Off-season Rule Change

[TecnoGenius]

The Naturalized American rule is mostly rooted in CBA negotiations (American players concern) to level the playing field for contracts between Nationals and long serving Americans. Nationals get a very real premium and Americans who play in the league for a long time wanted some of that too (and it's quite a reasonable request). Adding a National and then allowing it to be filled by an American whose spent quite a bit of time helping to build the league was give and take by the National players to allow the change. It's fulfilled by game day roster management but it's not solving a game day roster management issue. If you follow.

Ignore the DNAs for now, that's a whole other can of worms, and as you said, it's completely separate from the NA issue at hand.

So you've identified 1 other thing the NA rule changed, and it's a better point than the prior "needs a NAT to sub in for" one.  And you're right, this one is an out-of-game roster/money thing.

But as I think about it, I think this aspect is also a no-op because there's no shortage of qualified IMPs to be NA.  If like 1/3 of your starting Americans qualify, then there's no leverage by any single NA-able IMP to demand more money.

Was there any hint 1 vet on each team got more $ when the rule took effect?  Or that it extended anyone's career (another possibility)?

If they really wanted to do that, they should have tweaked the rule to so many years-in-service that only 1-2 guys qualify on each team.  Then they'd be in higher demand and possibly obtain more $ and longer shelf life.

Good discussion: it makes clear why the league/CFLPA did what they did, but also demonstrates the (posited) lack of de facto impact.

[TecnoGenius]

I am for anything that makes the rules simpler.  A major obstacle to gaining new fans is that they don't understand the game. As the years go by the task of learning the game from scratch becomes more daunting.

Took me at least 7 years of reading this forum every day to get to the level of having any hope whatsoever of understanding most of the rules.  And that was mostly during a time when all the silly ratio/nationality things were much simpler!

And I must say, learning and grokking ratio rules is not fun, except maybe just the plain old 7-starters thing.  At least learning the on-field rulebook has an aspect of "fun" to it.

[TecnoGenius]

I'm still waiting to see if anybody can name either a NA or DA in any of our games and how that impacted the game etc etc.

We used to list DNA on our public gameday chart.  But we stopped like a year ago.  Which is funny because by rule DNAs must be picked and listed.

I'm not sure I've ever seen NA listed.  Heck, like you said, there were a ton of games last year we had no idea who the 4 DIs were!!  That also is required to be shown by rule.

But as Junkie admonished me about, we're just plebes who cannot be privy to such secret information as the actual "real" roster handed to the league.  We just get the drivel dribbled out by the team that they call a "chart" (the worst out of all 9 teams, BTW).  We cannot know any designation details because reasons.  They guard that info more than Pepsi does their syrup formula.

[TecnoGenius]

I don't believe the Bombers have ever used it, but other teams have.

If you mean NA, we are "using it", by rule.  Now being transparent about it, nah.

If you mean DNA, we are also "using it", by rule, and we even used to show it on the charts (like in its first year).  If you mean "using it" as in giving IMPs more snaps: no, I'm not sure we've ever used it for even one snap.  Hence why we "win" the extra DPs every year.

MOS and/or KW (don't remember which, probably MOS) has publicly stated they don't even think about it for in-game sub descisions.

[TecnoGenius]

Aug 23 game 12 against the Ti-Cats, Stanley goes down, Randolph takes his place in game and plays the next game as well.  Neufeld hasn't shuffled to Tackle in over 4 years, Gray had more versatility as an injury replacement.

I was wondering about that, must have been the same game Eli filled in for Neufeld, so the ratio didn't change.

When we are starting our normally-rostered-desired-starters 3 NAT + 2 IMP OL, and doing our normal 2 NAT backup dress, then we never have a backup IMP dressed.  Ever (well, not in the past few seasons).

If Randolph was dressed then that meant prior-week injuries had us short on OL.  If we started Eli or Wallace ahead of Randolph for a game then that was probably short-lived until we saw Randolph was a way better OG than either backup NAT.  I remember the instant we put Randolph in Neuf's spot, our OL was legit stout for the first time all season.

I could have sworn Neuf swept out to OT once '24, but it may have been '23.  Like I said, when your normal 5 start, you are putting Neuf out to OT ahead of either Eli or Wallace.  Only Randolph has a hope at OT.  I guess there's possible future hope for Wallace at OT, but my guess is only as a backup OT.

You guys are right that our OL had the worst string of injuries in '24, and the roster was often chaotic week to week and even in-game.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Ignore the DNAs for now, that's a whole other can of worms, and as you said, it's completely separate from the NA issue at hand.

