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

[JCon]

3 minutes ago, Arnold_Palmer said:

Agreed that’s a good looking number. Should be brought back 

Taken.

[Noeller]

11 minutes ago, Booch said:

who said anything about extra Imports creating more rev's?....honest question...did I miss a news soundbite some where as I havnt seen that

 

Yes, I believe it was Naylor who tweeted it out. The league's position is that they need to have less Canadians in order to improve the quality of the game, which would then increase revenues. 

[JCon]

3 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Yes, I believe it was Naylor who tweeted it out. The league's position is that they need to have less Canadians in order to improve the quality of the game, which would then increase revenues. 

Any word on the merger with XFL? That will save the league too. Maybe, we should be moving some of these teams to the US? Cheaper there. 

[Booch]

2 minutes ago, Noeller said:

Yes, I believe it was Naylor who tweeted it out. The league's position is that they need to have less Canadians in order to improve the quality of the game, which would then increase revenues. 

ahhh....a Naylor Narrative.......but if game quality improved....it could conceivably do that at some point....or not....but....you could field better rosters both Canadian and American as you wouldnt have to pay a sub par tenured Canadian backup gobs of money...just cause they Canadian and hanging on for yrs....a big part of this in the Owners/Teams eyes is fiscal, and better/more bang for their buck in salaries paid

[JCon]

Just now, Booch said:

ahhh....a Naylor Narrative.......but if game quality improved....it could conceivably do that at some point....or not....but....you could field better rosters both Canadian and American as you wouldnt have to pay a sub par tenured Canadian backup gobs of money...just cause they Canadian and hanging on for yrs....a big part of this in the Owners/Teams eyes is fiscal, and better/more bang for their buck in salaries paid

There's a cap. They won't save any money. They'll always spend to the cap. 

[wbbfan]

20 minutes ago, Rod Black said:

This years training camp. Number 00 is worn by Les Maruo LB. 

I hope it’s not just a camp number. 

[Booch]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

There's a cap. They won't save any money. They'll always spend to the cap. 

yeah...obviously....didnt say they would spend under cap....but you could pay 2 Travis Bond types on entry contracts as opposed to prob that same salary combined in 1 sub par Canadian back up lineman...and be better for it...thats what I was referring to...bang for buck...not bang for less bucks....

[JCon]

2 minutes ago, Booch said:

yeah...obviously....didnt say they would spend under cap....but you could pay 2 Travis Bond types on entry contracts as opposed to prob that same salary combined in 1 sub par Canadian back up lineman...and be better for it...thats what I was referring to...bang for buck...not bang for less bucks....

But, you're not going to do that. You'll still have the same roster size and the same total value of contracts. It will all smooth out. 

 

Unless you think you can bring in more revenue with Americans, there is no point to changing the ratio with a salary and roster cap. 

[MOBomberFan]

3 minutes ago, JCon said:

There's a cap. They won't save any money. They'll always spend to the cap. 

The argument isn't that they will spend less money overall, rather they'll spend it on superior players. That's better bang for your buck

[Jesse]

Derek Taylor describing how all non-US based sports work (Thread):

 

[Booch]

4 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said:

The argument isn't that they will spend less money overall, rather they'll spend it on superior players. That's better bang for your buck

someone gets it...and aligns with what ownership wants....dont go off some twitter yappin that it would increase revenue....soley not the case or intention...its also about being able to have guys signed who can play with minimal up coaching and seasoning...which trust me...is a huge issue with a lot of positional coaches in the league...and yes....also to a degree improve quality of play....now imagine an olineman goes down and the backup....rookie...long time not good enough to actually start but there cause a) his passport matches a ratio or b) there was nobody else to have tere...to said ratio and your QB gets killed and is out for yr....thats where coaches and management are coming from....sure, any player can miss an assignment, and get beat...so dont go on that tangent....but a better...more polished/experienced guy who has no roster limitations is less likely

[MOBomberFan]

10 minutes ago, Booch said:

someone gets it...

Trust me I've been nodding along to everything you've been saying, so much that my neck is starting to hurt. I'm honestly a bit surprised by how much pushback a slight reduction to the ratio is receiving. The benefits are immediately obvious to anyone not currently playing backup Canadian benchwarmer.

[Jesse]

4 minutes ago, Booch said:

someone gets it...and aligns with what ownership wants....dont go off some twitter yappin that it would increase revenue....soley not the case or intention...its also about being able to have guys signed who can play with minimal up coaching and seasoning...which trust me...is a huge issue with a lot of positional coaches in the league...and yes....also to a degree improve quality of play....now imagine an olineman goes down and the backup....rookie...long time not good enough to actually start but there cause a) his passport matches a ratio or b) there was nobody else to have tere...to said ratio and your QB gets killed and is out for yr....thats where coaches and management are coming from....sure, any player can miss an assignment, and get beat...so dont go on that tangent....but a better...more polished/experienced guy who has no roster limitations is less likely

You know Booch, you've been taking all off-season how our team is as good or better than last season - hyping up Grey and Dobson, previously on the Eli train and saying we could bring him back, promising that we have cap room if Deslaurias sneaks loose.

