from 53 to 55

[CR91]

The Competition Committee’s annual pre-league meeting get-together includes, for 2015,examination of roster size.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Competition Committee is considering expanding rosters from 53 to 55.

Opposition to larger rosters previously came from the fact that more than a few teams were having trouble staying under a salary cap that was flat and/or “smoothing.”  In recent years, the salary cap has been increasing more quickly.  Coupled with the impact of the rookie wage scale on the market for veterans (many are paid less and less because quality rookies are cheaper than ever), there’s plenty of extra cash available under the cap to pay two more players per team.

The NFL Players Association would have a voice in roster expansion.  At one level, the union should welcome it; more roster spots means more jobs.  More jobs means more employees.  More employees means the union grows.

But more jobs under a hard cap means fewer available dollars per employees.  That said, expanding the pool of full-time workers from 1,696 to 1,760 shouldn’t have much of a total impact on employees sharing a maximum available annual payroll of more than $4.5 billion, and climbing.

[-JJ-]

2 more doesn't seem a big deal to me.

[dgambill]

I think its a good idea. With the increase of player injuries and the concussion protocals it is good for players and teams to have extra players on the sidelines to use in a game so that they aren't as suseptable to send in a guy that is hurt or possibly hurt. I like this idea. In fact I also think that a 3rd qb too should be available but not count towards the 55 man roster as well in case of emergencies...that way the quality of the game is not diminished in instance of multiple injuries to that particular position. I don't know if this would cause that big of a deal against the cap but if it was going to be a problem they could still just use the highest paid 53 men towards the cap and the others wouldn't be counted towards cap numbers since they likely are minimum contracts anyways.

 

I've been asking for this for the last couple years...with so many in game injuries and concussion protocals I think its necessary the league give teams the ability to have some flexibility with their rosters.

[Superman]

I think its a good idea. With the increase of player injuries and the concussion protocals it is good for players and teams to have extra players on the sidelines to use in a game so that they aren't as suseptable to send in a guy that is hurt or possibly hurt. I like this idea. In fact I also think that a 3rd qb too should be available but not count towards the 55 man roster as well in case of emergencies...that way the quality of the game is not diminished in instance of multiple injuries to that particular position. I don't know if this would cause that big of a deal against the cap but if it was going to be a problem they could still just use the highest paid 53 men towards the cap and the others wouldn't be counted towards cap numbers since they likely are minimum contracts anyways.

I've been asking for this for the last couple years...with so many in game injuries and concussion protocals I think its necessary the league give teams the ability to have some flexibility with their rosters.

Yup. Just go to 60, IMO. Once you factor in the players who are on IR during the season, teams probably have 60+ on thr roster anyways.

[NewColtsFan]

 

The Competition Committee’s annual pre-league meeting get-together includes, for 2015,examination of roster size.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Competition Committee is considering expanding rosters from 53 to 55.

Opposition to larger rosters previously came from the fact that more than a few teams were having trouble staying under a salary cap that was flat and/or “smoothing.”  In recent years, the salary cap has been increasing more quickly.  Coupled with the impact of the rookie wage scale on the market for veterans (many are paid less and less because quality rookies are cheaper than ever), there’s plenty of extra cash available under the cap to pay two more players per team.

The NFL Players Association would have a voice in roster expansion.  At one level, the union should welcome it; more roster spots means more jobs.  More jobs means more employees.  More employees means the union grows.

But more jobs under a hard cap means fewer available dollars per employees.  That said, expanding the pool of full-time workers from 1,696 to 1,760 shouldn’t have much of a total impact on employees sharing a maximum available annual payroll of more than $4.5 billion, and climbing.

 

 

It's not just the roster size,  but also how many are active on game day.

 

This 53 man roster, but only 46 are active feels like outdated nonsense to me.   But I've read owners want it because they think the best teams have the best 53 man rosters,  so they feel like only activating 46 evens things out a bit.  

 

I call that a classic case of over-thinking.

 

So,  I'd be fine with a 55 man roster, and if we can't get all 55 active,  then certainly 50.

 

A 10 man PS, which we went to last year (I believe) is fine as well.

 

Then, each team would have 65 players.....

 

Also....

 

I'd expect the owners to use this issue as a carrot to entice the players to agree to an 18 game regular season.   That's something I'll always strongly oppose!

