USFL + CFL = North American Football League
Jeff Richardson
> were proposals that they merge with the Canadian Football League. At the
> time this was thought a silly idea since open-air Canadian stadiums are
> not the best places to be playing football in March.
>
> But now that the USFL is going to a fall schedule - why not a merger?
> ....
> The other BIG problem is that the CFL is a Canadian institution, not
> to be tampered with lightly. (Notwithstanding the great number of
> American players in the league.
>
> Said identity is somewhat of a joke - CFL teams are permitted a
> certain number of 'imports' and 'non-imports' - not "Canadians",
> 'non-imports'.
The Canadian identity of the CFL is not a joke. First of all, if I understand
the import/non-import rule correctly, the only non-Canadians who qualify as
non-imports are people who haven't played college football in the US. I'd
be surprised if there were any such people in the CFL now. I think that the
current import/non-import quotas achieve the desired goals (good quality
football with a significant contribution from Canadian players) very well.
If I were to suggest a change, it would be to allow more imports on the team,
but only as substitutes for the imports that are on the team now. The current
rules pretty well prohibit teams from keeping around American non-quarterbacks
unless they know they want to use them as first-stringers, which leads to a
ridiculously high attrition rate on each team.
Regardless of where the players come from, there's still the Canadian identity
because all of the teams are in Canadian cities, and we have the local and
east-west rivalries. We love the Blue Jays and think of them as a Canadian
team, even though they don't have a single Canadian player, though it would
be nicer if they did.
> Plus there are rules which make it difficult
> for a native Canadian quarterback to win a position on the team
> (apart from converting to a punter or something).
I don't buy that. Despite what people say, a CFL team can never disadvantage
itself by employing a Canadian at quarterback instead of an equally or less
capable American. The "designated import" rule says something like, "each team
is allowed N imports [I can't remember what N is, but it's around 15], at least
one of whom is not in the starting lineup. One import player who will not be
in the starting lineup must be named before the start of the game as 'the
designated import'. The designated import can come into the game only as a
replacement for another import, and the replaced import cannot return to the
game unless he is the quarterback." Teams like to use as many imports as
possible in the starting lineup, so this rule allows them to have imports as
both the starting and backup quarterback without having to lose an import
at another position. However, if one of their quarterbacks is Canadian,
they can either forget about the designated import completely, in other words
treat their Canadian QB as if he was an import, or they could have a
designated import at another position, where they would otherwise have a
Canadian. So it can still be an advantage to have a Canadian QB, but it's
not as much of an advantage as having a good Canadian starting at another
position, so that's probably why they try to convert the Canadian quarterbacks
to other positions. However, I would still improve the designated import
rule by removing the restriction that a replaced import non-quarterback
cannot return to the game. That way having a Canadian backup QB would be
a big advantage because the team could freely alternate import running backs
or something like that, whereas with the current rule a designated import
who is not a quarterback would likely ride the bench most of the time.
> In 1974, when John Bassett (now of the T.B.Bandits) tried to bring a World
> Football League team to Toronto, the government threatened legislation
> to prevent this and so the Toronto Northmen became the Memphis
> Southmen. This is really a big stumbling block. Any combined league
> would have to be perceived as preserving the "Canadian" identity of the
> CFL.
Even though a long time has passed and we have a new government, American
football executives will remember that and will likely not even think about
going into Canada.
> This is just a thought. The CFL is going to survive whether or not the
> USFL lives or dies. Plus I'm confident that CFL teams are of at least
> equal calibre with most USFL teams. Plus CFL teams have 'tradition'
> and 'stability', two things that the USFL league lacks.
All these things considered, what could the CFL possibly gain by taking
in USFL teams? The CFL is one of the few major professional sports leagues
that has a reasonable number of teams, and they don't need any more (except
maybe one more in the east to balance out the divisions), especially if
they're unstable. It certainly wouldn't increase CFL interest in Canada,
and I don't think it would make significant gains in the US either.
> Well, net.sport.football, what do you think? Would the North American
> Football League work?
It would probably work if the Canadian part of it was left alone, and if
no more than 6 USFL teams were accepted, but it would not be an impovement
over the present CFL.
> Canadians - what could we do to keep the CFL
> at least somewhat 'Canadian'?
Leave it the way it is now, except for the change in the designated import
rule that I suggested above.
> Americans (particularly in USFL cities) -
> would you go to see (say) the Oakland Invaders vs the Toronto Argonauts?
> (Note: The best team in baseball, the Toronto Blue Jays, are the worst
> draw on the road.)
I don't think the Blue Jays are a poor draw because they're based in
Canada. I think it's because they don't have any superstars (except Stieb,
but I think fans go to see offensive superstars rather than defensive
superstars) and they don't yet have the tradition that the American teams
have. Anyway, I'm not all that keen on seeing the Oakland Invaders play
the Argonauts here.
