CFL CBA Situation

[GreatWhiteNorth]

Curious where people stand on this one.

I tend to approach things through a business lens, and rarely do I have a lot of time or respect for unions. I believe that they've had their place historically, but that the pendulum swings back and forth and too often they end up causing waste and protecting incompetence.

With that said, I'm full on #TeamCFLPA - I want the clubs to have a deal that keeps them financially viable and believe that owners (private or community based) deserve a return on their investment/operations, but it is the players that are what makes the game great. I have come to appreciate the sacrifices that they make, not only potentially in body and health, but often with time away from family, friends and loved ones. Yes, they're getting paid to play a game, and yes, they're chasing a dream, but looking at guys like Brandyn Thompson, John White IV or Matt Nichols and what they've overcome, rehabbed through and persisted at to play a game that doesn't always love them back, it's easy to develop some empathy for the players.

I'm not saying upset the whole business of the CFL, but I'd like to see gains for the players in the cap - particularly focused towards the minimum salary and the bottom 1/3 of the guys, and gains in taking care of their health, both during their career and through the period of any ongoing injuries suffered while playing.

[nafnikufesin]

Sports are a distraction. Our priorities in this world are screwed up. There is no way that entertainers, be it athletes or actors, should be making millions while nurses, teachers, scientists, people that actually make a difference in this world, get paid a small fraction of that.

Tickets to sporting events cost way too much. The concessions cost way too much. The owners profits are ridiculous. Players make way too much.

Except in the CFL. Most of these guys draw an average salary. They have to take jobs in the off season to pay the bills. They have to have skills outside of football, because their careers are short, and they still need to make a living when they turn 35 (if they are lucky that their football career even lasts that long).

It's one of the reasons that I love the CFL. It isn't ridiculously out of touch with the rest of the world. These players might not be the best in the world, but they are playing for the love of the game, not to get obscenely rich. Give them the support they need.

[tigerdar]

Sports are a distraction. Our priorities in this world are screwed up. There is no way that entertainers, be it athletes or actors, should be making millions while nurses, teachers, scientists, people that actually make a difference in this world, get paid a small fraction of that.

Tickets to sporting events cost way too much. The concessions cost way too much. The owners profits are ridiculous. Players make way too much.

Except in the CFL. Most of these guys draw an average salary. They have to take jobs in the off season to pay the bills. They have to have skills outside of football, because their careers are short, and they still need to make a living when they turn 35 (if they are lucky that their football career even lasts that long).

It's one of the reasons that I love the CFL. It isn't ridiculously out of touch with the rest of the world. These players might not be the best in the world, but they are playing for the love of the game, not to get obscenely rich. Give them the support they need.

Well said beer man

[turftoe27]

Well said beer man

X 2. super post.

[Esks1975]

Also agreeing with beer man and gwn.

[Sticker]

Also agreeing with beer man and gwn.

They both got it right for sure.

[BeaverSports]

They both got it right for sure.

Agreed with the above posts. I'm kind of — actually, very — shocked that there isn't a deal finalized here, especially with Randy Ambrosie's leadership. With the new league starting in the U.S. it's really not the time for the CFL and CFLPA (and the league in particular) to be dickering around on making a deal. It's a make-or-break time for this league and the longer the CBA remains unsettled, the harder it's going to be to attract players of the necessary calibre to make this a go.

Sure, there will be players who are more suited to the CFL game with the wider field, etc. (though the off-field cap may limit the ability to recruit them) but if I'm a talented, young American kid, given the idea of making greenbacks (and likely more than CFL can offer) in a warmer climate, playing a game I already know, I'm less inclined to look north of the border.

Ultimately, that situation is going to hurt those with a vested interest in the league. Fan support has been dwindling already with the mediocre officiating and struggles to attract the younger generation, but a mass exodus of talent might be a death blow.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

Agreed with the above posts. I'm kind of — actually, very — shocked that there isn't a deal finalized here, especially with Randy Ambrosie's leadership. With the new league starting in the U.S. it's really not the time for the CFL and CFLPA (and the league in particular) to be dickering around on making a deal. It's a make-or-break time for this league and the longer the CBA remains unsettled, the harder it's going to be to attract players of the necessary calibre to make this a go.

Sure, there will be players who are more suited to the CFL game with the wider field, etc. (though the off-field cap may limit the ability to recruit them) but if I'm a talented, young American kid, given the idea of making greenbacks (and likely more than CFL can offer) in a warmer climate, playing a game I already know, I'm less inclined to look north of the border.

