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

[Booch]

I should maybe paraphrase for some...best football you will be able to realistically watch and support day in and day out....and attend all games.....NFL is a diff game...diff country....so no comparisons...CFL is what u got....warts and all....so yeah....I wanna see the best possible players able to be on the field...and could care less where they came from

 

[Noeller]

6 minutes ago, Booch said:

go support your local university then, and not worry about the CFL....Canada is still showcased...how is it not?....and there will still be Canadians....how old are u...did u knash your teeth and whine about it when the ratio was reduced several times in our lifetime?..I see u still a fan...so whats the difference now....

it's about precedent....they lose one now, then next CBA lose another, maybe 2.... and eventually it's at 0 Canadians. I stand by the players who refuse to start this ball rolling. I just really hope there's a way to get the owners on board with it.

[Booch]

2 minutes ago, Noeller said:

it's about precedent....they lose one now, then next CBA lose another, maybe 2.... and eventually it's at 0 Canadians. I stand by the players who refuse to start this ball rolling. I just really hope there's a way to get the owners on board with it.

do u know that for sure...or is that just an assumption...and oh well...in 7 years we can go thru this dance again....and wasn't all players...Many Canadians voted yes

[Bigblue204]

15 minutes ago, Booch said:

i never said...nor implied it would bring in tons and tons of fans, and thats not even the thinkjing behind it with team management...tho it would be a plus if it did...it's a matter of quality, and the ease of getting guys on the field and able to compete...why do you think it takes many many many Canadian players...who have been playing Canadian ball all their lives to become a star...or even just a moderate contributor...it's because they are so much further behind in the development aspect, and the learning curve....and no slight to them, and fault of their own....product of their environment, and maybe teams are tired of investing time and money into guys...for basically something that never relly pans out...then rinx=se and repeat and try again....many optics to it

You didn't. But the league has (According to Dave Naylor sooo..take that for what you will). They want the reduced ratio because they believe it will increase fan interest. 

Everything else that you wrote above I completely agree with. And that's why I've been saying the CFL needs to invest in grass roots football in this country (they have started but more needs to be done). And they need to focus on the image of the CFL rather than the product on the field. People who don't like the product won't all of a sudden like it because there is 1 less canadian., or because the rouge is gone or it's a 15 yrd penalty for no yards etc etc etc. That just doesn't make any sense.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Bigblue204

[JCon]

So, once Canadians have been removed from the league, why not just change the rules to align with the NFL? You want to attract NFL rejects, at least play the same rules. Easy peasy. Then, we're seeing the "best" rejects, all Americans, playing the sport by the rules they grew up with. 

 

[Bigblue204]

11 minutes ago, Booch said:

I should maybe paraphrase for some...best football you will be able to realistically watch and support day in and day out....and attend all games.....NFL is a diff game...diff country....so no comparisons...CFL is what u got....warts and all....so yeah....I wanna see the best possible players able to be on the field...and could care less where they came from

 

I'm not sure I believe that would happen with or without a ratio though. The CFL won't see the best talent until they pay significantly more. And that can happen, there are plenty of leagues all around the world that are not the best of the best, but still draw loads of interest. The CFL has work to do and they just don't seem to want to do it. Quick fixes will kill the CFL.

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

You didn't. But the league has (According to Dave Naylor sooo..take that for what you will). The want the reduced ratio because they believe it will increase fan interest. 

Everything else that you wrote above I completely agree with. And that's why I've been saying the CFL needs to invest in grass roots football in this country (they have started but more needs to be done). And they need to focus on the image of the CFL rather than the product on the field. People who don't like the product won't all of a sudden like it because there is 1 less canadian., or because the rouge is gone or it's a 15 yrd penalty for no yards etc etc etc. That just doesn't make any sense.

Naylor tho....he been wanting full blown Americana forever...so he could be embellishing or twisting things too...who knows...I think the reduced ration is more for cost savings, and the ability to plug and play more seamlessly, and also have the ability to attract better players...specifically QB's, as they could pay more.....you can have 2 cheaper and better interior olineman, and that alone would prob save you 200k a yr in salary to get a guy to come North....same could be said along dline....thats Where I think the teams are coming from...and it could impact butts in the seats if a team was able to pry a top rated college kid away from riding the pine in the NFL

1 minute ago, Bigblue204 said:

I'm not sure I believe that would happen with or without a ratio though. The CFL won't see the best talent until they pay significantly more. And that can happen, there are plenty of leagues all around the world that are not the best of the best, but still draw loads of interest. The CFL has work to do and they just don't seem to want to do it. Quick fixes will kill the CFL.

