I would have liked to think the league and teams consulted with GMs and coaches before making this change as yes they would be the ones to lose jobs and/or make less $$ after this. Especially in light of he AAF starting up next year.
Who knows if Halifax comes to fruition there can be a coach/front office ‘expansion draft’. Maybe that’s why the league is looking at Moncton early…
You always have to turn things to hyperbole... The league is not suggesting they run their ops with 3 people. Whatever the number they agree on. 2 million or 2.5 million is plenty. The Laval Rouge et Or run their team with 8 coach... We don't need 14 and we certainly don't need people like Joe Mack clogging up teams finances or Quality control analysts dissecting every time a player scratches his junk. Video production people.... All this has led to a more scripted, boring game.
I hope if they create a union they will be ok with having contracts that are not guaranteed like the unionized players have
I don't get it. You are the biggest " Amateur Capologist" on this site and have consistently taken the owners side in dealing with players but you are against them doing the same to football ops, where all the savings from controlling player payrolls have gone ???
What does practise time have to do with this other than nothing? Less coaches equals players receiving less coaching equals diminished play. I have no idea how you think fewer coaches somehow magically means the players get better. Bizarre comment.
And your previous comment about the CFL being "boring" and "scripted" because of more coaches. Um, what?
Very well said. West has advantage the last 10 years with bigger crowds and much nicer stadiums.
More fans equally better coaches scouts etc. Nothing more then trying to help wiltering east teams.
Ambrosie is a HUGH failure. Lost touch or never had it in moving forward.Then Halifax BS.
Yet the Argos via their ownership was spending was near the top of the league with their coaching and front office. Only behind the Riders If I recall correctly.
Don't know why people still want to insist this false sense of a competitive advantage to western teams is being taken away.
Seems like the attempt to buy a winner happens in both haves. If these costs are exceeding the pace of revenue growth then how can treating the league as a business be a bad thing? The league didn't go backwards when the SMS was introduced either.
This isn't the kind of thing they would just get a wild idea about one day. There is clearly a need for this to be policed. We all know the Riders under Jones take every possible edge they can get - which isn't an issue in and of itself - but they have shown multiple times they will cheat the rules every chance they get. I think we all remember the player hoarding scandal.
Anyway... something obviously needed to be done league-wide, and so the league did.
I do? "CFL teams use to be run with four or five coach. One GM and one scout." seems you opened that door, and have now continued:
"the Laval Rouge et Or run their team with 8 coach" So you are saying that CFL should look to amateurlevel investment in it's coaching? How would Laval stack up against the average NCAA team do you figure? I figure not well, so it is a pretty poor comparison.
You don't need quality control? Seriously? I can absolutely assure you that almost all players would suffer from that, as that is who hands them their customizedvideo post game for study....they generally get a copy of the game and a copy that has every play they were in on. They are also the ones who put together study packages of upcoming opponents. This would be a horrible position cut and is very valuable.
The NFL averages over 20 coaches per team...that is straight up coaches, not football operations and support.
Honestly though...I am more concerned about the potential restriction on scouting they are talking about...that is just horrible. The restrictions on coaching and operations is manageable, but IMO a little light.
I disagree strongly with the contact one. I am all for making it one contact day a week or something...but reality is that injury from contact in practice is a very small portion of the injury in practice. More importantly, this is shuffling the risk from practice to games that are at full speed. Say you lose an OLman, so you want someone else in there. They haven't taken contact except for maybe in camp...if they attended. Can they safely handle themselves at pro speed? Not everyone can make that leap and put themselves at risk. Are they going to be a liability and put their QB at huge risk?
I have always felt that a mandatory part of the game should be bringing in a tackling specialist at least once every 4 games and getting to fundamentals. It is way to easy to stray from that...and now you can't even practice it! It is important for the tackler's safety, and it is important for the person being tackled safety.
There have been both players and coaches that have expressed concerns about eliminating contact practices entirely. I get the concern and I get where he is coming from, but this is one that I am really concerned about. Not one that I simply am not a fan of, but am truly concerned about. I know it is not the same...this is pro level...but if my kid was in a system that did not practice contact in practice they would be immediately yanked....but I don't care what level you are at, you need to hit on the fundamentals.
I fail to see how this makes the play better in your eyes. Mainly because your argument continues to make no sense. More coaching, not less coaching, makes for better play. There's more to it than on field as well, of course, there's also the various positional meetings. Can't believe someone has to explain this, lol
A CFL team should have no problem running its football operations on a 2.8 million dollar budget. Quality Control is something Trestman introduced to the CFL in his second or third year in Montreal. The league did fine without it for the previous fifty years or so. The average CFL team has revenues of 20 million dollars. 15% of revenues on football staff is what makes sense. Standard contracts that are guaranteedfor one-year severancewould make even more sense.