PHOENIX -- The sentiment heading into this week's NFL owners meetings in Phoenix is to keep things the way they are for now.
The competition committee is against expanding instant replay to include penalties or, as New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick wants, all plays. For those wanting to replace extra-point conversions with more dramatic plays, the best hope is for experimentation during the preseason.
The biggest surprise is the resistance to expanding the playoffs from 12 to 14 teams, a move that should be a no-brainer. Giants owner John Mara said Sunday that playoffs expansion is unlikely.
For years, I was against adding a third wild-card team from each conference because it would increase the chance for seven to nine teams to slip into the postseason. My stance has changed, however, because of the way the 2011 collective bargaining agreement has changed free agency.
More haves and have-nots are appearing. Teams that don't hit on two or three starters in each draft eventually fall into the have-nots category. Teams without good or elite quarterbacks also can't legitimately think about reaching the playoffs. The have-nots then, by losing, bloat the records of good or average teams, so fewer nine- and 10-win teams are making the playoffs.
A couple of things seem to be working against playoff expansion. There are concerns with scheduling, including a potential conflict with the College Football Playoff as well as the possibility of Monday night wild-card games.
"Monday night is one of the possibilities, which I don't think is a great alternative," Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II told the team's website. "The idea is OK. It's just that when you get down to exactly how does it work, it gets a little complicated.
"That's not ideal for the league to have a team that's going to play on Monday night and then have to come back the next week and play on a short week where even on a Saturday is a possibility. That's a complication that, then again, we need to figure it out. The college playoff piece of it is sort of in the mix there in terms of when does that game get played? It's part of the discussion."
It also sounds as if the NFL would like to get a long-term deal on its Thursday night games and configure an expanded playoff option as part of the bidding process.
You know the league will eventually expand the playoffs. Let's go into the hurry-up offense and pass the proposal now rather than later.
From the inbox
Q: I don't like the Colts' proposed bonus kick precisely because it devalues the extra point. However, I understand the league's desire to make conversions more exciting and to increase scoring. Thus, I have an idea: Bring back the dropkick! If a team successfully executes a dropkick from a two-point formation, it gets awarded two points and the opportunity to attempt a bonus one- or two-point conversion. What do you think?
Derek in London, England
A: If you include a bonus kick based on the success of the dropkick, it creates the same problem as the Colts' bonus kicks. You're turning a simple extra-point conversion into a two-play special-teams event that would eat up too much time. The more that people come up with ideas to replace conversions, the more the options become overcomplicated. I'm glad the league won't rush into changing things.
Q: Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong with the current PAT rules. So what if one point is near certain? That's what makes going for two strategically significant (give up the one to try for two). But after reading about yet another proposed change, I had an idea. If we must change the rule, has anybody considered making the player who scored the TD attempt the point after? This would address the "PATs are too easy" argument, and who wouldn't like to see Marshawn Lynch or Rob Gronkowski boot one through George Blanda style?
Sean in Seattle
A: That would give J.J. Watt another way to add to his résumé. But do you really want to see Lynch kick an extra point? This would turn an automatic play into one in which it might be hard to see a 10 percent success rate. And think about the time it would take away from proper game preparations with non-kickers having to work on extra points.
Q: As a lifelong Viking fan, I have a hard time watching them do nothing again in free agency. Then they wonder why the Michael Johnsons of the world don't sign with them. A small-market team has to be aggressive in selling itself. It's a small market, it's cold, and it's not anyone's first choice. What do the Vikings do to help themselves? Sell the new stadium? No, they do nothing but wait for the leftovers. Is that how you build a championship team? I don't think so. What am I missing in Rick Spielman's brilliant strategy? They are doing nothing but assuring mediocre performance at best. No wonder Adrian Peterson is looking for an out.
Aldo in Albuquerque, New Mexico
A: You don't build championships through free agency, and you don't necessarily get better by signing a bunch of big names. Tampa Bay spent $143 million in contracts in unrestricted free agency last year and won only two games. The Vikings are strategic in their free-agency signings. They aren't afraid to invest. Last year, they lost out to Tampa Bay on Michael Johnson, but they were willing to pay him $9 million a year. The Bucs gave him a smaller average salary but more guarantees, then cut him after one season. Johnson decided to take a $5 million-a-year deal to return to the Bengals this year, but he almost went with Mike Zimmer in Minnesota. Last year, the Vikings gave Linval Joseph $6.25 million a year and Captain Munnerlyn $3.75 million a year. The year before, the Vikings gave Greg Jennings $9 million a year. The success of this team won't come from spending big in free agency. The success will come if Teddy Bridgewater is the right quarterback and if the Vikings can surround him with good players from the draft.
