The reminder for changing clocks twice a year to adjust to the season is "Spring Forward, Fall Back." There is a different axiom in the NFL when it comes to changing rules: "Fall Forward, Spring Back."

Every season, the momentum for rule changes builds. Go back to last fall. Adjusting the overtime rule to allow each to have a possession appeared to be a certainty. Coaches appeared to be on the same page about adjusting the instant replay rules to get extra challenges if earlier challenges were correct. There were even a few teams that wanted to push for two additional playoff spots.

Despite that, it's not out of the question that next week at the NFL owners meeting nothing will change. By meeting each year in the early spring in a hot resort area such as Phoenix, the NFL usually bakes out the sentiment for change. The time between the season and March tends to mellow a majority of the owners, general managers and coaches. It allows them to realize that the game is good and doesn't need much change.

That brings us to Chiefs coach Dick Vermeil. One topic turns him hotter than the desert sun. It's the weekly NFL inactive list. For years, he's been campaigning to eliminate that Sunday morning process of whittling his 53-man roster to 45 plus a third quarterback who carries a clipboard unless the first two quarterbacks go down.

Vermeil doesn't plan to be as vocal as in past meetings because he believes his voice hasn't won over votes. Proposals by the Browns and the Packers are offered as compromise but those are mere appetizers to what Vermeil wants -- the full use of the 53 players on his roster.

Unfortunately for Vermeil, the Competition Committee is unanimous in its position against changing the inactive rules. League bylaws also resist change because 24 of the 32 owners must sanction any major rule change.

"I respect those people, but I don't understand," Vermeil said. "They keep saying teams with more money will put more money on the backend of their rosters and it would create a competitive imbalance. They say teams would have enough extra players to all of a sudden put in a Wishbone. I say good. My proposal is that all healthy players suit up."

Vermeil puts the resistance to such a change on the "Old Guard" of the league that wants to keep the game as it was. The "Old Guard" reminds Vermeil and others that the reason that rosters are at 53 was to react to the old cheating that was done on the injured reserve list. Before the current system -- where placing a player on the injured reserve list means that player is out for the season -- teams used to store players on injured reserve as a way to keep more players on their roster. Were it not for the cheating of using the injured reserve as a practice squad, rosters would still be at 45 or 49, not 53.

Injuries are another issue. The Committee cites the Colts as an example. There were a few instances last season that the Colts had eight injured players that filled their weekly inactive list. Had they played a team coming off a bye week that was completely healthy and allowed to suit up all 53 players, the Colts would have been at an eight-player disadvantage.

Coming off its most competitive season, the NFL doesn't want to create disadvantages that turn those close games into blowouts.

To all of this, Vermeil says ridiculous.

"My attitude is the game is about our players and we lose sight of that," Vermeil said. "Those seven guys on the bottom of the rosters aren't just negotiating tools in collective bargaining. It's just like the third quarterback rule, which is goofy. We are struggling to develop quarterbacks and we can't put him in the game unless the other two come out.

"All these things are restrictions on the development of your roster. It's not negotiations. The game is about the players. And the people who vote on these rules don't have to go to the players every week and see the tears when you tell them they can't suit up."

Vermeil's concept is that if you pay 53 players, play them.

Two proposals have been presented as options to move the owners, and they are backed up by plenty of info. The Browns propose increasing the active roster on Sundays from 45 to 48. The Packers proposed designating two additional players for only special teams use. Those designated players won't be kickers or snappers. They would only be allowed to participate on kicking and punting teams.

To get those players to participate in regular snaps, they would have to replace someone for the rest of the game. The Packers contend their proposal incorporates the injuries of the game.

The Packers counted 39,848 countable snaps of which 7,079 were on special teams. That's 28 percent of the game snaps. Dr. John Powell of Michigan State broke down the injuries from those plays, and the results are staggering.

Two injuries occurred for every 100 offensive plays and two every 100 defensive play. On special teams, Powell counted four injuries for every 100 plays. Counting injuries that sideline a player for at least three weeks, Powell calculates there are 1.2 injuries on special teams for every play compared to .5 for an offensive or a defensive snap.

Vermeil agrees that injuries are part of the reason for changing the rule, but more than anything else, he just thinks its common sense.

"We spend $1 million a piece to develop a player by either sending him to NFL Europe or bringing him to camp to make the team," Vermeil said. "Some players are getting playing experience as a value to the piece of ownership that some have in the Arena League. Here you have seven players on your own roster, and you don't complete the development process by playing them in a game."

Timing is everything, and that will probably work against the push by Vermeil and others, but the timing could work for the future. The war in Iraq could put an end to NFL Europe this season, restricting the development of players. Maybe it's time to brainstorm on player development.

Labor problems are behind this league. The collective bargaining agreement is set through 2007 and as long as Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw are working together with the owners and labor forces, there will be long-term labor peace. Whether a team pays 53 isn't a labor issue anymore. Teams work within a salary cap so if they wish to pay the back end of a roster more, those funds will come from their starters.

Vermeil estimated that the idea of expanding the active list for Sundays had about 10 votes last year. It's a long shot. Getting two possessions in overtime appeared to be a slam dunk at the end of the season because the commissioner and the league office wanted it, but that can't even be counted on now.

The NFL has a great game and wants to resist change, but the dialogue is important to making the game better for the future. Vermeil may not be a vocal as in past meetings, but, when it comes to developing players on his own roster, he won't be inactive next week. He's fighting for players in street clothes on the sidelines.

John Clayton is a senior writer for ESPN.com.