Should a Canadian QB count as a NAT in the ratio?

I think this might be the issue, and it is the reason why teams started to avoid starting Canadian QBs. At every other position, if there's a national starter, teams make sure they have a national backup or two. So replacing a national starter doesn't always require major adjustments in the lineup. But that's not feasible at QB, as there just aren't that many qualified national QBs available.

This is why I propose excluding the QB position from the substitution restrictions, allowing unrestricted substitutions at QB. The way to do this would be to grant an additional DI spot when a team uses a national QB.

Some might say that, but I suspect they'd be wrong - for the reasons you state, but also because of the perception that CIS QBs aren't ready for the pros. There's probably a lot of truth in that, so why would a team take the time to develop a Canadian QB when the QBs coming out of NCAA are ready to start as soon as their flight from the States lands. Well, after getting used to the wider field, the deeper end zones, three downs, pre-snap motion, the extra player on offence and defence,....

Yes, pulling a starting Canadian QB would require a major adjustment in the lineup (an import starter would have to be replaced by a National) but I believe this is preferable to the current system or allowing unlimited QB substitutions.

One concern with allowing unlimited QB substitutions is a team could name a National QB as starter (allowing them to start an extra Import in another position) then substitute the Canadian QB for an import QB for the entire game if they choose? Under my proposal, the team would lose 1 import starter if they did this.

I also don't like the idea of one team having a larger roster than their opponent (an extra DI)...just because they dress a Canadian QB? I think every team would dress a 3rd-string Canuck QB and park him on the bench, if get the extra D.I.

Under my proposal, the incentive in dressing a Canadian backup QB is that it frees up a Designated International player for another position (but both teams still have the same number of players available).

The incentive to start a Canadian QB is that if frees up an extra International starter in another position.

Under my proposed roster, the number of Canadian starters is always a minimum of 7. I don't believe the number of National starters should ever be reduced below 7, regardless of QB's nationality. Only, National QB's would count in the ratio...which is an incentive to sign Canadian passers compared to the current system, is it not?

Current Roster:

16 Internationals
4 Designated Internationals (who can only replace another Int. starter)
21 Nationals
3 QBs
2 Reserve roster

Proposed Roster:

17 Internationals
6 Designated Internationals
21 Nationals
2 Reserve roster

Note: 3 players of any nationality are designated as QB's who cannot play any other position

True, teams could abuse the rules by having an unqualified national player as one of their three QBs in order to get an extra international player somewhere else. But teams actually could do something similar today by naming their kicker as their first or second string QB (third QB not allowed to perform kicking duties), and then never use him as a QB. But teams don't do this, I assume because the league would see it for what it is and fine the team for violating the intent of the rule. I assume the league would do the same for national QBs, ensuring that teams act appropriately.

My proposed extra DI wouldn't increase the roster. It would just mean adjusting the roster nationals, as in:

  • 3 international QBs
  • 16 unrestricted (starter) international players
  • 4 designated international players
  • 21 national players
  • 2 reserve players


  • 2 international QBs
  • 1 national QB
  • 16 unrestricted (starter) international players
  • 5 designated international players
  • 20 national players
  • 2 reserve players

Still 44 players total, still maximum 16 starter internationals (excluding QB), and still max 23 international players, minimum 21 national players.

I'm still trying to figure out if there's an advantage in your proposal of having all three international QBs as designated internationals. Maybe not, but I suspect that's where an advantage might show up.

Trying not to make this a ratio argument thread .... but sorry stuff has to be said.

All this this complicated nonsense is one of many reasons why the ratio rule is nonsense. As stated earlier if the canadian QB's were good enough they would be given the opportunities. This american coach bias is nonsense. Any coach american, canadian, mexican, swedish, blah blah wants to WIN. The way to win is to put the best player on the field. There is a reason that canadian roster's are stacked with OL, its the least damaging way to fill an over blown quota.

You want to see canadian QB (running back, recievers) get more chances then REMOVE the need to deal with all this complicated ****. I would have no problem putting a "ratio" restriction on practice rosters, such that the player can earn his way into the lineup. They will also get opportunities from injuries ... much like BB in Sask. As they get promoted from practice rosters they still fill in the practice roster quota given imports a chance as well.

PS Jerome M and Andrew Harris would be in this league ratio or not. The best canadian talent will play if they are good enough to play and better than whoever is on the current roster.

I believe that, were it not for the rules limiting the use on international players, there would be almost no Canadians in the league.

I believe that teams would look at two players coming out of college for the same position, one from NCAA and one from CIS, and would assume (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that the NCAA player would be ready to play professionally sooner. Why? Because he had played at a higher level, against bigger, faster, better players under better coaches.

