As the NFL’s popularity continues to rise, it is possibly faced with more hot-button issues heading into season than ever before. THE DAILY conducted a two-part roundtable discussion with a panel of top media members -- the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s Bryan Burwell, the San Diego Union-Tribune’s Nick Canepa, WIP-FM Eagles radio sideline reporter Howard Eskin, Pro Football Talk’s Mike Florio, NFL Network’s Amber Theoharis, the Boston Globe’s Ben Volin, MMQB’s Jenny Vrentas and ESPN’s Trey Wingo -- discussing their views on several topics from across the league.
Q: Is the NFL going in the right direction?
 |
Burwell thinks the prospect of a team in L.A. has a
significant impact on his hometown team, the Rams |
Burwell: The NFL continues to prove why it has Teflon characteristics because despite all the troubles that it has confronted, it remains the most popular sport in America. But it can't take much comfort in this status because the concussion issue is very real and harmful to the league's potential youth pipeline. It's one of the reasons why the league has spent so much effort on the Heads Up program and paid female consultants to brainstorm what it needs to do to keep mothers from stopping their sons from playing youth football. I also am concerned greatly about the Los Angeles stadium issue because of the potential impact it can have on the city where I currently reside (St. Louis). Now that the NFL has
promoted a VP in the league office to concentrate on developing the Los Angeles market for an NFL-owned facility and to explore the potential to bring a team (or teams) to the market, the Rams are one of the most obvious franchises that ought to be in play for relocation. What concerns me is how slow St. Louis city and Missouri state officials have moved regarding formulating a plan to keep the Rams here. Cities such as Oakland, San Diego and Buffalo must also live in a constant state of alarm over their NFL futures too now that the L.A. market is officially in play with the NFL providing all the new energy.
Eskin
: The state of the NFL from a business standpoint is phenomenal. It can’t be at a higher level. I can’t even imagine it is at this level. It is the No. 1 sport in the United States and it is not even close. In the world, if it wasn’t for soccer in Europe, it might be the No. 1 sport in the world. However, they are not quite there in Europe. But from a business standpoint it is tremendous. From a playing standpoint, now that is a different story. I don’t think the games are good. … The fundamentals of the game are not as good because the players are not allowed to practice as hard as they used to. I think (NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell) has done a tremendous job. He obviously has helped with the business part of it. He makes sure that it runs smoothly. I don’t know that his discipline is as tough sometimes as it should be, but I am sure part of that is restricted by what is in the NFL Players Association agreement with the NFL. On a scale from 1-10, the job he has done I would say is a 9.5.
Q:
How do you foresee the Redskins nickname saga playing out?
 |
Florio thinks the Redskins eventually will change their
name |
Florio: The name eventually will change. With owner Daniel Snyder defending the name publicly at roughly the same time he has disclosed plans to build a new stadium that would compete for the ability to host the Super Bowl, he apparently realizes that the name represents an asset that could be used to get increased public financing and/or a wink/nod commitment that the championship game will be played there. It’s a simple business proposition; he can either give the name up voluntarily and swap it for something of value, or he can wait until he’s forced to surrender the name without compensation or consideration. … Ultimately, the NFL has to ask itself whether it wants one of its 32 teams to carry a name that has become the subject of a reasonable debate as to whether the name is offensive. Surely, the league office and the other 31 owners realize that a debate on this point serves no useful business purpose.
Vrentas: I wrote a piece this spring examining the complicated debate around the Washington team name, and through that reporting, I got a firsthand perspective on why many Native Americans feel as strongly as they do that the name should be changed. My biggest takeaway was that opponents of the name are not a "vocal minority," as the team and the NFL have claimed. We spoke to members of 18 tribes in 10 states and found opponents of the name in every corner, from tribal leadership to students to military members. There is not a consensus, no, but should a name change depend on one? Daniel Snyder has dug in his heels on the issue, and I share the belief of many that the only thing that could force a change is either great financial pressure or Snyder getting something that he wants in exchange. So it may be sponsors pulling out. Or, perhaps, as former team GM Vinny Cerrato suggested this summer in a radio interview with Boston's The Sports Hub, Snyder could leverage a name change for a new downtown stadium.
Eskin: I know it’s a delicate subject. But it’s been the Redskins for how many years? All of a sudden we are in a country that has to be politically correct. They are not using that as an offensive term. I don’t know how far people go back but if you watch the “Lone Ranger,” he would not be accepted on television today because of his companion, Tonto. I don’t believe the Redskins should change the name they’ve had for over 40 or 50 years because all of a sudden people want to make a political issue out of it. I think the name should be permitted and they should be allowed to keep their name. In my personal opinion, they are in no way degrading the Native Americans in our country.
Q: What is your opinion on the new Thursday night schedule? Is it oversaturation?
 |
Volin likes Thursday night games, but doesn't
care for teams having short weeks to prepare
|
Volin: I love it. The more football, the better. I want NFL games on the TV seven nights a week. If people don't want to watch, they won't. But the ratings will be huge, especially compared to whatever other programming CBS would be showing on Thursday nights. Now, I don't like the short weeks of preparation, as I think it leads to some pretty bad football on Thursday nights and injured players sitting out who otherwise might play on a Sunday. Maybe the NFL should institute a rule that teams must have 10 days of rest before a Thursday game, to ensure competitive football. But otherwise I'm very much in favor of Thursday night football.
Vrentas
: The NFL has not hit oversaturation yet, and I think the Thursday night games have become part of the rhythm of football season to which viewers look forward. But I do think there are twofold issues with these games: 1) Since the schedule is set ahead of time, and every team must appear at least once on Thursday night, the product often suffers from poor matchups late in the season. 2) The NFL has said there are no more injuries in Thursday night games than in games other nights of the week, but players regularly speak openly about the stress it places on their bodies to get ready for another game in four days instead of following their usual week-long routine to play on Sundays. The league is limited in its ability to broadcast on Fridays or Saturdays for much of the season, but I'm a big fan of the return of the Saturday night doubleheader in December.
