Off-season Rule Change

[TecnoGenius]

BinBC is right.  What he's trying to say is the NA is basically a no-op, a nothingburger, a sleight of hand to satisfy someone's pet ambition (Ambrosie or CFLPA, who knows).

It is so because there are basically a zillion players on every team that qualifies, because the qualification is basically every IMP you've had a (small) few years, or who's been in the league a while.

SB&G is right in pointing out that it does have one real-world effect: that normally normal-IMP spot that you used to be able to sub a DI in for is now one you must sub a NAT in for.  This is a valid point.

But BinBC says that even that point is moot because teams will just pick a player as their NA who would normally have a NAT backup dressed anyhow.  And his OL example is perfect (and probably the same on every team) because we start every dressed IMP OL every game, and only ever dress NAT OL as the (usually 2) backups/jumbo.

Ergo it's a big no-op.  It effectively does and changes nothing.  QED.

If I was cynical, I'd say maybe CFLPA wanted to throw vets a bone, but Ambrosie outsmarted them and gave them complicated sophistry that placated them in their minds, but changed nothing in reality.

[TecnoGenius]

How 'bout we change the rules to:

Canadian citizen = Canadian
Not Canadian citizen = NC (Non-Canadian)
Must have 7 starting Canadians

Haha, I'm with ya!  Basically make it like it was for 10 years before Ambroise.  Ah, to not have to memorize all of these overly-complex roster rules!

[TecnoGenius]

Pretty sure Randolph replaced Bryant at LT when he went down, but maybe that's not what you're talking about.

But never in-game.  Randolph was never dressed unless starting.  The in-game replacements were always NATs (usually Neuf shuffling to OT).  It was only in the next game Randolph was brought into the AR.

So for this discussion the Randolph-at-OT is moot.

(The dressed backups were always Eli, Wallace, except maybe when one of them was starting... FWIR we probably only dressed 1 backup then and brought in an extra FB?)

[Sir Blue and Gold]

BinBC is right.  What he's trying to say is the NA is basically a no-op, a nothingburger, a sleight of hand to satisfy someone's pet ambition (Ambrosie or CFLPA, who knows).

It is so because there are basically a zillion players on every team that qualifies, because the qualification is basically every IMP you've had a (small) few years, or who's been in the league a while.

SB&G is right in pointing out that it does have one real-world effect: that normally normal-IMP spot that you used to be able to sub a DI in for is now one you must sub a NAT in for.  This is a valid point.

But BinBC says that even that point is moot because teams will just pick a player as their NA who would normally have a NAT backup dressed anyhow.  And his OL example is perfect (and probably the same on every team) because we start every dressed IMP OL every game, and only ever dress NAT OL as the (usually 2) backups/jumbo.

Ergo it's a big no-op.  It effectively does and changes nothing.  QED.

If I was cynical, I'd say maybe CFLPA wanted to throw vets a bone, but Ambrosie outsmarted them and gave them complicated sophistry that placated them in their minds, but changed nothing in reality.

The logic/reason behind the rule (if that's what you're asking) is not so much on the game day roster flexibility side. In the latest CBA, two things happened at once:

Naturalized Americans (which we were talking about) and Designated Naturalized Americans. Although they sound the same they came about very differently and serve completely different agendas.

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.

The Designated Naturalized American is very much an attempt to provide roster flexibility by directly allowing an American to eat into National playing time. It's done in a limited way, and was, I'm sure, a fairly contentious CFLPA/CFL negotiating point. I am sure the league wanted more flexibility but getting the rule in altogether was probably a good first step where they will seek to move the percentages over time - I would expect Nationals to continue to try and hold the line there but I think the league has long term visions. 

Good now?

[Waffler]

Haha, I'm with ya!  Basically make it like it was for 10 years before Ambroise.  Ah, to not have to memorize all of these overly-complex roster rules!

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.

[Blue In BC]

The logic/reason behind the rule (if that's what you're asking) is not so much on the game day roster flexibility side. In the latest CBA, two things happened at once:

Naturalized Americans (which we were talking about) and Designated Naturalized Americans. Although they sound the same they came about very differently and serve completely different agendas.

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.

The Designated Naturalized American is very much an attempt to provide roster flexibility by directly allowing an American to eat into National playing time. It's done in a limited way, and was, I'm sure, a fairly contentious CFLPA/CFL negotiating point. I am sure the league wanted more flexibility but getting the rule in altogether was probably a good first step where they will seek to move the percentages over time - I would expect Nationals to continue to try and hold the line there but I think the league has long term visions. 

