I took the liberty of writing Mr. Mike. Yes I have too much time on my hands:
You're probably getting a lot of this today but allow me to add to the pile:
I found your article today to be an utter misrepresentation of Canadian football. Your breakdown of Canadian football as being pass-pass-kick, run-pass-kick, run-run-kick demonstrates a shallow depth of knowledge of football of any sort. Are you claiming that American football is better because there are more permutations of plays in a 4 down, 3-and-out as opposed to the Canadian 2-and-out?
No one with in-depth knowledge of the gridiron varieties of football would speak with such malice about one particular brand. They are different. Subjectively you may prefer one over the other but by no objective means can you assert that one is more strategic and involves more great play.
For example, I could turn around your argument and say by virtue of 3 downs, Canadian football is on edge without the 'experimental' or pace setting down. You have to make big plays to succeed. Some will prefer the 6 minute, 35 yard drive resulting in a punt. I for one, am just as content that said drive be finished in 2 minutes as is more often the case in Canadian football. Special teams in American football is an intermediary as opposed to an intricate part of the game. Yes with 16 games per week in the NFL you can amass a comparable special teams highlight reel against the 4 game CFL week. However, rules like the fair catch, and a punting team's ability to 'down' the ball abbreviate the need for kicking, coverage and returning in American football. The focus is squarely on the scrimmage. Again if you like that, great. If you want to see a game where kicking carries more weight, watch the CFL. The rouge is a part of this. One who prefers the NFL is content with a missed field goal being the end of the play. The CFL fan enjoys the added 'strategy' of conceding the rouge for field position verses attempting a return and the subsequent coverage and continued play. Its a matter of preference and subjectivity.
The notion that Canadian football is somehow the quirky or abnormal variety stems from poor marketing and local TV blackouts in the 70s, 80s and 90s. This left a generation of young and new Canadians blind to a sport with the same vintage as American football. Which is the 'normal' or 'standard' of gridiron football is completely arbitrary. When the CFL came around business-wise and TSN picked up the ball with promotion, the hate-on began from those who wrongly saw the CFL as no less a gimmick sport than the AFL.
Toronto probably has its own market for an NFL team. Sure. You can argue for the merits of this. It doesn't take the expense of the CFL to do so. Your article will only influence those who have a very casual and passing interest in football period. Those in the know will thoroughly rebut your article. The fans of the CFL that watched the Grey Cup (6.1 million) and contribute to regularly out-drawing the NFL in Canadian TV ratings probably take offense. If this was your aim, congratulations.
Now for the conspiracy theories:
Are you on Phil Lind's payroll? Having been Stephen Harper's speech writer, is this a far fetched extention of the propaganda needed to eventually constitute the NAU?