Football Mobs - at all levels

[DGS49]

Watching a newsreel recently of a high school football team storming out onto the field, a question occurred to me: Why so many players?

Our local high school team (biggest high school in the region) has a "no cut" policy for football, so they have about a hundred players (9th through 12th grades) who are theoretically eligible to play on the varsity. I understand that there are three different levels of being "on the team." The bottom level is on the team but does not "dress for games." The second level dresses for home games, and the top level (not sure the actual number, but it's probably two bus loads) dresses for away games.

I know this is obviously absurd. I personally know some very good athletes who "played" football at the school, and yet never actually got into a varsity game. Never. Not once.

But I accept the dubious proposition that "being on the football team" is a good thing for some kids. It burns off their extra energy and otherwise they would be getting into trouble. It also theoretically teaches self-discipline, respect for authority, time management, and so on. So it's "good" for the kids who are on the team, even if they are not "stars," starters, or even players in the conventional sense.

But the smallest classification of H.S. football teams also fields perfectly satisfactory teams with a student body that might be as few as a hundred students, only half of whom are boys. So the team roster is twenty or so kids, and many of them - the best athletes - play both offense and defense. And they still play compete games which are competitive through the final gun (or whatever it is that ends a football game).

Getting to the point - finally - what would be the result if the NFL owners decided to restrict their rosters to twenty players, with a few more allowed as a "taxi squad," ready to step in, in the event of injuries? Coaching staffs limited to four or five coaches. They would save A BUNDLE in salaries, travel costs, etc., etc., etc.

Would the fans even notice the difference (on the field)?

Let's face it, the skills that are required to play football are not that complicated, and anyone with the physical capabilities can be quickly taught the nuances of three or four different positions. As for fatigue at playing both ways, (a) high school and college players do it, and (b) both teams would be equally fatigued as the game moves forward. I submit that the fans wouldn't be able to tell any difference between a game with 20 man rosters as compared with what they have now (45?).

The only thing preventing this from happening now is that the players' union would pitch a fit. And the team owners would take a big hit for their "greed" - for a couple weeks. But this phenomenon is happening all the time in the Real World. Automation results in fewer jobs. Efficiency results in fewer jobs. Financial hardship results in fewer jobs. But the work still gets done, doesn't it? People are pissed and harmed, but they move on. Twenty players is all one would need to field a football team, at any level, and the value of the spectacle as enjoyable entertainment would not be impaired - as long as all teams were required to follow the same staffing rules.

Why not?

 

[konradv]

You'd leave an opening for a new league to employ all the players and coaches let go, if rosters were cut to less than half.

 

[JoeMoma]

What if.........the world may never know!

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

A 'no cut' policy? WTF? Lol!

 

[WinterBorn]

Watching a newsreel recently of a high school football team storming out onto the field, a question occurred to me: Why so many players?

Our local high school team (biggest high school in the region) has a "no cut" policy for football, so they have about a hundred players (9th through 12th grades) who are theoretically eligible to play on the varsity. I understand that there are three different levels of being "on the team." The bottom level is on the team but does not "dress for games." The second level dresses for home games, and the top level (not sure the actual number, but it's probably two bus loads) dresses for away games.

I know this is obviously absurd. I personally know some very good athletes who "played" football at the school, and yet never actually got into a varsity game. Never. Not once.

But I accept the dubious proposition that "being on the football team" is a good thing for some kids. It burns off their extra energy and otherwise they would be getting into trouble. It also theoretically teaches self-discipline, respect for authority, time management, and so on. So it's "good" for the kids who are on the team, even if they are not "stars," starters, or even players in the conventional sense.

But the smallest classification of H.S. football teams also fields perfectly satisfactory teams with a student body that might be as few as a hundred students, only half of whom are boys. So the team roster is twenty or so kids, and many of them - the best athletes - play both offense and defense. And they still play compete games which are competitive through the final gun (or whatever it is that ends a football game).

Getting to the point - finally - what would be the result if the NFL owners decided to restrict their rosters to twenty players, with a few more allowed as a "taxi squad," ready to step in, in the event of injuries? Coaching staffs limited to four or five coaches. They would save A BUNDLE in salaries, travel costs, etc., etc., etc.

Would the fans even notice the difference (on the field)?

Let's face it, the skills that are required to play football are not that complicated, and anyone with the physical capabilities can be quickly taught the nuances of three or four different positions. As for fatigue at playing both ways, (a) high school and college players do it, and (b) both teams would be equally fatigued as the game moves forward. I submit that the fans wouldn't be able to tell any difference between a game with 20 man rosters as compared with what they have now (45?).

The only thing preventing this from happening now is that the players' union would pitch a fit. And the team owners would take a big hit for their "greed" - for a couple weeks. But this phenomenon is happening all the time in the Real World. Automation results in fewer jobs. Efficiency results in fewer jobs. Financial hardship results in fewer jobs. But the work still gets done, doesn't it? People are pissed and harmed, but they move on. Twenty players is all one would need to field a football team, at any level, and the value of the spectacle as enjoyable entertainment would not be impaired - as long as all teams were required to follow the same staffing rules.

