Roster size, ratio and SMS

[Blue In BC]

A few things to throw out for conversation. Part of this is because of the conversation about possibly adding Cooley to the AR but it's not the only reason.

The SMS went up this year but it was supposed to be " revenue sharing " money. We never did hear how the CFLPA expected to " share " this new money. Teams seem to be adding more players to 1 game IR as one way to use the money. However that doesn't fall into anything close to " sharing " IMO. Since they increased the SMS this seems to be the way teams are using it though.

It's too late for 2025 but I would have liked to add a few more players to the AR. In theory 4 players consisting of 2 more DI's and 2 more Canadians. No change to the starting 7 Canadians but an increase in roster size. As an example it would allow Cooley to be a DI on AR but would require another change if he had to start.

This also has it's pitfalls. Cost would be $74K X 4= $296K on ELC's which is a significant amount of the new money. However we have a bunch of players on 1 game IR that don't appear to be injured. OTOH, teams are parking players on the 1 game is the same result. Noting that in 2024 we hardly had many 1 game IR players cumulatively during the season until the final game when standings were determined.

Watching games this weekend, players are dropping like flies in every game. Increasing roster size would help maintain game quality IMO.

It's going to be interesting to see how many players sit on 1 game IR and for how long in 2025.  Paying players to NOT play is never going to be the best plan.

Currently 61 players on 1 game IR. Obviously some of them are are nursing some injuries.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

A few things to throw out for conversation. Part of this is because of the conversation about possibly adding Cooley to the AR but it's not the only reason.

The SMS went up this year but it was supposed to be " revenue sharing " money. We never did hear how the CFLPA expected to " share " this new money. Teams seem to be adding more players to 1 game IR as one way to use the money. However that doesn't fall into anything close to " sharing " IMO. Since they increased the SMS this seems to be the way teams are using it though.

It's too late for 2025 but I would have liked to add a few more players to the AR. In theory 4 players consisting of 2 more DI's and 2 more Canadians. No change to the starting 7 Canadians but an increase in roster size. As an example it would allow Cooley to be a DI on AR but would require another change if he had to start.

This also has it's pitfalls. Cost would be $74K X 4= $296K on ELC's which is a significant amount of the new money. However we have a bunch of players on 1 game IR that don't appear to be injured. OTOH, teams are parking players on the 1 game is the same result. Noting that in 2024 we hardly had many 1 game IR players cumulatively during the season until the final game when standings were determined.

Watching games this weekend, players are dropping like flies in every game. Increasing roster size would help maintain game quality IMO.

It's going to be interesting to see how many players sit on 1 game IR and for how long in 2025.  Paying players to NOT play is never going to be the best plan.

Currently 61 players on 1 game IR. Obviously some of them are are nursing some injuries.

I'm ok with them abusing the 1 game this season, it provides roster flexitibility and rewards non-rostered players that don't dress but also don't deserve PR designation, there's too little margin between on and off. Fully expect roster changes for next season to resolve the issue, but don't think they'll mess with it this year.

[Blue In BC]

I'm ok with them abusing the 1 game this season, it provides roster flexitibility and rewards player who don't play but also don't deserve PR pay, there's too little margin between on and off. Fully expect roster changes for next season to resolve the issue, but don't think they'll mess with it this year.

The concern in 2026 is that they don't change the roster size. What I imagine happens is that with a higher SMS, the top players just get more money and teams try to outbid for top free agents.

SMS and revenue sharing are linked but not inclusive.  Revenue sharing could have gone to pension money as an example. Increased SMS could have increased salaries from the bottom up instead of from the top down.

Bottom 30 players get some sort of pro rated increase based on games played. With a narrow view, $10K more for each of the bottom 30 players. In the wider view, I don't know a rookie should get the same increase as a 2 or 3 year vet.

A slight increase in PR money wouldn't hurt.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The concern in 2026 is that they don't change the roster size. What I imagine happens is that with a higher SMS, the top players just get more money and teams try to outbid for top free agents.

SMS and revenue sharing are linked but not inclusive.  Revenue sharing could have gone to pension money as an example. Increased SMS could have increased salaries from the bottom up instead of from the top down.

Bottom 30 players get some sort of pro rated increase based on games played. With a narrow view, $10K more for each of the bottom 30 players. In the wider view, I don't know a rookie should get the same increase as a 2 or 3 year vet.

A slight increase in PR money wouldn't hurt.

I've never heard mention of a CFL pension, is there such a thing?

[Blue In BC]

I've never heard mention of a CFL pension, is there such a thing?

Yes.

In 2021, the annual player and team pension contribution was $4,100 each, for a total of $8,200 per season. Pension contributions made by a player are vested immediately and available for transfer out or as pension funds at retirement.Aug 3, 2024

[TecnoGenius]

The concern in 2026 is that they don't change the roster size. What I imagine happens is that with a higher SMS, the top players just get more money and teams try to outbid for top free agents.