[crazycolt1]

It's not just the roster size,  but also how many are active on game day.

 

This 53 man roster, but only 46 are active feels like outdated nonsense to me.   But I've read owners want it because they think the best teams have the best 53 man rosters,  so they feel like only activating 46 evens things out a bit.  

 

I call that a classic case of over-thinking.

 

So,  I'd be fine with a 55 man roster, and if we can't get all 55 active,  then certainly 50.

 

A 10 man PS, which we went to last year (I believe) is fine as well.

 

Then, each team would have 65 players.....

 

Also....

 

I'd expect the owners to use this issue as a carrot to entice the players to agree to an 18 game regular season.   That's something I'll always strongly oppose!

I totally agree with the 18 game season. IMO it is nothing but a money grab. Also 50 sounds about right.

[Superman]

If they go to 18 games, they'll have to really expand rosters, and they'll have to reconfigure the schedule. My idea has been to get rid of two preseason games, add two bye weeks, and go to 60 man rosters.

 

As for the 46 man game day roster, my understanding is that it balances out injuries from team to team. If Team A has 10 guys who can't play, but Team B is fully healthy, that's obviously a huge advantage for Team B, because Team A can only dress 43 guys. By restricting the game day roster, you balance it out. Now, Team B only has a three player advantage, because they're only dressing 46. I'm fine with that strategy.

 

What I think is outdated is the actual number. I don't think 46 players is enough for today's game, which has become more specialized. It used to be that an injury to your #1 back meant that your #2 back comes into the game. Now, most teams use at least 2 backs on game day. So now, an injury to either of the first two puts #3 in the game, and for a lot of teams, that guy is a scat back or return man. Teams can only dress 7 OL typically, a base 3-4 team can only dress 4-5 DL, and those are the positions that are the most physical, and most likely to suffer from injury on game day. 

 

So my idea has been to go to 60 man active rosters, 50 on game day, and create short term IR designations like baseball does, so players can sit for extended periods without stressing the active roster. It promotes better rehab, it adds hundreds of jobs, and it improves the product. If they do that, and adjust things for an 18 game season, I think everybody wins.

[NewColtsFan]

If they go to 18 games, they'll have to really expand rosters, and they'll have to reconfigure the schedule. My idea has been to get rid of two preseason games, add two bye weeks, and go to 60 man rosters.

 

As for the 46 man game day roster, my understanding is that it balances out injuries from team to team. If Team A has 10 guys who can't play, but Team B is fully healthy, that's obviously a huge advantage for Team B, because Team A can only dress 43 guys. By restricting the game day roster, you balance it out. Now, Team B only has a three player advantage, because they're only dressing 46. I'm fine with that strategy.

 

What I think is outdated is the actual number. I don't think 46 players is enough for today's game, which has become more specialized. It used to be that an injury to your #1 back meant that your #2 back comes into the game. Now, most teams use at least 2 backs on game day. So now, an injury to either of the first two puts #3 in the game, and for a lot of teams, that guy is a scat back or return man. Teams can only dress 7 OL typically, a base 3-4 team can only dress 4-5 DL, and those are the positions that are the most physical, and most likely to suffer from injury on game day. 

 

So my idea has been to go to 60 man active rosters, 50 on game day, and create short term IR designations like baseball does, so players can sit for extended periods without stressing the active roster. It promotes better rehab, it adds hundreds of jobs, and it improves the product. If they do that, and adjust things for an 18 game season, I think everybody wins.

 

I'm with you all the way.........   right up until the two added byes and the 18 game schedule.

 

Those are simply non-starters for me.

[Superman]

I'm with you all the way.........   right up until the two added byes and the 18 game schedule.

 

Those are simply non-starters for me.

 

Let's be pragmatic. We don't get 60 man rosters without that concession, and we definitely don't get rid of two unnecessary preseason games.

 

If you add two byes, expand rosters, and loosen the IR restrictions, the questions about player health and safety are answered.

 

You can also schedule TNF after bye weeks only, so the issue with game quality for TNF is solved.

 

The expanded schedule allows the NFL to dominate TV ratings four (?) extra weeks -- I haven't quite done all the math and scheduling on that, it's either 3 or 4 -- which means more football related revenue, which means a higher cap, and that effectively pays for the 224 extra roster spots.

