Mike

And just for everyone else out there, I think you're pretty much bang on with that. I have no football background to draw from and I wouldn't consider myself very knowledgeable about the finer points of the x's and o's of the game.

http://cflmedia.ca/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=628&Itemid=6 Any of the links displayed on that page will have a PDF that displays the rosters broken down by starters, substitutes and scratches.

I'm trying to make a conscious effort to discuss things more with posters around here since there seems to be a contingent of people who views me as someone who simply attacks and degrades people I don't agree with. I can't say I agree with the criticism, but I'm making an effort to show as much patience as possible.

I'm not trying to be rude but I literally have no idea what you just said.

lol I literally just laid out the first week for you, but if you doubt me, go ahead.

Stats -> 2016 -> Post-Game Statistics Waiting on that apology.

Also, just to make a THIRD post, it's no coincidence that the only team dressing 2 backups is one of 2 teams with an all-Canadian line. Reason being is that if they suffer two injuries, not only do they need depth, but they need ratio assistance as well. Also, one more thing to be clear on: no team has used a DI spot on an offensive lineman in any game this year.

Oh and just to clarify the point I was trying to make: 1 team out of 9 is consistently dressing 2 backup offensive linemen that serve no purpose other than to serve as a backup offensive lineman. 2 teams out of 9 regularly dress 2 backups, but 1 of them is a designated long snapper. 6 out of 9 teams have consistently been dressing 1 backup lineman. And if you want to validate my claims, you can go look up the official scoring sheets at cflmedia.ca

The transaction page has nothing to do with anything, the 2-man reserve doesn't move from the active roster to a different area so your futile attempt to provide evidence to backup your claims means nothing. Week 1: Ottawa, BC, Toronto, Hamilton dressed 7 OL, everyone else dressed 6. Week 2: BC, Toronto, Hamilton dressed 7 OL, everyone else except Saskatchewan dressed 6, Saskatchewan dressed 5. The pattern remains consistent for the rest of the season to date, with variations here and there for injuries. The other thing to keep in mind is that Hamilton and BC both have a backup OL doing their long-snapping as opposed to Chad Rempel, who is not classified as an OL so while they're on the roster as backup OL, they're essentially only filling that role in name only. Nobody has dressed 8 OL this year. Nobody has dressed 7 OL AND a designated long-snapper either. You want to know where I got that information from? The official roster sheets that list game day rosters AND the 2-man reserve. Thanks.

If I provide you with this, will you apologize for being incredibly wrong and stop arguing a point that I know for fact is 100% wrong? Because I'll go through the work to do it if you will.

To be clear - Gary Lawless said on the radio last night that they're not actually done the part of the investigation related to the Riders paying unrostered players under the table. And to me, that's the biggest offense of all. So more punishments could be coming.

I'm not sure why we're talking about this as a big deal. He's a pass rusher.

The >46 / >10 thing doesn't really mean anything, that just has to be cleared before they declare their roster for the week. Ours looks like that sometimes too, it's just clerical stuff.

But that's not the discussion, because the field is concentrated in an area where there's a lot more going on. There's an event venue right across the street that shares the same travel route.

Again, question the motives not the validity of what he says. You need a refresher course if you don't think Dunk is just about the most tuned in reporter in CFL circles.

Madani in full on scandal mode. He loves to make a scene.

Dunk is just about the most in touch reporter in the entire CFL right now. I guess he was wrong when he broke the Brandon Bridge signing yesterday. Or the St. John signing when that happened. You can't question the validity of the message just because you don't like it. Dunk is incredibly well connected and if you don't know it by now, you have no clue what you're talking about. You can question his motives (re: Greg Hardy story) but not his information.

But they already suck anyways and we're doing record ratings.

I'm not suspending him because he's the coach. I'm suspending him because he's the GM, which means he's responsible for player personnel, which means ultimately he's responsible for ILLEGALLY PAYING player personnel. I don't think Rider fans have fully grasped the severity of these allegations yet. Could be denial. Not really sure. But this could be bad.

That would be a good start. You HAVE to suspend Jones for an extended period of time too.

They're going to get hammered. You just watch.

http://3downnation.com/2016/08/11/sources-riders-paying-non-roster-players/ Ho. Lee. ***.

SECTION 8 - ELIGIBILITY OF PLAYERS 13. A Member Club shall not permit a player to participate, directly or indirectly, in any of its practice sessions unless: (a) On the Member Club’s current roster; or (b) On the Member Club’s Injured Players List; or (c) Entitled to participate under the provisions of Section 5 of these By-Laws; or (d) On a Member Club’s Non-Active List as described in paragraph 12 of this Section 8. Without restricting the meaning of “a practice session” a player shall be deemed to be participating therein if: (i) In attendance at a Club lecture, film session, or chalk talk; or (ii) Physically present at the same time and place as the other team members for a conditioning exercise; or (iii) Subject to the direction of the coaching staff in any manner whatsoever, except to the extent necessary for the supervision of treatment of an injury sustained while previously a member of the Club roster. 14. A Member Club permitting a player to attend a practice session other than a player described in paragraph 13 hereof shall be liable for a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500) or, at the discretion of the Commissioner, up to One Thousand Dollars ($1000) for each such practice session attended by such player. In order to ensure compliance with Member Club roster limits, an Officiating representative may be utilized by the Commissioner in a monitoring capacity. Member Club Officials shall respect the mandate of the Officiating representative by providing access to Member Club practices, and where applicable, participate in reasonable discourse with the Officiating representative.

But there are limits. It's right in the by-laws.

... like not even remotely close.