Blue Bombers Forum

Let's see what posters think. I'm not sure what Ambrosie will mandate so this is more about what posters would like to happen. Poll open for 14 days to also allow any other discussions about global players, like pool size, draft rounds and which players on our roster ( AR, IR and PR ) will be with the Bombers in 2024. No specific need to name names but turnover expectations? We have 5 at the moment.

EDIT: I didn't vote. I just want to see what other posters think.

None of the above. Remove the Global designation completely.

Quote from: TBURGESS on October 01, 2023, 08:08:58 PM
None of the above. Remove the Global designation completely.

I added that to the poll options. If that was done what would your preference be as far as the roster size or adding back 2 Canadians?

More Canadian content always.

Quote from: Blue In BC on October 01, 2023, 08:51:12 PM
I added that to the poll options. If that was done what would your preference be as far as the roster size or adding back 2 Canadians?

Roster size to stay the same.

I think there should be 2 types of players... Canadian's and Imports.

I'd keep it the same. Raise the levels of the players we have, before increasing it.

If the league wants to make this a success, need to find a way to strengthen the ties between the CFL and an international league. I know we wanted to send Canadians overseas as well, to create a type of development league, but the leagues were so mismanged that I don't think they could convince anyone to go back, if they even tried.

Quote from: Jesse on October 01, 2023, 11:41:12 PM
I'd keep it the same. Raise the levels of the players we have, before increasing it.

If the league wants to make this a success, need to find a way to strengthen the ties between the CFL and an international league. I know we wanted to send Canadians overseas as well, to create a type of development league, but the leagues were so mismanged that I don't think they could convince anyone to go back, if they even tried.

Pretty sure the Global program has been a failure, but the league may not get rid of it until they get rid of Ambrosie, or he chooses to move on.  Can't see anyone on the CFL BOD being interested in this project, I think it was Randy's pitch,  fishing for market solutions.

Quote from: Blue In BC on October 01, 2023, 08:51:12 PM
I added that to the poll options. If that was done what would your preference be as far as the roster size or adding back 2 Canadians?

Quote from: Waffler on October 01, 2023, 10:24:46 PM
More Canadian content always.

Oh for sure you add back NATs.  You never lower the AR size itself.  It's already too low.  Teams who get a lot of injuries are screwed for the whole season.  Look at SSK and HAM, and maybe CGY, OTT.  (EDM has no excuse.)

I don't think many like the whole GLOB idea.  So it's really 2 separate discussion: 1) what we'd like to happen, vs 2) how best to mitigate the next nonsense idea/change Ambrosie lobs our way.

Yes, GLOBs were Ambrosie's pet project... and maybe now that the "latest thing" is all he wants to do with Genius, maybe he'll ease off or even abandon the GLOB stuff, and hope it quietly slips away with people distracted with the shiny Genius.

They dropped the ball by adding the Hansen rule. 

GLB players need to be ELC, min wage.  The extra bodies at min wage gives them ability to develop into quality players.

Once developed, rather than letting them stay protected by the GLB status and chew up that spot, they should be given an option to give up that status and make the team competing with the Americans. 

Would you pay an ex-GLB punter the same as a US punter?  Of course, if he was better.  Or you can hide your P in the GLB spot if he never want to make more than the minimum.

Quote from: theaardvark on October 02, 2023, 01:53:01 PM
They dropped the ball by adding the Hansen rule. 

GLB players need to be ELC, min wage.  The extra bodies at min wage gives them ability to develop into quality players.

Once developed, rather than letting them stay protected by the GLB status and chew up that spot, they should be given an option to give up that status and make the team competing with the Americans. 

Would you pay an ex-GLB punter the same as a US punter?  Of course, if he was better.  Or you can hide your P in the GLB spot if he never want to make more than the minimum.

The pool of American punters is very large compared to the pool for Global punters or kickers. In the past some players were both punters and kickers. That has become more specialized with one of each.

Taking the Bombers as an example: I have no doubt we could find an American punter equal or better than Sheehan. The catch is that it requires using another DI spot instead of the global " free space " on the bingo card.

If we had a Canadian kicker or even a global, we might have seen the opposite combination we currently have.  I'm not so sure that we wouldn't have been better off retaining Leigghio as our punter and back up kicker. He would have been more expensive, but better depth as well and allowed a different global player on the AR for ST's. His average was higher than Sheehan's and IMO his placement was better most of the time.

I don't agree that a Canadian punter wouldn't be paid more than the minimum if he has a long successful career. Again it becomes a bidding war in free agency just the same as any position.

For that matter a top import that does both ( Medlock ) would be in high demand. IIRC he was getting $180K or there about. Any Canadian that does both at that level would be pure gold.

Quote from: theaardvark on October 02, 2023, 01:53:01 PM
They dropped the ball by adding the Hansen rule. 

GLB players need to be ELC, min wage.  The extra bodies at min wage gives them ability to develop into quality players.

