Really, people shouldn’t bring this up anymore. It’s not valid. If the CFL had a US-based team, and I stressed that if, the ratio for said team would be American-born players from the and/or surrounding States, not Canadians.
Ambrosie would probably want that team to have TWO global players. That might be a problem…
Ratio would have to be sorted out. Trying to get Canadians counted is hard enough, but global players as well. I do not know how its legal in Canada to mandate global players to be on rosters.
That said, St. Louis success may be part fans trying to show up the NFL and that it is in the spring. If XFL was playing in the fall, even without a NFL team, would you see the same support.
Again, for the CFL, you have to be aware of NCAA football programs as well. This limits even more locations.
With respect, I disagree. The ratio disparity is valid in that it is generally agreed the pool of available American players is far greater than the pool of Canadian players, and, generally speaking, American players have much broader, deeper and more intense training programs prior to reaching the professional level. The investment, and time, that American teams would have in player development, would be far less than a Canadian team, and that translates as a superior on-field product and an unfair competitive advantage. For example, the quick rise of the Baltimore Stallions which easily moved into their Alouettes incarnation as a play-off and Grey Cup contenting team for several years.
I will agree how the ratio disparity exists between American and Canadian born players.
Similar to what happens in hockey.
But just like in hockey, the talent base for Canadian football players is increasing however there are not enough in pure numbers when making the same comparison for the two of my examples.
Yes, Baltimore is always mentioned here and rightfully so about the American success story both on the field and in the stands.
But don't forget there were 4 other US teams that were not successful, Sacramento was the best of the remaining bad batch.
I give the majority of the success to the manangement group GM Jim Popp and Coach Matthews and Jim Speros the owner.
I further recall how a good number of their American born players were signed as free agents from the Canadian teams.
So my point being, the Stallions did everything right and became a success more so then simply putting a team of all Americans just like the other 4 teams did and were terrible.
It's further my opinion how you cannot always translate a potentially superior talent base to winning all of the time.
All American football players like all Canadian hockey players does not equal guaranteed success.
Yes, Baltimore is always mentioned here and rightfully so about the American success story both on the field and in the stands.
But don't forget there were 4 other US teams that were not successful, Sacramento was the best of the remaining bad batch.
I give the majority of the success to the manangement group GM Jim Popp and Coach Matthews and Jim Speros the owner.
I further recall how a good number of their American born players were signed as free agents from the Canadian teams.
So my point being, the Stallions did everything right and became a success more so then simply putting a team of all Americans just like the other 4 teams did and were terrible.
True ... but neither could/should the CFL count on only one US-based team hiring competent coaches/management who take the time to learn/understand the the CFL game (if they don't already) and how to build a suitable roster ... IMO, if properly run US-based teams would have HUGE advantages over the Canadian based teams ...
There's always going to be some teams run competently and some not, whether those teams are in the US or Canada.
When evaluating the impact of the ratio, you have to look at the performance of all the teams that played without it, not just the one team that excelled wihout it (and then later with it).
The competency of the Stallions/Alouette organization had a lot to do with their success, both in Baltimore and Montreal.
I'm not saying that playing without ratio restrictions wouldn't be an unfair advantage; it would. But citing the most successful team and ignoring the rest presents an exaggerated view of that advantage.
Having said that, I wouldn't be in favour of US expansion even they could somehow get the ratio rules approved under US law.
US-based teams would have advantages in recruiting the top FAs in the league through lower taxes (at least in some states) and the appeal of playing at home, close to family, friends, and familiar culture.
Plus, I just like having a league that has Canadian teams only playing other Canadian teams. There are other leagues in which we can see Canadian teams play US-based ones.
I always repeat the best case scenario for US teams .
Start a CFL ruled league with just US teams .
Obtain a lucrative US TV contract or two for an extended period .
The original CFL will challenge the US league for a championship game .
This worked once with a league called the AFL .
It's a proven formula .
If it doesn't work the original CFL is not hurt and will only benefit when New York and St.Louis playoff on NBC on November 15 waiting to take on the original CFL on November 22 nd for the Grey Cup in the year 2030ish .