They do need to get with the times in terms of marketing...social/digital media and fan interaction thats a given

[Bigblue204]

Just now, Booch said:

Naylor tho....he been wanting full blown Americana forever...so he could be embellishing or twisting things too...who knows...I think the reduced ration is more for cost savings, and the ability to plug and play more seamlessly, and also have the ability to attract better players...specifically QB's, as they could pay more.....you can have 2 cheaper and better interior olineman, and that alone would prob save you 200k a yr in salary to get a guy to come North....same could be said along dline....thats Where I think the teams are coming from...and it could impact butts in the seats if a team was able to pry a top rated college kid away from riding the pine in the NFL

I want to believe you are right. But I just don't see it happening. That money would get eaten up by other positional players not QB's who many already think are paid handsomely.

[Noeller]

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Noeller

[Booch]

1 minute ago, Bigblue204 said:

I want to believe you are right. But I just don't see it happening. That money would get eaten up by other positional players not QB's who many already think are paid handsomely.

i was just using QB as an example.....but then again....u would have way more positional guys to choose from each year with no roster hamstringing due to ratio.....I for one dont ever see ratio abolished anyway...reduced...or more flexible with the naturalized thing tho

[Bigblue204]

6 minutes ago, Booch said:

i was just using QB as an example.....but then again....u would have way more positional guys to choose from each year with no roster hamstringing due to ratio.....I for one dont ever see ratio abolished anyway...reduced...or more flexible with the naturalized thing tho

But if the american talent would increase interest that much(like the owners are claiming) then why didn't we see interest in the XFL 2.0 or the USFL now etc etc. Other leagues have come and gone that had guys who were 1 or 2 steps down from the NFL. 

[Booch]

5 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

But if the american talent would increase interest that much(like the owners are claiming) then why didn't we see interest in the XFL 2.0 or the USFL now etc etc. Other leagues have come and gone that had guys who were 1 or 2 steps down from the NFL. 

cause the U.S dont give a crap....lol....never will....and in all honesty the better...or majority that were still ballin were in Canada

[Jesse]

34 minutes ago, Booch said:

are u just being kind of a knob?...every american cut lets just say...since this management took over..reciever wise was probably better....or at par with the Canadian starters, and the back-ups that were kept in their place...cause of BC...NOT EVEN CLOSE....get a grip man.,.I get it...u loooove the Canadian content and for you saving it as is makes u all warm and fuzzy....but the talent gap is huge....doubt it if u will, but I've seen highschool teams in Texas and in Cali that would prob whoop 8 outa 10 USport programs up here...theres tons of talent in the US that would make the CFL level of play exponentially better....but you cant bring em all in..facts are facts

It was a bit of a knob comment, but in response to a knob comment as well.

Obviously there is a talent gap - the US has 10x as many people and treat football religiously. However, the talent gap is not n = 1.

We've tried for how many years to improve our receiving group. Three American spots, but it's been a revolving door and a bunch of vet retreads that never worked out. Why hasn't the infinite talent of the US shown itself yet?

The fact is many guys aren't going to play in Canada. Some move on to other opportunities, some can't survive financially on the salary. Some have had legal trouble, etc, etc, etc.

At a certain point, we're bringing in athletes that need to develop. The talent gap from Canadians and the players who actually come to Canada is not as big as it's made out to be, there's just more of them. 

Who is at the bottom of our Canadian starters? Thomas? Woli? The winner of Gray/Dobson? These are the guys that don't belong on the field in your opinion?

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, Jesse said:

It was a bit of a knob comment, but in response to a knob comment as well.

Obviously there is a talent gap - the US has 10x as many people and treat football religiously. However, the talent gap is not n = 1.

We've tried for how many years to improve our receiving group. Three American spots, but it's been a revolving door and a bunch of vet retreads that never worked out. Why hasn't the infinite talent of the US shown itself yet?

The fact is many guys aren't going to play in Canada. Some move on to other opportunities, some can't survive financially on the salary. Some have had legal trouble, etc, etc, etc.

At a certain point, we're bringing in athletes that need to develop. The talent gap from Canadians and the players who actually come to Canada is not as big as it's made out to be, there's just more of them. 

