CFLPA team report cards

[B.C.FAN]

The CFL Players Association has published its first report cards on how each team treats its players, and the Lions got low grades of D, D+ or D- in 4 categories, including management and administration, training and medical staff, family treatment and nutrition and diet. Edmonton got a D- in 2 categories and Fs in 2 others.

Hamilton, Ottawa, Toronto and Winnipeg got passing grades in all categories. Montreal and Saskatchewan got a D+ in one category each.

https://cflpa.com/cflpa-reportcards-2024

[don corleone]

The "C" for Lions training camp is a surprise to me.

Unless all variables contributing to the rating are known they are basically just numbers. It's nice to give feedback but I would say CFLPA have bigger fish to fry.

Also seems a bit more like a public shaming with hope that it will improve conditions as very likely all issues have been raised privately in the past.

[Toppy Vann]

The "C" for Lions training camp is a surprise to me.

Unless all variables contributing to the rating are known they are basically just numbers. It's nice to give feedback but I would say CFLPA have bigger fish to fry.

Also seems a bit more like a public shaming with hope that it will improve conditions as very likely all issues have been raised privately in the past.

It's a stretch to call it publc shaming as fans can better appreciate the players perspectives and struggles better.

They graded on the half-curve which on its face can make scores look better as it takes off the extremes unlike the NFL who do not.

I've not time yet to fully digest it and curious how they say they scaled this and curious how they presented this for scoring.
I hope they used a 5 point Likert scale with measures of agreement that they converted to letter grades.

My first observation is that it doesn't give a team measure of overall satisfaction with the franchise they're with NOR did I see participation rates.

In surveys my firm did measuring engagement and one I did for large firm on appreciation (given, received and wanted) we always had initial overall satisfaction framing.

[David]

Here is an explanation of each survey category from the CFLPA website. I am a bit surprised by the poor grades the Leos received given the first-class ownership. It's seems incongruous to me. I kind of expected low grades on their facilities (being bused around to another field), but across the board, the are big improvements to be made.

Ironically, for having such low grades, the published BC comments were fairly tame. Far less scathing than, say, Calgary. Comments seemed to be most favorable in Hamilton and Winnipeg (by far).

Football Operations:

Players were asked about their relationships with their head coach, coaching staff, and video staff; their team activity scheduling; and their team's adherence to CBA provisions including those relating to padded practices and practice times.

Equipment:

Players were asked if they were required to pay for any necessary football equipment including gloves, mouthguards, and cleats; if they were given appropriate helmet choice; about the condition of their issued equipment; and about the general knowledge and helpfulness/availability of their equipment staff.

Management/Administration:

Players were asked if they had ever been requested to renegotiate an existing contract for less total compensation; if CFL and CFLPA All Star Bonuses were offered during contract negotiation; about the availability of their club's financial department staff; if paid appearances and/or employment opportunities outside of football have been offered to the player; about the quality of seats provided for home game tickets; and about their comfort addressing concerns with their club's management.

Training and Medical Staff:

Players were asked if their club had adequate levels of medical staff; if therapy was offered at adequate times in and out of season; about their perceived quality of care; about the availability of massage and chiropractic therapy; about the quality of their club work out facilities; and about the availability and expertise of the strength and conditioning coach.

Treatment of Families:

Players were asked if their club offered services and support for wives and children including assistance in sourcing housing, childcare, open work permits for Americans, and medical and mental health services; and if family gameday facilities were provided.

Nutrition and Diet:

Players were asked what meals their club provides and about the quality of those meals; if they were charged for those meals; about the availability of a club dietician; and about the quality, quantity, and adequacy of nutritional supplements provided.

Team Travel:

Players were asked about the quality of their club's travel arrangements; if the timing of flights allowed for adequate post-game rest and recovery; about reimbursements for any travel-related expenses; and, if applicable, about travel during the practice week to off-site facilities.

Training Camp:

Players were asked about the quality of their housing during training camp; if they had to share a room during training camp; about the quality of their meals during training camp; and if their club adhered to CBA practice time and padded practice requirements during training camp.

The final question of the survey invited general comments from players. This is a selection form each club, chosen to reflect the range of feedback provided.

BC:

"BC Lions need a new facility. The team and staff does what it can. But things are unsatisfactory compared to other teams in the CFL."

"No meals after game. Meals during the week we split half"


DH

[Hambone]

The "C" for Lions training camp is a surprise to me.

Unless all variables contributing to the rating are known they are basically just numbers. It's nice to give feedback but I would say CFLPA have bigger fish to fry.