Ultimately, that situation is going to hurt those with a vested interest in the league. Fan support has been dwindling already with the mediocre officiating and struggles to attract the younger generation, but a mass exodus of talent might be a death blow.

It is seemingly a small point, but the immediacy of the financial payoff is also an attraction for the AAF. Guys can have their full season worth of paycheques before they would even get a game cheque from the CFL in Week 1.

I know of at least one CFL player that is upset that he can't get out of his contract early to sign in the AAF, even though he is confident that he is not in his current team's plans for the upcoming season and will be a free agent in mid-Feb. If CFL teams start releasing guys early to pursue this, it could cause the floodgates to open, and with a prohibition on side-deals, it's not like they can have a handshake agreement to not sign with another CFL club. On the other hand, if CFL clubs do not release guys with interest in the AAF (and interest from the AAF) in cases where their contracts are expiring, there is a risk of being seen by players as dealing in bad faith and depriving them of opportunities (mid-Feb release makes them a long-shot to make an AAF roster that is already likely to be set). I'm not saying it IS bad faith, but I do believe that the perception will grow among players that are feeling deprived of the opportunity. It's a tough one to find the balance on.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

The CFL, back in November, canceled CFL Week this year (was set for Ottawa, though I don't think that was announced yet). I didn't understand the move when I heard about it, as it seemed short-sighted given that they were trying to grow that property, that it had successfully put the CFL in the news at a time they typically are not getting attention otherwise, and that it was a good way to get some of the media stuff (TSN promos with players) done before training camp.

This week, a player pointed out to me, that if the league had not canceled it, they would have left a big leverage point out there for the CFLPA. If no deal was yet done, and the league had everything arranged and booked (hotels, flights, media, venues, sponsor events, etc), that the PA would have been in a position (not saying they WOULD do it) to say they weren't sending their membership. It would tank the event, and potentially be both expensive and embarrassing.

As it stands, players that would have been involved (about 50 overall) lose out on fairly lucrative appearance fees and sponsorship money, and the CFL loses out on some real positive publicity. The combine takes a few more steps backward in coverage and the fans (in Ottawa, and those of us that would travel for the event) miss out.

I understand better why it had to happen, but it seems that assurances could have been sought and commitments reached to not politicize it. Instead, the CFLPA wasn't even consulted.

[GungaDin]

Typical labour negotiation stuff, much cutting off noses to spite faces on both sides.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

With CBA negotiations about to start, there are some interesting things that I'll be watching.

1) Commissioner Ambrosie has frequently talked about his love for the players, having come from that side in his past. He's talked about wanting to see the minimum salary rise and wanting to see this be a partnership between the league and the players. The fact is though, he works for the CFL, and therefore, the Board of Governors that represents the interests of the teams and their owners. I fully expect the CFLPA to attempt to hold him to his words about his love for the players, and it will be interesting to see whether he's able to try and maintain somewhat of a foot in each camp and a spirit of true partnership between the CFL and CFLPA or whether, when it comes to cost controls, the reality of him having to be on the CFL side is going to make him eat some of those words. That he has been taking the "love the players" approach, at the same time while leveraging with no teams allowed to pay off-season bonuses, is already something that is causing the veneer to wear a little thin with some. I hope that it isn't forced to shatter, as CFL commissioner is already one of the toughest jobs and I'd like to see Ambrosie come out of this process with the support of fans, players and the member clubs rather than a divided or fractured support.

2) Further on salaries - there was a report that talked about 22% of CFL revenues were spent on the salary cap. IIRC, it was based on some supposition of revenues for some teams that are not public with their books, and it used somewhat flawed math in that total player salaries are not represented by the salary cap, as 6-game IR guys are not counted in there. That likely only changes the math by a few percentage points, so maybe it's around 25% of revenues. I believe comparisons were thrown out in the 44%-48% range for some of the major sports leagues with salary caps tied to revenues, either directly or indirectly. There is likely to be a very big reality check for the CFLPA members if they are expecting a substantial bump in that %. If you're making a million dollars a year, it's probably less of a pinch to donate half of your income to charity compared to if you're making $30,000 a year and looking to donate half. The fact is, other major sports leagues are often meeting most of their more fixed costs - things such as stadium rent, ticketing operations, administration, travel, much more comfortably, and that leaves a bigger pool of $$$ to be split between owners and players. Until the CFL is able to grow their revenues fairly substantially, I think the gains as a percentage of revenues are going to be much more incremental.

