Among the issues that NFL owners will discuss at next week’s league meetings are proposed rules changes regarding hair covering names on jerseys, radios in defensive players’ helmets and instant replay on field goals.
But the issue that could be the most contentious relates to the size of training camp rosters.
John Clayton of ESPN reports that some teams want to change the current rule, which limits the number of signed players on rosters to 80. Per Clayton, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have proposed increasing training camp roster limits to 90, the competition committee is pushing for increasing rosters to a maximum of 86, and some owners want to keep the limit at 80.
Part of the issue is that in past years, teams could use roster exemptions for players from NFL Europa/NFL Europe/World League/World League of American Football, and those exemptions allowed teams to have more than 80 players in training camp. Since that league no longer exists, those roster exemptions no longer exist. That means keeping the rules the same would effectively reduce the number of spots on training camp rosters.
But some owners want to reduce the number of spots on training camp rosters. Even though the money paid to those players is not substantial (the last few guys on the training camp roster only make about $1,000 a week), the owners and the players’ union haven’t been seeing eye to eye lately, and the owners might not be in a mood to add even a few thousand dollars to the amount they pay out to players.
A half-dozen extra spots at the bottom of the training camp roster doesn’t sound like a big deal, but the debate surrounding it could be the latest sign of labor unrest in the league.
_2.gif)






March 28th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Maybe Gruden will finally fulfill his dream of having 16 quarterbacks on the roster.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 28th, 2008 at 11:15 am
They should really change the active day roster to include all 53 paid players. I have not heard one sound argument for paying 8 guys to sit and watch on gameday.
They should also expand the practice squads to include most of the last cut guys in training camp. Why put those guys through camp jst to put them out of work, but to stand by the telephone.
The NFL product would be better if the 80 guys who start training camp, are able to practice and work out, watch film and be a part of the team and develop.
What is the benifit of cutting so many viable young prospects every preseason, when not a single team in the NFL gets through a season intact withot signing someone off the street?
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 28th, 2008 at 11:42 am
It’s not really the size the roster; it is how the roster is used that really matters.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 28th, 2008 at 11:47 am
It’s sad to see the acrimony between the nflpa and the owners, this does not bode well for the future.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 28th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Ah, I miss the NFLe…primarily because now I won’t know who Carl Peterson’s offensive line project du jour will be.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I’m surprised that we haven’t heard more banter about this issue from the NFLPA. One would think that the prevention of lost jobs would be at the top of any union’s objectives.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 28th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Definately go to 90. This give more guys a chance to play, and you never know you might get a Tom Brady out of it. And like it said in the article they don’t cost a whole lot of money.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 28th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
You forget that the NFL Europa/NFL Europe/World League/World League of American Football was also called the “World American Football League” at one point, during the conceptual stages. That named was changed quickly after people started referring to it as the “waffle.”
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated
March 28th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“They should really change the active day roster to include all 53 paid players. I have not heard one sound argument for paying 8 guys to sit and watch on gameday.”
Injuries. Pure and simple. Sometimes there’ll be a handful of guys who’re banged up enough to miss a few weeks, but the team won’t want to put them on IR. If it’s 53 vs 46, then there’s a greater inequity than if it’s 45 vs 45 - of course, the team with the injuries is still at a disadvantage because it’s not CHOOSING who doesn’t play. But it’s the best argument I’ve ever heard for it.
(report as inappropriate)
Rating: Not yet rated