Roger Goodell--His Game, His Rules | Page 4

Apr 3, 2017 at 7:50 PM

Ronnie49Lott
Veteran
Posts: 8,505

Poor Roger isn't making enough?

Does Roger Goodell want a new contract?

Posted by Mike Florio on April 3, 2017, 11:57 AM EDT

PFT reported over the weekend, NFL owners met privately last week to commence the process of planning for the negotiation of Commissioner Roger Goodell's next contract. This presumes that Goodell wants one.

Via Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal, that question was directly posed to Goodell last week as he was exiting the press conference that concluded the annual meeting. Goodell declined to comment.

Goodell, as Kaplan notes, has leverage. With Goodell's current deal expiring in 2019, and given that the labor deal and TV contracts expire early next decade, the league arguably needs Goodell more than Goodell needs the league. Especially since he's undoubtedly saved more than enough money to walk away at what would be the age of 60.

Some NFL owners, as PFT has explained, want to use their leverage. More specifically, Jerry Jones, an influential owner not currently on the Compensation Committee, wants the contract to be negotiated by all owners, and not by just a handful of them.

The league's official committee assignments as of 2016 show Falcons owner Arthur Blank (chairman), Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Texans owner Bob McNair, Giants co-owner John Mara, and Steelers owner Art Rooney II as the members of the group. (Kaplan reports that the list as of 2016 is the same as of now.) Whether Jones is simply miffed because he was omitted from the committee or whether he genuinely believes all owners should have a voice in the process, Jones has argued for greater involvement and oversight, in an effort to perhaps reduce the total expenditure on the Commissioner's compensation package.

Outsiders have argued that the job could be competently filled at a much lower annual rate. The counter is that the Commissioner deserves to be rewarded based on the immense financial growth of the league (even if some would say no specific thing he actually did has caused it). Also, because Goodell routinely moves in the same circles as network executives who make many multiple millions per year, there's a school of thought that Goodell needs to be in that same stratosphere.

Five years ago, in the aftermath of the lockout, the NFL disclosed that Goodell actually made less than former NFL Network chief Steve Bornstein in the fiscal year that ended on March 31, 2011, with Goodell getting $11.554 million and Bornstein receiving $12.2 million. That changed dramatically a year later, with Goodell getting nearly $30 million over the next 12 months and Bornstein's pay dropping to $5.7 million.

The lockout and its aftermath seems to have triggered the massive jump in Goodell's pay, which moved to $44.2 million the next year.

For now, the question is whether the NFL can get away with saving maybe $1 million per team per year on Commissioner compensation, knocking the package back into the range it occupied before the last lockout. While not much money for a collection of billion-dollar businesses, those businesses didn't grow by overpaying employees.

The league, led by the Commissioner, has done an effective job of negotiating favorable terms at all times. This time, the league and its Commissioner could eventually be locked in a stare down with millions at stake — and with the Commissioner's nuclear option arising from his ability to say, "All right. That's it for me!"

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/04/03/does-roger-goodell-want-a-new-contract/

Apr 4, 2017 at 7:42 AM

#47

trogdor
Veteran
Posts: 2,309

Why is Goodell so important? Seems like a bit of on idiot and I would think there are people that could do the job better for less money. Am I missing something?

Apr 4, 2017 at 4:49 PM

#48

Ronnie49Lott
Veteran
Posts: 8,505

Originally posted by trogdor:
Why is Goodell so important? Seems like a bit of on idiot and I would think there are people that could do the job better for less money. Am I missing something?

On the plus side: Goodell inherited a business with $6 billion annual revenues in 2006 and has grown that into what's projected to be right around $14 billion in 2016 with a goal of $25 billion by 2027; ensured no work stoppages with a 10-year labor deal in 2011 through the 2020 season; influenced rule changes to make the game safer; made gains to help care for former players; pushed for technological advances to allow the game to be more accessible and enjoyable for fans.

But it hasn't all been wine and roses. There have been several troubling issues and controversial decisions that have turned into crater-sized potholes in Goodell's decade in office from concussions and CTE denials to suicides by former players mentally impaired by playing football, including Hall of Famer Junior Seau. There's been mishandling of domestic violence incidents and his questionable handling of Spygate, Bountygate and Deflategate. And the fact that too many players just don't trust him.

"It's pretty obvious from the players' perspective there is really not much of a relationship between the commissioner and the players," Damien Woody, an offensive lineman who played from 1999-2010 in the NFL, the last three with the Jets, told the Daily News. "The biggest problem is the lack of transparency, consistency, he's just very combative. The relationship is very contentious. He's done a great job as far as the owners are concerned growing the game — renegotiating the CBA to be more in line with what the owners want. And he's made a lot of money. He's basically a piñata for the owners. He takes a public bashing so the owners don't have to."