 

And by removing two preseason games, season ticket holders are only forced to pay for 1 meaningless and sloppy preseason game at full price. Teams can make up for the lost tune-up time by having more scrimmages and joint practices, which are great for fan engagement.

 

I know a lot of people are diametrically opposed to the idea of extending the season. But you said yourself, the NFL and its owners want an 18 game season. If they make those concessions, I think it would actually work out well.

[NewColtsFan]

Let's be pragmatic. We don't get 60 man rosters without that concession, and we definitely don't get rid of two unnecessary preseason games.

 

If you add two byes, expand rosters, and loosen the IR restrictions, the questions about player health and safety are answered.

 

You can also schedule TNF after bye weeks only, so the issue with game quality for TNF is solved.

 

The expanded schedule allows the NFL to dominate TV ratings four (?) extra weeks -- I haven't quite done all the math and scheduling on that, it's either 3 or 4 -- which means more football related revenue, which means a higher cap, and that effectively pays for the 224 extra roster spots.

 

And by removing two preseason games, season ticket holders are only forced to pay for 1 meaningless and sloppy preseason game at full price. Teams can make up for the lost tune-up time by having more scrimmages and joint practices, which are great for fan engagement.

 

I know a lot of people are diametrically opposed to the idea of extending the season. But you said yourself, the NFL and its owners want an 18 game season. If they make those concessions, I think it would actually work out well.

 

I don't think adding two byes comes remotely close to addressing player health and safety.   Not even close.   Players are physically and mentally exhausted long before the current 17 week schedule is finished.   Now, you're talking about adding a month (two games and two byes) to the regular season.    I don't think players will want any part of that.

 

And I don't think losing two pre-season games is all that helpful.    Because what teams will do is schedule scrimmages with other teams.    A few teams are already doing this.     So, whatever is gained by losing two pre-season games is lost with the scrimmages.

[oldunclemark]

If they go to 18 games, they'll have to really expand rosters, and they'll have to reconfigure the schedule. My idea has been to get rid of two preseason games, add two bye weeks, and go to 60 man rosters.

 

As for the 46 man game day roster, my understanding is that it balances out injuries from team to team. If Team A has 10 guys who can't play, but Team B is fully healthy, that's obviously a huge advantage for Team B, because Team A can only dress 43 guys. By restricting the game day roster, you balance it out. Now, Team B only has a three player advantage, because they're only dressing 46. I'm fine with that strategy.

 

What I think is outdated is the actual number. I don't think 46 players is enough for today's game, which has become more specialized. It used to be that an injury to your #1 back meant that your #2 back comes into the game. Now, most teams use at least 2 backs on game day. So now, an injury to either of the first two puts #3 in the game, and for a lot of teams, that guy is a scat back or return man. Teams can only dress 7 OL typically, a base 3-4 team can only dress 4-5 DL, and those are the positions that are the most physical, and most likely to suffer from injury on game day. 

 

So my idea has been to go to 60 man active rosters, 50 on game day, and create short term IR designations like baseball does, so players can sit for extended periods without stressing the active roster. It promotes better rehab, it adds hundreds of jobs, and it improves the product. If they do that, and adjust things for an 18 game season, I think everybody wins.

I'm all for the 18-game season.

Beyond the 45-man roster....what is outdated is 4 pre-season games....with controlled scrimmages......you only need one or two

pre-season dates....

I look at the numbers differently...My number is 55...

2-deep on each side of the ball....6 specials teams players...and 5 specialists...kicker, punter, kickoff man, kick returner and long snapper

..Fans act as if going to 18 games (with 2 byes) JUST for the money is a bad thing.

The only reason players play and owners own is for the money....The season is 22 weeks now...(counting hall-of-Fame week) with 20 games and 2 'byes' (all bt 2 teams don't play hall of fame week)

We can go 16 and 4 with 2 byes as we do now or 20 and 2 with 2 byes.

The networks will pay more for 20 and 2..//Fans and TV should not be asked to buy fake games..and pklayers shuldnt be asked to play more than one exhibition game

..The players who are complaining about 18 fregular games are making more and more cash.

The NFL season truly hasn't expanded in decades...When they played 14 regular games..there were 6 pre-season games.

Its been a 20 game season for some time now...its just a matter of how many real games you want.

