Jump to content

Talk:Canadian Football League/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

awkward

"The rules are somewhat similar except for some exceptions" sounds really awkward to me, but I'm no good at rephrasing things

CFL popularity in Baltimore?

Curiously, fan interest in the CFL has remained fairly strong in Baltimore despite the presence of their NFL team, with a noticeable minority preferring to watch Canadian football from Montreal rather than seeing their local NFL team.

I live in Montgomery County, Maryland, and my wife's cousin lives in Howard County, and until recently I worked with a Canadian who had a passing interest in the CFL; none of us have ever heard of any sort of leftover CFL support from the days of the Baltimore Stallions. The thought of a Baltimore football fan who would choose to the watch the Alouettes over the Ravens seems, well, a little bizarre. I tried a google search for "Baltimore CFL", but the only two Stallions tribute sites I turned up were small sections of much larger Ravens fan sites. Can someone produce some justification for this statement, or can I just remove it? Binabik80 20:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

IIRC, there was a CBC documentary some five years ago on a group of fans preferring to watch the Als over the Ravens, but it might not be real applicable today (considering the Ravens' recent success). kelvSYC 06:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember hearing that too. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I also saw that report... and every year there is a small contingent from Baltimore who attend the Grey Cup if I am not mistaken. However, the article is somewhat misleading when it says that some prefer to watch the Alouettes. I could probably find more Baltimore Raven fans in Montréal than I could Alouette fans in Baltimore.- Stettlerj

Staliouettes

Judging by them going out of biz, you might find more Alouettes fans in Baltimore than Montreal. Trekphiler 14:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Love the link. I wish we could see this again. I heard several years back someone tried to get a Seahawks BC Lions game going, but because of schedule differences... anyway, I am sure the NFL teams would be stronger in general, but the CFL teams would win now and then, just like NHL players lose (quite often) to teams with very few NHL'ers in international hockey. All the loses for the odd win would be worth it. Imagine how Saskatchewan would go crazy when the Riders defeat the New York Giants or the 49ers Stettlerj 01:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pre-season games

Whether or not "people care" about them, they are certainly encyclopedic, as their records are published by the CFL. I'm not going to get into a revert-war over it, but I'd strongly suggest leaving the mention in. --Mhking 12:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the pre-season games are encyclopedic, but they should not be mentioned where they were. Since pre-season games have no effect on league standings it doesn't matter how many times a team plays any other team in the pre-season, only their regular season match ups. Qutezuce 22:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Agro Trophy

Trophy is Agro, not Argo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.129.96 (talk • contribs)

Good eyes. I've fixed it. Qutezuce 18:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing line

I don't understand this line, can somebody clarify it?

"Although ice hockey is currently Canada's most popular sport, the CFL is highly popular in Quebec and west of Ontario, and its franchises there enjoy a greater level of support than Ontario teams. "

I get the first part, but is the second part saying that Quebec franchises are more popular than Ontario franchises? If so, that should be made more clear, I think. --Awiseman 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is what it is trying to say but it is debatable. Professional, University, and amateur Canadian football is definitely enjoying a tremendous growth in popularity in Quebec but does that mean the CFL is more popular in Quebec than in Ontario? I doubt it and would need some evidence to prove it. On the other hand, I would agree that Prairie teams do enjoy the greatest support in the CFL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with comparing Ontario and Quebec is that you can't. The Alouettes sell every seat every game at Percival Molson, something neither the Argonauts nor the Tiger-Cats (nor the Renegades, when they were relevant) can boast. But Percival Molson is a lot smaller than Skydome. But the Als really pack them into Olympic Stadum during the playoffs, too. The sentence should probably be dropped unless somebody thinks of a really good way to find out what's what. Lord Bob 00:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed it, what do you all think? --Awiseman 17:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Halifax?

Someone added the old rumour of the expansion into Halifax to the Recent History section. I've heard this before, on and off, but should a rumour really be included? If so, perhaps in a different section rather than "Recent History"? Perhaps it should have a citation too. --Bdoserror 07:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not rumours - Tom Wright made a lot of noise about expansion before the Renegades were suspended. [1] heqs 18:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Content ripped from...

Looks like a good deal of the article was copied from [2] ...? heqs 22:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the opposite is actually true. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

CFL/NFL records

Is there a page that has the "best of" for each league? Like most yards rushed/passed, TDs, sacks, so on, & top seasons, by player? I suggest including one... Trekphiler 14:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

A comparison of CFL and NFL records or something like that would be interesting. heqs 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

20-foreigner quota and US based teams

I seem to recall that one of the issues with the CFL expansion into the US was that the 20-person limit on non-Canadian players, which applied to Canadian teams, was illegal and unenforceable in the United States (as would be a 20-person limit on non-American players, under current US law). Some argued that this gave the US teams an advantage, as they had a much larger talent pool to draw from (as the US has around 9x the population of Canada; the games of American and Canadian football being sufficiently similar that a good player in one could often switch to the other). Is my recollection correct, or am I all wet? --EngineerScotty 05:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a huge issue. Of course, a lot of the American teams chose to have American personel who did not know a lot about the canadian game, and tended to choose players who would excel at American Football and not players who would excel at Canadian Football (for example Sacramento Gold Miners, with management personel from the WLAF chose huge offensive linemen who could not take the 25 second clock, the larger field, and the extra yard between offensive and defensive linemen). However when coaches who understood the canadian game went to the USA, such as Don Mathews, they excelled under this advantage of not having 20 person limit, and in the last year with american teams the american teams performed better than the canadian teams on average. Stettlerj 14:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

as would be a 20-person limit on non-American players, under current US law

I wonder why they didn't do what Major League Soccer did:

Unlike most European leagues, which generally have fairly loose roster limits, the full roster for each MLS team is limited to a maximum of 18 senior players, plus a maximum of ten roster-protected players to stock reserve teams. Of the 18 senior players, MLS teams are allowed a maximum of four senior (over the age of 25) international players on their active roster, as well as three youth international players (under the age of 25). In MLS, a player is not considered an international (regardless of eligibility to play for the U.S. National Team) if he is a U.S. citizen, is a resident alien (green card), or is under asylum protection. International players are so defined by the United States Soccer Federation, the sport's overall governing body in America, to accord with U.S. Immigration and Naturalization laws, which prohibit an employer from limiting the number of permanent or temporary residents, refugees, and asylees. — from the Major League Soccer article

I'm not totally clear on what the import player rules for Toronto FC will be. (sorry if this is too off-topic) heqs 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical logos

Does anyone know exactly what years these old logos were used? [3] [4] We could add them to the article. (note: copy and paste the links into your browser's address bar) heqs 21:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Soudog's CFL history site, which is very reliable, the original logo was 1958-69 and the more recent was from 1970 to November 20, 2002. DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I found a CBC reference as well. heqs 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

3rd paragraph

this is erroneous and entirely misleading of what the CFL is/has ever been. the CFL has never competed with the NFL for signing American players . Bruce McNall's ownership, money, and signing of Raghib Ismail was an anamoly. the NFL is the premier football league in the world to play north american football and the CFL is in effect a de facto minor league and has been for decades. this paragraph strikes of patriotic nonesense. will change it -Mayumashu 05:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

No such thing as "North American Football" ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:54, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
While it's true that the Bruce McNall/Rocket Ismail thing had nothing to do with the equality of economy and much to do with McNall's ego, the rest of the paragraph is factual. Before the NFL's large tv contracts, there was a parity between the leagues and many American players even came to Canada to get better pay than they could get in the States. This is basically pre-1970s though. Even when Joe Theismann came to the Argonauts in 1971, the pay was not that much greater in the US that Leo the Lip couldn't talk him into coming to the CFL.
Also, the availability of Doug Flutie to play in the CFL all those years had more to do with the NFL's lack of respect for his style of play and the CFL appreciation and need for that style. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • In no way does the CFL "compete with the NFL for the best players". To me competing with the NFL for the best players is the USFL getting into bidding wars with the NFL over stars like Jim Kelly, Reggie White, and Steve Young, not Cfl teams picking up guys who no NFL teams have an interest in.

