Q: Ed, is there any particular logic behind the 53-man roster limit? Why not 52, or 54, or 51? Is it just a somewhat arbitrary number that seems to feel about right relative to economics and injury issues, etc.

T. Maher, Latrobe

BOUCHETTE: Yes, it's arbitrary but it was negotiated between the players union and management so you know the union was fighting for more and management fewer and that's where they settled. The roster limit used to be 45 or 47 in the 1980s. Back then, you could put a player on injured reserve, he did not count against your roster, and he could return in six weeks. Teams were stashing players that way with phantom injuries so others could not claim him. Finally, the league decided to expand the roster but limit the number of players who could dress for games to 45. That way, unless a team had more than eight players unavailable because of injuries, all teams would have an equal number of players able to dress. They did it so teams could carry an injured player for four or six weeks without putting him on injured reserve and ending his season. Coaches, of course, would love rosters to expand to 80 players and have them all dress for games.