Nationalized American rule begins in 2023

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The ratio changes next year:
8 nationals start, up from 7
One is a Nationalized American (3 years with same team, or 5 in the league)
2 other NA's can sub in for a Canadian a max 49% of snaps per game
only one per side (so 1 on O, 1 on D)

What is the best way for the Bombers to make use of this ratio change?

[gobombersgo]

With the amount of quality starting Nationsals the Bombers employ I can't really see how they will really benefit from this change.

How many of the Bombers' DIs this past season would have qualified as a National American?

[the paw]

I've mentioned this in passing in other threads, but I'll recap here since the thread is specific to the issue.

1.  The Nationalized Canadian (8th starter) is a smokescreen, might as well just call it the Veteran import position.  We have a ton of guys who can assume that role: Bryant, Hardrick, Bighill, Jeffcoat, Jefferson.

2.  On defence, I predict they will retire Thomas, and rotate Lawson 50-50 with Ricky Walker.  Walker can also spell Sayles, so he might end up playing 65% of snaps (but only 45% for Lawson).

3.  On offence, I think they will convert Wolitarsky's role to mostly blocking on run plays.  They can then bring in a speedster on obvious passing plays, a guy like McRae for example.  They might use Wolitarsky in this way, but the player could be a more meat and potatoes H back.  So at the very least Wolis market leverage is decreased.

4.  A lot of teams might pair a Canadian RB with an import using this rule.  But Oliveira has looked so good, I doubt they go this way.  But Hamilton, Montreal and Ottawa will all look at this probability.  If Harris doesn't retire, the Argos will for sure.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I've mentioned this in passing in other threads, but I'll recap here since the thread is specific to the issue.

1.  The Nationalized Canadian (8th starter) is a smokescreen, might as well just call it the Veteran import position.  We have a ton of guys who can assume that role: Bryant, Hardrick, Bighill, Jeffcoat, Jefferson.

2.  On defence, I predict they will retire Thomas, and rotate Lawson 50-50 with Ricky Walker.  Walker can also spell Sayles, so he might end up playing 65% of snaps (but only 45% for Lawson).

3.  On offence, I think they will convert Wolitarsky's role to mostly blocking on run plays.  They can then bring in a speedster on obvious passing plays, a guy like McRae for example.  They might use Wolitarsky in this way, but the player could be a more meat and potatoes H back.  So at the very least Wolis market leverage is decreased.

4.  A lot of teams might pair a Canadian RB with an import using this rule.  But Oliveira has looked so good, I doubt they go this way.  But Hamilton, Montreal and Ottawa will all look at this probability.  If Harris doesn't retire, the Argos will for sure.

Not sure on the details but I don't think Ricky Walker or McRae would qualify as Nationalized Americans as they've both been on the PR recently, which means they were cut from the roster.

[the paw]

Not sure on the details but I don't think Ricky Walker or McRae would qualify as Nationalized Americans as they've both been on the PR recently, which means they were cut from the roster.

I could be wrong, but I think the 3 year/5 year designation only applies to the Nationalized American who is a full-time starter.  If that criteria applies to all 3 positions, then how the DI position is being used will be radically altered.  Basically, instead of using it for young players to gain experience and work their way into the line-up, it becomes a place to stash aging vets who aren't able to start on a full-time basis.

If that is the case, then I seen guys like Sewell, Micah Johnson, Adam Bighill being able to extend their careers by becoming more situational guys.  I would expect linebacker, DT, and receiver to be the main positions where they deploy the 50-50.

[pjrocksmb]

Interesting stuff thanks all

[Pete]

Mcrae would be an interesting choice as he could sub in for both reciever and runningback

[gobombersgo]

If Grant re-signs he could sub in for a Canadian receiver.

I agree though this rule does seem to add value to aging Americans.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I could be wrong, but I think the 3 year/5 year designation only applies to the Nationalized American who is a full-time starter.  If that criteria applies to all 3 positions, then how the DI position is being used will be radically altered.  Basically, instead of using it for young players to gain experience and work their way into the line-up, it becomes a place to stash aging vets who aren't able to start on a full-time basis.

If that is the case, then I seen guys like Sewell, Micah Johnson, Adam Bighill being able to extend their careers by becoming more situational guys.  I would expect linebacker, DT, and receiver to be the main positions where they deploy the 50-50.

That is wrong. Both the Americans coming in for 49% of snaps and the 8th "Canadian" (if the team chooses an American for the 8th) must all be naturalized Americans (3/5 rule applies to all of them). In 2024 a 3rd naturalized American can play 49% of snaps.

[the paw]

That is wrong. Both the Americans coming in for 49% of snaps and the 8th "Canadian" (if the team chooses an American for the 8th) must all be naturalized Americans (3/5 rule applies to all of them). In 2024 a 3rd naturalized American can play 49% of snaps.

Have you found the text of the current CBA any where?  I've been looking since the earlier post and can't find it, only news stories summarizing the provision.  I'm sure that you're probably right, but I'm curious as to how they worded this.

[Blue In BC]

I don't really see this actually changing anything much and I've said it before. Every team has veteran imports that will classify as that 8th guy.

The only question I have is do you have to declare which import is that player. If that player is injured during the game can you declare another import? IE: if Bighill is that player and needs to leave the game, do you re-declare Alexander for example?

In any case, it's just over complicating the process with yet another classification. Canadians, Imports, Global and QB's was already more than enough with rules for each.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Have you found the text of the current CBA any where?  I've been looking since the earlier post and can't find it, only news stories summarizing the provision.  I'm sure that you're probably right, but I'm curious as to how they worded this.

I'll try and find it again but when they signed the entire CBA was leaked and I read it then.

[theaardvark]

I've mentioned this in passing in other threads, but I'll recap here since the thread is specific to the issue.

1.  The Nationalized Canadian (8th starter) is a smokescreen, might as well just call it the Veteran import position.  We have a ton of guys who can assume that role: Bryant, Hardrick, Bighill, Jeffcoat, Jefferson.

2.  On defence, I predict they will retire Thomas, and rotate Lawson 50-50 with Ricky Walker.  Walker can also spell Sayles, so he might end up playing 65% of snaps (but only 45% for Lawson).

3.  On offence, I think they will convert Wolitarsky's role to mostly blocking on run plays.  They can then bring in a speedster on obvious passing plays, a guy like McRae for example.  They might use Wolitarsky in this way, but the player could be a more meat and potatoes H back.  So at the very least Wolis market leverage is decreased.