Xpendersx 04:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

    • wikt:compete does not necessarily mean it's an equal fight, it just means that the CFL wants the best but can't afford them due to NFL's higher salaries. But, you've re-worded that sentence more clearly now so it doesn't matter. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • it would be more accurate to say that the CFL currently competes with Arena Football and NFL Europe for players
  • Actually, in the 50's some CFL teams had higher payrolls than many NFL teams, although they had restrictions on how many American players they could take because of Canadian content (Import, Non-import) rules that were even more severe than they are now. In fact in the 50's the Argos won a Grey Cup with all Canadian players. Stettlerj

Now it says the CFL and NFL were on "equal footing." I'm taking it out, unless someone can demonstrate a pattern of top college talent going to Canada. --djrobgordon 19:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are you taking it out? I can find documentation if you give me some time to find some sources. Also, keep in mind many if not most of these players would finish their careers in Canada, and so may be less known to the NFL world today. You have to remember, this was at a time before huge tv contracts when the leagues were gate driven. A much smaller television market (10% of the market), compounded by the fact that we can't compete for the best players any longer, which only reinforces the lack of television interest, is why the CFL can't compete today Stettlerj 14:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
One example that I can give right now (I'll look for more) is that in the 60's for example starting CFL quarterbacks who made the change from the CFL to the NFL came in to their first year in the NFL as the starting quarterback. Two fast examples are Sam Etcheverry and Joe Kapp. If that does not show the "equal footing" I don't know what does. Today starting quarterbacks in the CFL who go to the NFL sometimes are fourth string (eg. Ricky Ray), usually at 3rd string (Dave Dickenson), perhaps at 2nd string (Jeff Garcia). Remember just because something is one way today, does not mean it was always that way. Stettlerj 15:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is another example: Dick Thornton.
"In 1961, he was a high draft choice of the Cleveland Browns of the NFL who then immediately traded his rights to the St. Louis Cardinals. He was also selected by the Dallas Texans of the AFL and made the negotiation list of the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. That winter, Thornton dealt extensively with all three teams but finally decided that Canada, with its wider field and different rules, would be the best fit for his versatile abilities."
Here is another example: Johnny Bright, a first round NFL draft choice:
"In his poignant essay "Johnny Bright - America's Loss", Hugh Wyatt contends that, "Bright might well have become the first black Heisman Trophy winner, but a brutal act of racism cost him what chance he might have had. Having already experienced first-hand the physical violence that Jackie Robinson, for all his courage, had only been threatened with, and unsure of his safety on the playing fields of his own country, he became the first-ever NFL first-round draft choice to leave for Canada.
And instead of becoming one of the best players the NFL has ever seen, he became one of the best players in the history of Canadian football, and a valued and respected member of his community when his playing days were over."
Here is another example: Bernie Faloney and here 1954 Draft:
Faloney finished fourth in the balloting for the 1953 Heisman Trophy and was drafted in the first round by the San Francisco 49ers of the National Football League but signed with the Edmonton Eskimos of the Canadian Football League.
Bart Starr had considered going to the CFL out of college (he was being lured by Winnipeg) but decided to go to the NFL. I read that when i was young in his (auto?)biography. There are many more exapmples and remember, the first round in the 50's was far smaller than it is today, it is the equivalent today of a top 10 pick. Of course CFL teams were heavily restricted in the number of Americans who could play in the CFL (much more so than today - Toronto won a Grey Cup in the 50's with only Canadian players) and secondly, many top draft picks would have chose to play in the NFL for non monetary reasons, such as to play in their home country and to play in the league they grew up watching, just as Canadian born quarterback Russ Jackson was offered a chance to start in the NFL but chose to stay in Canada. Stettlerj 15:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
And another one (this is fun): Billy Vessels a second overall draft choice in the1953 NFL Draft and Heisman winner
"Billy found an offer from the Edmonton Eskimos in the Canadian Football League to be superior to one from the Baltimore Colts of the NFL."
Bit like a choice between the Grizzlies & the Clippers. ;)

notalaneaglesonCanada 08:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool look at all of the examples. There is no way the CFL and NFL are on equal footing. This is just like people who call McGill, U of T, or Queen's the "Harvard's of the North". The main differences between the CFL and NFL is money and a fan base, and unless the CFL can rake in as much money as NFL teams there is no comparison. Also if anyone has even been to a high school fotball team in the States you would recognize that there is a major difference in fan support, for football and most other sports, between Canada and the U.S. Foepeoso 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

not are, but were financially on equal footing and could compete for talent. Stettlerj 10:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Calling Onterrio Smith and Akili Smith "big NFL Stars" is a major falsehood. Not only were they not 'stars', they are not even notable players. I'm removing them from the reference.

Buy Canadan

Is a rule comparison between NFL & CFL Canada apt? Things like, say, the Canadian Canada ball is smaller? Or Canadian Canada players score more often (on the field, at least...) ;p Comment? GhostriderCanada08:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See comparison of Canadian and American football. heqs 01:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

NFL over CFL

Should it be noted that many people consider the NFL superior over the CFL? Killswitch

Superior how? Perhaps 'most believe the NFL has better players, because of the money, exposure, etc. etc.' should be noted, but 'some people prefer the NFL game to the CFL game' is basically stating irrelevant opinion, to me. Lord Bob 19:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Many people consider the Canadian game to be superior to the American. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The current prose on the differences in talent between the NFL and CFL seems to me to represent a reasonable balance between the divergent opinions that have been alternately expressed in the Wikipedia article. 66.189.39.246 00:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to balance it out a little, it's not perfect, but hopefully the edit warring will stop. heqs 02:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesnt seem balanced to me. The sentence about the 'talent gap' seems very anti-CFL. Doug Flutie says the best receiver he ever played with was in the CFL, Allen Pitts. Ricky Williams dominated the NFL before being a below-average runner in the CFL. Jeff Garcia went from being above average in the CFL to an NFL pro bowler...THREE TIMES. This all despute his CFL-style scrambling and small stature of 5'11"! On the surface, people may say "all the best players play in the NFL", but this is not the case at all. Every single peace of evidence we have would suggest that the best players at each game play in each respective league. I will not remove that sentence, but I would like to see it done.--J3wishVulcan 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