Once developed, rather than letting them stay protected by the GLB status and chew up that spot, they should be given an option to give up that status and make the team competing with the Americans. 

I think the thing was Hansen was going to walk if he couldn't get a (probably deserved) salary bump.  So why not let them get a salary bump after a few years?  They've earned it.  And if their ask is too big for the team or the league, then the teams will let them walk.

No GLOB punter will ever earn a AR spot on any team if they turn into an IMP and take up a DI.  None of them are good enough to justify a DI.  How many IMP punters starting in the CFL right now?  One?  It's nearly impossible to justify a punt-only punter IMP in the CFL.

Kind of the same thing for non-kicking GLOBs.  Hansen might get a $ bump as a GLOB, but if you suddenly make him an IMP, he's either not making any AR, or, if he manages to get signed, he's back to being paid IMP ELC money.  Why?  Because he's not any better than a rookie/sophomore IMP.

BinBC is right, you're missing the critical point that it's the NAT/GLOB/IMP classification that sets the salary because of supply and demand within that classification only.  It's no different than if you had NATs turn into IMPs after 3 years: their salaries would drop precipitously and many/most would not make an AR.

  QUOTE: I think the thing was Hansen was going to walk if he couldn't get a (probably deserved) salary bump.  So why not let them get a salary bump after a few years?  They've earned it.  And if their ask is too big for the team or the league, then the teams will let them walk.

Yes he was going to walk but it still falls into the supply / demand picture. He's the best of the lot and in that sense deserved the raise. It's only about $20K above the ELC in the CBA.

I was looking at the global players drafted in 2022 and 2023. Many didn't report and those that did mostly made PR lists if they weren't kickers of some sort.

3 rounds in 2022 and 2 rounds in 2023. That's about 45 players. How many rounds will we see in 2024 not that nearly every team has somewhat of quota of K's or P's. lol

The poll is showing support for adding another global or status quo from a few posters. That surprises me a bit. OTOH if the category disappeared in 2024 the Bombers would be looking for a punter and they are in short supply unless dual role players ( Medlock ).

That makes them a small pool in a small pool that fit into the ratio. Using 2 DI's for kickers is not the best option.

Quote from: theaardvark on October 02, 2023, 01:53:01 PM
They dropped the ball by adding the Hansen rule. 

GLB players need to be ELC, min wage.  The extra bodies at min wage gives them ability to develop into quality players.

Once developed, rather than letting them stay protected by the GLB status and chew up that spot, they should be given an option to give up that status and make the team competing with the Americans. 

Would you pay an ex-GLB punter the same as a US punter?  Of course, if he was better.  Or you can hide your P in the GLB spot if he never want to make more than the minimum.

It's not an anomaly, there were 8 Ausi Rules punters playing in the NFL in the 2022-23 season and almost one on every CFL roster, they are the most technically gifted punters in the world.  Troy Westwood said much the same on the Bonfire Podcast, N.A. football kickers are taught one basic method, these punters have a whole bag of techniques they can employ and they're advancing the kicking game.

Not many voters overall. C'mon posters make your views known.

Quote from: Blue In BC on October 03, 2023, 05:29:23 PM
Not many voters overall. C'mon posters make your views known.

I don't think many people care  about roster construction or globals or DAs vs DIs etc etc.

It's complicated and none of us know the rules but get into these heated arguments with others who also don't know the rules.

I'm of the opinion that the league is best served with no ratios at all. However, since there are, I've always found it weird how some fans are so pro the Canadian ratio while being anti global ratio. It's the same logic applied for the same reasons.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on October 03, 2023, 07:40:08 PM
I'm of the opinion that the league is best served with no ratios at all. However, since there are, I've always found it weird how some fans are so pro the Canadian ratio while being anti global ratio. It's the same logic applied for the same reasons.

I am pro-ratio and pro-global.

But I believe that if you want to mandate globals on your team, it should be a well thought out, planned process. It has seemed mostly slapped together without forethought or long term direction.

I m pro Canadian and all for increasing the ratio by 1 NAT position and remove the global position, would mean more canadian kids are playing the game in their home country, which I think the Cfl should be all about.

Quote from: Jesse on October 03, 2023, 07:32:42 PM
I don't think many people care  about roster construction or globals or DAs vs DIs etc etc.

It's complicated and none of us know the rules but get into these heated arguments with others who also don't know the rules.

They know enough to evaluate players.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on October 03, 2023, 07:40:08 PM
I'm of the opinion that the league is best served with no ratios at all. However, since there are, I've always found it weird how some fans are so pro the Canadian ratio while being anti global ratio. It's the same logic applied for the same reasons.

If posters are pro Canadian ratio then being anti global is logical. Is that what you actually meant or did you miss type and mean pro global?

For the most part I haven't noticed that many posters that fit into that concept.

I'm not pro ratio but I am going to lean towards pro Canadian if we have to have one.

I like having globals as I have enjoyed the players it has attracted.  I hate the complicated rules and will die on the CDN ratio sword.

