60 Man Roster??

[Off The Grid]

I had a VERY hard time, trying to discern the history of Roster expansion, over the years. In today's Pravda, however, if Greg Bedard has it right ~ Do your job - The Boston Globe ~ the rosters expanded from 47 to 53 in 1993, as part of that enormous deal.

That's about an Eighth, and if we repeat that, next CBA ~ which seems like a distinct possibility if the players eventually agree to 18 games ~ an equal increase would bring it to an even 60 ~ and hopefully eliminate this obnoxious practice of icing 8 players, every Sunday.

Here's hoping for that: The deeper the roster, the more complex the Game.

And the more complex the Game, the more pronounced the advantage of Bill II The Great, Mad Genius.

 

[Wilfork#75]

I think expanded rosters would help the Pats more than most teams and I would love it to go to a 60 man limit. However, I dont think it will go that high. I dont think it will go above 55-56 max because the owners are trying to reduce the salary cap. The bigger the roster the higher the salary cap, and the more money owners have to spend. I believe earlier in the season the Union was asking for 4 extra roster spots while the owners were proposing 1, so I dont think 60 is realistic. I think 56 would be a good compromise and would suit all parties. Although 60 would make BB's drafting style even more effective because the Pats would have better quality in the bottom 10 roster spots than most teams in the league.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I think expanded rosters would help the Pats more than most teams and I would love it to go to a 60 man limit. However, I dont think it will go that high. I dont think it will go above 55-56 max because the owners are trying to reduce the salary cap. The bigger the roster the higher the salary cap, and the more money owners have to spend. I believe earlier in the season the Union was asking for 4 extra roster spots while the owners were proposing 1, so I dont think 60 is realistic. I think 56 would be a good compromise and would suit all parties. Although 60 would make BB's drafting style even more effective because the Pats would have better quality in the bottom 10 roster spots than most teams in the league.

I'd expect it to hurt NE, they are a team who is very good at picking through other team's trash and finding gold.

 

[DaBruinz]

I don't see the Practice squad being eliminated. Unless the rosters were expanded to 61, the NFPLA would actually be losing members if the PS was eliminated and I don't see that happening.

I think we'll see a 60 man roster and a 10 man practice squad with training camp rosters being at 100.. But that is just my gut feeling.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

I don't see the Practice squad being eliminated. Unless the rosters were expanded to 61, the NFPLA would actually be losing members if the PS was eliminated and I don't see that happening.

I think we'll see a 60 man roster and a 10 man practice squad with training camp rosters being at 100.. But that is just my gut feeling.

That is kind of along the lines of how I see it shaking out.

With the expansion to 18 games and a rookie salary cap as two huge issues, I really am thinking that the 2011-12 season is in serious trouble. Would the owners go to 80% of revenue going to the players?

 

[Off The Grid]

I think expanded rosters would help the Pats more than most teams and I would love it to go to a 60 man limit. However, I dont think it will go that high. I dont think it will go above 55-56 max because the owners are trying to reduce the salary cap. The bigger the roster the higher the salary cap, and the more money owners have to spend. I believe earlier in the season the Union was asking for 4 extra roster spots while the owners were proposing 1, so I dont think 60 is realistic. I think 56 would be a good compromise and would suit all parties. Although 60 would make BB's drafting style even more effective because the Pats would have better quality in the bottom 10 roster spots than most teams in the league.

Ah, but I think you missed an HUGE element: IF the owners succeed in foisting an 18 games schedule on the players, the GROSS Income will get JACKED, which will mean that the aggregate PERCENTAGE that the Players are currently getting will ALSO get JACKED UP!!

And that will NICELY allow them to spread the INCREASED Revenue out.

This would allow the current players to retain their OUTRAGEOUSLY bloated share of the Pie, INCREASE the Pie, itself, to the Owners' benefit, and bring an ENORMOUS improvement to the lot of Players, themselves, as about 12 to 13% MORE of them would have jobs...despite a stale, flaccid Economy.

 

[Ochmed Jones]

Ah, but I think you missed an HUGE element: IF the owners succeed in foisting an 18 games schedule on the players, the GROSS Income will get JACKED, which will mean that the aggregate PERCENTAGE that the Players are currently getting will ALSO get JACKED UP!!

And that will NICELY allow them to spread the INCREASED Revenue out.