Who is at the bottom of our Canadian starters? Thomas? Woli? The winner of Gray/Dobson? These are the guys that don't belong on the field in your opinion?

the CBA they voted down...to refresh....was for 7 Canadian starters....same as before and an 8th one...who was a naturalized american...and.....u could have up to 3 more....if u wanted to/were able to....take additional reps for a Canadian starter up to a max amount...essentially allowing you to rotate more freely....would preserve players more, and yes...prob make every team stronger....and the guy on our roster who would have been not dressing...would have been maybe Krahmda...Hallett...Oleary Orange or whoever that guy was that started before him.....any one of our special teamers or back ups for that matter...not a starter....but now...seeing as they poo pooed the CBA...yup....maybe a Thomas...or whoever was going to replace Desjarlais will loose the starting spot...so a major eff up by the membership now...as there will be no going back and they essentially lost a Canadian spot...so its accept and play...or dont...and not get payed....nothing like painting yourself in a corner for no real good reason

[Mark F]

Why is this negotiation happening now, and why was this not taken care of months ago.

failing grade on that point

Edited May 25, 2022 by Mark F

[Captain Blue]

I think the CFLPA royally screwed this up but at the same time I am completely in favour of keeping the Canadian content. I also like it kept simple (no snap percentage) as that makes it easier on casual fans. 

I very much enjoy watching the best players compete in the NFL but can still enjoy the CFL for what it is. Take away the Canadians and you're left with a weird copy of the USFL and XFL, both of which I have no interest in. 

I like that our team is run by a bunch of Canadians. Reducing the opportunities for Canadian players has a downstream effect on a lot more than people think. 

[WildPath]

1 hour ago, JCon said:

So, once Canadians have been removed from the league, why not just change the rules to align with the NFL? You want to attract NFL rejects, at least play the same rules. Easy peasy. Then, we're seeing the "best" rejects, all Americans, playing the sport by the rules they grew up with. 

 

They've been continuously flirting with changing towards more NFL rules in some fashion or another for a while now, so I think could be another attempt to push us in that direction. A change in the amount of Cdn/US players in the PA would also push the PA to have less say from Canadians in the future.

If CFL leadership had been steadfast in never adopting NFL rules, this may not be as big of a concern.

[wbbfan]

19 minutes ago, Captain Blue said:

I think the CFLPA royally screwed this up but at the same time I am completely in favour of keeping the Canadian content. I also like it kept simple (no snap percentage) as that makes it easier on casual fans. 

I very much enjoy watching the best players compete in the NFL but can still enjoy the CFL for what it is. Take away the Canadians and you're left with a weird copy of the USFL and XFL, both of which I have no interest in. 

I like that our team is run by a bunch of Canadians. Reducing the opportunities for Canadian players has a downstream effect on a lot more than people think. 

All sides involved are responsible and have equally $%&* the bed. The CFL for the strong man threatening tactics to start, the CFLPA for agreeing to a deal they couldn't sell to the players, both for waiting till soo damn late to get serious about negotiations, no hands are clean in this. 

Agree with your 2nd point. Honestly I couldn't stand to watch too many NFL games for a very long time. But they have blown past college, and the cfl in terms of innovation and creativity. Watching the CFL has become like watching two guys play chess using the exact same strategy and tactics. 

 

[Mark H.]

2 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

We will have to agree to disagree. I don't think the players asking for more is a problem. 

Asking for more during negotiations, sure.  But not getting an agreement in committee ratified and having to go back to the table...is a huge deal

[Super Duper Negatron]

55 minutes ago, Booch said:

the CBA they voted down...to refresh....was for 7 Canadian starters....same as before and an 8th one...who was a naturalized american...and.....u could have up to 3 more....if u wanted to/were able to....take additional reps for a Canadian starter up to a max amount...essentially allowing you to rotate more freely....would preserve players more, and yes...prob make every team stronger....and the guy on our roster who would have been not dressing...would have been maybe Krahmda...Hallett...Oleary Orange or whoever that guy was that started before him.....any one of our special teamers or back ups for that matter...not a starter....but now...seeing as they poo pooed the CBA...yup....maybe a Thomas...or whoever was going to replace Desjarlais will loose the starting spot...so a major eff up by the membership now...as there will be no going back and they essentially lost a Canadian spot...so its accept and play...or dont...and not get payed....nothing like painting yourself in a corner for no real good reason

Yup. This is exactly what I was arguing before. This seems to have backfired spectacularly.

[BigBlue]

What I would like to see is the ADDITION of 4 (or so) developmental roster spots for 1st (and maybe 2nd year) Canadians in which skill levels can be worked on throughout the year to earn full roster spots later. [The taxi squad would remain the same except 4 players bigger.]

In this scenario they would be paid 50% of the minimum salary, they would not travel to away games (keeping costs down) but would dress for home games; they would only play in a home game if another player was declared injured and out of the game (subbing in).

That's how I would  like to see that $1 million spent that the commissioner is throwing around. Gaining an extra year or two in skill development means more long term jobs for Canadian players.

