It's a salary cap & floor league -- why have roster limits?

[BTTA]

I understand the simple math but I don't think that necessarily means a particular player has to take a pay cut. It could be a decision of paying for star power or depth. If a team chooses depth then they would have to sign less expensive guys.

When teams like the 49ers and Browns have $60 in free cap space, what sort of "pay cuts" are you talking about??

At some point it all catches up. Currently there is a total % of revenue that goes to the players through mandatory cap spending. If you expand that pool of players, it gets diluted per player. That's the long term implication.

The players union is made up of current players, and leadership is elected by current players. The players currently not in the NFL, who would be in the NFL with roster expansion, have no vote. So the natural tendency for the current players is to be against this, to protect their % of the revenue pie.

But overall, I think it would be good for the game. Why have a roster limit at all? With the cap in place, it seems redundant. Let there be an open marketplace of methods for managing roster size; some teams go more for quality and higher costs/player, while other teams go for quantity and lower cost/player. Why not let it play out?

 

[jmt57]

almost gotta figure only the top what 45 contracts count against the salary cap, this opens up a window for teams to sign a bunch of players below the 45th guy and just hoard players preventing other teams from signing guys.

That's only for the off season (Top 51). All salaries count against the cap in conjunction with the cut down to the 53-man roster at the start of the regular season. That includes players on IR, NFI and the Practice Squad too.

You could still have a 90-man off season roster limit.

 

[Deus Irae]

I understand the simple math but I don't think that necessarily means a particular player has to take a pay cut. It could be a decision of paying for star power or depth. If a team chooses depth then they would have to sign less expensive guys.

It's not just one player who'll be getting a pay cut. It'll be multiple players. The minimum is still going to be the minimum. Elite players are still going to get the full pay. Second tier guys will still get second tier money. It's the rest of the guys who'll be sharing the same size pie with more people.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

It's a salary cap & floor league -- why have roster limits?

Saw a tweet from Andrew Brandt on this. I hadn't really thought about it before.

The CBA specifies both a salary floor and a salary cap. Given that, why have roster limits at all?

If a team can fit 58 players in under their cap -- let'em!

If a team wants to risk getting screwed by lack of depth and only carries 49 players so they can increase the pay to some of their players to hold on to them -- let'em!

 

[Ring 6]

Saw a tweet from Andrew Brandt on this. I hadn't really thought about it before.

The CBA specifies both a salary floor and a salary cap. Given that, why have roster limits at all?

If a team can fit 58 players in under their cap -- let'em!

If a team wants to risk getting screwed by lack of depth and only carries 49 players so they can increase the pay to some of their players to hold on to them -- let'em!

Most likely it is the union balancing the need ms of its veterans (higher pay) vs the needs of it youngsters (having a job).
It could work either way.
Jobs could be lost by overlaying for veterans or veterans could lose money to extra depth.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

While I'm taking an extreme version of your post:

Remember the dark days of 2013 when the Pats had, in the first half of the season, nearly half the team on the injured list?

Now imagine that team having to play a team with 60 or 65 players.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

I'm sure players can't wait to take pay cuts to make this happen.

Yea it would probably hurt the top tier players with monster contracts, but those players are kind of like the "1%" of the NFL. Most guys are making league minimum or close to it, so this type of scenario would probably take some money from the top earners and give it to more players at the bottom tier


Better for the sport, bad for the elite players at their position.

Or knowing the owners they would just lower the minimum salary and screw over the little guys, seems to be the way things are done in our society anyways