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/best-worst-roger-goodell-10-years-nfl-commissioner-article-1.2824168

[ Edited by Ronnie49Lott on Apr 4, 2017 at 4:50 PM ]

Apr 5, 2017 at 7:14 AM

#49

SoCold
Hall of Dumb
Posts: 127,789

Originally posted by thl408:

Originally posted by SoCold:
See the Chip play I posted above. It's not just about substitutions.

Lets say a team needs 20 yards to get into FG range.
10 sec left in the game.
DBs hold all the WRs on purpose.
Defensive holding 5 yards and 10 sec runoff.
Offense is left with 1 untimed down.
Now they can't get into FG range.

They want to change the rule so if a foul is committed just to kill the clock the penalty would be an unsportsmanlike conduct.
15 yards
Clock is reset to before the play.
Offensive team would now only need 5 yards to get into FG range and have 10 sec left.

That's the difference.

Thanks, I get that situation you described, but I am referring specifically about the substitution rule. What kind of illegal substitution will now result in a 10 second runoff? So forget about the Chip rule, that is not what I am talking about. I'd like some example of the substitution rule if anyone can provide one.

Question: How have teams been committing substitution penalties to help conserve the clock, to the point where the league has to step in and implement this 10 second runoff?

It's always been a 10 second runoff if there's only 1 min left in a half. They're not changing that. They're just changing when it applies from 1 min left in the half to 2 min.

Currently, if teams commit an illegal substitution penalty or lose a replay review while the clock was running and there was under one minute to play, there was a 10-second runoff. This rule change would make it a 10-second runoff where there are under two minutes to play.

All fouls resulting in a 10 second runoff with 1 min left now will be called with 2 min left.

A foul by either team that prevents the ball from being snapped
Intentional grounding
Illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage
Throwing a backwards pass out of bounds
Spiking or throwing the ball away after a down (unless after a touchdown)
Any other intentional act that causes the clock to stop

The 10-second penalty does not apply if:

The clock is stopped when the ball is set for play and will not start until the ball is snapped.
If the team on offense has timeouts and elects to use one in lieu of the runoff.
If the defense declines the runoff (which prevents the offense from committing fouls to intentionally run out the clock).
Note that the team on defense may elect to decline the runoff while accepting the yardage penalty, but may not do the reverse.

Apr 7, 2017 at 9:56 AM

#50

thl408
Moderator
Posts: 32,357

SoCold: So there's always been a penalty. It's just applied at the 2 minute mark instead of the 1 minutes mark. Got it. Separate question. What is an example of a team committing an intentional substitution penalty to conserve the clock?

I'm trying to think and here are some examples I thought of, but I can't recall one instance of this in an actual game.
Offensively, a team can put 12 players on the field, get called for a penalty on purpose, stop the clock. But why not just commit an intentional false start penalty?

Defensively, I can't think of an example. If defense puts 12 on the field it's dangerous because the offense can get a free play.

Apr 7, 2017 at 10:33 AM

#51

SoCold
Hall of Dumb
Posts: 127,789

Originally posted by thl408:
SoCold: So there's always been a penalty. It's just applied at the 2 minute mark instead of the 1 minutes mark. Got it. Separate question. What is an example of a team committing an intentional substitution penalty to conserve the clock?

I'm trying to think and here are some examples I thought of, but I can't recall one instance of this in an actual game.
Offensively, a team can put 12 players on the field, get called for a penalty on purpose, stop the clock. But why not just commit an intentional false start penalty?

Defensively, I can't think of an example. If defense puts 12 on the field it's dangerous because the offense can get a free play.

I think Chip put like 15 guys out on defense once on purpose. I can't think of another time.

Not sure why you're asking this? It rarely happens if ever. The sub penalty aspect of the rule was never in question for change. Only what time a 10 sec runoff can be called. I believe when the 10 sec runoff was adopted it was mostly to prevent teams from faking injuries to stop the clock.

Apr 8, 2017 at 10:25 AM

#52

thl408
Moderator
Posts: 32,357

Originally posted by SoCold:
I think Chip put like 15 guys out on defense once on purpose. I can't think of another time.

Not sure why you're asking this? It rarely happens if ever. The sub penalty aspect of the rule was never in question for change. Only what time a 10 sec runoff can be called. I believe when the 10 sec runoff was adopted it was mostly to prevent teams from faking injuries to stop the clock.

Just curiosity. I thought it was clever how Chip committed massive defensive holding to "cheat the system", and was wondering how teams are purposely committing substitution penalties to cheat the system. I've heard of defensive players faking injuries to slow down a fast tempo offense, but not of substitution penalties to conserve clock. Still can't think of one.

Aug 21, 2017 at 1:29 PM

#53