My idea of a Global having the option of moving to American status as his only way to make more money just makes sense.  It allows protection and development until the player has completed their development.

Protection of Nat designated players is a different thing.  Yet people seem interested in the "Fake Nat" designation and how it can be used to make vet Americans into "Nationals".  Not true Nats, and only for limited snaps. 

I get the idea was to somehow get vets to stay with thier teams, and create more continuity.  Fake Nats = fail.  No team is using it at all...  but most teams are using GLB's

Quote from: theaardvark on October 03, 2023, 11:00:32 PM
My idea of a Global having the option of moving to American status as his only way to make more money just makes sense.  It allows protection and development until the player has completed their development.

Protection of Nat designated players is a different thing.  Yet people seem interested in the "Fake Nat" designation and how it can be used to make vet Americans into "Nationals".  Not true Nats, and only for limited snaps. 

I get the idea was to somehow get vets to stay with thier teams, and create more continuity.  Fake Nats = fail.  No team is using it at all...  but most teams are using GLB's

Same goes for Globals, Les Mauro is an example of a "Fake Global", he was born in Japan but was raised from childhood and played all of his football in the US.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on October 04, 2023, 01:33:22 AM
Same goes for Globals, Les Mauro is an example of a "Fake Global", he was born in Japan but was raised from childhood and played all of his football in the US.

No, I was talking about the "Nationalized American's" that can replace a Nat for x amount of snaps each game...

As to "Fake" Nats that are Americans with the right heritage/residency, many of the best Nats are American raised and educated, many not even knowing they were "Nats" until they were told...  Mauro is not unusual in the ratio world...

Quote from: Jesse on October 03, 2023, 07:32:42 PM
It's complicated and none of us know the rules but get into these heated arguments with others who also don't know the rules.

Hey, those are the best kind of arguments!  :P 8)

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on October 03, 2023, 07:40:08 PM
I'm of the opinion that the league is best served with no ratios at all. However, since there are, I've always found it weird how some fans are so pro the Canadian ratio while being anti global ratio. It's the same logic applied for the same reasons.

When they rename the league to the GFL, get back to me.

Quote from: theaardvark on October 03, 2023, 11:00:32 PM
Protection of Nat designated players is a different thing.  Yet people seem interested in the "Fake Nat" designation and how it can be used to make vet Americans into "Nationals".  Not true Nats, and only for limited snaps. 

There's only 1 person in this world interested in FAKENATs, and that's Ambrosie.  Well, and some nebulous amorophous lifeform that controls the CFLPA, I guess.

The rest of us all hate FAKENATs and DNA/DNSs and all that garbage from the last 2 seasons.

Just think, what horrendous nonsense will Ambrosie come up with before next season!!  Oh my!  I shudder to think that it can actually get worse.

Quote from: Jesse on October 03, 2023, 07:43:26 PM
I am pro-ratio and pro-global.

But I believe that if you want to mandate globals on your team, it should be a well thought out, planned process. It has seemed mostly slapped together without forethought or long term direction.

Fair - at least you're consistent! I would argue that the global ratio rules are exactly as "planned out" as the Canadian ratio rules though. Fundamentally, it's the same concept trying to accomplish the same things. 

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on October 04, 2023, 01:02:04 PM
Fair - at least you're consistent! I would argue that the global ratio rules are exactly as "planned out" as the Canadian ratio rules though. Fundamentally, it's the same concept trying to accomplish the same things. 

Not so sure on that last part. The Canadian ratio is trying to correct the supply-demand curve of the sheer number of American players that can come in and take over entirely, while the global initiative is trying to grow CFL interest elsewhere.

If the global program's intent is to "give global players a shot", then we have a problem lol. You could argue that we are in fact doing that in order to get the eyeballs, but that should be a tool in the toolbox for growing the game internationally. So far all we've seen is this sort of token roster spot + draft for this and not a well-thought out strategy with measurables, etc. I think that's what Jesse was getting at.

Quote from: blue_or_die on October 04, 2023, 09:51:09 PM
Not so sure on that last part. The Canadian ratio is trying to correct the supply-demand curve of the sheer number of American players that can come in and take over entirely, while the global initiative is trying to grow CFL interest elsewhere.

If the global program's intent is to "give global players a shot", then we have a problem lol. You could argue that we are in fact doing that in order to get the eyeballs, but that should be a tool in the toolbox for growing the game internationally. So far all we've seen is this sort of token roster spot + draft for this and not a well-thought out strategy with measurables, etc. I think that's what Jesse was getting at.

Both are mostly marketing tools. The Canadian ratio is trying to make sure Canadians can play in the league and get developed because some fans really like that connection. The league is really trying to get more fans globally and is taking the exact same approach with the global ratio. If the league was concerned only with on field product quality they would simply let the best players play.

Quote from: blue_or_die on October 04, 2023, 09:51:09 PM
Not so sure on that last part. The Canadian ratio is trying to correct the supply-demand curve of the sheer number of American players that can come in and take over entirely, while the global initiative is trying to grow CFL interest elsewhere.

