CFL, CFLPA could lower the number of Canadian starters: sources

Here is a crazy thought.
Add the QBs to the game day amount of National Canadians & international players US or OTHER.
drop the starting ratio.
There is rotating D lines.
Defensive & Offensive packages. Add in Special team.
22 Canadian Nationals.
22 internationals from US or other countries.
See how importantant the Nationals are then to the 44 game day 44 man roster.
Coaches dont have to worry about such things as.
In we have a wide side National CB or a National Offensive RT we need a back up at those spots to balance the Ratio.

Something to mull over…

IMO until the CFL employs more Canadians as GMs or HC the Canadian player will be somewhat devalued by American Coaches and Gms. So I’m reluctant to downgrade the ratio.
We don’t have to look past Brad Sinopoli as an example.
He was essentially dumped by Calgary after a brief look at him as QB. Then they needed someone to catch balls thrown by an auditioning QB. Sinopoli raised his hand. Boom. A total fluke.

A junior Canadian RB named Harris playing on Vancouver Island would NEVER have gotten a shot without a Canadian GM in Vancouver and the ratio.

If they mandate 2 global starters you kinda need to dress 4...maybe 3. Conversely, if you simply make 4 national roster spots global...they are going to see some plays. Roster spots provides flexibility...starter slots seems a nightmare to navigate. I could see the starter ratio staying as is with the roster ratio blending. That is to say, mandate them onto the 44 and count them towards the 21 national ratio but state a requirement of X amount of global players on the 44....if they are getting reps then they've earned it and it gives the staff some options....they are going to give the reps to whomever helps the team more in a given situation. If nothing else, they get STs experience while they try to earn more playing time...same as most new players. It would also make it a heck of a lot easier on the in-game officials to monitor, and it grows the players that can fill those ratio spots...sure, not well immediately, but same as most nationals that are simply behind in development (compared to internationals who are simply coming out of more robust systemsstarting at a young age...much likehockey here compared to there)it will improve with time.

if you mandate say 2 global players...for argument sake...and have none, your roster is now 42.

I can't imagine officials verifying that the O has say 4 nationals, 1 global and x designated imports on every down...it just seems like something they would say F it to and not worry about unless the other team caught it and complained.

Ambrosie on Tim and Sid.
Minute 47 ish

More like just before 49 minutes ... for non Sim&Tid fans.

Couldnt find a thread for CFL 2.0 -specifically so

“…Almost 756,000 fans viewed Facebook livestreams of the event, a number that is up 60 percent from a year ago. Just as remarkably, 62 percent of those views came from international markets, including Italy (302,000), France (80,693), Germany (73,299), Denmark (8,621) and Finland (5,927)…”

Not sure how you can reduce the number of Canadian starters and not change the number of dressed Canadians on the active roster at the same time. If you are starting one or two additional Americans coaches will want the ability to replace them with another American in case of injury. I would expect if there is any change to the starting number then the number on the active roster probably drops one or two as well in step with that.

As for CFL 2.0, I wonder if the answer isn't maybe to add a designated international spot onto the roster. Based on the combine, there's not enough talent to start or essentially back up but you could probably find a special teamer to block or chase downfield and enable another starter to sit out of special teams duty. The player can still get coaching and develop while still getting onto the field and the CFL gets their international press.

I’ve come around to the idea of essentially leaving the ratio as is as opposed to dropping it, with one change being QB counting against the ratio. While I still don’t think there’s enough CDN depth throughout the League, every League has depth issues when the starters go down, whether it’s starting Quarterbacks, Receivers, NHL Centres and defensemen, etc, and it’s up to the coaches to develop the players to be ready when they get their shot. Where I do think the League could run into some trouble is if Halifax joins, but after the first couple of years, the League would return to normal.

In saying that, I’m still oppsed to “Global” players taking Canadian roster spots, and maintain that “Globals” should just be considered Internationals. I really dislike the idea of players being handed anything simply due to passport, but if it is going to be done, why not support Canadians ?

I am sure there are many ideas on ratio and rosters being tabled...but based on what the commissioner has put out there in interviews, it seems to suggest that they are pushing to see the number of Canadian starters dropped from 7 to 5, with 2 starting spots going to global players. That instantly drops the Canadians on Roster by 2...but then you have to have depth. Unless 1 global backup can cover both starters, it would seem you likely need at least 4 global players on the roster...so 4 less Canadians. He has not straight out said it...he can't...but it has really reallycome across that way

Personally...I don't agree with this. IMO, they should combine the global and Canadians into one group and make them all count to 7 starters. If you are expanding the drawing pool, then how is dropping the ratio a legit thing? I understand a new team might be coming in...but I would really hope that after 2 or 3 years we can see a dozen global players capable of taking solid reps to expand that pool. Anyways...combine the group, let them fight it out for playing time, mandate that you have to have 2 global players on the 44 in 2019. 3 in 2020, 4 in 2021...if you are short...so is your 44.

