Detailed NFL calendar omits a key date

The league has posted an extremely detailed calendar for the upcoming season at  It’s one of the most comprehensive multi-month NFL calendars we’ve ever seen.

But it omits a very important date, especially in light of the broader purpose of the league’s labor-focused website.

The calendar doesn’t specify when the clock strikes 12 on the negotiations for a new CBA.

That’s because, frankly, no one knows.  Does it happen when the current CBA expires (currently something that doesn’t appear on the calendar, either)?  Does it come when the regular season starts?  When training camps open?  Or does it arise when the time comes for fans to renew season-ticket orders?

The problem is that, if there’s no new CBA by March, free agency could be tabled indefinitely, especially since owners won’t want to pay signing bonuses to players whom the owners will be trying to squeeze into accepting the owners’ terms.

Given that the league opted to post the detailed-but-incomplete calendar at, it’s failure to attempt to discern a potential connection to the ongoing CBA drama — especially since the P.R. battle has escalated over the past week or so — could be regarded as a message to the union.

11 responses to “Detailed NFL calendar omits a key date

  1. So the NFL ends (March 2011) before the world does (December 2012)?
    Guess I’ll just be watching porn for the last 21 months of my life.

  2. @8man
    my belief…there will be a 2011 season, the Browns will win the Super Bowl in Feb. 2012 and the world will end shortly thereafter. In this theory, of course, the Browns winning the Super Bowl actually causes the world to end.
    And of course, I die happy.

  3. I think it would be cool if they went on strike if they kept games going, the could have all replacemnt players. it would be cool to watch for 1 year

  4. It’s worth noting that the NFL has promised that there will be a draft in 2011 (presumably in late April), even if there is no new CBA in place by that time.

  5. raidersteve413 says:
    June 22, 2010 11:13 AM
    I think it would be cool if they went on strike if they kept games going, the could have all replacemnt players. it would be cool to watch for 1 year
    You should be used to watching that level of talent since you’re a Raiders fan…

  6. Florio you legal mastermind I have a question.
    Can the NFL simply lock out, permanently, any player that does not agree to disband from the union? I mean, they would lose a lot of players but it isn’t like the players can really go start their own league without a few years to organize it and by then the NFL will be restocked with new talent more or less.
    I just don’t see how the players have all that much leverage. Contrary to what some believe, the players make more money from that organization than anyone else when you add it up. The NFL and owners however own everything physical and players age.
    It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. To grow the market the NFL wants the current players playing with no interuption. That is what fans want. But for profitibility the NFL is probably better off locking off the current system and trying to pay guys way less.

  7. 8, u are going to do that anyway…
    what, florio, u expect the schedule to be a “legal issues schedule”… no.
    the league should put a 2011 schedule. with nothing scheduled, perhaps… hint, hint, for duh smith…
    or have all the 2011 season schedule info / dates for ‘replacement players’… again… hint, hint, for duh smith…

Leave a Reply

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