Another question to ask American fans would be, "would you like to see
pro football with Canadian rules played in your city?" The USFL can switch
to Canadian rules whether they merge with the CFL or not. When the USFL moves
to the fall it will be the same game as the NFL, but not as good. Maybe
what they need to be succesful is a significantly different set of rules.
Of course, this whole discussion is academic, because I'm sure the USFL owners
can't afford what would likely be major renovations to their stadia, since
the Canadian field is about 15 yards wider and 40 yards longer, counting
end-zones.
--
Jeff Richardson, DCIEM, Toronto (416) 635-2073
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd}!utcsri!dciem!jeff
{allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!dciem!jeff
Ed Tankus
> > etc., etc.
> >
> > But now that the USFL is going to a fall schedule - why not a merger?
I think a merger is the right idea but not with the CFL. That's the point of
the above article.
I think the USFL has to take a good hard look at itself. It obviously can't
afford the salaries it tried to pay it's players. The NFL is trying to hold
the line this year for various reasons and I believe the CFL is and has done
the same thing.
The USFL is gambling with a fall schedule and with a billion dollar anti-trust
suit against the NFL. What it should do is merge with the NFL. (Please hold
your flames 'til I finish. Thanks.)
The USFL has a great talent pool. Not every player however, is NFL caliber.
The USFL should sit back, take stock of all its teams, their individual
attendence records, etc. Then they should put together the 4 to 6 *BEST*
overall teams based on these criteria. For example, the Generals had both a
winning record and good attendence figures. The merger with the Gamblers
didn't hurt the team either; include them. The Baltimore Stars won the
championship and had good attendence records too (yes I do know the difference
between 25,000 and 70,000 people in attendence); include them.
Possible divisional, conference and inter-conference rivalries with NFL teams
could be part of this criteria as well. For example, the Oakland Invaders vs
the LA Raiders, Baltimore Stars vs Indianapolis Colts, etc. I made this point
in a previous article.
The USFL could propose the following as a settlement to their anti-trust suit:
The USFL would take the above teams, allow each to team to protect
X number of players (20 to 25 might be reasonable) and allow the rest to be
put into a supplemental draft pool. The NFL would do the same thing but would
be allowed to protect more players (say 35) and ALL of their collegiate draft
picks. The USFL would also be allowed to protect their college draftees as well.
The remaining unprotected players would be placed in a supplemental draft pool.
NFL and USFL teams would draw lots, flip coins, draw cards or whatever to
establish a drafting order.
This idea would benefit both leagues. The NFL teams would be allowed to preservetheir present (35 vets) and their future (ALL of their college talent). And theywould have one-up on the USFL by having more players protected. The USFL could
also protect their present and future in the same way. However, now BOTH
leagues have a shot at some REALLY good talent!
There are a lot of players in the USFL that the NFL wants and vice-versa. This
proposal would more evenly divide the talent in the expanded league without
the price wars of the past. This was the same reasons given for the AFL-NFL
merger. The fan loyalties, new rivalries and new players might just give the
NFL a real shot in the arm.
The future of a lot of PEOPLE, players, fans, vendors, etc. hang in the balance
here. Witness the recent baseball strike. Sure, the owners will hurt too.
Witness the recent football strike. But it's time to drop the old league vs
league stuff and get down to what is best for all concerned. The NHL-WHA
merger worked: the Edmonton Oilers have been champs two years in a row. How
did they do it? A BLEND OF TALENT! An shared philosophy of dollars don't always
make sense.
Thanks more being patient with my verbiage. Now, bring on the flames!!!!
--
" For every word there is a song upon which inspiration lies ..."
Ed Tankus
Net : {noao!ihnp4!yale!}!hsi!tankus
Snail: Health Systems Int'l, 100 Broadway, New Haven, CT 06511
Bell : (203) 562-2101
Jim Sullivan
> A player named Vince Goldsmith was just let go by one of the teams
> in the CFL - sorry, I can't remember who he played for. I think
> it was three years ago, he won the rookie of the year award while
> playing for Saskatchewan. He's still been playing pretty awesome.
> The paper said the reason he was let go was because he had reached
> the top salary level that his team was willing to pay an import - $78,000.
> They figured it was better to get a rookie to play his position at
> a much lower salary. I guess this is one way of holding the line
> on salaries.
> --
> Shane McDonald
> (ihnp4!sask!mcdonald)
I find that this is one of the big problems with the CFL. As long as
you're average, and don't cost too much, a CFL team will keep you. But,
as soon as you start to earn more money, and are worth more, then you
are given your walking papers. As a result, there is no continuity
between seasons (except for the 'stars'), often not even between games.
As a result, I can never remember who's play on the Argos, or the RoughRiders,
or anyone. And if I can't tell the players without a scoresheet, I really
don't care.
By the way, the book store next door has a 'Men of the CFL' calender (1986).
I'm tempted to buy it and keep a running score of the players still in the
calender by the Grey Cup, start of next year, and the 1986 Grey Cup.
There goes April.
Jim Sullivan