Skip to content

Jonathan Kraft admits owners pushed OT vote when coaches weren't present

If it appears that the owners proceeded with a vote on changes to the overtime rule for postseason play when the coaches and other football executives weren’t around to argue against it, there’s a good reason for it.

It’s because the owners did.

Patriots president Jonathan Kraft admitted during a Thursday morning appearance on WEEI’s Dennis & Callahan Show that the owners “needed to get the football people out of the room” in order to pass the revision, per Tom Curran of Comcast Sports Net New England.

Kraft also pointed out (as ESPN’s Chris Mortensen noted via Twitter on Tuesday) that the same approach was applied in 1994, when owners voted to adopt the two-point conversion option, a revolutionary change at the time.

So the vote, scheduled for Wednesday, was moved to Tuesday, while the football people were taking full advantage of the write off by playing golf.

“I think [Giants co-owner] John Mara said it best [at the meeting before
the vote],” Kraft said.  “He basically said, ‘I’m paying my football
coach a lot of money. We all are. And they should go suck it up.  This is
what the fans want this is what’s right for the game.’”

Mara and Kraft are right.  Owners own.  Coaches coach.  General Managers, um, generally manage.  It’s up to the owners to put the rules on the inside of the lid.  It’s up to the coaches to read the rules follow them.

As we said Wednesday regarding the ongoing complaints of Saints coach Sean Payton, he’ll have a say in the writing of the rules when he buys a team.

Permalink 48 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, New York Giants, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
48 Responses to “Jonathan Kraft admits owners pushed OT vote when coaches weren't present”
  1. CT Pats Fan says: Mar 25, 2010 3:10 PM

    He’s right (as are Mara and the other owners)
    This (IMHO) does something else though: In the looming fight that pits players vs. owners, it gives the coaches a perfect position – i.e., outside the ring.
    “Coach , what is your position on the labor situation?”
    “I coach, owners own, players play”
    If the coaches (read: Mr Payton) were smart, they’d take this little gift and run with it.

  2. BroncoBourque says: Mar 25, 2010 3:11 PM

    I think the new rule is an improvement on the old one and if the owners thought it had a better chance to pass without the coaches in the room, then good for them for sneaking the vote in while the coaches were golfing. I don’t blame the coaches for not wanting more decision for them to be second guessed on but they get paid a lot of money to make those decisions so if the men who pay them want to make a change they should shut their mouths and do their jobs.
    There are a lot of people who would love the opportunity to coach in the NFL so if the current guys don’t like the owners sneaking one in on them, step asside and let someone else get the opportunity.

  3. Mediotocracy says: Mar 25, 2010 3:11 PM

    There’s another adage that applies here too, Florio……. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

  4. Nuckinfutz says: Mar 25, 2010 3:12 PM

    Sean Payton seems pretty full of himself since the Super Bowl. I don’t recall Belichick, Coughlin, or Cower strutting around like a peacock after SB wins.
    We’ll see where that gets him once the season starts.

  5. GirthyOne says: Mar 25, 2010 3:12 PM

    Your pandering is making me sick. You can agree with the change without agreeing with all the statements they make.
    “Mara and Kraft are right. Owners own. Coaches coach. General Managers, um, generally manage. It’s up to the owners to put the rules on the inside of the lid. It’s up to the coaches to read the rules follow them.”
    So, if they pass dumb rules, are you going to say the same thing? I doubt it. You can un-pucker now.

  6. footballisking says: Mar 25, 2010 3:14 PM

    I am prob in the minority……. but getting the football people out of the room to pass rules of the game sounds like an idiotic way to run a league…..this snowball effect of bad rules on the league will eventually stop I hope

  7. FireJerryJones says: Mar 25, 2010 3:14 PM

    I don’t think daddy’s going to let him eat at the big people’s table again for a while.
    This falls into the ‘children should be seen and not heard’ category.
    Can’t imagine Belichick’s going to stick around when Junior inherits the shop.

  8. monger says: Mar 25, 2010 3:15 PM

    This has less to do with being good for the game and what the fans want, than it does with being another bargaining chip in the labor dispute.

