Great writeup - Weekend Checkdown at Behind the Steel Curtain. Here's a good observation by Ivan Cole about the league:
Killing the goose
There was one aspect of the Ravens game that got on my last nerve. The penalties called on Courtney Upshaw (his hit on Ben may have had something to do with his poor performance, who knows), Troy Polamalu and Mike Mitchell speak to a certain level of bankruptcy in the NFL. How can I say that, you may ask? Isn't this the price we have to pay for player safety?
This has nothing to do with player safety other than creating a perception for legal cover. If the league was concerned about player safety, wouldn't part of an effective strategy be to not force teams to play on a Thursday night with just three days rest? If the concern was for player safety, wouldn't it be for all the players? On the same approximate spot where Mitchell was penalized, on the same field on Thanksgiving night last season, they did everything to Le'Veon Bell except shoot him point blank with an elephant gun. No penalty. What's the more reliable driver of what this league (and its partners) does, from how it handles player safety, to punishments on issues from substance abuse to domestic violence, is profitability, greed and the public relations smokescreens that make that possible.
I've stated on a number of occasions that I don't do much in the way of predictions. I did make one a couple of years ago when I said the head-injury issue wasn't going away anytime soon. Score one for me. So here's another one; a bit more dire than that. The league's corporate short-sightedness may well kill the game of football (the goose that lays the golden eggs). The kill-shot will not be player safety. It will not be substance abuse. It will not be domestic violence.
It will be gambling and the perceived manipulation of results.
How can I say such a thing, and where's my proof? I don't have any (and am not searching for any). It's just that the explanation fits the behavioral patterns and motivations better than the relative nonsense we've been fed.
We have been told that rule changes have been made to enhance offense. That's a half-truth. Wouldn't the running game be part of 'offense'? And we don't care about the running game, we've been told it's almost dead. Running backs can't get drafted or paid. When offense is spoken of in this context it's the passing game of which they speak. Why would quarterbacks and receivers be seen as more valuable than the other players on a team? Where is it that this is true?
Fantasy football. And at root, fantasy football is about gambling.
I watched the game in the company of a group of both Steelers and Ravens fans. The one thing of which we were in complete agreement was the injustice and displeasure with the calls involving Upshaw, Polamalu and Mitchell. The Steelers fans were also not happy about the fact that Antonio Brown and Heath Miller took some pretty good shots to the head with no corresponding punishments forthcoming. Now, I'm not suggesting anything more than the maddening inconsistency of officiating in the league. But if we've learned anything this week, it's how a more explicit rendering of the facts can change how those facts are viewed. If the perception takes hold that the game is being adjudicated to facilitate wagering (this would involve much more money than the billions we normally associate with the game's revenue and profits), and marry that to inconsistent officiating. Read between the lines.
The truth of the matter is that those fans who care primarily about the game of football are in the minority relative to those whose connection is more superficial and tied to things such as fantasy and other forms of gambling. Based on their priorities, the league cares more about this second group and it shows in their decision-making. But isn't there a legitimate concern about player safety at play here? Maybe. But when you clearly care more about the well being of a wide receiver than a lineman, more about marijuana abuse than HGH, more about the profitability of adding another night of prime-time football, even though common sense tells you that a short week can't be good for the health of the players, not to mention that it degrades the product and puts the visiting team at a more pronounced disadvantage (something to consider as you lambaste the team over the next few days). But it does have the advantage of bringing in more money for the league and its partners, because $9 billion per year is clearly not enough. And waiting in the wings is the 18-game schedule, another potential boon to player safety (sarcasm font).
I could go on for a few thousand more words about this particular train wreck-in-the-making, but if I'm right about this, there will be plenty of time to appreciate and lament its full impact in the weeks and years to come. There's a more immediate train wreck that has managed to overshadow the games themselves over the past week.
The reckoning of Roger Goodell
