Roster size idea

[Blue In BC]

Every team has had a lot of injuries this season and by the end of each year rosters seem depleted, worn out / or inexperienced newbies being late adds.

Something I'd like to see / suggest.

For the last half of the season ( game 10 and beyond ) I'd like to add 2 more DI's with an increase to the overall roster.

I realize that adds to SMS but the CFLPA / CFL could waive / exempt that additional cost of those 2 players. If they are on ELC's then it only adds up to 1 ELC for the year.

Ratio would be the same for the starters etc.

This is somewhat similar to what they do when they increase the size of the PR at the end of the season by 5 for a month.  Could reduce or eliminate that change to the PR to reduce increase in cost.

A slightly larger roster is a good thing IMO.

[theaardvark]

The PR increase cures two issues, the need for more players for the AR in case of injury, and development for the next season.  Reducing the PR expansion is a bad idea.  And the AR is easily expanded using the PR each week.  The need for 2 extra DI's in game would not make up for having 5 extra bodies in camp.  And i can't see them doing both, especially from an SMS standpoint.  Teams are already against the cap, and the cap is already more than many teams can afford.

I think the present system is perfect to address both needs.

[Blue In BC]

You could reduce the PR by the 2 you add to the AR. As I suggested the league could waive the cost of the additional 2 players on the AR.

Players added late in the season seldom make the AR. If they do their team with the team is more limited ( 30 days ). They are for look see's for the following season. Players on the AR get actual live game reps in meaningful situations.

I'd challenge that the system is perfect. It gets tweeked all the time as well. Re-introducing the # 3 QB on the AR as an example. Eliminating the 46 player that didn't dress but got paid.  That player eliminated would balance off the addition of 2 players for half a season.

[theaardvark]

You could reduce the PR by the 2 you add to the AR. As I suggested the league could waive the cost of the additional 2 players on the AR.

Players added late in the season seldom make the AR. If they do their team with the team is more limited ( 30 days ). They are for look see's for the following season. Players on the AR get actual live game reps in meaningful situations.

I'd challenge that the system is perfect. It gets tweeked all the time as well. Re-introducing the # 3 QB on the AR as an example. Eliminating the 46 player that didn't dress but got paid.  That player eliminated would balance off the addition of 2 players for half a season.

Changing the AR size at an arbitrary time is complicated with our 9 game schedule. What if team A is at game 1o and team B is at game 9.  Does team A get to dress 2 additional players? Or, do they lose that game with the expanded roster.  EDM plays game 10 when HAM is in game 9.  OTT plays game 10 when Mtl is in game 9.  CGY plays game 11 when TOR is in game 9.

As to waiving any SMS$ for any reason, no.  Just no.  Do you make it the equivalent of 2 ELC level forgiveness?  What if the team decides to pay the new AR additions above ELC?  Why not just up the SMS by 2xELC game cheque x 8? 

The #3QB was put back, both in the CFL and NFL because QB's were getting creamed, and the need for a #3 was real.  See: Ottawa.  We dressed 2 QB's last game at our peril.

You propose reducing the PR to add to the AR and introducing some weird $SMS change so that a couple guys might get some teams work.  No reason you can't do that in the present system, rotating fringe teams guys on and off the PR if you really need to see them get "live reps" on teams.  Because there is no way, even in case of multiple injuries, that the 2 proposed extra AR guys see the field on O or D, except in mop up / after beatdown, which aren't "live reps" by any stretch. 

The current system is perfect.  Player get a chance on the late season PR expansion to earn a spot to compete for the next year's AR, get reps in practice, and the AR players are the AR players.  If you re expanding the AR, it has to be all year.  The limited time PR roster expansion allows teams to make decisions of future players, but if they have SMS worries, they need not take advantage of it at all.  If there were any $SMS roster changes, it should be taking that roster expansion out of the $SMS, but capping it at PR minimum for those 5 players. 

[Blue In BC]

Changing the AR size at an arbitrary time is complicated with our 9 game schedule. What if team A is at game 1o and team B is at game 9.  Does team A get to dress 2 additional players? Or, do they lose that game with the expanded roster.  EDM plays game 10 when HAM is in game 9.  OTT plays game 10 when Mtl is in game 9.  CGY plays game 11 when TOR is in game 9.

As to waiving any SMS$ for any reason, no.  Just no.  Do you make it the equivalent of 2 ELC level forgiveness?  What if the team decides to pay the new AR additions above ELC?  Why not just up the SMS by 2xELC game cheque x 8? 