4.  A lot of teams might pair a Canadian RB with an import using this rule.  But Oliveira has looked so good, I doubt they go this way.  But Hamilton, Montreal and Ottawa will all look at this probability.  If Harris doesn't retire, the Argos will for sure.

No.  Just no.  Wolitarsky's value is immense, and behind Demski and Oliviera, he is one of our most important Nat's on O.  Orange is making a strong play, and we might have an issue keeping Demski, Wolitarski and Orange after this year, other teams will target Woli and Orange in the 23-24 offseason no doubt.  Keeping Demski this year is going to be Walters' biggest remaining task, I think...  he will demand a big pay bump.

Here is where a non-SMS loyalty bump would be handy... giving a team the "unfair" ability to reward a player for loyalty, using a small non-SMS slush fund similar to the way they have a limited pool of guaranteed money they can offer in multi year deals.  

Like the "Max" deals in the NBA and NHL that can be used to re-sign a player, this could give a team the ability to retain a few top players for continuity and marketing.  These type of players are the ones that generate merch sales.  So, you could even take that non-SMS funding from merch sales.  Something as simple as being able to offer a max of 3 players $25k guaranteed money each year, paid out from merch sales.

I see the "Naturalized Nat" program as just another way to attack reducing actual Nat ratio eventually.

[the paw]

I don't really see this actually changing anything much and I've said it before. Every team has veteran imports that will classify as that 8th guy.

The only question I have is do you have to declare which import is that player. If that player is injured during the game can you declare another import? IE: if Bighill is that player and needs to leave the game, do you re-declare Alexander for example?

In any case, it's just over complicating the process with yet another classification. Canadians, Imports, Global and QB's was already more than enough with rules for each.

I agree that this is an over complication, and there were more efficient and elegant ways to achieve some of the same ends.

I doubt that you can re-designate within a game.  That sounds problematic.

And I agree that the 8th starter is not a huge impact.  But the use of the DI is going to change significantly, and we are going to see the roles of the "last starter" on offence and defence change.  For instance, Demski will remain a full-time starter, but Wolitarsky will lose reps in this scenario.

I think the 50-50 designation is most useful in positions that have a high rotation already.  So one of the ripple effects will be that Canadian DEs may actually become a more valuable commodity. Taking guys like Betts or Menard and working them into a rotation with an older DE like Lemon (or Charleston Hughes from 2019) becomes very attractive. 

[Blue In BC]

I agree that this is an over complication, and there were more efficient and elegant ways to achieve some of the same ends.

I doubt that you can re-designate within a game.  That sounds problematic.

And I agree that the 8th starter is not a huge impact.  But the use of the DI is going to change significantly, and we are going to see the roles of the "last starter" on offence and defence change.  For instance, Demski will remain a full-time starter, but Wolitarsky will lose reps in this scenario.

I think the 50-50 designation is most useful in positions that have a high rotation already.  So one of the ripple effects will be that Canadian DEs may actually become a more valuable commodity. Taking guys like Betts or Menard and working them into a rotation with an older DE like Lemon (or Charleston Hughes from 2019) becomes very attractive. 

I don't see it that way. This new classification adds an 8th starter to what is now only 7. It's just calling / re-naming that veteran import a " Canadian so to speak. That 8th player is already going to be a full time starter.

That can't be achieved by pulling a regular Canadian starter and replacing him with a DI for any period of time.  For the most part our DI's have would not have qualified with the exception of Grant.

Nationalized Americans might be similar in a sense to what we see with DI's now. You list a number of those that are qualified and as long as one is one the field he becomes the 8th guy.

Using the 2022 roster on offence: Bailey, Bryant, Hardrick, Collaros and Ellingson would qualify. If any one of those players was injured during the game, we'd already almost certainly use an actual Canadian as the fill in. Grant would have been the only DI that could have gone in as a receiver. A Canadian would be the back up on the OL ( no Global would have qualified ).

Grant would be the only veteran import that could step in on offence. However the issue is which import is the Nationalized American?



I need to see this in practice I suppose.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I agree that this is an over complication, and there were more efficient and elegant ways to achieve some of the same ends.

I doubt that you can re-designate within a game.  That sounds problematic.

And I agree that the 8th starter is not a huge impact.  But the use of the DI is going to change significantly, and we are going to see the roles of the "last starter" on offence and defence change.  For instance, Demski will remain a full-time starter, but Wolitarsky will lose reps in this scenario.

I think the 50-50 designation is most useful in positions that have a high rotation already.  So one of the ripple effects will be that Canadian DEs may actually become a more valuable commodity. Taking guys like Betts or Menard and working them into a rotation with an older DE like Lemon (or Charleston Hughes from 2019) becomes very attractive. 

I think teams that use it at all will do so in the way you've described above, I can see a Natl. receiver like Woli losing reps to an older import receiver like Darvin Adams, or Derel Walker, although can't see how that will improve the game in any way.

This rule change just looks to be another knee jerk reaction to appease a few disgruntled governors that want to drastically alter the product. The old boys who run the CFLPA probably saw it as a way to help prolong their buddies careers as it's not likely the young players *****, complain or even vote on these issues.  I think this past season confirmed that there is very little wrong with the CFL product and the ratio as it is, works fine.  It is the marketing of the game that is more the issue.

[theaardvark]

I think teams that use it at all will do so in the way you've described above, I can see a Natl. receiver like Woli losing reps to an older import receiver like Darvin Adams, or Derel Walker, although can't see how that will improve the game in any way.

This rule change just looks to be another knee jerk reaction to appease a few disgruntled governors that want to drastically alter the product. The old boys who run the CFLPA probably saw it as a way to help prolong their buddies careers as it's not likely the young players *****, complain or even vote on these issues.  I think this past season confirmed that there is very little wrong with the CFL product and the ratio as it is, works fine.  It is the marketing of the game that is more the issue.

A "senior man" clause used to be in just about every union agreement, many companies saddled with unions would use the union rules to lay off / recall workers based on age.  Requiring a company to retain a certain ratio of men over a certain age protected the retirement prospects of older union men.  (My Dad was a union rep and fell victim to giving up the senior man clause in their agreement, company he had been with 40 years let him go the day the clause was lifted... union are great in most cases, but in some, they suck.  He was lucky to land with a company owned by 2 guys that had apprenticed under him, who used him to teach their apprentices until he retired).

