Dual Interests for NFL Owners

NFL owners ensured stability in Miami and perhaps Seattle by changing a long-standing ownership policy on Tuesday.

At the same time, coaches seemed ready to shoot down instant replay because it might force them to make too many job-threatening decisions.

The new ownership policy allows NFL owners to hold the controlling interest in baseball, basketball or hockey franchises while continuing to run their teams, something forbidden in the past.

That allows Wayne Huizenga to maintain control of the Miami Dolphins while simultaneously owning baseball’s Florida Marlins and hockey’s Florida Panthers.

And it allows Paul Allen, owner of the NBA’s Portland Trail Blazers, to exercise his option on the Seattle Seahawks, whose current owner, Ken Behring, tried last year to move them to Southern California. Allen’s option is contingent on approval by the Washington state legislature and the voters of a $400 million stadium and conference center.

“I think its time has come,” Dan Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers, one of the old-guard family owners, said of the vote on cross-ownership. We have a special interest in Seattle and I think it’s very important that we keep a team in the northwest.”

“It’s in tune with modern America,” said Robert Kraft of New England.

Replay might be in tune with modern America too--endless surveys show that a majority of football fans approve of the device that was in effect from 1986-91.

But as the debate went to the floor for a likely vote on Wednesday, it appeared doomed this year, largely because even the coaches who favor it are leery of the way it’s phrased; they must challenge a call and lose a timeout when they challenge, even if the challenge is upheld.

“It would be pretty tough to save a timeout for a replay when you’re in a tight game and you need one,” said Tom Coughlin of Jacksonville. “You’d have to give priority to the timeouts rather than replay.”