Earl

For those who wish to take a peek, here is an article on CFL.ca about the import rule and a brief history:

Changing the game - The Ratio

http://www.cfl.ca/article/mullin-changi ... -the-ratio
Anywhere is the centre of the world - Black Elk

Earl

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here but the interesting thing was that it was the Eastern teams that I think complained about the west using imports at the time, hence the residency rule as Jim explains in the article,  way back although it was assumed the eastern teams had access to a larger pool of the best players available in Canada due to demographics.  My guess is that the east saw the Canadian game as more "pure" I suppose playing with Canadians, people who lived in the area where the team was located rather than bringing in Americans for the sole purpose of just trying to win.   Albeit as I mentioned the east did have access to a larger pool of the best players right on their doorstep.  So an unfair advantage some might say.  Maybe as well it had to do a bit with the adage at one time that professionalism in sport was frowned upon and looked down as lower class than amateurism ie. the people with money didn't need or need to use sport/recreation as a means to obtain money, it was something done on one's free time and the people with money had this free time of course.   :?

And I think it was the Argos who were the last team to win a Grey Cup with a full Canadian roster, 1954 or 55 was it or maybe in the late 40's?  I'll have to look that up.  And I think I remember reading this was something to be admired as well, using an all Canadian roster and not having to use Americans.

Earl

Found this which is interesting, I think it answers my question above about when the last GC was won with an all-Canadian squad:

In an effort to stem the influx of American "imports," the CRU sought to impose a residence rule. It soon became obvious, however, that the member clubs and leagues were not as adamant. The Grey Cup was gaining prestige and acceptance with the public. With the end of WWII and the resumption of the various leagues, the 1946 CRU meeting stipulated that each team could play with 5 American imports. Some teams, notably the Toronto Argonauts, preferred to play with an all-Canadian lineup. The Argos did so until 1950 and in the process won 3 consecutive Grey Cup championships under coach Teddy Morris (1945, 1946 and 1947).

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/ ... s/football

Another decent piece for those interested written not long ago:

A league for Canadians? CFL's odd citizenship rules puzzle players

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/ne ... cb5c27&p=1

stevehvh

Thanks for the links, Earl. Some good history lessons there.
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."
- Hubert H. Humphrey

Earl

No problem steve, I enjoy looking at some of the history and there certainly is a ton of history behind the import rule that's for sure.

I'll have to check out Frank Cosentino's book The Passing Game, I have it at home, and what he discusses on the topic.

Cosentino devotes more time to issues that have increased in prominence
during the past 25 years, some of which are very close to his heart. The plight of
the Canadian player is detailed during the course of the book. League rules
dictate that American players are termed “imports” and Canadians “nonimports.”
The author regards the labelling of Canadian players as ‘non-imports’
as a euphemism for ‘non-important.’ In particular. Cosentino devotes ample
attention to the Canadian quarterbacking issue. This work begins in 1969, the
year Canadian quarterback Russ Jackson retired and the Designated Import rule,
a rule which discriminated against Canadian quarterbacks, was introduced. The
author details the problems that Canadian quarterbacks have faced when trying
to play their game in their own country. Cosentino was one of the last Canadian
quarterbacks in the CFL to play consistently.


http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLib ... h2302h.pdf

CatsFaninOttawa

Quote from: "Earl"
For those who wish to take a peek, here is an article on CFL.ca about the import rule and a brief history:

Changing the game - The Ratio

http://www.cfl.ca/article/mullin-changi ... -the-ratio
Thanks for posting the link. The first part is a good summary of the history behind the import rule, although it stops just short of the issues around Canadian quarterbacks.

