- 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
re: Why does the 53 man roster limit exist in NFL?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:43 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:43 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
I guess I don't understand how increasing the roster capacity would result in guys that would make the 53man cut lose their jobs.
If they are good enough to make the 53man cut, why would they lose their jobs if more guys were on the sideline?
If they are good enough to make the 53man cut, why would they lose their jobs if more guys were on the sideline?
2
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:48 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
If they are good enough to make the 53man cut, why would they lose their jobs if more guys were on the sideline
There are other cuts before the 53 man cut. There is a maximum amount of people you can bring to camp with required cuts along the way.
So the fact I was on the 53 man roster last year doesn't mean I'll make it this year correct?
Now, if I'm on the 53 man roster in year 1, and teams can bring in 50 more guys to camp this year than last, did my odds of being replaced go up or down?
The amount of players that can attend camp/practice squad is to protect jobs. The 53 man roster is to fill a team and protect compensation.
The more substitute products (players) that may compete at your level for less money make you increasingly expendable for the team to use their resources on another asset.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:49 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
If the team can take more players, your chances of making the team go up or down?
What I'm gathering is that you're saying that since the numbers of players on the team go up, your chance of making that team go down. I don't understand that.
What I'm gathering is that you're saying that since the numbers of players on the team go up, your chance of making that team go down. I don't understand that.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 3:50 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:51 pm to Jack Daniel
quote:
Why does the 53 man roster limit exist in NFL?
I think they better question is why can only 46 be active on gameday.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 3:52 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
Factors can go both ways.
Yes, a roster increase would increase the amount of chances you have to make the team.
But it also increases the amount of people who can come to camp and prove they are better than you, which can decrease your odds.
Not every factor is 100% beneficial or harmful.
Not every player is 100% interchangeable with another. Teams carry differing amounts at each position.
I'll add that my guess is the 53 man roster is to protect compensation. The camp cut numbers are to protect jobs.
Increase camp rosters increases competition and lowers odds of making 53 man. Increasing 53 man decreases compensation.
Not everyone is Tom Brady expecting to sail through.
Yes, a roster increase would increase the amount of chances you have to make the team.
But it also increases the amount of people who can come to camp and prove they are better than you, which can decrease your odds.
Not every factor is 100% beneficial or harmful.
Not every player is 100% interchangeable with another. Teams carry differing amounts at each position.
I'll add that my guess is the 53 man roster is to protect compensation. The camp cut numbers are to protect jobs.
Increase camp rosters increases competition and lowers odds of making 53 man. Increasing 53 man decreases compensation.
Not everyone is Tom Brady expecting to sail through.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:04 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
I don't understand the basic premise that expanding rosters is going to threaten the guys who are good enough to make the 53 man roster. Doesn't make a lick of sense to me. More roster spots = a better chance that you make the roster.
Just gonna have to leave it at that.
Just gonna have to leave it at that.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:13 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
to threaten the guys who are good enough to make the 53 man roster. Doesn't make a lick of sense to me. More roster spots = a better chance that you make the roster.
Well, we were talking about camp rosters vs the 53 man. Also, you can't leave out the compensation aspect of increasing the 53 man.
But I'll devise a scenario.
Players aren't 100% interchangeable and teams differentiate how they want to allocate the 53 players between OL, DL, QB etc. Also, players are not separated by miles in ability. Someone "good enough" to make the 53 man isn't obviously better than someone who didn't, either playing the same position or another.
Say a team has 53 players and has 5 DL and 5 OL. You are a DL. The 53 man roster goes to 55 players. The team adds 2 DL.
Now, these 2DL are on the 55 man roster and didn't leave when camp ended. They wouldn't have been on the 53 man roster last year and would have went home in August.
October rolls around.
The team needs to add a player at a different position for some reason.
What just happened to you if those 2 looked better because they had more time on the roster? They wouldn't have had the chance. The team couldn't afford to take the flier on their development before.
Not every variable goes down 1 just because another variable went up 1. Complex systems don't work like that.
In this scenario, the 55 man roster was good for the two new players and bad for one. This is the balancing act that is occurring. All happening at once with many competing interests.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:16 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
There are other cuts before the 53 man cut. There is a maximum amount of people you can bring to camp with required cuts along the way.
No, there actually isn't anymore. It goes from 90 to 53 in one slice.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:17 pm to Jcorye1
quote:
No, there actually isn't anymore. It goes from 90 to 53 in one slice.
Sure, but that doesn't change the math balancing act between veteran players and new guys regarding compensation and competition.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:20 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
quote:
Sure, but that doesn't change the math balancing act between veteran players and new guys regarding compensation and competition.
I didn't respond to that argument yet, I was just stating that point was incorrect.
quote:
Sure, but that doesn't change the math balancing act between veteran players and new guys regarding compensation and competition.
The easy counter argument to make is how many vets on their last legs would be saved by additional spots?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:22 pm to Jack Daniel
Revenue is divided between labor and owners via percentage. Labor can increase their own wages by limiting the roster size, doesn't matter to the owners because they are paying the same % of total revenue regardless if its a 53 or 153 man roster.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:28 pm to Jcorye1
I agree that players overall will want more spots. But that isn't a mutually exclusive situation. These are all competing interests.
A player who is a veteran would want camp rosters to go from 90 to 60 to increase his odds of making the 53 again.
A player who didn't make the 53 would want that raised to 55.
The Union would want the rosters to increase to increase bargaining power against the NFL, to increase salary.
But the Union would also probably be AGAINST adding 10 teams and having to split revenue among more players, lowering compensation.
You don't have to be all in on one factor.
A player who is a veteran would want camp rosters to go from 90 to 60 to increase his odds of making the 53 again.
A player who didn't make the 53 would want that raised to 55.
The Union would want the rosters to increase to increase bargaining power against the NFL, to increase salary.
But the Union would also probably be AGAINST adding 10 teams and having to split revenue among more players, lowering compensation.
You don't have to be all in on one factor.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:31 pm to Teddy Ruxpin
Most vets probably want to shrink the rosters, because less positions means more money and more stability. NFL teams will be less likely to take chances on low drafted rookies and UDFAs as the opportunity cost of missing out on a viable player for someone that may be viable increases.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 4:34 pm to Billy Mays
quote:I ride by the Saints facility a ton. If that's what big time colleges have, then they're pretty equal. The Cowboys got themselves an even more insane facility
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 4:34 pm to Jcorye1
I agree with that. A point I was trying probably unsuccessfully to make 
Also, no player thinks they will be the marginal guy who ends up with the short stick.
Also, no player thinks they will be the marginal guy who ends up with the short stick.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 5:33 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Of course that's what a homophobe would say
It is a bullshite term, sorry. Make up some more words. Change the meaning of others.
kind of like "CIS"this and "CIS'that
Posted on 7/29/17 at 7:08 am to StrongBackWeakMind
Aside from all the money issues, Bill Belichick gave a good and long answer on why he doesn't think roster expansion is a great idea (from 2015): transcript
Worth a read.
Worth a read.
Posted on 7/29/17 at 7:12 am to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
I get your first reason, but not your second.
the pool of money players receive is a set number. it's a % of total revenue. that's how they determine the salary cap
more roster spots = less money for the players
Posted on 7/29/17 at 7:30 am to SlowFlowPro
Like I said, I understand his first reason.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News