If the global program's intent is to "give global players a shot", then we have a problem lol. You could argue that we are in fact doing that in order to get the eyeballs, but that should be a tool in the toolbox for growing the game internationally. So far all we've seen is this sort of token roster spot + draft for this and not a well-thought out strategy with measurables, etc. I think that's what Jesse was getting at.

I think it's two fold. The first part is absolutely the growing the game in order to increase the number of potential TV deals and therefore money. That's why this thing got legs in the first place - a chance for more revenue.

The second part is the chance to use European leagues as a sort of developmental league. Send Canadians and new Americans to continue getting playing snaps before potentially moving back to Canada. When this whole thing first started, we sent guys over to a handful of leagues, but it went horribly and also covid.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on October 04, 2023, 11:04:05 PM
Both are mostly marketing tools. The Canadian ratio is trying to make sure Canadians can play in the league and get developed because some fans really like that connection. The league is really trying to get more fans globally and is taking the exact same approach with the global ratio. If the league was concerned only with on field product quality they would simply let the best players play.

I don't know if this take is cynical or misinformed or just ignorant.

This is the Canadian Football League. American players are the "new" addition. Saying the Canadian ratio is a marketing ploy is nonsensical.

Ratio make the league unique.  It builds interest in Canadian players, and makes teams pursue continuity with them because they are rare.  And they become fan favourites and identifiable.

No ratio, we end up with USFL/XFL rosters with no real player/team identity, and fan engagement drops.

Quote from: theaardvark on October 04, 2023, 11:55:05 PM
Ratio make the league unique.  It builds interest in Canadian players, and makes teams pursue continuity with them because they are rare.  And they become fan favourites and identifiable.

No ratio, we end up with USFL/XFL rosters with no real player/team identity, and fan engagement drops.

100% truth.  Ratio is the CFL.  Look at the disaster of the X years and teams that didn't have to have a ratio.

Who gets the biggest applause when they announce the O at IGF??  There's your answer.

The strength of this league is our Canadian content.  Always has, always will be.  Ensures our youth have a league to play in and ensure many stay at home and build our great communities stronger. 

Quote from: Jesse on October 04, 2023, 11:15:46 PM
I don't know if this take is cynical or misinformed or just ignorant.

This is the Canadian Football League. American players are the "new" addition. Saying the Canadian ratio is a marketing ploy is nonsensical.

I think it is none of the above. Most leagues don't have ratios. The CFL does because fans like you think it's important. There's nothing wrong with that I don't think. Why else would they have a ratio? There is no other reason other than fans want and expect it. That's called marketing to your target audience in every other business context. It works in Canada. Just look at so many of the reactions on here. It works so well they think it could work globally. None of this should be surprising or controversial.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on October 05, 2023, 01:47:51 AM
I think it is none of the above. Most leagues don't have ratios. The CFL does because fans like you think it's important. There's nothing wrong with that I don't think.

Can you imagine the CFL without the ratio?  90% of the NATs would be unemployed on day 1.  The other 10% would see 25-50% drop in pay.  After 5-10 years where no one drafts/devs any Canada U sports people and U sports players stop caring or aspiring, the league would be 99% IMPs.  You want proof?  How many NATs did the X years USA teams employ, eh?

And all of those IMPs are NFL wannabee rejects and look to us solely as a feeder league.  None would ever settle in like so many great long-term IMPs have.

We would 100% look just like the XFL, and to me that look is garbage.  And if you get rid of the player ratio, the 99% used-to-4-down players would then demand we be 4 down.  At that stage we might as well have the richest cities just get NFL teams and the smaller cities not have any pro football at all.  TOR and BC (and maybe MTL) win, the great prairie teams/cities (and HAM, one of the best fanbases) all lose.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on October 05, 2023, 02:06:18 AM
Can you imagine the CFL without the ratio?  90% of the NATs would be unemployed on day 1.  The other 10% would see 25-50% drop in pay.  After 5-10 years where no one drafts/devs any Canada U sports people and U sports players stop caring or aspiring, the league would be 99% IMPs.  You want proof?  How many NATs did the X years USA teams employ, eh?

And all of those IMPs are NFL wannabee rejects and look to us solely as a feeder league.  None would ever settle in like so many great long-term IMPs have.

We would 100% look just like the XFL, and to me that look is garbage.  And if you get rid of the player ratio, the 99% used-to-4-down players would then demand we be 4 down.  At that stage we might as well have the richest cities just get NFL teams and the smaller cities not have any pro football at all.  TOR and BC (and maybe MTL) win, the great prairie teams/cities (and HAM, one of the best fanbases) all lose.

Exaggeration to say the least at every level. The NFL is not going to put teams in larger CFL cities. For one, nobody could afford the franchise fee and stadiums are generally too small or too old.

