Five criticisms of CFL commissioner Jeffrey Orridge were also around before him

With 2015 coming to a close, it's worth looking back at the CFL's first year without former commissioner Mark Cohon. Cohon announced he was stepping down early last December and officially stepped down Jan. 9, leading to board of governors chair Jim Lawson taking over as interim commissioner until the March hire of Jeffrey Orridge. Orridge's tenure has received plenty of criticism so far from a variety of angles, and much of it has been both fair and deserved. However, some historical perspective is needed; although Cohon's tenure finished on a high note and left the CFL in very good shape, it wasn't so long ago that he was facing many of these same criticisms. That doesn't invalidate those criticisms at all, and it doesn't mean Cohon's tenure was a failure (indeed, it was remarkably successful overall); it just means Orridge's tenure to date may not be as different from Cohon's as it seems. Let's consider some of the things Orridge has been blasted for so far, and how they also showed up under his predecessor.

A lack of knowledge of the league: From Bruce Arthur, "He sounds like a man who has memorized some answers, and isn’t ready for all the questions. With each question you got the feeling that the reporters knew the league better than the commissioner did." This is very true, but reporters have often known the league (or at least, the specific part of it their current question or article is focused on) better than the man in the commissioner's chair, who is regularly looking more at different big-picture questions. The best example of that under Cohon came in 2009, when Dave Naylor and Matt Sekeres of The Globe and Mail reported that B.C. Lions' owner David Braley had been secretly funding the Toronto Argonauts without the commissioner's knowledge. (The original link seems dead, but the story is summarized here.)

It's happened other times, too; consider how Cohon flip-flopped on Quebec City expansion years after reporters questioned his logic for why it wouldn't work, or how media seemed more aware of the specifics on issues such as import ratio bargaining. In fact, every state of the league address over the past seven Grey Cups has included at least one question the commissioner has seemed rather unprepared for. That's what happens with a wide-ranging Q+A, and it's worth noting that most State of the League sessions over the years have generated plenty of criticism for the commissioner's answers in their wake.

That's not saying that reporters should run the CFL: that would create a whole different set of problems. It's also not saying that any individual reporter knows more than the commissioner in general, but there are probably plenty of cases where they're more well-briefed on a specific issue than the commissioner is. That's especially true when the commissioner is still new to the league. Orridge almost undoubtedly knows less about the CFL as a whole than Cohon did when he left, as he doesn't have the experience of eight years in the commissioner's chair, and there's an argument to be made that he may not even be as prepared as early-term Cohon was, but it's worth pointing out that Cohon also often received criticism for not knowing much about specific issues. Also, some of the issues Orridge was blasted for not realizing were issues (media access problems in particular) were things that existed under Cohon's tenure and didn't receive much attention from him either.

A branding focus: Much of the criticism of Orridge at the Grey Cup came from how he focused his state of the league address on the new "What We're Made Of" branding, and that's absolutely fair. That presentation, and the way it was done, wasn't the right fit for the media audience at all, especially with more serious issues out there. However, this is also something that showed up under Cohon, particularly in 2008 with the "This Is Our League" campaign and in 2012 with the "It Reflects Us All" ad.

Now, those were better-launched campaigns; they were presented to a much more interested audience at a better time (the start of the season rather than the end), and they didn't take anywhere as much criticism. There were still plenty of people wondering why the CFL was focusing on branding and slogans, though, and in the end, those ones seemed to work out quite well for them. "What We're Made Of" hasn't gone over well with the media so far, but the media aren't the intended target; it's aimed at fans, and particularly new and young fans. We'll find out in a year or so how well it's worked.

Declining ratings: This is a big issue facing the CFL, with a 15 per cent drop on average this season, but it's not new. Ratings dropped six per cent from 2013 to 2014, and last year's Grey Cup was 14 per cent below 2013's. This year's Grey Cup was better, pulling in 4.3 million combined viewers on TSN and RDS, a boost of six per cent over 2014's 4 million combined. That's still below 2013's 4.5 million, but it's heading in the right direction. More importantly, though, it's worth noting that TV ratings issues for the CFL were here before Orridge took over.

A poor drug policy: This one has been a particular target for many, with the CFL currently not testing its players thanks to labs refusing to work with them under the current policy (which isn't all that different from other worldwide systems as WADA executives would have you believe). Yes, the current policy has big problems, especially when it comes to the college-to-pro transition, but no one worldwide has addressed that well. We'll see when the CFL's new policy comes out and how it works; if it isn't a substantial improvement, Orridge may well take some deserved heat for it.

However, it's worth remembering the context here. The CFL didn't test for performance-enhancing drugs at all until 2011, so the first four years of Cohon's tenure were with no policy at all, and he rightly took some criticism for that. Many of the issues with the current policy were also raised when it was announced in 2010. (It's also worth pointing out that anything to do with drug-testing is collectively bargained and has to go through the CFLPA, which has been very resistant to beefing up the policy; the issues here are about the union as well as the league office.) So, this is not a new criticism, or one that only applies to Orridge. That doesn't diminish its validity, but it also doesn't mean that the CFL is further behind on the drug-testing front under him.

Inaction on concussion treatment/settlements for former players: That's been the primary criticism from this corner, and it's a deserved one. The league is currently being sued in two different cases by several former players, and many others seem likely to join them; quick and decisive action to offer former players battling concussions some help might help forestall or limit the coming wave of lawsuits. However, this is also something that was an issue under Cohon, and the lawsuits started under his term (and Arland Bruce's names him personally). Like most of the problems with Orridge's tenure so far, it's not a new one.

None of this is to say that Orridge's first year has been a smashing success. Much of the criticism is deserved; he has made some missteps, and he's clearly still learning the league. There are plenty of things he'll need to work on and get right, including concussions, the drug policy, and the TV ratings. It's just worth noting that a lot of this has been seen before with the last new commissioner, and that the league didn't end up in dire straits. Will Orridge grow to be as successful in the job as Cohon ultimately was? That's unclear at this point, but we do know that those criticisms didn't derail Cohon's tenure in the end. CFL fans will be hoping that the same is true with Orridge.