Poll
Question:
Do you like the changes overall?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 11
Option 2: No
votes: 37
media advisory has gone out to advise of an announcement tomorrow regarding "change to the game"
what could it be? rule change mid season?
What a weird announcement.
What can you reasonable change midseason?
If it's a change for this season I would think it has something to do with player safety.
Maybe expanding the role of the replay centre.
Maybe adding another official to watch hits on the quarterback.
Some people are speculating changes to the playoff structure but I can't see an announcement for that mid-season even if it was to come into effect next season. The CFL rules committee and board of governors would normally look at changes like that in the off season.
Has there been any major controversies this season that need to be addressed? Other than stuff that Luke Willson makes up.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 21, 2025, 05:20:40 PMwhat could it be? rule change mid season?
Roster ratio? 4 downs? Fair catch? No kickoffs, automatic 1rst at the 30?
Just a guess, but maybe it's changes for next season and beyond. I'm always pulling for ratio changes and a one division system.
Quote from: VictorRomano on September 21, 2025, 06:55:26 PMRoster ratio? 4 downs? Fair catch? No kickoffs, automatic 1rst at the 30?
I can't see them making a ratio change in regard to number of starters. A possible change in the number of DI's as opposed to back up Canadians but even that is a stretch. I've been promoting +2 DI's and 2 less Canadians but I'm an outlier.
If it was affordable ( it's not ) I'd just say add 2 more DI's and keep everything else the same.
Please no fair catch or eliminating changing K/O's to NFL type rules.
I don't like the one division play off idea that has been discussed for a few years.
IMO we may have more safety checks from EITS and more severe penalties if they occur?
Can any of this be done and implemented with 4 games left?
The exact wording:
"a major announcement regarding significant changes to the game."
I am hopeful!
TSN deal ends after the 2026 year. Something with that? Seems a bit early.
There won't be an announcement regarding the ratio as the CFLPA would need to be involved to make changes to the CBA.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 07:11:08 PMTSN deal ends after the 2026 year. Something with that? Seems a bit early.
Yeah, maybe it's to announce a new broadcasting deal.
But, they are announcing CHANGES.
Maybe 1 game a week is going to be broadcast on a streaming service - Crave, Netflix, Prime?
Maybe going to a single division. Crosses fingers and toes knowing it's not gonna happen.
Quote from: gobombersgo on September 21, 2025, 07:16:51 PMThere won't be an announcement regarding the ratio as the CFLPA would need to be involved to make changes to the CBA.
You're probably right but I'll still hope. :)
If they wanted to be aggressive theres gray area in the language that could be used. If they wanted to expand, they could say there's a critical business need, for example. They could cite the franchises losing money, etc. They have changed how nationals are defined many times to expand the pool. They could go that route too.
All very unlikely. But theoretically possible.
...what about an NFL partnership, an earlier season schedule starting in spring and ending near the beginning of the NFL season?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 07:32:05 PM...what about an NFL partnership, an earlier season schedule starting in spring and ending near the beginning of the NFL season?
No way that happens IMO. Poor weather would impact game performance and reduce attendance. There would be 2 feet of snow in Winnipeg and out east in April.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 21, 2025, 07:34:53 PMNo way that happens IMO. Poor weather would impact game performance and reduce attendance. There would be 2 feet of snow in Winnipeg and out east in April.
I'd rather play preseason games in the snow than the Grey Cup... advancing the season a few weeks would be awesome.
They can even have the preseason in Florida or Arizona, or both.
Wasn't Johnston brought in for his media savvy? Renewing TSN for 8 more years, while adding in Prime?
QB protection, the penalties they have in place are inadequate and have not improved the safety of QB's. Less than 3 starting QB's have remained healthy so far this season, with a direct correlation to awful football being played.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 21, 2025, 07:58:54 PMQB protection, the penalties they have in place are inadequate and have not improved the safety of QB's. Less than 3 starting QB's have remained healthy so far this season, with a direct correlation to awful football being played.
that would be my guess
Could be something on defenseless receivers? How's Keric doing?
from milt:
Commissioner Johnston's about to shake things up 👀 Excited to see what's coming. If you're in the "CFL is perfect, don't touch it" club... maybe this one's not for you. @PaperPlatesShow
Less Canadians would be a massive mistake
Our Canadian players are key imo
Everyone just stirring the pot but Dave Naylor reshared a tweet guessing downs, field size, number of players and timing.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 21, 2025, 09:03:11 PMfrom milt:
Commissioner Johnston's about to shake things up 👀 Excited to see what's coming. If you're in the "CFL is perfect, don't touch it" club... maybe this one's not for you. @PaperPlatesShow
Yesssssss
The commissioner can't make any changes to the game without the approval of the board of governors.
If it was a major change I would think something would have been leaked to gauge fans' reception.
Quote from: gobombersgo on September 21, 2025, 09:25:53 PMThe commissioner can't make any changes to the game without the approval of the board of governors.
If it was a major change I would think something would have been leaked to gauge fans' reception.
I would assume any changes announced would have the board's approval.
I don't know why you'd expect a leak. It's probably not consensus decision making.
Field size, downs, number of players I wouldn't touch.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 09:20:04 PMEveryone just stirring the pot but Dave Naylor reshared a tweet guessing downs, field size, number of players and timing.
These are untouchables. How dumb would it be to unilaterally announce something like this midseason?
Field size, makes no sense.
Downs, makes us unique.
Number of players. On field, no. On roster, sure.
EITS - expanded for more assistance to on field officials, and modified challenges, please.
Take with grain of salt but someone on the Rider forum saying it's rule and field changes to more closely align with American game.
We'll see.
If they're going this way makes sense to start rolling changes out over time probably. Logically makes sense.
rod pederson:
I'm being told to prepare for an Americanization of the #CFL game beginning in 2026.
Outside of my family/friends, there's not much that I love more than the Bombers and the CFL.
I'm very afraid of being alienated from the thing that I've followed for more than 20 years.
So many advantages. I'm hoping they go far enough.
Quote from: Jesse on September 21, 2025, 10:39:37 PMOutside of my family/friends, there's not much that I love more than the Bombers and the CFL.
I'm very afraid of being alienated from the thing that I've followed for more than 20 years.
Football is football. No one likes change but I honestly believe it will be for the best.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 10:40:58 PMFootball is football. No one likes change but I honestly believe it will be for the best.
I've never heard any reasons why making the game more American improves the game at all.
The changes we need to improve play and the league are all monetary related. There's nothing wrong with the game itself.
Quote from: Jesse on September 21, 2025, 10:39:37 PMOutside of my family/friends, there's not much that I love more than the Bombers and the CFL.
I'm very afraid of being alienated from the thing that I've followed for more than 20 years.
Agree, I'm not religious but the CFL is as close as it gets.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 10:21:16 PMTake with grain of salt but someone on the Rider forum saying it's rule and field changes to more closely align with American game.
We'll see.
If they're going this way makes sense to start rolling changes out over time probably. Logically makes sense.
Terrible idea to change what makes our game uniquely Canadian
Quote from: The Zipp on September 21, 2025, 10:24:43 PMrod pederson:
I'm being told to prepare for an Americanization of the #CFL game beginning in 2026.
Makes me sick
Quote from: Jesse on September 21, 2025, 10:42:46 PMI've never heard any reasons why making the game more American improves the game at all.
The changes we need to improve play and the league are all monetary related. There's nothing wrong with the game itself.
Facts, agree all
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 10:40:58 PMFootball is football. No one likes change but I honestly believe it will be for the best.
The rules, field, Canadian talent, down, timing, timeouts, etc is what I love about our game. I don't agree. I prefer our game for so many reasons.
Speculation and we don't know what's coming but curious what Canadians think!
Scares the 💩 out of me
So no one knows.....
Quote from: Jesse on September 21, 2025, 10:42:46 PMI've never heard any reasons why making the game more American improves the game at all.
The changes we need to improve play and the league are all monetary related. There's nothing wrong with the game itself.
After years of me trying to convince you and others, maybe we'll finally get to find out. Here's to hoping.
And if they're going to do it, they've got to do it. The CFL works. The NFL works. Will some weird middle ground work? Possibly as a temporary experiment but they need to go for it if they going that way or they risk losing everyone.
Quote from: Jesse on September 21, 2025, 10:42:46 PMI've never heard any reasons why making the game more American improves the game at all.
The changes we need to improve play and the league are all monetary related. There's nothing wrong with the game itself.
I agree.
The league needs to differentiate itself from the NFL.
If the CFL adopts NFL rules they just become another 4 down minor league.
And no one can convince me that making these changes would somehow attract new fans to the game.
They're not going to market it as "the Americanization of the CFL".
That's Rod's click bait phrasing designed to get people emotional.
It will most likely be wrapped in all the palatable Canadian trappings you're used to.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 11:02:11 PMThey're not going to market it as "the Americanization of the CFL".
That's Rod's click bait phrasing designed to get people emotional.
It will most likely be wrapped in all the palatable Canadian trappings you're used to.
This poll isn't about marketing or Rod. It's about people's opinions about keeping our league uniquely Canadian.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 21, 2025, 11:03:54 PMThis poll isn't about marketing or Rod. It's about people's opinions about keeping our league uniquely Canadian.
Uhuh.
For one, there's a pipeline of NCAA QBs who could theoretically come from college and not spend 3 years learning all the differences?
That's a huge advantage.
We have no quarterbacks in this league as evidenced by the disaster that we sat through in Ottawa. Or did we all forget?
Don't like our great league, no problem. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Can always move down South. Lots of American ball there for you.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 21, 2025, 10:24:43 PMrod pederson:
I'm being told to prepare for an Americanization of the #CFL game beginning in 2026.
Ambrosie wouldn't have gone along with that plan, makes sense they brought in a corporate psychopath to do the dirty work. Can anyone name 5 things Stewart Johnston has done since becoming CFL commissioner? He's kept an extremely low profile, could be he's nothing more than a MLSE lackey.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 21, 2025, 11:10:40 PMDon't like our great league, no problem. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Can always move down South. Lots of American ball there for you.
I love both leagues? It's the traditionalists who have always threatened to take their ball and go home.
I'll be here either way.
The league is struggling for fan attendance, surely they would leave the rules that make the CFL the CFL alone, as changing those would alienate a very large and loyal fan base that loves the CFL game the way it is.
I am all for strengthening the rules that protect our Qb's as the majority of teams have lost their #1 for some games--look at Montreal, Ottaw and Toronto- going the bulk of their season with inferior Qb's, we've lost our #1 for some games, Harris sat out some. Nobody wants to see a teams #2 Qb playing against a teams #3 Qb, we want the best players on the field. Immediate game ejection and a 1 game suspension for head shots on a Qb that sends him to the tent. That will end it.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 11:05:54 PMFor one, there's a pipeline of NCAA QBs who could theoretically come from college and not spend 3 years learning all the differences?
That's a huge advantage.
We have no quarterbacks in this league as evidenced by the disaster that we sat through in Ottawa. Or did we all forget?
The CFL pipeline of QBs is fine. Using one a tough outing at QB to rationalize it holds no merit imo.
Quote from: dd on September 21, 2025, 11:12:44 PMThe league is struggling for fan attendance, surely they would leave the rules that make the CFL the CFL alone, as changing those would alienate a very large and loyal fan base that loves the CFL game the way it is.
I am all for strengthening the rules that protect our Qb's as the majority of teams have lost their #1 for some games--look at Montreal, Ottaw and Toronto- going the bulk of their season with inferior Qb's, we've lost our #1 for some games, Harris sat out some. Nobody wants to see a teams #2 Qb playing against a teams #3 Qb, we want the best players on the field. Immediate game ejection and a 1 game suspension for head shots on a Qb that sends him to the tent. That will end it.
Agree all, well said.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 21, 2025, 11:13:35 PMThe CFL pipeline of QBs is fine. Using one a tough outing at QB to rationalize it holds no merit imo.Agree all, well said.
It's cool you believe that. I guess we find out if the league owners and executives do too.
Won't have to wait long.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 11:05:54 PMFor one, there's a pipeline of NCAA QBs who could theoretically come from college and not spend 3 years learning all the differences?
That's a huge advantage.
We have no quarterbacks in this league as evidenced by the disaster that we sat through in Ottawa. Or did we all forget?
QBs in the NFL go through the same learning curve without the rule changes.
Quote from: Jesse on September 21, 2025, 11:18:30 PMQBs in the NFL go through the same learning curve without the rule changes.
And we get worse quality prospects and ask them to relearn half the things they've been taught since junior high.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 11:15:57 PMIt's cool you believe that. I guess we find out if the league owners and executives do too.
Won't have to wait long.
Nothing to do with what I believe, it's based on the current talent of starting QBs and backups the league currently has which is decent based on a historical perspective. The leagues QB talent comes and goes but I see an slow up swing in the level of talent over the last few years
My analysis of starters
BC has a world class QB
Toronto Montreal Calgary good to great
Sask great vet
Ottawa very promising young talent who needs to take the next step
Edmonton Wpg mixed bag
Hamilton HOFer one of best ever to sling it
Your statement of having no QBs in this league is simply wrong
Your anti CFL bias (current rules and structure) and anti Canadian talent is well known on here, which you are entitled to but a believe you are in the minority.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 11:19:39 PMAnd we get worse quality prospects and ask them to relearn half the things they've been taught since junior high.
There are countless awesome QBs available each year. They can easily learn. Football is football remember?
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 21, 2025, 11:22:11 PMNothing to do with what I believe, it's based on the current talent of starting QBs and backups the league currently has which is decent based on a historical perspective. The leagues QB talent comes and goes but I see an slow up swing in the level of talent over the last few years
My analysis of starters
BC has a world class QB
Toronto Montreal Calgary good to great
Sask great vet
Ottawa very promising young talent who needs to take the next step
Edmonton Wpg mixed bag
Hamilton HOFer one of best ever to sling it
We'll see what tomorrow brings. Maybe it's nothing major at all... Especially if you're so sure everything is going great.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 11:24:08 PMWe'll see what tomorrow brings. Maybe it's nothing major at all?
We can only hope!!! I'm a little worried if you couldn't tell lol
The league has issues and I don't have all the answers but I sure hope we don't see a major shift.
Never said everything is going great, your words.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 21, 2025, 11:27:15 PMWe can only hope!!! I'm a little worried if you couldn't tell lol
Change is hard.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 11:28:21 PMChange is hard.
I am not a change guy, go figure lol
My hero is Dave Ritchie
Quote from: The Zipp on September 21, 2025, 10:24:43 PMrod pederson:
I'm being told to prepare for an Americanization of the #CFL game beginning in 2026.
Latest:
Rod Pedersen
@rodpedersen
Tweaks for now, then a lot more apparently.
I start watching NFL after the Grey Cup, but I don't really enjoy it nearly as much. I would rather watch CFL teams playing in pre-season than the NFL.
The CFL is older than NFL, the Grey Cup is FAR older than the Super Bowl.
CFL has a long tradition, and if accessing NCAA QB's quicker is your reasoning for abandoning a century of tradition, you've lost me.
Literally.
Elbows up.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 21, 2025, 11:48:06 PMThe CFL is older than NFL, the Grey Cup is FAR older than the Super Bowl.
CFL has a long tradition, and if accessing NCAA QB's quicker is your reasoning for abandoning a century of tradition, you've lost me.
Literally.
Elbows up.
I think obviously the main reason is half the teams are losing money annually and there's been no meaningful growth in two decades but go ahead and be lost, literally.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 21, 2025, 11:51:17 PMI think obviously the main reason is half the teams are losing money annually and there's been no meaningful growth in two decades but go ahead and be lost, literally.
Yup. And changing to 4 downs will bring in all kinds of money... somehow...
Speculation is just that right now, there's all kinds of rumours kicking around.
Personally not a fan of going to 4 downs nor interested in NFL field configurations. I find 4 down football less entertaining.
But we have a gate problem across the league so I'm guessing the decision is weighted against the survival of the league.
I love the NFL.
But it already exists. There's no need to make our league more like it.
The issues that surround our league, the coaching cap, limits on hours that players can practice, limits on padded practices, even the simple schemes, it's all monetary issues. Limits that a smaller league has to work within.
Changing the rules on the field doesn't help any of the things people have a problem with. It certainly doesn't bring in new viewers.
There isn't really anyone thinking they'll move away from three downs next year. There's lots of rumours and 'know a guys', but that one seems pretty clearly not one that's out there. Who knows.
or they could be rope a doping all of us and it will be a partnership with youtube to show the games. they twist this as "changes to the game"...
lots of people talking about the cfl this afternoon and evening. job done
Quote from: The Zipp on September 22, 2025, 12:18:43 AMor they could be rope a doping all of us and it will be a partnership with youtube to show the games. they twist this as "changes to the game"...
lots of people talking about the cfl this afternoon and evening. job done
Could be but the TSN deal runs though 2026 so timing is odd for that.
Well, we've seen how well non-NFL 4 down teams draw...
If you want to improve revenue streams, making the CFL "just another league" makes no sense.
Marketing the differences makes far more sense.
We all know our game is better, regardless the talent.
Market that the last three minutes are the most exciting minutes in sport, no lead is safe, no taking a knee.
Market the "no fair catch", an actual exciting kicking game.
Market the motion, the waggle, 12 players.
Market the field, get a couple of the biggest arms in the NFL and let them try a sideline to sideline pass.
There is so much to celebrate in the CFL game, selling out by capitulating to NFL/NCAA rules will, in my opinion, lose diehard CFL fans without any guarantee of picking up any fans.
Gate problems can be solved with better marketing to local markets. Marketing is not easy, but worth every dollar spent. Hiring some additional promoters at the league office level to get butts in seats would be a great investment of "equalization" money instead of it being a handout.
I'd contend that a 70 cent Canadian dollar is a fairly severe monetary challenge, especially with ELCs as a 70K ELC contract is less than 50K USD, and no one goes to college to make 50K a year.
Am I scared? No. If I don't like the changes I'll simply stop watching. And that should be the biggest concern here. If the new changes don't bring in new fans and loses loyal fan base, the death of the league won't be far behind.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 12:23:12 AMWell, we've seen how well non-NFL 4 down teams draw...
If you want to improve revenue streams, making the CFL "just another league" makes no sense.
Marketing the differences makes far more sense.
We all know our game is better, regardless the talent.
Market that the last three minutes are the most exciting minutes in sport, no lead is safe, no taking a knee.
Market the "no fair catch", an actual exciting kicking game.
Market the motion, the waggle, 12 players.
Market the field, get a couple of the biggest arms in the NFL and let them try a sideline to sideline pass.