I see this as just that, a way to protect a handful of jobs for older players.  Keeping some names around when younger, cheaper players are available.

Not a bad thing, just not a game changer IMHO.  And something that is going to cause controversy in tracking how many snaps each player takes, and how they will attribute penalties for Jones when he abuses the rule.

[Blue In BC]

I think teams that use it at all will do so in the way you've described above, I can see a Natl. receiver like Woli losing reps to an older import receiver like Darvin Adams, or Derel Walker, although can't see how that will improve the game in any way.

This rule change just looks to be another knee jerk reaction to appease a few disgruntled governors that want to drastically alter the product. The old boys who run the CFLPA probably saw it as a way to help prolong their buddies careers as it's not likely the young players *****, complain or even vote on these issues.  I think this past season confirmed that there is very little wrong with the CFL product and the ratio as it is, works fine.  It is the marketing of the game that is more the issue.

Not if 8 Nationals have to start. You can't take out a Canadian ( 1 of 7 ) and replace him with a Nationalized American and achieve EIGHT.

It still comes down as who or how many imports are classified this way and whether you have a DI that qualifies. Aside from the DI's and back up QB's, the imports are already full time starters.

In your example Grant would be the only one on our current roster that would qualify to come in for some portion replacing Woli for example.

Adding in a veteran player as a DI is possible but likely more expensive than a rookie or 2nd year player.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

A "senior man" clause used to be in just about every union agreement, many companies saddled with unions would use the union rules to lay off / recall workers based on age.  Requiring a company to retain a certain ratio of men over a certain age protected the retirement prospects of older union men.  (My Dad was a union rep and fell victim to giving up the senior man clause in their agreement, company he had been with 40 years let him go the day the clause was lifted... union are great in most cases, but in some, they suck.  He was lucky to land with a company owned by 2 guys that had apprenticed under him, who used him to teach their apprentices until he retired).

I see this as just that, a way to protect a handful of jobs for older players.  Keeping some names around when younger, cheaper players are available.

Not a bad thing, just not a game changer IMHO.  And something that is going to cause controversy in tracking how many snaps each player takes, and how they will attribute penalties for Jones when he abuses the rule.

Are you suggesting this rule change was a CFLPA initiative?

[the paw]

I think teams that use it at all will do so in the way you've described above, I can see a Natl. receiver like Woli losing reps to an older import receiver like Darvin Adams, or Derel Walker, although can't see how that will improve the game in any way.

This rule change just looks to be another knee jerk reaction to appease a few disgruntled governors that want to drastically alter the product. The old boys who run the CFLPA probably saw it as a way to help prolong their buddies careers as it's not likely the young players *****, complain or even vote on these issues.  I think this past season confirmed that there is very little wrong with the CFL product and the ratio as it is, works fine.  It is the marketing of the game that is more the issue.

Yes, I hate the dilution of the ratio.  We've never had as many top flight Canadian receivers, running backs and linebackers as we do now. I think the governors are caving to the lazier GMs and coaches who complain that they can't develop adequate replacement if one of their starters get injured. 

I don't mind the creation of roster rules that require clubs to keep a certain number of American veterans.  I think it helps with player continuity and selling the game.  Converting the DI position to accommodate this is not a terrible idea.  I just wish they hadn't tied it to the 50-50, Nationalized Canadian foolishness. 

[the paw]

Not if 8 Nationals have to start. You can't take out a Canadian ( 1 of 7 ) and replace him with a Nationalized American and achieve EIGHT.

It still comes down as who or how many imports are classified this way and whether you have a DI that qualifies. Aside from the DI's and back up QB's, the imports are already full time starters.

In your example Grant would be the only one on our current roster that would qualify to come in for some portion replacing Woli for example.

Adding in a veteran player as a DI is possible but likely more expensive than a rookie or 2nd year player.

The eighth starter is largely semantics, it is a non-issue.

Its the two (or later 3) subs who are Nationalized Canadians and that can split reps with a real Canadian that will impact the use of DIs.  And they will dilute the National content, because those 2 Canadian starters will lose 49% of their reps to these veteran DIs. 

Grant is not the only option on the offensive side of the ball.  It would be easy to designate Ellingson (more than 5 years in league) as the DI, and bring him on passing downs and leave Wolitarsky in as a primarily blocker on running plays.  That would allow you to bring another full-time American starter in at WR.   Heck, if you wanted to go run heavy, you could pair Ellingson with Liam Dobson as a TE and leave Wolitarsky on the bench.

On the defensive side, I think we are most likely to find a veteran DT to pair up with Lawson.  I suppose you could pair up Rose with Ford on the field corner, but I don't think they like to cycle DBs in and out that much.  Gauthier already comes in for quite a few reps, I could see him, Bighill and Kyrie Wilson rotating among the two LB spots, with one of them counting as a ratio starting position. 

[Blue In BC]

The eighth starter is largely semantics, it is a non-issue.

Its the two (or later 3) subs who are Nationalized Canadians and that can split reps with a real Canadian that will impact the use of DIs.  And they will dilute the National content, because those 2 Canadian starters will lose 49% of their reps to these veteran DIs. 

Grant is not the only option on the offensive side of the ball.  It would be easy to designate Ellingson (more than 5 years in league) as the DI, and bring him on passing downs and leave Wolitarsky in as a primarily blocker on running plays.  That would allow you to bring another full-time American starter in at WR.   Heck, if you wanted to go run heavy, you could pair Ellingson with Liam Dobson as a TE and leave Wolitarsky on the bench.

On the defensive side, I think we are most likely to find a veteran DT to pair up with Lawson.  I suppose you could pair up Rose with Ford on the field corner, but I don't think they like to cycle DBs in and out that much.  Gauthier already comes in for quite a few reps, I could see him, Bighill and Kyrie Wilson rotating among the two LB spots, with one of them counting as a ratio starting position. 

As I said my comments were based on the Bombers 2022 roster.

Ellingson was a starter when he was healthy. Many posters feel that he was paid too much as he aged and could not play for 1/2 the season. How would you justify even a reduced salary as a DI? Our other import receivers on the PR were essentially rookies.

With only 4 DI spots, it's a complex situation filling needs and costs to build a roster. See the issue? In theory good idea but availability and cost make this a conundrum IMO.

