TrueBlue4ever

I would disagree that there is a difference in leeway, especially given that this was not a national broadcast but a local podcast and he is there to offer opinions just like a panelist, but I accept that this is your point of view. I know Suitor saying it and it being the Riders will trigger people more than if someone else said it, and I still contend the bigger problem is that the weak league rules make this kind of violation a viable option open for discussion, more than who in the media suggests it.

Putting aside that this statement is not at all a “fact” but just an opinion, why would the league MOP and back-to-back Grey Cup champion QB wanting or deserving to be the league’s top earner be totally unreasonable? Lots of wishful thinking around here that of course Collaros will do what’s best for the team and not him, and those wishes may come true, but it would be hard to walk away if say the RedBlacks or Argos offered him $550,000-575,000 and the Bombers offered $75,000-100,000 less. And he has all the leverage given who else is out there right now and who the Bombers have in the stable behind him. If it comes down to giving him an extra $50,000 to keep him or re-signing Brandon Alexander, I would happily wish Alexander well and see him go elsewhere. JMO.

Like Milt Stegall when he is asked for his game prediction and says he “has to pick my team?” Like Troy Aikman yesterday complaint that he should have gotten the Cowboy-Niners broadcast instead of Romo? Like Bob Cole and Harry Neale on every HNIC game that the Maple Leafs were a part of? Like every TSN broadcast now that covers Maple Leaf practices during the national Sportcentre updates? Suitor hardly invented homerism, and is arguably not the worst offender, especially if you consider the context of his remarks being made on a Saskatchewan podcast answering specifically if the Riders should be concerned about the salary signings. The bad look comes from the fact that it again exposes how useless the salary cap violation penalties are. That is what should be the focus here.

What are you basing that on exactly?

Is there any reason Collaros shouldn’t be the highest paid player in the league?

Someone should walk up to the vehicle and say to the driver “Glad to see you support ANTIFA”. Would anger and then confuse the hell out of them.

I think that it is a bit of a reach to say he is a league rep. He works for a broadcaster who has the TV rights. That doesn’t make him beholden to the league and must follow their marching orders. TSN broadcasts game for their own benefit (ratings and advertising dollars generated from it). They don’t speak “for” the league. And when a broadcaster appears on a local podcast, his comments are going to be about that team, and he will play to that base. Now, is it a bad look for the league for him to say a team should violate the cap? Yes, but not specifically because it is Suitor saying it or it is the Roughriders as the focal point. It’s bad because it highlights how weak the penalties are for violations (Toronto went over and the league waived their penalty) and how the payoff more than makes the violation worth it. Sask netted over $10 million in profit from winning their last home Grey Cup and the league does nothing to really dissuade the practice.

He is loving the attention that comment has gotten him. Rule 1 of the Charles Adler school of broadcasting “It doesn’t matter if people love you or hate you. What matters is that they’re talking about you”.

I will honestly say that my knowledge of the transplant waitlist protocols pre-dates the pandemic or vaccine status, so it may well have changed. Historically my understanding is that acute need is the first qualifier for treatment, and not personal circumstances of self-care. Perhaps the pandemic crush and clear distinction between vaccinated and non-vaccinated as people who are ready to assist in or ignore health care directives will create a new dialogue and change the order of preferential treatment. As was mentioned before, the fear is the “slippery slope” argument. Will we then deny smokers equal access to health care when resources are stretched thin, or drug users, or drinkers, or the obese? Seemingly obvious questions but with potentially complicated answers.

Those plans are already in place and have been long before the pandemic. And like it or not, priority has always been based on acute need. This directly from my wife and others who work in health care and say it is unethical to do otherwise The cardiac care unit has a limited number of beds, so not everyone who needs a heart transplant can get one right away, even if a healthy heart is available. So a wait list is created, and it is based on who is in most acute need of a heart. I know a former transplant coordinator who was in charge of the wait list for the Province, and she had to make these decisions frequently, in some cases essentially deciding who lived and who died. Someone who will die in two weeks is put behind someone who will die in two days, even if the next heart is a day away and the one after that is a month away. And they won’t look at who was the heavy smoker or morbidly obese bs the one who had a congenital defect to decide who is more “worthy” of the heart. Alcoholics who destroyed their kidneys do not get put last in line for dialysis because their lifestyle choice may have contributed to an addiction. So as much as some see it as unfair that those who refuse the vaccination and take no personal responsibility to protect themselves and others will get the same ICU opportunity as the vaccinated, and possibly bump cancer patients as one example, this is the system that is and has always been in place. Not saying it is right or wrong, but just that this is the way it is.

It’s funny how often debates about saving the CFL and not turning it into the NFL turn into arguments about the merits of each game and why people who pump up the NFL or talk down the CFL in comparison are right or wrong. And maybe this is the issue that we need to ignore rather than examine to start fixing the league. I wrote about looking at the Australian model of Aussie Rules vs rugby, and maybe the answer there is that they DON’T compare themselves. There is such an inferiority complex about Canada and the CFL and that Toronto isn’t big league without the NFL. Trying to measure up to the NFL seems like the wrong approach. Just accept that the NFL is bigger, louder, better athletes, provides better entertainment. So what? There is room to watch NHL and NFL in the same months without always needing to compare the two, because they are different. So let’s start treating the CFL the same way. It is a different sport than American football, is a summer league and not a fall league, there can be room for both in our world. Let it rise or fall on its own merit and stop worrying about competing with the NFL. Sell it on its own, fix the issues with marketing or costs or rules without getting caught up in “how does the NFL compare”. Now I know some will say we need to compare since the players we have are always at risk to go to the big league, so you can’t ignore it. And not comparing hockey to NFL is easy because there is no player overlap. Well, maybe stop worrying about players leaving and remember that there are a bunch of two sport athletes in baseball and football who choose one over the other and no one sweats about MLB if a draft pick chooses football instead. And CFL rosters have always managed to be stocked in the past with the NFL around. Push the uniqueness of the game here on its own without trying to show why it can one-up the NFL. Avoid the discussion of “well the NFL is better” with critics and focus on if the CFL is good enough of its own accord. Because the NFL argument doesn’t solve any problems and is just going to be a losing fight at the end of the day. Stop trying to convert NFL fans and work on making them CFL fans as well as opposed to instead.