There is so much to celebrate in the CFL game, selling out by capitulating to NFL/NCAA rules will, in my opinion, lose diehard CFL fans without any guarantee of picking up any fans.
Gate problems can be solved with better marketing to local markets. Marketing is not easy, but worth every dollar spent. Hiring some additional promoters at the league office level to get butts in seats would be a great investment of "equalization" money instead of it being a handout.
Isn't all of the above the Our Balls Are Bigger campaign?
Two things, that's what they've been doing going back to the 1990s "our balls are bigger" campaign. It hasn't worked.
The second is a real tide change, or understanding in marketing that distinctiveness is more important than differentiation which is straight out of 90s/early 2000 textbooks.
Quote from: BlueInCgy on September 22, 2025, 12:24:44 AMI'd contend that a 70 cent Canadian dollar is a fairly severe monetary challenge, especially with ELCs as a 70K ELC contract is less than 50K USD, and no one goes to college to make 50K a year.
Am I scared? No. If I don't like the changes I'll simply stop watching. And that should be the biggest concern here. If the new changes don't bring in new fans and loses loyal fan base, the death of the league won't be far behind.
How many go to college and never play one down for money? There are literally thousands of NCAA grads who would love to play for money, even $50k. Many play semi-pro ball for a fraction of that.
No one comes to the CFL to make $50k/yr for an extended period. Its a chance to play pro ball, work towards a bigger paycheck in Canada, or even a look from the NFL.
I share your concern of losing the loyal fans the CFL has by selling out.
Quote from: BlueInCgy on September 22, 2025, 12:26:49 AMIsn't all of the above the Our Balls Are Bigger campaign?
One of the best campaigns of all time, if only it were still the case, I'd pick that back up in an instant. You have to love the single entendre.
"Our receivers can go deeper"?
"Longer, wider, more to play with"?
"You want motion? Check out our backfield!"
"Can you count to 12?"
There are so many ways to market to the US.
For Canadian markets, emphasize the "Uniquely Canadian" aspect. Find aspects that we can market to new Canadians, and other things to recapture lost fans.
The league office needs to take the lead, improve the resources the teams have, update the technology, get Hamilton on board...
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 12:49:28 AMOne of the best campaigns of all time, if only it were still the case, I'd pick that back up in an instant. You have to love the single entendre.
"Our receivers can go deeper"?
"Longer, wider, more to play with"?
"You want motion? Check out our backfield!"
"Can you count to 12?"
There are so many ways to market to the US.
For Canadian markets, emphasize the "Uniquely Canadian" aspect. Find aspects that we can market to new Canadians, and other things to recapture lost fans.
The league office needs to take the lead, improve the resources the teams have, update the technology, get Hamilton on board...
you mean the "radically canadian" campaign?
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 12:35:13 AMHow many go to college and never play one down for money? There are literally thousands of NCAA grads who would love to play for money, even $50k. Many play semi-pro ball for a fraction of that.
No one comes to the CFL to make $50k/yr for an extended period. Its a chance to play pro ball, work towards a bigger paycheck in Canada, or even a look from the NFL.
I share your concern of losing the loyal fans the CFL has by selling out.
Yeah but it's a markedly different decision when you move to a different country for it. Exchange rate currency risks, higher travel costs to get home to visit family, etc. it's fairly common to lose money going on the road internationally, I know, I've down it for years and I make well more than most CFL players.
@nielsonTSN1260
The CFL will be stealing the spotlight in Canadian sports tomorrow.
I hope they don't want to make the CFL some sort of USFL crap by changing everything.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 12:35:13 AMHow many go to college and never play one down for money? There are literally thousands of NCAA grads who would love to play for money, even $50k. Many play semi-pro ball for a fraction of that.
No one comes to the CFL to make $50k/yr for an extended period. Its a chance to play pro ball, work towards a bigger paycheck in Canada, or even a look from the NFL.
I share your concern of losing the loyal fans the CFL has by selling out.
It would be colossally dumb for the CFL to alienate the fans that currently attend games and watch their broadcasts, for a younger audience they've never been able to figure out how to attract in the first place.
My initial hunch is toward answering "what happened recently". Stuff like this mid/late-year is usually reactionary. So, what happened recently? Too many bad hits taking out top players. VAJ creamed and not a peep by anyone except me; maybe he's out a few weeks. Zach may be out for good. That "legal" hit on Wheatie might have 4 broken ribs and be out 7 months.
If Zach is done, that would anger MOS into action, and he's part of the rules committee and Mafia has behind the scenes clout. If MOS got Dickenson The Greater on board because of the VAJ hit, then those guys together (with Huffer too) have MAJOR clout.
If the CFL is announcing a "change" tomorrow, then it will be: you can't hit a diving/sliding/moving-toward-the-turf player ever or it's 25Y, auto disqual, full fine, and 2 game suspension. And you can't ever blow up a QB like the SSK guy did to Zach, even if it's not involving helmets. Maybe add in a new defenseless REC rule to protect Wheatie from that hit.
If the CFL is announcing a MAJOR change tomorrow, it will be you can't touch a QB ever. If you want a sack, for the QB (only) it'll be either touch football, flag football or some high-tech touch-sensor thing. The CFL will remove all QB hits and eliminate all concussions and CTE forever, and be the first league to do it.
P.S. The latter plays into our hands because we built our whole D around batdowns, not sacks.
That's my guess.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 21, 2025, 11:11:03 PMAmbrosie wouldn't have gone along with that plan, makes sense they brought in a corporate psychopath to do the dirty work. Can anyone name 5 things Stewart Johnston has done since becoming CFL commissioner? He's kept an extremely low profile, could be he's nothing more than a MLSE lackey.
If a new commish comes in and does something brain dead like change to 4 downs, the field, the waggle, or anything "American" like that, JUST WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS. He's like the new rookie on the field. Sit down, and shut up until you learn what's going on.
And if he's stupid enough to do something drastic and fundamental, then I call shenanigans, because he's not acting alone, he'll have been directed to by Disney, The Destroyer of Brands, who was ultimately his boss at his last job. And I would hope all GMs, HCs -- the whole league -- revolts and simply says "no".
That said, I'm pretty sure the big announcement will have nothing to do with Americanization. Because why would you do that or announce it now with only a few weeks left. Makes zero sense.
Quote from: Jesse on September 21, 2025, 10:39:37 PMOutside of my family/friends, there's not much that I love more than the Bombers and the CFL.
I'm very afraid of being alienated from the thing that I've followed for more than 20 years.
Tru dat, Jesse. I got your back.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 21, 2025, 07:58:54 PMQB protection, the penalties they have in place are inadequate and have not improved the safety of QB's.
Imagine if it's announced this week Zach & VAJ are done for the season... The CFL "show" is instantly diminished.
The commish isn't suicidal, he's too new to come in here and change the Canadian aspects of the game, I agree it's going to be player safety, hits Oman Qbs and defenceless players should go up, losing too many Qbs and the on field product and attendance is suffering.
Hope its player safety related, suspect its amwricanization.
Quote from: dd on September 22, 2025, 03:01:22 AMThe commish isn't suicidal, he's too new to come in here and change the Canadian aspects of the game
Agreed. However, there are some real aaa holes(-in-the-ground) in this world with God complexes, and/or answering to Higher Masters (no, not Jesus... ones with more money).
Let's hope he isn't one of them. Otherwise he's the ultimate manchurian candidate.
How can anyone argue the CFL needs "Americanization" in order to attract new fans to stay financially viable considering we just came off a year where apparently the CFL made so much money they could up the player SMS by $400k?
Both things cannot be true.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 22, 2025, 05:45:07 AMHow can anyone argue the CFL needs "Americanization" in order to attract new fans to stay financially viable considering we just came off a year where apparently the CFL made so much money they could up the player SMS by $400k?
Both things cannot be true.
7 teams lost money
I guess it really depends on what the changes are.
If we become a feeder to the NFL, I would actually like that. It would give me reason to watch the NFL.
The wording is important I think. They said, "Changes to THE GAME" not to "the league". This scares me. It's not an expansion team or a TV contract, its a change to the game itself. I fear the CFL as we know it might be over. I wouldn't be interested in an NFL minor league.
We're expecting the worst but hopefully it's none of the things we really don't want to happen. Fingers are crossed. It's odd timing and suggestive. Badly handled PR IMO regardless of what happens.
Worst waiting game ever.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 21, 2025, 07:04:49 PMI can't see them making a ratio change in regard to number of starters. A possible change in the number of DI's as opposed to back up Canadians but even that is a stretch. I've been promoting +2 DI's and 2 less Canadians but I'm an outlier.
If it was affordable ( it's not ) I'd just say add 2 more DI's and keep everything else the same.
Please no fair catch or eliminating changing K/O's to NFL type rules.
I don't like the one division play off idea that has been discussed for a few years.
IMO we may have more safety checks from EITS and more severe penalties if they occur?
Can any of this be done and implemented with 4 games left?
They can't make ratio changes without the union's consent.
To me a fundamental change would be addressing the use of excessive force on any player. This last weekend was a showcase of potential career ending hits.
This would be eliminating shoulder as well as helmet hits.forcing tacklers to wrap up and tackle properly.
I'm all for moving forward, so long as the game changing changes don't change the game...
Announce a major change for tomorrow. Fan bases spend a day debating which changes would be good and bad. Have the data to see if the change will go over big before the announcement. Change the announcement if needed.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 22, 2025, 03:00:29 PMAnnounce a major change for tomorrow. Fan bases spend a day debating which changes would be good and bad. Have the data to see if the change will go over big before the announcement. Change the announcement if needed.
Here's the thing.
Any changes announced will have had to be vetted by owners and execs first.
You can't make these changes "on the fly" based on social media reaction.
That said, you can announce that you have a laundry list of ideas, and want to engage the fans in the debate/decision, and put out a survey to gauge fan support for the new ideas, and then based on that, come up with a plan that the execs/owners then vote on to approve. Sort of a large scale focus group.
But leaving it up to social media to give recommendations got us Boaty McBoatface, so I'm not sure that's the optimal route.
Thanks for the votes and responses
The masses have spoken
"I'm being told to prepare for an Americanization of the CFL game beginning in 2026," former Saskatchewan Roughriders play-by-play voice and now sports talk host Rod Pederson posted.
Quote from: Waffler on September 22, 2025, 03:36:39 PM"I'm being told to prepare for an Americanization of the CFL game beginning in 2026," former Saskatchewan Roughriders play-by-play voice and now sports talk host Rod Pederson posted.
Rod Pederson is human garbage.
Quote from: peg_city on September 22, 2025, 12:29:03 PMI guess it really depends on what the changes are.
If we become a feeder to the NFL, I would actually like that. It would give me reason to watch the NFL.
but why would the NFL want a feeder league that doesn't play their rules?
Quote from: peg_city on September 22, 2025, 12:28:21 PM7 teams lost money
If they have solid data on how "Americanizing" the game will increase revenues, I'd give it an honest look. And I would not fault owners/execs from doing so as well.
I do hope, however, that the revenue calculations include lost viewers/fans as well as gained viewers/fans. Messing with 100years of tradition is going to lose people, for sure. The gains have to outweigh the losses, and the gains have to be long term, because the losses were.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 04:01:59 PMIf they have solid data on how "Americanizing" the game will increase revenues...
They won't have any such data. Becoming NFL Jr. is not the answer.
What I'd like to see is salaries capped by position. You'd see a lot less player movement this way. It would help build fan loyalty by familiarity. Lawler for example, he's ours, not ours, ours again and now not ours.
Quote from: Waffler on September 22, 2025, 04:09:03 PMWhat I'd like to see is salaries capped by position. You'd see a lot less player movement this way. It would help build fan loyalty by familiarity. Lawler for example, he's ours, not ours, ours again and now not ours.
I don't think that would be legal or make any actual difference. Every team spends money a little differently. Depends on who you have or try to get. In the end the SMS is the SMS.
Argos being sold?
Quote from: Waffler on September 22, 2025, 04:09:03 PMWhat I'd like to see is salaries capped by position. You'd see a lot less player movement this way. It would help build fan loyalty by familiarity. Lawler for example, he's ours, not ours, ours again and now not ours.
A per player cap would be appropriate. A QB making $700k+ while the best MLB makes 1/3 that is kind of unfortunate.
Maybe a player cap based on veteran status, the longer you are here the more you can make? Doesn't mean Jake gets a raise, but he'd have the highest potential salary. Players coming off ELC's wouldn't be able to break the bank, as all teams would have the same number they could match.
Live stream:
https://www.cfl.ca/2025/09/21/commissioners-press-conference/
Quote from: gobombersgo on September 22, 2025, 04:54:22 PMArgos being sold?
Gretzky, Chris Candy and Bruce McNall buying them?
The doink
No more rouge for missed FGs would get my vote.
Goalposts being moved to the back of the endzone starting in 2027.
Endzones being shortened from 20 yards to 15 yards deep.
Field being shortened from 110 yards to 100 yards.
No changes to field width.
NFL style clock. Finally.
Playclock changes: 35 seconds automatic - no more 20 second clock initiated by officials.
Team benches on opposite sides of all CFL venues.
No more missed FG rouge. No more punt-through-endzone rouge.
Love that.
Rogues are basically gone. Only if the ball ends up in the end zone and stays there.
Second big mystery of the season, first was the $500k SMS bump they threw into the pot around FA with no explanation, wonder if they're somehow related? Could have been an "incentive" from the NFL to make the CFL pliable to the direction they want them to go.
(https://i.imgur.com/KGG2Z3G.png)
This sets up for a very interesting 2027 CBA negotiation. Just my two cents but I don't think it will stop here.
League owners say, "status quo is unacceptable," says the Commish. I think it's the start not the end.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExb2V6M3c3ajVya2Z0Zzg2NHYyb2RjYmtieWZweGd1eW92ZWpibnVuMCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/whO6p5CeEXiheq9PfQ/giphy.gif)
Commissioner refuses to say the league won't go to 4 downs in the future. A reporter asked him to guarantee that. He didn't.
I don't mind the goal posts being moved back. It never made sense to have the goal posts in the field of play.The Bombers might not have won the western final in 2019 if not for Fajardo hitting the goal post on a pass in the fourth quarter.
i like the changes , currently the 20 second clock seems arbitrary at times.. my question is in the last 3 minutes how does the clock stop . allowing 35 seconds to be run off will cut the number of plays I wouldnt want to see that currently its the most exciting time in the game
the posts moving back is very good and should have been done sooner
the rouge is over reacted to. Its not a big deal in my opinion.
the shortened field..im not sure about.
its about time we had a commissioner make thoughtout moves vs the previous one
Great.
A bunch of changes that don't improve the game, just make it more similar to the NFL.
Very encouraged. Phased in approach. After listening carefully, I'd say that more changes are being considered and they'll move on them if they're encouraged by growth.
Super interesting that he refused to say both that 4 downs would never be considered and also that there was not a single rule that was unchangeable.
Reporters gave him a platform to offer that and he passed on both questions.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 05:22:09 PMCommissioner refuses to say the league won't go to 4 downs in the future. A reporter asked him to guarantee that. He didn't.
Did not like that non-answer. At all.
If the CFL ever adds an extra down, I am done.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 05:27:25 PMVery encouraged. Phased in approach. After listening carefully, I'd say that more changes are being considered and they'll move on them if they're encouraged by growth.
Super interesting that he refused to say both that 4 downs would never be considered and also that there was not a single rule that was unchangeable.
Reporters gave him a platform to offer that and he passed on both questions.
How are any of these changes going to improve growth? The USFL does some of this and can hardly get 10K fans in most stadiums.
slow drip change to four down football.
Definitely would decrease my level of interest. A lot.
And will not convince my thirty year old "NFL is better" nephews to follow the CFL.
Why would they, or anyone watch a second rate NFL?
The idea that all we need to do is add a fourth down, to increase fan interest is comically stupid.
Turns out hiring someone from a not very good sports network might not be a good idea.
OK, not a huge fan of the rouge change. The "reward for failure" is a dog that just don't hunt. Its just a different way to score. Keeping it for a modified safety is a compromise we have to live with I guess.
Keeping the width the same is great, but not sure how eastern teams are going to accommodate 2 sidelines with the width the same.
15 yd endzones I can deal with, the removal of the goal posts might actually make the end zones bigger.
100 yd instead of 110, I guess it makes MTL and TOR fields the same as others, although it might make TOR put a little more real grass into play. The truncated corners in MTL though, I can live without.
But this does make a lot of asterisks. Max return TD is 114 yds now. I guess FG's will now be spot +15 yds to maintain the records.
Did they say where kickoffs would be kicked from? Guessing the 20...
Good catch on the sideline and width thing, Aardvark.
I guess the thing there is stay tuned. The arguments have already been made for goal posts is the same as what can be used for width.
Fans closer to the action, better sidelines etc etc. or "fans loved being way closer to the action with the goal posts" and so moving in the width is simply listening. Maybe that's a 2027 press conference for 2028.
I think exciting days are ahead and if fans keep an open mind and understand that the product can be way better than it is, you'll end up liking it.
Rouge is now a 1 point touchback. Precision punting becomes huge. When you punt instead of going for a FG, now you need to land it in the EZ, no further. Sheahan is going to excel...
Quote from: markf on September 22, 2025, 05:51:32 PMTurns out hiring someone from a not very good sports network might not be a good idea.
It's all about money for guys like him. Everything else comes second - and it's a distant second, to be sure.
But at least he sprinkled in some anecdotes of his time playing football back in high school nearly 40 years ago. Those were useful. /s
???
If it results in us becoming a feeder league to the NFL, then yes.
I won't be surprised if this results in an CFL/UFL merger.
Nope. Not one of the changes looks to improve the game and in fact some take away some of the most significant aspects.
How many recent games were decided by last second game winning FG's this season? Add 15 yards to every one of those attempts and tell me whether any of them would have been made? Obviously some last second FG's come from much closer but often the are hope and a prayer to make a long one.
In many instances a team will try a very long FG. Some will succeed while many will fail. Castillo kicked a 63 yard one this season and made it. Now that same attempt is 78 yards!!! Whether it's a game winner or just a long attempt to score is important in the excitement of the CFL.
I'd select meh if it were an option.
Quote from: peg_city on September 22, 2025, 06:13:51 PMIf it results in us becoming a feeder league to the NFL, then yes.
I won't be surprised if this results in an CFL/UFL merger.
Yeah right. The 7 players that went to the NFL in their option year will increase to 9 that won't succeed. The NFL already has USA college and USFL as feeder leagues.
I'm surprised the USFL will continue playing in 2026. What advantage would a merger be with that phoenix?
I never thought it made sense to have the goal posts in the field of play. I don't mind the rule about not getting a single point if the ball goes through the endzone untouched.I am not so crazy about taking away the single point for a missed field goal. It will eliminate exciting plays like Vaval's returns this past weekend.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 06:00:26 PMRouge is now a 1 point touchback. Precision punting becomes huge. When you punt instead of going for a FG, now you need to land it in the EZ, no further. Sheahan is going to excel...
Don't think it will change the punting strategy, they don't want it to go in the endzone as it costs them a point, and moves the ball to the 40 yd if not returned.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 22, 2025, 06:03:58 PMIt's all about money for guys like him. Everything else comes second - and it's a distant second, to be sure.
But at least he sprinkled in some anecdotes of his time playing football back in high school nearly 40 years ago. Those were useful. /s
It's not inconceivable that there is some kind of back burner plan/hope to get NFL team in Toronto.
That actually explains this fairly well.
Then the rest of the league can just fold . Which appears to be ok with some owners. When you read about the lack of owner interest in their own teams in some cities. Would the billionaire owners of the stamps care if the league folded? Specially if they got to own part of an NFL team in Toronto?
If it's all about the money, NFL is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
My guess is "all options are on the table"
The shortening of the endzone will also eliminate a lot of chaos that occurs within the longer field, receivers will be more constrained to running their routes and won't have as much space to improvise.
Yes and keep them coming. :)
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 22, 2025, 06:03:58 PMIt's all about money for guys like him. Everything else comes second - and it's a distant second, to be sure.
But at least he sprinkled in some anecdotes of his time playing football back in high school nearly 40 years ago. Those were useful. /s
I would actually be ok with this all if he or anyone else could please draw a line from the dot where these changes are made and the dot where more money is realized.
The changes are one thing and as much as I hate that we are making most of these changes, I'll keep an open mind (I don't really have a choice). But the "why" is what I do not understand. I don't believe that any of these make the game significantly better, and definitely don't see how any of them will make the CFL more palatable to current non-CFL football fans.
Until someone can show me how these modifications lead to a healthier and more robust league, this all looks like change for the sake of change. I've never heard an NFL fan say, "Oh man, the NFL is so dope b/c the endzones are like smaller"
Quote from: markf on September 22, 2025, 06:37:53 PMIt's not inconceivable that there is some kind of back burner plan/hope to get NFL team in Toronto.
That actually explains this fairly well.
Then the rest of the league can just fold . Which appears to be ok with some owners. When you read about the lack of owner interest in their own teams in some cities.
If it's all about the money, NFL is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
My guess is "all options are on the table"
That only helps out one group unless MLSE is going to award shares to the other owners.
I think they should make it a live ball when any ball strikes a goalpost from a field goal attempt or a punt and comes back into the field of play (including the end zone). Very unpredictable situation which could lead to exciting plays.
Hurts minor football programs from using CFL stadiums.
Barf!!! Hate all the proposed changes all they are trying to do is Americanize our game, even the timing changes are how the Americans time the game, there's nothing wrong with our current version of the game, leave the deeper end zone, leave the 110 yd field. The goal posts could be moved to back of end zone for player safety but there's no returning a missed field goal and that would mean vavals Td run wouldn't have happened this past game, and everyone wants this?? Leave the rouge as is, one point is scored if you don't get a kicked ball out of your end zone. The Americans don't give up a point and look how absolutely boring their kicking game is.
Boooo to all the proposed changes!!
If they'd narrowed the field, or gone to 11 players, no, no way. I'd hate them.
These changes do clean up the endzones, make the fields standard east or west. Rouge change, not a huge fan of, but its going to mean a lot more accurate placement punting and K/O's after penalties.
Clock, have to see how it affects tempo plays and personnel changes. With two sidelines, that's going to reduce the personnel change issue a bit, and we will have to see how injuries affect it, maybe have it become a 20 second clock blown in by the ref after the injured player is removed from play.
Quote from: blue_or_die on September 22, 2025, 06:41:15 PMI would actually be ok with this all if he or anyone else could please draw a line from the dot where these changes are made and the dot where more money is realized.
He can't. Nobody can. The complex nature of the CFL's financial health doesn't hinge on a handful of changes like those announced today.
But he and his ilk can say they tried should this not work out as they want. And then they can skirt accountability down the road as these types so often do.
Quote from: Ridermania on September 22, 2025, 06:55:43 PMHurts minor football programs from using CFL stadiums.
If you watched, he said it is going to be 2027 so that partners can make changes as well.
If anything, it helps minor ball, allowing them to make regulation CFL fields easier. And I can see the FG post move helping minor ball a lot.
The whole idea is to make the game more streamlined, more consistant and more exciting. And by doing so, make it more attractive to fans.
Making it less "weird" (rouge, 20yd EZ, 55 yd line, FG posts on the goal line) makes it more sellable south of the border as well. Its still 3 down, its still 50% deeper EZ and wider field with 12 players, so it has its unique flavour, but without that bitter aftertaste... "they won on a missed FG? ***?"
Never liked American football, never will. I have been following the Blue Bombers for over 60 years. This will end it.
The upside is more time to go golfing.
Quote from: markf on September 22, 2025, 05:51:32 PMslow drip change to four down football.
Definitely would decrease my level of interest. A lot.
And will not convince my thirty year old "NFL is better" nephews to follow the CFL.
Why would they, or anyone watch a second rate NFL?
The idea that all we need to do is add a fourth down, to increase fan interest is comically stupid.
Turns out hiring someone from a not very good sports network might not be a good idea.
Agree
My kids (who are in their 20's) follow the NFL avidly and will only come to a bomber game with me if I ask nicely and they feel sorry for me. They are bored at the game, and spend much of their time on their phones. This will not change that.
I can live with the current changes, but if they go to 4 downs, its stops being the game I grew up with and love. They are banking on existing fans sticking with the game regardless of the changes, but they may be in for a surprise. Would I still still follow the bombers if they became a team playing American football in Canada against other Canadian teams? I'm not sure at this point.
Quote from: Justin Case on September 22, 2025, 07:11:03 PMNever liked American football, never will. I have been following the Blue Bombers for over 60 years. This will end it.
The upside is more time to go golfing.
I was anticipating echoing your sentiments, but actually, other than the rouge, I kinda like the changes.
The FG interfering with exit and entrance to the EZ, especially on passing plays in and punting out always bothered me. It seemed like an unnecessary impediment when you looked at NFL fields. But I guess 100+ years ago, it made sense.
Making every field the same, putting teams on opposite sidelines and no funky EZs in MTL and TOR where is the negative? Its not like baseball where the green monster is stupid and adored.
Having a completely different substitution procedure whether you are playing in the east or west was stupid. Guessing some seating is going to be moved in eastern venues.
35 second clock, I'm not 100% sure of, we will see next year in preseason how it works (I'm sure that's the scheduled trial run for it).
Could have been a huge amount worse, this looks like its just cleaning up the game around the edges.
Now, lets improve marketing, expand EITS, both their resources in booth and on field, and straighten out this marketing money $SMS crap, and remove or greatly increase the Front Office $SMS.
Quote from: Justin Case on September 22, 2025, 07:11:03 PMThe upside is more time to go golfing.
I think you misspelled fishing.
so shortening the end zone and field and pushing the goal posts to the end zone dead line, means Vaval doesn't do the 110 yd missed FG TD run, and everyone wants to miss that?? What a complete and total shame!!
Quote from: bwiser on September 22, 2025, 06:24:23 PMI never thought it made sense to have the goal posts in the field of play. I don't mind the rule about not getting a single point if the ball goes through the endzone untouched.I am not so crazy about taking away the single point for a missed field goal. It will eliminate exciting plays like Vaval's returns this past weekend.
I am not crazy about pushing the goal posts back to the dead line and shortening the end zone, as this eliminates the potential for a return on a missed FG, so Vaval couldn't have done his magic this past weekend. That would be a total shame. Putting the goal posts to the back of the end zone means you don't have to cover on a FG, just kick it through.
Shortening the end zone means it will be tougher to score when you get down close ie 10 yd line, you'll have less area to work with
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 07:10:22 PMThe whole idea is to make the game more streamlined, more consistant and more exciting. And by doing so, make it more attractive to fans.
Making it less "weird" (rouge, 20yd EZ, 55 yd line, FG posts on the goal line) makes it more sellable south of the border as well. Its still 3 down, its still 50% deeper EZ and wider field with 12 players, so it has its unique flavour, but without that bitter aftertaste... "they won on a missed FG? ***?"
Also eliminate, "they won on a missed FG return for 118 yds!"
These proposed changes will alienate the older, loyal fans such as myself. I am totally disappointed we are even having this conversation, it s the death of the CFL as we know it.!!
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 07:10:22 PMThe whole idea is to make the game more streamlined, more consistant and more exciting. And by doing so, make it more attractive to fans.
So how did they achieve that? What was not streamlined or consistent, and what about the modifications made the game more streamlined and consistent? What about these changes makes the game more exciting?
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 07:10:22 PM"they won on a missed FG? ***?"
No, they won because they were awarded a single point for driving the field to the point where it was possible to get the ball past the field of play.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 22, 2025, 07:32:32 PMAlso eliminate, they won on a missed FG return for 118 yds.
And we wouldn't have beaten Ottawa this past weekend as that Vaval return was a game changer for sure
Yep, lets take the most exciting play of that game and eliminate it!! Well done Johnson!!!
Did they change where converts are kicked from? If not, then they just became 15 yards longer.
I like the change to the rouge, I've been suggesting it for years.
No need or advantage to changing to a 100 yard field.
Nice to see all end zones the same size.
One of the most exciting plays in the CFL is the return off of the missed FG. I'm sorry to see it go. (We'd have lost the last game).
The most exciting part of most CFL games is the last 3 minutes when the clock is stopped. They should keep it.
We will finally find out if it's been the rules that are keeping the younger generation away from the stadiums. Hint: It's not.
To those throwing shade at the commissioner: This was signed off on by every member of the executive. The commissioner works for the group. They are Stuart's boss and not the other way around.
The Bombers have had a lot of success and the CFL in its current form works for us but unless you'd like to play Saskatchewan 12 times a year it's time to understand that the change is necessary.
Quote from: dd on September 22, 2025, 07:26:53 PMso shortening the end zone and field and pushing the goal posts to the end zone dead line, means Vaval doesn't do the 110 yd missed FG TD run, and everyone wants to miss that?? What a complete and total shame!!
Well maybe it it comes down 5 yards shorter and still wide. It still has to miss going through the uprights. I thought he caught the ball very deep. What was the official distance given on his return? That will answer this example.
If it's more than 110 yards then it wouldn't have been returned.
I think it was 128 yards
Quote from: bunker on September 22, 2025, 08:39:53 PMI think it was 128 yards
That's what I thought, very deep in the 20 yard end zone. My initial reaction was we should have given up a point, noting that would no longer be applicable either.
Vaval nearly got tackled a couple of times at about the 5 yard line. We've seen players make the decision to come out and get tackled just over the goal line. Sometimes that pays off and sometimes it doesn't.
Quote from: dd on September 22, 2025, 07:34:57 PMThese proposed changes will alienate the older, loyal fans such as myself. I am totally disappointed we are even having this conversation, it s the death of the CFL as we know it.!!
You really think that?
Quote from: dd on September 22, 2025, 07:26:53 PMso shortening the end zone and field and pushing the goal posts to the end zone dead line, means Vaval doesn't do the 110 yd missed FG TD run, and everyone wants to miss that?? What a complete and total shame!!
Yes, the missed FG return basically becomes extinct, except on a total shank or partial block.
But the opened up EZ means the Extra man has the full EZ to take advantage of and should make more exciting red zone plays. Which is a huge upgrade on the occasional missed FG return.
Quote from: GOLDMEMBER on September 22, 2025, 08:49:26 PMYou really think that?
I don't disagree with that comment.
I think it too. Change for change's sake. I am the new guy and look what I did. I HATE this commissioner now. Always will.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 22, 2025, 08:45:16 PMThat's what I thought, very deep in the 20 yard end zone. My initial reaction was we should have given up a point, noting that would no longer be applicable either.
Vaval nearly got tackled a couple of times at about the 5 yard line. We've seen players make the decision to come out and get tackled just over the goal line. Sometimes that pays off and sometimes it doesn't.
You nailed it, the more predictable the game the less exciting, the CFL has to realize sanding the character out of a piece of wood does not make it more interesting.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 22, 2025, 08:52:04 PMI don't disagree with that comment.
So you are out after this season?
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 22, 2025, 06:16:35 PMI'd select meh if it were an option.
I am in the meh camp as well.
Quote from: dd on September 22, 2025, 07:30:52 PMI am not crazy about pushing the goal posts back to the dead line and shortening the end zone, as this eliminates the potential for a return on a missed FG, so Vaval couldn't have done his magic this past weekend. That would be a total shame. Putting the goal posts to the back of the end zone means you don't have to cover on a FG, just kick it through.
Shortening the end zone means it will be tougher to score when you get down close ie 10 yd line, you'll have less area to work with
Taking the goal posts out of the way might actually open up the EZ more for plays, although it means Fajardo's "Doink" doesn't happen...
I think we need to see how these play out.
The 35 second clock concerns me, especially in the final 3 most exciting minutes in football. Maybe make the game clock start clicking down at 20 inside the final 3 min, and not at all on OB or Incomplete passes...
I saw that the field changes happen in 2027, but the rouge and clock are 2026? Changing the rouge before changing the FG position doesn't make sense...
Quote from: Waffler on September 22, 2025, 08:55:34 PMI think it too. Change for change's sake. I am the new guy and look what I did. I HATE this commissioner now. Always will.
He's a willing psychopath, in his eyes he believes he does good. Wonder if he'll show his face at Grey Cup?
I have been a season ticket holder for over 40 years. It's the unique things about the CFL that bring me to games. All these changes eliminate or diminish the uniqueness. I am absolutely livid and will no longer be a Bomber fan or a CFL fan if these changes are implemented.
Out with the rouge - I'm OK with that, especially on missed FGs. Rewarding failure was never a good thing.
35s clock - we'll see, have to experience it first in a CFL environment
Opposite benches - no brainer
End zone size - fixes problems in a couple of stadiums though that's also accomplished by shortening the fields.
Moving the uprights- hate it
Shortening the field - hate it
I suspect my interest in the CFL will likely wane because of the last two, which will result in me not spending 12 hours a week watching the product. I guess 2027 will be the test.
Rourke:
Nathan Rourke started off a conversation about his impression of CFL rule changes with a "How much time do we have?" and then got even more fired up from there.
"The new rule changes are garbage," the B.C. Lions quarterback said after practice Monday ...
"I grew up watching the CFL and loving the game. I grew up in Ontario and played Canadian rules all my life. I was aware of the league down there and was a fan of it, but I was a fan of the CFL because of its differences. I went down to the States, proud of the game and explaining the differences — the waggle, the yard off the ball, the extra person. These are the things that are unique about the game. The rule changes make it sound like we want to be like that league down south. In recent history, leagues that have tried to be like the NFL haven't existed very long. The CFL has existed for longer than the NFL and there's a reason for that. The fans love it."
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nfl/bc-lions-qb-nathan-rourke-the-new-rule-changes-are-garbage/ar-AA1N5aeq
One of the stupider things about trying to be more like the NFL is how the current NFL offences are more like the CFL, which they have done to increase excitement. Scrambling, running quarterbacks are all in style there now.
And pre snap motion, one coach even said, trying to borrow CFL type motion as much as they can with their rules.
Both CFL staples forever.
Players and coaches were not consulted. Arrogant move.
Quote from: GOLDMEMBER on September 22, 2025, 09:04:32 PMSo you are out after this season?
No I'm not but this may be another nail in the coffin for the CFL long term. I think moving the goal posts and shorter end zone will take away some special return plays we see now. The rouge is part of our game and any modification adds nothing to improve things.
I don't have a count for 2025 but how many games were won by last play FG's and would they have been made if the goal posts were moved back. Some of those last second FG's were from distance and others were not.
goalposts - good move
shorter field - why bother
35 sec clock ; im ok with it except in the last three minutes. The cfl game is much more exciting in the last 3 minutes than the nfl where its much easier to run out the clock.
rouge - no big deal
bench move - good move
I think the shorter field will have a bigger impact on kicking game, with less returns which is a very exciting part of cdn football as we saw on the weekend
To summarize the changes (https://www.cfl.ca/2025/09/22/tradition-meets-innovation-cfl-announces-major-changes-to-the-game/):
* End-zones shortened to 15 yards from 20 yards
* Goalposts moved to the back of the endzone (meaning all FG attempt have an extra 22 yards tacked onto them [15 yards + 7 yards from line-of-scrimmage to kicking location] instead of the 7 it is today)
* Field shrunk to 100 yards from 110, meaning no more 55-yard line
* No more single point for missed FGs that goes wide of the goal posts (that's too bad; I always liked the "There, there. You get a point for trying!")
* No more single point that when a punt or kickoff rolls out the endzone or out the sides of the endzone (only a returner taking a knee in the endzone results in a single point)
* 35-second play clock that starts as soon as the previous play is whistled dead, instead of a 20-second play clock that starts when referee manually whistles it in
* Teams will now have their benches on opposite side of the field, rather than sometimes both being on the same side of the field but different ends of it
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 22, 2025, 09:41:38 PMI don't have a count for 2025 but how many games were won by last play FG's and would they have been made if the goal posts were moved back. Some of those last second FG's were from distance and others were not.
So far this season it's between 10-14. I haven't gone through the line scores but there have been 14 games with a score differential of 3 or less. There have been 3 games in the last 2 weeks settled on the last kick.
Quote from: markf on September 22, 2025, 09:37:25 PMRourke:
Nathan Rourke started off a conversation about his impression of CFL rule changes with a "How much time do we have?" and then got even more fired up from there.
"The new rule changes are garbage," the B.C. Lions quarterback said after practice Monday ...
"I grew up watching the CFL and loving the game. I grew up in Ontario and played Canadian rules all my life. I was aware of the league down there and was a fan of it, but I was a fan of the CFL because of its differences. I went down to the States, proud of the game and explaining the differences — the waggle, the yard off the ball, the extra person. These are the things that are unique about the game. The rule changes make it sound like we want to be like that league down south. In recent history, leagues that have tried to be like the NFL haven't existed very long. The CFL has existed for longer than the NFL and there's a reason for that. The fans love it."
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nfl/bc-lions-qb-nathan-rourke-the-new-rule-changes-are-garbage/ar-AA1N5aeq
One of the stupider things about trying to be more like the NFL is how the current NFL offences are more like the CFL, which they have done to increase excitement. Scrambling, running quarterbacks are all in style there now.
And pre snap motion, one coach even said, trying to borrow CFL type motion as much as they can with their rules.
Both CFL staples forever.
Players and coaches were not consulted. Arrogant move.
The FANS were not consulted!!! This is going to blow up in his bald smug face!!!
I 've followed the CFL since 1975, and I have never been this upset with the leagues commissioner, ever. And I don't think I am alone. There will be fans staying away from the stadiums if these changes go through no doubt about it. Do they have what the forecasted economical impact of these changes will bring to the league??
Quote from: markf on September 22, 2025, 09:37:25 PMRourke:
Nathan Rourke started off a conversation about his impression of CFL rule changes with a "How much time do we have?" and then got even more fired up from there.
"The new rule changes are garbage," the B.C. Lions quarterback said after practice Monday ...
"I grew up watching the CFL and loving the game. I grew up in Ontario and played Canadian rules all my life. I was aware of the league down there and was a fan of it, but I was a fan of the CFL because of its differences. I went down to the States, proud of the game and explaining the differences — the waggle, the yard off the ball, the extra person. These are the things that are unique about the game. The rule changes make it sound like we want to be like that league down south. In recent history, leagues that have tried to be like the NFL haven't existed very long. The CFL has existed for longer than the NFL and there's a reason for that. The fans love it."
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nfl/bc-lions-qb-nathan-rourke-the-new-rule-changes-are-garbage/ar-AA1N5aeq
One of the stupider things about trying to be more like the NFL is how the current NFL offences are more like the CFL, which they have done to increase excitement. Scrambling, running quarterbacks are all in style there now.
And pre snap motion, one coach even said, trying to borrow CFL type motion as much as they can with their rules.
Both CFL staples forever.
Players and coaches were not consulted. Arrogant move.
They are kowtowing to Toronto and MLSE with that one rule change of the smaller endzones. What a surprise! ::)
When Toronto moved to BMO Field, the endzones were only 17 or 18 yards long. I guess the rest of the league needs to be accommodating to the Argos and MLSE and shorten their endzones. ::)
For all of you that sit in the endzones, you will be 30 feet further away from the back of the endzones (20 yard shorter fields * 3 feet divided by 2)...oh and with the field goal posts at the back of the endzones I guess there will be more of an obstruction for a select group of people that sit back there in the direct line of the sight of the posts.
Hurray!
the 35 second clock means there will be fewer chances for a late game comeback - a team can burn off 35 seconds plus another 5 seconds on the play inside the 3 minute warning whereas before it was 20 seconds plus another 5 seconds for the actual play. This means fewer plays it kill the clock.
Say goodbye to missed field goals returned for TDs or at the very least big returns now that the posts will be located at the back of the endzone. Special teams are far more exciting in the CFL than the NFL because the field goal posts are located at the front of the endzone...that, along with the no fair catch rule. Special teams and the CFL will be a little less exciting now.
THe only good rule changes are the modified rouge and having teams on opposite sides of the field..although this latter rule change will hurt teams at the gate given there a few that have fans pay a premium to sit at field level on the opposite side of the field from the players. That will be gone now.
Quote from: dd on September 22, 2025, 09:53:32 PMThe FANS were not consulted!!! This is going to blow up in his bald smug face!!!
I 've followed the CFL since 1975, and I have never been this upset with the leagues commissioner, ever. And I don't think I am alone. There will be fans staying away from the stadiums if these changes go through no doubt about it. Do they have what the forecasted economical impact of these changes will bring to the league??
Following on Reddit where there is an active cfl community..... these changes are very unpopular.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 22, 2025, 08:51:26 PMYes, the missed FG return basically becomes extinct, except on a total shank or partial block.
But the opened up EZ means the Extra man has the full EZ to take advantage of and should make more exciting red zone plays. Which is a huge upgrade on the occasional missed FG return.
How is taking away 2, 3 inch posts is going to open up the middle of the EZ? There's maybe 1 or 2 times a year that it matters.
Wow, good on Nathan Rourke for speaking his mind and tearing a strip off of the Commissioner. I was never a big fan of Nathan but heck I am now!!
The proposed new rule changes really diminished the importance and role special teams play in the CFL game. Special teams have always been an exciting aspect of our game, and we're working towards eliminating it. Colossal mistake.
It's risk vs reward. The risk is pissing off the fans that are keeping the lights on. The reward is bringing some new folks in who didn't watch the CFL because of the rules. IMO, the first group is much larger than the second.
Nice to see the passion and if a young star that have played in both leagues doesn't like these rules then it really shows it's exactly what he said they were, garbage.
The length of the field will result in less kick off returns.
They took 10 yards off the field, so KO's that currently land at the 10 will be on the goal line. The end-zone is now 15 yards & if the ball goes through the end-zone, 0 points. Returners can let it bounce & it will go out the back.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 08:25:56 PMTo those throwing shade at the commissioner: This was signed off on by every member of the executive. The commissioner works for the group. They are Stuart's boss and not the other way around.
The Bombers have had a lot of success and the CFL in its current form works for us but unless you'd like to play Saskatchewan 12 times a year it's time to understand that the change is necessary.
Ask Nathan, doesn't sounds like any consultation at all. Typical top down corporate decision about $.
It's clear you want American ball in Canada and have been pushing that for a long time. I believe you are in the minority here. Tough spot as the league needs to adapt but I don't favor the direction we are headed.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 22, 2025, 10:27:58 PMThe length of the field will result in less kick off returns.
They took 10 yards off the field, so KO's that currently land at the 10 will be on the goal line. The end-zone is now 15 yards & if the ball goes through the end-zone, 0 points. Returners can let it bounce & it will go out the back.
Gets me so mad. We just became the kinda fun league and soon to be no fun.
This also explains the Luke Willson experience...
Telling us all about the shortcomings of the CFL.
The extreme unpopularity off that stuff should have given them a clue.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 22, 2025, 10:27:58 PMThe length of the field will result in less kick off returns.
They took 10 yards off the field, so KO's that currently land at the 10 will be on the goal line. The end-zone is now 15 yards & if the ball goes through the end-zone, 0 points. Returners can let it bounce & it will go out the back.
Good point, preferable choice for the receiving team as most returns would be hard pressed to reach their own 40. This will encourage shorter/higher kickoffs with backspin to avoid kicking it into the endzone, also easier to cover.
[/quote]
Quote from: markf on September 22, 2025, 09:37:25 PMRourke:
Nathan Rourke started off a conversation about his impression of CFL rule changes with a "How much time do we have?" and then got even more fired up from there.
"The new rule changes are garbage," the B.C. Lions quarterback said after practice Monday ...
"I grew up watching the CFL and loving the game. I grew up in Ontario and played Canadian rules all my life. I was aware of the league down there and was a fan of it, but I was a fan of the CFL because of its differences. I went down to the States, proud of the game and explaining the differences — the waggle, the yard off the ball, the extra person. These are the things that are unique about the game. The rule changes make it sound like we want to be like that league down south. In recent history, leagues that have tried to be like the NFL haven't existed very long. The CFL has existed for longer than the NFL and there's a reason for that. The fans love it."
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nfl/bc-lions-qb-nathan-rourke-the-new-rule-changes-are-garbage/ar-AA1N5aeq
One of the stupider things about trying to be more like the NFL is how the current NFL offences are more like the CFL, which they have done to increase excitement. Scrambling, running quarterbacks are all in style there now.
And pre snap motion, one coach even said, trying to borrow CFL type motion as much as they can with their rules.
Both CFL staples forever.
Players and coaches were not consulted. Arrogant move.
I just gained a whole lot more respect for Rourke. Good for him airing his displeasure. He's bang on! "That league down south"...lol
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 05:58:18 PMGood catch on the sideline and width thing, Aardvark.
I guess the thing there is stay tuned. The arguments have already been made for goal posts is the same as what can be used for width.
Fans closer to the action, better sidelines etc etc. or "fans loved being way closer to the action with the goal posts" and so moving in the width is simply listening. Maybe that's a 2027 press conference for 2028.
I think exciting days are ahead and if fans keep an open mind and understand that the product can be way better than it is, you'll end up liking it.
I don't see anything that can change the product for the better though. These are cosmetic things that make it look more American. That's it.
Quote from: TrueBlue75 on September 22, 2025, 11:09:17 PMI just gained a whole lot more respect for Rourke. Good for him airing his displeasure. He's bang on! "That league down south"...lol
New favourite player.
Rourke might not be the most neutral mind on this given he spent all his energy trying to make it in that league and not succeeding even a little bit.
Quote from: Jesse on September 22, 2025, 11:10:38 PMI don't see anything that can change the product for the better though. These are cosmetic things that make it look more American. That's it.
Do you think we're done? I don't.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 22, 2025, 10:28:51 PMAsk Nathan, doesn't sounds like any consultation at all. Typical top down corporate decision about $.
It's clear you want American ball in Canada and have been pushing that for a long time. I believe you are in the minority here. Tough spot as the league needs to adapt but I don't favor the direction we are headed.
Who said anyone consulted? I didn't. I told you who the commissioner is accountable to and in Winnipeg it's Wade Milller who signed off on this. Every member club did. The commissioner might have delivered you the news, but he didn't invent it by himself.
(https://preview.redd.it/youre-mine-johnston-v0-sluw2r4ztsqf1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=8dfc024d2c26fa51a8a1b5ea1b1d96172360c3fd)
Quote from: Jesse on September 22, 2025, 11:10:59 PMNew favourite player.
Definitely one of them! I had no idea he was this passionate about the Canadian game. Love him for that!
Despite calling himself a "pretty traditionalist CFL guy," Winnipeg Blue Bombers president and CEO Wade Miller likes the changes the league will be making to its rules and field dimensions over the next two years.
"This is an evolution of the game and a positive step forward for our league, and we look forward to these changes that are going to deliver great excitement and big plays and entertainment every time that ball is snapped," Miller told 3DownNation via telephone.
"I've never been a big fan of rewarding a rouge point for a missed play. Getting more plays in with a 35-second clock, I think that's fantastic. I think there's going to be more opportunities for touchdowns, a bigger opportunity for coaches that are going to have to take more risks and be more aggressive in the middle of the field."
https://3downnation.com/2025/09/22/blue-bombers-president-wade-miller-calls-cfl-changes-positive-step-insists-they-will-not-impact-bisons/
Maybe the guy who is pretty much the driving force behind the Bombers economic and business turnarounds words might calm? The guy knows business and he knows football business.
All of the thing Wade mentioned there feel like the opposite of what will actually happen.
Quote from: Jesse on September 22, 2025, 11:24:50 PMAll of the thing Wade mentioned there feel like the opposite of what will actually happen.
I wonder if that's what traditionalists said when they approved the forward pass. Ruining the game, some people said, I'm sure.
Anyone want to guess why they would makes these changes if it doesn't mean they are going to have closer ties to the NFL?
It is great to see Rourke speak his mind. He gets it, he's Canadian and grew up liking we were different than the States version, just like the rest of us. I don't to be a minor wanna be league for the NFL.
He does raise a very important point--consultation. Wondering f the league now does consult the players, or better yet, the fans who pay the salaries of those players, or does it go ahead as planned.
I am wondering what the TSN panel has to say about this. Muamba is a Canadian kid as is Davis Sanchez---are these guys going to speak their minds on this or will they be given gag order by their TSN bosses?? Same goes for the Canadians on the broadcast crew--Rod Smith, Marshal Ferguson and Glen Suitor?? Will they share what they think about the rule changes or be silenced by the paycheque provider??
I also wonder how loud the fan revolt to these proposed changes are going to be?? Will it be loud enough to force the resignation of the Commissioner?? Good!!!
Miller emphasized that while the changes may seem drastic at first
blush, they were based on strong data
Ok. what is the data?
every time a play was stopped owing to the ball
hitting the goalpost or a game was decided on a rouge from a missed
field goal, it created a viral moment for the league that had most
Americans laughing at the CFL game. Many football fans from south of
the border struggled to understand the rules, and those that did get
it often felt it was enough to turn away for good, classifying the
rule as foreign and foolish.
I don't care. They don't buy tickets and their tv contract will always be worth peanuts.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:22:24 PMDespite calling himself a "pretty traditionalist CFL guy," Winnipeg Blue Bombers president and CEO Wade Miller likes the changes the league will be making to its rules and field dimensions over the next two years.
"This is an evolution of the game and a positive step forward for our league, and we look forward to these changes that are going to deliver great excitement and big plays and entertainment every time that ball is snapped," Miller told 3DownNation via telephone.
"I've never been a big fan of rewarding a rouge point for a missed play. Getting more plays in with a 35-second clock, I think that's fantastic. I think there's going to be more opportunities for touchdowns, a bigger opportunity for coaches that are going to have to take more risks and be more aggressive in the middle of the field."
https://3downnation.com/2025/09/22/blue-bombers-president-wade-miller-calls-cfl-changes-positive-step-insists-they-will-not-impact-bisons/
Maybe the guy who is pretty much the driving force behind the Bombers economic and business turnarounds words might calm? The guy knows business and he knows football business.
What a bunch of bunk by Miller!! It's going to make the game more exciting, how?? You're kicking longer field goals that won't be returned-will result in less scoring. Shortening the end zones--will make it more difficult to score on passing plays as the area is easier to cover now for the defense--less scoring.
The change in timing blows me away, and I don't think Miller himself knows the true difference. Right now, the ever so glorious N F of L takes 40 seconds to put the ball into play. We have a wider field, meaning it will take teams longer to get back to their huddles, and they have 5 seconds LESS to put the ball into play, yes, in theory, in reality its going to lead to more time counts, great, we'll watch the officials march off 5 yards. So rather than let the officials get the ball back to the point of where the next play has got to start, THEN whistle the play in and give the team 20 seconds to put it in, if the play goes out of bounds on the sideline, the whistle goes, the refs got to race to get the ball set in place to start the next play, rush to get setup in their positions and the players have to do the same, its only going to rush things and cause officials and players to make mistakes. BONEHEADED play. Would work on a narrower field and if you gave them 5 more seconds. We have to go 10 yards further and have 5 seconds less to get there. What a joke!!
Quote from: dd on September 22, 2025, 11:45:10 PMIt is great to see Rourke speak his mind. He gets it, he's Canadian and grew up liking we were different than the States version, just like the rest of us. I don't to be a minor wanna be league for the NFL.
He does raise a very important point--consultation. Wondering f the league now does consult the players, or better yet, the fans who pay the salaries of those players, or does it go ahead as planned.
I am wondering what the TSN panel has to say about this. Muamba is a Canadian kid as is Davis Sanchez---are these guys going to speak their minds on this or will they be given gag order by their TSN bosses?? Same goes for the Canadians on the broadcast crew--Rod Smith, Marshal Ferguson and Glen Suitor?? Will they share what they think about the rule changes or be silenced by the paycheque provider??
I also wonder how loud the fan revolt to these proposed changes are going to be?? Will it be loud enough to force the resignation of the Commissioner?? Good!!!
Milt and Sanchez respond on their podcast. Doubt anyone working for TSN will go against the company line on the panel.
Quote from: peg_city on September 22, 2025, 11:40:32 PMAnyone want to guess why they would makes these changes if it doesn't mean they are going to have closer ties to the NFL?
Increase touchdowns
The CFL used to have 25 yard end zones in most of our lifetimes. Are there people who are still mad they changed it to 20 in 1986?
25 yard end zones used to be so Canadian...
Someone? Anyone? No?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:12:56 PMWho said anyone consulted? I didn't. I told you who the commissioner is accountable to and in Winnipeg it's Wade Milller who signed off on this. Every member club did. The commissioner might have delivered you the news, but he didn't invent it by himself.
Behind closed doors, I'd be surprised if there was unanimity among all the stakeholders. They came to a decision based on either a majority opinion, or who could throw their weight around (MLSE), and as usual, people were told to publicly get behind the decision and present a united front. Who knows what Wade Miller truly thinks of the changes?
Unfortunately, Rourke didn't get the memo :D
Quote from: bunker on September 23, 2025, 12:10:16 AMBehind closed doors, I'd be surprised if there was unanimity among all the stakeholders. They came to a decision based on either a majority opinion, or who could throw their weight around (MLSE), and as usual, people were told to publicly get behind the decision and present a united front. Who knows what Wade Miller truly thinks of the changes?
Unfortunately, Rourke didn't get the memo :D
Maybe true. Who knows. But again. The Bombers can't play Regina 15 times a year. The CFL doesn't work in its current form in many other markets. We've been marketing how Canadian and different it is since 1995.
RIP end of an era that I will always cherish and never forget. It won't get better than what we had.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:29:30 PMI wonder if that's what traditionalists said when they approved the forward pass. Ruining the game, some people said, I'm sure.
Again, they haven't made any rule changes to improve play. This isn't modernization. It's just copying a different game.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 22, 2025, 11:59:12 PMMilt and Sanchez respond on their podcast. Doubt anyone working for TSN will go against the company line on the panel.
Milt's a huge fan of changing everything. Talks about it all the time.
Good on Rourke but he's going to get fined for speaking out.
https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/?lid=rj9i9lc632hr&utm_source=braze&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Sept+22-+Annoucement&utm_brazeid=64d2d75607cbf60001365778&utm_content=&tf_u%5Bcfl_braze_id%5D=64d2d75607cbf60001365778&utm_instance=cfl
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 23, 2025, 12:28:59 AMGood on Rourke but he's going to get fined for speaking out.
Where's the freedom of speech or are we like the Americans with that now too?
If he gets fined the fans should start a go fund me page and pay it for him!!
And if they do fine him ,which they will as god forbid you speak your mind on a stupid idea(s), it will further alienate me as a fan towards the league office . Rather than make this a community building exercise where we move on things that are supported by the community as a whole because they've been involved in the process, we be been left in the dark and force fed this bunk . This is 2025 not 1955!! . I thought the cfl had more respect for its fan base than this , obviously I was wrong
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:12:17 AMMaybe true. Who knows. But again. The Bombers can't play Regina 15 times a year. The CFL doesn't work in its current form in many other markets. We've been marketing how Canadian and different it is since 1995.
Attendance is down is some markets, especially Toronto, Edmonton and Calgary. Calgary needs a new stadium. Edmonton needs a team that can make the playoffs once in a while. Toronto is a basket case, and rule changes will not help. Attendance is up in other markets. Bottom line, attendance has been steady for the past decade or so overall, and the SMS went up by 400,000 last year due to increased revenue.