When I saw the following statements, "The ‘Naturalized Canadian’ designation is not an option. That path was unfortunately washed out in 1965," I thought that my earlier suggestion about special status for long-time imports ( see http://forums.ticats.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=72243&start=30#p1261695) was out the window on legal grounds. But the term "Naturalized Canadian" here refers to the old practice of allowing players who had obtained their Canadian citizenship  after living in Canada for five years to be considered Canadian, which  was deemed unfair. After thinking about it, I'm now thinking that my proposed criteria of time spent in the league isn't really any different than the existing non-import criteria based on time spent in Canada as a youth. If the latter is permitted by law, why not the former?

seymour

Quote from: "Earl"
For the same reason all men should be able to have multiple wives, it's all "natural" so to speak as in nature. But humans live in a codified world where things do matter for various reasons, we have determined that in our particular society, you can only have one wife, might not be the best one for you, but those are citizen driven rules that are felt to make our society more liveable or humane.

Wow - this is laughable! What possible relevence this statement has to the discussion concerning the CFL non-import rule is totally beyond me.

Quote from: "Earl"
Agree it shouldn't matter unless there is statement of vision/mission from the CFL as to why the import rule exists.

I have seen no such statement from the CFL and, in checking the CFL web site earlier today, I did not find any published mission statement at all.
However, if the CFL had a mission statement, or decides to publish one, I would hope, in the statement, the CFL would acknowledge that the league's most important assets are its fans, its sponsers and its broadcast partners. And I would hope that the league would pledge to offer the highest quality, most entertaining on-field product that it can offer to best serve its fans, sponsers and broadcasters and earn their continuing interest and support.
If the CFL made such a pledge and were serious about it, they would realize that the non-import quota simply defeats the purpose of the stated goal.    

Quote from: "Earl"
Again seymour I ask, do you follow the Cats or CFL even though you think the import rule should be abolished?


Yes, I follow the CFL and have been a fan for decades and will continue to be a fan. That doesn't mean I'm happy with everything the league does. I think the on-field product could be improved as I have stated and I think it will be in the best interests of the league going forward to do so. I am an Argo fan but I follow the Ti-Cats closely and I enjoy the opportunity to exchange views with others on this forum. This forum has the most knowledgeable contributors and offers the most interesting opportunities for discussion of any I have visited.

CatsFaninOttawa

Quote from: "seymour"
Quote from: "Earl"
Agree it shouldn't matter unless there is statement of vision/mission from the CFL as to why the import rule exists.
I have seen no such statement from the CFL and, in checking the CFL web site earlier today, I did not find any published mission statement at all.
I couldn't find it either. It would be interesting to know the reasons why the league feels it is important to have Canadian players. They obviously feel strongly about it; otherwise the import rule would have been dropped years ago. Given their pride in being Canadian ("THIS IS OUR LEAGUETM"), you would think that they would at least mention their reasons on the page that explains the rule.

I personally think it's important to have Canadian players in the league. I also think that they would almost disappear without some sort of import rule. As evidence of this, look at the one position where the import rules don't apply, the quarterback. How many Canadian quarterbacks have we seen over the last 40 years?

Earl

I think often it's simply history that dictates a written or unwritten mission or vision come to think of it. Sort of like why there are the public and separate school boards or why liquor can't be sold in corner stores in Ontario. Changing something radically that has been the fabric of society or an institution for so long isn't easy to do for various reasons, and that does make some sense to me as someone who has taken a few history courses over the years. Yes, these examples are laws rather than how a sports league is operated and I suppose why fighting hasn't been banned in the NHL, no law but rather tradition. Fighting without immediate ejection makes no sense to me.

stevehvh

Quote from: "seymour"

However, if the CFL had a mission statement, or decides to publish one, I would hope, in the statement, the CFL would acknowledge that the league's most important assets are its fans, its sponsers and its broadcast partners. And I would hope that the league would pledge to offer the highest quality, most entertaining on-field product that it can offer to best serve its fans, sponsers and broadcasters and earn their continuing interest and support.
If the CFL made such a pledge and were serious about it, they would realize that the non-import quota simply defeats the purpose of the stated goal.    