Why not?

I would ask why you would want to?

Also, the idea that any person who has the physical capabilities can be taught the nuances of 3 or 4 positions is completely wrong. Perhaps on a small high school team, but nothing above that.

First, the physical capabilities are not common. Being able to physically master the game is something most people are completely incapable of doing, especially in the NFL. Today, the average weight of an NFL offensive lineman is over 300 lbs. And they still run the 40 yard dash in 4.8 to 5.2 second and bench press 225 lbs 25 to 35 reps. You would be hard pressed to find many people who can do that. The, so called, skill positions require even more physical capabilities that are often almost freakish.

As for the nuances of 3 or 4 positions, that too is wrong. The most accomplished college players may grasp the nuances of 2 positions. Few do more. The way the offenses change, even at the line, is a lot to learn. Reading defenses talks a lot of time and skill. The same with reading the offenses.



The NFL makes money for the players and owners. Why would you want to change that? People want to see the best. Give it to them.

 

[DGS49]

WinterBorn, I do not dispute that many of the big fukkers in the NFL are marvelous athletes. But consider that in a typical football game there is only about 10 minutes of actual action on the field. The rest of it is getting ready for the next play and committee meetings. If they are not capable of playing for these ten minutes (a WEEK!) then they are pretty pathetic.

As for learning what is needed for more than one position, again, keep in mind that BOTH TEAMS would be under the same constraints. Offenses and defenses would reflect what is possible under the circumstances and the capacity of the players to learn what they need to learn.

Tennis players in "Major" championships play for four HOURS, almost continuously, and the deterioration due to fatigue is negligible. Basketball players play for 48 minutes, almost continuously (other than timeouts and quarter breaks). They are tired at the end, but they don't noticeable slow down.

The owners would do this as a cost-cutting move, just as any other business owner would do, to maximize profits.

Again I say, not two "fans" in a thousand would notice any difference in the quality of play, and REAL fans would appreciate the grit of the players who excel under the new circumstances.

 

[Wyatt earp]

A 100 players, Jesus is their anyone in the stands or band?

 

[DGS49]

100 football players, but that's nothing. The BAND is larger yet. They can fill the stands with parents only.

 

[WinterBorn]

WinterBorn, I do not dispute that many of the big fukkers in the NFL are marvelous athletes. But consider that in a typical football game there is only about 10 minutes of actual action on the field. The rest of it is getting ready for the next play and committee meetings. If they are not capable of playing for these ten minutes (a WEEK!) then they are pretty pathetic.

As for learning what is needed for more than one position, again, keep in mind that BOTH TEAMS would be under the same constraints. Offenses and defenses would reflect what is possible under the circumstances and the capacity of the players to learn what they need to learn.

Tennis players in "Major" championships play for four HOURS, almost continuously, and the deterioration due to fatigue is negligible. Basketball players play for 48 minutes, almost continuously (other than timeouts and quarter breaks). They are tired at the end, but they don't noticeable slow down.

The owners would do this as a cost-cutting move, just as any other business owner would do, to maximize profits.

Again I say, not two "fans" in a thousand would notice any difference in the quality of play, and REAL fans would appreciate the grit of the players who excel under the new circumstances.

I still don't understand why you think this should happen. The fact that both teams operate under the same constraints doesn't help me see why removing good players makes the game any better.

As for the owners making such cost cutting moves, they are making hundreds of millions of dollars. Why would they produce an inferior product to cut costs.

Not all sports are endurance matches. As for the large players being pathetic, having an equally large player trying to move you to get to another player, and you stopping them (on virtually every play of the game) is an accomplishment. Much like a power lifter except horizontal and repeated 60 to 85 times.

 

[22lcidw]

WinterBorn, I do not dispute that many of the big fukkers in the NFL are marvelous athletes. But consider that in a typical football game there is only about 10 minutes of actual action on the field. The rest of it is getting ready for the next play and committee meetings. If they are not capable of playing for these ten minutes (a WEEK!) then they are pretty pathetic.

As for learning what is needed for more than one position, again, keep in mind that BOTH TEAMS would be under the same constraints. Offenses and defenses would reflect what is possible under the circumstances and the capacity of the players to learn what they need to learn.

Tennis players in "Major" championships play for four HOURS, almost continuously, and the deterioration due to fatigue is negligible. Basketball players play for 48 minutes, almost continuously (other than timeouts and quarter breaks). They are tired at the end, but they don't noticeable slow down.

The owners would do this as a cost-cutting move, just as any other business owner would do, to maximize profits.

Again I say, not two "fans" in a thousand would notice any difference in the quality of play, and REAL fans would appreciate the grit of the players who excel under the new circumstances.

I still don't understand why you think this should happen. The fact that both teams operate under the same constraints doesn't help me see why removing good players makes the game any better.

As for the owners making such cost cutting moves, they are making hundreds of millions of dollars. Why would they produce an inferior product to cut costs.

Not all sports are endurance matches. As for the large players being pathetic, having an equally large player trying to move you to get to another player, and you stopping them (on virtually every play of the game) is an accomplishment. Much like a power lifter except horizontal and repeated 60 to 85 times.

