NFL refuses Bush's request for #5

[pats1]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20....fbn.bush.number.ap/index.html?section=si_nfl

Atlanta general manager Rich McKay, co-chairman of the competition committee, said Tuesday that the committee had recommended against Bush's request for his college number.

The decision was made by the committee after two conference calls. It was never discussed by the owners.

 

[denverpatsfan]

Thank the Football Gods

for not letting the NFL descend into chaos.

 

[DarthPatriot]

Good...Now if they change the rules as a league next year thats fine.Fact is..Reggie is still unproven he hasnt gained a yard in this league..and even if he had rules are rules.No favoritism in a fair sport.

 

[marty]

That's good news. Now if the college rank and file could just change their number policy to match the Pro's there won't be these issues!!!!

 

[drpatriot]

Whoop de doo.

 

[spacecrime]

That's good news. Now if the college rank and file could just change their number policy to match the Pro's there won't be these issues!!!!

That's what I don't understand.If Bush was so hot to carry a number to the Pros, why pick a numbert hat wasn't transportable?

Still not at guarantee - Maroney's number's would have been okay, except that Asante already had that number.

But if the number thing means so much to you, at least have a college # that translates to the Pros.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Big freaking deal, he can just take #25. Just as good. I don't get the thing about numbers.

 

[UGAPatsfan]

That's what I don't understand.If Bush was so hot to carry a number to the Pros, why pick a numbert hat wasn't transportable?

Still not at guarantee - Maroney's number's would have been okay, except that Asante already had that number.

But if the number thing means so much to you, at least have a college # that translates to the Pros.

He probably wore it in High School. Just a hunch...

 

[Remix 6]

LT wore 5 at TSU..he didnt say anything

 

[Boston Boxer]

It is really no big deal. He wanted the number and petitioned for it...the NFL wisely said no, and he went about his business. I sure he is not throwing a fit about it

 

[wrangler]

#5?

Didn't PH wear #5 in GB? Then taken by NO(expansion?) where he never played a RSG?..................never mind. (love initials)

Oh waite, he used his foot too, rb+pk(?)= #5,........my bad. :bricks:

Bored,..... sorry.?

 

[primetime]

Bryan Cox wore 0 for us in the preseason. I don't remember any player ever wearing 0 in football before.

5 and 25 are both taken in NO by Adrian McPherson and Fred McAfee, respectively. Both of Bush's potential numbers are already owned, but it's assumed he will own them. Okay.

 

[TomBradyWoot]

Kind of a crazy question but what if the Saints just listed Bush as a 4th string QB and just played him at running back? Could he get #5 then?

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

I don't get the thing about numbers.

It's about the tightness.

 

[Pats726]

I am glad the NFL did that...there are reasons for rules like that..that help the refs (good lord, one eneds to give them ALL the help they need..) But it is something about being a rookie and coming in and thinking the world revolves around him...The NFL has had much better players than Bush and to think about a special rule change for a rookie is almost laughable. The NFL does things MOST of the time more correctly than other leagues...so good for them.

 

[Kingasaurus]

I am glad the NFL did that...there are reasons for rules like that..that help the refs (good lord, one eneds to give them ALL the help they need..) But it is something about being a rookie and coming in and thinking the world revolves around him...The NFL has had much better players than Bush and to think about a special rule change for a rookie is almost laughable. The NFL does things MOST of the time more correctly than other leagues...so good for them.

I agree that a special case shouldn't be made for Reggie Bush. But how exactly does it 'help the refs'? Aren't there college refs too? How do they possibly manage the game?

I just don't understand why the NFL has a stick up it's collective tuckus about numbers. I totally understand why offensive lineman need certain numbers because they are ineligible receivers and referees need to know that. But other than that, what earthly difference does it make? On defense, it doesn't matter at all what number you wear from a referees perspective. As far as offensive ball handlers, the refs don't need to seperate QB's and RB's according to any rules or for any reason.

I would keep the rule that says offensive linemen must wear between 50-79, and eligible recievers must stay away from 50-79 and 90-99. The refs definitely need that to stay the way it is. Other than that, I don't see any reason to keep any other arbitrary rules about numbers.