I don't see anywhere in large numbers that the US is in love with our version of football .
If there was better numbers on ESPN they would have tried a league of their own with our rules by now playing the game around the same time we do up here .
There's never been an attempt despite all the leagues tried so far and that is a good indicator there is not an appetite for the three down game .
Wish it was different and disappointed in the ESPN numbers but it is what it is .
(1) Not certain there are lucrative TV contracts waiting to handed out
(2) Assuming you mean the original AFL … those weere very different times … NFL salaries were seriously constrained by the NFL cartel so the AFL (heck even the CFL sometimes) could outbid the NFL … TV coverage of the NFL was in its relative infancy … ABC, and then NVC, were desparate to break into the football game … but the NFL now has the TV networks sewed up … same for many sponsors … VERY different circumstances
(3) If the CFL is sponsoring the league they suffer any financial losses if the league fails …
You Might have misinterpreted my position ; that's why just below that post I posted another so one would see that I am not pro it would work at all just giving a scenario that would apply if anyone wanted three down game they should start one on their own without the original league .
not advocating there is a contract stating the parameters as to
the CFL getting involved after they prove their sufficient interest with a broadcaster with that US league .
when I mention the CFL I am using CFL salaries and structure as to a way of joining the league after being successful and proving themselves that they are not a financial burden . With the AFL I am using the NFL structure back then oranges with oranges . CFL versus AFL three down rules .
CFL is not sponsoring the league it is the polar opposite which I am advocating . They are just using our rules and playing during the same time period . Nothing to do with the CFL .
I was stating that after a proven period of financial success the new league could challenge the CFL for a world championship much like the AFL / NFL .
That's the best case scenario .
If you read my post right after you would see that I see zero interest in our rules down south because of ESPN viewership currently and if there was the AAF and XFL and the other leagues tried before them they would have attempted a Canadian rules league already . ESPN numbers would need to improve or another broadcaster for any interest in starting their own three down pro league .
Instead of writing off any future US expansion and the costs to the CFL, why not put it in the hands of interested parties if there are any.
If say St. Louis or Anchorage were interested. Let the interested parties do all the work with no guarantees. Ratio, let them get clarification from the city/state/country to verify what is or isn't allowed. I think, Pro sports has and does have exceptions that is allowed in the US. (not necessarily employee origin, but example)
If the cdn and now global ratio doesn't work, what does. Maybe a designated local ratio instead of Cdn's. ex. St. Louis: 20 players must be from or played college in the state of Missouri.
Let them find the stadium. Let them organize whatever has to be done for cross border games. Maybe teams would have to give the league an extra $5 m deposit in case the team folds.
The CFL can be at arms reach until an actual solution and the team is part of the league. Even some of the legalities, perhaps the US based teams have to take full responsibilities to protect the league as a whole.
Again, if approached, I think teams should be as close to the border as possible.
If this is highly unlikely to happen, so be it. The Cfl would have no direct responsibility.
I disagree, there some (a minority though) people in the US that like the CFL, I feel its a favorable rival to the ultra superiority football league that the NFL imposes on the US public.
Then they should watch the games when aired on ESPN especially the Grey Cup as it’s a huge indicator for future investment .
I was disappointed in the numbers of US viewers . Thought there would be much better ratings .
Maybe if it was on a different channel with better PR who knows .
Honestly I think the only sports league that could benefit from Covid-19 is the CFL, long term anyway. The XFL posed several short and even more long term problems for the CFL, the severity of which is certainly debatable, but with the XFL out of the picture now some lessons certainly can be taken and opportunities exploited.
The XFL was doing well, it really was and if not for Covid-19 shutting it down early and threatening McMahon's primary source of funding the WWE he was originally prepared to throw a billion dollars into it (besides I think he was gambling on a NFL players strike). Covid-19 has altered the landscape and show us one very clear thing, that the US is hungry for more football and if done right it will work.
Some of you may jump to the 'yeah but the 90's US expansion was a disaster' argument. That's a false argument and not supported by the actual facts if one has done the research, in point of fact you can make a good case that US expansion was 100% successful in achieving its primary goal, saving the CFL, it did that. Either way even if you disagree I think you can at least admit that the context today is very different than the context of 25 years ago.
