CFL Practice Rosters

This is from Steve Miltons story in yesterdays Hamilton Spectator:

"Clearly, Cortez won’t make the $400,000 he collected in Buffalo, but it probably isn’t that far off. And he gets control of the entire roster, which jumps to 56 next season with the practice roster increased by three players. The situation is close to Hufnagel’s in Calgary but Hufnagel makes more and doesn’t have a guy in football ops of Obie’s status."

I hadn`t heard anything previously about increased practice rosters.

Richard?

I am just like you. News to me. I did read it a few days ago but thought that it was a mistake, although when he writes "it will increase to 56" next year it does seems less than a mistake. Maybe he did get the information from Obie.

I do hope that he is correct; if so, the SMS may have to increase more than the minimum of $50,000,as per collective agreement.

Richard

Might have to do with the Expansion draft.

You are probably right that this relates to the future expansion draft and developing Canadian talent. From today`s Hamilton Spectator:

"One new wrinkle the football department will be dealing with is the increase in size of the practice roster from a maximum of seven (which had to include a Canadian draft choice from the same year) to 10. At least two of the three new spots to the PR must be held by non-imports, making a minimum of three Canadians on the 10-man practice roster.

“We just have to find a bigger house for (the practice squad) now,? O’Billovich joked.

Game-day rosters remain at 46, with 42 activated for the game itself."

That's the rule I happen not to like. . . if the game day roster is 46, then 46 players should be active for the game itself; if only 42 can be active for the game itself, then the game day roster should be 42. I don't really care which, just make them the same. As it is, it makes reading the game day depth chart too confusing, because you're trying to figure out which four of the guys listed won't in fact be dressed for the game. . . minor quibble I know.

BUT ... the rules state that the game-day roster is 20 NIs, 19 imports and 3 QBs. There is no stipulation on how the other four are allocated between imports and NOs. If 46 men were dressed instead of 42, what would the ratio be?

Aside from that, I have argued before that the increased roster size of the past decade has contributed to a reduction in entertainment value because the extra imports being dressed are almost all "stoppers" -- i.e. extra DBs and LBs who play in some passing situations, and/or special teams demons whose primary responsibility is to prevent good kick returns. Add even more players, while still requiring at least seven NI starters, and this trend will only be accelerated, IMO.

You wonder why there has not been official announcement from the League. The SMS will have to increase by more than the minimum $50,000 as per collective agreement. I say between $80,000 and $100,000.

In total agreement with such an increase; I would also prefer if more players were dressed; I would go/hope for 44.i.e. 2 two additions.i.e. 1 non-import and 1 import.

Richard

Practice roster wasn’t meant to be used the way it is. I am not sure what the solution is.

According to a CFL/League source, "while the practice rosters are being discussed,there have been no final decisions,yet, regarding increase to 10"

Richard