RB Paul Hornung wore #5; WR/K Gino Cappelletti wore #20, Center Jim Otto wore #00. These numbers for those positions were just fine in the 1960's, but now all of the sudden it's a problem. Why the NFL is so strict about these numbering rules these days makes no sense to me at all. It's almost totally arbitrary. Aside from identifying offensive linemen, this "helping the refs" thing is a red herring.

 

[AzPatsFan]

I agree that a special case shouldn't be made for Reggie Bush. But how exactly does it 'help the refs'? Aren't there college refs too? How do they possibly manage the game?

I just don't understand why the NFL has a stick up it's collective tuckus about numbers. I totally understand why offensive lineman need certain numbers because they are ineligible receivers and referees need to know that. But other than that, what earthly difference does it make? On defense, it doesn't matter at all what number you wear from a referees perspective. As far as offensive ball handlers, the refs don't need to seperate QB's and RB's according to any rules or for any reason.

I would keep the rule that says offensive linemen must wear between 50-79, and eligible recievers must stay away from 50-79 and 90-99. The refs definitely need that to stay the way it is. Other than that, I don't see any reason to keep any other arbitrary rules about numbers.

RB Paul Hornung wore #5; WR/K Gino Cappelletti wore #20, Center Jim Otto wore #00. These numbers for those positions were just fine in the 1960's, but now all of the sudden it's a problem. Why the NFL is so strict about these numbering rules these days makes no sense to me at all. It's almost totally arbitrary. Aside from identifying offensive linemen, this "helping the refs" thing is a red herring.

Paul Hornung wore #5 because he was a QB. As a matter of fact he was the #1 pick in his draft as a QB. He looked and played like Mike Vick for a couple of years. When Lombardi became the Packer's Coach he said "... Enough! your now a RB..." And made an obscure 15th round pick the starting QB. A guy named Bart Starr, who nobody ever heard of before.

 

[Kingasaurus]

Paul Hornung wore #5 because he was a QB. As a matter of fact he was the #1 pick in his draft as a QB. He looked and played like Mike Vick for a couple of years. When Lombardi became the Packer's Coach he said "... Enough! your now a RB..."

Fine, but the NFL didn't make Hornung change his number when he exclusively became a RB. So obviously whatever number he wore wasn't that big a deal. I just can't think of any good reason why the league has many of these numbering rules, and "that's just the way we do it" isn't an answer that satisfies me.

If they don't have a legit reason for having numbering rules that are different from say, Division 1-A college football, then they should simply scrap many of the rules they have. It's totally arbitrary and they stick to it like its the freaking Ten Commandments.

You shouldn't change a stupid rule just for some rookie, but a stupid rule should definitely be scrapped for everybody just on principle alone.

 

[primetime]

If D-1A college football doesn't have any legit reason for having numbering rules that are different from say, the CFL, then they should simply scrap many of the rules they have.

The NFL can do what they want with numbers. It helps identify eligibile receivers and players on the lines for the refs and helps players too.

 

[Kingasaurus]

If D-1A college football doesn't have any legit reason for having numbering rules that are different from say, the CFL, then they should simply scrap many of the rules they have.

You don't get it. The point is college football is less restrictive in issuing numbers, and the NFL apparently has no legitimate reasons for being more restrictive. Being "different" is fine if you can articulate a good reason for being so. "We just feel like it" isn't a good reason that stands up to scrutiny.

The NFL can do what they want with numbers.

They have the RIGHT to do anything they want. I also have the right to call some of what they are doing arbitrary and stupid.

It helps identify eligibile receivers and players on the lines for the refs and helps players too.

I already agree with that. I agree that SOME rules about numbering are necessary. Referees being able to identify eligible and ineligible players on offense is very important. But "the refs need it" is not some catch-all excuse that you can use to justify any numbering rules you want. If that were the case, college football officials would be perennially confused because of the NCAA's less restrictive numbering rules. That clearly isn't the case. If the rules were so important, Troy Brown would have to switch jerseys and leave behind #80 when he comes in to play DB. It can't be bothering the refs that much - if at all.


If someone can tell me a good reason why the NFL feels the need to restrict numbering on defense or to insist that RB's and QB's (for example) must wear different sets of numbers, I'm all ears. I simply don't see the need.