I get that some people want each position fought out and that there shouldn't even be a ratio...but bias will win out and Canadian representation in the game will be for token standouts. Bias would go to US players who are on average closer to being game ready from day one. That is no slap at Canadians...it is a reality of the systems. Canadians have a robust hockey system that kids start out at young....that is why there are so many premier Canadian hockey players. The same is the case for the US and football. IMO, depleting local opportunity for Canadians hurts future development. Yeah, there will be more doors opened internationally to develop...but lets see that actual transition into players coming back CFL ready within 3 years. I get the idea of the level playing field and no ratio....but IMO a marginal improvement in gameplay is not worth risking losing something special that the CFL holds.

Anyways...combining these spots doesn't actually remove the chance for a Canadian to start (7 spots)...it just expands the competition. Also...can you imagine throwing in another ratio aspect for officials to manage?

Well said.
44 players dress on game day.
Its Time to include QBs!
So make it
22 National Canadians
22 Internationals from any other country!
Global players taking specific roster spots is insane.
Talk about a good way to lower depth on a team

so you want to potentially reduce the number of US players? The widest body of players in the world? Global players are coming....they will be mandated in...it is part of selling the league around the world and forming these partnerships. They therefore need to take spots away from somewhere. There are more amateur programs in the US than there are Canadians in the CFL. They are, on average, the most pro ready I the world....same as Canadians are hockey, and some nation would be for soccer. The idea of using the global players...beyond marketing....is exactly that...broadening the drawing pool.

I don't want to see Canadians get reduced opportunity at shots...which is why I don't support reducing the ratio...but something that has been brought forth a lot by GMs is the difficulty finding injury replacements late in the season for Canadians. You can always find a body...but I think everyone can spot a few that probably shouldn't be on a roster every year. Meanwhile...US players are a lot easier to draw from. Do I think there should be an increase....no....but taking away from that pool could be a big mistake....and it doesn't help the issues on the ratio side of things...especially if a 10th team comes in.

I’m opposed to global players taking any current roster spots. My preference would be to bring them along slowly. Mandate each team to carry two globals, but not necessarily mandate they be on the active roster. If they’re good enough to make the active roster, then have them count as an internationals, since they’re not actually nationals.

If they’re not good enough to crack the active roster, keep training and developing them until hopefully they are good enough.

If just having a couple of practice roster globals is not sufficient to attract overseas interest and broadcast rights, then consider expanding the active roster by two to include them.

One way I might support granting national status to globals (and US internationals) is if they do four years in USports. A couple of the French global players at the combine attended USports schools in Quebec. That would at least help develop grassroots football in Canada and give these players at least somewhat of a national identity.

I have no issue with Global players so long as they earn the right to play, it’s essentially why I’ve been against keeping the Canadian ratio the same, since I feel A LOT of Canadians that aren’t good enough, are sticking around rosters for years collecting pay cheques doing a whole lot of bench warming or starting when they’re clearly not good enough.

I believe in meritocracy, so I think I’ve switched back to lowering the ratio again. Being a proud Canadian got to me for a bit there lol.

Thats a fair point. So its flexible. So 21 National Canadians & 23 International players.
Including QBs in that.
As for Global players. REALLY. Not even close to canadian National players.
So again lowering the team depth taking a spot from a Canadian or US player.
Is insane!!!!

Although the rosters were much smaller ... I can recall the 60s when the backup QB was often really a free safety who played QB in high school ... I don't want to see that happen again ... even for a game.

You mean like Joe Zuger? Yeah, wouldn’t want to see a guy like that ever have to start at QB. :wink:

I sort of get what you mean, but don’t see how any of this would lead to that situation. Plus there is a rule that states that designated QBs cannot play any non-QB position. I don’t see that rule disappearing any time soon.

Global players are about new revenue potential. Don't open doors...dont get money.

They have to make room...
Group 1 - the most abundant and best trained in the world
Group 2 - arguably the 2nd best group in the world, but there are troubles with availability and GMs have been tying into safety

Which do you think will budge? I'm betting on group 2. How that happens...not sure. I know I've laid out what I think is a ok compromise

Global players are coming. There is seemingly no way around that at this point

Global players are coming. There is seemingly no way around that at this point
Absolutely and it's about getting media money from markets elsewhere as a result. Why do you think MLB that is making money hands over fists started the season in Japan? Doesn't take a genius to figure out why.