This has always been a pet peeve of mine.....Why declare a 46 man,but have only 42 dress for a game? The 4 players who don't dress get game cheques anyways,so why not dress them and have 46 dressed for each game.With the way the restrictions are right now,it makes it difficult to get all your better players onto the game day roster.You could do this by declaring a 46 man,with instead of a 3 player designated import rule,they could change it to a 4 player designated rule of any nationality.The 42 would essentially stay the same (3 q.b.)(20 can)(19 imp)with the 4 who would normally be declared in-active being designated.This would add additional depth and keep starters from having to play special teams.This would essentially cut down on game day injury situation shuffling of players from position to position and allow teams to have more continuity.I also think it would cut down on the practice of hiding players on the injury list.I mean if your allowed 42 to dress,what's the point of having 4 who don't.Increasing from 42 to 46 just makes sense and would allow the teams to have greater flexibility when it comes down to preparing your game day roster.
The only real difference I could see from today's norm and your idea, Bobo, would be the extra costs on road games -- 4 extra round trip airfares, per diem packages, pre-game meals and a couple of extra hotel rooms -- ball park max. -- $60,000. a year.
I say this based on my belief that, most often, the 4 Reserves do not travel.
Couldn't agree more, as I have also been saying why bother.
We need a 46 man playing roster.
Get rid of the PR and increase the roster to 50 players.
I'm also not sure on the travel issue as well.Teams have to declare their 42 and 4 reserves 1 hour prior to kick-off on game day.Therefore it would seem that all 46 would have to travel with the team,just in case of unforeseen injuries cropping up prior to kick-off,and the sudden need to tweak your line-up at the last minute.An example of this would have been last game in Edm. when it wasn't sure if Bakari Grant would suit up,Dobson Collins was on the 46,but was classified on the 4 reserve,when Bakari was giving clearance to suit up.You would have to think that Collins would have had to be with the team in Edm. just in case Bakari could'nt play,so he could take his roster spot instead.
The 46 already travel with the visiting team as the declaration time is as you say 1 hour before the game.
You always see the 4 odd plus maybe more in civvies on the sideline.
I say per mine raise it to 50 player team roster and let everyone play.
Exactly.....If there there anyway might as well let them suit up.
Until someone in the know tells me otherwise, I'll continue to believe that, in the majority of cases, the 4 players who will be designated, an hour before game time, as Reserves are not traveling with the team. If it's not part of the CBA (and perhaps its is) that a minimum of 46 players must travel to each away game, the extra expenses involved are a waste of dollars.
As I understand it, the four players who don't suit up travel with the team, receive a game cheque, and all expenses are covered. Why then don't they suit up?
42 men is not enough and will be worse next year when the talent pool is diluted by one expansion team.
Great Point!!! :thup: :thup: :thup:
I agree that all 46 should play.
But it risks raising the perennial argument about imports/NIs.
At the moment, the game 42 is 20 NIs, 3QBs, 16 imports and 3DIs.
For the sake of argument, suppose you are like me and want there to be at least 7 NI starters. With 46 you can do that by raising the NIs number to 24. Or you can do something like raise the NIs number to 22 and the DIs number to 5, although that seems like a lot of DIs with all that reporting in.
As I stated earlier on in the thread,my proposal would work like this.....42 man would be essentially the same breakdown (3 q.b)(20 cdn. with 7 being starters)(19 imports),your 4 who would normally be on the 4-man inactive would then be declared your designated players regardless of nationality(ex. any combo of cdn or amer or all).Essentially you would no longer have 3 designated imports rule,but instead a 4 player designation rule of any nationality made up of the 4 players who would normally not dress for the game.The coaches would still need to declare who the 4 players are 1 hr before kick-off,instead of now declaring there 42 man game day and 4 reserve list.
In a nutshell,you have a 46 man roster,same restrictions,only difference being a 4 man designation,instead of the 3 man designated import rule.Essentially this would give the coaches way more flexibility and depth if injuries occur in the game,and would also assure that you get your best players in the lineup on game day.
Just to explain this a little more clearly,lets use the 46 man roster that was named for our last game vs the ESKS..The 4-man reserve who didn't dress were....ot-M.Dile de-C.Marshall wr-D.Collins db-M.Bucknor These 4 would have been your 4 designated players for this game(3-imp. 1-cdn). Dile would have been able to sub in for or replace Simmons or Figuero in case of injury,Marshall could have rotated with Norwood or Boudreaux or subbed in in case of an injury to either player,Collins could have rotated in with Grant or Jones or subbed either in case of injury,Bucknor being cdn could have subbed in at any d.b. position and also played special teams.Of course if inclined all 4 could play special teams,and would add additional depth to the line-up.The coach would still have to declare his 4 designates instead of his 4 reserves 1 hour before kick-off.This would still add intrigue and stratedgy to the game day roster as the coaches would have to figure out the best way to go when deciding who are the 4 designates for that game.