 

[JuranBoldenRules]

1 hour ago, Booch said:

the CBA they voted down...to refresh....was for 7 Canadian starters....same as before and an 8th one...who was a naturalized american...and.....u could have up to 3 more....if u wanted to/were able to....take additional reps for a Canadian starter up to a max amount...essentially allowing you to rotate more freely....would preserve players more, and yes...prob make every team stronger....and the guy on our roster who would have been not dressing...would have been maybe Krahmda...Hallett...Oleary Orange or whoever that guy was that started before him.....any one of our special teamers or back ups for that matter...not a starter....but now...seeing as they poo pooed the CBA...yup....maybe a Thomas...or whoever was going to replace Desjarlais will loose the starting spot...so a major eff up by the membership now...as there will be no going back and they essentially lost a Canadian spot...so its accept and play...or dont...and not get payed....nothing like painting yourself in a corner for no real good reason

There was no 7 + 1 offer from the league.  It's not 7 AND, it's 7 with one spot being for an American with tenure.  The first substantive offer that got the strike vote was 4 + 2, dropping the ratio to 6 players and scrapping QB designation.   The offer that went to vote was 6 + 1 naturalized maintaining the 7 "Canadians" for the ratio but leaving the naturalized loophole for one spot and including starting QB's in the ratio, and then allowing a certain number of designated "naturalized" players to take some snaps in place of Canadians (the 49% rule which needs or needed a hell of a lot of refining).

2 minutes ago, BigBlue said:

What I would like to see is the ADDITION of 4 (or so) developmental roster spots for 1st (and maybe 2nd year) Canadians in which skill levels can be worked on throughout the year to earn full roster spots later. [The taxi squad would remain the same except 4 players bigger.]

In this scenario they would be paid 50% of the minimum salary, they would not travel to away games (keeping costs down) but would dress for home games; they would only play in a home game if another player was declared injured and out of the game (subbing in).

That's how I would  like to see that $1 million spent that the commissioner is throwing around. Gaining an extra year or two in skill development means more long term jobs for Canadian players.

 

There are protected practice roster spots for Canadians generally, junior players and current year draft picks.

Edited May 25, 2022 by JuranBoldenRules

[Booch]

47 minutes ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

There was no 7 + 1 offer from the league.  It's not 7 AND, it's 7 with one spot being for an American with tenure.  The first substantive offer that got the strike vote was 4 + 2, dropping the ratio to 6 players and scrapping QB designation.   The offer that went to vote was 6 + 1 naturalized maintaining the 7 "Canadians" for the ratio but leaving the naturalized loophole for one spot and including starting QB's in the ratio, and then allowing a certain number of designated "naturalized" players to take some snaps in place of Canadians (the 49% rule which needs or needed a hell of a lot of refining).

There are protected practice roster spots for Canadians generally, junior players and current year draft picks.

 now tell me again there was no 7+1....straight from the original CBA ....the second bolded part of your retort is whats on table now...so yes....massive backfire by the members when voting it down....not sure what u not seeing

The new CBA provides an opportunity for veterans to negotiate partially guaranteed contracts. The CFL had initially rejected guaranteed deals.

 

• The ratio has been increased to starting eight Canadians, from seven. However, one of the national spots will go to an American who has at least three years of experience with the same team or five years in the league. The move is designed to address roster turnover, which has been a complaint among fans.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Booch

[Noeller]

 

 

[SpeedFlex27]

14 hours ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

Some interesting history on the ratio rules courtesy CFL database website cfldb.ca:

”Prior to the formation of the CFL, Canadian Rugby Unions restricted the number of imports on a team to five starting in 1936. In addition, players were required to reside in Canada for one year to participate in the Grey Cup. While the rule is sometimes described as being developed to protect Canadian jobs, it was in fact implemented to develop the sport in Canada since there were no football "jobs" to have in Canada. While many factors result in todays restrictions, it is recognizing having Canadians on the rosters and starting positions is important to the continued development of football in Canada.”

Roster changes over the years:

CRU still controlled roster restrictions in the mid-1950’s and limited teams to 10 imports and only 8 imports allowed to play in a game. So in effect 16 Canadian starters guaranteed on offence and defence. But unlimited availability of “naturalized non-imports”, who were deemed Canadian by virtue of 5 years of residency in Canada. 

1964 - active roster set at 30 players, 17 non-import and 13 import (so 11 starters have to be Canadians based on roster size), 2 man inactive roster (1 IMP, 1 NI), and NI status set as 5 years active residency in Canada or born in Canada with 13 or first 21 years spent in Canada

1965 - 32 man roster, 18 NI, 14 IMP, max 3 naturalized non-imports allowed on roster, so 10 starters would need to be Canadian. 