...the best players at each game play in each respective league. There's certainly a lot of truth to that, they are two different games, often requiring two different kinds of player (build, skill set, mindset, etc.) but the more easily quantifiable gap in compensation and public glory will always leave certain people convinced that the gap in talent is at least as big. "Politics" also plays a role in determining the kinds of opportunities that some players get down south (as it does in the CFL too, to be sure). I would encourage you to hunt down some references that support what you're saying so we can more easily include it in the article. heqs 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I re-wrote the paragraph with citations and examples to back up all my statements. I am open to suggestions on how to improve it. If anyone can find an example of an NFL player who has had success in the CFL, they should add it.--J3wishVulcan 23:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

CFL All Star Games

can anyone comfirm this info? I recall watching a tape on ESPN of the June 88 gameSmith03 22:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sat., Dec. 3, 1955 @ Varsity Stadium Toronto — East All-Stars 6, West All-Stars 6 (tie)
  • Sat., Dec. 8, 1956 @ Empire Stadium Vancouver — West All-Stars 35, East All-Stars 0
  • Sat., Dec. 7, 1957 @ McGill Stadium Montreal — East All-Stars 20, West All-Stars 2
  • Sat., Dec. 6, 1958 @ Civic Stadium Hamilton — West All-Stars 9, East All-Stars 3
  • Thu., Jul. 2, 1970 @ Landsdowne Park Ottawa — CFL All-Stars 35, Ottawa Roughriders 14
  • Tue., Jun. 29, 1971 @ Autostade Montreal — CFL All-Stars 30, Montreal Allouettes 13
  • Wed., Jun. 28, 1972 @ McMahon Stadium Calgary — Calgary Stampeders 23, CFL All-Stars 22
  • Wed., Jun. 27, 1973 @ Ivor Wynne Stadium Hamilton — CFL All-Stars 22, Hamilton Tiger-Cats 11
  • Wed., Jun. 26, 1974 @ Landsdowne Park Ottawa — Ottawa Roughriders 25, CFL All-Stars 22
  • Sat., May 29, 1976 @ Clarke Stadium Edmonton — West All-Stars 27, East All-Stars 16
  • Sat., Jun. 4, 1977 @ Exhibition Stadium Toronto — East All-Stars 20, West All-Stars 19
  • Sat., Jun. 3, 1978 @ McMahon Stadium Calgary — West All-Stars 24, East All-Stars 12
  • Sat., Dec. 3, 1983 @ BC Place Stadium Vancouver — West All-Stars 25, East All-Stars 15
  • Thu., Jun. 23, 1988 @ Commonwealth Stadium Edmonton — CFL All-Stars 15, Edmonton Eskimos 4

Defunct Pt. 2

Added the Ottawa Renegades as until they have new owners, they are a defunct team. 24.89.69.22 22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Defunct means they are dead and buried; like the Rough Riders. The Ottawa franchise still exists; the ownership is gone and is up for sale through the CFL. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
This strikes me as a hair-splitting argument. Is there any real harm in leaving it listed as defunct? The subtlety is probably not relevant to most people. On the other hand, encyclopedias don't document the approximate facts. Is this a strict distinction that the league makes? If so, I would defer to that. --Bdoserror 17:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the distinction is that there is no team in Las Vegas anymore and likely never will be - defunct. Ottawa, on the other hand, still has a franchise granted and the CFL is actively pursuing ownership. The team is suspended from operating until then. If the CFL revoked the franchise, then they would be defunct. You will notice that, on the cfl.ca website, the Renegades are still reflected as a CFL franchise in the header. See also: CFL statement on suspending Ottawa Renegades. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Then that looks pretty definitive to me. They are not defunct. --Bdoserror 07:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that if the teams are not active, they should be listed with their info somewhere. By limiting the second chart to "Defunct" teams, both the Baltimore Stallions and Ottowa Renegades do not have their info detailed, including staduims, etc. Just because the Stallions moved to Montreal is no reason not to list them, especially when the CFL considers the current Als and the old Als as one franchise for historical purposes. After all, the GOld miners are listed, even though they moved to San Antonio. Perhaps the best solution is to rename the section as "Inactive", and then further define their status in the the table. I have added the Renegades and Stallions back for the time being to illustrate, and renamed the section as "Inactive". Fell free to tweak the listings, but please leave them there untill it's all been discussed. Thanks. - BillCJ 15:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, the CFL considers all Montreal teams and the Baltimore team to be one continuous franchise. So the Stallions are not a defunct OR an inactive team. I don't know if that's exactly the case for the Gold Miners/Texans, but probably is, there just happens to be two separate articles. Typically on Wikipedia info on teams that moved is included as part of the history of the team at its present or last active location, although there are some exceptions, usually fans of that team want to fork out of the history section or sub-article and maintain a separate team article, like recently happened with the Stallions article. heqs 10:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the Montreal article, the Montreal franchjise does not consider the Baltimore era in its record keeping. However you look at it, it's a strange case. The CFL did play in Baltimore in 1994-95, and that should be listed with the other teams from the US era. We can discuss an appropriate title for the section, but we should not limit the cities listed because of the section title! The Schooners are listed, and they never even had a team, much less played a game! - BillCJ 15:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it makes sense to list other teams/cities that played in the table. I've added to the 'notes' section when the team moved to continue in a different city. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

CFL templates

I recently started the {{CFL team}} infobox, and Category:Canadian Football League templates to help keep track of CFL templates. I thought about making an infobox for CFL players who did not play in the NFL, but {{Infobox CFL player}} already redirects to {{Infobox NFL player}} which includes parameters for CFL Draft, CFL All-Star, Canadian Football Hall of Fame, and statistics at CFL.ca (which seems to only have stats for active players; does anyone know of an online database of all-time CFL statistics?) heqs ·:. 14:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO we really need a Grey Cup infobox. Any suggestions? heqs ·:. 03:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


Baltimore - Richmond - Montreal

I have once again removed unsourced statements alleging:

After original plans to move to Richmond, Virginia, moved to Montreal with the disbanding of CFL-USA to become the Alouettes.

Please do not re-add them without a citation to back it up. -- Bdoserror 03:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Largest Sporting Event"

The sentence which includes "the country's largest annual sports and television event" is somewhat misleading or inaccurate, depending on how one defines "largest" (despite the globe and mail reference). The Canadian Grand Prix F1 race has a larger attendence and a TV audience of some 200 million worldwide (and indeed was the third highest watched sporting event in the world in 2005). The Grey Cup has the largest television audience 'within' Canada. I wonder if there is some way to re-word to clarify. Camcurwood 18:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to make any improvements for clarity or accuracy. heqs ·:. 10:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

See related discussion on categories here and here. heqs ·:. —Preceding comment was added at 22:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing players and coaches in the teams table

Does anyone think it's really necessary to list the coaches, quarterbacks and kickers/punters of each team in the table? I mean, why not list the middle linebackers? Or the GMs and owners? Actually, this might be quite informative...? What do you think? heqs ·:. 18:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

To-do list

Diagram of a Canadian football field.
The Grey Cup.

