2021/22 - CFL Offseason - Non-Back-to-Back Grey Cup Champion Thread

[Jesse]

3 minutes ago, Booch said:

Grass roots hockey does just fine and there is no stipulating you need X amount of Canadians....If the Jets had no Canadians...would fans stop watching...doubt it....If CFL went to an all Canadian player base...they would lose more fans than they would if they went to an all American Player base...the game would become not worth the price you have to pay to go see it, and the gap between elite layer and slug would be laughable

every where i read they added an extra Canadian but its the 3/5 yr american on top of the usual 7 Canadians...correct me if I am wrong but thats what Ive been seeing

We don’t have a Canadian national hockey team, so I don’t see the point you’re making.

Our league has been heavily subsidized by the government and tax payers and needs to benefit Canadians. That means roster spots, guaranteed spots (and competitive contracts that comes with starting), keeping the wages earned (which come from Canadian ticket buyers) in the Canadian economy as much as possible. 
 

It is not *only* about fielding the best team possible. It’s also about benefiting Canada and Canadians.

[Booch]

1 minute ago, Bigblue204 said:

That's a bullshit comparison. The NHL has never been in a position where it was in only canada and had the potential to employ only americans. There can't really be any comparisons to the CFL because of these unique rules. Grass roots hockey does fine because of the focus and energy that was put on Canadian players long long ago. If there were little or no Canadian hockey stars, do you think it'd still be as popular as it is today?

specifically the ratio

i didnt mean its apples' to apples....but the fact less and less canadians make up majority of player base doesnt effect grass roots hockey...and grass roots football suffered/suffers because nobody took the horns to create it like hockey in Canada...its not affected by the CFL...Ratio doesnt make it unique...just a mechanism to allow Canadians a better chance to play...sure its unique as it's the only pro sports league in the world that excludes players....,but it doesnt necessarily make the game better....they talk about inclusion...yadda yadda yadda...well...be 100 percent inclusive

[WBBFanWest]

1 hour ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Dave Naylor explains the union vote issue here:

If 90-100 players in each camp, then 800-900 total voters. Removing 400 from that vote skews things pretty drastically, and if the vast majority of those lost voters are American, then the Canadians get an over-represented voice. With rosters of 21 Canadians, 23 Americans (counting QBs) and 2 Globals, a divisive issue like ratio changing will split the vote almost 50/50, so screwing with ability to vote for Americans can make a big difference. Simoni may have a valid concern. 

 

As a former union offical (many years ago), it's not unreasonable for a union to say to guys who have no real idea about the issue at hand to refrain from voting, especially when you factor in that the vast majority of these guys are never going to see the field in a regular season game.  Only guys with a horse in the race should be able to weigh in.

[Booch]

1 minute ago, Jesse said:

We don’t have a Canadian national hockey team, so I don’t see the point you’re making.

Our league has been heavily subsidized by the government and tax payers and needs to benefit Canadians. That means roster spots, guaranteed spots (and competitive contracts that comes with starting), keeping the wages earned (which come from Canadian ticket buyers) in the Canadian economy as much as possible. 
 

It is not *only* about fielding the best team possible. It’s also about benefiting Canada and Canadians.

point i making is people pay good money to watch the best players perform....regardless of BC....and I didnt see the government coming to the CFL  aide in pandemic...to "benefit" cnadians and jobs lost, revenues negated....etc..etc...but were quick to throw around tax payer money to other countries for things that had zero effect on Canada...so that argument is kind of pointless too then...I realize there are many here who are staunch gotta be canadian be damned players..ratio..whatever....and thats fine....

[Bigblue204]

1 minute ago, Booch said:

i didnt mean its apples' to apples....but the fact less and less canadians make up majority of player base doesnt effect grass roots hockey...and grass roots football suffered/suffers because nobody took the horns to create it like hockey in Canada...its not affected by the CFL...Ratio doesnt make it unique...just a mechanism to allow Canadians a better chance to play...sure its unique as it's the only pro sports league in the world that excludes players....,but it doesnt necessarily make the game better....they talk about inclusion...yadda yadda yadda...well...be 100 percent inclusive

The CFL is not the only league in the world with this type of rule. There are some football(soccer) leagues with similar rules in place. And that's bogus that the ratio doesn't make the game unique...it completely changes how coaches/scouts/management do every part of their job. Specifically coaching and making a game day roster. It's absurd to say different.