Occasionally there might be a CIS player, like Fantuz or Sinopoli, who played so well at college that teams look a bit closer. I could see maybe one or two of these players a year. If we assume players last eight years in the league on average, that's a total of eight to 16 Canadian players in the league. Less that two per team. And only a few of those would be starters. And very few of those would be quarterbacks.

So why would any team bother signing what they consider a "project"? What's in it for them?

As I said, that's what I believe would happen with no restrictions on international players.

So you have no problem with Each team having 44 Americans on its roster and Zero Canadians?

Ok Lets go with that

So does removing the quota make Canadians better players or does it make coaches want to win less?

So you are basicly saying that Canadian talent is not good enough to play in the league (aside from Fantuz, Sinopolli). That said if you believe that then why on gods earth would you want you team signing them and forcing them to play?

Exactly true, why would any team want to sign a "project" player and be forced to put them into there lineup because of **** rules they say they have to???? On the other hand if they require (by a ratio rule for practice rosters) signing him onto a practice roster without requiring them to play because of a) half the roster is canadians b) on field play ratios they will get more opportunities to develop. Instead they have to pick OL and other positions that minimize the damage leaving QB's and other positions of prominence to wither away.

Would I be ok with a 100% american roster ro1313 asks? IF the canadian talent is not good enough ABSOLUTELY. I however do not believe that would ever be the case, so theorizing about the scenario is pointless.

Yeah it would be the case IMO
Just like in the early 90ies when the American teams had all American players

Read my comment again. "[T]eams would look at two players coming out of college for the same position, one from NCAA and one from CIS, and would assume (perhaps correctly, perhaps not) that the NCAA player would be ready to play professionally sooner." I don't know if that's true or not, or the extent of the difference is readiness. But I believe that coaches and GMs assume there is a difference, just as many people on these forums assume.

Note that I also said "sooner". Assuming the difference is real and not just perceived, that difference starts to disappear quickly, as long as they get a chance to play. Practice roster spots are good, but aren't as good for development opportunity as actual game experience. Again, assuming the difference is real.

Perhaps this is where we differ in opinion the most. I believe that there would be almost no Canadians in the league without these rules. And I want to see Canadians in the league.

Don't waste your time. He's only here to stir the pot and agitate people. Why else would he be here since he clearly feels the league is employing a lot of players who only have spots because they're Canadian and not really good enough for pro football.

I'm not sure why he wastes his time on a league he doesn't seem to enjoy much.

LMAO. Ya buddy IM the one here to agitate people, care to put that to the test? I more then confident that most people on here would say that you are the agitator and a chronic complainer to boot. But of course you have never insulted anyone on here according to you.

quote But I believe that coaches and GMs assume there is a difference, just as many people on these forums assume.

If that is what you believe then deep down you have to believe that canadian talent is not good enough. Coaches and GMs will play the best players regardless of nationality.

The point of this thread (beyond the question of a canadian QB being a national) is about how to raise the profile of Canadians in this league in prominent positions specifically QB. My answer is simple, stop forcing teams to have to draft and play players that are not ready to play. If they have more flexibility in how they can choose their rosters than they will take more chances on developing canadian QBs and other prominent positions. Put a ratio on the practice rosters if need be to satisfy the concerns that you bring up.

No they don't

It seems some are really unclear on the designated import matter and really looking at it backwards. DIs can’t sub a national…essentially

It's not that I believe teams will look at players in the CIS and reject them because they're from the CIS. It's that I believe teams will stop looking at players in the CIS at all based on their perception that the players won't be able to compete immediately. Occasionally they might look at a player that has some press for being outstanding, but they won't actively scout the CIS colleges.

Anyway, back to the topic. Given that there's a requirement to have a certain number of Canadians on each team, should the quarterback position be included in that requirement, so a national quarterback is counted as a national player? My answer is yes, but I think that the issue of substitution at the quarterback position would need to be addressed somehow, and to avoid abuse, the third QB would still need tobe excluded. My suggestion was that teams would have the following roster requirement:

  • 43 players

  • Maximum 22 international players

  • Maximum 16 unrestricted non-QB (starter)

  • Maximum 2 international QB, able to enter the game at any time at the QB position

  • Remaining are designated internationals, able to substitute only for international starter

  • Remaining players are national, including any national QBs (maximum 2 QBs, regardless of nationality)

  • Optional third QB, either nationality, able to enter the game at any time at the QB position, restricted from kicking duties

This would result in the same lineup as we see today:

  • 1 QB
  • Maximum 16 internationals
  • Remaining nationals

The benefit would be that teams with a national #1 or #2 QB would have an extra designated import (or two).
Brandon Bridge?Verified account


The commissioner of the @Cfl got back with me last night. We'll be meeting this off season in regards to the ratio. #ChangeIsBiggerThanMe
7:35 AM - 19 Oct 2017