  9. Austskate says: Mar 25, 2010 3:18 PM

    Still doesn’t change the fact that the players play the game and coaches coach the game on the field while the owners sit in the box. This resutls in more playing time, greater risk of injury, possibly different gameplanning strategies, etc. for the players and coaches, NOT the owners. I agree with the rule but this was an extremely shady way of going about it. The coaches and players deserved to be heard on the matter and if some owners would’ve sided with there coaches and needed to be coerced into voting Yes for the new rule then it shouldn’t have been passed. Once again I agree with the rule but this shady vote sounds about as viable as the “coin-toss” that occurred last week

  10. KingOkra says: Mar 25, 2010 3:18 PM

    Enough already. I’m very sorry that your pathetic Vikes lost to the Saints. Get the hell over it- you’re acting like a two-year-old. I’m starting to think you try to work some way to bash the Saints into every article, and I use that term loosely, you write. Here, I’ll help you out with a few more headlines…
    Ben Rapistberger admits it was Sean Payton who coerced him into assaulting a 20-yr old.
    T.O. files lawsuit against the Saints for his inability to find a team willing to sign him. “It’s obvious that their victory over the Vikings has cost me millions of dollars”, claims Owens.
    Ron Washington says Saints GM Mickey Loomis is his drug dealer. “Loomis got me hooked at one of the Super Bown after-parties”, Washington opined.
    It’s really becoming very sad. Move on. I used to really enjoy your site.

  11. Peyton Gump says: Mar 25, 2010 3:24 PM

    …and little dweeb owner’s son’s who were born with silver spoon’s in their mouth’s should keep their big mouths shut.

  12. Saintnation says: Mar 25, 2010 3:26 PM

    Another stab at the Saints, Bravo Mikey boy!

  13. Stone says: Mar 25, 2010 3:27 PM

    I don’t know about “This is what the fans want” to be honest. I never really heard any fans call for this change, only a couple media types like you and Peter King. I liked it the way it was personally.

  14. Mark0226 says: Mar 25, 2010 3:28 PM

    More love for Sean Payton. Ongoing? Pot, meet Kettle.

  15. stadanko says: Mar 25, 2010 3:35 PM

    That’s right. If Goodell and the owners wanna f*ck up the NFL then that’s their business. It’s their right as long as Peter King and Mike Florio agree with it.

  16. robi_boy says: Mar 25, 2010 3:36 PM

    world champion payton can spout off if he wishes, nothing wrong with that, its a waste of time for the best coach in the nfl, but again nothing wrong with that, maybe supreme world champion best coach in the nfl sean payton would like to join me in complaining about this unconstitutional healthcare bill that just got shoved down our throats, like me the world champion supreme being coach payton that stands on the throats of all living or dead outside the saints nation would be wasting his time

  17. jcjets says: Mar 25, 2010 3:36 PM

    Shady! Is it really that far fetched to think there was no coin flip between the jets and giants regarding the opening game? They could easily chaulk it up to being what’s “right for the game” in new york.
    Of course they are the ones that determine what’s right so it makes it pretty convienent. Only problem I have with the rule is if it only effects he post season, we could potentially go years before it actually comes up in a game.

  18. eballa1 says: Mar 25, 2010 3:50 PM

    Is it really what fans wanted though? I think its what some vocal media types wanted

  19. jimicos says: Mar 25, 2010 3:57 PM

    Patriots president Jonathan Kraft admitted during a Thursday morning appearance on WEEI’s Dennis & Callahan Show that the owners “needed to get the football people out of the room” in order to pass the revision, per Tom Curran of Comcast Sports Net New England.
    —————————–
    By all means.. Let’s get the “football people” out of the room before we make changes to the game of football.
    I guess this means Florio would’ve been in the room if he were there.

  20. Joe in Toronto, Canada says: Mar 25, 2010 3:58 PM

    ‘I’m paying my football coach a lot of money. We all are. And they should go suck it up.”
    ==========================================
    Amen.

  21. Super Hooper says: Mar 25, 2010 4:02 PM

    You can’t drop it can you? The Saints are the world’s champions. Now go drink your milk.