And again Grass roots isn't shrinking(though I believe it actually is slowly) because of the great Canadians of the past. Gretzky alone changed everything. No Canadian stars = less interest from Canadian kids. You're right, grassroots does so well because of how Canadian hockey was seen in the past. Canadians had a real chance at being stars because that's who they saw on TV and the support was there in terms of coaching/training etc etc etc. Less Canadians playing football in the CFL means that will absolutely impact the way kids see the Canadian game.

4 minutes ago, Booch said:

point i making is people pay good money to watch the best players perform....regardless of BC....and I didnt see the government coming to the CFL  aide in pandemic...to "benefit" cnadians and jobs lost, revenues negated....etc..etc...but were quick to throw around tax payer money to other countries for things that had zero effect on Canada...so that argument is kind of pointless too then...I realize there are many here who are staunch gotta be canadian be damned players..ratio..whatever....and thats fine....

lol The government said they would, as soon as the CFL opened the books and proved they needed the help. They wouldn't do that.

[TrueBlue4ever]

17 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

The CFL is not the only league in the world with this type of rule. There are some football(soccer) leagues with similar rules in place. And that's bogus that the ratio doesn't make the game unique...it completely changes how coaches/scouts/management do every part of their job. Specifically coaching and making a game day roster. It's absurd to say different.

And again Grass roots isn't shrinking(though I believe it actually is slowly) because of the great Canadians of the past. Gretzky alone changed everything. No Canadian stars = less interest from Canadian kids. You're right, grassroots does so well because of how Canadian hockey was seen in the past. Canadians had a real chance at being stars because that's who they saw on TV and the support was there in terms of coaching/training etc etc etc. Less Canadians playing football in the CFL means that will absolutely impact the way kids see the Canadian game.

CHL also has roster rules that limit the number of imports a team can have, to keep the number of Canadians on the roster constant and to keep the grassroots development strong.

MLS also has import roster rules, and specific rules to allow homegrown players a chance to make more money. 

Edited May 24, 2022 by TrueBlue4ever

[wbbfan]

2 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

The CFL is not the only league in the world with this type of rule. There are some football(soccer) leagues with similar rules in place. And that's bogus that the ratio doesn't make the game unique...it completely changes how coaches/scouts/management do every part of their job. Specifically coaching and making a game day roster. It's absurd to say different.

And again Grass roots isn't shrinking(though I believe it actually is slowly) because of the great Canadians of the past. Gretzky alone changed everything. No Canadian stars = less interest from Canadian kids. You're right, grassroots does so well because of how Canadian hockey was seen in the past. Canadians had a real chance at being stars because that's who they saw on TV and the support was there in terms of coaching/training etc etc etc. Less Canadians playing football in the CFL means that will absolutely impact the way kids see the Canadian game.

lol The government said they would, as soon as the CFL opened the books and proved they needed the help. They wouldn't do that.

Almost all minor league and unaffiliated baseball leagues have ratio rules too. European basketball and japans baseball league used to have an imp ratio as well. It’s a more common concept than one would think. 
 

the cfl revenue tracking even team to team is very suspicious at best. They won’t fully open the books unless they are forced to. 

[TBURGESS]

The 49% rule is stupid and it should go.

The offer being voted on is as outlined by Booch. 8 NI's, one of which is an American NI and 3 more who can play up to 49% of the snaps.

6:1 was the original offer with 6 guaranteed NI starters + 1 Yankee NI. It's a better idea and hopefully what the league went back to.

Allowing hundreds of players, who have never played in the CFL and most are likely not going to, vote is also stupid.

If the Canadian's have the votes, then they should get the contract rules they want.

The ratio isn't set in stone, and it shouldn't be. One less Canadian means the worst player on the team gets replaced by a better American. Most folks don't even know that players name, let alone root for him. It's ridiculous to suggest that top players like Andrew Harris wouldn't get a shot if the ratio is lowered and the CFL isn't suggesting getting rid of the ratio. Starting Canadian's afraid of losing their jobs to better American's, are saying that they're only playing because of their passport.

I'd rather watch the best players compete in the CFL with CFL rules, just like I like watching the best players play in the NFL, NHL etc..