Well, that sounds good, but your contention implies that the fan base shares your perspective, and considers the "highest quality, most entertaining on-field product" to be one that is composed of players without regard to the ratio.

I don't share your view of that at all. I'm a fan, have been for 50 years, and to me a very important part of the appeal of CFL football is its Canadian content. As far as this fan is concerned, maintaining the structure of the roster does not defeat the goal you have set out, but changing it in the way you want to definitely would.

Earl

Excellent point steve.  With the logic that seymour is using, I should be more entertained automatically de facto by NFL football compared with CFL football, 99 times out of 100.  But that is just not the case.

seymour

Quote from: "stevehvh"
Quote from: "seymour"

However, if the CFL had a mission statement, or decides to publish one, I would hope, in the statement, the CFL would acknowledge that the league's most important assets are its fans, its sponsers and its broadcast partners. And I would hope that the league would pledge to offer the highest quality, most entertaining on-field product that it can offer to best serve its fans, sponsers and broadcasters and earn their continuing interest and support.
If the CFL made such a pledge and were serious about it, they would realize that the non-import quota simply defeats the purpose of the stated goal.


Well, that sounds good, but your contention implies that the fan base shares your perspective, and considers the "highest quality, most entertaining on-field product" to be one that is composed of players without regard to the ratio.

I don't share your view of that at all. I'm a fan, have been for 50 years, and to me a very important part of the appeal of CFL football is its Canadian content. As far as this fan is concerned, maintaining the structure of the roster does not defeat the goal you have set out, but changing it in the way you want to definitely would.

The quality and entertainment value of the on-field product begins with the talent level of the players. It is the players, through their athleticism and talent, who showcase the product the CFL is trying to sell. The league needs to employ the best available players to best showcase its on-field product and to best ensure its viability in the sports entertainment market going forward IMO.  Simply put, better players will equate to a better product with better entertainment value. Again, if you think the CFL is entertaining now, imagine how good it could be if every roster postion could be filled with the best available player, period. I believe it would quickly change the opinion of many fans who currently think the non-import rule is untouchable.

Earl

Simply put, better players will equate to a better product with better entertainment value. Again, if you think the CFL is entertaining now, imagine how good it could be if every roster postion could be filled with the best available player, period. I believe it would quickly change the opinion of many fans who currently think the non-import rule is untouchable.

Yes, the talent of the league would rise but just marginally IMHO and may well destroy the traditional and historical fabric and integrity of the league.  Not worth it IMHO.  So actually it's not so simple afterall again IMHO.

seymour

Quote from: "Earl"
Excellent point steve. With the logic that seymour is using, I should be more entertained automatically de facto by NFL football compared with CFL football, 99 times out of 100. But that is just not the case.

I don't agree. The CFL offers a unique array of rules, field size, player count, etc. which potentially add to the entertainment value and provide a unique game experience compared to the NFL. I just wish the CFL would strive to maximize the quality of the product by simply allowing each roster position to be earned by the best available player.

Earl

Again, I get what you're saying but it's not that simple seymour when you are dealing with the history of this league and a Board of Governers who have as a mandate to respect to some degree at least what the players assocation needs and wishes are.  It really isn't that simple although yes, on the outside it can appear as a simple type of Item no. whatever on a league meeting agenda and vote in a matter of minutes to change this.  Not the way the world works.  I mean I would think the same thing about fighting in the NHL or the use of mandatory visors in the NHL but these, while seemingly simple to me to change overnight, require a lot of votes and discussion from teams and the NHL players association.
 


Users Online

93 Guests, 15 Users (12 Spiders, 2 Hidden)

Users active in past 15 minutes:
PacoAls2017, Lennywasout, ExPat, dcmoses, SteelCitySteve, Mightygoose, schmenger, Taleback, Rider_6, ed ohmnes, bedrock, ArgoT, Cool, Yahoo!, Google (9), Baidu, Alexa

Most Online Today: 144. Most Online Ever: 484 (Aug 28 2017, 09:35 PM)