Expansion from the fans point of view

I think Naylor made some great points, particularly about the ratio becoming less of a factor due to the rise in the quality of Canadian players and how elusive it has been to get a 10th team.

As a Battlehawks STM, I can’t help but wonder how long the UFL can make it. Outside of St. Louis, the league hasn’t gained much traction.

2 Likes

The league was a rush job put together in 90 days last year. The UFL needs 3-5 years of stability before fans start buying into the concept of spring football. I expect to see marginal increases in attendance and ratings this upcoming season.

2 Likes

More Canadians playing NCAA than ever before

3 Likes

Remember your not getting the best Americans, so the Canadian players can compete

1 Like

Canadians definitely can compete, which diminishes the need for a ratio. The ratio has been one of the arguments against U.S. expansion, since it isn’t permitted in the United States.

2 Likes

It would be good for marketing purposes. Canadian teams would have to have x amount of Canadians

You’ve got to imagine there’s been some sort of discussion at the board level regarding U.S. expansion. It’s likely a backburner issue while waiting out to see what happens with the UFL.

While I am perfectly content with an all-Canadian league, I am not against one, two, or three (or more?) American teams if the conditions are right.

Two “issues” that always come up as stumbing blocks are non-issues really. Field size and the ratio. Play on a smaller field in the U.S. stadiums (try to keep the 20 yard end zones) and simpy have no “game day” ratio for games involving American teams. Problem solved.

If there is truly a desire to grow this league (and I think there is) you should keep all options on the table.

2 Likes

I think these issues are non-starters for any play in the US.

Either there will be ONE set of rules,
which people are going to argue about anyway and I am perfectly fine with the rules as they are with changes to be made to the matter of the ratio if there is going to be a US expansion,
or there won’t be a US expansion.

I don’t see the exceptions as were made in the CFL expansion in the 1990s being repeated either.

They are not going to have two sets of rules, including for the field itself other than perhaps chopping end zones like at BMO to some degree, for any such expanded league.

2 Likes

You got this part right, for the NFL has its interests in the success or failure of the UFL first as well, including via its half-owner Fox Corporation.

Were Fox to lose background support from the NFL, the UFL would fold irrespective of its performance.

But the first UFL season was overall a success for the merged operation slapped together in a short time once government approvals for the merger of the USFL 2.0 and XFL 3.5 were cleared.

2 Likes

I respectfully disagree with Mr. Naylor. I think St. Louis vs Saskatchewan DOES make a difference…especially after another possible football failure (UFL) in St. Louis. We all know the Baltimore Stallions were sold as the beloved Baltimore Colts (who were allowed to move in the middle of the night by the NFL). Then were snubbed by NFL expansion. This is NOT the case in St. Louis. It is my opinion that CFL expansion to St.Louis would be another US non NFL pro football flop.

2 Likes

If the CFL ever were to expand again into the US,
at the very least I also agree with you in that even if the CFL went down that road again and ONLY in the event the UFL failed first,
I’m thinking given the great effort and investment that would be required,
any US expansion also would NOT be in merely one market.

Of course there would be much to overcome before the CFL were even to get to such a point beyond a mere failure of the UFL.

2 Likes

It would be interesting if CFL, and new Ufl have a few inter league games. Not a full schedule but maybe 1, 2 games

1 Like

The CFL has publicly stated a desire to expand to 10 teams for quite some time now. However, this stated desire has not led to expansion. Based on this, it is reasonable to conclude that maintaining the status quo isn’t going to lead to a 10th team or there would already be one by now. What is the status quo? I think it is several things, but primarily not flexing on issues like the ratio, field size, and limiting new teams to Canada only. I understand why people don’t want to make these changes as it has been hashed out repeatedly in these forums, but not budging on some of these issues is placing a ceiling on the league. To be honest, there isn’t anything wrong with this. The league has existed for decades with 8-9 teams and is doing just fine, but if expansion is really a goal as the league has stated, it isn’t going to happen unless something changes.

2 Likes

They play 4 down football on a shorter narrower field with two less players on the field, the receivers need 2 feet in bounds to make a catch, the receivers can’t get a head start before the snap of the ball and the D line doesn’t have to be one yard back.
So many other differences, it would be mass confusion and not very entertaining.

1 Like

Add Jim Mullin to the mix.

2 Likes

I’ve mentioned this point before over the years in this recurring thread whenever the claim is made that the matter of the ratio in the US is a hard-and-fast non-starter or that “well, it would not be legal.”

Of course it would be seemingly easier to simply scrap the ratio, though I don’t agree that’s a simple and easy path either.

Well maybe so to these arguments on the surface, but otherwise the making of arrangements to accommodate lawful allocations for foreign employees does involve considerable work and expense in the US.

There are ways around the legalities associated with the ratio such as that idea of college athletes no doubt, which would not have to involve a discussion of nationality or gridiron background in Canada.

Otherwise the work to make such a scheme work would be arduous whether organized privately via colleges or via the federal government via allowed allocations of foreign employees for a foreign investor, which is also common by foreign companies investing in the US and for generally only a certain number of years.

During or after the designated time period, the allocated foreign employees either return to their native countries or go to another country or qualify for permanent residency in the US (i.e. a Green Card), or become citizens otherwise. Whatever agreement is at hand with the government either expires or is renewed and likely modified.

Given all the work to make that happen, a CFL investment into a presence in the US would have to be substantial and likely involve more than one city, in my humble opinion.

2 Likes

Agreed. The CFL is a decade or two away from such an adventure unless they want to repeat the sins of the past.

1 Like

Yeah I have a hard time seeing anyone wanting to own the only US based team.

The late Fred Anderson begrudgingly did it for one season with the Gold Miners because San Antonio dropped out late in the process.

Interesting enough he was the only owner that kept on to the end. Moved the team to San Antonio and pulled the plug after one year because he would have been the only team after the Stallions moved to Montreal.

2 Likes

If they use Park Lane to guide them it could be shorter. They have have a much better time getting good owners as of late.

That alone would put them miles ahead of the 90s process.

The board room is where the real grinding would have to take place IMO. If the votes were there, they can have a team up and running in 2-3 years IMO.

2 Likes

Yes using Park Lane would put them ahead. I was more concerned about lack of fans showing up and not the ownership situation. I agree that the board room would have to have a different attitude towards it.

2 Likes