As an existing player, and as a union, your main concern is getting more money for yourself / your members.  Real inflation has been running at insane levels for 4 years.  It's entirely reasonable players want to keep up with, and beat, inflation.

Top players also want to earn a salary that at least can see in the distance low-end NFL salaries.

The only people who would want 2 or 4 more players on AR would be HCs.  And I don't think HCs have much say in this type of thing.

I think the best you can hope for is the league increase the mandating minimum wage, and then the rest will probably go to top stars and maybe some gibs for the middle-tier guys.

If you want to actually increase roster size (which I do agree with), you'd have to say definitively "in '26 rosters sizes are increased by 4 players and SMS is going up $300k to accommodate this".  You can't just open-ended add SMS then wait a year, because that money will have already been allocated to other needs.

[theaardvark]

As an existing player, and as a union, your main concern is getting more money for yourself / your members.  Real inflation has been running at insane levels for 4 years.  It's entirely reasonable players want to keep up with, and beat, inflation.

Top players also want to earn a salary that at least can see in the distance low-end NFL salaries.

The only people who would want 2 or 4 more players on AR would be HCs.  And I don't think HCs have much say in this type of thing.

I think the best you can hope for is the league increase the mandating minimum wage, and then the rest will probably go to top stars and maybe some gibs for the middle-tier guys.

If you want to actually increase roster size (which I do agree with), you'd have to say definitively "in '26 rosters sizes are increased by 4 players and SMS is going up $300k to accommodate this".  You can't just open-ended add SMS then wait a year, because that money will have already been allocated to other needs.

Adding in jobs would mean, more jobs.  More jobs means more likely fringe players and older players get jobs.

I think a majority of the CFLPA would like more total jobs over the top 10% getting more money.

[Blue In BC]

Adding in jobs would mean, more jobs.  More jobs means more likely fringe players and older players get jobs.

I think a majority of the CFLPA would like more total jobs over the top 10% getting more money.

I that's a choice between those options then yes. OTOH, giving the bottom 30 players a $10K increase would be of more interest. There would have to be some formula based on games played. It doesn't make sense to give a rookie a $10K increase when a 3 year vet gets the same raise potentially.  However there might be something there to investigate.

Adding in more players even at ELC adds up quickly.

What we don't want to see is the top 6 players like QB's and top receivers get the entire benefit of the SMS increase.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I that's a choice between those options then yes. OTOH, giving the bottom 30 players a $10K increase would be of more interest. There would have to be some formula based on games played. It doesn't make sense to give a rookie a $10K increase when a 3 year vet gets the same raise potentially.  However there might be something there to investigate.

Adding in more players even at ELC adds up quickly.

What we don't want to see is the top 6 players like QB's and top receivers get the entire benefit of the SMS increase.

You'd think how the SMS increase is designated would be an easy issue for the union members to vote on and control, as the higher earners represent less than 5% of player base.  I don't think teams would care enough to object how the extra money is divied up among the players.

[theaardvark]

ELC's should be low, not like PR low, but low.  Not burger flipping low, but $70k for 6 months work is pretty darned good for playing a game.  Many leagues pay a small part of that.  So keeping ELC's around $70k should not be an issue.

Adding 4 more spots per team at $70k, 36 new jobs in all, is pretty significant.

Those new jobs also mean more opportunities to hang around for pensions, health care (I'd bet most of the Int players have none) and other opportunities.

And, they make the league better by having more depth and not getting into as many situations where a team has to decide their AR solely based on ratio.

I'm not saying that will eliminate all the roster issues, it will just make them less orf an issue and happen less often.

[Blue In BC]

ELC's should be low, not like PR low, but low.  Not burger flipping low, but $70k for 6 months work is pretty darned good for playing a game.  Many leagues pay a small part of that.  So keeping ELC's around $70k should not be an issue.

Adding 4 more spots per team at $70k, 36 new jobs in all, is pretty significant.

Those new jobs also mean more opportunities to hang around for pensions, health care (I'd bet most of the Int players have none) and other opportunities.

And, they make the league better by having more depth and not getting into as many situations where a team has to decide their AR solely based on ratio.

I'm not saying that will eliminate all the roster issues, it will just make them less orf an issue and happen less often.

Increasing salaries for the same players is nice for them but changes nothing in retention etc etc.

I'd like to add more players and possibly reduce the PR by a couple to offset some costs. That said I don't know whether this will have to wait until the next CBA?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Increasing salaries for the same players is nice for them but changes nothing in retention etc etc.

I'd like to add more players and possibly reduce the PR by a couple to offset some costs. That said I don't know whether this will have to wait until the next CBA?

But the current players vote, not you, and there's no way they're voting for more roster spots over higher salaries. 

[theaardvark]

But the current players vote, not you, and there's no way they're voting for more roster spots over higher salaries. 

Higher salaries won't be for the 90%, so voting for more jobs is easier when a large percentage may benefit from more jobs, but only a few benefit from more money.