What was wrong with import/non-import?

Why this sudden change to national/international? Is this some kind of new political correctness garbage that follows the trending theme that has been taking over modern culture? If so I don't see the offense import/non-import could cause.

If not that then why change the semantics? Maybe I just have to get used to it, but I think that import/non-import sounds quite a bit better.

Maybe it was felt there was a negative connotation in the term non-import. As in, imports are special in this league, but you're not one of them. Now it's nationals and the other guys.

I'm thinking they could have just gone with national and import. But as you say, we'll get used to the new terms eventually. It probably took a while for the terms import and non-import to be accepted. ("What's wrong with just calling them Canadians and Americans?")

Because we have some players that are not American or Canadian. Therefore it should be Canadians and non-Canadians

That was more a what people would have said back in the day when they introduced the terms import and non-import. Kind of what we are doing now with "What's wrong with still calling them imports and non-imports?" I'm guessing that people back then would have used the term Americans to describe the non-Canadians in the league, even though there were probably a few non-Canadian/American players around (primarily kickers?). I could be wrong on that.

If I ever move to Canada, I promise not to take offence to being referred to as an import. Or an international; for that matter...

I've been called worse... by better... :cowboy:

Another over-reaction to a insignificant and inconsequential switch in terminology. What matters is the ACTUAL RULE! Which of course is an endless debate.

From todays Kirk Penton in the Winnipeg Sun...............and I couldn't agree more

The league should have changed the ratio when we added Ottawa. Should have lowered the number of Canadians. It’s still July, and we can’t find Canadians worth a (hoot) on the street. If we lose another Canadian starter or two, where are we going to find replacements? No one will trade Canadians. We’ve tried, but we always get ‘Can’t trade our Canadians.’ Everyone has the same problem. Four months of football left to play and barely enough good Canadians in July …
[url=http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/07/30/west-dominance-stirs-up-realignment-talk]http://www.ottawasun.com/2014/07/30/wes ... nment-talk[/url]

I disagree with the notion that the number of Canadians should be reduced. Each team must dress 21 Canadians and start a minimum of 7, it's equal for all teams. The problem now with each team having 4 designated imports, backup Canadians don't get as much playing time on offence and defence to develop their skills (as compared when there were fewer American players and only 2 D.I., for example) Many young Canadian players seem to stagnate and not get better because they rarely see the field anymore. There is nothing wrong with the talent level of most Canadian players, they just need an opportunity to play to hone their skills. We need Canadians to play a prominent role in the game and not become just a 2nd-rate American league.

Hey Vermonter, do you mean you've been called worse by better racists than us Canucks ? :lol:

Now Xvys, this is a good post. We think alike on this point !

His point was not the talent level or the chance to play - it was the fact that “…barely enough good Canadians” NOT ENOUGH good Canadians!
With Ottawa entering the league it meant more Canadian players in the league, not the same as last year but MORE Canadians had to be found.
Ottawa went out and got a great defensive player , Philips, he broke his leg in the Hamilton game, they will never find another Canadian to replace him, they also lost an “O” lineman. Where do the replacements come from?
When the league added Ottawa they should have reduced the ratio by two, they still would have had the same amount of Canadians as they did in the past.

I think part of the answer to your question lies in the origin of the "import" designation. It is illegal to employ somebody based on their country of origin / citizenship - which makes Canadian Content rules very tricky. So "import/non-import" was designed and determined by where a person originally received their football training. Instead of Saying American / Canadian... which teams and the league could not legally do, ever.

Josh Bartell the kicker made it into the CFL as a "non-import" because he had not received football training anywhere in North America, and has been grand-fathered in under the new CBA. I think this was a real stretch of the rules in the first place, considering that Australian Rules Football League players receive monetary compensation. To say he's not trained, and not a professional must have involved some genius grey-area logic on his agents behalf... anyway, I love seeing the guy play.

I think "National" and International go along the lines of further legally defining where a person is trained, and not their country of origin, or citizenship. (circa 1960's, where American players would be counted as "Canadian" once they obtained Canadian Citizenship). There are also current players who are American citizens, but spent enough time in Canada to earn "non-import / national" designation.

Finally, to answer your question with another question; Why not have some more "National" pride? Us Canuckle-heads all too often downplay or dismiss our own culture and heritage, and in our Canadian Football League overall i think "National" is a much more suiting, and pride leveraging thing than "non-import"

One good thing about the new rule for "National", if I understand it correctly, is there will be a few more American raised kids who have been born in Canada and will now be eligble to play in the CFL as a National. So if the Clubs get out there and beat the bushes they should be able to find some of these guys that are playing football in the NCAA. Every year there are several of these types and with the rule being relaxed from having to live 7 years in Canada after birth before leaving for the States, now anyone born in Canada is eligble to be a National.
I would also think that any player who has at least one parent who is Canadian should be able to qualify as a National if he takes out Canadian citizen.
This should help increase the pool of Nationals somewhat.
But I don't think we will see a run of American couples visit Canada to have their children born here so they can be eligble to play in the CFL as a National. :wink:

Yes, this is a good point. Now a NCAA player who was born in Canada is considered a National even if he got his football training in the U.S.

I heard Commissioner Cohon say on one of pregame radio shows recently that the league is still exploring the terminology. He said there is nothing stopping the league from referring to Nationals as Canadians if that's what the fans want. They might also revert to Internationals being imports again. So we might soon have Canadians and Imports (which includes all non-Canadians)...which kind of makes sense.

I think they wanted to get away from referring to Canadian players as "non" anything. Hopefully "Canadian" can pass another Supreme Court challenge if required? :thup:

Import/non-import rules were about where you got your football training prior to your 18th birthday. An American who didn't play high school football could qualify as a non-import, and someone from a different part of the world who didn't play a non-Canadian brand of "our" football (in other words, American football) before turning 18 could qualify as a non-import. This is how guys like Ben Cahoon and Josh Bartel qualified as non-imports, even though neither was born or raised in Canada. (It has nothing to do with a deal with their agents.)

The national/international rule would classify them differently. It has more to do with a player's origins. Someone who was a Canadian citizen, or who had lived in Canada for at least seven years, when they started their football career is a National; anyone else is an International.

The old rules were confusing, because it was possible in some cases where a player could be classified as both an import and a non-import, or neither. The new rule is more black and white.

Though under the new rules, players like Bartel would be classified as "Internationals", he is grandfathered as a "National" because he had already been classified as a "non-import" when the new rule took effect.

Agreed. On all points. The national player pool needs all the help it can get. The new rules should help at least somewhat.

With BC signing Austin Collie we see the first player that qualifies under the new rule change. Born in Canada and you are eligible to play in the CFL as a National. Just a little surprised Collie didn't have to go through a supplemental draft first though.

Back in 1971/1972 Prime Minister Trudeau brought us the metric system that many of us elder still loath. For years we look to the American stations to get the info on what temperature is, we shop American as we still figure things out in pounds and ounces. We're the conservatives in the country and, tend to resist this type of foolish change. I'll still be writing and thinking of the CFL in terms of import and non import.

back in the 80's, I used to always say pint and quart still. One time I went up to a young lady at a food mart counter and asked for a pint of chocolate milk. She had no idea what I was talking about. I thought, sheesh, they could at least still teach it. We were taught some metric before they decided to change over. I don't say pint so much anymore. :smiley:

I wonder if we'll ever hear "It's second down and 6.4008 metres to go"