We already had Walker as a DI as a DT but he'd only be a 3rd year player in 2023 if retained. Again the question in the veteran DT is both cost and availability. We couldn't even do that in 2022 for either a DE or DT. All of a sudden we're going to do it because of a hokey new classification?

We'll see how the roster shapes up coming out of TC

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It's not really that complicated and it's a good change that will lead to more flexibility and a better product.

In 2023 there will be 8 national starters, made up of:
7 Nationals and;
1 Nationalized American (definition 3 years with a team or 5 in CFL)

2 additional Nationalized Americans can rotate with 2 national starters within the starting 8, no more than 49% of total snaps. (both cannot substitute on same side of the ball(

Note: 2 DIs can continue to operate as usual, subbing for American starters.

In summary and at its most basic, this means that teams are likely to have 5 full time Canadian starters and 2 who rotate with Americans in 2023 with a third potential rotator in 2024.

[theaardvark]

Are you suggesting this rule change was a CFLPA initiative?

I can see it being a CFLPA initiative, or sold to them as a benefit, with an eye to long term changes being CFL beneficial...  regardless who came up with it, there is a short term benefit for tenured INT players, but there are potential long term implications for the ratio...

[Blue In BC]

It's not really that complicated and it's a good change that will lead to more flexibility and a better product.

In 2023 there will be 8 national starters, made up of:
7 Nationals and;
1 Nationalized American (definition 3 years with a team or 5 in CFL)

2 additional Nationalized Americans can rotate with 2 national starters within the starting 8, no more than 49% of total snaps. (both cannot substitute on same side of the ball(

Note: 2 DIs can continue to operate as usual, subbing for American starters.

In summary and at its most basic, this means that teams are likely to have 5 full time Canadian starters and 2 who rotate with Americans in 2023 with a third potential rotator in 2024.

Can't dispute the summary. The question will be how it impacts the choices for the DI spots. Most teams tend to use one spot for a returner that is not always a viable player on offence or defence. IE: Grant saw a few plays on offence but was nowhere near a high use player other than as a returner.

A few teams have had a player that did fill multiple roles on some teams. There is an inherent risk in over working / risking your returner, but it's an interesting thought.

Many teams including the Bombers in the past have had an import kicker as a DI.

A few teams had DI's that might have qualified as Nationalized Americans. The Bombers only example was Grant.

So. We may see players like Cole, Adams,Walker and Holm displaced. That may have happened in any case. OTOH, some DI's develop into starters: Santos -Knox ( in the past ) Wilson, Houston and Parker more recently.

It's going to be a mixed bag that won't necessarily be good for Canadians in working towards a starters role. There may be a development cost with imports where rookie talent loses out to veterans on the AR.

Time will tell.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Can't dispute the summary. The question will be how it impacts the choices for the DI spots. Most teams tend to use one spot for a returner that is not always a viable player on offence or defence. IE: Grant saw a few plays on offence but was nowhere near a high use player other than as a returner.

A few teams have had a player that did fill multiple roles on some teams. There is an inherent risk in over working / risking your returner, but it's an interesting thought.

Many teams including the Bombers in the past have had an import kicker as a DI.

A few teams had DI's that might have qualified as Nationalized Americans. The Bombers only example was Grant.

So. We may see players like Cole, Adams,Walker and Holm displaced. That may have happened in any case. OTOH, some DI's develop into starters: Santos -Knox ( in the past ) Wilson, Houston and Parker more recently.

It's going to be a mixed bag that won't necessarily be good for Canadians in working towards a starters role. There may be a development cost with imports where rookie talent loses out to veterans on the AR.

Time will tell.

What is will do is create a slightly more even competition amongst Canadians and tenured American players. It will also somewhat reduce the risk of losing a couple key nationals and sinking because of it as there are better ways to hide nationals only starting because of the ratio rules.

[Blue In BC]

What is will do is create a slightly more even competition amongst Canadians and tenured American players. It will also somewhat reduce the risk of losing a couple key nationals and sinking because of it as there are better ways to hide nationals only starting because of the ratio rules.

If you're talking about the Nationalized Americans if might create some advantages. It seems the long way around the problem though. The league could have reduced the Canadian starters down to 6. They could have reduced the number Canadian back ups by increasing the number of DI's.

Now we'll have 17 1/2 import starters, of which that 49% guy will be one of the 4 DI's.

6 1/2 Canadian starters backed up by 15 or so back ups because of ratio.

That's the issue in a nutshell.

[the paw]

It's not really that complicated and it's a good change that will lead to more flexibility and a better product.

In 2023 there will be 8 national starters, made up of:
7 Nationals and;
1 Nationalized American (definition 3 years with a team or 5 in CFL)

2 additional Nationalized Americans can rotate with 2 national starters within the starting 8, no more than 49% of total snaps. (both cannot substitute on same side of the ball(

Note: 2 DIs can continue to operate as usual, subbing for American starters.

In summary and at its most basic, this means that teams are likely to have 5 full time Canadian starters and 2 who rotate with Americans in 2023 with a third potential rotator in 2024.

I am making an assumption, and I think it is logical but would bear confirming through the CBA language, that the DI Nationalized Americans who are eligible to sub for national starters, will also be eligible to sub for American starters under normal DI rules.

That would allow a veteran DI who is nationalized to be matched up with a Canadian and an American in the same positions group and establish a rotation where they call get roughly equivalent snaps.  For example, let's say you make Bighill the nationalized DI, Kyrie Wilson the American starter, and Gauthier the National Starter.  In a game with a convenient 100 defensive snaps, Gauthier could take 60, Bighill could replace him for the other 40.  Kyrie Wilson could take 70 snaps, but then Bighill could replace him for 30 snaps.  That scenario would have Bighill and Wilson at 70 snaps each, and Gauthier at 60.  

I think this is important, because it opens up the possibility of the nationalized players not just being role players or specialists, but central pieces.  It does dilute the Canadian content, which I am not happy about, but it also makes veteran American players a little less expendable.

[Blue In BC]

I am making an assumption, and I think it is logical but would bear confirming through the CBA language, that the DI Nationalized Americans who are eligible to sub for national starters, will also be eligible to sub for American starters under normal DI rules.

