A question about the roster

[Statler Waldorf]

I have kind of a weird question for you guys. Why does the NFL have both a 53 man roster cap and a salary cap? I think there should be just a salary cap. This would mean that if you had a bunch of younger players you could keep more than 53 men (as long as you were under the Salary Cap) and add depth to your team. Or if you had a bunch of experience veterans or prowl bowlers you could sacrifice some depth for higher paid more experienced players and just take the risk of someone getting hurt. It seems stupid to me that the NFL enforces both the roster cap and the salary cap, it takes some of the strategy out of the game in my opinion.

Statler

 

[finswin56]

I may be completely wrong here, but I thought that younger players w/ a min contract don't count towards the cap.

Other than that, it also keeps teams w/ a favorable cap situation from hording young players. It also keeps an even playing field in terms of roster depth.

 

[yankeehillbilly]

I may be completely wrong here, but I thought that younger players w/ a min contract don't count towards the cap.

Other than that, it also keeps teams w/ a favorable cap situation from hording young players. It also keeps an even playing field in terms of roster depth.

Everybody's salary counts against the cap if they make the 53 man roster, even the rookies with league minimum salaries. Even some guys who arent on the roster count against the cap...such as players on Injured Reserve or the Physically Unable to Perform list. What you may be thinking of is that before the final cutdown occurs, only the top 51 salaries count against the cap. When the roster is trimmed to the required 53 players though, all the salaries count.
(there is one other exception.....veteran players with at least 4 years experience who are making the league minimum, only count $450,000 against the cap, regardless of what the minimum salary is)

 

[Merman]

(there is one other exception.....veteran players with at least 4 years experience who are making the league minimum, only count $450,000 against the cap, regardless of what the minimum salary is)

A veteran qualifying contract is for one year with the player's salary cap count the same as a player with 3 credited seasons and a maximum bonus of $25k. The minimum salary for 3 credited seasons has been $455k since 2004. $455 + $25 = $480k. It goes up to $460k in 2006.

http://www.nflpa.org/members/main.asp?subPage=CBA+Extension+Features

 

[SarahAnn]

I agree with having both a roster cap and salary cap, it keeps teams from signing all the young talent cheap and forcing other teams to go out and spend big bucks for the vets.

 

[Califin]

I've always wondered, just how vigilant the league is, with regards to unscrupulous, cap pushing, owners.
guys possibly like Jerry Jones, or the Redskin's Daniel Snyder.

Seems to me, if their teams were short on talent, and thin on cap space, they'd simply hook up with that player's agent, somplace beyond earshot range from the league, and set up some outside, "under the table" financial disbursements to the player, to get them signed with money outside of the cap and league governance.
Maybe even pulling strings, like guaranteeing his kids University acceptance.

 

[zephon]

I've always wondered, just how vigilant the league is, with regards to unscrupulous, cap pushing, owners.
guys possibly like Jerry Jones, or the Redskin's Daniel Snyder.

Seems to me, if their teams were short on talent, and thin on cap space, they'd simply hook up with that player's agent, somplace beyond earshot range from the league, and set up some outside, "under the table" financial disbursements to the player, to get them signed with money outside of the cap and league governance.
Maybe even pulling strings, like guaranteeing his kids University acceptance.

I believe that what you are talking about is exactly what Denver did to held themselves win a SuperBowl...and they got nailed for it. Of course, they didn't have to give back any trophies though...and I think they only lost a 2nd rounder (I could be wrong on that though)

 

[so-long-Ricky]

I wouldn't be surprised in the next CBA will allow teams to have 55-57 players on their final roster instead of 53. There has been some talks about bumping up the final roster but nothing conclusive.

 

[Merman]

Dick Vermeil has for years suggested the use of all 53 players on game day instead of the 45 now allowed. That suggestion never gets anywhere. The only increase has been the 3 extra practice players allowed since last year.

 

[Merman]

I've always wondered, just how vigilant the league is, with regards to unscrupulous, cap pushing, owners.
guys possibly like Jerry Jones, or the Redskin's Daniel Snyder.

Each contract is reviewed by the Management Council and the NFLPA. Every so often a contract is rejected for not meeting the rules. Just this year the Chiefs had Hakim's contract supposedly rejected. The Patriots too had one contract rejected.

From March through July the League and Union meet once a week to review each Club's salary summary. They meet once a month for the rest of the year.

Collusion is hard to catch but it always seems to come out. Jealousy or boasting of illegalities usually reveal these incidents.

 

[yankeehillbilly]

I've always wondered, just how vigilant the league is, with regards to unscrupulous, cap pushing, owners.
guys possibly like Jerry Jones, or the Redskin's Daniel Snyder.

Seems to me, if their teams were short on talent, and thin on cap space, they'd simply hook up with that player's agent, somplace beyond earshot range from the league, and set up some outside, "under the table" financial disbursements to the player, to get them signed with money outside of the cap and league governance.
Maybe even pulling strings, like guaranteeing his kids University acceptance.

The league is pretty vigilant. A number of years ago the league investigated a stock tip that Wayne Huizenga gave Dan Marino. Dan made a considerable profit on the tip and the league was considering classifying those profits as salary since the tip came from the team owner. In the end, it was determined that there was a risk that Dan could just have easily lost money on his investment, so no action was taken, but the fact that they even investigated shows that the league watches things pretty closely.

 

[NorFlaFin]

I'd like to see a hard rookie cap. These annual draft day holdouts are getting langer and longer

 

[rafael]

I believe that what you are talking about is exactly what Denver did to held themselves win a SuperBowl...and they got nailed for it. Of course, they didn't have to give back any trophies though...and I think they only lost a 2nd rounder (I could be wrong on that though)

San Fran also got nailed for that. I don't remember what the punishment ended up being but several owners were pushing for the loss of a 1st rd pick.