Why does NFL have a 53 man roster and only 46 active on game day?

[Wheelssps]

Does anyone know this? It would be like in basketball if the coach had to preselect 8 players to play each game, and the last guys on the bench couldn't come in. In the world where the NFL is concerned about player safety, why limit the team roster down to 46 on game day? Does that have some archaic reasoning behind it? I understand about limiting roster size as a means or contributing to some degree of parity, but the game day roster doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[chasa]

because 46 / 11 is almost 4.2

 

[mayoclinic]

We've discussed this one before. The most obvious reason is that most teams have a number of hurt or injured players each week, and forcing teams to keep 7 guys inactive evens the playing field, and also keeps teams from playing guys who are banged up. Otherwise you might have one team with 53 relatively healthy guys and another with only 45 or so.

 

[patchick]

IIRC, Belichick agrees with you about making the whole roster available on game day. But I believe the argument in favor of the limit would be that you're thinking about it backwards.

Instead, you could say that the roster limit is 46, but the league allows teams some extra inactive players in acknowledgement of the need to maintain parity while allowing for short-term injury replacements.

 

[Ring 6]

I actually think its the other way. They want 46 actives, but allow 53 man rosters so that you can sit out injured players without being at a bigger disadvantage.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Because BB likes it that way with ONLY 46.
He says if 53 allowed there would be more specialization of player roles.
46 forces flexibility among the chosen.

Me, I'd prefer to see any & all of the 53 available because as a fan I want to see the best product.

 

[Wheelssps]

Okay. Thanks to everyone who chimed in. Makes sense, even if it does seem that there are a couple of ways of thinking about it and reaching different conclusions. Thanks

 

[Oswlek]

It used to be that team rosters were only 45 guys, not just gameday, but for the entire team. It was extended to 53 to give teams more injury flexibility, as well as space for developmental prospects, with the caveat that only 45 were active on Sunday. There was also a convoluted 3rd QB rule, which has been ditched and added to the actives to make the total 46.

This is why the NFL waited so long on instituting a "return IR" designation, because they viewed the extra 8 slots as built-in injury room for teams to use as they please.

 

[RxJock1120]

IIRC, Belichick agrees with you about making the whole roster available on game day. But I believe the argument in favor of the limit would be that you're thinking about it backwards.

Instead, you could say that the roster limit is 46, but the league allows teams some extra inactive players in acknowledgement of the need to maintain parity while allowing for short-term injury replacements.

But using the same logic, the NFL could just allow 53 players to dress for the game and allow teams to inactivate as many players as they deem necessary...why limit inactives to 7 players, what if the 8th or 9th player can't go, are they suppose to dress for the game anyways???

 

[Sicilian]

The answer to your question has been covered. I will add that I think a similar rule actually does exist in the NBA. Unless it's changed, I think an NBA roster has 15 guys on it, and only 12 are active on gameday.

 

[The Gr8est]

I actually think its the other way. They want 46 actives, but allow 53 man rosters so that you can sit out injured players without being at a bigger disadvantage.

I think a good idea might be to allow the seven inactive players to be suited up as ready replacements who can only come in if a player is injured. They could replace that player on the active roster.

If player safety is such a consideration wouldn't everyone benefit from being able to keep a minor injury from becoming a major one because the player was forced to keep playing because there was no one else available?

 

[lurker1965]

Because people are idiots. Seriously, it is that way because it was always that way - as if that is a reason. As far as I can tell the magic number of 46 is because way before TV contracts and the cap, limiting roster size was an attempt to limit salary spending.
When the rooster size was expanded to 53, the "way we used to do it" crowd (re: Mara) needed to be appeased so this really stupid hybrid came into being.
(I forgot where I heard this. I never checked to see if any of that was right or if I was sold a bill of goods.)

 

[Ring 6]

I think a good idea might be to allow the seven inactive players to be suited up as ready replacements who can only come in if a player is injured. They could replace that player on the active roster.

If player safety is such a consideration wouldn't everyone benefit from being able to keep a minor injury from becoming a major one because the player was forced to keep playing because there was no one else available?

I think 46 already prevents that problem.

 

[The Gr8est]

I think 46 already prevents that problem.

I was thinking as a ready reserve for the game in progress, as in a player starts the game inactive and substitutes in in the 2nd quarter.

 

[Ring 6]

I was thinking as a ready reserve for the game in progress, as in a player starts the game inactive and substitutes in in the 2nd quarter.

I know. I don't think only having 46 causes players to have to play hurt

 

[DarrylS]

Have heard Jonathan Kraft lament this as well, his argument is that they are paying these guys why not let them suit up??... Just because you have access to 53, and are burying a couple of injuries does not mean you have to play all 53.

IMO it might take some pressure off of vets playing special teams.. also might add a specialist or two for special occasions..

 

[tmracht]

Does anyone know this? It would be like in basketball if the coach had to preselect 8 players to play each game, and the last guys on the bench couldn't come in.

Not to nitpick but this is also true in basketball, for a normal 15 man NBA roster you can only have 13 active, the other two must be gameday inactive.

 

[patriot1136]

I also think they should expand the practice squad numbers and IR to return

 

[Oswlek]

Have heard Jonathan Kraft lament this as well, his argument is that they are paying these guys why not let them suit up??... Just because you have access to 53, and are burying a couple of injuries does not mean you have to play all 53.

IMO it might take some pressure off of vets playing special teams.. also might add a specialist or two for special occasions..

Bill is actually against it, but he's something of a traditionalist.

 

[Sicilian]

I also think they should expand the practice squad numbers and IR to return

Not sure practice squad increase is necessary, but it's not like it would hurt anyone. Any player who should be on a 53 could be signed to one anyway. I definitely agree on IR to return. Even increasing it to 3 would help a lot I think.