Rosters should be expanded

[Verdict]

It is pretty much an undisputed fact that colleges are not prepping players to play pro football, especially at QB. I know NFL rosters are limited to promote parity.

The practice squad was designed to help alleviate this to some degree. Why not allow NFL teams to add additional practice squad players? They could have 75 players total with everything over 53 being practice squad players. They could even tier salaries to keep costs down. Keep the poachable by other teams. It is win win for all parties involved.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Agree. And preseason games cut to two.

 

[zrinkill]

Yes ........ but the poorest owners will not allow it.

 

[perrykemp]

Didn't they do this some find back from 45 to 53?

 

[Broges74]

Yes ........ but the poorest owners will not allow it.

I'd love to be one of the 'poorest' owners...

 

[Craig]

I think just add the practice squad to the regular roster, dont change the active roster. id say 3 preseason games. Cht to 75 after week 1, cut to 63 after week 2, and i think that would encourage them to keep week 3 as the dress rehearsal.

 

[DBOY3141]

I think the Commanders have asked for this two years in a row now and have been denied. Bills support the measure as well.

 

[xwalker]

It is pretty much an undisputed fact that colleges are not prepping players to play pro football, especially at QB. I know NFL rosters are limited to promote parity.

The practice squad was designed to help alleviate this to some degree. Why not allow NFL teams to add additional practice squad players? They could have 75 players total with everything over 53 being practice squad players. They could even tier salaries to keep costs down. Keep the poachable by other teams. It is win win for all parties involved.

I don't see the point in a bigger practice squad; however, I would love for the 53 to expand to 55 or 60. It's hard to protect more than a couple of purely developmental type players each year. I would like to protect players like Rico Gathers without having to impact the current season's depth.

The other thing I've always wanted to see is a true minor league. If the Cowboys had a minor league team, I would watch those games; however, I'm not really interested in watching those alternate leagues that have no connection to the NFL teams.

 

[Reality]

The only way the roster could be expanded would be if the players had more options available to them should they be designated inactive for games. Otherwise, teams would sit on players they already paid most of the contract to via guaranteed money leveraging that power to require/entice the players to repay part of that money for their release or they would use the players as their on-the-shelf emergency backups until their contract ends. Right now, a lot (not all of course) of veteran players gain free agency more so due to the need for their roster spot or salary cap hit than they do for actual money saved by their teams. Obviously, there are exceptions in the case where a player is due a second or third significant roster bonus as part of the guaranteed contract money.

 

[Boomer22]

The owners would probably only allow it if more nfl games we're added.

 

[xwalker]

I'd love to be one of the 'poorest' owners...

You might still be able to buy a stock certificate for the Green Bay Packers. They were originally just a few hundred dollars. All stock holders are considered "owners".

 

[xwalker]

The owners would probably only allow it if more nfl games we're added.

It wouldn't cost the owners any extra money because it is all under the salary cap. It would spread the total amount paid to all players out to more players; therefore, reducing the amount available to each player by a small amount.

 

[TheCount]

Agree. And preseason games cut to two.

Can't do both.

The owners won't want to both lose out of preseason income AND pay more players.

 

[erod]

The owners would probably only allow it if more nfl games we're added.

It's not like teams would play backups in those extra games.

So no on all fronts.

 

[TheCount]

It wouldn't cost the owners any extra money because it is all under the salary cap. It would spread the total amount paid to all players out to more players; therefore, reducing the amount available to each player by a small amount.

You'd have to mandate that the expanded cap was meant for expanded roster players. Teams are more likely to spend that money on a vet FA than a bottom of the roster guy, given the option.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Agree. And preseason games cut to two.

I heard some rumblings that this might be the last official preseason.

 

[xwalker]

The only way the roster could be expanded would be if the players had more options available to them should they be designated inactive for games. Otherwise, teams would sit on players they already paid most of the contract to via guaranteed money leveraging that power to require/entice the players to repay part of that money for their release or they would use the players as their on-the-shelf emergency backups until their contract ends. Right now, a lot (not all of course) of veteran players gain free agency more so due to the need for their roster spot or salary cap hit than they do for actual money saved by their teams. Obviously, there are exceptions in the case where a player is due a second or third significant roster bonus as part of the guaranteed contract money.

They could limit the number of vested veterans that could be on the inactive list each week.

Basically, I would just like the practice squad to be protected. I don't know why the NFLPA really cares about the practice squad guys being restricted to low wages. In baseball the minor league players have low wages until they make it to the big league team. They could protect the practice squad guys and keep their salary low, but then be required to bump their salaries up if they were ever on the 46 man game day roster.

 

[xwalker]

You'd have to mandate that the expanded cap was meant for expanded roster players. Teams are more likely to spend that money on a vet FA than a bottom of the roster guy, given the option.

I don't understand.

The practice squad already counts against the cap. There won't be an expanded cap. The percentage of NFL income that goes to the players is not going to change. Even if they went to an 18 game season, the percentage would likely remain the same but the total income would increase.

 

[Reality]

They could limit the number of vested veterans that could be on the inactive list each week.

Basically, I would just like the practice squad to be protected. I don't know why the NFLPA really cares about the practice squad guys being restricted to low wages. In baseball the minor league players have low wages until they make it to the big league team. They could protect the practice squad guys and keep their salary low, but then be required to bump their salaries up if they were ever on the 46 man game day roster.

That's not a bad idea, but I could still see it being used to make up for a bad contract the team chose to give. They make the one veteran, whom they overpaid for or no longer need, inactive and basically tell him it would cost them more to release him than keep him in accelerated guaranteed money against the cap so they'll just keep him on the inactive roster for 1-2 seasons until it becomes more cost effective. Of course the team would be more than willing to have the player repay a lot of the guaranteed money to get out of the contract. I cannot see (or blame) the NFLPA for not liking that possibility.

I think what you would have to do is take the financial incentive away from the teams to make it fair, but not sure how you could do that and not have it affect starters who are injured because if you make exceptions for injured players, then teams could claim any player they want to deactivate as injured.

 

[Boomer22]

It wouldn't cost the owners any extra money because it is all under the salary cap. It would spread the total amount paid to all players out to more players; therefore, reducing the amount available to each player by a small amount.

And that is another reason why it probably won't happen. The players in the union won't be happy to take a paycut, especially if it means someone else is going to get their money.