How about ridding the CFL of Canadian player requirements?

Ok...not trying to get people fired up here, but just an impassioned discussion of ridding the CFL of the Canadian player requirement. Would this improve or detract for the CFL? Some thoughts:

Would this improve the play in the league and make it more interesting? I would think so. The best players would get jobs, moving the game to a higher level.

Would that bring more fans into the fold? Or would it repel fans who love the idea of Canadians playing the game? No idea. Through the 1970s/80s most of the NHL players were Canadians, but that didn't dampen excitement for the game in American cities. Today, most hockey players are not Americans, but people realize those on the ice are the best players in the world and that who people want to see. But is the CFL fan of that mindset?

Thoughts?

I would like to see oline exemption from the Canadian restrictions. Most of what we got, usually Canadian, are a bunch of dumasses unable to play the game and get their jobs done without holding. We have just got to be able to bring in better olinemen. The pretty much control the game, or not.

Well, if a national player moves to the NFL and there's no other comparable Canadian, I think their former CFL team should be able to replace him with an international player for the duration of the player's stay in the NFL. As far as I am concerned the team has fulfilled their end of the CBA bargain in these cases. If the Canadian doesn't want to play in the CFL, that's their problem.

I also don't think teams should be punished for developing Canadian NFL talent. They should be rewarded.

Harder to argue in favor of keeping incompetent Canadians. Hiring players based on merit instead of nationality would lower labour costs and improve the product. Currently, Americans are unfairly discriminated in CFL. Reasons for non-import ratio include preserving Canadian jobs, developing talent and ensuring CFL remains Canadian.

For this recurring thread that usually comes every offseason that I just had to take a look at to perhaps blast, this is the best comment I have ever read on the matter.

I would support this idea. Also said players should have to have played a minimum of 18 games in the CFL.

Examples in the recent past would be Saskatchewan after Fantuz left to try out the NFL or Edmonton after Messam left to do the same. Both players came back and now are with new teams, but only Messam remains in near top form in my opinion.

Why have a CFL then? Why would a majority American player lineup want to play a game with weird rules they didn't grow up playing? Why would most Canadians who don't have an inferiority complex and their heads up American ass (hello 1990s) have an interest in this? We would just follow USFL, WFL, XFL or the legions of other second tier leagues that have come and gone.

Why would I as a child growing up in NB have any interest in this aside from knowing a local player made the "bigtime" and was playing in the CFL.

Why would we call it the Canadian Football League? There would be no Canadian players or rules (they wouldn't last with a majority of American players)

Why is this moronic topic even coming up again when the quantum leap in talent and coaching in Canadian football is now having CIS players starting to get drafted and being invited to NFL camps more and more often.

I don't necessarily care for the 7 starters rule nor how the designated imports work but the ratio is fine the way it is.

It isn't going to change anyway. :smiley:

There's an assumption that American players are all better than their Canadian counterparts, which is patently false. On average, it may be true, but not across the board. It also assumes that American coaches are not biased in favor of American players, which is not true. Witness the extreme difficulty in getting a Canadian QB on the roster when every chucklehead from south of the border gets multiple chances to epic fail at the QB position simply by virtue of passport.

I would like the number of national starters reduced to 6 to account for talent dilution through expansion but I continue to support the national rule itself.

That's not a bad idea. If we get a 10th team in the league, I do believe it will have to be reduced to 6 to help offset discrepancies.

:thup: :thup: :thup:

Andre Ware, Cleo Lemon, Brad Banks, Alex Brink, Ted White, Stefan LeFors, Steven Jyles. . . is there seriously not a Canadian quarterback equal to if not better than these examples ?

I'm OK with the ratio, but I would like to see rules in place to force teams to place Canadians in skill positions. What's the point of the ratio if teams fill it with linemen so they can give the majority of the skill positions to the "superior" American talent.

Develop Canadian skill players.

Any rule that defines positions on the field, I don't like. For instance, QBs exempt from the ratio. So then they had to backpedal and define QB in the rulebook as a player in position to take a snap, and you must ahave a QB on the field in position to take a snap on every offensive down, yet you can wildcat your snap to anyone n the backfield anyways so the rule is completely STUPID!