But now suddenly Canadian depth hurts the team and is going to get our QB killed if we have an injury to a Canadian.

You can't have it both ways, the Canadians can play or they can't.

The best players go to the US, The next tier that comes to Canada comes here and starts and has success if they have the ability. The guys we are talking about this affecting is on the back half of the roster and Woli vs. McKnight wouldn't move anyone's needle.

[Booch]

2 minutes ago, MOBomberFan said:

Trust me I've been nodding along to everything you've been saying, so much that my neck is starting to hurt. I'm honestly a bit surprised by how much pushback a slight reduction to the ratio is receiving. The benefits are immediately obvious to anyone not currently playing backup Canadian benchwarmer.

sad part...there was no reduction in first CBA Proposal...thats the kick to the onions and why we are where we at now

 

2 minutes ago, Jesse said:

You know Booch, you've been taking all off-season how our team is as good or better than last season - hyping up Grey and Dobson, previously on the Eli train and saying we could bring him back, promising that we have cap room if Deslaurias sneaks loose.

But now suddenly Canadian depth hurts the team and is going to get our QB killed if we have an injury to a Canadian.

You can't have it both ways, the Canadians can play or they can't.

The best players go to the US, The next tier that comes to Canada comes here and starts and has success if they have the ability. The guys we are talking about this affecting is on the back half of the roster and Woli vs. McKnight wouldn't move anyone's needle.

i've barely said much about Dobson until last week...and yeah I hype with what hand we are dealt....I never said "our" depth...it was a generalized statement that could be any team...stop putting words in people's mouths and twist things to suit your narrative...where did I say our Canadian depth is hurting us??...go ....find that.....good luck...If anything I have said we have best Canadian depth in league...bet your narrow minded mind u can find that tho

And yeah...If a team could roster all Americans as starters they would be greatly improved....or if ratio was reduced by...3...1....5....pick a number...the player being replaced would be better....sorry to burst your bubble....and ask any coach in the league and you would be hard pressed to find one that said otherwise...

Also...whats the Woli/Mcnight comparison??...Mcknight I doubt makes roster anyway, and the original CBA....once again...to refresh your mind...which was voted down...didnt reduce existing National starters....7...is 7...how is that so hard to wrap mind around??....now they are staring down 6 Nationals...last time I checked 6 is less than 7....ooops....sure screwed that up membership (mainly Canadians) cause your reps might be scaled down...and the player now who would be sacrificed wont be Woli...or any other Canadian who started...or who was used in heavy rotation...it will be a guy who was strictly on teams...and spent majority of game standing around....you do see that too....right??

[Mike]

16 minutes ago, Jesse said:

You know Booch, you've been taking all off-season how our team is as good or better than last season - hyping up Grey and Dobson, previously on the Eli train and saying we could bring him back, promising that we have cap room if Deslaurias sneaks loose.

But now suddenly Canadian depth hurts the team and is going to get our QB killed if we have an injury to a Canadian.

You can't have it both ways, the Canadians can play or they can't.

The best players go to the US, The next tier that comes to Canada comes here and starts and has success if they have the ability. The guys we are talking about this affecting is on the back half of the roster and Woli vs. McKnight wouldn't move anyone's needle.

While I generally agree with the premise of what you’re saying, it’s not as simple as Wolitarsky vs McKnight or a comparison such as that one.

There are players right now in every single training camp who are probably cut out to be stars in this league but are going to get cut because they’re fighting for a spot earmarked for a Canadian and they either don’t get enough reps, can’t afford to sit on a practice roster to develop, just don’t fit the makeup of the roster, etc.

There are players sitting at home right now in the US who got offered contracts but opted to not come up here because they know there’s (for example) only one American spot available between 20 recruits at receiver and the odds aren’t worth dropping what they’ve got going on in their life.

Those are the situations the league thinks they can improve by reducing the ratio. Whether or not I agree is one thing, but that’s more in line with their theory.  

[Jpan85]

Also it makes no sense that greatest player at his position in league history maybe just break the top ten paid at his position. 

[Booch]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

While I generally agree with the premise of what you’re saying, it’s not as simple as Wolitarsky vs McKnight or a comparison such as that one.

There are players right now in every single training camp who are probably cut out to be stars in this league but are going to get cut because they’re fighting for a spot earmarked for a Canadian and they either don’t get enough reps, can’t afford to sit on a practice roster to develop, just don’t fit the makeup of the roster, etc.

