CFL commissioner Jeffrey Orridge has declared a moratorium on the movement of under-contract coaches (apparently in response to reports that Montreal defensive coordinator/assistant head coach Noel Thorpe resigned and was set to take a similar position in Edmonton), with any further moves of under-contract coaches or resignations requiring league approval, and that's somewhat smart. The flurry of coaching moves and demands for compensation we've seen has been crazy, and slowing things down and letting the league office look at each particular move makes some sense. However, a moratorium alone isn't going to solve the issues here, and neither is Orridge's apparent solution in the Edmonton-Ottawa case of sending the teams to mediation. The league needs a firm, universal policy, and that policy needs to reflect the most crucial elements here. Those are twofold: everyone in the CFL should have an opportunity to advance, and the league's policies should be designed for the benefit of the CFL as a whole, not any particular team or any particular situation.



It's always been maintained here that both the move of former Edmonton head coach Chris Jones to Saskatchewan as head coach and general manager and the move of former Ottawa offensive coordinator Jason Maas to Edmonton as head coach are logical moves for a promotion. They're in keeping with what has always happened in the CFL, something that every team does and that benefits every team, and thus, they shouldn't even involve a discussion of compensation. Edmonton didn't ask for any compensation for losing Jones and almost his entire staff, but Ottawa did for losing Maas. Some of the other moves (Jones' assistants taking essentially the same jobs in Saskatchewan, Thorpe taking a similar job in Edmonton) seem much more lateral and worthy of a good, hard look, and perhaps the moratorium will help find some solutions there and craft a policy that's fair for all teams.

In and of itself, a moratorium is not an answer, though. It just means that the league office will be making decisions rather than the teams. That's as it should be (the CFL's league office is too weak in general, with individual teams holding far too much power on a variety of matters), but it doesn't provide guidance as to what those eventual decisions will be. Beyond that, mediation is completely the wrong approach; this is a CFL issue, and one that should be resolved by a policy from the league office, not the decision of some mediator. The league needs a policy, and one that is consistent and universal. For this policy to work, it's going to have to find a way to permit advancement in a way that best serves the interests of the whole CFL over the long term.

What's in the best interests of the CFL? From a coaching and personnel standpoint, the key is having the best possible general managers and coaches in each role. This is not a zero-sum game (i.e., if Saskatchewan's coach quality rises, Edmonton's falls), as the CFL is not a closed system; it exists in the larger football environment, and regularly brings in coaches and players from the NFL, NCAA and CIS levels. Better general managers (and assistant general managers, and scouts) don't just mean that their organizations sign or trade for the best players already in the CFL; having the best possible people in those roles means that the CFL's overall calibre of talent will rise, as they'll draft better Canadians and sign better American free agents. Similarly, having better coaches and better coaches higher up (head coaches have more responsibility than coordinators, who have more responsibility than positional coaches) in each organization is beneficial for the league; this ensures that the talent brought in is best utilized, leading to a higher quality of play in the CFL.

This is why the league's traditional approach of letting under-contract coaches leave for a higher role without requiring compensation has worked well. Yes, it hurts the teams who have people leave in the short term. There's no dispute that Edmonton's immediate offseason will be more difficult without Jones, and that Ottawa's will be tougher without Maas. However, every team benefits from this in the long term. The vast majority of head coaches are hired from the CFL coordinator ranks, and the vast majority of coordinators are hired from the CFL position coach ranks. Limiting the pool of available candidates to those already with the team in question or those already out of contract may benefit the teams who currently have those coaches, but it's a net loss for the league; this means, on the whole, teams won't hire the optimal coaches or coordinators, hurting the quality of coaching and thus the quality of play. Allowing hires of under-contract coaches with compensation is slightly better, but still not ideal, especially if the compensation is high. Most teams would rather hire someone they don't have to give up major compensation for, thus producing the same result of suboptimal coaching.

Story continues