1968 - 1 of the IMP positions becomes a designated import, can only replace another IMP who cannot re-enter the game, so now 11 starters must be NI. 

1970 - the DI rule now includes QBs who can come in and out without limitation, so the dedicated back-up QB is established. 11 players will still be NI starters based on the roster numbers. 

1972 - roster up to 33 players, 18 NI, 15 IMP with one of them a DI, so now minimum 10 starting NI. Another 1 NI roster spot was added in 1973

1986 - The designations switched to 19 NI, 13 IMP, and 3 QB (one QB spot dropped in 1987 and rosters down to 34). The standard make-up of the starting offence and defence at that time was American QB, RB, and 2 WR on offence with 2 SB, FB and 5 OL as Canadians (so 8 of 12 Canadian positions on offence) and a Canadian nose tackle and safety with the rest American on defence (playing a 3-4 defence usually), the remainder of the Canadians were back-ups and the kicker/punter.  The Old DI rule was eliminated. 

1988 - roster 36, 20 NI, 14 IMP, 2 QB, now 1 DI limited to playing special teams, so still 10 starters will be Canadian. 

1990 - rosters go up by 1 QB spot to stand at 37

1993 - American based team joins the league, due to US labour laws the Canadian ratio rule cannot be implemented on those teams as the league expands through 1995.  Baltimore especially takes advantage of this discrepancy to stock it’s entire starting roster and all back-ups with Americans, giving them a decided competitive edge over the Canadian squads. 

2002 - significant change to ratio as rosters increase to 40 with a drop of one NI to 19 total, an increase of four IMP to 18, and 3 QB. Two of the imports are DI who can play unlimited in special teams, but can also replace another import on offence or defence. This guaranteed that no more than 16 IMP plus a (almost certainly American)  QB can be starters, allowing for a minimum of 7 Canadians to be starters (a drop of 3).

2006- rosters up to 42 with 1 NI and 1 IMP added, and the number of DI spots now up to 3, Canadian starting spots still secured at 7.

2014 - rosters up to 44 with the addition of 1 NI for a total of 21 (now called Nationals, with new rules on how they are classified), and 1 IMP (now called Internationals), now up to 20. Canadian starters still at 7 because the added IMP is another DI (now 4 of them to keep starting Americans at 16, and a QB).

2019 - rosters to 45 with the addition of a Global player, who does not need to be a starter. (Americans now called Americans)

2020 - rosters to 46 with a 45 man active roster and 1 man reserve with another Global player added and a QB removed if teams want. The reserve player can be any designation, but active roster still must allow for maximum 20 Americans, minimum 21 Canadians, and minimum 2 Globals, and 2 QBs. 7 starting Canadians required, but new rule allows for up to 3 American veterans classified as Canadians (3 years with club or 4 years in CFL) to replace them if they are injured, so potentially only 4 Canadian “starters” after the first play of the game. This is the first time an American can be labelled as a Canadian based solely on league tenure and not any citizenship requirements. FYI this CBA ratification passed with only 76% approval from the players.

Now the proposals have gone from no ratio at all, to the 7 Canadian starters but one re-classified American as the 8th “Canadian” starter full time, and 3 more who can replace Canadians regardless of injury or not if they play one snap less than half the game. And now the compromise which is remove the 49% rules but drop the Canadian ratio to 6 with a re-classified American as the 7th Canadian. 
 

Look at the long-term trend and you can see why Canadians might be concerned about losing their jobs, and why they might vote to reject a deal that would go against their own self-preservation. 

One last thought/question for those who think that the ratio should go because it is the unique rules of the CFL that make it great, not necessarily the Canadian players - if the league was entirely American players groomed on 4 down football with no Canadians or players who played a 3 down version in college, how soon before the next CBA where they vote to change all the rules to the same as the NFL, and how much resistence would any of those exclusively American players give to that change that so many traditionalists are vehemently against? 
 

Nice history lesson but what jobs will Canadian players be protecting if the league shuts down or ceases operations? Which is a real possibility. Pissing the fans off by shutting things down won't win them any support from the public. If the CFL does shut down then tertiary support staff will lose their jobs thru layoffs on teams & the league office. Training staff, coaches, scouts, sales & marketing people, admin & secretarial, etc.

Yep, pick this hill to die on, Canuck players. Right after a pandemic. You make sure to fight like crazy to protect your jobs but to hell with the lives of everyone else. . No skin off your nose ifinnocent people have to pay bills or put food on their tables to feed their families. Selfish idiots.

Edited May 26, 2022 by SpeedFlex27