Please help me understand the logic by the NFL for keeping the rosters at 53 and not expanded to 60.
- Thread starter Ramstien
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Because that's what the NFL and the players union agreed to.
/end thread
/end thread
I'd expect this to change at the next CBA, it makes too much sense to increase the size.
53 works great. What I don't get is the game day roster. I don't know why all 53 can't be suited up
I am sure it was put in place for "competitive balance" purposes. Same with limiting IR/ practice squads etc... So deep teams can't just stash players and thus the use of the waiver system, allowing the worst teams to get first crack at released players.
I remember years ago the Rams and Redskins were two teams that would put 20 guys on IR and then just activate them when you needed them Especially linemen. They also used the "Taxi Squad" to its fullest. There was no FA so teams used that as a way of developing players.
So now you can't do that and they make the good teams get rid of guys that will certainly help bad teams.
So they are essentially penalizing good front offices who do their job and get better, by finding top UDFA's etc... and "spreading that wealth" so to speak to those who do a poor job and don't put the time in or are simply inept at building a team.
When you think about it, Bernie Sanders should run for NFL commish if his other interests don't work out for him.
I remember years ago the Rams and Redskins were two teams that would put 20 guys on IR and then just activate them when you needed them Especially linemen. They also used the "Taxi Squad" to its fullest. There was no FA so teams used that as a way of developing players.
So now you can't do that and they make the good teams get rid of guys that will certainly help bad teams.
So they are essentially penalizing good front offices who do their job and get better, by finding top UDFA's etc... and "spreading that wealth" so to speak to those who do a poor job and don't put the time in or are simply inept at building a team.
When you think about it, Bernie Sanders should run for NFL commish if his other interests don't work out for him.
fearsomefour
Legend
I think the roster size will probably stay the same but you may see more dress.
It’s always about the money.
It’s always about the money.
I would think it's about money too.
I don't know why they can't activate everyone of the 53 on game day. Roster size seem fine as well as practice squad size and rules. Keeps things competitive.
I don't know why they can't activate everyone of the 53 on game day. Roster size seem fine as well as practice squad size and rules. Keeps things competitive.
How? If it's not to much to ask. There's always a few threads that I click onto out of habit that I'd rather skip.
I used to run it as a filter in a squid proxy server. You'd be surprised how fast that sped up http responses when caching them through a proxy server and filtering them through an ad blocker, and how clean pages could get too. If you go with a filter you can also manually specify things you want removed from the responses, and I assume that's pretty spot on with the AdBlocker software? I see there's a plus version you can pay for. Kind of cool I guess.
Anyway, if you run a proxy server, you can inject AV scanning as well for what that's worth, all it costs is your time to set up and the electricity to run it
Players act like they are for each other but sometimes it doesn't seem genuine. Like this situation. If they were for each other. Wouldn't they want bigger rosters so that more players would get a chance at a regular roster spot? Which would increase their pay substantially. Instead they are for less spots available and less sharing of the pie.
Of course money is at the heart of it, and it's not just the owners but the players as well. There are only so many dollars to be spread around, increase the CAP and the owners aren't going to like it, leave the CAP untouched and increase the player rosters and the players get a smaller slice. The only way more players will be added, whether to the regular roster or the practice squad will require adding extra games to the schedule. It could happen, but not until a new NFLPA contract agreement is reached with the owners.
If they do away with 2 preseason games and add 2 regular season games the roster size should increase to 60 spots. That is the only way I see the NFL expanding rosters. The NFL would make more money switching 2 games to regular season to offset the cost of the larger roster and they will also will need more bodies due to the attrition of a longer season.
Note: Adding an 18 game season would reset all the statistical benchmarks, which would be interesting. In the long run, the longer season could also potentially shorten player careers.
Note: Adding an 18 game season would reset all the statistical benchmarks, which would be interesting. In the long run, the longer season could also potentially shorten player careers.
Farr Be It
Hall of Fame
When you think about it, Bernie Sanders should run for NFL commish if his other interests don't work out for him.
He would probably fit in better as Soccer Commissioner in Venezuela.
Yea its money, but a bit more complex than pure greed, or at least unilateral greed.
More players means one of two things
1. Cutting the pie into smaller pieces (Pie = CAP)
2. Getting a bigger pan for said pie (Adjusting cap to make room for added players).
Players are greedy and don't want to take smaller slices of the CAP and owners don't want to dish out an unnecessary increase in CAP. Also, both the players and owners would have to agree on how much that adjustment would be.
The only reason people are mentioning an 18 game season is that it increases the entire amount of revenue the NFL rakes in. More revenue for owners and bigger percent of revenue for players. It's really just a compromise since it also means more work for players and higher risk of injuries. Owners on the other hand probably would accept 32 game seasons if they could get it.
More players means one of two things
1. Cutting the pie into smaller pieces (Pie = CAP)
2. Getting a bigger pan for said pie (Adjusting cap to make room for added players).
Players are greedy and don't want to take smaller slices of the CAP and owners don't want to dish out an unnecessary increase in CAP. Also, both the players and owners would have to agree on how much that adjustment would be.
The only reason people are mentioning an 18 game season is that it increases the entire amount of revenue the NFL rakes in. More revenue for owners and bigger percent of revenue for players. It's really just a compromise since it also means more work for players and higher risk of injuries. Owners on the other hand probably would accept 32 game seasons if they could get it.
NO politics discussed or referenced on this board. It's a strict policy.
I'm calling you out in public because you know better (than anyone) to instigate(quote) a political post. Your next warning from me will be a permanent vacation because you just don't seem to get it.He would probably fit in better as Soccer Commissioner in Venezuela.
Yet only one of the two that brings up politics gets an inappropriate from you. It applies to all politics doesn’t it?
I’ll drop it because that response is just inviting more political discussion which isn’t allowed.