Super Bowl between now and 2001. The date of the Super Bowl between now and 2001 is fixed. Beyond that you could re-institute the open week if you wanted to by moving back the Super Bowl a week.
On the preseason there might be more of a tendency to phase it in. Some of the discussion was the same as we had at the Competition Committee meetings in March; that four preseason games are critical. There was a lot of interest in the preseason discussions. The bottom line was that we should continue our analysis. Taking four down to three means that some clubs would have only one home preseason game, meaning ticket packages would alter between nine and 10 games every year and there’s some concern that it might be a competitive edge. If you move the regular season back all the preseason issues dissolve themselves.
Q: What role does Cleveland play in helping other teams enhance their current stadium situations?
PT: I don’t think it’s been a big factor.
Q: Do you see any possibility that the Cleveland team in 1999 would be operated by the league?
PT: No.
Q: Do you see the possibility of appointing any personnel in Cleveland?
PT: That is one of the things we will be discussing. That may be part of the concept. We might want to get the planning process in place if we take a vote next March. Maybe we’ll have a top notch player personnel in place to transfer their work product over to the eventual owner. The owner can then opt to take that group or replace that group. We wouldn’t be giving them the people, we’d be giving them their work product.
Q: What was the discussion about television?
PT: It was along the lines that we think we have strong audiences and great ratings. We’ve had major increases in rights fees. At this point we’re talking about some of the technology issues. What would happen if we did long-term TV deals, longer than four years? How secure can we be in anticipating a television universe that is five or seven years out? Where does HDTV come in? What can add more value to our package and are we anticipating those technologies. The key part is the relationship between the players and the CBA.
What I said to the membership is that they did a tremendous job increasing the stability of the league in terms of new stadiums and improving the quality of the product on the field. There has been a major increase in revenues and projected revenues. Yet few, if any clubs, feel good about their financial future and the escalating player costs. Whatever money comes in seems to get stripped with cost escalation.
Q: Are you still convinced that Roski and Anschutz are the best answer in LA?
PT: That was discussed this morning. Is the type of package we had, in terms of a new Coliseum, something we should look at on an exclusive basis or should we look at other alternatives as well?
Q: Will you discuss Super Bowls tomorrow?
PT: We won’t have any discussions on any candidate cities, but we may discuss timetables for awarding them. We told John Moag that we’d have to look at the open-air factor in terms of weather factors and other clubs have talked to us about it. Seattle discussed it and Jim Steeg and others on our Super Bowl Committee trying to come up with guidelines that would apply equitably to open-air stadiums in those climates where we would be dealing with weather that is different from what we’ve been dealing with previously. Washington DC, Baltimore and Seattle would be cities where the weather would be different from open-air stadiums we’ve had in the past.
Q: What does the sale of PSLs and tickets in Cleveland say about their fans?
PT: I think it says what everyone has known about Ohio and Cleveland football. That the football tradition there is one of the great ones in America and those fans are anxious to have the Browns back and they’ll have them in 1999.
Q: What’s the status of the Colts’ lease?
PT: I think there is reason to be optimistic. We’ve done a lot of work. We’ve met with the mayor and the last report I had was that progress was being made and something could be worked out that is mutually satisfying.
Q: What are your thoughts on Bob Mcnair as a possible owner in Houston?
PT: Bob is very successful in business and loves football. He has an interest in owning an NFL team. He was part of the discussion of the St. Louis expansion ownership group. I think his interest is a positive development.
Q: Would it be difficult to schedule a 31-team league?
PT: It would be easy to do. The NFL has operated in the past with an odd-number of teams. There would have to be 17 byes, with at least one team having a bye each week. It’s simple.
Q: Have you discussed an 8:00 PM Monday night start?
PT: We’ve discussed it with ABC. We had those discussions in 1990 and 1993 and during Pete Rozelle’s tenure as well. Many people think that when you have a successful program you don’t change the start time. It’s a tradition. It’s part of America. A big part of the audience comes to the TV set later rather than earlier in the evening. The West coast has over 30 million people. Kickoff for them would be at 5:00 PM. That’s a little early for people who work to watch a football game. There are a lot of issues and among them is that it’s not clear that we lose viewers in the later hours. The viewership tends to decline when the game is less competitive, not with the flow of the clock. We hold our audience.