There are players sitting at home right now in the US who got offered contracts but opted to not come up here because they know there’s (for example) only one American spot available between 20 recruits at receiver and the odds aren’t worth dropping what they’ve got going on in their life.

Those are the situations the league thinks they can improve by reducing the ratio. Whether or not I agree is one thing, but that’s more in line with their theory.  

yeah...exactly...but you know as well as I that we will still have a faction that cant grasp that....times change....sometimes change is good when at first people dont like it...human nature.....fact of the matter tho is the players...or some didnt want a reduction in ratio....and now they basically caused one from their own narrow minded thinking...or whatever you wanna call it

[TBURGESS]

Some Canadians are good enough to start, but most aren't. Finding the 7th starter has always been a problem for most teams and that becomes even harder when a starting NI goes down. That's why NI starters get paid more than comparable imports & NI backups get paid more than DI's. For Example: Every team has backup NI OL's getting paid more than starting imports.

The current offer seems to be 1 less guaranteed starting NI spot, but the same number of NI jobs. NI's cry 'Slippery Slope', when it only affects 1 player per team & that player can still get the starting job if they beat out an import anyway. They are basically saying that they can't compete on even ground so they should be given a starting spot.

[Jesse]

McKnight was our first man off the bench last season. As example of the American talent that we recruit that is supposedly "way better".

Woli is an example of a Canadian who stand to lose his starting spot. 

[Booch]

Just now, Jesse said:

McKnight was our first man off the bench last season. As example of the American talent that we recruit that is supposedly "way better".

Woli is an example of a Canadian who stand to lose his starting spot. 

u do know...the CBA voted down "still" required 7 nationals...right??????...and a new 8th...whom was an American who met naturalized requirements...so Woli wouldnt have lost his spot starting....you get that eh??....like cmon.....now its 6 nationals cause they voted the previous down....u grasp that as well...correct???

[JuranBoldenRules]

17 minutes ago, Mike said:

While I generally agree with the premise of what you’re saying, it’s not as simple as Wolitarsky vs McKnight or a comparison such as that one.

There are players right now in every single training camp who are probably cut out to be stars in this league but are going to get cut because they’re fighting for a spot earmarked for a Canadian and they either don’t get enough reps, can’t afford to sit on a practice roster to develop, just don’t fit the makeup of the roster, etc.

There are players sitting at home right now in the US who got offered contracts but opted to not come up here because they know there’s (for example) only one American spot available between 20 recruits at receiver and the odds aren’t worth dropping what they’ve got going on in their life.

Those are the situations the league thinks they can improve by reducing the ratio. Whether or not I agree is one thing, but that’s more in line with their theory.  

Absolutely.  But the changes they are proposing hurt American rookies and their opportunity to make it on the roster in the regular season.  They favour teams keeping veteran Americans who then can be utilized in protected roster spots.  

The leagues stated goal is to improve consistency on rosters they lost by going down to one year contracts and grow revenue by developing the relationship between teams and their fanbases.

[Jesse]

Just now, Booch said:

u do know...the CBA voted down "still" required 7 nationals...right??????...and a new 8th...whom was an American who met naturalized requirements...so Woli wouldnt have lost his spot starting....you get that eh??....like cmon.....now its 6 nationals cause they voted the previous down....u grasp that as well...correct???

Listen, I believe in the ratio and don't really want to see it changed. We can agree to disagree on that.

There have been a few versions of the CBA so far, I don't think we can really debate specific clauses because I don't think we really know for sure what was voted on and why or why not it was voted down. The only one I remember seeing that 7+1 was one was the snap percentages - which is really 5.5 nationals, not 7. But again, I don't think it makes sense to debate it too much, it's all hearsay.

Mike made the point that there's a faction of players who don't come here because it's not worth the attempt to come here and compete for one spot - I honestly don't believe that changes too much even if we completely abandon the ratio. We have 20 DBs here to compete for 1 or 2 spots - that doesn't change because of the ratio. We have a bunch of receivers here to compete for 1 or 2 spots. Do we have a ton more guys making the trip for 2 or 3 spots? The trip to Canada to play in a different league will always turn a large group of Americans away. The same way hockey players will move on rather than go to the KHL. 

We may see a few back end of roster spots improve because of more options - but I can't see a way it vastly improves the game, and it costs us an identity that - while you disagree with - IS important to many fans. 

[Noeller]

 

[Jesse]

Like that they're talking - don't love the snap counts being back in play - was really hoping for a solution that didn't include that component. 

[Booch]

Just now, Jesse said:

Like that they're talking - don't love the snap counts being back in play - was really hoping for a solution that didn't include that component. 

can I ask why?...its basically just more flexible rotation...not a reduction in a starting required Canadians roster spot