18 and 2 is a win-win for everybody

[Superman]

I don't think adding two byes comes remotely close to addressing player health and safety.   Not even close.   Players are physically and mentally exhausted long before the current 17 week schedule is finished.   Now, you're talking about adding a month (two games and two byes) to the regular season.    I don't think players will want any part of that.

 

And I don't think losing two pre-season games is all that helpful.    Because what teams will do is schedule scrimmages with other teams.    A few teams are already doing this.     So, whatever is gained by losing two pre-season games is lost with the scrimmages.

 

To my mind, if you give players more time off to recover, it promotes health and safety. Add in the extra roster spots and the loosened IR restrictions, and I think that's major progress.

 

About scrimmages, as you mentioned, teams are already doing this. I personally believe teams are going to start doing more of this. I believe they should. That being the case, more scrimmages and less preseason games offset each other. Except scrimmages aren't required to be four 15 minute quarters, so a competitive scrimmage is still less of a physical burden than a preseason game. And it's not an opportunity to force STHs to pay for something they don't want.

 

To me, it's a negotiation. I think they should add a bye week to the 16 game schedule already. I know players don't want an 18 game season, but I think they'd want two extra bye weeks, and I KNOW they'd want more football related revenue and two fewer preseason games. To me, those are reasonable concessions from both sides.

[amfootball]

To my mind, if you give players more time off to recover, it promotes health and safety. Add in the extra roster spots and the loosened IR restrictions, and I think that's major progress.

 

About scrimmages, as you mentioned, teams are already doing this. I personally believe teams are going to start doing more of this. I believe they should. That being the case, more scrimmages and less preseason games offset each other. Except scrimmages aren't required to be four 15 minute quarters, so a competitive scrimmage is still less of a physical burden than a preseason game. And it's not an opportunity to force STHs to pay for something they don't want.

 

To me, it's a negotiation. I think they should add a bye week to the 16 game schedule already. I know players don't want an 18 game season, but I think they'd want two extra bye weeks, and I KNOW they'd want more football related revenue and two fewer preseason games. To me, those are reasonable concessions from both sides.

I am in favor of all your thoughts on this thread especially the 60 man roster/50 active game day which seems like a no brainer.

 

I think the only sticky point with you proposal is getting rid of the two preseason games. From a fan perspective it works, but from a team survey perspective it does not. Coaches use those two games to determine who they will cut and will make the roster. If you cut preseason by 50 percent you are severely restricting a team's ability to properly evaluate its team. I believe the biggest roster cuts come in those weeks where they have to get from 90 to 70 to 53. I suppose teams could just do scrimmages but that is not really the same as competitive games.

 

Still though, I am in favor of the 18 games and two bye weeks as you propose. I think they should just lengthen the season. What difference does it make if football ends Feb. 1 or Feb. 15? It is not up against any other sports as baseball has not begun and the NBA and NHL are still in the middle of their seasons.

[ViriLudant]

Do we think that an 18 game schedule may lead to a London team?

[GoPats]

I like the idea, for all the reasons everyone stated. The big deal to me is increasing the number of game-day players in uniform, more than the actual roster size. Either that or have it so that position-specific players (K, P, LS, maybe 3rd QB if a team has one) don't take up "official" spots. 

[JerodMayo51]

I don't understand why they don't let teams bring anyone who can play to game day on the active roster.. never saw the point of limiting that.

Having a larger roster will benefit everyone though and will also allow teams to be more willing to carry an injured player longer instead of IRing them

[Superman]

I am in favor of all your thoughts on this thread especially the 60 man roster/50 active game day which seems like a no brainer.

 

I think the only sticky point with you proposal is getting rid of the two preseason games. From a fan perspective it works, but from a team survey perspective it does not. Coaches use those two games to determine who they will cut and will make the roster. If you cut preseason by 50 percent you are severely restricting a team's ability to properly evaluate its team. I believe the biggest roster cuts come in those weeks where they have to get from 90 to 70 to 53. I suppose teams could just do scrimmages but that is not really the same as competitive games.

 

Still though, I am in favor of the 18 games and two bye weeks as you propose. I think they should just lengthen the season. What difference does it make if football ends Feb. 1 or Feb. 15? It is not up against any other sports as baseball has not begun and the NBA and NHL are still in the middle of their seasons.