That would allow a veteran DI who is nationalized to be matched up with a Canadian and an American in the same positions group and establish a rotation where they call get roughly equivalent snaps.  For example, let's say you make Bighill the nationalized DI, Kyrie Wilson the American starter, and Gauthier the National Starter.  In a game with a convenient 100 defensive snaps, Gauthier could take 60, Bighill could replace him for the other 40.  Kyrie Wilson could take 70 snaps, but then Bighill could replace him for 30 snaps.  That scenario would have Bighill and Wilson at 70 snaps each, and Gauthier at 60.  

I think this is important, because it opens up the possibility of the nationalized players not just being role players or specialists, but central pieces.  It does dilute the Canadian content, which I am not happy about, but it also makes veteran American players a little less expendable.

I think you're correct on the 1st assumption. A nationalized player could sub for a Canadian or Import. I would think the normal DI rule would apply when replacing an import starter. A DI can replace an import starter 100% of the time if necessary.

I think the next assumption is not probable in the example used with Bighill. If Gauthier was as good as Bighill that would be happening anyway. The Lions have lots of Canadian talent at LB.

Until recently Bighill was earning top CFL money for his position. He's still making more than Gauthier in theory.  If he was still earning $200K, that would not be good use of the SMS to have him as the rotation player. He's the better choice to see the majority of the reps. That might change towards the end of his contract but will we really have a Canadian LB nearly as good to take the majority of snaps?

Same question if we found a decent Canadian DE ( Kongbo ) for example. Do we give him 51% or more of Jeffcoat or Jefferson's snaps?

[TBURGESS]

This is another rule that I absolutely hate. Who is going to be counting the snaps? What happens if you go over the allowable snap count? What happens with an injury to any of the 'snap count' players? Could a 'snap count' player play more than 51% of the plays if he plays for multiple 'snap count' players?

This is just one more example of the stupid ratio rules that the CFL has. The ratio should be Canadians & non-Canadians. Simple. Easy to maintain during the game.

[theaardvark]

In the past, there were not enough quality NATS to fill the starting ratio on the roster, and we were "hiding" sub-par starting players in certain positions... today, there are plenty of quality NAT players, so that teams are playing 8 or even 9 Nats to keep their best players on the field. 

Do we need a naturalized Int clause to make teams better?  Does it? 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

This is another rule that I absolutely hate. Who is going to be counting the snaps? What happens if you go over the allowable snap count? What happens with an injury to any of the 'snap count' players? Could a 'snap count' player play more than 51% of the plays if he plays for multiple 'snap count' players?

This is just one more example of the stupid ratio rules that the CFL has. The ratio should be Canadians & non-Canadians. Simple. Easy to maintain during the game.

It is a good question as to what happens if you go over the allowable snap count. Not sure, but may be similar to how the league addresses ratio violations now which is warnings and fines and angry emails. I have no idea how they will police it, there is a number of ways they could do so, but I haven't seen any official language that indicates how that will work. I don't think we'll ever see an in-game flag for it and the change won't really be perceptible to the average fan.

The easiest way I can think of:
At the end of the game, the league will simply ensure that 7 nationals started 51% of snaps on either offense or defense. If there's an injury to a Canadian player, then the Canadian with the next most snap counts on that side of the ball is added from the snap that injury occurred at.

Another possibility is that they simply do not track it formally. The league might just say as long as the two Naturalized Americans are subbing for Canadians then great. Another clause in the new CBA is a bit of a carrot, rather than a stick, in that instead of territorial exemptions, teams with the most Canadian snaps in the season get extra picks. Perhaps the league's stance is it is enforcement through that incentive. How that would go over with the CBA is another story but could certainly be a wedge issue.

[Jesse]

This is another rule that I absolutely hate. Who is going to be counting the snaps? What happens if you go over the allowable snap count? What happens with an injury to any of the 'snap count' players? Could a 'snap count' player play more than 51% of the plays if he plays for multiple 'snap count' players?

This is just one more example of the stupid ratio rules that the CFL has. The ratio should be Canadians & non-Canadians. Simple. Easy to maintain during the game.

I'm personally ignoring it.

It's so stupid I can't waste energy on it - and there's going to be so much shenanigans around it because it will be impossible to track that it's essentially not worth any of our time to discuss, imo.

[Blue In BC]

In the past, there were not enough quality NATS to fill the starting ratio on the roster, and we were "hiding" sub-par starting players in certain positions... today, there are plenty of quality NAT players, so that teams are playing 8 or even 9 Nats to keep their best players on the field. 

Do we need a naturalized Int clause to make teams better?  Does it? 

I would dispute there are plenty of quality starting Canadians for several teams. Perhaps things are improving but it's still a supply / demand issue in a smaller pool.

Riders OL anybody?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I would dispute there are plenty of quality starting Canadians for several teams. Perhaps things are improving but it's still a supply / demand issue in a smaller pool.

Riders OL anybody?

Some might not want to admit it but offensive line play has been a serious issue across the league over the last decade. There is not enough talent in the American and Canadian pools. I mean, I know Stanley Bryant is an absolute gem but the fact he won the best offensive lineman at 36-years-old is kind of telling. There are some god-awful Canadian lineman hanging around CFL teams that wouldn't even start in Div III schools down in the US.

[Blue In BC]

Some might not want to admit it but offensive line play has been a serious issue across the league over the last decade. There is not enough talent in the American and Canadian pools. I mean, I know Stanley Bryant is an absolute gem but the fact he won the best offensive lineman at 36-years-old is kind of telling. There are some god-awful Canadian lineman hanging around CFL teams that wouldn't even start in Div III schools down in the US.

Many teams have several Canadians on their OL or DL. I think the ratio / roster size / PR size prevents better development of import talent on the OL/DL. It's the nature of the beast. That's the math of 17 import starters and only 4 DI's.

Overall I don't think finding import linemen is as difficult as you suggest. OTOH we now have the USFL and XFL drawing from the import talent pool.

Some teams could probably still replace the awful Canadian OL with imports that were better and probably less expensive. The problem is then finding those Canadians to fill other position in the ratio.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Whole program is a bit of crock IMO, never before have there been more good quality Natl. players available, especially on the offensive side of the ball.  Lazy teams don't want to take the time to develop them, they're looking for the easiest plug and play solutions and improving CDN. content is a long-term project. 

