Jump to content

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


JCon
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours 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 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

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

Aaa baseball is every bit as major league as the cfl. Any league with a ratio isn’t a top tier league. 
 The Japanese baseball league is easily 10x bigger than the cfl. They post players to mlb every year and make more than the entire leagues salary cap with singular players. 
 The top level of European basketball is even higher up than the npb. 

Man the league went into this like a lion and is going out like a lamb. Such a joke that they tried to strong arm and hardball the players instead of just negotiating in good faith.

 1 naturalized Canadian is a good start. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Super Duper Negatron said:

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?

I imagine if this went through, those part time Canadians would be paid less and back-up imports (who meet the nationalized criteria) would earn more.

I don't think guys like Woli and Thomas have the same earning power if they're benched half the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

people are looking at it the wrong way....they could play those snaps....not they have to, nor are obligated too...the option is there and it helps a team especially with in game injury....a true canadian starter will not see his earning power reduced, as you cant predict game snaps into the future..that argument is just ludicrous

Also, coaches like Oshea....christ I'd be shocked if he even gave his Canadian starters even 25% less snaps...let alone 49...why would he...up until last yr we had Canadian starters who were better than their American counter parts on other teams....fact of the matter...if you are good enough...you will play...if you are not....you wont make the squad..Canadian..American...martian...earn your keep...keep nose to the grindstone and play ball....if u slack at your joe fan job...suck at it...or are a detriment to your company or organization....u get replaced too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CFL does way too much navel gazing on the product and misses the big picture.  Remember when they set the blocking rules on kick returns so that basically only a perfect block chest to chest was legal?  They overcomplicate things to the point of stupidity.  That’s my major issue with this roster rule change.  How the hell do you administer these rules?  
 

Take away one DI (won’t matter anyway if all the punters are Aussies), add two Canadian roster spots and axe the ratio completely.  Now the refs can call a football game instead of having subs reporting constantly, and you’ll have the same number of Canadians playing.  Is anyone worried that 20 imports will play the entire game on a 46ish man roster?

Edited by JuranBoldenRules
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

The CFL does way too much navel gazing on the product and misses the big picture.  Remember when they set the blocking rules on kick returns so that basically only a perfect block chest to chest was legal?  They overcomplicate things to the point of stupidity.  That’s my major issue with this roster rule change.  How the hell do you administer these rules?  
 

Take away one DI (won’t matter anyway if all the punters are Aussies), add two Canadian roster spots and axe the ratio completely.  Now the refs can call a football game instead of having subs reporting constantly, and you’ll have the same number of Canadians playing.  Is anyone worried that 20 imports will play the entire game on a 46ish man roster

6he6lf.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Booch said:

and the fact that employee kept coming for more....even after being bitchslapped....u reep what u sow...Langley in my opinion isnt the bad guy here, and hope that doesnt ruin his chance to try out

He's been suspended by the Stamps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bigblue204 said:

No it's 6 and 1 I'm fairly sure. I'm fine with them making it 6 true starters and 1 american who has aged in. The 49% bullshit was just a dumb idea from the jump. 

Also lets not all jump on what the media (Especially TO media) are saying. I've seen at least 2 americans say they voted no as well. This wasn't JUST about the ratio and Canadians.

But even if it was. Tough ****. This is Canada. Don't like it. Leave. I'm 100% in for an all Canadian league even though I know it wouldn't be what we've come to enjoy.

We already have an All Canadian football league called U Sports & no one watches or cares. They don't even fill 2,000 seat stadiums. You'd be watching alone as no one would come with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours 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.

 

We already pay lower salaries to Globals like Thiadric Hansen who deserve more money & don't get it because of the CBA. U sports does the developing. That's why they're there. The only way a player truly develops is to play. Not constantly practice.

Edited by SpeedFlex27
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 
 

Edited by TrueBlue4ever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

agreed.....they didnt have a ratio reduction in the first tentative agreement, and now they basically seem to be getting one, and the CFL is standing hard on it...and don't blame them either....u cant reject something, and ask for more, or something different and not expect to have to give something back.....I dont blame th CFLPA bargaining committee...I balme it on either a) a total lack of communication or b) a cancerous core of players who felt slighted and orchestrated a "no" vote.....and I lean toward more of option B just from experience and what I know....Simoni Lawrence is a yapper and generally a mouthpiece and overall doucher....but there is a lot of merit to what he tweeted...whether people in media and on teams refute it....maybe they can suck up their pride a re-vote on the original...as it was the best they were gonna get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

These players are just a total bunch of dummies. You can tell they’re not on the same level at all with the businesspeople who own these teams. 

I guess it depends on why they're digging in their heels.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

This may have something to do with it.

Absolutely, we've just heard a few conflicting things so it's hard to know if this is a single issue or if there' a few things stalling the deal.

I do not think the ratio should be reduced, but I also like the idea of rewarding/benefits for a  "naturalized" American. I'm having trouble reconciling it, so I can see why it's so hard to negotiate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Booch said:

agreed.....they didnt have a ratio reduction in the first tentative agreement, and now they basically seem to be getting one, and the CFL is standing hard on it...and don't blame them either....u cant reject something, and ask for more, or something different and not expect to have to give something back.....I dont blame th CFLPA bargaining committee...I balme it on either a) a total lack of communication or b) a cancerous core of players who felt slighted and orchestrated a "no" vote.....and I lean toward more of option B just from experience and what I know....Simoni Lawrence is a yapper and generally a mouthpiece and overall doucher....but there is a lot of merit to what he tweeted...whether people in media and on teams refute it....maybe they can suck up their pride a re-vote on the original...as it was the best they were gonna get

They won’t get the original offer again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bigblue204 said:

 

pretending like you've read either offer is funny. 

I don’t have to read the offer to know the players have mismanaged this.

They had an incredibly bad voter turnout on a deal they proposed and now they’re naive enough to think they’re going to get a better deal. That tells me all I need to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mike said:

I don’t have to read the offer to know the players have mismanaged this.

They had an incredibly bad voter turnout on a deal they proposed and now they’re naive enough to think they’re going to get a better deal. That tells me all I need to know.

What kind of better deal are they looking for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...