Will the UFL drain NFL rosters?

by Ed Valentine on Jul 13, 2009 11:08 AM EDT in News Comment 10 comments

The New York Times Fifth Down football blog asked over the weekend whether the NFL should worry at all about the upstart UFL, which begins play with four teams this fall.

At face value, it's a laughable question. The National Football League is the Goliath of the sports world. The USFL tried and failed to compete with Goliath. The XFL, too. Even with some brand-name coaches like Jim Fassel and Dennis Green, it is highly unlikely the UFL will be any different.

Especially going up against Goliath in-season, playing a schedule that starts in October and ends at Thanksgiving.

Therein, however, lies the one reason I would truly be concerned about the UFL if I was NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Or, a general manager of any of the NFL's 32 teams. At least in the short term.

NFL teams will set their 53-man rosters before the season opens in early September. They will then fill out eight-man practice squads, and general managers will keep lists of 'street' free agents so that holes on depleted rosters can be filled as the inevitable injuries ravage NFL teams.

That's where the UFL comes in. How many of these players who would usually have no place else to go, choose a UFL roster spot over an NFL practice squad? Also, those top-of-the-list 'street' free agents are likely to be occupying some of the 200 or so UFL roster spots.

Potentially, that is a talent drain on NFL rosters and could impact the quality of the product.

Now, I will be honest. I don't know if players on UFL contracts can leave their teams mid-stream to join an NFL squad if they have an offer. The Times reports that UFL players will be paid on a per-game basis. If so, that might lessen my concern about the NFL product being watered down.

Also, who knows? It could end up benefiting the NFL, much like a minor-league system. The UFL season will end 12 weeks through the NFL season, roughly the time when general managers are beginning to reach into the streets to find players to fill rosters. It might work out that some UFL players, in game-shape from just having concluded a season, can contribute more to an NFL team than guys who have been out of work for several months.

I think it is something worth keeping an eye on. It also makes me want to renew my ongoing call for the NFL to abolish the Injured Reserve system in favor of a baseball-style disabled list. The league can't afford to have quality players physically able to play at the end of a season unable to simply because their roster spot could not be protected for a few weeks.

Your thoughts?

0 recs | Comment 10 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

USFL

I like it. Clearly there is pent-up demand for more football and the NFL’s draconian, overreaching, and antiquated rules regarding broadcast rights (see Sports Broadcast Act of 1961) simply make it time for another league. Remember, the NFL went down this road before – AND LOST a court battle that it had violated anti-trust law. So, why not do this? If it forces the NFL to change some rules (ie the rule Ed mentioned re: the IR) and if the quality of play is decent – I’m sure ESPN/Vs./Fox Sports etc. will broadcast the games – then I’d definitely watch.

by Cody K on Jul 13, 2009 11:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

this is about the UFL, not the USFL

But, word is, the USFL is actually attempting a comeback for the Spring of 2010, with the new NJ Generals being located in Newark. Look it up.

Neither the UFL or USFL appear to be a threat to NFL rosters, at least in the short-term. To the USFL’s credit, they are claiming that they learned from the mistakes of the first version of the league, and won’t be competing head-to-head with the NFL for players, nor will they be throwing money around at players.

From what I’ve read, they plan to have investors, and all teams will be league-run/owned. So, no Donald Trump, carelessly throwing around dough.

there is no "I" in "team"...but there is a "me"

by Cut Block on Aug 13, 2009 8:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Both the AFL and the

AAFC forced an accommodation from the NFL. My guess is that the UFL has less of a chance of doing so because they’re not going up vs the NFL head-to-head (as far as scheduling goes) and it doesn’t look like they have the kind of money those other two leagues had (which enabled them to steal top prospects from the NFL, particularly Al Davis, who plucked Billy Cannon from under the nose of the Giants.)

by blue gonz on Jul 13, 2009 1:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

youd think someone would have started a successful summer league

i mean im fine following baseball but thats got to be the number one gripe about the NFL’s season is it leaves such a huge amount of downtime. i think it could work if you market it not as a rival to the nfl but as a supplement and talk up the guys who might use the summer league a stepping stone to getting into the nfl.

ok, someone make that happen now. thanks!

Lets hope that when gut check time comes again the Mets will pass it with flying colors.

by kendynamo on Jul 13, 2009 1:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Get rid of IR so it can be abused?

No thanks. We don’t need that.

http://nygiants247.blogspot.com/

by NewYorkGiants24.7 on Jul 13, 2009 2:41 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

How would it be abused?

Please explain. IR is a hold-over rule from another time in the NFL that has outlived its usefulness.

by Ed Valentine on Jul 13, 2009 2:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

My point is this

Wouldn’t you rather see the Giants able to bring back an Osi Umenyiora or a David Tyree at the end of a season instead of having to pick up a useless backup DE or a WR like Derek Hagan who obviously isn’t going to help? That’s why I want to see IR go away. I think it would improve the quality of the rosters at the end of the season.

by Ed Valentine on Jul 13, 2009 2:55 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I absolutely agree with the getting rid of the IR

There is no reason why a player should be held back for successfully recovering from an injury before the season ends. I can see one potential problem, in that players might be pressured to come back early from an injury, but the recovery times are shrinking rapidly as it is. If they can play, let them play.

Homer: Aw, twenty dollars! I wanted a peanut!
Homer's Brain: Twenty dollars can buy many peanuts!
Homer: Explain how!
Homer's Brain: Money can be exchanged for goods and services!
Homer: Woo-hoo!

by bigbluethruandthru on Jul 13, 2009 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

But players will always say they can play

Yeah, Osi back last year would have been nice, but 95% of the time, it’s used correctly.

http://nygiants247.blogspot.com/

by NewYorkGiants24.7 on Jul 13, 2009 6:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Think of Tyree last season

The only reason we was on IR was because he had a hamstring pull mid-season when the Giants had to make a decision on him. He was healthy the last few weeks, and I would rather have seen him on the team than Derek Hagan. My point is a lot of players end up on IR w/injuries that would actually heal long before the season ends, but under the current rules a team can’t wait let’s say 6-10 weeks for them. With a disabled list, they could.

by Ed Valentine on Jul 13, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs