Moratoriums and mediation alone won't solve CFL coaching's central issues

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.

By contrast, when under-contract coaches leave for a higher role, that provides an opportunity to promote a deserving coach from elsewhere. Edmonton lost a good head coach to a GM/HC role; that gave them a chance to give Maas, who certainly has strong potential, a head coaching job he wouldn't have received this year if he'd stayed in Ottawa. The Redblacks lost a good offensive coordinator to Edmonton; this will give them the opportunity to promote a deserving quarterbacks or receivers coach from around the league (and it's beneficial for them if they don't only have to consider out-of-contract ones).

That will lead to another opening, of course, but the position coach openings are typically filled either by retired CFL players looking to get into coaching or by coaches from the NFL, NCAA or CIS levels. There are countless people out there who would make good CFL position coaches, and bringing one in gives them a chance to even perhaps be a coordinator or head coach some day, adding to the CFL's coaching pool overall. The circle continues, and it's a positive circle for the league. (Yes, there would still be a similar circle if under-contract coaches were banned or required substantial compensation, but the promotions would be much less about pure merit and more about who's available at a given time. That's far from ideal.)

The more-lateral moves are more difficult, and they're not all that new either. Jones' move from the Stampeders to the Argos in 2012 is an interesting case in point; he had largely the same role in both jobs, working both as a defensive coordinator and on the player personnel side. With these ones, there may be a case for compensation; they're not contributing to the overall advancement of the CFL's coaches. However, good coaching is also about fit within a staff, which is why Jones took so much of his staff with him to Saskatchewan. Yes, those may be lateral moves, but they'll likely produce a better staff overall than if Jones was forced to leave everyone he trusts behind and hire only those available (or those the previous coaching staff had picked), or if Maas was forced to work with the remnants of Jones' staff in Edmonton. There's an argument for possible compensation in these cases, but most teams do still benefit from this at some point, and any compensation shouldn't be so severe that it forces teams to form subpar staffs to avoid penalties.

Overall, this should be seen in the same sort of light as decisions relating to players, such as the one-year contracts brought in in the 2014 CBA. These recouped the value of the old NFL option window that was axed in 2010, allowing players to potentially head to the NFL after a single season. Again, this worked because the CFL is not a closed system; the NFL dreams of many prospects led them to come north in greater numbers thanks to that flexibility, and while some were able to parlay one CFL season into a NFL shot (hurting their particular team), many more couldn't and stuck around (benefiting the league overall, and to a greater degree). Allowing for advancement works; it lets you draw a higher quality of person in at a more entry-level job if they think there's a chance they can move up relatively easily, regardless of whether they're actually one of the few chosen to move up.

The flip side to this, too, is that in an open system, it's very difficult (and usually not desirable) to force anyone to do anything. This is why even if the CFL does decide not all of these moves are perfectly aboveboard, it should go with compensation (and preferably light compensation) instead of nullifying the move. It's not going to help Montreal much to have Thorpe forced to stick around after he tried to leave, it wouldn't help Ottawa to keep Maas in an OC role when he knew a HC one was available, and it wouldn't do Edmonton much good to have assistants who would rather be with Jones in Saskatchewan. The player front is instructive there, too; both Chris Williams and Dexter McCoil were eventually allowed to pursue NFL dreams, albeit with some conditions that benefited their CFL teams if they came back quickly (essentially, compensation). Holding those moves up, as the Tiger-Cats did with Williams, doesn't help anyone.

Regardless of what the CFL eventually decides, it needs to be universal across the league. It also needs to be implemented with the best long-term interests of the entire league at heart, not just any one team's short-term interests. From this corner, those long-term interests are best served by having the best possible coaches and executives, and acquiring those coaches requires promising them at least some opportunity for advancement and at least some flexibility. That can be done in a no-compensation system or a (light) compensation system, but it needs to be consistent, and it needs to work for the coaches. Having great coaches and executives, and giving them the opportunity to advance to higher roles, will be beneficial for the CFL as a whole.