Also let's be fair, the CFL at the time didn't exactly do anything that even vaguely resembled due diligence of the owners they sold franchises to, nor did the CFL require the fields be modified by owners to meet CFL standards, nor did the CFL make any real meaningful effort outside of Baltimore which was one the only glaring exception to making CFL actually work in the US.
Any objective person will agree the CFL set themselves up for failure in the US, to a large extent I would argue it didn't care because that wasn't the primary objective. CFL working and lasting in the US was secondary, saving the three CFL teams on verge of bankruptcy and bringing football back to Montreal were always the primary objectives which were achieved. Even then the league was still forced to take a cash handout form the NFL since it wasn't able to collect all the franchise fees owed to it. A problem they should have foreseen when you pick owners who were already being actively sued for not paying bills when you gave them the franchise without requiring payment upfront.
Things have changed a lot in the 25 years since then, the power of sports TV, internet on-demand, etc. The CFL has almost never been more stable than it is now and the NFL has very graciously opened up several ready to tap markets, more than it ever has.
Take the lessons learned from the 90's, honestly every sports league since then that has done expansion has taken a lesson from that. Then also take what we learned from the XFL and apply it. Expansion to the US has never actually made more sense, tapping US TV markets would ensure a massive growth of revenue for the entire league, who would argue with higher player salaries and improved product on the field?
The league would have two choices in terms of path in how it approached expansion, one of the biggest complaints of US owners during the 90's was revenues and butts evaporated as soon as the NFL season started up. Only exception really was Baltimore but they were unique in that it was a football town that was NFL ready still stung from having their team stolen from them, also San Antonio wasn't doing too bad.
The NFL is likely done with US expansion, if they expand it is pretty clear it will be international, not domestic. The NFL has been prepping the San Antonio market to be NFL ready to use as the new LA whipping stick we'll relocate our team here city if you dont buy us a new stadium. The NFL bailed on St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland, not because they couldn't support an NFL team but because of greedy owners and citizens not willing to subsidize a stadium for a person who was already a billionaire. So rather than having just one NFL ready city we have four, something I am sure the NFL enjoys having to strong arm future cities that won't get in line on a stadium deal.
The XFL also showed a spring league will work in the US and allow you to tap existing markets that already have NFL teams but crave more football. So the CFL's two choices would to either just limit expansion to US cities that are NFL ready without an NFL team, or shift the start of the season to open up more US markets. Or hybrid, start off with just those four cities and reevaluate after a few years based on the success or failure of those teams and look at shifting to the start of the season to expand TV revenue (an option anyway).
Franchise fees could be used to bring Halifax finally into the league as well as improve player salaries. San Diego and the Bay area some of the largest TV markets in the US and a TV rights deal could be worth just as much if not more than the total of the current deal the CFL has just with Canadian based media. You could even look at under served US markets like Chicago.
Chicago is a football crazy city, 3rd largest city in the US, has two MLB teams, yet only one NFL team and one of if not the smallest stadium in the NFL. To say that Bears stadium doesn't come anywhere close to being able to meet local demand is an understatement. The point is there are other markets in the US that have NFL teams that could work even if the schedule isn't changed if you pick the right market.
Either way there are 4 ready to go and likely another 2 to 4 markets that could be cultivated without having to adjust the schedule, but it would hurt potential TV revenue but when we're talking about doubling or tripling the current TV revenue does it matter? Mexico is an option later on as well and the league in terms of cost of ticket and expected fan base would be a lot easier to achieve for the CFL than the NFL. The NFL will continue to promote the sport there as it tries to grow fan base in all of Latin America but it will be a very long time before any city in Mexico could legitimately support an NFL level franchise, a CFL one on the other hand after the NFL has been pumping millions into the area and with a CFL team in Texas and Southern California could likely work.
Reality is if one is objective, truly objective I think it becomes clear the XFL's loss is the CFL's gain and the CFL should pounce quickly. The markets are ripe, the cities would likely gladly modify existing stadiums to fit a CFL regulation field and viable ownership likely could be far more easily be obtained.
