Originally Posted by
argolio
These days most serious athletes train all year.
I don't see how depth of talent in U Sports can be higher today when far fewer high schools are playing football in most parts of the country. Much better NCAA access for Canadian players might actually be harming the CFL because those players also have better access to the NFL. It definitely hurts depth of talent in U Sports.
(rant on)
For me the ratio issue is tied directly to the development of college football on both sides of the border. Down south, college football has grown and monetized itself to such a degree that it can go head-to-head with any other sports entity, even the NFL. That all started in 1984 when Oklahoma and Georgia sued the NCAA and won the right to negotiate their own TV contracts. The NCAA wanted things to stay the same (similar to U Sports), but today the big conferences control major college football. The top NCAA division has grown from about 85 schools to over 120, and many of those new schools didn't sponsor football in the 80s.
Meanwhile in Canada, U Sports has continually rejected any kind of scholarship system, has little interest in promoting itself, and has done nothing to try and grow to the game. It has been a consistent 50-year policy of de-emphasizing football. Just look at the results -- a whole three nationally televised games in November, for which they probably get paid peanuts. By comparison, curling (curling!) is booming, and has had a gazillion hours of coverage in the last month. Curling pursued a policy of growth, and succeeded to the point of getting the sport into the Olympics. And I actually like curling.
I'm in favour of the ratio remaining as it is, but if U Sports continues to bury its head in the sand, then nobody should be surprised that the ratio has gone from 12 to 7 Canadian starters since the 60s, and may get reduced again.
(/rant over)