3) Health coverage is going to be a key, and likely divisive subject... and it may be all about one word - concussions. It's hard to imagine that the CFL wouldn't be fairly open to putting in place measures to help guys like Jonathon Hefney, who left the game with a debilitating shoulder injury that had nerve damage and has required multiple un-funded surgeries as a direct result of the injury sustained on that one play. It's much more understandable that the CFL is incredibly wary about signing on to the potential for a bit of a blank cheque, as we're only beginning to see the impacts of concussions on longer term mental health, CTE, dementia, etc. To offer any coverage on future issues could be seen as a tacit admission of a connection between those issues and playing the game, giving a strong foothold for those previously affected to mount legal efforts for compensation. I can see the point that some make that football is a higher risk profession and that players know many of the risks that they're taking on to play the game and that it's part of the deal. I can also see the point that if a GM of a team is standing on the sidelines, and gets his knee blown out by a tackle that takes a guy out of bounds, he is covered by workers compensation for the full rehab of the injury and not just the first year. Teams, and the CFL, are also very well aware of the risks that players are taking to their physical health, and are, in essence, running a business that profits off of them. I think that the solution, if they are able to come to some middle ground, is likely going to have to be rooted in what would be commonly known, understood and acknowledged risks... essentially allowing the league to continue to play the game that Orridge did in saying it was still inconclusive whether football causes concussions - a ridiculous statement, but the players are better off gaining coverage for their knees, shoulders, backs, etc, even if it's leaving the head injuries off the table, rather than continuing on with what they have now - no coverage beyond a year. The CFLPA likely needs to be seeking incremental gains here.

4) A seat at the table will be asked for by the players, and potentially more than one chair in many cases. They currently have one vote on the rules committee... essentially the equivalent input as any single member club when it comes to things such as player safety. For as much as the commissioner and the league have talked about partnership with the players, the CFLPA wasn't consulted on the decision to add the 8th official late last season, they weren't consulted on the cancellation of CFL Week, they weren't consulted on CFL 2.0. If they were looking to grow the game in other markets, wouldn't it have made sense to have some of your biggest assets there at your side on some of those trips? Maybe it's having Vernon Adams and Brandon Bridge throwing to receivers at the combine in Mexico, or a guy like Mike Reilly or Matt O'Donnell (imagine the sheer spectacle) accompanying Ambrosie at some of the press conferences in Europe. Thinking back to the Youtube stunts they had a few years ago of Reilly timing a throw through a bunch of tires tossed in the air (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFUznShRqVg) - if the goal is truly two-fold... to open new markets and to explore new talent sources, get that sort of thing out there in front of new audiences, no? Use the articulate and charismatic stars of the game to help open some eyes to what we have in the CFL. I really want to see how serious the CFL is about truly partnering with the players and not just using them as tools. To me, this is where you start maybe seeing 50/50 growth strategies... the players could settle for something around 25% of league revenues going to salary cap, but share in the upside with gaining 45% of certain future revenue streams... particularly ones that are more player driven such as Fantasy Football, etc.

5) Ratio. The very purpose of existence of most Players Associations is to protect member jobs and working conditions. To date, the CFL has held a draft of Mexican players, but hasn't made known whether they are going to treat them as Internationals, Nationals, or add a different designation. There isn't anything out there whether they would compete for an existing job or see a roster expansion to allow for clubs to carry one or two of these players through expansion of the roster. The perception, often, is that the CFLPA is controlled by a bunch of older white Canadian O-linemen... and there's been some evidence of that to a degree at times. If one doesn't want to dig too deep, they can point to Jeff Keeping as President, Brian Ramsay as Executive Director, Peter Dyakowski as Treasurer and Marwan Hage as one of the Vice Presidents and make that case. Fact is though, Solomon Elimimian and Rolly Lumbala are both Vice-Presidents too, and 11 of the 18 Player Reps are American (they serve their term for a team, even if traded, until the new rep is elected at the start of the season). https://cflpa.com/player-reps/

I don't expect this to be an easy or quick process, but I do think that both sides fully understand that they cannot have this disrupt the season. These processes are almost always deadline oriented and when you have to finish by will always mean more than when you started.