Some suggestions for improving the article, in no particular order:

  • Briefly describe the ownership structure of the teams, history of, private vs. community ownership, more info about history of commisioners and what they tried to do, the influence of owners David Braley and Bob Wetenhall and/or relative weakness of the commisioner.
  • Summarize the league awards and mention the annual award ceremony during Grey Cup week, broadcast nationally on TSN (also in Quebec...?) mention history of the CFL All-Star game and current All-Star team.
  • More about player contracts, the import ratio, history of, etc. And possibly referenced info about the type of players that succeed in the NFL, be it Canadian or American(?) just an idea (see also "NFL over CFL" discussion above).
  • History should be expanded in all respects, with more historical info in all sections where appropriate. A full history would of course get split into a separate article and only be summarized here.
  • Find a freely-licensed recent image of a player hoisting the Grey Cup, or of the Grey Cup itself, or at least some kind of GC celebration. Secondarily, of Grey Cup week festivities. For this article as well as the Grey Cup article. Also, better photos of game action if possible. I added the best ones I could find from flickr.
  • Merge the "Comparisons with NFL" section into other sections and eliminate it. This is only a suggestion, but IMHO just about all of it could be merged into the history section and the sections on player contracts, popularity and television.
  • Note some of the players who have gone on to positions in government? Such as Norman Kwong, John Sopinka, Jim Silye, J.C. Watts (more I can't remember right now).

Resources

—heqs 09:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Target of CFL redirect

Please note: I have proposed that the CFL redirect be moved from the Canadian Football League to the disambiguation page, CFL (disambiguation), in recognition of the growth of the term CFL to mean compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

Comment at: Talk:CFL (disambiguation)#New Move Proposal. Dragons flight (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:CFLUSA9395.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

1986 CFL PLAYOFFS

In 1986 there was no Eastern semi-final. There was only an Eastern final which had Hamilton and Toronto playing a 2 game total point series which Hamilton won 59-56 advancing them to the Grey Cup. Why did this happen and has it ever happened before? Why were Montreal and/or Ottawa excluded from the playoffs.

Tom Kidd North Vancouver, B.C. Canada.

TKIDD@AGRICOREUNITED.COM

The following link explains that situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_CFL_season#CFL_News_in_1986
--FrankCostanza 19:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Now that's strange! I wonder if that was the last 2-game total points competition ever at the professional level. I guess if a team wins Game One by a big enough score, they might end up kicking a last minute field goal to lose Game Two by 21-3 but still celebrate a win and advancement. WHPratt (talk) 15:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC) By the way, what if total points were tied at the conclusion of the second game? Would they play overtime, even though the score wasn't tied for that particular game? WHPratt (talk) 12:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

NFL Players "fail"ing in the CFL

That's a matter of opinion. Not fact. You can't dispute a fact. Injury does not equate with failure. The only people who believe Ricky Williams failed to excel on the field are the ones who expected him to rush for an inordinate number of yards and touchdown scores in the regular season. Anyone who watches football knows that Williams didn't fail. Adam Rita was live on Sportsnet and the Fan590 just the other day when Williams' name was mentioned. Prorate his performance over a full season of touches. It was far from failure. The same can be said about Rison. If you watched Williams play, you'll see that he was called on occasion to play a fullback position. A 'failure to excel' has nothing to do with an offensive coordinator's scheme and the playcalling by the coaching staff/QB. Kent Austin was the one who was relieved of his duties. The only thing that Williams failed was a drug test. Aside from the 1 year loan from the Dolphins, the test or a release/NFL signing are the reasons why the Argos wouldn't expect Williams to return to play. If he failed then why would he be welcome back if not for the positive test? He didn't even fail on paper. Despite missing the games due to injury he still finished 7th among RB's in rushing. Only 109 carries and protected the ball better than any other starting back in the league. His yards per carry were the same as Robert Edwards' who finished 3rd in total rush yards. Get your facts straight. Coolbrook76 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As for pro-rating stats, football is obviously littered with thousands of what-ifs and could-have-beens only if so-and-so had stayed healthy, gotten a better chance, been in a better system, etc. Of course it's always somewhat subjective to define success and failure, but the statement in the article is made with reference to a published article that asserts this widely held interpretation or opinion (it was written mid-season, and places Williams as just one of a group of CFL busts). I'm going to re-word that sentence to not name specific players, and just reference the article, to make it a bit more neutral/less inflammatory. heqs ·:. 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


At least you acknowledge its date. The author names a sole source and quotes his supposition. Aside from that, the failure to excel remains a matter of opinion (a significant problem with Wikipedia.) The 2006 Argos' game log alone tells the story that Williams was stuffed by the Bombers. His number was called 8 times in the first game and 9 in the following one. He only had 4 carries against Saskatchewan before he was injured. This isn't failure by any stretch of the imagination.
http://en.montrealalouettes.com/index.php?module=roster&func=display_season&ros_id=859&year=2006
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/news/story?id=2650912
Over 6 YPC in the 2006 playoffs..How can someone step up but fail to excel?
http://www2.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/scores/2006/21/Win@Tor/#playerstats
http://www2.sportsnet.ca/football/cfl/scores/2006/22/Tor@Mon/#playerstats


Clemons said that, on the whole, the Williams experiment had been a win for the Argos, though "an unorthodox win in a sports sense."
"I never thought that I'd see a $5-million tailback come to the CFL in his prime and be excited to be a blocking back a lot of the time,"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061113.BRUNT13/TPStory/Sports/columnists - Coolbrook76 15:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Coolbrook, don't be so naive. Clemons and Rita aren't likely to bad-mouth Ricky Williams after they controversially brought him to Toronto and made him the highest paid Running Back in the league. Most pundits called him a failure, and the stats back it up. During the regular season, Ricky had the worst yards per carry of any starting running back in the CFL. http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?module=fbstats&func=rushing&year=2006 --J3wishVulcan 22:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the perception problem as far as Williams is concerned is that many people have the distorted view that a star NFL player will walk all over the CFL, and anything short of that is considered failure. Anyway, I'd suggest adding some of your info to the Ricky Williams article, not here. Btw, J3wishVulcan has a point, and I would add that it would be very surprising for the Argos leadership of this era to bad-mouth anybody, let alone say anything remotely negative, because Clemons is just so damn nice to everybody, and has created that culture in the organization. heqs ·:. 08:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Re: Edit.. "Players and compensation - deleted irrelevant sentence."

Stating that the CFL is not an NFL minor league is not irrelevant. It's factual, a perfect liaison to the following sentence (especially if you want to say "few" players) and it sheds light on the gist of the paragraph. Coolbrook76 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The CFL is not an affiliated minor league, players are not assigned from one league to the other, but the two leagues do have a "player transfer agreement", a relationship regarding contract rights and free agency in each league. The CFL also received a loan from the NFL (in the late 90s I believe) when it was on hard times. So to say the two are not affiliated at all is incorrect. If you want to add this kind of info to the article, let's find a reference for it to make sure we get it right. heqs ·:. 16:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
The player agreement expired after last season (2006): [5] -- Bdoserror 16:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


I'm not sure why you removed the work I put into using correct grammar and clarity. Every line in your paragraph has a sentence fragment.

