McCaskey Leery of Expanding Roster Size...........

Bears' McCaskey leery of expanding rosters

http://www.trbimg.com/img-4f707cf7/t...sters--001/600 Bears Chairman George McCaskey said he is inclined to vote against a proposal to expand team rosters. (Chris Sweda/Tribune Photo / March 26, 2012)

By Dan Pompei, Tribune reporter 9:28 a.m. CDT, March 26, 2012

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. -- The NFL will witness plenty of waves as the league holds meetings at an ocean-front resort this week, but the Bears are not likely to cause any of them.

Bears Chairman George McCaskey said the team likely will support almost all of the recommendations of the competition committee. The one exception may be the proposal for roster expansion.

The league is considering increasing the offseason roster to 90 players from 80. Many owners have been against a larger roster because it’s more expensive and makes for a more chaotic training camp in the initial stages.

“The stated reason to expand the roster is to develop players,” said McCaskey, who still is considering options but clearly was leaning against voting for the rule. “We’re not sure that will goal will be achieved. If you remember back in the day the draft was 17 rounds, teams would bring 100-plus players to camp. This is when the roster was lower than 53. I’m not sure it’s necessary.”

The Bears will be in favor of making overtime a multi-possession affair in the regular season. Last year, the NFL adopted a rule that allowed each team two possessions in the postseason unless the first possession ended in a touchdown.

“It makes more sense to us to have a consistent rule, with the exception that in the postseason they are going to go until they have a winner but in the regular season after this possession business, if it’s still tied after 15 minutes, it’s a tie,” McCaskey said.

The league also is considering changing instant replay. If a proposal passes, a replay official in the press box will make the final call. And every turnover will be automatically replayed.

The Bears are in favor of the changes.

“I talked to Carl Johnson, the league’s director of officiating,” McCaskey said. “He said the department endorses the rule (of having a replay official in the press box). We wanted to make sure the on field officials were OK with it. If you remember going back to when instant replay was first instituted there was some concern about taking the decision out of the hands of the on field official and using replay more as a tool. But he says the officials are in favor of it, so we are too.”

The Bears also support the proposal that would move the trade deadline from six weeks into the regular season to eight.

The Redskins and Cowboys are making some noise at the meetings about being penalized $36 million and $10 million, respectively, for front-loading contracts into the 2010 uncapped year. The teams filed a grievance. The league warned teams not to do so but did not prevent them from executing any contracts.

“It’s very important that everybody plays by the same set of rules,” McCaskey said. “If they tell people what the rules are, they all have to play by them.”

dpompei@tribune.com

Twitter@danpompei

I don't know that the roster size thing is all that big a deal when you see what's being proposed. It won't change the number all that much. Now you can bring 80 guys to camp and the draftees are not counted. Under the new proposal they number increases to 90 but the draftees do count. If that's the case it doesn't change the total number very much.

Seems like the Bears agree with most everything else and I see no big problems with any of those issues although I still like to see that pros use a tiebreaker like the colleges do where each team gets a series from the 25 or 30 yard line and that keeps going until one team outscores the other. I would think games would be settled faster that way than playing up and down the field for 15 minutes.

I still don't get this deal about penalizing Dallas and Washington though. I mean it's not that I give a rip about their problems but the issue itself becomes a problem when by in large the NFL approved of what they did by approving those contracts. How do you approve of something at one point in time then penalize for it at another.

I mean this is like the IRS operates. If you call them for advice or clarification about a tax issue and they misinform you then you are responsible for the added tax, penalties and interest causes by their mistake. Cute huh? Never, ever, ever ask the IRS for tax advice. So how does this differ in the case of the Cowboys and the Skins?

Quote:

Originally Posted by soulman

I don't know that the roster size thing is all that big a deal when you see what's being proposed. It won't change the number all that much. Now you can bring 80 guys to camp and the draftees are not counted. Under the new proposal they number increases to 90 but the draftees do count. If that's the case it doesn't change the total number very much.Seems like the Bears agree with most everything else and I see no big problems with any of those issues although I still like to see that pros use a tiebreaker like the colleges do where each team gets a series from the 25 or 30 yard line and that keeps going until one team outscores the other. I would think games would be settled faster that way than playing up and down the field for 15 minutes.I still don't get this deal about penalizing Dallas and Washington though. I mean it's not that I give a rip about their problems but the issue itself becomes a problem when by in large the NFL approved of what they did by approving those contracts. How do you approve of something at one point in time then penalize for it at another.I mean this is like the IRS operates. If you call them for advice or clarification about a tax issue and they misinform you then you are responsible for the added tax, penalties and interest causes by their mistake. Cute huh? Never, ever, ever ask the IRS for tax advice. So how does this differ in the case of the Cowboys and the Skins?

Just like anything else, it probably has to do primarily with money. He says right in the article how it would cost more to have those extra 10 players on the roster. You may have 10 folks making rookie minimum, but that still adds up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Papa Bear

Just like anything else, it probably has to do primarily with money. He says right in the article how it would cost more to have those extra 10 players on the roster. You may have 10 folks making rookie minimum, but that still adds up.

The expense isn't or at least shouldn't be that much of an issue PB but it stands to reason that's how it will be interpreted. Players only get a per diem during camp and it's not very much. It's not even 10 more players. If I read the proposal correctly it's just moving the limit to 90 and including the draftees which depending on the number of picks a team has could mean no more players at all. Right now it's 80 without the picks.

If teams want to field more prospects I would rather see them up the PS to ten or twelve players rather than eight. Then between the roster and PS each team controls 63-65 players rather than 61. That would cost more than upping the number in camp but it may be worth it if you have a better chance to develop a guy off the roster for a year.