I think what will happen should there be a 10th team in the future (which in my opinion is likely), the league will adjust its ratio requirements. Instead of having to start 7 NI, they probably go to 6 and reduce the required amount of NI on the 42 man roster as well. At the end of the day, you're not getting rid of Canadians, but just dispersing them a bit. You'll still have the same number of NI as before, if not a little more.
While I expect that the number of non-import starters to be reduced from 7 to 6,once Ottawa joins the League, I am absolutely positive that the number of non-imports will remain at a minimum of 20,even if,eventually,we go to 10 teams.-maybe in 2016-
The players association and the fans will never accept a reduction of non-imports; reduction of starters,yes,but not in total. 20 non-imports will remain.
Most likely yes, agree, although if it happens that some top CIS guys who would be starters say no to the CFL after university to pursue a career immediately, as Tyler Varga from Western indicates as well as Marc-Antoine Fortin from Laval, then a case can be made to reduce the number of non-imports, not just starters. I would really like to know who is passing up a CFL chance who would likely be excellent players from a numbers aspect.
I think that they should scrap the minimum NI starters and DI rules. As long as you dress x Canadians, that should be it.
First off, it can work against Canadians. Miguel Robede lost his spot this year because of the 7 starters rule. They went with import Wroten at nose, and because they wanted a Canadian to back up a Canadian somewhere else on the depth chart, they decided to back up Wroten with another IMPORT instead of Robede.
Second, with the whole Canadian QB thing, QBs being exempt from the ratio, it's quite difficult to burn one of your 3 valuable QB spots on a Canadian QB, and equally so when you only have 42 bodies you don't want to sit an extra special teamer just to carry a 4th Canadian QB.
Third, using DIs means that you have to 'define' starters. What does starter mean? Why can't Saskatchewan put Stu Foord in at RB in the first offensive snap? There he started, now Cates goes the rest of the way? You also have to define positions. Who's to say that Foord isn't a receiver who just happens to be lined up behind the QB? And what if Foord goes in motion out to the slot before the snap? Does he now start as an RB or a SB? And what's the difference? What if the Lions come out on the opening play from scrimmage with a 6 receiver set just for one play? Now who is elegible to replace who according to the lineup card? Then - and this is the worst - you must now define special teams plays. What constitutes a special teams play? If the TiCats line up in a standard set on 2nd down but Glenn does a quick kick, isn't that now a ST play? How are the officials supposed to know that before the snap? How can they judge who is eligible to come on and off the field?
And why on bloody earth does it have to be so freaking complicated when rule or no rule Dave Stala and Marwan Hage are going to start anyways?
The nature or pro-sports egos, the desire for easy-fixes, cheap import talent, fan interest and attracting/retaining top Canadian talent means you have to require NI starters. Anything else makes the CFL nothing more than a farm system for the NFL with a few Canadian kids playing special teams.
Yes, the ratio sometimes excludes a N-I from a starting spot, but I think you'll go to 1 or 2 starting Canadians othewise. Why bother developing N-I talent on special teams for a couple of years if you never have to start them. Just use the desperate ones for special teams canon-fodder and say goodbye after a year or two at minimum salary. And that is where the players union sees the issue, as a salary driver - for both imports and non-imports.
Actually in the case of Robede he lost the starter spot on merit, it was the BACKUP spot that he earned but lost due to the starter ratio.
but I think you'll go to 1 or 2 starting Canadians othewise.IMHO, of course.
Math disagrees. There are 24 'starter' spots. One of them is a QB exempt from the ratio. Of the other 23 spots, if you stuffed them full of the 19 imports, that leaves MINIMUM of 4 NIs as 'starters' and that does not count kickers who are almost always NIs on merit.
Only issue i see is that what happens if the NFL goes after CIS talent? If the CIS starts to pruduce more quality players (increasing the cap will allow for football to be a better career choice), NFL (look at the article today about Heenan) will come a callin' with big bucks. Andy Fantuz apparantly will try again in 2012 with the NFL. Or its a ploy to sign a bigger contract, or both.
In it, they state that the CIS has been providing more 1st and 2nd round Canadian draft picks than in the past (although the total number of picks from the CIS is more or less the same as it was). More teams will obviously dilute the talent (same number of players over more teams = diluted talent, by definition), but if the CIS continues this trend of improving their output and the quality of non-imports from American schools stays the same, then maybe the fact that the talent will be diluted won’t actually matter that much.
Even a Grey Cup ring doesn't look as nice as one year agains't residency for a specialized medical career or MBA where in both cases you're looking at a 6 figure salary quite soon after graduation in many cases.
Fortunately not many high quality CIS players or Canadians in US on scholarships are so gifted academically.
Hmm, that sounds sort of weird saying that, if it was my son I'd much rather he be gifted academically than athletically to be honest. Well, unless he could make the huge money some of today's athletes make I suppose, almost guarranteed to do so that is. And not many of those pro sport positions out there.