"Due to the difference in rules, pace of play and field size between the two leagues, they mostly compete for different types of players."

It's grammatically incorrect, makes no sense and is not factual. There are "many" cases of "CFLers" going to the NFL and having success? Who are they and how do you define their sucess? Wikipedia states that a difference of opinion doesn't allow for the one point of view that you're trying to convey. If you don't follow the NPOV (five pillars of wikipedia) by insisting on linking an article citing opinion and not fact then you should be audited. Coolbrook76 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't invent that line about the CFL-to-NFL players, I restored it. Regarding the article: the author asserts what could be called a consensus opinion about NFL-to-CFL busts. Pretty much all the names he drops are frequently referenced in the same terms by CFL media. Go ahead and insert the word opinion in front of it, and if you can cite an opposing one feel free to add it. Differing points of view are given due weight under NPOV. Do I use perfect grammar? Is every edit I make perfect? Nobody's perfect. Audit away, but before you throw the five pillars at me perhaps you should review them yourself, particularly that last one. Cheers, heqs ·:. 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

CFLers going to NFL and having success. Some of these guys were in the NFL first, bust out, went to CFL, did good and returned to the NFL. Doug Flutie comes to mind. That should be mention in the article. Its very misleading to say they were CFLers who went to NFL and "did good". 20:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.96.162 (talk)

It's so funny. Who are these people trying to fool? Themselves? It's so blatantly obvious the statements "There are many cases of CFLers going to the NFL and having success..." and "On the other hand, there have also been cases of NFL stars coming to the CFL and failing to excel, such as the 2006 "big splash" signing of Ricky Williams." is trying to convey somehow the CFL is superior or equal to the NFL in talent. Ha! Why doesn't it mention that the majority of CFL players are Americans that couldn't make it to the NFL in the first place or busted out? Or the fact that CFL players that migrated to or migrated back to the NFL were usually the most talented in the CFL? As for the "NFL stars failing in the CFL" remark, it only named Ricky Williams, who are these STARS, plural? Also, Ricky Williams was injured most of the time while he was with the CFL. Wouldn't it be fair to have mention that? LOL at the CFL fanboys. Akaloc (talk) 03:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

POV re: Gliebermans

In the section "United States expansion", there was the line: "Shreveport, although it had solid attendance, was run by the Glieberman family, historically one of the worst owners in the CFL, and suffered from poor management as a result." This seems to be POV at the least and potentially slanderous at the most. I have removed it. -- Bdoserror (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the average NFL player is more talented than the average CFL player

This is and opinion. Where are your facts showing that an athlete playing in one league makes them a superior athlete to one playing in another. In the same paragraph it is stated that the leagues use different types of players so how are you able to compare them anyway. I have removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devlin77 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

others canadians leagues

There is a lot of nice template/box/infobox at end of the article but I dont see something like "others canadians leagues", is gridigron style the only sport league in canada? they dont play nothing else? the only way to see more that 2 canadians in a field is seeng CFL? this foreigner want know--Feroang (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Since this article is about the Canadian Football League, that is all it is supposed to cover. You might read Sports in Canada for more information on other sports in Canada, but please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travelers' information guide. - BilCat (talk) 06:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Defunct teams?

Aren't the original Alouettes/COncordes a defunct team? Jfitzg

Well, sort of...they were resurrected, with the same name, so they aren't really "defunct" anymore. Unlike the Ottawa Roughriders, since Ottawa's new team has a different name. Adam Bishop
It's like the Holy Roman Empire, I guess. I can see the point, though. By the same token, I wouldn't consider Baltimore to be defunct, but I can see how others might. Since there's enough information in the profiles of defunct teams to clarify all this I don't plan to change anything. The profiles are well done, too. Jfitzg
Does Baltimore still play somewhere? I would think they are "defunct" as a CFL team, at least. Adam Bishop
It all depends what the meaning of defunct is. They're not defunct as a business organization. If, like them, I move and change my name I don't become defunct. On the other hand, the name is definitely defunct, which is another reason I don't plan to monkey around with the list of defunct teams.

I emailed the CFL and the CFL responed that they consider the Baltimore and Montreal two different franchies Smith03

May I suggest that if the Stallions and Concordes are redirected to the Al's than they are not defunct teams and should be removed from the list of defunct teams. From What I understand from the CFL the Stallions and Al are consider two different teams and the Concordes are consider the same franchise as Als.Smith03 23:05, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok! there appears to be an edit war going on here. Either we resolve it here, or the page may have to be locked. Earl Andrew 18:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion? If the Concorde (yeh, that's the form, or was last I heard it) are still running, there ought to be a link out of Als to the new team to pick up the history, & def a disambiguation if linking into Als, for the young whippersnappers ;) who've never heard of them except as Als (or, like me, really could care less). K? Trekphiler 14:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


I added Atlantic Schooners and Miami Manatees to defunct and inactive table. Neither team ever took the field, but they were registered expansion franchises. It is an interesting part of CFL history that most people don't know about, so it is worthwhile to keep it. Some people would argue that the table is for teams that took the field, but both Atlantic and Miami fit the description of being Defunct AND Inactive.Donutcity (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Map Issues

The map showing "defunct/inactive" franchises should be deleted...the Manatees and Schooners, despite the wishes of those creating pages for them, never existed. I also think the USA portion should have its own section in history, with that being it. Any objections?Knoper (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

2 teams with most titles?

Its pretty dumb to have 2 most titles in the cfl. One is 'old era' the other, 'modern era. Just keep it one team that has won the most grey cups, which are the argos. Its all the CFL. u dont see the nfl or nba or nhl splitting into old and modern era. Give the argos the respect they deserve. (Stanley2toronto (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC))

Actually, since this is the CFL article, not the Grey Cup article, the info box should exclude everything before 1958, when the CFL was formed. So it should show Edmonton with most titles, 10. Indefatigable (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"...the second oldest and continuously operating gridiron football league in North America..."

I must know: what's the oldest? (And is there a source for that?) Sorry if I'm missing some thread where this is answered. Dontreadalone (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The NFL. Note that the sentence refers to "gridiron football" and does not distinguish between Canadian and American football. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Tiebreakers question

I'm curious about a couple of the listed tiebreakers:

  • Net aggregate of points scored (i.e. total points scored less total points conceded) between the tied teams
  • Net quotient of points scored (i.e. total points scored divided by total points conceded) between the tied teams

Specifically, I'm not sure how the net quotient could ever break a tie, as we would only get to that if the net aggregate were equal. The only way the net aggregate could be equal for the tied teams is if it were 0 for both of them, and if that were the case then the net quotient would have to be 1 for both teams. What am I missing? LarryJeff (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Divisions for 2014

What will the divisions looks like for 2014? From the map at the top of the page, it appears that Winnipeg is a member of the East Division. However, in the Teams section of the page, it shows Winnipeg as a member of the West Division. Which one of these is correct? Natg 19 (talk) 10:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the west. See here. The map is outdated, as it also shows Ottawa in italics, indicating their future status, as well as the Bombers still in the east. oknazevad (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

