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?
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?