  22. Saintnation says: Mar 25, 2010 4:04 PM

    The Vikings were screwed!!! It was highway robbery I say!!!! I hate Sean Payton!!!! How dare they have the gaul to drink J. Jones wine!!!! Payton cries about OT…..
    This sums up PFT at the moment.

  23. buddycianci says: Mar 25, 2010 4:05 PM

    I don’t see any problem with what the owners did. Too many cooks spoil the broth.
    Some coaches’ opinions are valuable. You know the ones that have been around for several years and know how to win. But so many coaches come and go. Are the owners supposed to give each coach a vote? Or just the elite ones? You really want scrubs like Tom Cable, Chan Gailey, etc. to have an influence on such an important change? (Tom Cable voting is in effect giving Al Davis two votes.)
    It’s a good rule change. It will make OT games more entertaining. Improving the product is the owners’ domain. Enough said.

  24. edgy1957 says: Mar 25, 2010 4:17 PM

    Gee and the owners wonder why the players don’t trust them….

  25. quadya says: Mar 25, 2010 4:31 PM

    sounds like congress pushing through healthcare with out letting the american people knowing whats in it or even wanting it passed…..

  26. Newguy says: Mar 25, 2010 4:42 PM

    I get it. Coaches work for owners. But….
    Assuming one team= one vote
    Why wait? After all, coaches work for owners.
    Were the owners intimated? Pulling a fast one? Hoping to keep the voting secrete?
    I’m missing something.

  27. afiresnake says: Mar 25, 2010 4:45 PM

    Man, that f***ing figures.
    This “owners unity” thing due to the cba negotiations is getting a bit off. You could propose to have the starting offensive tackles do a limbo competition in order to determine the first possession in OT and that would have passed 32-0.
    United we stand.

  28. Bob Nelson says: Mar 25, 2010 5:00 PM

    The owners are out of touch.
    “They did not want football people around when the messed with the rules.”
    Mike Florio is the only one who wanted the overtime rules changed.
    Fans liked the way overtime was played. Every play could be the end of the game.
    The NFL is not as good with this rule change.

  29. GB3Pack4 says: Mar 25, 2010 5:16 PM

    (1) THE CHANGE: I’ve wanted an OT change since forever. I do see it as a kind of tapioca improvement, and I’ll live with it, though it isn’t exactly what I wanted -
    (2) THE VOTE: The bottom line is that Kraft is technically correct that the decision was up to the owners. But he has no right to speak for me, a fan, just to bolster his argument. It almost guarantees my personal resistance to a proposed change when a proponent picks up a mike and starts out with “The American people won’t stand for …. or “… demand that …”, etc. Unless somebody has been on the other end of my phone, or standing on my front doorstep, actually seeking out my position on something, they have no right to speak for me.
    (3) HOW IT WAS HANDLED: The view implicit in Kraft’s remarks is that the owners found the coaches’ resistance childish, inconsequential, and superfluous; hence, they needed to suck it up.
    But how childish is it for the owner(s) to choose to mislead the coaches about when the vote was to be taken, rather than simply standing up and speaking to them directly, just as if everyone in the room was a grownup.
    “Gentlemen, we are the owners and the right to decide this issue is ultimately ours. You’ve given us your views and we understand your positions, but we feel extending the vote date by another day would accomplish nothing. So we’re choosing to end the discussion at this point. We’re are going to take a vote now.”
    Then they vote, all-in-favor or roll call, in the presence of the coaches, NOT BEHIND THEIR BACKS. They could have accomplished this sudden change of plans by COMMUNICATING with the coaches, adjusting the agenda, emails, cell phones, MEGAPHONES for crying out loud. There was no need to do it behind their backs. I don’t see it as intelligent adult behaviour to handle viewpoint conflict by taking action guaranteed to add even more fuel to the fire. Humiliating people, going out of your way to make them feel less than they are, is never wise, especially not when both sides are inextricably entangled for a long time into the future.
    Maybe this is where President Obama got the idea of how to “work with”, i.e., handle, Mr. Netanyahu – and we’re all about to see how well that’ll work – telling him basically, I’m tired of trying to make you eat your broccoli, go sit in your room until you come to your senses and let me know when you do -
    It’s stupid, dangerously inflammatory, and frequently self-defeating, whether in the home, the neighborhood, in politics, in sports, or in any other arena.