New map

I recently created a new map (see [6]) which includes the location of both current and former franchises. However, when I added it here I was reverted. The article currently has two maps, one with current teams and one with former teams. Given that they cover the same geographic area, they take up far more space in the article than is necessary so merging them seems like a good idea. Additionally, the new map is of better quality. For example, see the warnings on Template:CFL labelled map about the poor usage of image labels. The former teams map is quite hard to read (I can't make out any of the team names at my monitor's resolution) and has no annotation for wikilinks. Also, both images are a png rather than the superior svg of the new image. (See commons:Transition to SVG for an explanation of why.) What exactly is the objection to replacing the two old maps with a single map? TDL (talk) 07:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I prefer having two separate maps, as having all the info on the same map makes it too "busy". However, your points about the quality of the new map are good ones, so if there is a consenus to use two separate maps, would you be interested in splitting your new map into two? - BilCat (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I could go either way. Obviously there's some logic to having just current teams on one map but putting them together does save space.
Definitely agree about the quality issue. I can't read the current maps. Maybe splitting yours in two is a compromise, Dan?
Small note if a new map is made: the Miami Manatees and Atlantic Schooners should not be included alongside teams that actually played, IMO. Dontreadalone (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, two new maps can be created. It's just that it will take more work to create them, to annotate them, and then maintain three separate maps. I think it's preferable to limit redundancy when possible. TDL (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, I've gone ahead and split the map into File:CFL current teams.svg and File:CFL defunct teams.svg, but they still need to be annotated. Any comments? TDL (talk) 05:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

New terminology for Imports and Non Imports

Apparently, under the just ratified CBA, they are now Internationals and Nationals. We might have to change a lot of articles.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Addition to "Defunct and Proposed Teams"


I drafted this piece, planning to add it to the Proposed Teams section.
However, I had some difficulty integrating the citations.
Perhaps someone more adept at this would do the needed surgery.
New York should be added to the map, and the table. No nickname was proposed in any of my sources. The starting year would be 1974 plus or minus. It was popssible that the Giants would be evicted earlier once the City took over Yankee Stadium. However, the renovations may have delayed things after that.

WHPratt (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Correction: they wouldn't go on the map, only in the table. WHPratt (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC) I take back the correction: they should be treated the same as Miami or Atlantic. This is interesting information (in my opinion) because it shows an alternate path that the CFL could have taken, expanding in limited fashion (requiring CFL rules and field stndards) to places in the U.S. the the NFL was ignoring. The eventual U.S. experimnent was along different lines. WHPratt (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC) This particular section goes back and forth, but I still think that the proposed N.Y. franchise warrants inclusion. WHPratt (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I remember reading those articles years ago while looking through old New York Times microfilms at the library, and the tone clearly is that the CFL was not interested, but the city officials were being needlessly persistent. It was really just a negotiation tactic to try to keep the Giants with in city borders, and not wind up in the Meadowlands. (City officials, for over a decade after the move, still held grudges that nobody else cared about.) it wasn't a serious proposal, just local politics.
Either way, it is obvious that the league was not looking to add a team, and there was no league interest in US expansion at the time; the later US expansion was a completely unrelated development and not a result of this outside-the-league idea, it deserves no more than a passing mention (anything else would be WP:UNDUE), and should not in anyway be linked to the later US expansion as it is unrelated (to draw such a conclusion would be WP:SYNTH). oknazevad (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2014 (UTC)




The City of New York sought a CFL franchise in 1971, after the New York Giants had announced plans to move out of Yankee Stadium by 1974 (ultimately to East Rutherford, New Jersey). New York Deputy Mayor Richard Aurelio met with CFL commissioner Jake Gaudaur in October of 1971 about a possible expansion team for the city. Gaudaur stipulated that any expansion team must necessarily abide by the current CFL rules, in that only 14 players "trained outside of Canada" could be permitted on the 32-man roster.[1] [2] City officials were prepared to spend US$24 million to expand the playing area at Yankee Stadium, using portable seating to accommodate the larger CFL field.[3] Robert Schmertz, part-owner of the NBA's Portland Trailblazers and Canadian-born singer Paul Anka put up separate $25,000 deposits towards a franchise[4]

Gaudaur, however, felt that U.S. expansion would hurt the league at the present time. "I know it sounds nationalistic," he said, "But I'd have some concern that if we started to let in the bigger United States cities, the smaller Canadian cities might fall by the wayside." He cited the way that American interests now dominated the National Hockey League. His concerns were supported by Federal Health Minister John Munro, who felt that "expansion to the States would permit an erosion of Canadianism."[5] The expansion plans were not approved.

Yankee Stadium was renovated by 1976, but did not secure a regular football tenant for the remainder of its history. The CFL expanded to include U.S. teams for its 1993-95 seasons.

References

  1. ^ Eskenazi, Gerald, “Canadian Football League Franchise for New York Will Be Discussed ...,” New York Times; Oct 31, 1971; p. S3.
  2. ^ “Hopes for New York Club In C.F.L. Slim, Aurelio Told,” New York Times; Nov 1, 1971; p. 60.
  3. ^ Ranzal, Edward, “Hopes Rise for Canadian Football Here,” New York Times; Nov 2, 1971; p. 19.
  4. ^ “2 Bidders Said to Seek C.F.L. Franchise Here,” New York Times; Nov 8, 1971; p. 60.
  5. ^ “CANADA FOOTBALL IS LOOKING TO U.S.: Prospect of Expansion Stirs a Nationwide Debate,” New York Times; Nov 26, 1972; p. S2.

NFL-CFL

This comparison is completely POV. I'm proud to be Canadian but the unsourced paragraph about CFL players have more skill but are skilled too small is a joke. WTF is going on here at Wikipedia? Correctron (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Football League

See Category talk:Canadian Football League. heqs 07:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Paragraph One: Since when is the CFL a two-hand touch league? I've been a follower for over 50 years and to my eyes it looks like there is some serious tackling going on there.79.180.10.183 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Canadian Football League/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very good article, certainly a B. TFCforever (talk)

Last edited at 05:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline is riddled with errors and inconsistencies, which were recently introduced with this edit. I have fixed them but have been reverted. In particular,

  • It conflates teams and cities. Unrelated teams that happened to be located in the same city are listed in the same row, misleading readers to believe that these are the same team. I made this clear by changing the section title to "Timeline of CFL teams by city", but was reverted with the edit summary "actually, they are considered the same teams by the league." However, as per Facts, Figures and Records (2015), published by the CFL, this is not correct. Some of the teams listed are not considered to be the same franchise. It should be made clear to the reader that we are listing teams by city, and not by franchise. Alternatively, we could make the timeline actually list teams (ie separate rows for unrelated teams that shared a city.) This could be done either using the CFL's revisionist history (ie the Alouettes never folded) or de facto history (three rows for the Alouettes). Either is fine with me, as long as we are clear what we are doing, and we do it correctly and consistently.
  • The timeline is inconsistent with how it handles the pre-CFL history of existing teams. In some cases (ie Argonauts + Rough Riders) it is included. For others (ie Eskimos) it is not. I added it, but was reverted with the edit summary "The graph is only for CFL teams that were in the league at the time of 1958." But what is the relevance of that? The CFL considers the Alouettes to have been on hiatus in the 1990s, and the Eskimos to be on hiatus in the 1950s. For the former we include the history, while for the latter we do not. If we include pre-CFL history, what's the relevance of whether the team was on hiatus when the league was founded? The CFL recognizes the Eskimos's pre-CFL history, just like the other teams, so why should we exclude it?
  • Also, the edit summary of this revert said "Not playing for WWi or WWII does not mean the team folded." This is presumably referring to the Bronks? Although it is somewhat of a semantic argument (did the team fold in 1940 or did it just stop playing in 1940 but continued to exist throughout the war until 1945 when it folded), I'm again just following the CFL's publication on this, which gives the date of 1940 for the Bronks. If you think the CFL is wrong, and have a better source to support your date, I've got no objection to using 1945. But in the absence of that, and given the authoritativeness of the source for 1940, we should use that.