The ratio has no bearing on the imports wanting to use it as a stepping stone back to the NFL.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on October 05, 2023, 02:06:18 AM
Can you imagine the CFL without the ratio?  90% of the NATs would be unemployed on day 1.  The other 10% would see 25-50% drop in pay.  After 5-10 years where no one drafts/devs any Canada U sports people and U sports players stop caring or aspiring, the league would be 99% IMPs.  You want proof?  How many NATs did the X years USA teams employ, eh?

And all of those IMPs are NFL wannabee rejects and look to us solely as a feeder league.  None would ever settle in like so many great long-term IMPs have.

We would 100% look just like the XFL, and to me that look is garbage.  And if you get rid of the player ratio, the 99% used-to-4-down players would then demand we be 4 down.  At that stage we might as well have the richest cities just get NFL teams and the smaller cities not have any pro football at all.  TOR and BC (and maybe MTL) win, the great prairie teams/cities (and HAM, one of the best fanbases) all lose.

I think it would be just as popular, but that's just me. If 90% of nationals were unemployed day one, that just speaks to their level of play. I pay several thousand dollars a year for seasons tickets. I expect a premium product. To me, and this is entirely my opinion, the CFL is the CFL because of the rules on the field and the history of the teams in each market. Most of may favourite players have been Americans. I have pictures of Milt Stegall, Charles Roberts, Matt Dunnigan and Khari Jones in my basement. To each his own. But the CFL will always have history and that sets it apart from any start up league. There are passionate fans here who care about the teams. I want to watch the best Blue Bombers team against the best Roughriders team every Banjo Bowl. It would have absolutely no negative affect for me personally, if we had an all american offense line and an American in for Kramdi and more Americans playing specials. To each his own, I suppose. I will always argue if the CFL really wants to take the next step, it's going to have to forgo it's mandated Canadian rules. The MLS has a great system that encourages development of north american players while ensuring the best players play. I would prefer a system like that if we need one.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on October 05, 2023, 02:23:37 PM
I think it would be just as popular, but that's just me. If 90% of nationals were unemployed day one, that just speaks to their level of play. I pay several thousand dollars a year for seasons tickets. I expect a premium product. To me, and this is entirely my opinion, the CFL is the CFL because of the rules on the field and the history of the teams in each market. Most of may favourite players have been Americans. I have pictures of Milt Stegall, Charles Roberts, Matt Dunnigan and Khari Jones in my basement. To each his own. But the CFL will always have history and that sets it apart from any start up league. There are passionate fans here who care about the teams. I want to watch the best Blue Bombers team against the best Roughriders team every Banjo Bowl. It would have absolutely no negative affect for me personally, if we had an all american offense line and an American in for Kramdi and more Americans playing specials. To each his own, I suppose. I will always argue if the CFL really wants to take the next step, it's going to have to forgo it's mandated Canadian rules. The MLS has a great system that encourages development of north american players while ensuring the best players play. I would prefer a system like that if we need one.

+1.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on October 05, 2023, 02:23:37 PM
I have pictures of Milt Stegall, Charles Roberts, Matt Dunnigan and Khari Jones in my basement. To each his own. But the CFL will always have history and that sets it apart from any start up league. There are passionate fans here who care about the teams. I want to watch the best Blue Bombers team against the best Roughriders team every Banjo Bowl. It would have absolutely no negative affect for me personally, if we had an all american offense line and an American in for Kramdi and more Americans playing specials.

With no ratio there almost certainly would be no A.Harris, no Brady, no Cornish, no Demski, none of the great NAT OL...  None of those guys would have been given a chance to play, and time to get better.  Do we want a CFL history where guys like that never existed?

Ya, there will still be the few elite players that are Canadian, but like happens now they will all be snapped up by the NFL, with only a few rejects coming back.  And when they come back they'd be no more "special" than the NFL-reject IMPs.

Again, look at who are clearly the fan favorites @IGF when they announce the O or (even) D.  Applause often follows pay-grade when it comes to IMPs, but note the massive extra enthusiasm for the NATs, especially our star NATs.

It's all a moot point though, because I'd bet the CFL would go to 4-down before they would abandon the ratio...

Quote from: TecnoGenius on October 06, 2023, 04:47:17 AM
With no ratio there almost certainly would be no A.Harris, no Brady, no Cornish, no Demski, none of the great NAT OL...  None of those guys would have been given a chance to play, and time to get better.  Do we want a CFL history where guys like that never existed?

Ya, there will still be the few elite players that are Canadian, but like happens now they will all be snapped up by the NFL, with only a few rejects coming back.  And when they come back they'd be no more "special" than the NFL-reject IMPs.

Again, look at who are clearly the fan favorites @IGF when they announce the O or (even) D.  Applause often follows pay-grade when it comes to IMPs, but note the massive extra enthusiasm for the NATs, especially our star NATs.

It's all a moot point though, because I'd bet the CFL would go to 4-down before they would abandon the ratio...

