The kids over at ProPB are reporting a possible change in the pro rosters from 8 (+1) to 9 (+1). There have been rumors since Cup and it was/is an item up for discussion. I am hesitant however to object now mostly because I can't make a complete argument in favor of simply making it 10 and leaving it alone. (The rest of my argument depends on information about possible 2010 changes that have not been released yet.) Despite leaving my best case unspoken I think there's still a solid rationale for calling it 10 and calling it a day.
The +1 was appreciated as an acceptable mid-season modification (and helped my team in particular) but I don't understand the point of agreeing to 10 but only partway. Wasn't last year's semi-pro roster at 10? What's a team supposed to do? Work their way into a pro spot and have to cut or reduce the role(s) of their roster? 10 players is also much more convenient for practice for non So Cal teams. Most of the candidate teams for a pro spot favor a 10 man roster and for those that might not (only one I know of) nobody is compelling anyone to carry a roster maximum so why is it such a big deal?
Part of the rationale last year was that a reduced roster made the game more athletically demanding than a larger roster and/or it was an imposed limitation designed to help teams save money. But aren't rules that result in the best possible competition more important than the supposed appearance of more athleticism and if you're bringing 9(+1) that's still 10 guys so you practice with 10, train 10, pay for the tenth but don't get to use them in the normal course of an event. What a terrific idea! /sarcasm
A move to 10 is a worthwhile change. One in the interests of the teams.
--No, this isn't the post I was undecided about posting though ambivalence seems to be the order of the day.