[Looner]

Lots of issues to resolve for sure. I would like to see the floor raised as far as minimum salaries, which should drop the ceiling and make the discrepancy between the highest paid player on the team to the lowest, a little smaller. The CFL salary structure is much like our society, where the minority of the players are making the majority of the money.

[bigmoopie]

I would like to see the SMS raised by five thousand dollars for each player that lives in the teams city for eleven months of the year. I would then pass this money along to players that are re-signing. I think that there is a real advantage in having players living and working in the community.

[Looner]

I would like to see the SMS raised by five thousand dollars for each player that lives in the teams city for eleven months of the year. I would then pass this money along to players that are re-signing. I think that there is a real advantage in having players living and working in the community.

I actually would like to see the league let guys like Mondo, who stays in Canada year round and wants to become an EPS, to become nationals. If a player gets his dual citizenship he should be allowed to be considered a national.

[56Parkies]

I actually would like to see the league let guys like Mondo, who stays in Canada year round and wants to become an EPS, to become nationals. If a player gets his dual citizenship he should be allowed to be considered a national.

They used to have that policy in the late 1950s/early 1960s - they had a "Naturalized Canadians" policy, which they limited to a few per team, so you could have a couple American-born/trained players help with the ratio. I'm not sure why they ended that policy; perhaps there was a reason then? I suppose that kind of thing would have to be flown by the CFLPA, who may have reservations as it means less Canadian-born/trained players would have jobs....?

[Looner]

They used to have that policy in the late 1950s/early 1960s - they had a "Naturalized Canadians" policy, which they limited to a few per team, so you could have a couple American-born/trained players help with the ratio. I'm not sure why they ended that policy; perhaps there was a reason then? I suppose that kind of thing would have to be flown by the CFLPA, who may have reservations as it means less Canadian-born/trained players would have jobs....?

There would have to be strict guidelines in place but for those that are committing to our country, I believe we should commit in return

[GreatWhiteNorth]

They used to have that policy in the late 1950s/early 1960s - they had a "Naturalized Canadians" policy, which they limited to a few per team, so you could have a couple American-born/trained players help with the ratio. I'm not sure why they ended that policy; perhaps there was a reason then? I suppose that kind of thing would have to be flown by the CFLPA, who may have reservations as it means less Canadian-born/trained players would have jobs....?

There would have to be strict guidelines in place but for those that are committing to our country, I believe we should commit in return

I agree with the concept that there needs to be something to recognize "naturalized Canadians", and the time to do it might be at the point when they're expanding to a 10th team and in need of more "National" talent.

Obviously a few challenges - it's got to be a high enough bar to make it meaningful, and it isn't just 3rd year American players applying for this status to get the pay raise that would come with filling a National starting position. Maybe it is citizenship, 6 years or 75 games in the league, and year-round primary residence is in Canada or something like that. I believe for taxation, there are benefits on the taxation of signing bonuses for those that maintain a US primary residence, so there is already a mechanism for tracking this.

It raises the question, would the CFLPA want this, if it is potentially taking jobs from players under the current National qualification? Would it be more palatable if it was introduced at the time when there were 19 (or so) new National jobs with the addition of a 10th team to make it so they were maintaining rather than growing those?

From the CFL side, would the league want it if it made them have to pay more for these veteran players that qualified, as the supply/demand would escalate their salaries?

Would there potentially need to be a cap on how many of these "naturalized Canadians" a team could employ? Maybe two per team?

Should there be a tie to a specific community - whereby the player gets the status when he stays with the same team and loses it if he moves elsewhere? That's a tough one, in that it raises the bar to qualify and limits player movement freedom (punishes changing teams) but it also promotes continuity and gives more of a path for a career with one organization for a guy like Sewell.

[adb]

I agree with the concept that there needs to be something to recognize "naturalized Canadians", and the time to do it might be at the point when they're expanding to a 10th team and in need of more "National" talent.

Obviously a few challenges - it's got to be a high enough bar to make it meaningful, and it isn't just 3rd year American players applying for this status to get the pay raise that would come with filling a National starting position. Maybe it is citizenship, 6 years or 75 games in the league, and year-round primary residence is in Canada or something like that. I believe for taxation, there are benefits on the taxation of signing bonuses for those that maintain a US primary residence, so there is already a mechanism for tracking this.

It raises the question, would the CFLPA want this, if it is potentially taking jobs from players under the current National qualification? Would it be more palatable if it was introduced at the time when there were 19 (or so) new National jobs with the addition of a 10th team to make it so they were maintaining rather than growing those?