The #3QB was put back, both in the CFL and NFL because QB's were getting creamed, and the need for a #3 was real.  See: Ottawa.  We dressed 2 QB's last game at our peril.

You propose reducing the PR to add to the AR and introducing some weird $SMS change so that a couple guys might get some teams work.  No reason you can't do that in the present system, rotating fringe teams guys on and off the PR if you really need to see them get "live reps" on teams.  Because there is no way, even in case of multiple injuries, that the 2 proposed extra AR guys see the field on O or D, except in mop up / after beatdown, which aren't "live reps" by any stretch. 

The current system is perfect.  Player get a chance on the late season PR expansion to earn a spot to compete for the next year's AR, get reps in practice, and the AR players are the AR players.  If you re expanding the AR, it has to be all year.  The limited time PR roster expansion allows teams to make decisions of future players, but if they have SMS worries, they need not take advantage of it at all.  If there were any $SMS roster changes, it should be taking that roster expansion out of the $SMS, but capping it at PR minimum for those 5 players. 

We agree to disagree the system is perfect.

There are pros and cons to any change.  What I proposed was any outline only and not set in stone. Rotating players from the PR is not nearly as equivalent as adding an extra DI for half a season. For example if Rose was healthy to return for game 10 and we had no new injuries, that would be an example of benefit having an extra spot as a DI. In theory what amount of SMS is " hidden " would be 2 ELC's for half a season. That could be done by an amendment to increase the new CBA by exactly that. A team could choose to add some non ELC's as the extra but the difference would be on them.

Generally if a team is increasing roster size for game 10, those are players that are most likely on the PR as ELC's. Returning veterans from IR would be more.

Every team not reaching game 10 at the same time is an issue I agree.

Weren't you one of the posters suggesting an exemption to the SMS to add a #4 Canadian QB. Or some version of a " franchise tag " which would exempt that salary in part or in whole?

Neither of those are new ideas and have been brought up often each off season.

[theaardvark]

Your scenario of Rose returning is usually the opposite of what happens... injuries tend to accumulate lte in the season, not reduce.  Which, again, makes an expanded PR more important.  You need maximum numbers to backup as many positions as possible in case of injury... and you can activate any of them when needed, and carrying them only costs PR rates, not ELC's...

[Blue In BC]

Your scenario of Rose returning is usually the opposite of what happens... injuries tend to accumulate lte in the season, not reduce.  Which, again, makes an expanded PR more important.  You need maximum numbers to backup as many positions as possible in case of injury... and you can activate any of them when needed, and carrying them only costs PR rates, not ELC's...

Players added during the expanded PR are meant for a look see. Those will not be players added to the AR due to injuries in all probability.

OTOH, players that were with the team all through TC and the 1st 9 weeks of the season know the play book and the all players very well. Those are the ones I'm speaking about. Carried over to 2023, that would be players like McCrae, Holm, Cole or Karamoko to name a few. Playing the last 9 games of 2023 would have had a benefit in both 2022 and preparing for 2023.

Note: Teams with secured play off positions at the end of the season: Usually add a bunch of PR players ( 4 - 8 ) for meaningless games. An equal amount of non injured veterans are moved to 1 game IR for 1 or possibly 2 weeks in some combination.

That's done to rest starters / prevent injuries and to some degree give PR players a full cheque and to further evaluate them for the following season. Wear and tear on players is significant. Two additional players for the back half of season has benefit.

[theaardvark]

The 5 added PR players likely won't get promoted to AR due to injury, unless they are the only one at a needed position on the PR. 

The difference is between the 5 guys getting a look for next season, and 2 guys getting promoted from the PR to get teams duty and maybe some meaningless mop up, after beatdown reps.

2 players getting game cheques will cost more than 5 expansion pr players... and having actual roster sizes change mid season makes no sense. 

[Blue In BC]

The 5 added PR players likely won't get promoted to AR due to injury, unless they are the only one at a needed position on the PR. 

The difference is between the 5 guys getting a look for next season, and 2 guys getting promoted from the PR to get teams duty and maybe some meaningless mop up, after beatdown reps.

2 players getting game cheques will cost more than 5 expansion pr players... and having actual roster sizes change mid season makes no sense. 

If you can't see that live gave reps is more valuable than PR time, then I don't know what to say. Even in mop up time, it's a better evaluation of those players. Yes it costs more. 2 players for 9 games is the equivalent of one extra salary for a full season ( 18 man games ).

Did any of the 5 players added to the PR even make it to TC 2023? None that I can notice and none that moved from PR to AR.

