- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Why does the 53 man roster limit exist in NFL?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:01 pm
First of all, why is it 53 and not 55 or 60 or 65?
Secondly, seems like if the NFL is really concerned about head injuries they would increase the roster limits to reduce hits.
Secondly, seems like if the NFL is really concerned about head injuries they would increase the roster limits to reduce hits.
10
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:02 pm to Jack Daniel
$$$$$$
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:13 pm to Jack Daniel
Is this the first year you follow a NFL season?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:16 pm to udtiger
Money is Huge issue but I think adding 3-4 more spots wouldn't cost that much. Adding depth to rosters could potential save some injuries sustained by players who may be getting overworked (less subs)
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 10:18 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:25 pm to thermal9221
So you can't answer, you cocksmoker?
Posted on 7/27/17 at 10:59 pm to Jack Daniel
quote:
First of all, why is it 53 and not 55 or 60 or 65?
it's a business
during the week, your roster is the guys you have, the practice squad that practices with you but are technically free agents to sign with anybody, plus any dude anywhere you can sign that isn't on a college or another NFL team. i think for games it's actually 45 plus a third quarterback
you can't make such roster additions in the middle of a college season. that's why they have more players
This post was edited on 7/27/17 at 11:02 pm
Posted on 7/27/17 at 11:26 pm to Jack Daniel
quote:
Secondly, seems like if the NFL is really concerned about head injuries they would increase the roster limits to reduce hits.
nah
education
coaching starting with 10 yr olds
penalties
out of league for repeat offenders
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:09 am to Jack Daniel
The 53 man roster doesn't bother me, it is the fact that only 45 can dress that bothers me.
Why not let all 53 guys dress?
Why not let all 53 guys dress?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:57 am to Jack Daniel
quote:
Jack Daniel
quote:
So you can't answer, you cocksmoker?
no need for your homophobic rant, princess
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:21 am to hsfolk
The made up word "homophobe"has always irritated me.
As for the 53, good question,you'd think it would be a round number unless there was some scientific reason for it to be precisely 53.
maybe it is something like:
44 - 2 full teams
1 -3rd QB
3 - K,P,LS
5- extra offense skill, OL, DL, LB, DB
Of course rosters don't look like that but maybe they evolved since the number was set.
As for the 53, good question,you'd think it would be a round number unless there was some scientific reason for it to be precisely 53.
maybe it is something like:
44 - 2 full teams
1 -3rd QB
3 - K,P,LS
5- extra offense skill, OL, DL, LB, DB
Of course rosters don't look like that but maybe they evolved since the number was set.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 7:17 am to Jack Daniel
quote:
First of all, why is it 53 and not 55 or 60 or 65?
Indeed.
53 is my least favorite prime number. I could accept 59 or even 61, but NOT 53. I hate that guy.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 8:22 am to roguetiger15
quote:
Money is Huge issue but I think adding 3-4 more spots wouldn't cost that much. Adding depth to rosters could potential save some injuries sustained by players who may be getting overworked (less subs)
I'd venture to say it isn't all about the owners not wanting to spend the money, its about the players making sure there aren't too many roster spots to drive up salaries and to keep their jobs.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 8:23 am
Posted on 7/28/17 at 8:28 am to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:I get your first reason, but not your second.
its about the players making sure there aren't too many roster spots to drive up salaries and to keep their jobs
Posted on 7/28/17 at 8:40 am to Jack Daniel
quote:
if the NFL is really concerned about head injuries they would increase the roster limits to reduce hits.
How would adding more people standing on the sidelines reduce the hits on the field exactly?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 8:46 am to gthog61
quote:
The made up word "homophobe"has always irritated me.
Of course that's what a homophobe would say
Posted on 7/28/17 at 8:54 am to SG_Geaux
by having more guys on the roster, no player would have to play special teams AND Offense or defense therefore reducing the time on the field and reducing opportunities for hits.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 9:39 am to Jack Daniel
I thought the point was (partially) for parity purposes, they dont want teams stashing guys
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 9:45 am
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:47 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
I thought the point was (partially) for parity purposes, they dont want teams stashing guys
This and also about controlling supply and demand.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:55 pm to Jack Daniel
The NFL is all about dollars.
There's a reason why major college programs have insane facilities compared to NFL teams - the NFL is all about the bottom line, nothing more, nothing less.
There's a reason why major college programs have insane facilities compared to NFL teams - the NFL is all about the bottom line, nothing more, nothing less.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:40 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
I get your first reason, but not your second
Keep their jobs?
So the players union is to protect current players first and foremost, not the new guys or potential future members. Hence the rookie contract changes as an example.
Unions are for 1) increasing compensation and 2) decreasing competition for jobs for current union members.
This is a balancing act of course, since you need enough open positions to have a strong union, but not too many where competition for their individual position rises.
You would think, if there are more jobs it's likely player A (starter) always has one, but that's only one element. The more players allowed not only drives down salary, it increases the odds a player B takes their spot, lowering Player A's value and salary on an individual basis. There are many competing forces that can sometimes be beneficial or harmful depending on who you're asking or the situation.
This fight takes place with the owners through the CBA. It's anyone's guess how that math came out to 53.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 3:44 pm
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News