I think the CFL is getting greedy, and reaching for something that is not attainable. First it was "global" penetration. Not that that's failed, it seems we are looking to the market south of us, at the expense of alienating traditional fans. I'll keep going to the games, but there may be a vocal minority out there that will not. And if you think this is the end of things, think again. Johnston has already said there are more changes coming.
And surprise, surprise, all those vocal independent TSN commentators are getting into line to support the changes. Seems they are all reading from the same script that Miller is.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 23, 2025, 12:14:57 AMRIP end of an era that I will always cherish and never forget. It won't get better than what we had.
I can t remember if I cried , when I read about his widowed bride, but something struck me deep inside, the day, the music, died.......
I'm good with more changes. Getting rid of the yard off the ball would be a good next step.
Quote from: dd on September 23, 2025, 12:56:09 AMI can t remember if I cried when I read about his widowed bride, but something struck me deep inside, the day, the music, died.......
God speed mother nature, never really wanted to say goodbye
HATE THIS.
Quote from: peg_city on September 22, 2025, 12:29:03 PMI guess it really depends on what the changes are.
If we become a feeder to the NFL, I would actually like that. It would give me reason to watch the NFL.
I have no reason to want to watch the nfl,the league of the arrogant American. Keep your league, couldn't care less. Don't have a favorite team or player. Couldn't name a player on the closest team to us and those rule changes aren't going to change that just like they aren't going to draw new fans to the league.you either like us because it's Canadian or you don't and I m good with that.
theres always been fines for speaking out against the league. Reavis just got fined for complaining about a fine, or any coach for complaining about officials.
Roarke can afford it and kudos to him for speaking out anyway.
as far as the Milt/Sanchez comments some things I agree with and others seemed onesided:
If we were starting fresh..who would think that having goalposts in the playing field is a good thing?
The 35 second clock will be fine but they didn't address the final 3 minutes which will actually make the game less exciting
The rouge Has been part of cdn football identity, like Rourke I respect that.
Feels like I wont bother watching next year. No point in watching a less talented version of the NFL game.
The CFL was our game. I LOVE the differences.
Stupid myopic decision.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:56:39 AMI'm good with more changes. Getting rid of the yard off the ball would be a good next step.
I'm curious why you want to get rid of the yard off the ball, and how you think that will improve the game?
In all seriousness, what features, if any of the Canadian game would you like to retain?
I'm a traditionalist, and admittedly can be a bit narrow minded, (I'm currently arguing with my bomber seatmate, who thinks the changes are fine) but I'm generally curious about other points of view.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:56:39 AMI'm good with more changes. Getting rid of the yard off the ball would be a good next step.
And what would the reason for that be?
Quote from: Pete on September 22, 2025, 05:23:50 PMi like the changes , currently the 20 second clock seems arbitrary at times.. my question is in the last 3 minutes how does the clock stop . allowing 35 seconds to be run off will cut the number of plays I wouldnt want to see that currently its the most exciting time in the game
the posts moving back is very good and should have been done sooner
the rouge is over reacted to. Its not a big deal in my opinion.
the shortened field..im not sure about.
its about time we had a commissioner make thoughtout moves vs the previous one
I believe the thinking is that a 35 second play clock will work out to generally the same amount of time it takes to spot the ball plus the 20 seconds. It will just make it a consistent maximum amount of time between plays. I'm also thinking the game clock will be run the same as it is now, with the same stoppage rules. So, if the team with the ball in the last 3 minutes is leading and trying to drain the clock, the game clock will still start on the refs signal. Now, I do not know this, I am thinking that is the case. If that's not the case and the game clock continues to run, then that absolutely stinks.
Quote from: Jesse on September 23, 2025, 01:07:58 AMAnd what would the reason for that be?
The vast majority of offensive and defensive lineman in the CFL have played in the NCAA and therefore it's a faster ramp. Many lineman talk about how it takes a year to get used to it.
Additionally, the third down CFL QB sneak gets run 10 times a game and it's incredibly boring.
Football is a physical game. Line up nose to nose. There is nothing inherently "Canadian" about giving a yard off the ball.
Quote from: dd on September 23, 2025, 12:43:35 AMWhere's the freedom of speech or are we like the Americans with that now too?
If he gets fined the fans should start a go fund me page and pay it for him!!
And if they do fine him ,which they will as god forbid you speak your mind on a stupid idea(s), it will further alienate me as a fan towards the league office . Rather than make this a community building exercise where we move on things that are supported by the community as a whole because they've been involved in the process, we be been left in the dark and force fed this bunk . This is 2025 not 1955!! . I thought the cfl had more respect for its fan base than this , obviously I was wrong
Strange the owners did not consult with the players they rely on to fill the stands, wonder if they discussed their plans with Football Canada, or the owners of the stadiums they play in built with public money?
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 01:17:15 AMStrange the owners did not consult with the players they rely on to fill the stands, wonder if they discussed their plans with Football Canada, or the owners of the stadiums they play in built with public money?
Spoiler alert: they didn't consult the electorate. Oh no!
These changes are garbage - yes echoing what Rourke said.
If I want to watch the No Fun League I can do so. I want to watch the CFL and these changes add nothing to our unique exciting game that has been around for over a century
Quote from: bomb squad on September 23, 2025, 01:11:04 AMI believe the thinking is that a 35 second play clock will work out to generally the same amount of time it takes to spot the ball plus the 20 seconds. It will just make it a consistent maximum amount of time between plays. I'm also thinking the game clock will be run the same as it is now, with the same stoppage rules. So, if the team with the ball in the last 3 minutes is leading and trying to drain the clock, the game clock will still start on the refs signal. Now, I do not know this, I am thinking that is the case. If that's not the case and the game clock continues to run, then that absolutely stinks.
American rules don't stop the clock until the snap of the ball in the last 3 minutes, teams can and do drain the clock
Our timing rules are far superior to providing an exciting ending to the game, so sure let's change that to make it just like the American version —-boring!!!
I've actually been slowly less and less interested in our game as we move closer and closer to the NFL rules. Hope it works out for the league and they attract more viewership but honestly as we move to be like the NFL the more it makes the argument to just watch the NFL. I'm not interested in the NFL so just drives me more towards other sports and activities I'll enjoy more. I get it though, that I'm not the target audience they are hoping to acquire.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 01:20:19 AMSpoiler alert: they didn't consult the electorate. Oh no!
I mean, the CFL execs not bothering to put the feelers out there to two of the most important stakeholders- fans and players is ignorant. Look at the comments and reactions to all the CFL posts if you're on social media. Most of them are 2:1 against the changes and sometimes 3:1. If fans are this upset with the league taking on a more NFL look this could massively blow up in their faces. I hate the changes but am committed to 3 more years of season tickets. I'll give the changes a chance, but if it's as terrible as I think it will be, I'll cancel my tickets and take the financial penalty. I HATE the NFL so why would I watch something that is shifting into exactly that? Time will tell but I think the commish made a big mistake today.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:03:55 AMThe CFL used to have 25 yard end zones in most of our lifetimes. Are there people who are still mad they changed it to 20 in 1986?
25 yard end zones used to be so Canadian...
Someone? Anyone? No?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
So to be clear - you don't think that Vaval should have been able to return the missed field goal for a TD? It's not an exciting play?
Can you tell me which game or games were decided by a QB hitting the goal post? You can't because even if the post wasn't there you can't 100% say what would have happened.
The Rougue - is definitely unique to the CFL and I can't think of any game that was decided by a rougu. If a missed FG wins the game so does a made FG.
So the only positive thing that was announced was that teams will be on opposite sides of the field.
If you haven't heard his comments you should take the time. He spoke it like a true Canadian CFL fan and great player. His statements are so true. The CFL game is unique it's special. He brought a tear to my eye about how he feels and his passion for Canadian football. I love our rules our field and I like our endzone. The 20 second play clock makes it exciting for finishes. Not like down south. I'll stick up for the CFL game against anyone.
Please do not ruin our great game!! Thanks Nathan I hope more players , coaches , managers , and most importantly, the fans speak up. I love our game!!
The problem with all of these "keep everything the same" comments is if any of things were actually drivers of new fans we'd have seen new fans.
The results are the results.
They don't work in that context and the status quo, as the commissioner bluntly told you today, is not an option.
Are missed field goals exciting? Yep. Was it effective at growing the game? Nope.
Sure enough they did not consult with U-Sports or any of the universities they share stadiums with. How is that even possible? By my count there are 23 U-Sports football teams in Canada, some share stadiums with CFL teams, most do not, but all must now alter their facilities if they wish to retain homogeneous fields.
Ya, I've always been a bit downbeat on Rourke after his first season starting. Not that I hate him or anything, he just gives off that whiny, entitled vibe.
However, his comments show he's a true Canadian fan, basically just like us, and he really does "get it". Unlike our clown show new Commish. Rourke's now OK in my books.
Told y'all to be careful what you wish for when many wanted ol' Unca Brosie gone.
These Johnston changes make the whole GLOB nonsense boondoggle look like a nothingburger.
Worst case scenario they just line the field differently? Best case u sports aligns?
I am pretty sure a few dollar of paint in between games fixes the issue if they don't? ;D
Someone might make a few more dollars? The horror. Wouldn't u sports welcome a move to more NFL style rules? Doesn't every athlete who has ever played u sports and had the chance to try the NFL done that? Aren't they celebrated and revered figures in their school program? Wouldn't this give them a slightly better shot however remote it was and is?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 02:17:58 AMThe problem with all of these "keep everything the same" comments is if any of things were actually drivers of new fans we'd have seen new fans.
The results are the results.
They don't work in that context and the status quo, as the commissioner bluntly told you today, is not an option.
Are missed field goals exciting? Yep. Was it effective at growing the game? Nope.
I can appreciate this but there are other ways to grow the game in my opinion. For example, game day experience. Make the game experience fun and interactive for fans during the breaks in the game. Market the crap out of the games, send players to schools for some PR, have a women's club like the Bombers do, put some money towards tailgating (maybe do a BBQ competition between tailgaters). If you get fans hooked on the experience maybe that will lead to an interest in the games/teams and put more butts in seats. Look at how that's worked in WPG, SASK and to an extent BC. The league needs to put in the money to help every team with this. Making the game more like the NFL but with a pea sized budget is not the way. I am not against making changes so long as they maintain the uniqueness of the CFL game. This missed the mark.
Quote from: bluengold204 on September 23, 2025, 12:00:34 AMIncrease touchdowns
They could have just moved the starting point to the 45 or 50 instead of the 40. They already moved it from the 35.
How does reducing the size of the EZ do anything to "increase TDs"? It has the opposite effect. It will be like the NFL where you don't want to get TOO close or there's no room to do anything. The prime "red zone" will now be like at the 30YL, not the 20.
There's also all the other ideas we've had in past threads. Tons of ideas besides turning us into the NFL.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 02:40:32 AMThey could have just moved the starting point to the 45 or 50 instead of the 40. They already moved it from the 35.
How does reducing the size of the EZ do anything to "increase TDs"? It has the opposite effect. It will be like the NFL where you don't want to get TOO close or there's no room to do anything. The prime "red zone" will now be like at the 30YL, not the 20.
There's also all the other ideas we've had in past threads. Tons of ideas besides turning us into the NFL.
I watch a lot of NFL. I've never heard any team, player or announcer say "oh no we're too close to the end zone"
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
Quote from: markf on September 22, 2025, 10:40:11 PMThis also explains the Luke Willson experience...
Now that's some top thinking connecting the dots. Luke arrived around the same time the CTV guy becomes Commish. He instantly starts bashing the game and asking for all the crazy NFL features. None of this is coincidence and I think we've all been played. Markf is da man.
This is called the Hegelian Dialectic, BTW. Posit that there's something terribly wrong with our game ("oh no there are no fans and no money we're doomed!"). The Wilsons come out and say craziness like we need 4 downs, no rouge, no 1 yard off, etc. Everyone gets upset. Then Johnston comes in with the compromise where they pass around half the NFL stuff Luke was proposing. Everyone bends over and takes it because "hey it could have been worse, at least we didn't lose our 3 downs".
Thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Used against the rube body politic every day by their masters. We see you... Johston and
his masters.
Quote from: TrueBlue75 on September 23, 2025, 02:38:54 AMI can appreciate this but there are other ways to grow the game in my opinion. For example, game day experience. Make the game experience fun and interactive for fans during the breaks in the game. Market the crap out of the games, send players to schools for some PR, have a women's club like the Bombers do, put some money towards tailgating (maybe do a BBQ competition between tailgaters). If you get fans hooked on the experience maybe that will lead to an interest in the games/teams and put more butts in seats. Look at how that's worked in WPG, SASK and to an extent BC. The league needs to put in the money to help every team with this. Making the game more like the NFL but with a pea sized budget is not the way. I am not against making changes so long as they maintain the uniqueness of the CFL game. This missed the mark.
I agree there is also lots they can and should change outside of the actual game especially in some markets. There's a lot the league can learn from Winnipeg. And they are. Every front office has spent time here in the last few years.
I think the calculus is that's not enough and we can be honest with ourselves too: The only reason we're doing as good as we are is because we've historically been to five grey cups in a row. Every team can't go to five Grey cups in a row every year. Obviously.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 02:37:28 AMWorst case scenario they just line the field differently? Best case u sports aligns?
I am pretty sure a few dollar of paint in between games fixes the issue if they don't? ;D
Did you read the articles? Johnston said this will force 2-3 teams to replace their entire turf because they have permanent lines
sewn in. At a cost of more than a million dollars PER STADIUM. SSK is one of those teams they said. Didn't SSK just replace their turf this last off-season? Wow, how's that for "environmentally friendly" league. 1 year old turf added to the landfill. Yay CFL!
Now, I'm as happy as anyone that the greenies have to suffer and waste money, don't get me wrong. ;D ;D ;D But it seems a bit counter productive.
Before SSK goes out and gets their new turf with sewn-in 15Y EZ lines, the commish should just come out and say what he
really wants: 10Y EZs and width the same as the NFL. Why waste time pretending this is for any other reason than matching the NFL? So let's just match it now and not make SSK get a new turf AGAIN in '28. No one is fooled by the boiling frog treatment, just come out and say it.
Quote from: TrueBlue4 on September 23, 2025, 01:43:22 AMCan you tell me which game or games were decided by a QB hitting the goal post? You can't because even if the post wasn't there you can't 100% say what would have happened.
The Rougue - is definitely unique to the CFL and I can't think of any game that was decided by a rougu. If a missed FG wins the game so does a made FG.
It's all misdirection and obfuscation. Someone already posted, the number of post-hits and rouge-deciders are between 0 and 2 a season. With 2 being a huge outlier.
Anyone who says we need the post moved or rouge deleted
for those fake reasons IS A LYING MISDIRECTING PIECE OF TURF WITH BIG STAN'S VOMIT ON IT. They literally aren't "things". The only real example of a post hit meaning anything was that '19 WDF with Cody. 1 in 6 years. Even then I'm pretty sure our guy was going to break it up (analyzed it at the time), and if you 100% for sure don't want to hit the post, DON'T CALL A LOW-TRAJECTORY POST ROUTE.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 23, 2025, 01:11:04 AMIf that's not the case and the game clock continues to run, then that absolutely stinks.
What you're saying is the 35s clock can be running while the game clock is not? Yes, that's what would have to happen to keep our 3-min endings at least somewhat similar to now. I'm pretty sure there are no times in current CFL or NFL where that can occur -- play clock running and game clock not?
If they ruin our amazing last-3-mins game by turning it into the NFL joke nonsense then they are going to miff basically EVERY real fan. Even SB&G will hate
that change.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 23, 2025, 12:28:59 AMGood on Rourke but he's going to get fined for speaking out.
"Bringing the league into disrepute". Don't argue with your masters. Ya, he's going to get reprimanded. Maybe the league will suddenly get a penchant for "investigating" the Rourke MMM situation? It's been a blind eye until now when he was the CFL media darling. Now he's the trouble maker. "Show us the time clock punch card and receipts Rourke, or we're gonna claw back that $200k MMM."
Quote from: Jesse on September 23, 2025, 12:19:58 AMMilt's a huge fan of changing everything. Talks about it all the time.
And he's one of the only non-Canadians on the panel. What does he care? Of course he'd love to see the CFL go all-IMP so he can have more Milt clones created.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 03:14:27 AMAnd he's one of the only non-Canadians on the panel. What does he care? Of course he'd love to see the CFL go all-IMP so he can have more Milt clones created.
Hahaha the worse argument for keeping the ratio of all time.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:03:55 AMThe CFL used to have 25 yard end zones in most of our lifetimes. Are there people who are still mad they changed it to 20 in 1986?
25 yard end zones used to be so Canadian...
The problem is a ton of new stadiums have been built in the last 15 years based solely on the dimensions of the CFL field. You know, like IGF?
The
EZ seats and their crap view is about to get crappier because they are now 10Y further away from the action, AND now they have the post obstructing THEIR view of the TD action! Plus, every stadium will be getting the FG nets back, screwing up FG views. Heaven help the EZ fans if some stadiums don't make the retractable and they have to watch the whole game that way!
Quote from: dd on September 22, 2025, 11:59:00 PMWhat a bunch of bunk by Miller!! It's going to make the game more exciting, how??
Miller looked at the upright flags and saw which way the wind was blowing. Outside of player safety he's never been one to stand up against the league.
Granted, he's in a tough spot here, but he didn't have to make himself the poster child President face of all these change with his public comments and the dumb 3down article. Let some other Prez take the heat.
Quote from: Waffler on September 22, 2025, 11:58:36 PMevery time a play was stopped owing to the ball
hitting the goalpost or a game was decided on a rouge from a missed
field goal, it created a viral moment for the league that had most
Americans laughing at the CFL game.
I don't care. They don't buy tickets and their tv contract will always be worth peanuts.
Darn right Waffler. And even the original premise is wrong. Those Americans are already laughing at the CFL, for every other reason. The 1 rouge-deciding game every 2 seasons or the 1 goal-post-deciding game every 6 season had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
If you're an American already watching CFL, those quirks don't make you stop watching. And for the Americans laughing who aren't watching, they were never going to watch anyway.
If anything, the quirks and "viral moments" were good for the CFL, making people talk about it and maybe get a few people to watch to learn why we have it this way.
The arguments put forth by all the intelligentsia so far are 99% asinine, straw men, and gaslighting.
Quote from: Waffler on September 22, 2025, 11:56:23 PMMiller emphasized that while the changes may seem drastic at first
blush, they were based on strong data
Ok. what is the data?