OTOH, as I've suggested several PR players that were already on the PR have moved up to the AR.

[TecnoGenius]

I'd be happy with a blanket full-season AR / DI increase, for sure.  It's painful watching the DI choices each week and how we have to make very hard choices to whittle down the AR even when we clearly need/want player X as depth for position Y.  It's kind of silly a pro team can't AR a IMP depth receiver at all most games?  I know, teams can (we don't), but then you suffer from fatigue on D.

Then again, it does make your choice of signings at NAT depth more important, that's for sure.  And that does make the game more "Canadian".  Would 2 more DIs diminish reps for the Briggs and Gauthiers and Lawsons?  Almost certainly.  But is that a horrible thing?  They'd still be important for catastrophic in-game injury duty, and STs; but they'd lose their "spelling" duties much of the time.  Tough choices for sure if you like things to look more "Canadian".

For context, let's look at how big the NFL PRs and ARs are?  What is the reason those are so big?  How do they justify it?  Just because they are loaded?  So the CFL roster size choices are purely $$ based?

Teams are already against the cap, and the cap is already more than many teams can afford.

Is this a thing, though?  Proof?  I'm sure if you upped the cap (which is always "optional") you'd have all 9 teams spending near to the cap.

[Blue In BC]

I'd be happy with a blanket full-season AR / DI increase, for sure.  It's painful watching the DI choices each week and how we have to make very hard choices to whittle down the AR even when we clearly need/want player X as depth for position Y.  It's kind of silly a pro team can't AR a IMP depth receiver at all most games?  I know, teams can (we don't), but then you suffer from fatigue on D.

Then again, it does make your choice of signings at NAT depth more important, that's for sure.  And that does make the game more "Canadian".  Would 2 more DIs diminish reps for the Briggs and Gauthiers and Lawsons?  Almost certainly.  But is that a horrible thing?  They'd still be important for catastrophic in-game injury duty, and STs; but they'd lose their "spelling" duties much of the time.  Tough choices for sure if you like things to look more "Canadian".

For context, let's look at how big the NFL PRs and ARs are?  What is the reason those are so big?  How do they justify it?  Just because they are loaded?  So the CFL roster size choices are purely $$ based?

Is this a thing, though?  Proof?  I'm sure if you upped the cap (which is always "optional") you'd have all 9 teams spending near to the cap.

Teams will spend to the cap regardless. The salary expenditure is top heavy for the best players.

If the roster size was increased to 55 players ( I'm not proposing this ) and the cap remained the same, teams couldn't pay QB's $600K, receivers $300K or OL $200K.

Would teams be better off with a larger roster with more Canadians and a couple more DI's while keeping the SMS the same? In the past I've suggested 2 + 2. That adds about $300k at ELC level deals.

IMO the top level salaries are getting out of hand / out of balance. I'm not proposing increasing or decreasing the SMS. OTOH, if the SMS was dropped by $500K, teams would still field a roster etc etc. Keep in mind that roster size used to be about 32 players and has steadily increased.

Change the dynamic of what the market will be bear.

Generally I think it's time to increase the roster size by 1 - 4 players. Whether that includes an increase to the SMS to accommodate that is debatable. Using 4 as a target you could phase that in over 4 years so you could trim from the top.

The pro ratio folks wouldn't like it but I'd add 2 more DI's and reduce the number of Canadian back ups by 2 as an alternative suggestion. On our 2023 roster would you rather have Bennett ( Picked at # 8 ) or Cole on the roster as an example?

The number of injuries seem to be increasing each year and teams struggle to find a balance with depth and remain within SMS.

[theaardvark]

I'd be happy with a blanket full-season AR / DI increase, for sure.  It's painful watching the DI choices each week and how we have to make very hard choices to whittle down the AR even when we clearly need/want player X as depth for position Y.  It's kind of silly a pro team can't AR a IMP depth receiver at all most games?  I know, teams can (we don't), but then you suffer from fatigue on D.

Then again, it does make your choice of signings at NAT depth more important, that's for sure.  And that does make the game more "Canadian".  Would 2 more DIs diminish reps for the Briggs and Gauthiers and Lawsons?  Almost certainly.  But is that a horrible thing?  They'd still be important for catastrophic in-game injury duty, and STs; but they'd lose their "spelling" duties much of the time.  Tough choices for sure if you like things to look more "Canadian".

For context, let's look at how big the NFL PRs and ARs are?  What is the reason those are so big?  How do they justify it?  Just because they are loaded?  So the CFL roster size choices are purely $$ based?