From the CFL side, would the league want it if it made them have to pay more for these veteran players that qualified, as the supply/demand would escalate their salaries?

Would there potentially need to be a cap on how many of these "naturalized Canadians" a team could employ? Maybe two per team?

Should there be a tie to a specific community - whereby the player gets the status when he stays with the same team and loses it if he moves elsewhere? That's a tough one, in that it raises the bar to qualify and limits player movement freedom (punishes changing teams) but it also promotes continuity and gives more of a path for a career with one organization for a guy like Sewell.

Interesting ideas. I've always been a staunch supporter of the current ratio and believe we need to do everything we can to provide opportunity for Canadians to play in the CFL and have been a proponent of doing likewise at the QB position as I feel it generates interest in our game. Besides the unique rules which generate an exciting brand of football and rich history of the league, Canadians are a major reason that I watch the game. I guess to me it comes down to whether or not there are enough Canadians to stock a 10th team. If the answer to that is no then perhaps I'd be willing to entertain some of the ideas that you mention. I've always thought that as the game grew at the grass roots level in our country that we'd be able to support the current ratio but with more Canadians earning jobs on larger rosters in the NFL and in other leagues (at least in the short term) then perhaps ideas like this need to be looked at.

[ben_the_eskimo]

I agree with the concept that there needs to be something to recognize "naturalized Canadians", and the time to do it might be at the point when they're expanding to a 10th team and in need of more "National" talent.

Obviously a few challenges - it's got to be a high enough bar to make it meaningful, and it isn't just 3rd year American players applying for this status to get the pay raise that would come with filling a National starting position. Maybe it is citizenship, 6 years or 75 games in the league, and year-round primary residence is in Canada or something like that. I believe for taxation, there are benefits on the taxation of signing bonuses for those that maintain a US primary residence, so there is already a mechanism for tracking this.

It raises the question, would the CFLPA want this, if it is potentially taking jobs from players under the current National qualification? Would it be more palatable if it was introduced at the time when there were 19 (or so) new National jobs with the addition of a 10th team to make it so they were maintaining rather than growing those?

From the CFL side, would the league want it if it made them have to pay more for these veteran players that qualified, as the supply/demand would escalate their salaries?

Would there potentially need to be a cap on how many of these "naturalized Canadians" a team could employ? Maybe two per team?

Should there be a tie to a specific community - whereby the player gets the status when he stays with the same team and loses it if he moves elsewhere? That's a tough one, in that it raises the bar to qualify and limits player movement freedom (punishes changing teams) but it also promotes continuity and gives more of a path for a career with one organization for a guy like Sewell.

In this age of one year contracts giving a guy extra incentive to stay with one team might not be such a bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting ideas. I've always been a staunch supporter of the current ratio and believe we need to do everything we can to provide opportunity for Canadians to play in the CFL and have been a proponent of doing likewise at the QB position as I feel it generates interest in our game. Besides the unique rules which generate an exciting brand of football and rich history of the league, Canadians are a major reason that I watch the game. I guess to me it comes down to whether or not there are enough Canadians to stock a 10th team. If the answer to that is no then perhaps I'd be willing to entertain some of the ideas that you mention. I've always thought that as the game grew at the grass roots level in our country that we'd be able to support the current ratio but with more Canadians earning jobs on larger rosters in the NFL and in other leagues (at least in the short term) then perhaps ideas like this need to be looked at.

There has been lots of chatter about potentially needing to look at the ratio in the event of a 10th team, maybe this is a better route to explore rather than simply trying to slash the number of starters or roster spots.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

In this age of one year contracts giving a guy extra incentive to stay with one team might not be such a bad thing.

- - - Updated - - -



There has been lots of chatter about potentially needing to look at the ratio in the event of a 10th team, maybe this is a better route to explore rather than simply trying to slash the number of starters or roster spots.

So long as it's looked at as an incentive to stay and not a penalty for moving. In terms of precedent, I believe that the NBA's free agency allows for the incumbent team to offer a higher amount than any other team to retain a free agent that is up against a maximum offer. The difference being, that is clearly to provide an advantage for the incumbent team, whereas forcing someone to get citizenship to qualify AND stay with one team may be considered an affront.