True. You'd lose some of the Canadian heroes - particularly the ones that take a while to get going. The league would also have more opportunity for American players to develop who generally start at a higher competency level than many Canadians, particularly the CIS guys. You might not have Demski, but you are likely to develop more Stegalls, Shoens, and Bryants. The CFL wouldn't be devoid of Canadians though. There are Canadians in the NFL every year and there would be Canadians in the CFL. The difference of course is they would be there entirely on merit alone.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on October 06, 2023, 04:47:17 AM
With no ratio there almost certainly would be no A.Harris, no Brady, no Cornish, no Demski, none of the great NAT OL...  None of those guys would have been given a chance to play, and time to get better.  Do we want a CFL history where guys like that never existed?

Ya, there will still be the few elite players that are Canadian, but like happens now they will all be snapped up by the NFL, with only a few rejects coming back.  And when they come back they'd be no more "special" than the NFL-reject IMPs.

Again, look at who are clearly the fan favorites @IGF when they announce the O or (even) D.  Applause often follows pay-grade when it comes to IMPs, but note the massive extra enthusiasm for the NATs, especially our star NATs.

It's all a moot point though, because I'd bet the CFL would go to 4-down before they would abandon the ratio...

I wouldn't hang my hat on great Canadian OL although there have been many great ones. The thing is nobody cares about an OL's nationality. In the past it wasn't unusual for an all import OL or certainly more than 2. Fans only concern about an OL is playing well. In that sense they are invisible and not the ones fans go to see. They go to see the star receivers etc etc.

Sure there have been some great Canadian RB's, receivers etc. Many fans can name off 20 or more imports in any category going back 50 years. It hasn't been unusual for an import to have instant success.

Hockey, basketball and soccer don't have ratios. Why does the CFL need one?

Suggesting the CFL would go to a 4 down version for any reason is just silly, although you said they'd do that before they would abandon the ratio. The CFL game ( rules ) is what makes the CFL. It's not the ratio per se.

Keep in mind the ratio has constantly changed. The size of the roster has changed. We have less Canadian starters in the past. DI's didn't exist, globals didn't exist and Nationalized Americans didn't exist.  The CFL is still here.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing. It's curious that some are so intent about the ratio while they also argue in support of global players for example.

Everybody would support larger rosters but that's an economic issue. How a roster would be made up from a ratio point of view is a broader discussion.

Quote from: Blue In BC on October 06, 2023, 01:41:56 PM
Hockey, basketball and soccer don't have ratios. Why does the CFL need one?

That's easy.  Hockey is like the football situation in reverse: Canada has the sheer numbers of kids/teens playing and being developed, it's the national sport.  So the thing that makes the USA win vis a vis football rosters makes Canada win hockey.

Basketball has one Canadian team, so it's not comparable, and there is basically no Canadian pro development scheme.  Soccer is basically a nothingburger in Canada: it's not big enough to have real attendance and money involved thus no big attraction for Americans to come up here.

Pro basketball and hockey are USA-majority in terms of team count.  For a ratio to make sense, the league must be Canada only.  Thus the CFL is unique in its position amongst sports in Canada.  Thus the unique ratio rules.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on October 06, 2023, 12:37:29 PM
True. You'd lose some of the Canadian heroes - particularly the ones that take a while to get going. The league would also have more opportunity for American players to develop who generally start at a higher competency level than many Canadians, particularly the CIS guys. You might not have Demski, but you are likely to develop more Stegalls, Shoens, and Bryants. The CFL wouldn't be devoid of Canadians though. There are Canadians in the NFL every year and there would be Canadians in the CFL. The difference of course is they would be there entirely on merit alone.

And there's the rub.

We don't have the popultation of the US. Never will. We don't have the religious like devotion to football that certain parts of the US does. Never will.

We do have the Harris's, Demski's, and Oliveira's who want to play football but weren't given a ball in their cradle. In order to develop Canadian talent there needs to be a place for them to grow and develop later in life than in the states; in some cases, merely because they started later in life.

Canadians do need that extra help. They need those dedicated spots. The CFL then gives back to grassroots programs to renew the cycle. It's not just marketing for fans, it's a renewable cycle of Canadian football that can easily cease to exist if you upset the habitat.

And, again. It is the Canadian Football League. The Argos are currently celebrating their 150th anniversary. The Bombers were one of the first teams to invite and American player in 1935, riding the legs of Fritzie Hansen in 1935. About 85 years ago. Americans are invited to play here. But it's our league.

Quote from: Jesse on October 07, 2023, 02:02:58 AM
And there's the rub.

We don't have the popultation of the US. Never will. We don't have the religious like devotion to football that certain parts of the US does. Never will.

We do have the Harris's, Demski's, and Oliveira's who want to play football but weren't given a ball in their cradle. In order to develop Canadian talent there needs to be a place for them to grow and develop later in life than in the states; in some cases, merely because they started later in life.

Canadians do need that extra help. They need those dedicated spots. The CFL then gives back to grassroots programs to renew the cycle. It's not just marketing for fans, it's a renewable cycle of Canadian football that can easily cease to exist if you upset the habitat.