Is this a thing, though?  Proof?  I'm sure if you upped the cap (which is always "optional") you'd have all 9 teams spending near to the cap.

Was every CFL team in the black last year?  Because a team in the red can't afford to spend to the cap, even though they might. 

I really don't think the cap is an issue, or that wages are an issue, but rather finding a way to

a: let players keep more of their money ie: using the bonus structure, and

b: make longer ELC's that control wages, but are more open to NFL options.  getting an extra year or two of control over players pay, like in the NHL, could really help with the SMS, and maybe even open up the opportunity to have a 50 man AR. 

Vets in the NHL have toiled for 7 years to get their "payday".  CFL players are getting vet level pay after 2.  Dangle 36 more AR positions in front of the union, a 4 year ELC that pauses when they explore NFL options, and stays in place regardless what CFL team they play for, from thier first season on the AR, and some sort of "senior man clause", where they have to have a min of 5 INT players with over 5 years experience, and I think you get that through the CBA

To expound on ELC, make it a CFL standard agreement.  Pay (which moves with the cap) remains the same, or sliding though the 4 years.  If released from team A and signs with team B, the contract will be the remainder of his original contract, even if he moves to team C.  Gives you a large chunk of your roster salary controlled, just like the NHL.  And leaves a little extra cap available for the top players. 

[Blue In BC]

Was every CFL team in the black last year?  Because a team in the red can't afford to spend to the cap, even though they might. 

I really don't think the cap is an issue, or that wages are an issue, but rather finding a way to

a: let players keep more of their money ie: using the bonus structure, and

b: make longer ELC's that control wages, but are more open to NFL options.  getting an extra year or two of control over players pay, like in the NHL, could really help with the SMS, and maybe even open up the opportunity to have a 50 man AR. 

Vets in the NHL have toiled for 7 years to get their "payday".  CFL players are getting vet level pay after 2.  Dangle 36 more AR positions in front of the union, a 4 year ELC that pauses when they explore NFL options, and stays in place regardless what CFL team they play for, from thier first season on the AR, and some sort of "senior man clause", where they have to have a min of 5 INT players with over 5 years experience, and I think you get that through the CBA

To expound on ELC, make it a CFL standard agreement.  Pay (which moves with the cap) remains the same, or sliding though the 4 years.  If released from team A and signs with team B, the contract will be the remainder of his original contract, even if he moves to team C.  Gives you a large chunk of your roster salary controlled, just like the NHL.  And leaves a little extra cap available for the top players. 

We aren't privy to whether any teams are losing money. IIRC, there is both an SMS ceiling and a floor. So teams must spend in that framework whether they are losing money or not.

a: I'm not sure how workable that would work. There are tax benefits that are potentially beneficial to both sides. OTOH, bonus / signing money can also create problems. If a player is injured. Or in the case of Lawler for another example. His signing bonus counts against the SMS and he certainly won't be playing 18 games. If he had started in game 1, he could have been injured on play 1 and lost for the season. There are risks to the team using the tax benefit which can be useful for both sides.

b: Even a 1st year player has an NFL option window. Schoen had that option for 2023 but he didn't get an NFL offer. So the NFL option window contradicts longer ELC's at the moment. CFLPA wanted that option window.

Your comments have some merit but the holdup is the CFLPA.

[theaardvark]

SMS issues with players unable to play through injury or suspension should have prorated SMS relief.  If you release a player, different story, but if they are on long term IR, or suspended but contract remains valid, relief.

No problem with the option being even more lenient, but your CFL contracts starts with a 4 year restricted free agency period.  That clock only ticks when you are actively playing in the CFL.  So, if you chase NFL dreams, get a cup of coffee on a roster after your rookie year, and decide to come back to the CFL, you have 3 years left on your CFL contract, even if it is with a different team.  Yes, it limits great players from getting paid what they are truly worth, but they have a job.  And the chance to work towards that big payday.  It works great for the NHL...

[Blue In BC]

6 game IR doesn't count against the SMS. So no need to pro rate that salary. However, they should pro rate the signing bonus if a player ends up on the 6 game IR.

They could also create a 3 game IR where the player can't practice and his salary doesn't count against SMS. Kramdi is on the 1 game IR for his 3rd game. He isn't physcially able to practice but we're taking his SMS hit.

I've always like the restricted free agency for veterans. The catch is that any contract has an NFL option window and veterans are choosing 1 year contracts in order to maximize.