Why is it that the West has generally dominated the East?

[argos1873]

Since the 1950s when the 2 independent leagues merged to become the CFL, the Western conference/division it seems has always been the dominant side of the CFL. For example Western teams have won more Grey Cups since then, and although I haven't seen the stats of inter-division play in quite a few years, the last time I looked Western teams have won much more games against Eastern division teams. Also, as a result of this, there have only ever been Western crossover teams, even when the divisions were paired at 4 a piece. What is the cause of this? I discussed this with my late grandfather a couple of decades back and his answer was that the west had more local talent than the east. While this may have been true 40 or so years ago, due to territorial claims, and a lower import ratio, teams now are free to draft from any area of the country, and imports play a much greater role in the success of a team, with a much higher ratio than before. Has it been the on-again-off-again stability of eastern teams that has caused this disparity? Its not a complete dominance of course, but there's no arguing that success is tilted towards the west, even up until this day. Why?

[ArgoRavi]

I have pondered that question often, argos1873, and I don't have any clear answers either. Perhaps it is because the western teams have generally been better at looking at the long-term than the eastern teams. Development of QBs may have been a factor also. Both Toronto and Hamilton have been awful for decades at developing their own QBs. Only now in Toronto do the Argos actually seem to have promising, young QBs. Leadership at the top has to be a factor too with Norm Kimball/Hugh Campbell running the Esks for so long and Bob Ackles/Wally Buono running the Lions during most of their recent success. Only one eastern team - the Als from 1996 to today under Jim Popp - has had that same sort of stability. That is about all that I can come up with at the moment.

[argos1873]

I have pondered that question often, argos1873, and I don't have any clear answers either. Perhaps it is because the western teams have generally been better at looking at the long-term than the eastern teams. Development of QBs may have been a factor also. Both Toronto and Hamilton have been awful for decades at developing their own QBs. Only now in Toronto do the Argos actually seem to have promising, young QBs. Leadership at the top has to be a factor too with Norm Kimball/Hugh Campbell running the Esks for so long and Bob Ackles/Wally Buono running the Lions during most of their recent success. Only one eastern team - the Als from 1996 to today under Jim Popp - has had that same sort of stability. That is about all that I can come up with at the moment.

This is true, but the underlying reason as to why Western teams have developed QBs while the East basically have not is still not apparent. Is it because Eastern teams have relied more on the "NFL airlift" than Western teams, but if so why? Perhaps because in the 50s and 60s these teams had more cash to do so, and the tradition of doing so carried on, even when the cash wasn't there? As for leadership, it can be said that perhaps because these teams have had been more successful, therefore leadership was given a chance longer than their Eastern counterparts? Then what came first Western stability or Western success? And if stability ensures success, why haven't the Eastern teams followed? It seems natural that they would (well as you point out, Montreal has went that route and has been successful, so maybe you are on to something.) I guess maybe financial stability, with a fiscally responsible outlook was/is the key to Western success, but I'm not 100% convinced. Its an issue that has fascinated me for decades.

[paulwoods13]

Let's not overstate this "other teams develop their own QBs" business. Only two teams, Calgary and Edmonton, have been consistently successful in this regard over the past three decades.

Here's a list off the top of my head:

B.C.: Lulay, Dewalt; I wouldn't count Printers, who flamed out after one monster year and turned out to be a pariah
Sask: Austin (an NFL cut), Durant
Wpg: Other than one-year wonder Salisbury (an NFL cut), anyone else? Khari Jones started his career with B.C.
Ott: J.C. Watts, Kerry Joseph (an NFL cut)
Ham: Mike Kerrigan (an NFL cut), one-year wonder Ken Hobart
Mtl: none
Tor: none

Am I forgetting anyone?

[Argo57]

Let's not overstate this "other teams develop their own QBs" business. Only two teams, Calgary and Edmonton, have been consistently successful in this regard over the past three decades.

Here's a list off the top of my head:

B.C.: Lulay, Dewalt; I wouldn't count Printers, who flamed out after one monster year and turned out to be a pariah
Sask: Austin (an NFL cut), Durant
Wpg: Other than one-year wonder Salisbury (an NFL cut), anyone else? Khari Jones started his career with B.C.
Ott: J.C. Watts, Kerry Joseph (an NFL cut)
Ham: Mike Kerrigan (an NFL cut), one-year wonder Ken Hobart
Mtl: none
Tor: none

Am I forgetting anyone?

I would add Matt Dunigan (Edmonton) to that list as well.

[paulwoods13]

I would add Matt Dunigan (Edmonton) to that list as well.

I left off Edm and Cal because as I said earlier, they are the only teams that have consistently developed QBs straight out of school: Moon, Dunigan, Allen, Ham, Maas and Ray by the Esks; Garcia, Dickenson, Tate by the Stamps. (Feel as if I am forgetting someone else Cal developed.)

[ArgoRavi]

I left off Edm and Cal because as I said earlier, they are the only teams that have consistently developed QBs straight out of school: Moon, Dunigan, Allen, Ham, Maas and Ray by the Esks; Garcia, Dickenson, Tate by the Stamps. (Feel as if I am forgetting someone else Cal developed.)

Calgary developed Burris as well.

[argolio]

Probably comes down to the West teams having more stable ownership. Most teams have had times of trouble, but only in the East did we see three teams fold (Ottawa twice).

The East also tended to go for big name 'splash" signings (Rocket Ismail being the prime example) a lot more than the West, which didn't always lead to longer-term stability.

[Will]

I have pondered that question often, argos1873, and I don't have any clear answers either. Perhaps it is because the western teams have generally been better at looking at the long-term than the eastern teams. Development of QBs may have been a factor also. Both Toronto and Hamilton have been awful for decades at developing their own QBs. Only now in Toronto do the Argos actually seem to have promising, young QBs. Leadership at the top has to be a factor too with Norm Kimball/Hugh Campbell running the Esks for so long and Bob Ackles/Wally Buono running the Lions during most of their recent success. Only one eastern team - the Als from 1996 to today under Jim Popp - has had that same sort of stability. That is about all that I can come up with at the moment.

I cannot speak for the rest of the eastern conference, but I would say that this is particularly true about the Argonauts. The Argos were a consistent team from 1982 to 1991 with the exception of a few seasons. The Argos didn't bring Gilbert Renfroe into the league, but it appeared for a season or two that he might continue the success that Argo QB's had earlier in that decade. In 1989 he fizzled out and Matt Dunigan was brought into stabilize the QB position. While, the Argos have won five Grey Cups since 1989 there never seems to be a long period of time where the team is successful unless you want to make the argument for 2004-2007. Nevertheless, the team has failed to have succession plans at key positions such as QB's and is reliant on an outside source.

[paulwoods13]

Calgary developed Burris as well.

Of course -- thanks, Ravi.

[Ron]

IMO Western teams in the past were forced to develop their own as the "NFL air lift" guys did not want to go to the tundra of frozen northern Canada. The Eastern teams in that regard are far further south.

Picture this:

Agent: A team in Winnipeg and Edmonton want you
Player: Where's that Winnipeg place?
Agent: Few hundred miles north of Minnesota
Player: Yikes, in domes at least?
Agent: Nope. Outdoors.
Player: Screw that! I'm not going there. The other place has to be better. So where's that Edmonton place.
Agent: Much farther west and hundreds of miles north of Winnipeg.
Player: Frack me. I'll be a car salesman.