And, again. It is the Canadian Football League. The Argos are currently celebrating their 150th anniversary. The Bombers were one of the first teams to invite and American player in 1935, riding the legs of Fritzie Hansen in 1935. About 85 years ago. Americans are invited to play here. But it's our league.

In the past there were 10 Canadian starters. There were no DI's taking away playing time from Canadians. There were no global players taking away playing time from Canadians. PR lists were smaller. IIRC in the 1960's it was 6 players.

In any case, the ratio has not been a status quo situation and nothing says you can't achieve a new version. The league seems bound to find work around designations to reduce Canadians on the AR. That's a bit of a complicated problem.

Our current PR has 12 players of which only 1 is a Canadian.  There are 4 Canadians on our 6 game IR.

It's interesting that the PR creates up to 3 spots for global players but doesn't have a specific number of spots for Canadians. Both are limited size of talent pools.

Some posters wanting development for Canadian players but supporting global and / or Nationalized Americans is a contradiction. I think everyone would support larger rosters but there is an economic cost and the question of under what designation players would be added.

There are many variations that could be considered. The simplest variation would just be to add 2 additional Canadians to the AR. On one hand they are somewhat just place holders but on the other hand they might get some work on ST's, in game injury situations and in blow out situations.

That wouldn't be my 1st choice but it's an option. Should note that the CFL is losing more Canadian draft choices to the NFL. NFL option window makes it more difficult keeping some for extended periods. Rourke and even our own T. Ford come to mind. Desjarlias previously.

Developing Canadian players but giving them an NFL option window are conflicting ideas.

Quote from: Blue In BC on October 08, 2023, 03:36:49 PM
In any case, the ratio has not been a status quo situation and nothing says you can't achieve a new version. The league seems bound to find work around designations to reduce Canadians on the AR. That's a bit of a complicated problem.

What if the ratio tracks the talent level of the available NATs in that year or era?  We might think the changing ratio is capricious, but maybe it just morphs to reflect what keeps a maximal quantity of Canadians in the game whilst still proffering an entertaining product?

In other words, some years/eras will see more good/great NATs than others, and maybe the ratio adjusts to reflect that.  Who knows what drives this cycle.  As you said, a lot more NATs have gone to the NFL lately, it seems.  And it seems that more are sticking, or at least getting 2-3 year looks vs the usual 9-months-then-done.

For instance, recently we accounted for a lot of quality NAT QBs appearing by adjusting the ratio regarding starting NAT QBs.

If you think about it, there are very few "placeholder" NATs that are starters in the league today.  The Hurls of the world are becoming rarer.  There are still a few, sometimes the 5th string receiver, or sometimes a much weaker guy on D.  But for the most part I think NAT talent is better right now than it was 8 years ago.

Case in point: fantasy.  I used to almost never pick a NAT WR in fantasy; they were cheap but didn't produce.  Now I regularly have 1 or 2 NAT WRs, and sometimes I don't even look at designation, I just pick who I think will have a big game.  And it's not just our team: many teams have very serviceable or even top-tier NAT WRs.

If this trend continues (and the NFL doesn't steal them all), we may eventually see an increase to the NAT starter ratio, not the decrease the historical trend would imply.

Quote from: Blue In BC on October 08, 2023, 03:36:49 PM
Developing Canadian players but giving them an NFL option window are conflicting ideas.

For sure.  But the carrot of insane-$$ NFL money works just the same on both IMPs and NATs.  I'm pretty sure most Canadian U Sports players don't sit there dreaming: "I want to be a CFL NAT STer when I grow up!".  As much as it sucks when we lose the top-5 Canadian talents to the NFL every year, it's the secret sauce to the whole enchilada.  The best we can hope for is the top NATs each year are shorter / smaller and thus are ignored by the Giant Humans Football League.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on October 09, 2023, 01:55:05 AM
What if the ratio tracks the talent level of the available NATs in that year or era?  We might think the changing ratio is capricious, but maybe it just morphs to reflect what keeps a maximal quantity of Canadians in the game whilst still proffering an entertaining product?

In other words, some years/eras will see more good/great NATs than others, and maybe the ratio adjusts to reflect that.  Who knows what drives this cycle.  As you said, a lot more NATs have gone to the NFL lately, it seems.  And it seems that more are sticking, or at least getting 2-3 year looks vs the usual 9-months-then-done.

For instance, recently we accounted for a lot of quality NAT QBs appearing by adjusting the ratio regarding starting NAT QBs.

If you think about it, there are very few "placeholder" NATs that are starters in the league today.  The Hurls of the world are becoming rarer.  There are still a few, sometimes the 5th string receiver, or sometimes a much weaker guy on D.  But for the most part I think NAT talent is better right now than it was 8 years ago.

Case in point: fantasy.  I used to almost never pick a NAT WR in fantasy; they were cheap but didn't produce.  Now I regularly have 1 or 2 NAT WRs, and sometimes I don't even look at designation, I just pick who I think will have a big game.  And it's not just our team: many teams have very serviceable or even top-tier NAT WRs.