Football is dominated by players in their prime, not players who hang on too long prolonging their careers. Best thing to do with players past their prime is let them go, they're no longer driving ticket or merchandise sales and rarely do they improve the team on the field.  Case in point Charleston Hughes, Sask. would have been better off not taking up a roster spot to employ him when a younger Import DE would play for less and could be given more time to develop. 

[theaardvark]

I would dispute there are plenty of quality starting Canadians for several teams. Perhaps things are improving but it's still a supply / demand issue in a smaller pool.

Riders OL anybody?

There were plenty of Oline available, Oday just wasn't able to sign any of them because he had blown his budget... it wasn't a lack of available talent, but mismanagement.

There are lots of NAT's available, and the number that start in draft years is rising rapidly.  They are coming into the league much more game ready.  And more are finding out they are actually "Canadian" even though they didn't realize they qualified...

[Sir Blue and Gold]

There were plenty of Oline available, Oday just wasn't able to sign any of them because he had blown his budget... it wasn't a lack of available talent, but mismanagement.

There are lots of NAT's available, and the number that start in draft years is rising rapidly.  They are coming into the league much more game ready.  And more are finding out they are actually "Canadian" even though they didn't realize they qualified...

That's bunk. Good Canadian OL are a finite resource. Who should have he signed that he couldn't afford to? And if he had signed some of the 2021 free agents that worked out it simply would have shifted the problem to another club.

[Jesse]

That's bunk. Good Canadian OL are a finite resource. Who should have he signed that he couldn't afford to? And if he had signed some of the 2021 free agents that worked out it simply would have shifted the problem to another club.

That's an OL question though, not a Canadian issue.

There's talent all over the field, GMs don't need to (and shouldn't) lock themselves into starting all Canadian OL.

[Stats Junkie]

Re: Tracking snap counts

The CFL will add 2 in stadium spotters to track snap counts. I'm not sure if they will track all players or if it will be limited to nationals and/or designated Americans.

I have overheard a couple of conversations about in game application but it was mostly spit balling ideas. I won't share those conversations unless I can confirm details.

[Blue In BC]

That's an OL question though, not a Canadian issue.

There's talent all over the field, GMs don't need to (and shouldn't) lock themselves into starting all Canadian OL.

If that was true, they wouldn't do it. How many starting Canadian DB's are there outside of at safety and even then?  Most teams have more import DL and receivers than Canadians as well.

Comes down to supply and demand in the talent pool.

[Jesse]

If that was true, they wouldn't do it. How many starting Canadian DB's are there outside of at safety and even then?  Most teams have more import DL and receivers than Canadians as well.

Comes down to supply and demand in the talent pool.

Well, I disagree with you entirely.

[Blue In BC]

Well, I disagree with you entirely.

Name two starting Canadian DB's ( aside from safety ) the Bombers have had since 1990.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Re: Tracking snap counts

The CFL will add 2 in stadium spotters to track snap counts. I'm not sure if they will track all players or if it will be limited to nationals and/or designated Americans.

I have overheard a couple of conversations about in game application but it was mostly spit balling ideas. I won't share those conversations unless I can confirm details.

Thanks! I'm totally eager to learn how they will do it so if you hear anything official please send me a message

[Jesse]

Name two starting Canadian DB's ( aside from safety ) the Bombers have had since 1990.

This is my point. That GMs/coaches are lazy and filled with inherent bias when it comes to Canadian players.

When we needed to in 2016, we started 3 imp on the OL and filled our NIs elsewhere. We routinely start 8 Canadians now (while losing guys like Desjarlais and Kongbo to the NFL). For your DB question, we started Ford this year at CB for a game and he didn't look out of place at all - and that's as a rookie.

I call BS.

[Blue In BC]

This is my point. That GMs/coaches are lazy and filled with inherent bias when it comes to Canadian players.

When we needed to in 2016, we started 3 imp on the OL and filled our NIs elsewhere. We routinely start 8 Canadians now (while losing guys like Desjarlais and Kongbo to the NFL). For your DB question, we started Ford this year at CB for a game and he didn't look out of place at all - and that's as a rookie.

I call BS.

I call BS on your bias claim. That's just the excuse always used. We have a multitude of Canadian coaches including HC's. There are Canadian GM's as well and many that are ex players that came from Canadian college programs.

Lions started a Canadian QB and had a Canadian back up QB. They also had some really good Canadian LB's starting.

There is a difference in needing to adjust the ratio than wanting to adjust the ratio as in your example.

We have 17 import starters ( aside from QB's ) and only 4 DI's. More recently 2 Globals who can only sub for imports.

OTOH, we have 7 Canadian starters and 15 back ups. The math is clear.

Next to the starting QB, an OL is critical to keeping the QB upright, healthy and able to perform, so that's no surprise.

Surprisingly the Bombers did often start more Canadians than they needed to in 2022. IMO that was more about losing veteran imports and not having experienced DI's to replace them. It was a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. The best example I would suggest was Gauthier subbing for Wilson and then Clement due to injury.

Ford started in a game where we sat half our regulars in a game that had no impact in the standings. Our opponent did much the same. While he didn't look out of place, is this where you want to hang your hat? One game that was nearly the equivalent to a pre season game.

It's as simple as supply and demand. There have been extensive discussions every year about this which include the higher level of coaching and competition in US colleges compared to Canadian. Football in the US starts much earlier and is nearly a religion.

[Jesse]

Interesting how you bring up BC, who is another team that started Canadians in skill positions (as opposed to forcing them on their OL) and experienced great success.

[Blue In BC]

Interesting how you bring up BC, who is another team that started Canadians in skill positions (as opposed to forcing them on their OL) and experienced great success.

Not really. They're the exception to the rule. Having drafted Rourke at # 15 in 2020 means 8 other teams passed on him. The draft has always been a bit of a crap shoot. However having a starting QB on an ELC gave way to freeing up considerable SMS. That allowed them to pay for the very good Canadians in free agency. I don't think they started more than 7 Canadians in most games. They did have issues with Canadian OL though.

Finishing in 4th or 5th in the west standings improved their draft position. They drafted better than some teams with good draft positions. Jordan Williams was a 1st overall pick. Nathan Cherry was a 3rd pick in 1st round.

Cottoy was a territorial protected player. Godber was a 3rd pick in the 1st round.

Signing players like Betts was due to having SMS money etc etc.