In the absence of these errors being fixed, we'd be better off going back to the prior timline which didn't have these issues as it only included history post 1958 when the CFL was founded. TDL (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I would endorse that last idea. This is the timeline of the CFL, not its predecessor organizations. It should only cover the years the league has existed. It's the timeline for the league, not the entire history of Canadian football. oknazevad (talk) 04:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
As no one has objected, I've gone ahead and made the change. TDL (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
This chart was created from the timline template of all the major sports leagues which show the origin of the franchise no matter what league. This chart is only for franchises that have been in the CFL and the franchises past history. Ottawa is different franchises according to the CFL but Montreal/Edmonton is the same franchise. I have used CFLDB.com as a source for dates and franchises. TDL (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I see you've now accepted some of my corrections in your latest version: the removal of the Bronks and numerous date corrections, plus you've kept part of the Edmonton history. However, versus my corrected version you're still missing part of Edmonton's history as recognized by the CFL, you've reverted to incorrect Saskatchewan dates, and you're still conflating teams with franchises for Hamilton. And you've introduced a new error by splitting the Ottawa teams, which the CFL considers to be a single franchise. I've relied on the CFL's own publication, which I cited above, for franchise histories and dates, the reliability of which is second to none. As CFLDB is a WP:SELFPUBLISH source and hence not reliable, it is not usable to WP:verify content, especially when it contradicts authoritative sources.
As I said above, I don't have a strong objection to including pre-CFL history, but it needs to be done correctly. Otherwise it's better to omit than to misinform readers. I've again made these fixes. If there is something that you object to, please discuss here rather than making a full revert again. TDL (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Please leave the Hamilton franchise alone. It is the same team only merged with the Wildcats and changed name. What evidence of Ottawa being the same franchise? They all have different wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreemmett (talk • contribs) 11:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, Ottawa does claim all prior history as their own, as seen here. As for the TiCats, though it's a edition from a couple of years ago, the official CFL record book seen here clearly lists them as starting in 1950; the problem with any other date is that both predecessor teams were both in operation simultaneously after the Tigers restarted but before they merged to form the TiCats. So which record were inhereted by the current franchise? The answer, officially, is neither. It was a merger of equals. That's why putting any Hamilton listing before 1950 is wrong. Because they are not only one predecessor team, nor are they both. They are neither. oknazevad (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Rreemmett, as I have explained to you numerous times, the "evidence" is that the CFL has published a book (Facts, Figures and Records (2015)) which explicitly refutes your claims. For example, under Hamilton in the directory it is listed "Club founded (by merger) 1950 (IRFU)" and the first Grey Cup listed is 1953 (no mention of Grey Cups by earlier Hamilton teams). Under the RedBlacks all Ottawa Grey Cups are listed (1925-26, 1940, 1951, 1960, 1968-69, 1973, 1976) and there is the following note "Ottawa football history & records are considered to be continuous for these years under three separate clubs." Additionally, there is a table titled "REGULAR SEASON STANDINGS & SCORING: 1936 TO 2014" on pg 163 which lists the following franchises:

FRANCHISE YEARS

  • EDMONTON Eskimos 1938-2014
  • CALGARY Stampeders 1945-2014
  • WINNIPEG Blue Bombers 1936-2014
  • MONTREAL Alouettes-Concordes 1946-1986, 1996-2014
  • BC Lions 1954-2014
  • HAMILTON Tiger-Cats 1950-2014
  • SASKATCHEWAN Roughriders 1936-2014
  • TORONTO Argonauts 1936-2014
  • OTTAWA Rough Riders-Renegades 1936-96, 2002-05, 2014

PREVIOUS FRANCHISES:

  • HAMILTON Tigers 1936-1947
  • MONTREAL (IRFU)* 1936-1945
  • CALGARY Bronks 1936-1940
  • VANCOUVER Grizzlies 1941
  • HAMILTON Wildcats 1948-1949
  • SACRAMENTO-SAN ANTONIO 1993-1995
  • BALTIMORE CFL-Stallions 1994-1995
  • LAS VEGAS Posse 1994
  • SHREVEPORT Pirates 1994-1995
  • BIRMINGHAM Barracudas 1995
  • MEMPHIS Mad Dogs 1995

Clearly the CFL does not consider the the Hamilton teams to be the same franchise, while it does consider the Ottawa teams to be a single franchise. Conversely, the only evidence you have presented is a blog, and now you're citing wikipedia, which is WP:CIRCULAR. (You're also inconsistent in your argumentation, citing the existence of multiple team wiki pages for the Ottawa teams as reason for splitting their history, while ignoring the fact that Hamilton Wildcats (Canadian football) and Hamilton Tigers (football) have separate articles while arguing that they should not be split.) We need to follow reliable sources, not blogs. Besides, even if your point was correct you still wouldn't be doing it properly as oknazevad points out. TDL (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Corrections

FRANCHISE YEARS

  • EDMONTON Eskimos 1938-2014 - Not consistent with the chart you made.
  • SASKATCHEWAN Roughriders 1936-2014 - Roughrider stared in 1910 http://www.riderville.com/1254-2/

How accurate is this record book?

remmett June 1, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreemmett (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Rreemmett, read the title of the chart. TDL (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
It is the official CFL record book. By any definition, everything else is less reliable. But you actually have to read it. I'd like to point out this passage, found on page 162:

THE IMPORTANCE OF 1936 TO CANADIAN FOOTBALL HISTORY & THE CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE For the history of Canadian Football and the CFL it is impossible to underestimate the importance of the 1936 season. The foundations of the present-day East Division of the CFL date to 1907 but the game was strictly an amateur one until the 1930s. By the mid-1930's players were beginning to be paid openly and commit their time to the game and its development. Most importantly, 1936 marks the foundation of the WIFU (Western Interprovincial Football Union), direct predecessor of the CFL's West Division. Though their roots are in earlier amateur days, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg were founding members of the WIFU that year and continue to be prominent members of the CFL. The 1936 season was the first for inter-provincial play in the West and the institution of many Canadian football rules and standards still in use.