There is always going to be a transition period when you add the need for 7 new NI starters, 19 more roster Canadians and probably another 3-4 worthy of development, but after a year or two, it all seems to come into balance. Some guys may play a little longer due to the opportunity being present, and other guys might get a look that they make good on, where they might not have otherwise had the chance. At the same time, it's a natural time to try and phase something in IF there is the political will from both sides to do so.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

While it hasn't been anywhere near 'bargaining through the media', I do like that the CFLPA is seemingly not going with a policy of not speaking with the media during the process, as has been the norm in past CBA negotiations.

The reality of today, with social media, etc, is so much different than even 5 years ago when the last CBA was done. So long as the 'asks' remain reasonable (coverage for rehabbing injuries, growth in minimum and overall salaries, more voice in rules, etc), and so long as they keep bargaining in good faith, it seems that the CFLPA will have good support from fans across the country. If they have the public support, it likely keeps an artful media presence as a positive for them. They have to be careful to not stray too far and endanger it by sharing too much, but to date in these early stages, it seems like there is good solidarity in toeing the party line and staying on message.

[Sectionq]

I have been advocating for the CFL to do this for a long time. I do not want them to eliminate a Canadian starter. All I want is to get to a number where the supply meets the demand. Right now it doesn't. The development system does not supply enough Canadians for every team to have enough starters and enough back ups when injuries happen. The best Canadians go the the NFL. Then we are left with the rest. Most teams have just enough good enough starters but there is a steep drop off to the back ups. So if an injury happens to a key Canadian starter, your season could be over because you end up having to shuffle the roster to cover it off. That's why the Canadians make so much money is because teams get into bidding wars because there isn't enough. If you listen to CFL people talk about teams and how good they are, they talk about the QB and they talk about the Canadians.

I listen to older media types, Lowetide just mentioned it. I saw Terry Jones mention it. They get up in arms about reducing the Canadian's and one of the things they say and Lowetide just did was when he went to a CFL game, he likes knowing that player X was a Canadian. Well no disrespect to the older generation but the younger people don't care what country the player is from. They just want to see quality football. They want to see the best possible player on the field at all times. Doesn't matter what country they call home. I fall into that a bit. At the end of the day, I don't give a damn where the guy comes from. When I watch the Esks, I don't see country flags running around, I see Green and Gold.

[boydo]

Sorry, but as a coach in minor football - a lot of the kids care about where the CFL guys are from because it gives them some inspiration. Sure it's not the dollar signs they see when thinking about OBJ etc. but it's still there. As a former player, I care about the ratio and think it should still be there. Maybe not as high, but there needs to be a Canadian contingent. There's a difference between being there because you're a Canadian and you being there because you're a talented Canadian. CFL is a working man's league. The talent pool is smaller yes, but I've also seen a jump in numbers and talent of the kids coming up. It's not the same as say hockey, where they're learning basics as soon as they can walk...but that's Canada for you. There's more football programs out there now than there was even a few years ago when I started coaching. Definitely more than when I played!

[Sectionq]

Sorry, but as a coach in minor football - a lot of the kids care about where the CFL guys are from because it gives them some inspiration. Sure it's not the dollar signs they see when thinking about OBJ etc. but it's still there. As a former player, I care about the ratio and think it should still be there. Maybe not as high, but there needs to be a Canadian contingent. There's a difference between being there because you're a Canadian and you being there because you're a talented Canadian. CFL is a working man's league. The talent pool is smaller yes, but I've also seen a jump in numbers and talent of the kids coming up. It's not the same as say hockey, where they're learning basics as soon as they can walk...but that's Canada for you. There's more football programs out there now than there was even a few years ago when I started coaching. Definitely more than when I played!

If that is the case then WHY is the younger generation not going to games? If watching Canadian guys play pro ball is so important to them, then why isn't the younger generation packing the stands? The people going to games is getting older and older by the day because the people you mention, aren't coming.

[boydo]

If that is the case then WHY is the younger generation not going to games? If watching Canadian guys play pro ball is so important to them, then why isn't the younger generation packing the stands? The people going to games is getting older and older by the day because the people you mention, aren't coming.

Maybe their parents can't afford to bring them?
They could want to go but can't get there themselves...too young to drive, they could be working, they might have homework or it might be on a school night. So many reasons.
Maybe they have games scheduled for the same time the Esks play? (happens quite often on the weekend games)
They could prefer to watch at home?