Also seems a bit more like a public shaming with hope that it will improve conditions as very likely all issues have been raised privately in the past.

It's a stretch to call it publc shaming as fans can better appreciate the players perspectives and struggles better.

They graded on the half-curve which on its face can make scores look better as it takes off the extremes unlike the NFL who do not.

I've not time yet to fully digest it and curious how they say they scaled this and curious how they presented this for scoring.
I hope they used a 5 point Likert scale with measures of agreement that they converted to letter grades.

My first observation is that it doesn't give a team measure of overall satisfaction with the franchise they're with NOR did I see participation rates.

In surveys my firm did measuring engagement and one I did for large firm on appreciation (given, received and wanted) we always had initial overall satisfaction framing.

The training camp rating caught me off guard as the general feedback I've heard since they've been going to Kamloops is that it's best set up in the CFL. The devil might be in the details. One year I wound up with a room in the TRU dorms. As would be expected the furnishings were spartan but if I recall the bed was rock hard and of size that wouldn't be very comfortable for anybody with bigger than the 6' 225 frame I packed back then. Maybe the fact camp is being held 4 hours away from where the team plays causes a negative reaction. Also TRU is somewhat isolated from amenities players might like to enjoy in their free time. It creates a bit of an all work, no play vibe which could drag a bit. Players with their own wheels are probably in the minority. Back in the day players would be doing two a days most of camp leaving little spare time.

I can understand your comment in the last paragraph. A corporation is likely to frame survey questions in a manner that sheds the best light. A union or PA might frame them to get a more critical consensus. Regardless some of the published comments come across as petty griping as one might see on FB or TripAdvisor reviews. Players unhappy about food maybe because it doesn't tickle their fancy are more likely to vent while guys who find it to be quite OK won't say a thing. After spending quite a several years eating in logging camp cookhouses I know how that works. Right DanoT?

[maxlion]

495 players took the survey, which works out to an average of 55 for each team. That is a pretty good response rate.

The Lions should be looking at this with some concern. Looks like they have a lot of work to do if they want to be seen as a top notch organization.

Interesting that their highest and only half decent grade was for Football Operations ... and they just fired the guy who was in charge of that aspect.

[B.C.FAN]

The training camp grade also surprised me because the facilities in Kamloops are excellent other than a lack of an indoor field. Before moving to Kamloops, I used to pay to sleep on the rock-hard dorm beds in the TRU student residence but I understood that they had been replaced in recent years. I still miss mingling with players and coaches in the lobby and elevators.

[Hambone]

The training camp grade also surprised me because the facilities in Kamloops are excellent other than a lack of an indoor field. Before moving to Kamloops, I used to pay to sleep on the rock-hard dorm beds in the TRU student residence but I understood that they had been replaced in recent years. I still miss mingling with players and coaches in the lobby and elevators.

I don't know where exactly where the rest of the league trains but aside from Edmonton with the Commonwealth field house does anybody else have an indoor field? With Kamloops' generally dry, warm climate during camp that would be a rarely needed luxury item.

[B.C.FAN]

The Lions have used the Kamloops youth soccer dome a few times when Hillside Stadium wasn’t usable due to wildfire smoke but they’ve also had to cancel practices on short notice. The soccer dome has just been updated with new turf and a larger playing surface and the city plans to build a new indoor facility, but that’s several years down the road.

[SammyGreene]

The D+ for management/adminstration really should be no surprise. 2023 starters Woody Baron & Quincy Mauger released on the eve of free agency last February. Then there was David Menard released in May and the treatment of Marcus Sayles. Signs a new contract in February, held out the 1st pre-season game like most safe veterans, but then cut. Were any of these players under contract replaced by significantly better upgrades or was it to save money?

Throw in VA's treatment and handing Rourke significantly more money in mid-season and we know the players took notice.

I will give Kyle Walters credit in Winnipeg. The Bombers will let some of their veterans walk in free agency but I can't think of any that are cut while still under contract.

[don corleone]

Possibly comparisons are being made to NFL training camps where more revenue is available to take it to a high level. I'd be interested to see a similar report from the European League of American Football.

It all stems from the broadcast agreement.

[Hambone]

Sayles wasn't held out because he was a vet. He was held out because he hadn't been healthy enough to participate in camp practices. While he was spending practice time riding the stationary bike and doing other light exercises Ronald Kent was out there in his position making big plays all over the field. I don't know if it was the straw that broke the camel's back but Sayles did have one more $10K bonus coming to him the first time he suited up. That would have leapfrogged him over Peters to be BC's highest paid DB and from 11th to 6th highest in the league..