[Booch]

5 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

CHL also has roster rules that limit the number of imports a team can have, to keep the number of Canadians on the roster constant and to keep the grassroots development strong. 

whats CHL....junior?....not same thing...thats amatuer sports 

 

3 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Almost all minor league and unaffiliated baseball leagues have ratio rules too. European basketball and japans baseball league used to have an imp ratio as well. It’s a more common concept than one would think. 
 

the cfl revenue tracking even team to team is very suspicious at best. They won’t fully open the books unless they are forced to. 

key words....also some of those leagues mentioned are not the "big" leagues....I'm talking major league type teams sports...NHL...NBA...NFL...MLB...and yeah the CFL as it's more major league than anything else mentioned even tho on a smaller scale....junior hockey...and these random European and Japanese leaues...whatever leagues are for players who have basically no hope in hell of making a professional league aforementioned...hence why they were created.....moot point tho really cause its never gonna appease everyone...there are peopke on both sides of fence and bickering about it is a never ending circle jerk...round and round we go...so may as well get back to the matters...that matter..Like the Riders sucking

3 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

The 49% rule is stupid and it should go.

The offer being voted on is as outlined by Booch. 8 NI's, one of which is an American NI and 3 more who can play up to 49% of the snaps.

6:1 was the original offer with 6 guaranteed NI starters + 1 Yankee NI. It's a better idea and hopefully what the league went back to.

Allowing hundreds of players, who have never played in the CFL and most are likely not going to, vote is also stupid.

If the Canadian's have the votes, then they should get the contract rules they want.

The ratio isn't set in stone, and it shouldn't be. One less Canadian means the worst player on the team gets replaced by a better American. Most folks don't even know that players name, let alone root for him. It's ridiculous to suggest that top players like Andrew Harris wouldn't get a shot if the ratio is lowered and the CFL isn't suggesting getting rid of the ratio. Starting Canadian's afraid of losing their jobs to better American's, are saying that they're only playing because of their passport.

I'd rather watch the best players compete in the CFL with CFL rules, just like I like watching the best players play in the NFL, NHL etc..

agree,,,only players who played or were PR last yr should be voting...100% 

and yeah....jobs arent being axed...it's almost like people aren't even reading it correctly...including many players obviously

[BBlink]

Have to think if they concede the 49 percent thing and provide a bit more dollars for the American players that they should be able to approve this.

At this point its less on the CFL and more about the turmoil within the CFLPA

[Jesse]

36 minutes ago, Booch said:

point i making is people pay good money to watch the best players perform

Yes. And the CFL gives them a platform in which to do that, but we also need a platform to promote all of the Canadian benefits I listed earlier. Half the roster is American. 17 starter positions. Plenty of room for the "best players" to come in and make their mark.

20 minutes ago, Booch said:

whats CHL....junior?....not same thing...thats amatuer sports 

key words....also some of those leagues mentioned are not the "big" leagues....I'm talking major league type teams sports...NHL...NBA...NFL...MLB...

And here's a key point on which we disagree, I guess. But the CFL isn't a major league. It's a nationalized league much closer to the CHL, KHL than it is to any of the "big 4".

It exists for a purpose, and that purpose isn't the same as those other leagues - not entirely anyway.

 

25 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

ratio isn't set in stone, and it shouldn't be. One less Canadian means the worst player on the team gets replaced by a better American. Most folks don't even know that players name, let alone root for him. It's ridiculous to suggest that top players like Andrew Harris wouldn't get a shot if the ratio is lowered and the CFL isn't suggesting getting rid of the ratio. Starting Canadian's afraid of losing their jobs to better American's, are saying that they're only playing because of their passport.

Harris is the ultimate example of a guy who most likely doesn't get a shot if not for the ratio.

And we would have missed out on his career - a guy who has been in countless schools as the local kid with a rough upbringing who turned it around. This is the ultimate argument for the ratio. The literal poster boy.

[Booch]

2 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Yes. And the CFL gives them a platform in which to do that, but we also need a platform to promote all of the Canadian benefits I listed earlier. Half the roster is American. 17 starter positions. Plenty of room for the "best players" to come in and make their mark.

And here's a key point on which we disagree, I guess. But the CFL isn't a major league. It's a nationalized league much closer to the CHL, KHL than it is to any of the "big 4".

It exists for a purpose, and that purpose isn't the same as those other leagues - not entirely anyway.

 

Harris is the ultimate example of a guy who most likely doesn't get a shot if not for the ratio.

And we would have missed out on his career - a guy who has been in countless schools as the local kid with a rough upbringing who turned it around. This is the ultimate argument for the ratio. The literal poster boy.

so...u just called the CFL an amatuer league,...I am sure the players (canadian and U.S) would love to hear that....Canadian rules and fsize of field is whats the difference and uniqueness not the ratio...the ratio is just a roster requirement..

[Bigblue204]

Yeah I'm sorry anyone who thinks a Junior player, a Running back no less, would have had a legit shot to compete for the starting job is just being dishonest at best.