Too young to remember the fall of the Soviet Union?

Can you imagine a line of Richards, Tootoo, and Heatley? Best wait for the “B” sample to clear before celebrating that win.

Is it a problem getting youth players to play the current 3 down game? My brother’s youngest in in high school football in Toronto, and he says 3 down football hurts their development because the one less down mean much more punting and they don’t get the reps to learn. Not sure if there is any validity to that, but has BC not moved to a 4 down game at all levels outside of CIS and the CFL? Do we need kids playing the 3 down version in grade school to make them CFL fans as they get older? Thoughts?

I wonder if looking at the Australian model would be of use. Aussie rules football is the most popular sport in the country, despite the fact that it is a unique game that sort of morphs out of rugby (which is much more popular worldwide and certainly has a foothold in Australia, especially in New South Wales and Queensland where rugby is more popular and where two of the three largest cities -Sydney and Brisbane - are). Attendance-wise and TV ratings-wise, Aussie rules is #1 when up against the more global game of rugby? Why does it not suffer like the CFL does in comparison to the more global NFL (theoretically - TV ratings info is inconsistent but it does not appear on every study like NFL viewership in Canada dwarfs CFL ratings - help me out if anyone has hard data)? Is this becoming a Toronto-media driven perception? Does the CFL need to think smaller instead of bigger and get into smaller regional markets with drastically reduced costs? Is that even possible? What other marketing initiatives can be implemented?

But has the league been fighting this problem or ignoring it?

So based on that report, the league must wrestle with one big question: who do we cater to? It is often said that the league must attract new younger fans. Well, if this survey is to be implemented, then the best path forward for those young fans is to adopt the NFL model. But the older fans are the ones with the disposable income who will buy the season tickets and want things status quo. So are we at the point of “adapt or die” which will alienate the (aging, dwindling, and already tiny 3%) diehards but is the preferred option of the next generation, or is there another way to woo the youngsters. Would they even really care if the rules changed, or would they still stay away?

“An article that had nothing to do with the Bombers didn’t bend over backwards to praise their greatness at every turn. What a slap in the face to this franchise!”

Lots to like about tonight’s game, especially given how many regular bodies were out and how long they were off. Copp was everywhere and could have potted 4 or 5. Scheifele put on his work boots and was playing well with Copp, and even made a great stick lift in the high slot to take away a prime Red Wing scoring opportunity in the 2nd. Svechnikov was in good position most of the night but just a half inch away on a few stick handles tonight from making a play. Connor-Dubois-Perfetti gave us a tantalizing view of the future. Controlled the play and the cycle when they were on, and that one 3-way pass play deserves to end up in the net. Perfetti has some sweet hands and brilliant vision. Bottom 6 did their jobs. Nothing truly noteworthy but the Wings never had sustained pressure for an entire shift until the 6 on 3. Defensively quite the gem. Morrissey was jumping up offensively more than any other game I can recall this year, but was smart about it. Schmidt played the big body game. DeMelo steady. Pionk had some nice passes and the penalty he took was a “good” one in that it stopped a net front scoring chance. As for the new kids, Samberg looked comfortable for game one and had some great body positioning to shield the puck and still skate the puck out of the zone with an opponent on his back. And Chisholm picked a puck out of mid-air to stop a breakaway pass in the 3rd. Hellebuyck was at his best, which means his body was in the way of the puck without looking like he was working hard or diving into position. Some smart quick passes out of the defensive zone, great sticks in the lanes, and some more aggressiveness on the penalty pressuring the puck handler (although not chasing the puck, and they still did sit back at times). Yeah, I’ve missed hockey during the COVID break.

KFC with the shorty into the empty net. And another Michigan alum goal makes it 3-0.

Fair point. Still have to play the homer card a bit, though, as the host broadcaster. And there are some out there who are MUCH MUCH worse at that. Having to come in after the combo of Hnidy and Ferraro is pretty thankless.

So I think Kevin Sawyer could be decent (not great, but acceptable) as a colour guy, and he can give some good insight and analysis, but he seems to be trying way too hard. 3 immediate things he could do to improve: 1. Limit 95-99% of his comments to the time during the play stoppages. Analyze the play when there is a break, not during live play. At most, a 5 word sentence if there is a transition in play that buys you a 2-3 second lull, otherwise wait for the whistle. 2. Keep it short (ironic coming from me, I know). Hockey is a fast game so play by play needs to be quick and simply stated. Adding long commentary in the middle of the action as the colour guy makes the play by play guy miss things. 3. Eliminate the folksy jokey stuff with Beyak in live game time. Way too much “buddy” banter, especially in live action time. Save the campfire story time for an extended break only when you need filler, and no more than once a game, or fit in a one second one-liner after a whistle and then move back to the game. Beyak has gotten sucked into these conversations more and more and is missing calls because he is talking about something else. I think the two of them have good chemistry but have not translated it into a tight broadcast for the games yet.

Copp with the snipe as the Jets’ penalty ends makes it 2-0.