  30. HarrisonHits says: Mar 25, 2010 5:29 PM

    ” This is what the fans want this is what’s right for the game.”
    Nope. Some fans wanted it but there are plenty like myself who think its a bad change and totally unnecessary.
    And you Aints fans, what a sensitive lot of babies you are. “boo hoo Florio’s pickin’ on the Saints and our coach, boo hoo”. Guess what ? Florio picks on every team and constantly finds fault with all of them. You think because you had a good team for the first time in living memory that you should be excluded ? Go call the waaaaaaambulance.

  31. buzzbissinger says: Mar 25, 2010 5:42 PM

    “needed to get the football people out of the room”…
    doesn’t sound like a sound football decision, IMHO

  32. SayItAin'tSoFlorio says: Mar 25, 2010 5:48 PM

    For those of you who are saying that the head coaches are paid a bunch of money to coach, so they should shut up and not complain about rule changes: Why would you not want their input?
    After all, if, as an owner, you’re paying him a bunch of money, I would think you would want to hear his opinion. It doesn’t mean the owners can’t decide to disagree with the coaches (i.e., two-point rule) and vote for a rule change. It just seems that it should be more transparent.
    I guess my point is, why even go through the farce of having a discussion and schedule for the coaches, and then let the owners vote while they’re out golfing? I don’t disagree with the result, just the process.

  33. JoeSixPack says: Mar 25, 2010 5:57 PM

    Sounds like the inmates are upset that the wardens made a decision without consulting them.
    Tough noogies. When my employer wants to make a change that boosts profits but makes my job more complicated, guess what side I’m gonna come down on too

  34. GB3Pack4 says: Mar 25, 2010 6:05 PM

    Reply to buzzbissinger: Excellent comment -

  35. buddycianci says: Mar 25, 2010 6:11 PM

    Bob Nelson says: March 25, 2010 5:00 PM
    “Fans liked the way overtime was played….”

  36. Jolly says: Mar 25, 2010 6:24 PM

    Gb3pk4….Good post, but please stop linking Football with Politics. You aint got a vote in Football.
    Plus why should they have to confront the coaches? Any leader knows you do what you have to when you need to. No excuses.
    They did not need further input from the coaches.
    Coaches has never been responsible for growing the game. The Competition committee may recommend changes, but the Owners make the change based on what They think is good for their bottom line. And their bottom line is making the game as exciting a draw as possible.
    This illustrates also the unity that exist in that fraternity. The owners will get what they want. Regardless of what they know their place and they know what they are about.
    To all who it may concern…’We run tings!!’
    Signed NFL Owners.

  37. TC says: Mar 25, 2010 6:42 PM

    It is VERY obvious that any REAL football fans, coaches and players are not going to be for this. It is a completely idiotic, inane & totally superflous change.
    The owners are for it because they CARE what the media says and are very attentive to public image. The mistake is that the media are one thing above all else they are: SELF SERVING.
    They are in a word – CLUELESS. ;)

  38. txtumbleweed says: Mar 25, 2010 6:48 PM

    I like the change and think many teams will choose to kick off if they win the coin flip because they would then have a great chance of winning with field goal on their first possesion rather than having to score a TD.

  39. jimicos says: Mar 25, 2010 6:48 PM

    buddycianci says:
    March 25, 2010 4:05 PM
    It’s a good rule change. It will make OT games more entertaining. Improving the product is the owners’ domain. Enough said.
    ————————–
    One other comment.. Improving the product is not at all the owners’ domain. Improving their individual teams is the owners’ domain. Making rules changes should not be left up to the owners with no input from coaches or players.
    Too often we see the league making knee-jerk reactions based on the flavor of the day.
    “Let’s spur more offense by moving the kicking tee back 5 yards.”
    “Let’s play games overseas to grow the audience and eventually expand the league.”
    “Let’s play the Pro Bowl the week before the Super Bowl to make more money.”
    “Let’s offer flex scheduling so we can collect more advertising money at the end of the season.”
    Too often there’s precious little thought given to the impact on the game. Too often it’s about money or the opinion of a vocal minority of fans. Leave the game alone.