Also, DIs can play any play on special teams. But what is a special teams play? If I direct snap to the upback on a punt and he runs, what makes that a special teams play? Why should I be able to put my DIs out there for a RUN PLAY? Also note that on this fake punt even thoo it is an offensive play somehow I don't need a QB on the field??? Rule is unneccessarily dumb.

This is why I want it simple. You have a ratio, minimum number of NATs dressed on game day. Minimum number of NATs on the PR. But the 7 starters and 4 DIs thing is convoluted and stupid. Just have a minimum number of NATs on the field at any time. Say 3.

And on top of all of this, there are actually situations where a NAT will LOSE his job because of the 7 starters rule. If the starter at his position is an INT teams tend to back that INT up with an INT to be able to use the NAT spot somewhere else. This spring after Sask traded away Ricky Foley and signed Alex Hall, they cut Foley's backup David Lee since his position (end) was now considered INT. Otherwise Lee played quite well last year and had no reason t o at least not be brought back to camp to compete.

If you get rid of the 7 starters rule and replace it with minimum NATs on the field at all times then coaches and GMs will be much more inclined to keep the best 21 NATs regardless of position and the best NATs will tend to keep their jobs. It will not be perfect but it will be much more fair than it is now.

AND it will be WAY easier for the fans to follow. As it is now only the top 1% hardcore dudes understand all the ratio rules, basically the ones that attend all the practices and know players and coaches personally are most of the fans that understand the rules. It took me years to figure it all out myself.

You'll never find out unless the GMs are serious about the Canadian QB training program and we don't know if they really are or if it's lip service.

Take the example of Wpg. GM and coach both CIS and I thought they would give a legit shot to Jordan Yantz, sounds like they didn't. If they don't who will? Sounds like the biggest supporter might be Jim Barker in Toronto (seemingly the unlikeliest of all places). At least he had Danny Brannigan make the team.

FYI - There are 35 pages on this topic on the Ticat forum. Lots of opinions, with lots of repeats. Maybe a few new ideas.
http://forums.ticats.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=72243

My opinions are based on the following: I want to see Canadians on the roster and at least some on the field, with at least one or two of those at the skills positions. And I'd like to see some Canadian QBs get a chance.

  • The number of Canadians on the roster could be dropped by one or two, but no more than that. I'd actually like to see it raised, but I realize that may not be feasible this soon after expansion.
  • The number of starters needs to be kept at at least seven. Otherwise teams would be able to fill the starter requirements on the lines and fullback/tight end. In this case, the Canadian receiver would be almost as rare as the Canadian QB.
  • The first and second string QB should be included in the roster count, but still excluded from the starter count. The third string QB should be excluded for the same reason as it is excluded today from kicking duties, to prevent teams from manning it with a national non-QB in order to get an extra international somewhere else. The QB should be excluded from the starter count to prevent discouraging teams from using a national first string QB, which would require either a national backup or a rejigging of the lineup in case of injury - basically the reason the position was excluded from the ratio years ago.- The practice roster should be increased by a couple of national-only positions to increase the number of available and prepared national players. This should have been done a couple of years prior to Ottawa joining the league.

Interesting post - well done pdog72 :thup:

All I know is the Blue Jays pride themselves on Canadian nationality with the maple leaf but couldn't care less if they sign Canadians, or the Raps or NHL teams or whatever. Whatever. :roll: :roll: :roll:

In the case of Rogers, they lay off some Canadian $25 an hour cable installer but sign some Yankee guy to some multimillionaire contract. Am I missing something here? :roll: :roll: :roll:

I would make one change in your first statement ...

Fixed it for you.

That's much more accurate.

Those that like to drag the NHL, NBA and MLB into the argument are forgetting one important element; the fourth North American major league is the NFL, the CFL is a niche Canadian league on the same tier as MLS and NLL. Being that it's a completely Canadian league you can't compare it to how the Blow Jays or Maple Laffs work.