If only we can make linemen the size of "Urkel"! It would flow downhill from there.

 

[DGS49]

My whole point is that reducing rosters would cause no visible deterioration in the quality of play.

Did someone say above that the owners are already making a lot of money, so they shouldn't want to make more (profit)?

I can't imagine why.

 

[WinterBorn]

My whole point is that reducing rosters would cause no visible deterioration in the quality of play.

Did someone say above that the owners are already making a lot of money, so they shouldn't want to make more (profit)?

I can't imagine why.

Reducing rosters would certainly cause a deterioration of play. Having people play more than one position would mean they were not as effective at any one position. Playing more positions also dramatically increases the chance of injury. And with a reduced roster, a serious injury would cause a greater effect to the team as a whole.

 

[WinterBorn]

In the OP it was suggested that rosters be reduced to 20 players. With 11 players on the field for every play, assuming all players play both ways, leaves only 9 players in reserve.

As of now, the NFL teams are limited to a 53 man roster. That is 1696 for the 32 teams in the leagure.
If you reduced it to 20 players, that would mean a total of 640 players. So you put 1,056 players out of a job. For what reason?

 

[WinterBorn]

Also, most teams have season ending injuries for players. Most years there are more than 9 injuries for each team. (in 2018, only Buffalo had fewer than 9 injuries)

So most teams would not be able to field an 11 man roster at some point in the season.

And you still have failed to say why you think this reduced size is a good thing.

 

[JoeMoma]

I think the smaller roster with players playing both sides of the ball would change the game significantly. For one thing, I would expect the 300+ pound players would be much more prone to get winded, resulting in giving an advantage to smaller players with better cardio.

 

[JoeMoma]

Of course since no one other than DG wants the NFL to go to the 20 man rosters...... it's not going to happen.

 

[WinterBorn]

Of course since no one other than DG wants the NFL to go to the 20 man rosters...... it's not going to happen.

Contrary to what the OP claims, it was have a huge effect on the game.

Still not sure why he wants this insanity to happen. He hasn't answered that question.

 

[JoeMoma]

Of course since no one other than DG wants the NFL to go to the 20 man rosters...... it's not going to happen.

Contrary to what the OP claims, it was have a huge effect on the game.

Still not sure why he wants this insanity to happen. He hasn't answered that question.

I agree.

 

[Polishprince]

A 100 players, Jesus is their anyone in the stands or band?

Some schools are really huge, with 2500 , 3000 students or more.

A hundred kids on the team isn't that big of a percentage. Now, my high school only had 160 students,, about 30 on the team, so I played on both sides of the ball. But it wasn't a big deal, as we played other smaller schools too.

 

[Unkotare]

Watching a newsreel recently of a high school football team storming out onto the field, a question occurred to me: Why so many players?

Our local high school team (biggest high school in the region) has a "no cut" policy for football, so they have about a hundred players (9th through 12th grades) who are theoretically eligible to play on the varsity. I understand that there are three different levels of being "on the team." The bottom level is on the team but does not "dress for games." The second level dresses for home games, and the top level (not sure the actual number, but it's probably two bus loads) dresses for away games.

I know this is obviously absurd. I personally know some very good athletes who "played" football at the school, and yet never actually got into a varsity game. Never. Not once.

But I accept the dubious proposition that "being on the football team" is a good thing for some kids. It burns off their extra energy and otherwise they would be getting into trouble. It also theoretically teaches self-discipline, respect for authority, time management, and so on. So it's "good" for the kids who are on the team, even if they are not "stars," starters, or even players in the conventional sense.

But the smallest classification of H.S. football teams also fields perfectly satisfactory teams with a student body that might be as few as a hundred students, only half of whom are boys. So the team roster is twenty or so kids, and many of them - the best athletes - play both offense and defense. And they still play compete games which are competitive through the final gun (or whatever it is that ends a football game).

Getting to the point - finally - what would be the result if the NFL owners decided to restrict their rosters to twenty players, with a few more allowed as a "taxi squad," ready to step in, in the event of injuries? Coaching staffs limited to four or five coaches. They would save A BUNDLE in salaries, travel costs, etc., etc., etc.

Would the fans even notice the difference (on the field)?

Let's face it, the skills that are required to play football are not that complicated, and anyone with the physical capabilities can be quickly taught the nuances of three or four different positions. As for fatigue at playing both ways, (a) high school and college players do it, and (b) both teams would be equally fatigued as the game moves forward. I submit that the fans wouldn't be able to tell any difference between a game with 20 man rosters as compared with what they have now (45?).

The only thing preventing this from happening now is that the players' union would pitch a fit. And the team owners would take a big hit for their "greed" - for a couple weeks. But this phenomenon is happening all the time in the Real World. Automation results in fewer jobs. Efficiency results in fewer jobs. Financial hardship results in fewer jobs. But the work still gets done, doesn't it? People are pissed and harmed, but they move on. Twenty players is all one would need to field a football team, at any level, and the value of the spectacle as enjoyable entertainment would not be impaired - as long as all teams were required to follow the same staffing rules.

Why not?

Remarkable to fit so much ignorance into one post.