Come on man, it's cyclical, things go in waves, defenses in some years in one year or a range of years dominate and then wane, up and down. You need to look for patterns over a number of years. I don't need the CFL to outscore the NFL every year, defense dominates right now in the CFL, that can change. I mean I don't think the NFL lost too many fans in the years many games were like 9-6 for one team, and you still get the odd one of these games.
The players won big time, the league also suffers and fails to grow in any way out of this and most likely the drug testing will be done on the cheap and will be super easy for any player to cheat.
Drex, you don't think those big NFL lineman are juiced to the kilt? You get they are, they have masking pros down there that can mask just about anything, drug testing IMHO with the money the NFL guys have is a complete and utter joke, most of the guys there who need the size are juiced IMHO.
There’s no rule that says this.
If your starting Canadian running back gets injured, you’re free to replace him with an American, and play a backup Canadian elsewhere on offence (during the same game) or on either side of the ball (in subsequent games).
And that’s only if you’re using the minimum number of Canadian starters. If you have 8+ Canadian starters you can replace him in-game with an American RB with no other consequence, as long as the American RB is not listed as a Designated Import.
Increase the number of non-imports and give imports non import status if they remain with the same team for 5 years like the old days. It cuts down on the trading merry go round and protects vets from the salary cap inspired cuts we've been seeing lately. Roster stability is very important to ticket sales success
When they say that, they don’t mean it’s specifically required by the rules for the backup to be Canadian, but that it is a practical consequence of the import/non-import ratio and how most teams handle their rosters.
When a Canadian is injured, you still have to have to maintain the minimum number of Canadians in your starting lineup. If you are only starting the minimum required number of Canadians, then when one of them gets injured, you either need to replace them with another Canadian, or if you replace them with an import, you need to remove an import from some other position and replace that import with a Canadian.
The simplest scenario is to have a Canadian backup replace the injured Canadian at the same position. The assumption is that a team doesn’t want to put an import player in for the injured Canadian and thus be required to replace one of the other imports in their starting lineup with a Canadian.
:thup: Right on, and also roster stability is beneficial to the long-term future of the CFL via a higher chance for improved overall quality of play IMHO...and make the minimum contract offer a 2+1 instead of a 1+1 too I say to keep the NFL from developing a few too many solid players on the CFL's dime before they are even in CFL prime after only one season.
As we all know, the CFLPA came to a tentative agreement with the CFL and agreed to give up its guaranteed share of 56% of gate and TV revenues, now they just receive what is mandated under the salary cap, currently at $4.2M.
Now, I have no idea how much this translates into per team, but surely it should improve the bottom line for all teams, and reduce the purported $7M per year that the caretaker says he will lose in a new West Harbourfront stadium?
Note also that I am suspicious of other elements of his calculations, notably the $30 avg ticket price and the attendance assumptions. An avg ticket price of $40 with 25,000 avg attendance reduces the estimated loss by more than half; add to this the impact of the new CBA, and expected increases in TV revenues and you have a different picture altogether.
All of this is to say that I suspect the profit/loss estimates are in need of some revision.
Why should the League do anything about that?
Frankly,that’s the way it was for almost 2 1/2 to 3 decades.What ahs ahppened over that time is that Linebackers basically became slightly blown up DB’s.That’s great in a pass happy league,but things change.You’ll notice that last year we had almost evry strating running back finish with over 1000 yards.This is because Offensive co-ordinators have found that if you have a larger running back and a disciplined O-Line,you can end up with an advantageous match up.Namely a small linebacker on a larger running back.In fact,if this trend continues I would not be surprised to see more Tight End sets on offence to take advantage of the size factor…
This does’nt bother me a bit…Punishing clock control offence is just as exciting as to me as chucking a ball all over the field…
I couldn’t agree more. To me, in football, there is nothing more satisfying than a well-executed running play with run blockers executing their blocks properly and the ball carrier, following the blocks, gaining yardage and challenging tacklers to gain every possible yard. And I don’t want to see the back step out of bounds along the sidelines when he’s about to be tackled. Push back and challenge for every yard.
That to me is the essence of the game.