Do you think the stands are full of kids at NFL games? Probably not.
I can only speculate because I know I bring MY kid to the games. He's nine this year and has had season seats for ten years this year. (Yes you read that right...had a ticket in his name before he was born) There are kids that I coach from Novice flag up to high school ball that have NEVER been to a live game for various reasons listed above and more.

[bone]

Sorry, but as a coach in minor football - a lot of the kids care about where the CFL guys are from because it gives them some inspiration. Sure it's not the dollar signs they see when thinking about OBJ etc. but it's still there. As a former player, I care about the ratio and think it should still be there. Maybe not as high, but there needs to be a Canadian contingent. There's a difference between being there because you're a Canadian and you being there because you're a talented Canadian. CFL is a working man's league. The talent pool is smaller yes, but I've also seen a jump in numbers and talent of the kids coming up. It's not the same as say hockey, where they're learning basics as soon as they can walk...but that's Canada for you. There's more football programs out there now than there was even a few years ago when I started coaching. Definitely more than when I played!

This is probably directly related to the ratio. More Canadian pro players allow for more Canadian's with the experiences to bring to these programs to continue to grow the quality of athlete produced in Canada.

Now me personally, I don't care where the player comes from but care about what they bring to the team. However, for long term development of the game, it's a good thing. That's not to say it may not need some adjustment, but I don't want to see it overhauled completely.

[Sectionq]

Maybe their parents can't afford to bring them?
They could want to go but can't get there themselves...too young to drive, they could be working, they might have homework or it might be on a school night. So many reasons.
Maybe they have games scheduled for the same time the Esks play? (happens quite often on the weekend games)
They could prefer to watch at home?

Do you think the stands are full of kids at NFL games? Probably not.
I can only speculate because I know I bring MY kid to the games. He's nine this year and has had season seats for ten years this year. (Yes you read that right...had a ticket in his name before he was born) There are kids that I coach from Novice flag up to high school ball that have NEVER been to a live game for various reasons listed above and more.

There could be lots of reasons but I listened to Lowetide talk about it with his producer. Tyler Yaremchuk. He's a 20 something guy, the exact people who the CFL needs to come on a regular basis. He came out and said while it's great that Canadians are in it, it doesn't mean much to him. He wants the best football to watch. I think that is true for lots of people.

I am a diehard CFL fan, started as I kid and I will continue to watch it. I am getting my kids into it. But truth be told, while I think it's nice that some players are Canadian, it's not a priority for me. I never gave it a lot of thought to be honest. Once they put on the green and gold, they are part of my team. Where they were born really means squat to me. I just want to see the best ball I can. I also do not believe that reducing the Canadian quota ever so slightly all of a sudden means kids will stop striving to make it. The dream is to play pro football, to be paid to play the game you love. Trimming one spot won't stop that. Just means the quality of the ball will go up.

Plus when this new team in Halifax happens, they need an entire starting set of Canadians plus back ups. Where are these guys coming from? Teams barely have enough right now to start enough Canadians, now you introduce another team into it.

[boydo]

Trimming one spot won't be the death rattle that's for sure. It's the guys that say "get rid of the ratio altogether" that worry me. Then it will literally be an NFL North/NFL Farm team sort of situation which (and I know I'm in the minority here) would suck giant donkey balls... If I wanted to watch hoser ball...I'd watch NFL. I don't - so I don't.
The ratio gives Canadian kids a chance to play a professional sport with realistic expectations. I agree with Calvin though - there should be some incentive to teams to have Canadian coaches as well. Something like maybe their salary not counting towards the cap for staff? Just throwing that out there. If they get rid of the ratio - that would also be a good idea to have Canadian salaries not count towards the SMS or at a reduced rate to keep them in the game? Otherwise we'll get flooded with guys looking to get their one year of film and bolt back down south.

[Hugoagogo]

The ratio gives Canadian kids a chance to play a professional sport with realistic expectations.

That's a big thing for me. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the NAT's cut back from 7 to 6, but what I'd really like to see is an expansion of the PR to include an additional 4 National players that are Territorial Exemptions. To have local kids on the verge of cracking a roster have some additional development time on the practice roster would go a long way toward improving the quality of Nationals in the league. It would also support local kids trying to live the dream and reinforce the community aspect of all nine clubs.

[T-BONE]

I know it’s the CFL but I honestly don’t care about having Canadians in the lineup. I just find the actual brand of football more entertaining then the NFL, passports be damned.