Nationalized American rule begins in 2023

[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.