Not talked about but (1 Viewer)

[insidejob]

True, but only the OP and one other post addressed that. Others were just advocating to get rid of inactives.

Yeah, I did that. And i now see how your point makes my suggestion unfair. I didn't think about it that way.

 

[wnelson]

I thought it was the other way around -- Players want bigger rosters. Owners are against bigger rosters.

more jobs and more money why would the players be against an expanded roster and salary cap?

 

[boutrous]

Yeah, I did that. And i now see how your point makes my suggestion unfair. I didn't think about it that way.

I really haven't thought too much about how it would affect teams to have a bigger roster. I assume it would help coaches and allow more players overall to make a living, but not sure it would really add too much in significant improvements. The salary cap only accounts for the top 51 salaries on your team in a year, so players that it would add to the team won't count against the cap anyway. Basically, the biggest impacts it would have are: it would help some normally practice squad players make better weekly paychecks; and it would allow more injured players to be stashed on the roster for longer without having to be put on IR. Actually I think the better fix is just to allow more flexible IR rules like baseball does.

 

[dutar76]

Yeah, I did that. And i now see how your point makes my suggestion unfair. I didn't think about it that way.

Yeah, I thought the same about it a few years back when one of the many similar threads came up. Once I seen the reason behind it, I changed my stance.

But to the OP, this isn't a "not talked about" issue. It's been talked about and debated for years by fans, coaches, players, and owners.
Increasing the roster to 60 and the inactives to 53 would be a huge improvement and I really don't know why it hasn't been implemented. It makes sense on so many levels. My best guess is that the change would have to be made during a CBA negotiation.

 

[Merl]

I really haven't thought too much about how it would affect teams to have a bigger roster. I assume it would help coaches and allow more players overall to make a living, but not sure it would really add too much in significant improvements. The salary cap only accounts for the top 51 salaries on your team in a year, so players that it would add to the team won't count against the cap anyway. Basically, the biggest impacts it would have are: it would help some normally practice squad players make better weekly paychecks; and it would allow more injured players to be stashed on the roster for longer without having to be put on IR. Actually I think the better fix is just to allow more flexible IR rules like baseball does.

The bolded is false info. Only during the off season does the "top 51" rule exist. during the season the entire 53 man roster and all players on IR and PUP count against the cap. They created the "top 51" rule in order to allow teams to have the expanded preseason rosters only.

 

[JackDiesel]

Whole point of the inactives is to even the playing field due to injuries. Inevitably there will be players that can't play due to injury, wouldn't really be fair if one team can play all 53 players while the other team can only play 48. Inactives makes sense from this perspective.

 

[SaintRob]

I agree with the roster expansion. The 60/53 would be good. I also think they should add a second bye week, regardless of whether they expand to 17 games or not. One bye before the Thursday game and another bye. I realize that puts a big break around the Thursday game, but that would be good for the players. It's too demanding to play two games in 4 days and I don't have any evidence, but it seems like injuries happen more frequently on Thursday games.

 

[boutrous]

The bolded is false info. Only during the off season does the "top 51" rule exist. during the season the entire 53 man roster and all players on IR and PUP count against the cap. They created the "top 51" rule in order to allow teams to have the expanded preseason rosters only.

Ah, thanks. I had always thought the 51 was an all the time rule. I generally don't worry about the cap. So then if a roster expands, the salary cap would also have to I would suppose. Otherwise, the top players would have to start being paid less so the lower players can be afforded.