If you aren't growing you are stagnating, and stagnation is slow death. This opportunity won't last indefinitely, the league should act while it is strong and can command larger fees. Then use those fees and increased revenue to improve game play, player salaries, expand to Halifax and even take the sport internationally like the commissioner keeps claiming he'd like to do.
Just a thought.
The CFL also made a consirted effort to make the CFL work there, something it did not do in the other cities, in fact they did the opposite. Also the real lesson to be learned is NFL ready cities stripped of their team are ripe, combined with what we learned from the XFL is that even existing NFL markets are hungry for more.
Today we have San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland, would also argue San Antonio, four NFL ready markets. A league that is much stronger and stable than it was in 90’s, also one wiser from the hard lessons learned and apply that. Like actually doing due diligence on owners, something that wasn’t done in the 90’s, not even basic diligence was done and the league through its haste to bring in money to quicken Canadian teams struggling caused them to overlook a lot.
I’m sorry but if you had done your research you would find out that the “actual facts” are that the first year one team was 6 games under 500 vs Canadian teams. The 2nd year 4 teams were 3.5 games under 500 on average and 5 teams were 2.8 over 500 in year 3.
Yes you’re right about the due diligence of owners but nowhere in your post do you mention the biggest hindrance of American expansion…the inequity of certain teams having to deal with a player ratio.
Exactly … CFL was lucky only Baltimore hired capable GMs and coaches … it might take a year or two but well-run US-based teams would quickly become among the CFL elite (IMO)
This is kart before horse, first the CFL actively assisted Baltimore in being competent and even gave them solid players. Second business has to come first, how can you expect competent anything if you first didn’t make sure the owner was legit, had the means to hire competent people etc.
But all that besides the point, the point being that today is different from 25 years ago and CFL should act and not hold back because of some so long ago that was so poorly executed.
My point is that 90’s experiment no longer applies except in what not to do.
And my point is that the 90s experiment still applies because US labour laws haven’t changed.
Perhaps you could also explain how the CFL “actively assisted” Baltimore.
Ownership was smart enough hire coaches with CFL experience.
Yes those teams sucked but that all get back to back to the root cause. Owners who had no business being owners in markets that weren’t vetted offering a knock inferior product on an American field. My point is today is not 25 years ago.
We’ve learned a lot since then. Many of the mistakes made then were due to the desperation of the league to fend off bankruptcy, that isn’t the case today. The league is stable and can take its time, pick owners who care about the sport and are committed to making it work. There are always solutions to these problems and reality is the XFL proved player talent is a lot deeper than we thought if you can increase base salary.
The difference in CFL and XFL salaries isn’t much, certainly attainable if the league can boost revenue, only one way to do that which is increase TV market.
The CFL could do this today and be successful this time because the ground in the US is more fertile and XFL proved it, the league learned how NOT to do this and has had the example of the MLS and others on how to do this properly. There will never be a better opportunity for the CFL to expand and they could make it work and work well. Canadian fans stand the most to gain.
Halifax would be paid for, overall product could improve with increase player salaries which would also boost retention, everyone wins in particular Canada. The XFL wasn’t a debacle just a victim of unfortunate events.
Either way I think one can’t use something that was so poorly executed 25 years ago as a reason to not do something now, in particular when you have an opportunity like this.
The league and owners would be dammed fools if they didn’t at least seriously consider it. They should because like other sports leagues Covid-19 will hurt, sure maybe the government will give them a bit of bail out. Will it be enough, what will long term impact be?
The league can’t do nothing, stagnation is slow death, eventually without more money the players union will eventually get sick of the substandard care their player get. MLS has been eroding market share in the 3 biggest markets. There are number of issues on the horizon that will require more revenue to address, else the league could find it self back where it was in 90’s.
Strike now and CFL can command a lot, if it waits it only risks missing out, something that it very well may not be able to afford to pass up.
My point was that the 90’s shouldn’t be used to dismiss the concept, because it has a lot of merit, frankly to not consider it would show the league as being very shortsighted, which should trouble us more for the long term future of the league if they won’t even consider the thing based on the merits of world of today.