What he & Bob Young scratched onto the back of a bar napkin with a lotto-6-49 pencil.
Or maybe it's the Super Secret Super Cereal Hidden Coke Formula Data that Junkie is always telling us hoi polloi that we are forbidden from seeing.
Miller & Johnston: "trust us brah!"
Quote from: dd on September 22, 2025, 11:45:10 PMI am wondering what the TSN panel has to say about this. Muamba is a Canadian kid as is Davis Sanchez---are these guys going to speak their minds on this or will they be given gag order by their TSN bosses??
They fired the only guy on the panel that ever spoke against the league. You know who. "No, I'm not doing to drop it" Dunigan.
Another dot connected: the mysterious firing of Dunigan right when new Commish & Luke enter the scene. No coincidences. Dunigan, even as an American, would have been ripping them a new one. Please oh please someone interview Duni about this -- if he hasn't signed any "no disparagement" clause to silence him for the next 3 years.
Hate them. I stand with Nathan on his speech. This is not the CFL I grew up with and love. Sure, make a few small tweaks, maybe the rouge.. but don't touch the 55. That and the goal post moving :-[ made me the maddest.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:22:24 PMMaybe the guy who is pretty much the driving force behind the Bombers economic and business turnarounds words might calm? The guy knows business and he knows football business.
Or he knows who butters his bread. We are already one of only 2 teams the league steals money from each season to give to the
poor sad peepo in such economically deprived locales as TOR, OTT and BC.
Johnston
could have gone to Miller and said <heavy breathing> "pray I don't alter it any further" -- "I could take an extra 30% of your profits to give to the poors next season if you don't comply".
Quote from: TrueBlue75 on September 22, 2025, 11:09:17 PMI just gained a whole lot more respect for Rourke. Good for him airing his displeasure. He's bang on! "That league down south"...lol
a) "I don't want to get sued"
b) "I may still get a job there one day"
But ya, all props to Rourke on this one, no joke. Legit stand up CFL guy. Contrast with... WM.
Still waiting to hear the data that points to these changes leading to new fans. I'll wait.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 03:16:09 AMHahaha the worse argument for keeping the ratio of all time.
Wooosh <---- what I said going stratospheric above a certain noggin
My point was: of course one of the only Americans left on the panel/booth doesn't "get it" about the CFL.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 02:44:16 AMI watch a lot of NFL. I've never heard any team, player or announcer say "oh no we're too close to the end zone"
Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
It's been said over and over by commentators, players, and coaches who come up here. On TV, in print, everywhere. What they say is the bigger EZs open up the playbooks, give more space to run complex routes, more space to work with. They talk about how constrained and jam packed with players the NFL EZs are in comparison.
Of course the NFL people WHO HAVE NEVER COME UP TO THE CFL haven't said boo about it because they literally cannot fathom it any other way. If you told them about our 20Y EZs, and they really gave it some thought, they'd probably come to the same conclusion as the people I'm referencing.
And please tell me how a tinier 10Y EZ can result in MORE TD production when you're in the red zone? That is counter-intuitive, especially with our 12 players. When CFL finally goes 10Y EZ (it's coming) then it'll look like the subway at 5pm in Tokyo in the EZ on red zone plays!
Surely you can't dispute this?
Quote from: tlf on September 23, 2025, 03:31:06 AMHate them. I stand with Nathan on his speech. This is not the CFL I grew up with and love. Sure, make a few small tweaks, maybe the rouge.. but don't touch the 55. That and the goal post moving :-[ made me the maddest.
The last PAS game I saw some young ladies standing near the 55YL where the number is painted, taking pictures of themselves with the 55 visible. We're all going to need to do that because once Johnston steals it from us, you'll never see it again.
I'll be taking a ton of pics with my kids on it next game. Might even haul out the SLR camera for this. He'll be telling his kids in 25 years about when he was a kid the CFL had the number 55 printed on the turf. His kids will probably say "what's the CFL daddy", and he'll answer "it's what we used to call it before it became NFL North and started having as many fans as Valour" :'( :'( :'(
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 01:12:13 AMAdditionally, the third down CFL QB sneak gets run 10 times a game and it's incredibly boring.
Dems fightin' words! Don't you dis my sneak. It's literally my favorite part of the game. No joke.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:56:39 AMI'm good with more changes. Getting rid of the yard off the ball would be a good next step.
I'm pretty sure you're literally alone in your extremism on this board. Nothing wrong with being alone, mind you. Consensus != correctness.
But this one is pretty drastic.
Keep in mind the yard-off and the 4-downs are a
both or none proposition. You can't have 4 downs with the yard off or (nearly) every drive ends in a TD. You can't have no yard off with 3 downs or (nearly) every drive ends in a punt.
But you already knew this, you sneaky ...
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 23, 2025, 12:14:57 AMRIP end of an era that I will always cherish and never forget. It won't get better than what we had.
Now THAT gif gets you a forum hero cookie. Spot on. McCallum special has been redirected to SB&G.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:12:17 AMMaybe true. Who knows. But again. The Bombers can't play Regina 15 times a year.
They can't? ;D ;D ;D Every game a sell out, fans making the drive every few weeks, and no player left unmaimed come post-season.
I'm pretty sure we could have a league with just WPG & SSK and one of us gets the cup every year and it would be extremely entertaining. Just sayin', we have our back up plan if Johnston destroys the CFL.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:12:11 PMDo you think we're done? I don't.
And you are 100% right. They are boiling us slowly. If they want 10Y EZs and NFL widths, just come out and do it now. It'll save SSK from spending $1.2M on new turf in both '27 and '28.
No one likes dishonesty or realizing they've been played, Johnston.
https://3downnation.com/2025/09/22/opinion-the-cfl-finally-delivers-big-with-changes-that-will-make-the-game-pop/
How can they publish such tripe? Who is this "Madani" clown? How much did Johnston pay 3down under the table to be such "yes men"?
The arguments are, frankly, tired and brain dead. So much fallacy, I'm falling over myself. If no one at 3down gives a counter-article then the respect I had for down just went from a 2/10 to a -5/10.
If you think you don't have time to read it, here's the opening paragraph that only a SB&G could love:
At last, the Canadian Football League is getting out of the dark ages and modernizing a product that, while at its peak can be a beautiful thing to watch, has so many archaic, nonsensical idiosyncrasies that it affected how the game is played and presented.
I'm going to attack each fail in this article over the night as I find time, so as to not overwhelm. Feel free to chime in on your take.
You do know the chain gang still has to move the chains, and the refs still need to place the ball. Now all that has to happen within 35s? That's 5s less than even the vaunted NFL with all their top-physique officials and assistants. Is this realistic?
Can you imagine the stress on the chain gang to keep up with this? Have you seen those stick-holders? The majority I see are moderately overweight 28 year olds. They ain't jogging to get the sticks in place.
And the players are supposed to huddle and position and plan often before the sticks or ball are in place?
Many of our officials are "older". I'm not sure they can handle the stress of doing this for a full 3 hours. Proulx's head is gonna pop off his shoulders and hit the jumbotron in BC Place some time in the 2nd quarter.
And when they botch it. What then? They thought the Americans were laughing at our rouge? Wait until they see Proulx fighting with the spot with a QB standing over him, or the 290lb stick kid tripping on the chains like keystone cops.
Instead of the 35s drastic change, why not have a "soft clock" just for the refs/chain-gang and better training/procedure? Teams can be told they have to sub faster, and aim for the soft clock too. Refs/chains can hustle more. Everyone can aim for 35s. Officials/crew can get graded on how well they meet the deadline.
Refs can spot & chain-move to the new tempo and blow in the play when THEY are ready, FORCING the teams to get their subs done or get TMM or TC penalties.
Most of this could have been achieved without the NFL-like move.
Best post on Riderforum so far:
"No rouges on missed field goals has lauther in shambles." -- Thestatue
Currently when teams use a no huddle sequence to either confuse the other team or prevent changes it doesnt seem to be an issue so likely 35 seconds is fine.
Its like most changes players/officials adapt, and if 35 seconds is too short or long adjustments can easily be made.
Too many here look at change like the sky is falling.
As long as it remains 3 downs, with wider field, and 12 men the rest isnt a big deal . The effectiveness of the new changes will determine where they go or dont go from here To the cfls credit they aren't just status quo Like the man said if you arent going forward your left behind
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 04:24:16 AMhttps://3downnation.com/2025/09/22/opinion-the-cfl-finally-delivers-big-with-changes-that-will-make-the-game-pop/
How can they publish such tripe? Who is this "Madani" clown? How much did Johnston pay 3down under the table to be such "yes men"?
He was the Bombers' communications guy for a year or so before Darren Cameron.
He's been at Sportsnet for years now and always finds fault with the CFL. So it makes sense that he agrees with the changes as it validates all the nonsense he's been throwing out there over the years.
Quote from: Pete on September 23, 2025, 05:19:14 AMLike the man said if you arent going forward your left behind
Fallacious and specious reasoning, can be used to justify
any change. Exactly as useless as the "right side of history" sophistry. And 100% against my personal philosophy.
Most of the reasons cited for these CFL changes are easily rebutted. Almost comically easily.
I'm not a boomer, but some of the wordplay being put forth amounts to "ok boomer!" drivel; and that's NOT a good tactic when a
huge portion of the paying butts-in-CFL-seats are 55+.
"Here's what else shortening the field has the potential to do: increase revenue for teams that need it. Whether it's a premium experience field-level, like Seattle and Los Angeles have, or making it a beer garden, social space that make coming to stadiums more appealing. Especially for the crowd that wants to post being seen on their social channels."
Ah, besides wanting to become 100% NFL-Lite by '29, this is the next "real" reason for the EZ/field shortening. Social influencer pandering. Get the 22 y.o. "pretty" girls (and boys) with their phones on selfie sticks in that EZ premium area showing TDs coming their way and players sipping their mojitos. Heck, CFL will probably pay THEM to sit there, instead of the other way around. (Who cares about the plebe fans -- you still get to pay $65 to sit in the nosebleeds.)
But you know what, out of all the hair-brained half-cocked ideas they announced today, this one actually might work to get "the kids" (teens/20s) out to games. Because they do love their "influencers", and many try to emulate them as much as possible. If by some miracle they can make the CFL "cool" then it could just work.
(That said, TOR has had that on-field seating, arguably better because it spanned the field so you could get a good 55YL seat instead of near EZ, and those seats were always more than half empty, and never seemed to have any pretty 21yo influencers in them!)
"No further major changes are planned. However, the primary updates will lead to cascading rule adjustments — such as the placement of converts and kickoff locations. These refinements to the rulebook will be addressed through the standard offseason process led by the CFL Rules Committee"
Oh, rules-committee-member MOS is just SO looking forward to that process! /s
Is this the year MOS quits the rules committee? If he hates all of this crap (as my gut says he does), is this the year he retires and says "bleep it!"? Like he wants to rethink his ENTIRE football modus operandi at this point in his career...
(https://www.riderfans.com/filedata/fetch?id=1277659&d=1758564105)
Thanks to riderfan #1Fan, shamelessly stolen to enlighten us B&G fans
Bottom 2 pics (which are identical) are the new CFL field, top 2 pics are old CFL and current NFL fields.
Just to give you a feel for the relative sizes/changes.
Message to Stewart Johnston. Don't fool yourself into thinking the fans are cheering "Stu" the next time you walk on the field. It might rhyme with that though.
Most of the media are toeing the line. They're giving airspace to the former American players who like the changes.
You have to follow the former Canadian players to get their opinions.
Peter Dyakowski:
For now. They gutted everything they could outside of bargaining. Anything that didn't require player approval for health & safety/CBA reasons. They will come for the rest when the CBA expires. These are the first (and major) steps towards full convergence with NFL rules.
Quote from: Jesse on September 23, 2025, 10:54:16 AMPeter Dyakowski:
That's a name I haven't heard in a while. Good for him for standing up. And a great point about not going "Full Rider" (can't say what I want to here) until the CBA is up, because then they really would see a revolt.
Oooh, I'm soooo itching to see what MOS
really thinks about all of this... Alas, outside of his wife(?) and close PAS circle we shall never know.
Paragraph 1:
At last, the Canadian Football League is getting out of the dark ages and modernizing a product that, while at its peak can be a beautiful thing to watch, has so many archaic, nonsensical idiosyncrasies that it affected how the game is played and presented
Barely started and he's already insulted many (most?) fans with ageism. You like the CFL now? Well, you're in the dark ages and are archaic.
The layout and rules you like? Well, they're nothing but nonsensical idiosyncrasies. Nonsensical! Idiosyncrasies I can live with. But insulting major defining aspects of our cherished game as nonsensical?
What he's really saying: Get with the (NFL) times you luddite! I know better than you and you better not dare challenge these changes.
So condescending. If you're hoping to change reluctant minds, bullying them is not the correct way. Sure, it works on the weak, but it makes the strong only take up the resistance gauntlet. What editor allowed him to publish such garbage?
P2: There is a 'finally' element to this. Finally, the end zone will be less of its own postal code.
As I said on another thread, many people who played/know the American game come up here and have commented (on TSN, pressers, web reports) on how much easier it is to get TDs in the red zone in the CFL, and how much nicer it is to have the extra space to work with and draw up more complex plays. They comment on the massive amount of EZ space compared to the dinky miniscule packed-with-players NFL EZ. They directly contradict his imagined insult that ours is too big.
P2: Finally, the entirety of the end zone will legitimately be in play for touchdowns.
This doesn't even make sense. There are no-go zones in our EZ we're not aware of right now? Balls haven't been thrown or run to every square inch back there? There's some magic corner that there be football-eating dragons?
Making it smaller will give players, callers, schemers more room to get more TDs? Exactly how? Did anyone consult with all of the people who have said the direct opposite over the years?
P2: Finally, you will not be rewarded with a point for blasting a field goal or punt through the end zone.
The presentation of this point is semi-acceptable, my only gripe being with the word "rewarded". In nearly every punting situation getting the rouge is not a reward. In most cases the punter will make a grimace and Suitor will explain how "he didn't want to do that". Does Madani even watch CFL games? Can someone explain to him what a coffin corner is?
As for a "reward" for a missed FG: this is nothing more than a long-standing and often-cherished rule that makes us different from the NFL. There is nothing inherently good or bad: it's just different. The NFL could have just as easily adopted our rouge rule, just like they've adopted other CFLisms over the years.
P2: Finally, the league will look more professional with teams on opposite sidelines — and with it, finally you won't have substitutions that require 300-pound linemen to run 70 yards just to get into the huddle pre-snap.
The only new thing today that I fully agree with, and have been screaming about since TOR/OTT built their new stadiums with this setup. And I'm betting Madani only threw that in there to do the ol' Trojan Horse. Use the one good thing (best thing) to make all the remaining crap more palatable. "Well, that sideline idea is great so I'll listen to all this other tripe; maybe they do know what they're doing."
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 03:11:00 AMWhat you're saying is the 35s clock can be running while the game clock is not? Yes, that's what would have to happen to keep our 3-min endings at least somewhat similar to now. I'm pretty sure there are no times in current CFL or NFL where that can occur -- play clock running and game clock not?
If they ruin our amazing last-3-mins game by turning it into the NFL joke nonsense then they are going to miff basically EVERY real fan. Even SB&G will hate that change.
In the CFL, how about in the last 3 mins when the clock doesn't start until the snap of the ball (after an incompletion or out of bounds)? So, yes there is a time when the play clock runs and the game clock doesn't.
I believe the same thing happens in the NFL after the 2 minute warning or a time out.
Like I said before, if they don't separate the game clock from the play clock in the last 3 mins., similar to the way they do now, then the 35 sec rule absolutely stinks.
Of all the rule changes, the timing rule has the most questions and issues surrounding it.
P3: Finally, Toronto and Montreal's stadiums won't have their end zones cut off for space.
Without rebuilding whole new stadiums for those outliers we made the best of the situation. We are a "budget" league without a $billions revenue stream like the NFL. No one liked the MTL setup, especially, nor the TOR "turf change" issue (blame soccer), but basically no one cared about the slightly smaller TOR EZ issue.
They could have solved both problems by making the EZs 3 or 5Y smaller OR the 100-yard field change. They did not have to do both. Nearly everyone who has mentioned this has said the slightly smaller EZ is the better choice, because just like no one notices TOR is 3Y smaller, people would hardly notice all EZs being 3 or 5Y shallower.
So, another trojan horse: "Muh MTL track oval ---> der derp 100-yard field AND 15Y EZ's duh derp". If the track was the problem, just solve that problem, don't use it as an excuse to go all NFL on us. If you want to go all NFL on us, just say you want to go all NFL on us! Oh, that might lead to "consumer resistance" and fan revolt you say? Nah, better to just lie to our faces!
P2: Finally, there will be consistency with a play clock that has been too random for too long, since the referee arbitrarily decides when the 20-second timer should begin.
No he doesn't. He's not a 2005 MLB pitcher holding the whole game up because he likes to stare down the 1st base runner for 10 minutes each pitch. The CFL ref has a set procedure he has to follow, with set timing guidelines (yes, not clock enforced, but likely graded post facto). The good ones probably follow this with due haste.
In another thread I mentioned the idea of a soft-clock, whether shown on-field, or internal to the refs headsets, or something. The refs & teams could work to the soft clock to know the expectations and adjust accordingly. This would allow the normal clock/timing rules to remain as they were. Such a change would upset NO ONE. No one is saying we want a "slower game" on purpose.
In any event, if you're a butt-in-seat attendee at a CFL game, you aren't getting bored in the time it takes to position the ball and move the chains (except the 1-2 times a game they seem to take forever because EITS is intervening in the spot): NO, what you're getting bored with is the neverending stream of commercial interruptions with Mr Red Shirt Neon Flag. THOSE last forever and are far too numerous. But you aren't talking about that, eh Madani?
It's just a coincidence and funny that every single solution to the supposed "problems" aligns us with the NFL, eh? Nothing to do with NFL North (TM). Nothing to see here. Relax guy. Take a rest. Look, flying squirrel!
Quote from: bomb squad on September 23, 2025, 11:35:46 AMIn the CFL, how about in the last 3 mins when the clock doesn't start until the snap of the ball (after an incompletion or out of bounds)? So, yes there is a time when the play clock runs and the game clock doesn't.
I believe the same thing happens in the NFL after the 2 minute warning or a time out.
Of all the rule changes, the timing rule has the most questions and issues surrounding it.
Great point. I was thinking there must be an example, and you're exactly right. So there IS hope then. Would have been nice for Johnston to flesh this out in the presser.
Also a great point that the 35s change seems to be the biggest sticking point.
