Nationalized American rule begins in 2023

[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.