Booch

yeah...I agree on that....how and who keeps track of the snaps....but I like the idea of the naturalized player, maybe just say 20 snaps a game max...be easier to count and manage....who cant count? lol

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

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

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

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

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....

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

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 and someone is..Mauro I believe....and someone else is wearing 0

those 3 could prob all still play and produce

That's dropping a ball in a nice spot on a corner fade that only the reciever can get if played correct...a ball u purposely lob with air under it...and not on a rope...

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

its about quality of player....not BC....let the best players make a team based on talent...some people are so narrow minded thinking it's cause they came from a glitzy U.S program...as a paying fan...u should want to be getting what u pay for...Canadian..American...******* russian...times change...things eveolve...no body is holding a gun to your head to support a team and go watch....if u choose not too cause its not "canadian" enough...see ya later...your choice 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....

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 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

i thought u were implying to pooching the ratio....u said reducing ratio was implied would raise the level of play...and I agree with what Naylor said....U never said anything about 1 player...or fans in the seats....But if you replace a 2nd string Canadian reciever who backs up your star, with a bonafide NCAA standout, or an American who has experience in the CFL and was successful, or was doing time in the NFL...then yeah....the WR play would be better, and prob give the QB another option than the Back-up who would basically be ignored

it would....how you say it wouldnt is ridiculous

yeah..I think thats what the Americans wanted....and when u look at it..Ratio wasnt reduced...just an option to sub americans into the spot for limited snaps

like apples and flesh....2 total different things

they didnt like the "percieved" reduction in ratio...whic it wasnt....was basically the chance of reduced snaps by naturalized Americans...no drop in their salary...still 7 national starters...which would require 7 viable backups due to injury...was a petty reason to say no if u ask me...now they staring down an actual loss of a canadian starting spot....******* fools