I'm going to add your input to the 35s thread. Maybe we can flesh it out here to avoid undue worry by the fans.
That last post just outlines one of the reasons for changing the clock rules.
Coaches game the current timing system through substitutions.
All the change does is give both teams a max of 35 second to get ready for the next play. Many plays will be snapped earlier than that.
It's 100% a better system. Easier to understand for new fans (or in some cases in this thread for all fans, evidently). O'Shea is a master at exploiting the current timing rules but he's not alone.
And ya, it changes the ending strategy a bit, but again, NCAA, NFL, CFL and USports all have exciting endings to football games. The CFL does not own that universally as much as everyone wants to bang their first on the table and pretend they do.
Doug Brown highlighted that this probably is the first step to full NFL rules. This is all they could do without going through the players' union. The next collective agreement will be NFL rules.
My guess is then merger with the UFL, which will result in us being a feeder league to the NFL.
Great food for thought from Riderforum:
"Tinfoil hat says that after a couple of years, space on the sidelines for benches becomes an issue....what do you suppose the solution to that might be?" --xnos
Stubblejumpers don't often post what you'd call Deep Thoughts (by Jack Handey), but this one is brilliantly prescient. That's some 4D chess thinking, and I'm ashamed to say I didn't think of it first -- after all, I am the king of tinfoil (note to self: ramp up the paranoia).
Even more Hegelian. Make the problem ("drat our sideline idea isn't working because the field is too wide"), "solve" the problem ("just gonna have to narrow the field playing area"), get what you wanted all along without tipping your hand.
I was wondering how the bench change would play out because I remember hearing about how they purposely built BMO/TD to put fans "closer to the action" with smaller sidelines.
Does anyone know any actual field dimensions for those stadiums for us to run the numbers? What is the recommended/normal "bench area" width in the CFL right now? What is the minimum you could get away with? Would some stadiums still require that 4-5' lane for the camera cart to drive all game long?
If the math doesn't add up, xnos may very well be Nostradamus.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 04:24:16 AMhttps://3downnation.com/2025/09/22/opinion-the-cfl-finally-delivers-big-with-changes-that-will-make-the-game-pop/
How can they publish such tripe? Who is this "Madani" clown? How much did Johnston pay 3down under the table to be such "yes men"?
The arguments are, frankly, tired and brain dead. So much fallacy, I'm falling over myself. If no one at 3down gives a counter-article then the respect I had for down just went from a 2/10 to a -5/10.
If you think you don't have time to read it, here's the opening paragraph that only a SB&G could love:
At last, the Canadian Football League is getting out of the dark ages and modernizing a product that, while at its peak can be a beautiful thing to watch, has so many archaic, nonsensical idiosyncrasies that it affected how the game is played and presented.
I'm going to attack each fail in this article over the night as I find time, so as to not overwhelm. Feel free to chime in on your take.
Just because his opinions aren't yours doesn't make him brain-dead. He actually offers a view into what a lot of non CFL fans think about the game. It's okay that they think that.
The CFL does do a lot of weird stuff compared to how the game is much more widely understood in the US (and increasingly in Canada too).
The good news is all the purists get to decide if it's still worth your time or not. Lots of big words over the years. Many on this forum when some of us tried to explain the writing on the wall. Lots of outrage over a 35 second clock.
Here's your chance...
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:09:27 PMCoaches game the current timing system through substitutions.
Perhaps. I don't track or watch that aspect. I do know that this is the first time I'm hearing a fan say this or complain about it. You'd think that if this was a huge issue it would have been written about many times on this forum? You may have mentioned it before? The forum has a search and history: is there a post someone can point to before this month?
You very well may be right. Let's say you are. Was this the only solution? The best solution? Why does it just coincidentally align closely with how the NFL does it?
As for MOS, if he can bleed more clock with slow subs, ya, that totally fits his M.O. and overall game plan. This may hurt us. (Ya, it's not all about us...)
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:09:27 PMAll the change does is give both teams a max of 35 second to get ready for the next play. Many plays will be snapped earlier than that.
Except when EITS needs a spot revision. Or the refs spot a clock problem. This won't help either, and there may be more confusion in those cases. Do they reset the play clock to 35 again? That could actually add more time between snaps, not reduce it. And clearly there will be teething pains as the refs learn to cope. Games may look even more bush league for the first 6 weeks.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:19:49 PMJust because his opinions aren't yours doesn't make him brain-dead. He actually offers a view into what a lot of non CFL fans think about the game. It's okay that they think that.
No, his opinions aren't braindead -- his presentation of them, the constant (even blatant) insults, and the specious reasoning and weak-to-the-point-of-useless arguments and cherry-picked examples are what's braindead.
You are providing a FAR more sane and palatable argument for basically the same points and positions. YOU should have written that article.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:19:49 PMThe good news is all the purists get to decide if it's still worth your time or not. Here's your chance...
You're not getting rid of me that easily! Until now, I mainly have been pointing out the flaws in the
arguments. As for how I feel? If you want to know, these changes aren't nearly as bad as they could have been. I wouldn't have made any of them except the bench move. But I can easily live with most. The worst is the 35s one in the last 3 mins, because this has massive knock-on effects that are not being properly anticipated.
In short, no way I stop being a fan because of what we see here. Even if it completely destroys the last 3 mins and we get spikes & refs running like keystone cops. I'll live with it.
What I may stop being a fan over is going to 4 downs, or finding out there is/was an (NFL) agenda all along. Way too many hidden agendas in this world the last 20 years, I don't need one in my "leisure" pursuit too. As a fan, I mostly just ask "don't insult my intelligence". If they want to be the NFL,
just say it.
And even if they go 4 down in '28 or '29, I'd still give it a shot. But if by then they've basically aligned with all the NFL rules, then I could easily see myself quitting. I watch NFL playoffs and SB, and I spend most of the time irritated and unamused.
Some people think the way Disney subscribers dealt with Jimmy Kimmel should be followed.
Why not. League will be diminished significantly anyway if they follow through with four downs.
I find it sad that the justification for the field changes is higher scoring, when the average CFL scores are 3 points higher than NFL scores. Four downs by 2028.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:19:49 PMMany on this forum when some of us tried to explain the writing on the wall.
Bear with me. I am a member of a local club, which meets in person once a month. In fact, I'm on the board, for like 20 years. Pre-covid, for many years, some board members would bring up all the time how "the writing was on the wall" and "membership was dwindling" and "soon we'll have no members and be kaput" and "our membership is too old, they are dying off". You know, exactly what people have been saying about the CFL for the entire time I've been a fan.
Those fellow board members would always propose drastic changes, that usually didn't stand up to scrutiny, thinking they had the magic answers to get butts in our seats. They insisted something had to change NOW, and many changes, and often. They didn't always know what those changes should be. But if we didn't make those changes we were surely doomed, and fast.
So those board members came and went, and our membership, like most butts-in-seats evening-out organizations, fell off a bit, mostly at the usual pace. We continually tweaked our "product" here and there, but nothing drastic like was suggested. And you know what, our membership stabilized. The forecast "down to zero" scenario never happened, just as I knew it wouldn't. At the worst we dropped down to around 66% normal levels -- kind of like the CFL.
Covid was challenging (no butts in seats allowed) but we survived. And you know what, we started growing again and stabilized. And you know what else, new 18-29 year olds started showing up, just like I did when I was that age. Old people still died, but new ones came in. Many joined the board. And here we are today, a fairly "thriving" in-person club, doing better in a space that many predicted would die. And, encouraging for the CFL's situation, our membership exploded with the "new Canadian" set.
My point (and CFL tie in) is that doomsayers are often wrong, as all they see is doom. If you believe in your product, and what brought you, personally, into it in the first place, then you can tweak & survive. If "young you" liked it, then some new young people will like it too.
You don't have to blow everything up with drastic changes just because a few voices are saying you do. If you turn it into a product that young-you wouldn't have liked, what basis do you have for saying the new young people will like the new product either? What if you create something that
neither likes?
One last thing, now assume I (and people like me) weren't on that board. Assume it was nothing but doomsayers and chicken littles. Or worse, assume someone, maybe the chair, has harm as the end goal. How would the story end then?
When you come upon a fence, do not blindly tear it down, first ask yourself: why is this fence here?
The difficult thing with a UFL merger is, only one team has a higher average attendance than the argos (St. Louis). Who knows, maybe Mexico is in the plans.
Gambling angle: the rouge really screws up with "draw" chances in 3-way quarter/half outcomes. I play the draw at strategic times, and whenever there's a rouge I know that my chance of winning the draw bet is basically zero -- in most cases the other team would also have to get a rouge in that Q or H -- which rarely happens.
I wonder how many of these changes are to accommodate all the new gambling. If that has become HUGE money, it may start taking priority over fan desires.
I totally get it, Techno. And from a lot of fans. I really do. I grew up playing CFL style football (I was the littlest receiver on the field who waggled with the best of them). I love the CFL, and all of us on here contribute to the health of the CFL way more than the average Canadian.
What I think everyone really wants, is a strong league that is big and relevant in every market. And the reality is it hasn't been that way in a long time.
I truly believe the CFL can be better than it is. We can have better players if we changed the ratios and some of the rules. We can have a better viewing experience if we shrink the field both in person and on TV. I don't think we'll actually get to a carbon copy of the NFL in terms of rules in the foreseeable future (maybe ever) but I think we're well served to be closer.
And the proof will be in the reality. I could be dead wrong. Wouldn't be the first time! But I don't think any of these changes will cause a meaningful drop-off in attendance and I think it will help in the long run.
It appears that the main objection to these rules is that they are a precursor to transform the game into the american version.
And if thats the vision then Im fully against it.
But im not privy to the financial state of the cfl. What if the alternative is that we cant survive. Gate revenues are limited in what they provide. If the tv/streaming services wont support the current product ....,Hopefully theres a middle ground
If the nfl were to adopt the waggle, and decide to widen fields would there be an outcry. Taking ideas from other leagues to increase scoring isnt a bad thing
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 10:58:57 AMOooh, I'm soooo itching to see what MOS really thinks about all of this... Alas, outside of his wife(?) and close PAS circle we shall never know.
He speaks a bit on the coaches show. Says he hasn't had time to read it all because busy preparing for Hamilton but likes the rules as they are now when pressed about it.
Riderforum had a post saying there's some "CFL Constitution", or maybe bylaws? Or maybe they are thinking of the CBA? Does anyone have a link to a copy of whatever might govern the fundamental aspects of the game, such as "12 players".
They posited that the rouge was kept in one case (and ditched in all others) because the rouge is in whatever "constitution"-like thing may exist. They really wanted to get rid of it completely, but couldn't. Yet.
Quote from: Pete on September 23, 2025, 01:38:09 PMIt appears that the main objection to these rules is that they are a precursor to transform the game into the american version. And if thats the vision then Im fully against it.
Yes, and yes.
Quote from: Pete on September 23, 2025, 01:38:09 PMBut im not privy to the financial state of the cfl. What if the alternative is that we cant survive.
Yet they were rolling in enough dough to assure teams there was an extra $400k per team per year coming to up the SMS in FA25...
Quote from: Pete on September 23, 2025, 01:38:09 PMIf the nfl were to adopt the waggle, and decide to widen fields would there be an outcry. Taking ideas from other leagues to increase scoring isnt a bad thing
But smacks of "we who are alive and in charge right now are smarter than everyone who came before and we know better than them all and we will make drastic changes to an always-slowly-evolving entity to shape it into our vision and consequences be darned because we'll be on to the next gig by then anyhow and I already got paid". That always gets my radar beeping.
The 400k may be a blip and mainly due to tv revenues, which the league is becoming more dependent on and have a bigger say than we think.
And the changes weren't just one guy saying hey look at me, Research and data went into it, according to the league and reporters.
As well EVERY team had to sign off on it not just the majority
The fact that players and coaches were not included in any of the decisions, much less any discussion, is honestly sickening.
Johnston and the BOG really crapped the bed here.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 12:56:39 AMI'm good with more changes. Getting rid of the yard off the ball would be a good next step.
Why? How would that improve anything?
Once the field is shortened in 2027, there will be no going back. There will be stands put in and then be another massive expense to undo it.
I thought about it and I have decided that the 100 yard field is my red line. If that goes in I won't spend another dime on season tickets or CFL merchandise. I will watch on TV for free. I am not against rule changes but if we don't have the CFL field then we don't have CFL football.
I'd like to see a poll on how many are willing to give up season tickets over this. A couple callers on the coaches show said they would.
Quote from: Jesse on September 23, 2025, 10:54:16 AMMost of the media are toeing the line. They're giving airspace to the former American players who like the changes.
You have to follow the former Canadian players to get their opinions.
Peter Dyakowski:
For now. They gutted everything they could outside of bargaining. Anything that didn't require player approval for health & safety/CBA reasons. They will come for the rest when the CBA expires. These are the first (and major) steps towards full convergence with NFL rules.
This right here Dyakowski's bang on.
What the league did yesterday was nothing short of reprehensible.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 23, 2025, 01:56:14 PMThe fact that players and coaches were not included in any of the decisions, much less any discussion, is honestly sickening.
Big orgs will put together "focus groups" of current and potential future customers before making drastic changes.
Did the CFL put these changes to the "focus group" of current STHs? After all, it's that group that pays nearly all the bills in the CFL. Lose half the STHs and you no longer have a CFL.
And did the "potential customers" focus group say these changes would turn them into paying customers?
I bet the CFL did none of the above.
Quote from: Pete on September 23, 2025, 01:55:27 PMThe 400k may be a blip
Are you thinking the increase might be a one-off and the SMS gets reduced by a commensurate $400k in '26?? I'm not sure SMS has ever gone
down before?
And if it's permanent, then you once again have the counter-argument to any "league is poor and doomed right now" talk.
Quote from: Pete on September 23, 2025, 05:19:14 AMCurrently when teams use a no huddle sequence to either confuse the other team or prevent changes it doesnt seem to be an issue so likely 35 seconds is fine.
Its like most changes players/officials adapt, and if 35 seconds is too short or long adjustments can easily be made.
Too many here look at change like the sky is falling.
As long as it remains 3 downs, with wider field, and 12 men the rest isnt a big deal . The effectiveness of the new changes will determine where they go or dont go from here To the cfls credit they aren't just status quo Like the man said if you arent going forward your left behind
Considering the response from players and coaches since this announcement, I'm not sure you're paying enough attention here.
The league made arbitrary changes without consulting those most affected by them, which leads me to believe Johnston and co. don't care about them at all. This is a fine example of a slippery slope.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 02:08:31 PMBig orgs will put together "focus groups" of current and potential future customers before making drastic changes.
Did the CFL put these changes to the "focus group" of current STHs? After all, it's that group that pays nearly all the bills in the CFL. Lose half the STHs and you no longer have a CFL.
And did the "potential customers" focus group say these changes would turn them into paying customers?
I bet the CFL did none of the above.
Of course the league didn't. The bush league nonsense never ends.
Stewart Johnston is a stain on this league.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 02:08:31 PMBig orgs will put together "focus groups" of current and potential future customers before making drastic changes.
Did the CFL put these changes to the "focus group" of current STHs? After all, it's that group that pays nearly all the bills in the CFL. Lose half the STHs and you no longer have a CFL.
And did the "potential customers" focus group say these changes would turn them into paying customers?
I bet the CFL did none of the above.
I don't know what they did recently, but they cited an "extensive fan survey" in 2022 when they made minor changes to hash and kickoff locations. But the responses to these type of surveys can be influenced by the questions ("If the CFL was at risk of closing down, would you support minor changes to the rules?"), and the actual results were of course never revealed to the public. These surveys are more a public relations exercise to ensure people feel "heard" than any real attempt to gauge fan opinion. They don't care. They think they know best.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 02:11:08 PMAre you thinking the increase might be a one-off and the SMS gets reduced by a commensurate $400k in '26?? I'm not sure SMS has ever gone down before?
And if it's permanent, then you once again have the counter-argument to any "league is poor and doomed right now" talk.
If it isnt a blip then its due to tv revenue, who likely heavily influenced these changes. Does the cfl have a deal already in place for the foreseeable future? ( Btw whats Johnsons background again?)
Got an interesting text from my best friend. He works for a big company that has a corporate box at PAS and gives away tickets to employees and clients. The company GM sent out an email to all staff a half-hour after the league annoucement saying they would not be renewing their corporate box for 2026. Curious timing, that. I guess Johnston and his "we-know-better-than-you" crew will pick up the economic slack. Right? RIGHT?
Quote from: Waffler on September 23, 2025, 01:59:20 PMOnce the field is shortened in 2027, there will be no going back.
There will be stands put in and then be a another massive expense to undo it.
You may be right. The agents of change love to rapidly insert changes that cannot easily (if ever) be undone.
Certainly the instant they design & build a new stadium (whether Atlantic, or McMahon) it will then be set in stone forever. You can play in "too big" stadiums, but (other than angled corners) you can't play in a "too small" one.
Quote from: Waffler on September 23, 2025, 01:59:20 PMI thought about it and I have decided that the 100 yard field is my red line. If that goes in I won't spend another dime on season tickets or CFL merchandise.
It's a fair and growing take. Not me -- I'll boil with the other frogs for a while longer.
Quote from: Waffler on September 23, 2025, 01:59:20 PMI'd like to see a poll on how many are willing to give up season tickets over this. A couple callers on the coaches show said they would.
Make one! "New Poll" at the top of the main forum screen. Just word it carefully and give good options. I'd make sure to have enough "sub" options, like "hate the 100 yard idea, but keeping my STs", "hate the 100 yard idea, bye bye STs". You definitely don't want to make it just "keeping ST" vs "cancelling ST". The vast majority (I've been reading a lot of forums all night) are not cancelling their ST with 100 fields... yet... even though probably more than 50% don't like the idea.
Quote from: peg_city on September 23, 2025, 12:10:42 PMDoug Brown highlighted that this probably is the first step to full NFL rules. This is all they could do without going through the players' union. The next collective agreement will be NFL rules.
My guess is then merger with the UFL, which will result in us being a feeder league to the NFL.
Then they will want the ratio gone. That's just minor league american football which holds about as much interest as the Goldeyes do now.
I just listened to Rourke's actual comments recording for the first time. What an amazing, astute, adult, reasoned, rational and appealing take on the changes. He voices exactly what I think & feel.
Make sure you listen to him actually say the words. They are quite moving, and he's very convincing.
Call me a Rourke fan for life now. I don't care if he destroys us in some '25 playoff game.