If Rourke returns and gets what many posters think will be $500K, that impacts their SMS spend across the roster. They won't have as much ability to pick the best of the best in free agency.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Name two starting Canadian DB's ( aside from safety ) the Bombers have had since 1990.

Matt Bucknor and Merv Walker, that's all I got. :-)

[Blue In BC]

Matt Bucknor and Merv Walker, that's all I got. :-)

LOL. Merv Walker last played about 1983. He started with the Bombers in 1974. He was pretty good.

Matt Bucknor: Ouch, he was not very good. Neither were the Bombers in 2014 and 2015 when he was here. We finished 5th and then 4th.

D. Sampson was a really good player as an inside DHB. Probably the best and most notable for the longest number of seasons. 186 career games mostly in Winnipeg 1986 -1996.

D. Donaldson played CB for a short time and he was not very good either.

A starting Canadian at CB or DHB is a ratio advantage similar to having had a starting RB in A. Harris. Those create competitive advantages as non ratio positions. There are reasons why they suggest they are ratio breaking positions. Not many can compete against the sheer volume of import candidates. There may some bias but it's a sheer reality in supply and demand.

In the old days with 32 man rosters and 10 Canadian starters and more run heavy offences, it was common for the inside DHB's to be Canadian. Doug Strong or Gene Lakusiak for example. The CB's seemed to be exclusively imports. Often the # 2 QB was one of the CB's

[the paw]

Matt Bucknor and Merv Walker, that's all I got. :-)

You forgot Gary Rosolowich....

[Blue In BC]

You forgot Gary Rosolowich....

The last player to intercept a Ron Lancaster pass? Also Gary's last int and season IIRC.

[Jesse]

Not really. They're the exception to the rule. Having drafted Rourke at # 15 in 2020 means 8 other teams passed on him. The draft has always been a bit of a crap shoot. However having a starting QB on an ELC gave way to freeing up considerable SMS. That allowed them to pay for the very good Canadians in free agency. I don't think they started more than 7 Canadians in most games. They did have issues with Canadian OL though.

Finishing in 4th or 5th in the west standings improved their draft position. They drafted better than some teams with good draft positions. Jordan Williams was a 1st overall pick. Nathan Cherry was a 3rd pick in 1st round.

Cottoy was a territorial protected player. Godber was a 3rd pick in the 1st round.

Signing players like Betts was due to having SMS money etc etc.

If Rourke returns and gets what many posters think will be $500K, that impacts their SMS spend across the roster. They won't have as much ability to pick the best of the best in free agency.

We're the exception. No, wait, BC is the exception.

Or there does happen to be talent across the board and some teams are actually willing to put Canadians in positions to succeed

[the paw]

We're the exception. No, wait, BC is the exception.

Or there does happen to be talent across the board and some teams are actually willing to put Canadians in positions to succeed

There is certainly enough of a talent pool to maintain the ratio at 2022 level.

Having said that, it is also clear that the size of  the pool has limits, particularly at positions requiring elite speed.  The role of the ratio is to balance the roster content with the size of the talent pool.  Demski and Gittens are current evidence that there is too end Canadian talent, but this club also started Aaron Hargreaves for several years. 

I would say that there had been an historical bias against Canadian running backs, but the Cornish-Harris-Messam troika blew that up real good.  I think Erlington, Oliveira, Anwi are judged on their merits.

[Jesse]

The Hargreaves years (as they are known), are from when we had GMs who were clearly biased against Canadians and we would trade all of our draft picks away for Americans.

Recent years have shown us that teams are more willing to give Canadians a shot at skill positions, you mention some, which makes it all the more ridiculous that they're messing with the ratio now, imo. Especially in the convoluted way they have agreed to do it.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The Hargreaves years (as they are known), are from when we had GMs who were clearly biased against Canadians and we would trade all of our draft picks away for Americans.

Recent years have shown us that teams are more willing to give Canadians a shot at skill positions, you mention some, which makes it all the more ridiculous that they're messing with the ratio now, imo. Especially in the convoluted way they have agreed to do it.

Here's hoping the old boys network that dismissed Natl. talent is starting to fade away, with the advent of younger coaches and coordinators and the recent success the Bombers have achieved, the evidence that having a solid Natl. base is critical to a team's success.

[Blue In BC]

There is certainly enough of a talent pool to maintain the ratio at 2022 level.

Having said that, it is also clear that the size of  the pool has limits, particularly at positions requiring elite speed.  The role of the ratio is to balance the roster content with the size of the talent pool.  Demski and Gittens are current evidence that there is too end Canadian talent, but this club also started Aaron Hargreaves for several years. 

I would say that there had been an historical bias against Canadian running backs, but the Cornish-Harris-Messam troika blew that up real good.  I think Erlington, Oliveira, Anwi are judged on their merits.

American colleges have larger staff that include specialists that the CFL doesn't have to the same extent. Training equipment. Medical rehab specialists. Strength / conditioning coaches.

The NFL with such high minimum salaries makes player training a year round job. A CFL player doesn't really have that luxury or training support.

Beyond the shear supply and demand issue it's still more difficult to compete.

I do take exception to the perceived bias of the old boys network a few suggest. Coaches want to win and if they don't they risk their positions. They'd have to be idiots to not play the best player if that individual was a Canadian.

As a fan I don't care if they start 12 Canadians. The goal is winning. Canadian or local association is a bonus but the goal is winning and play well.

[CrazyCanuck89]

American colleges have larger staff that include specialists that the CFL doesn't have to the same extent. Training equipment. Medical rehab specialists. Strength / conditioning coaches.

The NFL with such high minimum salaries makes player training a year round job. A CFL player doesn't really have that luxury or training support.

Beyond the shear supply and demand issue it's still more difficult to compete.

I do take exception to the perceived bias of the old boys network a few suggest. Coaches want to win and if they don't they risk their positions. They'd have to be idiots to not play the best player if that individual was a Canadian.

As a fan I don't care if they start 12 Canadians. The goal is winning. Canadian or local association is a bonus but the goal is winning and play well.

CFL teams have specialists too, but not every team can have as many specialists like the Ti-Cats.

https://ticats.ca/coaches/

[Blue In BC]

CFL teams have specialists too, but not every team can have as many specialists like the Ti-Cats.

https://ticats.ca/coaches/

I realize that but in general the CFL does not have as extensive a group of specials or coaches.