So it acknowledges the amateur roots of the Riders and the Bombers, but uses the year the were founding me where of the WIFU, and became playing outside their province, as the year they start keeping records. (Also happens to be the year they went fully professional.) Also on that page is the footnote explaining that Ottawa is one franchise with two periods of inactivity, and Hamilton's official starting date of 1950. Long story short, they have their reasons for choosing their official records, and deviating from them is WP:OR. oknazevad (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps we should follow the CFL's lead and only list seasons played in the CFL or its predecessors the IRFU/WIFU and ignore all the amateur seasons which are not well sourced. TDL (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

So this book overides a CFL team's Officail website? http://www.esks.com/about-us/ Rreemmett June 1/16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rreemmett (talk • contribs) 17:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the official CFL record book. So, yes. The Eskimos website seems to be using when the team resumed operations after WWII as its date, which is not unreasonable, as that's the date that it has continuously operated from, but the league recognizes it as the same club as the 1938–40 incarnation. oknazevad (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I wrote an e-mail to the Ottawa Redblacks and they said that the Rough Riders, Renegades and Redblacks are not one franchise. rreemmett (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Unless you submit the email via OTRS, so that others can see it, then we cannot verify what you say is true. The league's official record book is explicit that they are considered one franchise with two periods of inactivity, and that is the source used for the timeline. Subsequently, the time line will mirror what the source says, and any change will be reverted as going against the source. oknazevad (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
According the CFL FACTS, FIGURES and RECORDS ® 2014 EDITION, "Ottawa football history & records are considered to be continuous for these years under three separate clubs." "All Ottawa clubs including the previous Rough Riders and Renegades are combined with current Redblacks for historical consistency only" Yet under years played and founded only says 2014, which the Alouettes have played/founded 1946 to 2014. rreemmett (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Edmonton Eskimos Timeline Where in the CFL record book 2016 does it show evidence of Edmonton Eskimos 1911-1925, I see 1938-1939. rreemmett (talk) 19:54, 12 Nov 2016 (UTC)

That's because you're looking at CFL seasons played (ie on pg 175). The CFL only considers IRFU and WIFU to be league games. So this is just like Saskatchewan/Winnipeg being listed as 1936-2015, as 1936 was the year they joined the WIFU, or Toronto as 1907-2015, the year they joined the IRFU.
If you look on pg 12 you see for Edmonton: "Club founded 1911 (WCRFU)", just like Saskatchewan says "Club founded (amateur) 1910 (WCRFU)" (pg16), Winnipeg says "Club founded (amateur) 1930 (WCFRU)" (pg18) and Toronto says "Club founded In 1873" (pg17). If the chart is to include pre-WIFU/IRFU history for some clubs, it must do it for all. Alternatively, we could limit the chart to WIFU/IRFU history, but it needs to be done consistently. TDL (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I hear you Edmonton founded in 1911 but where do you find until 1925? All I see is DIVISION: WEST 1938-39, 1949-2016 rreemmett (talk) 22:00, 12 Nov 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't find the Timeline as presented to be very useful. The text is small, especially on a tablet, and the use team colors makes it even harder to read. I assume the stars represent Grey Cup wins, but that isn't stated anywhere that I can see, and it's not easy to tell what the years are anyway. If the Timeline must be kept, I'd seriously recommend limiting it to post-1958 as discussed above, and perhaps with a color scheme that's readable. It might even be better to place the Timeline in a template, as the coding is quite lengthy to be on the main article. Additionally, it can then be semi- or full-protected when necessary to prevent edit warring and bad changes. - BilCat (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Canadian Football League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Championships, CFL vs Grey Cup (In infobox)

It appears very clear to me, but numerous users keep trying to change the League Champions information in the info box to reflect the Grey Cup champions stats. With the article being for the CFL and not the Grey Cup, it seems obvious this should reflect CFL championships, not Grey Cup Championships. The Grey Cup has it's own page that can reflect the Grey Cup champion stats, should it be chosen to. This means any team's Championships BEFORE the CFL was founded in 1958, do NOT count towards this total. The Edmonton Eskimos therefore have 11 league championships (not 14), and The Toronto Argonauts have 6 league championships, not 16. Am I wrong? I'm going to keep reverting to this until somebody posts and undeniable argument countering this point. Or unless it gets voted as such, haha. Sportyguy03 (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It was a good idea to put in the note, because this had tripped me up for a second when I noticed it last week, then I realized what was going on. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought clarification would help, but yet the last person to edit it decided to just ignore and remove the note as well! haha. Sportyguy03 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Mabye it should be titled: Most CFL Titles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.247.37 (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canadian Football League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canadian Football League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Canadian Football League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Team timeline – Edmonton

@Rreemmett: Could you elaborate more on your recent edits on the timeline section? You claim that Edmonton teams before 1949 are not related to the current CFL team but according to the source (which was recently removed), the team "suspended operations from 1940 to 1948" but is still the same entity. Would anyone care to comment? BLAIXX 20:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

We had the exact same argument with the same editor a couple years ago. See Talk:Canadian_Football_League/Archive_1#Timeline. As far as I can see, nothing has changed which warrants any change here. TDL (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
I created this timeline years ago to emulate the timeline from other leagues, which are used from the formation year of league (1958) and its continuous history. We go through this debate with all-time Grey Cup wins. The source was put in much later for the argument of the Edmonton Eskimos teams prior to the 1949 team. User:rreemmett (talk) 09:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
The source is the official CFL record book. That is the official, definitive source. Just like it was the last time consensus went against you. Now you testify to removing the reference because it contradicts your personal opinion. Tough. Oh, and don't sign with someone else's name. That alone should get you blocked, let alone the obvious socking. My advice: walk away from the article. You seem to have lost perspective and that cannot end well. oknazevad (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, I'd like to point out that other leagues' timelines also show the history of teams that predate the league, such as the NHL and NBA ones. oknazevad (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Beyond the previously raised points on this subject, I'd also point out that the latest line of argumentation doesn't even make sense. You claim you only want to keep the post-1958 CFL history and so remove the pre-1940 history, but then why keep the 1949-1958 Eskimos history? Why keep the Argos history from 1873? Literally ever other franchise has pre-1958 history listed. We shouldn't cherry pick. TDL (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The definition of continuous: forming an unbroken whole; without interruption. Pre 1958 history is continuous like all other timelines for other leagues. The timeline is for the CFL and its continuous history. User:rreemmett (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Grey Cup appearances, active teams Table

The CFL considers the Ottawa Redblacks, Rough Riders and Senators "a single entity" dating to 1876, with "two intervals of non-participation (1997-2001 & 2006-2013)." Page 155 in the guide and record book [1]

Ottawa should thus be reflected as having 10 Grey Cup championships, 8 Grey Cup losses. Ottawa lost the 2018 Grey Cup to Calgary and thus Calgary has 8 wins with a last won in 2018.Dsides12 (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Page 15 of the 2017 Guide and Record Book also shows that the Ottawa Redblacks, as an entire franchise, have 10 wins and 7 losses (now 8) in Grey Cup games. Cmm3 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://d3ham790trbkqy.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/CFL-Book-2017-Perfect-Bind.pdf
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_Football_League/Archive_1&oldid=1136589811"