Q: With the proven method of "build through the draft," I am concerned about the Bills' long-term health given their recent moves. The moves are exciting, but it appears we are in "win now" mode as opposed to building for long-term success like the Packers, Steelers and Giants try to do. We may make the playoffs, but we are never winning a Super Bowl with Matt Cassel. We gave up a first-round pick for a WR in the best WR draft class in many years and traded a fourth-round pick for a running back (Bryce Brown) who barely saw the field. While the moves are exciting today, I feel like the Yankees/Redskins model of signing splashy free agents never works. I would prefer we collect draft picks through trades.
Tony in Lackawanna, New York
A: The common theme in Buffalo has been an inability to find a franchise quarterback since Jim Kelly's retirement. The Bills have done well enough during the draft to build a good defense and a team that can win nine games with below-average quarterback play. Hiring coach Rex Ryan brings a win-now philosophy. But here's the problem: The roster is good enough to win eight or nine games each of the next few years. That would drop them low enough in the first round that they probably can't land a top young quarterback. So why not load up on running backs and a tight end? The Bills are at the forefront of the new strategy for teams without great quarterbacks: build a defense and run the football well.
Q: As you noted, the Jags have to spend money to avoid under-cap penalties. Rather than sign middling free agents, would it make sense for them to sign Blake Bortles to, say, a four-year extension with a base salary near the minimum and a $15M roster bonus this year? It would allow them to put a huge, somewhat artificial, charge on the cap this year, gain a little extra time in control of Bortles and increase their flexibility going forward with a minimum cap charge for Bortles for the next three years.
Mike D in New York City
A: A team is not permitted to negotiate a second deal with a draft choice before his third season has ended, so the Jaguars can't do as you suggest now. The minimum-spending period you refer to runs from 2012 to 2016. There will be a window after Bortles' third season (2015) and before the start of the 2016 league year in which the Jaguars could do something like that to help close a spending shortage that might exist. But for them to do that, Bortles has to be good enough to merit a big contract. The key to the Jaguars' success both on the field and in reaching the minimum spending is Bortles showing he is a franchise-caliber quarterback.
Q: Did the Lions make a huge mistake in not signing Vince Wilfork? His versatility alongside Haloti Ngata could arguably have given them nearly as strong an impact as Ndamukong Suh. It would also have given them a couple of years to find a longer-term replacement.
Bill in Flemington, New Jersey
A: That's putting too much age at defensive tackle, which could be dangerous. To be honest, I think the signing of Tyrunn Walker will help a little bit. He did some good things for the Saints in the nickel. He could be a decent pass-rush defensive tackle for the Lions. Going with two older defensive tackles is tough. You risk injuries. Plus, it would have been costly. Wilfork cost the Texans $4.5 million a year. With the acquisition of Ngata and the loss of Suh, the Lions still are tight against the cap. They have only $3.7 million of room. I know they could have re-worked Ngata's contract, but it's a danger to get too old at a position. Regardless, the Lions were going to come up short in replacing Suh.
SHORT TAKES
Miles in Seattle has been studying the defensive line market. He noted that defensive ends Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett hit on big contracts while defensive tackles such as Terrance Knighton and others were getting $4 million a year or less, so he wonders about the depression in the defensive tackle market. Simple answer. Avril, Bennett and other defensive linemen who play on passing plays get paid. Run-stoppers get $4 million or less. That's the market. Run-stoppers usually average fewer than 30 plays per game. ... Ken in Guelph, Ontario, wonders whether he should worry that his Green Bay Packers aren't more involved in free agency. It's the Packers' philosophy to build through the draft. As long as the Packers draft well -- which they have -- they can stay away from free agency. If you see them involved in free agency, it's a tipoff that their draft choices aren't working out. ... Brent in Kokomo, Indiana, is worried about the Colts' ability to build a championship team around Andrew Luck after they make him the league's highest-paid player. They'll have to draft better and be less reliant on free agency to give Luck a championship supporting cast. ... Matt in Richmond, Virginia, wonders how bad Patrick Willis' toe injury was. It had to be horrible. He's retiring at a very young age while he was in his prime. ... Mario in Houston asks whether the NFL Players Association will get involved with a push for shorter rookie deals for running backs. He's watched the salaries of running backs plummet over the past two years. There is no renegotiating the collective bargaining agreement. It's a 10-year deal that runs through the 2020 season. Not going to happen.