  40. buddycianci says: Mar 25, 2010 7:06 PM

    TC says: March 25, 2010 6:42 PM
    It is VERY obvious that any REAL football fans, coaches and players are not going to be for this. It is a completely idiotic, inane & totally superflous change.
    —-
    I confidently predict that 100% of the coaches and players are going to “be for this.” It’s a rule now, and they don’t have a choice.
    I swear, some of you people are acting like babies. This health care schism has turned 2010 into The Year America Pissed and Moaned. Try and enjoy your life for a change.

  41. jimicos says: Mar 25, 2010 8:08 PM

    buddycianci says:
    March 25, 2010 7:06 PM
    I confidently predict that 100% of the coaches and players are going to “be for this.” It’s a rule now, and they don’t have a choice.
    ————————–
    Really? Because at least two coaches (Payton and Childress) have said they’re against it.
    And one team president said they “needed to get the football people out of the room” in order to pass it.
    If they could only pass it when the coaches were out of the room, doesn’t that suggest that less than 100% of the coaches were not in favor of it?

  42. iambruce says: Mar 25, 2010 10:31 PM

    “This is what the fans want this is what’s right for the game.’”
    The problem is: most fans don’t like this new rule.

  43. buzzbissinger says: Mar 25, 2010 11:14 PM

    Mr Florio,
    Familar with the cliché, be careful what you wish for? Well, you campained (whined) for the OT rule to be changed, and it is so. Combine this with regular season games overseas, the proposed 17 or 18 game season and this all (to me) equates to a watered down, boring product.
    Be careful what you wish for…

  44. R.A.K. says: Mar 26, 2010 12:04 AM

    I’m glad the overtime rules have finally been changed… I only wish they’d gone a step further and applied it to the regular season as well. I think it’s funny that the coaches are pitching such a fit. Here in the real world, employees don’t try to dictate what business decisions their employers implement.

  45. salmen76 says: Mar 26, 2010 7:59 AM

    I sure love all this attention my Saints get now……it took us 43 years to get to the top, but when we got there we really got there, let’s see we retired old man Warner by rockin him with a hit that stung his future grandchildren, we bout killed old man Favre with a hit that rocked him and his grandkids and great grand kids, we beat “God Manning” in the Super Bowl,,,,,,wow, should i go on, oh yea, we ushered in the new OT rule with our win in OT against lord “Favre on the Ground”……thats right, we beat 3 future hall of fame QBs in a row to win the SB…..that’s never been done before,,,,,,get over it PFT…..you winey babies,,,,,yall pick on the saints in every other article while Ben the rapist is still with his team and yall still sit beside him in sunday school class…….can you say, “Losers”……ha ha….we won the SB and we own mardi Gras…..sure sux to be everbody else now……we saints fans are swinging the world by the tail……ha ha…..whine on PFT….

  46. godofwine says: Mar 26, 2010 9:16 AM

    It’s a good rule and the funny thing is we probably won’t even see it next year. All of the fuss for nothing.

  47. jimicos says: Mar 26, 2010 10:03 AM

    R.A.K. says:
    March 26, 2010 12:04 AM
    Here in the real world, employees don’t try to dictate what business decisions their employers implement.
    —————————-
    Bullshit. Remember that the coaches are not just employees, they’re managers. And as managers they’ve been asked to participate in determining the rules. In this case, the owners bypassed them and implemented a rule that probably would NOT have passed had they been involved.
    If you think managers “in the real world” wouldn’t be pissed off about being excluded and overruled like this, you don’t live “in the real world.”

  48. datmilehighswagistoodamnhigh says: Mar 19, 2013 6:21 PM

    That’s rediculous! one of the mantras of football is the lowest man wins. So you want players to play higher and not only give up leverage and momentum but expose to ball to strips but expose their mid section to more viscious hits. Goodell need to go commission the national soccer league. They are grown men getting millions of dollars. The biggest baddest dudes on the planet. And why in the world would you remove football people from the room when you’re making rules about the game of football. Shoot the refs can barely officiate as it is. Just let them play! We the people wanna see big hits, Runners lowering the boomstick, and bring back the Jacked Up segment. This is a mans game, not women’s basketball

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!