[Jesse]

Just now, Booch said:

so...u just called the CFL an amatuer league,...I am sure the players (canadian and U.S) would love to hear that....Canadian rules and fsize of field is whats the difference and uniqueness not the ratio...the ratio is just a roster requirement..

I said it was not a "major league". It is obviously a professional league. But includes a mandate that helps drive national interests.

[Booch]

5 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Yes. And the CFL gives them a platform in which to do that, but we also need a platform to promote all of the Canadian benefits I listed earlier. Half the roster is American. 17 starter positions. Plenty of room for the "best players" to come in and make their mark.

And here's a key point on which we disagree, I guess. But the CFL isn't a major league. It's a nationalized league much closer to the CHL, KHL than it is to any of the "big 4".

It exists for a purpose, and that purpose isn't the same as those other leagues - not entirely anyway.

 

Harris is the ultimate example of a guy who most likely doesn't get a shot if not for the ratio.

And we would have missed out on his career - a guy who has been in countless schools as the local kid with a rough upbringing who turned it around. This is the ultimate argument for the ratio. The literal poster boy.

many americans come from a wayyyyy worse upbringing....and also...put tons of time in up here in charitable activities...schools....coaching in the city....many move here...so whats the point...any player who comes from disfucntion...bad up bringing....poverty and crime riddled environment should be aplauded....if u look back in history the CFL has actually given just as many...if not more Americans the chance to succeed and have a great story, where nowhere else would have...especially the minority player, and the under sized..under valued....does that not matter or count either?

[Noeller]

 

 

 

[Jesse]

5 minutes ago, Booch said:

many americans come from a wayyyyy worse upbringing....and also...put tons of time in up here in charitable activities...schools....coaching in the city....many move here...so whats the point...any player who comes from disfucntion...bad up bringing....poverty and crime riddled environment should be aplauded....if u look back in history the CFL has actually given just as many...if not more Americans the chance to succeed and have a great story, where nowhere else would have...especially the minority player, and the under sized..under valued....does that not matter or count either?

100%

And again, half the roster and the vast majority of starter spots are American. So I think the CFL has shown that it matters very much. And reward those guys who do it with opportunities. Whether that be coaching positions for former players like Hufnagel and Dickenson or alternate opportunities for current players like Bighill. Not sure what you're arguing about. We do all that.

But as a National league, it's also important that with all of these Canadian dollars being spent, we place of focus on people here AS WELL (not instead of, like you keep pretending I'm saying).

When Andrew Harris came to a school I was teaching at and pointed at the field outside the window and told students he would cut across that field every day...It hits different. Canadian born and bred players tend to live in Canada and spend their pay cheques in Canada. Americans go home spend their money there. Yes, the long term guys might move here eventually, but that's a pretty small percentage of the amount of guys that come through the league each year.

[TBURGESS]

33 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Harris is the ultimate example of a guy who most likely doesn't get a shot if not for the ratio.

And we would have missed out on his career - a guy who has been in countless schools as the local kid with a rough upbringing who turned it around. This is the ultimate argument for the ratio. The literal poster boy.

The CFL isn't talking about eliminating the Ratio and that's the only way that we may not have seen Harris play. They are talking about reducing the ratio by 1 starter and total number of Canadian's by 1. That's just getting rid of the worst player on the team, and possibly starting one less Canadian. It's not getting rid of Canadian starters or Canadian stars and Harris is both.

Note that starting ratio is a minimum, not a maximum number. Teams could start 24 Canadians if they want under current rules and under the proposed rules. They could have a whole team with zero Americans.

[Noeller]

 

[itchy]

15 minutes ago, Noeller said:

 

One of the aspects lost in this discussion is the fact once the PA rejected the tentative agreement, the employer can take everything discussed off the table and go back to square one. If the employer is offering new language and the million, and leaving everything else as is, it'd be really bad for the PA to still turn that down. It shows the league is working, and the PA expectations may be too high.

... and this coming from a union guy.

[Super Duper Negatron]

Is my math off, or does that mean more snaps per Canadian player, but less Canadian jobs (7 before, now 6) overall? Have to think this is a bit of a backfire by the players?

[Jesse]

23 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

Is my math off, or does that mean more snaps per Canadian player, but less Canadian jobs (7 before, now 6) overall? Have to think this is a bit of a backfire by the players?

Before it was essentially 5.5 (4 starters and 3 guys playing 51%).

Now it would be 6.

[Super Duper Negatron]

1 minute ago, Jesse said:

Before it was essentially 5.5 (4 starters and 3 guys playing 51%).

Now it would be 6.