This would allow the current players to retain their OUTRAGEOUSLY bloated share of the Pie, INCREASE the Pie, itself, to the Owners' benefit, and bring an ENORMOUS improvement to the lot of Players, themselves, as about 12 to 13% MORE of them would have jobs...despite a stale, flaccid Economy.

Let me get this straight, the owners are just going to quietly capitulate and hand over all these extra millions to the players without keeping one extra dollar for themselves, except what they make on parking and concessions that is?

The real question is who is greedier? The owners or the players?

 

[DaBruinz]

That is kind of along the lines of how I see it shaking out.

With the expansion to 18 games and a rookie salary cap as two huge issues, I really am thinking that the 2011-12 season is in serious trouble. Would the owners go to 80% of revenue going to the players?

I'll be honest. I think that the owners are going to reduce the amount of revenue to the players to about 55%..

Personally, they should make it so that all the TV revenue (and ONLY the TV revenue) goes towards the cap, including signing bonuses.. Have a cap floor of 85%.. And roll all the remaining amount back into the pot for the following season. So, teams that don't use all their money get penalized..

Now, I don't consider it greedy on the owners parts to want to make a good ROI. Especially when you consider what some people have paid for their franchises.. Like Kraft..

But that is an entirely separate discussion..

 

[Off The Grid]

Ah, but I think you missed an HUGE element: IF the owners succeed in foisting an 18 games schedule on the players, the GROSS Income will get JACKED, which will mean that the aggregate PERCENTAGE that the Players are currently getting will ALSO get JACKED UP!!

And that will NICELY allow them to spread the INCREASED Revenue out.

This would allow the current players to retain their OUTRAGEOUSLY bloated share of the Pie, INCREASE the Pie, itself, to the Owners' benefit, and bring an ENORMOUS improvement to the lot of Players, themselves, as about 12 to 13% MORE of them would have jobs...despite a stale, flaccid Economy.

Let me get this straight, the owners are just going to quietly capitulate and hand over all these extra millions to the players without keeping one extra dollar for themselves, except what they make on parking and concessions that is?

You do NOT have it straight.

I'm talking about PERCENTAGE.

EVERYBODY makes more.

 

[MaineMan]

I'd expect it to hurt NE, they are a team who is very good at picking through other team's trash and finding gold.

The Packers, too. DT/DE Howard Green (cut twice this year by the Jets), OLB Erik Walden (cut twice this year by the Fins) have both made solid contributions down the stretch as emergency injury replacements. They got Ryan Grant from the Giants for a 6th rounder. Tramon Williams was a UDFA originally signed by the Texans and waived in final roster cutdowns.

 

[MaineMan]

Ah, but I think you missed an HUGE element: IF the owners succeed in foisting an 18 games schedule on the players, the GROSS Income will get JACKED, which will mean that the aggregate PERCENTAGE that the Players are currently getting will ALSO get JACKED UP!!

And that will NICELY allow them to spread the INCREASED Revenue out.

This would allow the current players to retain their OUTRAGEOUSLY bloated share of the Pie, INCREASE the Pie, itself, to the Owners' benefit, and bring an ENORMOUS improvement to the lot of Players, themselves, as about 12 to 13% MORE of them would have jobs...despite a stale, flaccid Economy.

Well, the proposed new regular season isn't really adding two extra games to the current 16 + 4. It's changing it to 18 + 2, supposedly at the behest of stadium-attendees who are already paying for "meaningless" events at a price at least close to what they pay for the "real" games". So, revenues from the stadium-side won't increase significantly.

On the TV side, I personally believe it's the broadcasters pushing for 18 "meaningful" games (plus an extra BYE week) as much or more than the owners. "Meaningful" NFL games get them more national advertising revenue from major advertisers than almost any of their other programming (meaningless pre-season games don't generate anywhere near as much national advertising). So, the more "real" games they get to broadcast, the better their gross. However, they've also been complaining about shrinking margins - their production costs per game have been rising faster than revenues - so they're not particularly inclined to pay the NFL owners significantly more per game and actually may be negotiating for LOWER rights fees per game from the owners.

Under existing broadcast contracts, each team receives about $96 million (though they don't actually get all of that) which is already far less than recent cap numbers. At five games per week (in terms of "national coverage units") for 17 weeks, that works out to 85 regular season games or, roughly, $36 million per broadcast game. Expanding to 18 regular season games plus an extra BYE week increase that number to 100. A corresponding increase (with no increase in cost per game) would up the current $3.085 billion total to about $3.63 billion, providing each team with roughly another $17 million. Not exactly a revenue explosion.