 

I question how much the typical team bases their preseason evaluation and roster decisions off of preseason games. I know there's value to them, and there's the Terrell Davis story, so I'm not discounting it entirely. But even Davis really got his break in the second preseason game. These days, the players that are locks for roster spots aren't on the field in the 4th preseason game. 

 

And if you're increasing the total roster to 60, then it's less of a challenge to make your final cuts. 

 

Another tweak, allow teams to designate their 10 practice squad players without putting them through waivers at the end of preseason. PS players can be signed by other teams if they're really wanted anyways. The waiver process is redundant. (Keep the waiver process for PS players during the season, just get rid of it for the end of preseason.)

 

Pump up the scrimmages. Loosen the restrictions on IR and get rid of PS waivers. I think teams could make their roster management decisions with no problem. And the increased roster size and getting rid of waivers would promote player development for those fringe players that teams would like to keep, but just can't.

[amfootball]

I question how much the typical team bases their preseason evaluation and roster decisions off of preseason games. I know there's value to them, and there's the Terrell Davis story, so I'm not discounting it entirely. But even Davis really got his break in the second preseason game. These days, the players that are locks for roster spots aren't on the field in the 4th preseason game. 

 

And if you're increasing the total roster to 60, then it's less of a challenge to make your final cuts. 

 

Another tweak, allow teams to designate their 10 practice squad players without putting them through waivers at the end of preseason. PS players can be signed by other teams if they're really wanted anyways. The waiver process is redundant. (Keep the waiver process for PS players during the season, just get rid of it for the end of preseason.)

 

Pump up the scrimmages. Loosen the restrictions on IR and get rid of PS waivers. I think teams could make their roster management decisions with no problem. And the increased roster size and getting rid of waivers would promote player development for those fringe players that teams would like to keep, but just can't.

In terms of the preseason evaluation, teams have their starters - players 1-22 locked up by the last game but not the role players or subs. Many of those guys are on the bubble in the fourth game which is why so many of them play while the starters sit.

 

I will try to find the quote but I remember Belichick saying he was strongly against cutting down the preseason because it is so vital to determining the roster. That being said, you are right about there being less pressure with 60 spots vs 53 but the process is still the same in terms of determining who makes the team and who does not.

 

I like your ideas a lot about PS and IR. The IR seems like a no brainer. But I am not sure if anything of this will fly with the teams. I do think if the 18 game season happens they will either start TC in mid July and have the first real game be the last week of August or they will extend the season into mid-Feb. In the end it is only two weeks with no issue of bumping up against other sports. I do think having two byes is vital if they go to 18 and they have to also serious consider not having teams play more than one game on Thursday night which could happen with the extra games.

[Valpo2004]

 

The Competition Committee’s annual pre-league meeting get-together includes, for 2015,examination of roster size.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Competition Committee is considering expanding rosters from 53 to 55.

Opposition to larger rosters previously came from the fact that more than a few teams were having trouble staying under a salary cap that was flat and/or “smoothing.”  In recent years, the salary cap has been increasing more quickly.  Coupled with the impact of the rookie wage scale on the market for veterans (many are paid less and less because quality rookies are cheaper than ever), there’s plenty of extra cash available under the cap to pay two more players per team.

The NFL Players Association would have a voice in roster expansion.  At one level, the union should welcome it; more roster spots means more jobs.  More jobs means more employees.  More employees means the union grows.

But more jobs under a hard cap means fewer available dollars per employees.  That said, expanding the pool of full-time workers from 1,696 to 1,760 shouldn’t have much of a total impact on employees sharing a maximum available annual payroll of more than $4.5 billion, and climbing.

 

 

 

It shouldn't be a big deal. . . when you look at the team level the bottom end of the roster. . . typically maybe 10 or so players are players who are on minimum salary.  

 

The min salary is nothing in comparison to the cap.  2 more min salary guys depending on how long they have been in the league might cost somewhere between 850k to 2 mil of the 143 million dollar cap.  Let's say it's 1.2 M on average.  

 

That 1.2 million loss would over time be split between 15 to 20 vets on the team.  Or more realistically the team would just have 1.2 M less in cap space then it did before.  Talented Vets are always gonna get big money.  

[bap1331]

Finally they get something right...instead of dumb rules like making the field goal smaller...