Case in point: Fantuz is coming back from a hamstring injury, Bhakari Grant has been dinged up. We'll probably only have one receiver as back-up. Since Stala is making the trip to Winterpeg anyway, why shouldn't he dress?
When Ottawa begins their first season they won't know what they have in certain teams like the Secondary. If a DB looked great in camp but is getting killed during a game, they should have the option of playing another guy. All it takes is one injury and that option is gone.
One injury and the Oline doesn't have a backup unless you put a Dlineman in his spot.
The bottom line is if the scratches made the trip and get paid anyway then let them dress.
Taking our team as an example.....breaking down the 42........24 starters/2 b.u. Q.B./2 kickers/1 long snapper...leaves only 13 back-up players dressed for both sides of the ball(offence and defence),3 of which are designated imports.
It doesn't leave you much room for flexibility now does it.Hopefully like another poster said with expansion on the horizon next year,the league will look into increasing game day roster sizes to alleviate this problem and put a better product on the field,where coach's won't need to scramble as much shuffling lineups due to injuries and putting an end to the practice of hiding players with questionable injury status on the 1 gm I.L.
Sorry I didn't read your first post closely enough. But I am still confused. To pick up your example, the Cats also had 3 DIs last game who I think were Brown, Greene and Walker. Your 3 designated players Dile, Marshall and Collins sound just like DIs to me. And adding Bucknor sounds just like expanding the roster by one NI. So it sounds like under your proposal, that game the Cats would have had 21 NIs, 3QBs, 19 imports and 6 DIs.
However while I am still confused about the details, your basic idea makes sense. All 46 should play.
Brown,Greene and Walker would not be listed as D.I. under my proposal they would have no restrictions at all imposed on them.....basically as I said before,the 3-man D.I. would be scrapped in favour of increasing the game day roster from 42 to 46....with the stipulation being that the 42 man ratio remains the same (3 q.b/20 cdn/19 amr)except that the 3 D.I would be replaced with the 4 reserves being declared designated regardless of nationality.The roster would then be all 46 dressed with the coach having to declare 1 hr before game time who the 4 players are that are designated.For example a game day roster would require 42 players that would normally dress anyway,with the 4 who would normally make up the 4 man reserve also dressing but with designated player status.So in short,its really quite simple.....here's the breakdown......(3 q.b/20 cdn/19 amr.) =42 required spots + 4 designated players(any combination of either cdn or amer. players)Teams would still have to dress at minimum 20 cdn's(7 starters)19 imp.(no restriction)plus 4 extra players declared designated that would normally be declared in-active on game day.Add your 3 q.b.'s and it all adds up to a 46 man game day roster.
Hopefully that'll clears it up for you Spike....anybody else confused?? did I miss something? please let me know...input is always welcome or if anybody has a tweak or two on this or a better idea....please don't hesitate to chime in :cowboy: :cowboy:
Still confused. I can't understand how you can guarantee 7 nonimport starters. If you allow 19 no-restriction imports, all could start. With 23 spots (not counting QB), that leaves room for 4 nonimport starters.
I think consistent with your idea we could have 46 players of which at least 20 had to be NIs and 3QBs. But only 16 imports (not counting QBs) could be unrestricted, the rest would have to be DIs. That would guarantee 7 NI starters.
The reason for having a 46 man roster and only dressing 42 is to ensure that each team has the same number of players to start the game. many times a starter may not know until the day before or on game day if he can go.
Also if a player should get hurt in warm ups early teams will still have a choice of the other 4 players on who to dress depending on position.
The Change to an hour before the game and 24 hours before the game was in case of warm up injury or to give siad player the pre game early warm ups to see if he can go.
That is the reason why not all 46 guys can dress.
This is modern basic pro football policy CFL or NFL
As for the other questions about raising the roster numbers, shorting the practice squad and putting more players on the roster that is something that needs to be discussed and agreed upon between the CFLPA and Management during the CBA. So that topic will forever be debated.
As for dressing a certain amount of players and having about 4 as scratches that is something that both sides will agree upon.
I think we sometimes get confused as the announcers refer to it as a healthy scratch which is not always the case
Good explanation, Steve.
I'm still of the opinion 42 players is not enough for a professional football game.
.....basically as I said before,the 3-man D.I. would be scrapped in favour of increasing the game day roster from 42 to 46....with the stipulation being that the 42 man ratio remains the same (3 q.b/20 cdn/19 amr)except that the 3 D.I would be replaced with the 4 reserves being declared designated regardless of nationality.The roster would then be all 46 dressed with the coach having to declare 1 hr before game time who the 4 players are that are designated.For example a game day roster would require 42 players that would normally dress anyway,with the 4 who would normally make up the 4 man reserve also dressing but with designated player status.So in short,its really quite simple.....here's the breakdown......(3 q.b/20 cdn/19 amr.) =42 required spots + 4 designated players(any combination of either cdn or amer. players)Teams would still have to dress at minimum 20 cdn's(7 starters)19 imp.(no restriction)plus 4 extra players declared designated that would normally be declared in-active on game day.Add your 3 q.b.'s and it all adds up to a 46 man game day roster