Yeah, but that was 7 total players you were paying to start at least 50% of the time. Now you are only paying 6. I guess the argument is total dollars to Canadian players would be higher, since you would in theory pay the 50%-ers less?

Edited May 24, 2022 by Super Duper Negatron

[JuranBoldenRules]

4 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Dave Naylor explains the union vote issue here:

If 90-100 players in each camp, then 800-900 total voters. Removing 400 from that vote skews things pretty drastically, and if the vast majority of those lost voters are American, then the Canadians get an over-represented voice. With rosters of 21 Canadians, 23 Americans (counting QBs) and 2 Globals, a divisive issue like ratio changing will split the vote almost 50/50, so screwing with ability to vote for Americans can make a big difference. Simoni may have a valid concern. 

I could imagine an equally insensitive Canadian player’s response to you being:

“All of the player concessions fall Sole(l)y at the feet of the Canadians...we have already lost one of our guaranteed 7 starting spots to the “veteran American” (and it used to be 12 Canadians, then 11)...now you want our reps cut down which will soon lead to full-time loss of the spot and only 4 Canadians per team…....prove your own worth by making the starting 24 and stop crying. Canadians have been the backbone of this league and the reason inferior Americans who can’t make the NFL have another option to play football and get a second look, and paid in many instances when they would have no career option...if there is no ratio many a Canadian player who is better like an Andrew Harris never even gets a fair chance to compete from the start due to being ousted by a far cheaper American who had the advantage of a big shiny US College program ..yes it's the CFL and nationality which is what the league was founded on should not be compromised so that a few top Americans can be paid more and create a greater divide between the top and bottom money-makers on a team and divide a locker room even further by creating a rich and poor class system...I can tell you first hand many a great American player had the opportunity to come here as he has had NFL coaches in his ear telling him to not waste his time in the league cause he gonna be cut for not being big enough, fast enough, tall enough, mature enough, doesn’t fit the NFL model enough (see Willie Jefferson for one) until he gets a solid look here, performs, and then the League gets past its biases and takes a second look, all because the CFL was there to showcase him (see Doug Flutie and Cameron Wake for two more)…..this is facts

You still will require  20 Americans plus QBs plus two more designated imports..suck it up..prove your worth rather than demanding less Canadians get jobs in their home country and being indignant when they choose to vote no to sacrificing their own jobs for you..if it's mainly the Canadians balking at the 49% thing it’s because it’s just another step towards eliminating Canadians all together and wiping out any sense of”Canadian” in the CFL..and alienating the Canadian fan base by having American league with American rules and American players without guys who are home town heroes who put butts in seats and have their merchandise fly off shelves (Harris and Demski probably moved more jerseys than Zach Collaros)……if Americans don’t want to play up in Canada as immigrants taking jobs from Canadians (funny when the MAGA war cry is on the other foot, isn’t it?) they can go play in the XFL, USFL, arena league, or whatever other US spring league has been created this year and watch it fold in a year or two while their player paycheques bounce again and again, or they can come up here and earn their spot in the most-tenured football league in North America and only stable viable option to the NFL to keep their football dream alive, or they can go work at Walmart with their 4 year college football scholarship degree, or they can eat a bag...”

Not so sure the fans have been truly united. Majority of the vocal folks seemed to be firmly in the players’ corner and did not like the ratio changes in the first offer, but now that the Canadian players are pushing back at voting themselves out of a job, the vocal public is now casting them as the villains because it might delay the season. And we need to be careful about the utility of “tapping the pulse of the fan base”. The CFL would probably prefer to tap the pulse of the non-fan to see what would make them a fan rather than catering to the established fan who is not likely to go anywhere anyway, even if Canadians are eliminated (as the flip-flop on the ratio stance would seem to indicate). 

If anyone signed to a contract could vote for a union contract it would be way too easy for the league/employer to bust the union.

Usually it is spelled out in the CBA who is a voting member and it would be completely ridiculous if camp bodies who aren’t even vested in any of the union benefits (see the 6th round pick who’s never played who gets hurt and cut on the spot) could dictate the next CBA.

43 minutes ago, itchy said:

One of the aspects lost in this discussion is the fact once the PA rejected the tentative agreement, the employer can take everything discussed off the table and go back to square one. If the employer is offering new language and the million, and leaving everything else as is, it'd be really bad for the PA to still turn that down. It shows the league is working, and the PA expectations may be too high.

... and this coming from a union guy.

Yeah they could, but realistically the league wasn’t offering much monetarily.  The players will end up paying for the increased benefits if their cost grows faster than league revenue.

[Noeller]

some details...