Good now?

Imports that have been in the league for a significant amount of time are already starting. You don't pay an import a lot of money and then bench and give him significantly less playing time.

I stand by the premise that there should only be 2 classifications. Canadian and not Canadian ( call them whatever but import works for me ). Everything else is tossed . Negotiate roster size or ratio changes but KISS should be the rule in CBA negotiations.

Nope not good now. I'm also not trying to be a poop disturber. It's too many efforts to add odd classifications and is anti Canadian ratio etc. It's bad business trying to hold onto older imports and paying them " well ".

Bighill might have been the example I would have used in 2025 if he had remained on the team. Obviously age, injury history, potential reduced role means a team moves on. A new import Jon Jones is added and will either be a starter or a DI for less money, but greater upside.

I'm not sure if Jones beats out Wilson for either of those spots with Ayers also in the mix. Also not sure how much Wilson will earn in 2025. However, the same issue I mentioned about Bighill might result in Wilson being released or traded. Wilson could fall into the NA category but IMO he either starts, is a normal DI or he's gone.

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.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

You asked and were explained the why and the how. Continue on as you like.

[Blue In BC]

You asked and were explained the why and the how. Continue on as you like.

More importantly I asked about any example of implementation of the designations and how it applied and benefited the Bombers. I have found no evidence on our 2024 depth charts of either being used.

You haven't done that and neither has anyone else.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

More importantly I asked about any example of implementation of the designations and how it applied and benefited the Bombers. I have found no evidence on our 2024 depth charts of either being used.

You haven't done that and neither has anyone else.

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

[Blue In BC]

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

LOL. I think I knew that but that's the point of questioning BS designations that don't have a functional practical benefit.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

But never in-game.  Randolph was never dressed unless starting.  The in-game replacements were always NATs (usually Neuf shuffling to OT). It was only in the next game Randolph was brought into the AR.

So for this discussion the Randolph-at-OT is moot.

(The dressed backups were always Eli, Wallace, except maybe when one of them was starting... FWIR we probably only dressed 1 backup then and brought in an extra FB?)

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.

[Blue In BC]

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.

Yes. However Neufeld missed the game due to injury and we needed to add an extra OL. That made Randolph a practical choice. As it turned out by coincidence Bryant needed to leave the game due to illness.

Randolph would have been a DI and Bryant would have been neither a NA or a DA.

The ratio had been flipped somewhat in that game. Bighill was out and Gauthier was listed starting at MLB.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Yes. However Neufeld missed the game due to injury and we needed to add an extra OL. That made Randolph a practical choice. As it turned out by coincidence Bryant needed to leave the game due to illness.

Randolph would have been a DI and Bryant would have been neither a NA or a DA.

The ratio had been flipped somewhat in that game. Bighill was out and Gauthier was listed starting at MLB.

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

[Blue In BC]

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

I looked at some earlier depth charts. As we know they aren't entirely useful. Randolph had been on the roster for a few games because of the Neufeld injury. Figuring out how they worked the decisions on who were the DI's versus just extra non starting imports due starting more than 7 Canadians was vague at best.

I think at least 3 showed Randolph starting at RG in place of Neufeld then switching to LT when Bryant was out. That put Eli at RG for that game and Vanterpool added as a reserve. Wallace also missed 6 games, so there as a lot of shuffling on the OL for part of 2024.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I looked at some earlier depth charts. As we know they aren't entirely useful. Randolph had been on the roster for a few games because of the Neufeld injury. Figuring out how they worked the decisions on who were the DI's versus just extra non starting imports due starting more than 7 Canadians was vague at best.

I think at least 3 showed Randolph starting at RG in place of Neufeld then switching to LT when Bryant was out. That put Eli at RG for that game and Vanterpool added as a reserve. Wallace also missed 6 games, so there as a lot of shuffling on the OL for part of 2024.

You could be right, I seem to recall Randolph subbing for Neufeld ahead of Eli for a game or two and thinking they have little confidence in Eli's ability to pass protect.  I think Wallace even stepped in for Eli when Randolph got moved to LT, that may have been the game Wallace was injured.

All Bomber games are on Waders27 YouTube channel if anyone wants to take the time to watch.