[the paw]

The Hargreaves years (as they are known), are from when we had GMs who were clearly biased against Canadians and we would trade all of our draft picks away for Americans.

Recent years have shown us that teams are more willing to give Canadians a shot at skill positions, you mention some, which makes it all the more ridiculous that they're messing with the ratio now, imo. Especially in the convoluted way they have agreed to do it.

You can't write off the example as the poor judgement of one GM, bias or no.  You don't have to look far to see the league has a number of ham and eggers like Colton Hunchak, either of the Herdman-Reeds, etc.  If you look at the CFL draft history, it isn't a GM foolishly trading way draft picks (although that happens too), the number of starting quality players drops precipitously after the third round.  There are limits to the pool.

For the record, I am a huge fan of the ratio.  I remember when the ratio was set so we were starting 10 Canadian instead of seven, and the only DI was the back up QB.  The games were every bit as entertaining, although you had less overall speed in the game.  My only point is that somewhere between the extremes of all Canadians and no Canadians, there is an optimal balance.

[Blue In BC]

You can't write off the example as the poor judgement of one GM, bias or no.  You don't have to look far to see the league has a number of ham and eggers like Colton Hunchak, either of the Herdman-Reeds, etc.  If you look at the CFL draft history, it isn't a GM foolishly trading way draft picks (although that happens too), the number of starting quality players drops precipitously after the third round.  There are limits to the pool.

For the record, I am a huge fan of the ratio.  I remember when the ratio was set so we were starting 10 Canadian instead of seven, and the only DI was the back up QB.  The games were every bit as entertaining, although you had less overall speed in the game.  My only point is that somewhere between the extremes of all Canadians and no Canadians, there is an optimal balance.

During the season or perhaps even before TC I suggested adding 2 more DI's and 2 less Canadian back ups. That would have made more sense than this Nationalized American rule.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

During the season or perhaps even before TC I suggested adding 2 more DI's and 2 less Canadian back ups. That would have made more sense than this Nationalized American rule.

The problem is that the CFLPA was very clear it wouldn't do that. It's hard to change the ratio because the Canadians hold the majority. If you ask me, the ratio should not be a bargainable issue but it is so this is where we are. The Nationalized American rule is the best compromise they could fine.

[Blue In BC]

The problem is that the CFLPA was very clear it wouldn't do that. It's hard to change the ratio because the Canadians hold the majority. If you ask me, the ratio should not be a bargainable issue but it is so this is where we are. The Nationalized American rule is the best compromise they could fine.

That's not  totally correct as far as Canadians holding the majority. Imports: 17 starters including the QB who is most often an import. 2 additional QB's that are most often imports. 4 DI's. That's 23 imports. Now we have at least 1 global and possibly 2 global players on game day rosters. Global players effectively reduced the number of Canadians and no impact on the number of imports.

The players on the PR must also be part of the CFLPA? The PR consists of more imports than Canadians as well.

The game day roster is 45 and that leaves either 20 or 21 Canadian players on the AR.

I can't dispute that the CFLPA made it clear they wouldn't do that, but it wouldn't be for the reason you suggested.

I've never been a fan of the global idea and IMO it's largely been a failure. Partially because the talent pool is not that large and nearly all players have been ineffective.

Getting rid of 2 global players and replacing them with 2 regular DI's would be another alternative. Global players can only replace an import in any case. This would sustain the number of Canadians and IMO improve the talent pool and succession curve for DI's. It might also facilitate blending in the Nationalized American rule.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

That's totally correct as far as Canadians holding the majority. Imports: 17 starters including the QB who is most often an import. 2 additional QB's that are most often imports. 4 DI's. That's 23 imports. Now we have at least 1 global and possibly 2 global players on game day rosters. Global players effectively reduced the number of Canadians and no impact on the number of imports.

The players on the PR must also be part of the CFLPA? The PR consists of more imports than Canadians as well.

The game day roster is 45 and that leaves either 20 or 21 Canadian players on the AR.

I can't dispute that the CFLPA made it clear they wouldn't do that, but it wouldn't be for the reason you suggested.

I've never been a fan of the global idea and IMO it's largely been a failure. Partially because the talent pool is not that large and nearly all players have been ineffective.

Getting rid of 2 global players and replacing them with 2 regular DI's would be another alternative. Global players can only replace an import in any case. This would sustain the number of Canadians and IMO improve the talent pool and succession curve for DI's. It might also facilitate blending in the Nationalized American rule.

The issue the PA had (has) with adding two additional DIs for two less Canadian backups is it would swing the PAs voting majority to imports. Currently, teams are required to dress a minimum of 21 Nationals, minimum of one Global and maximum of 20 American players. Simple math then, you are proposing a gameday roster of 19+ nationals, one+ global and a maximum of 22 American players. Add that up across the league and you have Americans being able to form a majority pretty easily. Obviously, the Canadian players who enjoy the current voting balance don't like that.

The big question is why they ever included the ratio as part of the bargaining in the first place. You can't take it back now but in essence it's simply a league rule. The players can't bargain their way to other rule changes like the length of games, the definition of pass interference, etc.

[Blue In BC]

The issue the PA had (has) with adding two additional DIs for two less Canadian backups is it would swing the PAs voting majority to imports. Currently, teams are required to dress a minimum of 21 Nationals, minimum of one Global and maximum of 20 American players. Simple math then, you are proposing a gameday roster of 19+ nationals, one+ global and a maximum of 22 American players. Add that up across the league and you have Americans being able to form a majority pretty easily. Obviously, the Canadian players who enjoy the current voting balance don't like that.

The big question is why they ever included the ratio as part of the bargaining in the first place. You can't take it back now but in essence it's simply a league rule. The players can't bargain their way to other rule changes like the length of games, the definition of pass interference, etc.

Note: In my previous post I omitted the word NOT before the word correct. That was the opposite of what I meant to suggest.

I explained the math and yours is not correct. There are more imports than Canadians already. Only the Lions have 2 Canadian QB's but still have 21 imports and 2 globals and 22 Canadians. Globals are part of the CFLPA as well.

I also suggested replacing globals with 2 import DI's in an alternative choice. That's a net zero change to the Canadian content.

Why the ratio exists is a hard fought priority for some fans. While I disagree, that's their view.

I'd reduce the number of Canadian starters to 6 from 7 but that will anger a bunch of CFL fans.

The smaller argument will be a new balance of the non starting players like the DI's.