So you've identified 1 other thing the NA rule changed, and it's a better point than the prior "needs a NAT to sub in for" one.  And you're right, this one is an out-of-game roster/money thing.

But as I think about it, I think this aspect is also a no-op because there's no shortage of qualified IMPs to be NA.  If like 1/3 of your starting Americans qualify, then there's no leverage by any single NA-able IMP to demand more money.

Was there any hint 1 vet on each team got more $ when the rule took effect?  Or that it extended anyone's career (another possibility)?

If they really wanted to do that, they should have tweaked the rule to so many years-in-service that only 1-2 guys qualify on each team.  Then they'd be in higher demand and possibly obtain more $ and longer shelf life.

Good discussion: it makes clear why the league/CFLPA did what they did, but also demonstrates the (posited) lack of de facto impact.

How could any of us possibly know? To answer the question of effectiveness you'd have to take all the Americans who would qualify, average out the salaries before and after and account for the SMS increase and compare. (You would also be wise to try and calculate if the American players are playing longer, thereby increasing career earnings). No one I know can do that because the information required isn't available.

RE: your suggestion on how it could have been done more effectively -- Keep in mind that Canadians outnumber Americans on the field and, crucially for this discussion, as votes in the CFLPA. I would guess the American players would have liked to increase their value even more (I certainly from a fairness point of view believe they deserve it), but I'm not sure how they could possibly get it through.

[Blue In BC]

So many players sign 1 year contracts after their 1st deal and are potential free agents in the off season. In a general sense they are not taking a cut but earning more and potentially a lot more. I doubt these other designations are factors.

At some point the longer a player sticks with a team, the more likely he reaches an end of run with the team. Roster size, ratio and SMS spread across the roster means a team will move forward at some point. Younger players with less injury history are added every year replacing some good players that were deemed too expensive etc.

It's catch 22. Players don't want a reduced role that comes with a reduced salary. A few accept that but we can understand the business aspect of the team as well.

[DM83]

Usually marginal players. Is there anyone worth and extra thousand, more so than a cis canadian

[Blue In BC]

Usually marginal players. Is there anyone worth and extra thousand, more so than a cis canadian

Sometimes but DI's either move up or move out. Now a player can see on the PR and still be moving up in skill level and understanding of the CFL game. He may just be waiting for an injury to see the field as Randolph did in 2024.

He has the edge to stick but will he accept more time on the PR? It's not a given. He could get nicked in TC so lots of variables. That said, I liked what we saw from him and the coach may decide to go 3 import OL as has been discussed.

[TecnoGenius]

Randolph did in 2024.

He has the edge to stick but will he accept more time on the PR? It's not a given. He could get nicked in TC so lots of variables. That said, I liked what we saw from him and the coach may decide to go 3 import OL as has been discussed.

Randolph is the perfect OL to have on your roster.  (IMHO) He's clearly not ready to start at OT.  But he's superb at OG.  And when you price him compared to a very good NAT OG, he's quite affordable.

There is no market for IMP OG.  Basically zero teams start one unless there is injury or really bad GM roster management.  Thus he's safe on the PR.

Hence why I'm so high on the guy.  He was as good as Neuf at RG.  No one will poach him.  If we have to we can move him onto/off of PR.  And he's cheap.  Oh ya, and maybe one day he'll be good enough to replace Big Stan or Lofton.

What's not to love?  Wallace will have to make huge strides vs last season to have a chance at that LG spot.  Or our ratio situation has be to dire so that 3 IMP OL is not feasible.  I doubt either will happen.

[Blue In BC]

Randolph is the perfect OL to have on your roster.  (IMHO) He's clearly not ready to start at OT.  But he's superb at OG.  And when you price him compared to a very good NAT OG, he's quite affordable.

There is no market for IMP OG.  Basically zero teams start one unless there is injury or really bad GM roster management.  Thus he's safe on the PR.

Hence why I'm so high on the guy.  He was as good as Neuf at RG.  No one will poach him.  If we have to we can move him onto/off of PR.  And he's cheap.  Oh ya, and maybe one day he'll be good enough to replace Big Stan or Lofton.

What's not to love?  Wallace will have to make huge strides vs last season to have a chance at that LG spot.  Or our ratio situation has be to dire so that 3 IMP OL is not feasible.  I doubt either will happen.

Randolph might agree to stay on the PR but that doesn't mean he will. He might perceive another team has less depth or a better chance of play off money. That's all subjective in a given players mind. He might choose to depart and get a shot at an NFL roster even if it's a PR.

I'm not sure if any other CFL team is likely to start an import OG.