If this trend continues (and the NFL doesn't steal them all), we may eventually see an increase to the NAT starter ratio, not the decrease the historical trend would imply.

For sure.  But the carrot of insane-$$ NFL money works just the same on both IMPs and NATs.  I'm pretty sure most Canadian U Sports players don't sit there dreaming: "I want to be a CFL NAT STer when I grow up!".  As much as it sucks when we lose the top-5 Canadian talents to the NFL every year, it's the secret sauce to the whole enchilada.  The best we can hope for is the top NATs each year are shorter / smaller and thus are ignored by the Giant Humans Football League.

I don't see the number of mandated Canadian starters going up. I could imagine lowering the number of back ups on the AR by a couple and increasing the number mandated on the PR.

Adding 2 global players to the AR has already done that. The 3 on the PR is due to and increase in size to the PR. Regardless, just be eliminating the global designation leaves room now filled by
them.

That contradicts my suggestion of reducing the AR by a couple of Canadians but it is an option to create more room for Canadian players to develop.

The option I would prefer is to eliminate the global designation and convert them to two regular DI positions. Global players are in fact a form of DI in the 1st place.

That change would eliminate a specific need on the PR for 3 global players that could be converted to Canadian depth. To some degree it reduces the need for as many imports on the PR. The argument would be whether imports are better than global and more likely to progress faster etc etc.

A bigger question is whether teams can find another 3 Canadian players to roster on the PR? In theory they could be do that now at the expense of an import or global or 2.

A hard sell would be a 3 year contract for draft choices and no NFL option window.

The NFL window is the most attractive part of the NAT program.  And for Americans as well.

Being able to showcase one's talents And get paid to do it is great.  We will lose players on a regular basis, but many of those players would never have come here without that option, so its a sum zero loss. 

What needs to be done is a better RFA/UFA system.  Steal it directly from the NHL, reducing the RFA period a bit.  Offer sheets lend themselves nicely to the CFL players returning from the NFL, after the ELC of course.   

We WANT players to learn and grow in the CFL and eventually become NFL level, and return when that window passes to complete their careers here.  Look no further than our own Doug Brown. 

Quote from: theaardvark on October 09, 2023, 05:16:07 PM
The NFL window is the most attractive part of the NAT program.  And for Americans as well.

Being able to showcase one's talents And get paid to do it is great.  We will lose players on a regular basis, but many of those players would never have come here without that option, so its a sum zero loss. 

What needs to be done is a better RFA/UFA system.  Steal it directly from the NHL, reducing the RFA period a bit.  Offer sheets lend themselves nicely to the CFL players returning from the NFL, after the ELC of course.  

We WANT players to learn and grow in the CFL and eventually become NFL level, and return when that window passes to complete their careers here.  Look no further than our own Doug Brown. 

The problem is that Canadians in the CFL are drafted while the imports are not. Drafted Canadians almost make the roster by default because of the supply / demand restrictions.

The NFL option window hasn't always existed and fewer Canadians went to the NFL in free agency.

It falls a little under the you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Don't slant the concept to the imports as much. Suggesting they wouldn't come here in masses if not for the NFL option window? Obviously it has some impact but very few of the imports leave in their NFL option year within their 1st ELC contract.

Quote from: Blue In BC on October 09, 2023, 06:34:41 PM
The problem is that Canadians in the CFL are drafted while the imports are not. Drafted Canadians almost make the roster by default because of the supply / demand restrictions.

The NFL option window hasn't always existed and fewer Canadians went to the NFL in free agency.

It falls a little under the you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Don't slant the concept to the imports as much. Suggesting they wouldn't come here in masses if not for the NFL option window? Obviously it has some impact but very few of the imports leave in their NFL option year within their 1st ELC contract. 

I'd like to know what small percentage of players the NFL option actually works out for, it could be less than 1% and yet they are willing to distort the purpose of the league to serve a very small number of players who are capable of benefiting from it.  It's nothing but a distraction and a confirmation of an inferiority complex. 

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on October 09, 2023, 06:50:30 PM
I'd like to know what small percentage of players the NFL option actually works out for, it could be less than 1% and yet they are willing to distort the purpose of the league to serve a very small number of players who are capable of benefiting from it.  It's nothing but a distraction and a confirmation of an inferiority complex. 

It's the psychology.  Doesn't matter if it's only 1%: every young buck player thinks they are that 1% and wants to prove it.  It probably is the main driving force for most young players.  Just look at all of Strevie's talk since going to the NFL: the CFL was simply a way to get film and show his stuff to get his "real" job.

It's like those dumb "refer your friend to our store and be entered to win $1k": you'll never ever win it as your odds are probably diluted by a million other entrants, but a lot of people do the referral with magical thinking that they'll be the one to win.

But hey, nothing wrong with being optimistic!  Beats the alternative :D  The players who think they are the best could actually turn out to be great, the ones that think they are mediocre will never be better than mediocre.