Quote from: Waffler on September 23, 2025, 02:23:14 PMThen they will want the ratio gone. That's just minor league american football which holds about as much interest as the Goldeyes do now.
I'm not sure the USFL will survive after this season. Each season so far declining attendance etc.
If the CFL wanted buzz amongst the lay-people (non-fans), they got it.
I've had 3 friends who NEVER talk to me about football and don't watch CFL (or NFL) text me asking about the changes. And I had 2 people who loosely follow it (just the Bombers) do the same (which is also out of the ordinary).
"Any publicity is good publicity"
Maybe it's all just a cruel and cynical ploy just to generate interest and get more viewers in a short-term kind of way? Maybe Johnston will come out right after the cup and say "kidding, all those changes are off!". One can dream...
How many people contacted you?
Shorter field and shorter end zone:
1. K/O's may go through the end zone at times.
2. At the very least many will be fielded somewhere in the end zone, so returns may not make it as far down field. Now it's normal to see a return to 35 yard line. That could be pushed back 10 yards due to shorter field.
3. On a good kicking or windy day, a K/O might go through the end zone.
The same kinds of issues will exist on punts.
IMO this takes a lot of the great returns we see now.
Standardizing the depth of the end zone I can understand. Eliminating the risk of injury with the goal posts at the goal line I can understand but how often does that happen? I've actually run into a goal post in my youth. That said the current placement is used from a strategic point of view by receivers.
Having the odd pass hit an upright is part of the game as well.
I fully expected all the players and coaches and league personnel to fall in line and keep their mouths shut. I'm so impressed that these people with a platform are speaking out.
I get the sense that people who say the changes are good are the less informed, less enthusiastic fans to begin with. They will watch one game, form an opinion and not come back anyway. Just like they were doing before.
I've heard from some people and no one is impressed. Regardless the people talking about it are already football fans. Those that aren't don't even know anything is happening.
American non quarterbacks have long been under paid in the CFL compared to their Canadian friends. No wonder they like the changes and probably hope it will lead to a ratio breakthrough which puts them on equal footing.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 23, 2025, 02:11:13 PMConsidering the response from players and coaches since this announcement, I'm not sure you're paying enough attention here.
The league made arbitrary changes without consulting those most affected by them, which leads me to believe Johnston and co. don't care about them at all. This is a fine example of a slippery slope.
Yes it is a fine example of a slippery slope.
the fans, the league, the history, the game itself, probably means next to nothing to the new commissioner. And some of the owners. When was an owner of the stamps last seen at a game?
Probably been decades.
And If they actually think the league needs more excitement, they haven't been watching the games. Which is sad.
The league will probably survive this, it's been through it before. But who knows.
I will not be following the league if they continue down this road.
I'm so over this league's pitiful antics. On the one hand, it's struggling to attract fans and generate revenue. On the other, it continues to operate like some secret organization with no accountability to the public.
Good on key figures like Rourke and O'Shea for calling out the CFL's tiresome way of operating.
Wow. Has anyone heard this yet? Johnston gives an exclusive to Rider Radio, with more info than he gave prior.
https://iono.fm/e/1599934
Click on "Green Zone Hour 2 - Stewart Johston" from 22 SEP 3PM. Press play. Skip to "-15:20"
Johnston is, calmly, soothingly, walking you through the emotional experience he wants YOU to have as a "die hard" fan.
This is typical media manipulation and a propaganda technique, and yes, also a marketing technique. No, I'm not saying he's really a CIA plant, but I am saying the techniques he's using are SLIMEBALL city, disingenuous, and ALWAYS a sign of someone trying to manipulate the unwary.
EVERY fan he walked through this, yes all you die hard fans too!, came to the conclusion "these [changes] all make sense". Then he gaslights you that it's HIM who's being logical and YOU that's being emotional. Casting aside every logical objection you may have as emotional and invalid.
"Everyone got to the logic pretty quickly", you dim-witted fan who dares say boo about any of my changes! You aren't happy, well you're too dumb to get to the logic.
He points out some issue he had with the HAM game where the "last 3 minutes took half an hour to play". Did anyone have that thought in the HAM game? I sure didn't. It's the super long last 3 minutes that MAKE the game for me! That's when, in good games, everything happens. That's what makes you watch most every CFL game until the end. So he wants that to take 5 or 10 mins instead of 30? You want to talk about crowds clearing out with 6:00 left on the clock! You know the only one who's looking at their watch in the last 3 mins itching for it to be over instead of watching the game? My wife and 6yo daughter. That's who. Those aren't real fans (sorry wife! and daughter will grow out of it in 2-3 more years)!
When someone is trying to talk to me like Mr Rogers does -- you know that warm fuzzies voice -- be very wary. If there's an agenda at play and they want to mouthpiece to soothe the masses into accepting it, they sure picked the right guy. He doesn't look like much, but man is he smoooooooth.
My 3 completely and utterly clueless (football-wise) friends found out. So it must have been in their social feeds or on TV. Or someone tipped them off (not me).
Word has gotten out to the public in general. Of course, to know this quickly you have to be known in your circle of friends as "The CFL Guy". And I assume that's most of us here.
The bombers also wanted a 3 year commitment. If you buy grey cup tickets 100 dollar s off a ticket. Funny how they did this the announcement shortly before playoffs with Grey cup in Winnipeg .they wouldn't have pulled this off in Saskatchewan or Toronto where they use excuses not to attend games...they'd never get any of them to sign for 3 years and if they did the count would be so low wouldn't be worth it. So that's why they did it while Winnipeg had the grey cup.. I'll sell my tickets if Winnipeg isn't in. I was going to go no matter what. But try to recoup the the money from this bull ... 3 year deal..might go if BC is in.
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 23, 2025, 02:32:27 PMStandardizing the depth of the end zone I can understand. Eliminating the risk of injury with the goal posts at the goal line I can understand but how often does that happen? I've actually run into a goal post in my youth.
Don't promote that as a talking point. The CFL posts are wrapped in 1 foot of foam. I touch them after every PAS game (ya, forbidden, come at me brah!). Your youth post was a solid hunk of anodized steel.
I've seen 2 post hits in 10 years, only one "forceful" (blind hit) and every time it's absolutely nothing for the player other than an annoyance and a laugh.
There. Is. Zero. Player. Safety. Issue. With. The. Posts. Don't give them that talking point.
Oh ya! And players catching or diving at the
back of the EZ can still hit said post! You just moved the risk from where everyone is used to to where they are not! We've never seen a DIVE into our current posts... just wait and see one in 2 years!
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 02:44:20 PMAmerican non quarterbacks have long been under paid in the CFL compared to their Canadian friends. No wonder they like the changes and probably hope it will lead to a ratio breakthrough which puts them on equal footing.
So then they can all be underpaid? ;) ;) That seems like the more likely outcome. With no ratio NAT/IMP would be on par for $, but the top of the top players would probably get even more money than they do now. No need to pay Demski that much more than Schoen, but Zach & Kenny will still make bank.
(And I thought I was a poop disturber / unpopular questions guy!)
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 02:24:27 PMCall me a Rourke fan for life now.
fatboi should have helped him up. ;D
I have become a fan too based on what he said and how he was not afraid to be first. But. We still have to remember he is a Canadian player and has a vested interest in keeping the ratio. I wonder if American players like the changes?
The one good thing about these changes is that they do not really change our game (still ratio'd, 3 downs, 12 men, wide field and a rouge, even if it is diminished), it does make our fields easily adapted to NFL format.
As we saw in the fiasco here for the preseason game, adapting the goal line posts and 110 yard field to NFL is not easy.
With the new layout, we can easily accommodate an NFL preseason game just by repainting some side and EZ lines.
Toronto is dying to host Buffalo games. Every team would love a single NFL preseason games, I do not doubt that one game could take red ink to black for many teams. And NFL preseason games gets NFL eyeballs on our game.
Of all the changes, of all the concerns and kudos being tossed around, I think this was the most significant, and the main reason EVERY owner / President /governor said Yes to the changes.
Players might think otherwise, but they are wrong.
These changes (except the clock, still not happy with what that can do to the most exciting 3 minutes in sport, maybe start the game clock at 20?) will help the game.
This takes the CFL from being the weird Canadian version of football to being the odd Canadian version of football.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 03:13:43 PMThis takes the CFL from being the weird Canadian version of football to being the odd Canadian version of football.
Yay, winning! This might be the best summary of the debacle so far.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 03:13:43 PMAs we saw in the fiasco here for the preseason game, adapting the goal line posts and 110 yard field to NFL is not easy.
With the new layout, we can easily accommodate an NFL preseason game just by repainting some side and EZ lines.
Not if SSK sews the lines in again. I'll laugh when they spend $1.5M on the '27 turf and Johnston hits them with 10Y EZ's in '28 and it's another $1.5M! Whoopee! (Someone check if Johnston has 100% allocation to publicly traded turf companies...)
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 03:13:43 PMToronto is dying to host Buffalo games. Every team would love a single NFL preseason games, I do not doubt that one game could take red ink to black for many teams. And NFL preseason games gets NFL eyeballs on our game.
Like the huge success that was the IGF NFL PS game? Widely known as the biggest screwup in all of NFL
and CFL history, and the laughing stock of everyone.
Unless the field is identical, AND they don't allow the Usports / old-CFL post-accommodating "haphazard turf patch", NFL will complain and the same thing will happen. I've never seen a bigger bunch of kitty kats and wahmbulance-callers in my life as those clowns.
Doesn't look like any changes are to make the game better:
35 second clock is to make all games much closer in run time which makes it easier for the TV folks.
Shortened field is to provide extra revenue.
Shortened end-zone and teams on opposite side of the field is to standardize the fields.
Moving the goalposts & eliminating the rouge are to make the game easier for the US market to understand.
Easy to sell those to upper management who think ooooh we're going to make a big bag o money with a US TV deal.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 03:22:25 PMNot if SSK sews the lines in again. I'll laugh when they spend $1.5M on the '27 turf and Johnston hits them with 10Y EZ's in '28 and it's another $1.5M! Whoopee! (Someone check if Johnston has 100% allocation to publicly traded turf companies...)
Like the huge success that was the IGF NFL PS game? Widely known as the biggest screwup in all of NFL and CFL history, and the laughing stock of everyone.
Unless the field is identical, AND they don't allow the Usports / old-CFL post-accommodating "haphazard turf patch", NFL will complain and the same thing will happen. I've never seen a bigger bunch of kitty kats and wahmbulance-callers in my life as those clowns.
You realize the new configuration is exactly the NFL one, with the exception of the field width (wider) and EZ depth (deeper).
Sewn in or not, to make any CFL field into an NFL field, you chalk the sidelines in narrower and the EZ shallower. All it takes is some chalk.
No changes to FG posts, or any other turf mods.
Just some chalk.
And no NFL team will complain. And fans will get to see an NFL game as it was meant to be, not some haphazard crap like at IGF.
as with most things in life...follow the $$
I don't really have an issue with the changes - my tin foil hat is starting to burn a bit and I wonder if the CFL owners are chasing the massive dollars the NFL has and is literally hoping for some crumbs of $$ that an affiliation in some form will have. Like it or not the NFL is King and is only going to get bigger. The NFL owners have tasted the good water and are not going to stop growing the league and revenue.
Watch the Jerry Jones documentary - sure it was sided to play him in a positive light and he is a terrible GM but the old coot is a marketing genius and most of the other owners are filthy rich because they are smart. CFL owners want to be tied to them in some way and this is likely the start. Our CFL Commissioner has eyes on Roger's armchair...
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 03:26:52 PMSewn in or not, to make any CFL field into an NFL field, you chalk the sidelines in narrower and the EZ shallower. All it takes is some chalk.
Not according to what Commish/3down/SSK has said. They will 100% for realz replace their brand new turf with the new-dimensions-lines turf for this change. And 1-2 other stadiums, too. Because of sewn-in lines.
There is no "chalk" solution. Even once at 100, if (when!) they change the width issue and 15->10 EZ issue,
if they did sewn-in again in '27, they will be forced to buy new turf AGAIN. One would hope they would go non-sewn (like PAS), but... it would sure be darn funny if they trusted Johnston to not make more changes and he does. $3M wasted on new turf in 2 years. LOL.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 03:26:52 PMNo changes to FG posts, or any other turf mods.
Reread what I wrote about the little turf patch over the old GP position. That was the entirety of the NFL PS game debacle. I was there, and I followed all the news and aftermath closely.
If Usports doesn't match the CFL GP/dimensions changes then there will be by definition that little patch in all shared stadiums and the NFL will complain about the exact same thing they did @IGF.
Now, if Usports change to match the CFL, then this problem goes away (assuming they "properly" permanently patch that old hole). But who knows if that will happen. 50/50
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 03:37:06 PMNot according to what Commish/3down/SSK has said. They will 100% for realz replace their brand new turf with the new-dimensions-lines turf for this change. And 1-2 other stadiums, too. Because of sewn-in lines.
There is no "chalk" solution. Even once at 100, if (when!) they change the width issue and 15->10 EZ issue, if they did sewn-in again in '27, they will be forced to buy new turf AGAIN. One would hope they would go non-sewn (like PAS), but... it would sure be darn funny if they trusted Johnston to not make more changes and he does. $3M wasted on new turf in 2 years. LOL.
Reread what I wrote about the little turf patch over the old GP position. That was the entirety of the NFL PS game debacle. I was there, and I followed all the news and aftermath closely. If Usports doesn't match the CFL GP/dimensions changes then there will be by definition that little patch in all shared stadiums and the NFL will complain about the exact same thing they did @IGF.
Now, if Usports change to match the CFL, then this problem goes away (assuming they "properly" permanently patch that old hole). But who knows if that will happen. 50/50
Which USports stadium will host an NFL preseason game? I don't see your point.
Every Usports facility can and will make the adjustment to the new field dimensions and configuration, might not be immediate or a permanent change, might have to be a bit slapdash, but it is easy to do by planning it in the next upgrade.
And I have no idea why you can't see that chalking (or painting) new lines INSIDE any sewn lines is a no brainer. There are no obstructions or issues, save for the FG posts actually being 5 yards deeper. And I'm sure that engineers could even come up with an answer for that.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 02:58:21 PMDon't promote that as a talking point. The CFL posts are wrapped in 1 foot of foam. I touch them after every PAS game (ya, forbidden, come at me brah!). Your youth post was a solid hunk of anodized steel.
I've seen 2 post hits in 10 years, only one "forceful" (blind hit) and every time it's absolutely nothing for the player other than an annoyance and a laugh.
There. Is. Zero. Player. Safety. Issue. With. The. Posts. Don't give them that talking point.
Oh ya! And players catching or diving at the back of the EZ can still hit said post! You just moved the risk from where everyone is used to to where they are not! We've never seen a DIVE into our current posts... just wait and see one in 2 years!
I wasn't. Just kidding about my youth playing on high school fields with 2 wooden posts and no protective coverings. Also of note, this was just touch football in summer and tackle in winter. The main point was that neither were played with any equipment to protect from being tackled let alone the darn goal posts. lol
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 23, 2025, 02:45:22 PMI'm so over this league's pitiful antics. On the one hand, it's struggling to attract fans and generate revenue. On the other, it continues to operate like some secret organization with no accountability to the public.
Good on key figures like Rourke and O'Shea for calling out the CFL's tiresome way of operating.
LIKE!!
MOS not consulted on this. Huge fail imo.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 04:07:07 AMNow THAT gif gets you a forum hero cookie. Spot on. McCallum special has been redirected to SB&G.
Low sugar please lol
If there was a love button I would have pressed it
Gotta wonder how much influence (if any) TSN had in this decision and if Johnston was installed (from TSN) to execute it.
It may have been said here already but I want to point out that the shorter field pretty much eliminates kickoff returns. In the nfl, kickoffs almost always go right through the endzone, with no return ( touchback). The same will happen here. The nfl has little to do with the foot part of the name. Football ? Kicking and punting is really nothing in the nfl with the touchback and fair catch. Don't move the goalposts and DO NOT shorten the field.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 23, 2025, 05:01:18 PMIt may have been said here already but I want to point out that the shorter field pretty much eliminates kickoff returns. In the nfl, kickoffs almost always go right through the endzone, with no return ( touchback). The same will happen here. The nfl has little to do with the foot part of the name. Football ? Kicking and punting is really nothing in the nfl with the touchback and fair catch. Don't move the goalposts and DO NOT shorten the field.
NFL changed their kickoff rules/process to eliminate this.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 23, 2025, 05:03:09 PMNFL changed their kickoff rules/process to eliminate this.
OH, so there's no more touchback ?
I don't watch the NFL until after the Grey Cup.... maybe !
Quote from: dd on September 23, 2025, 12:56:09 AMI can t remember if I cried , when I read about his widowed bride, but something struck me deep inside, the day, the music, died.......
:D
Quote from: The Zipp on September 23, 2025, 05:03:09 PMNFL changed their kickoff rules/process to eliminate this.
SO I just looked at the NFL rules, the touchback still exists. I'm saying that almost all the kickoffs will just sail through the endzone and will pretty much kill kickoff returns because of the short field, similar to the nfl.
I love the Rourke comments. I gained loads of respect for the guy.
I love the passion for the Canadian game he has!
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 04:10:22 AMAnd you are 100% right. They are boiling us slowly. If they want 10Y EZs and NFL widths, just come out and do it now. It'll save SSK from spending $1.2M on new turf in both '27 and '28.
No one likes dishonesty or realizing they've been played, Johnston.
I don't think anyone is being dishonest. They probably have some framework plans depending on how things go. If these changes resonate against whatever KPIs they're tracking you're more likely to see more changes. There's probably a few paths before them that are lightly sketched out.
I would push back on there being some over-arching evil plan that is 100% being rolled out over x amount of time. That's not how strategic choices are typically made.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 23, 2025, 05:13:37 PMSO I just looked at the NFL rules, the touchback still exists. I'm saying that almost all the kickoffs will just sail through the endzone and will pretty much kill kickoff returns because of the short field, similar to the nfl.
This explains it
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/rules-changes/dynamic-kickoff-rule-explainer/
Quote from: The Zipp on September 23, 2025, 05:29:52 PMThis explains it
https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/rules-changes/dynamic-kickoff-rule-explainer/
Yes I see that. Again, my point is .. the shorter field and short endzone creates a situation where the ball is easy to sail right out of the back of the endzone (
still exists in the NFL) and therefore eliminates all kick returns. This is called a touchback in the NFL and will happen now in the CFL. The touchback still exists with the new dynamic kickoff rule in the NFL.
I don't like the shorter field and endzone for this reason.
depends where they kick from and if they do anything like the NFL to encourage less touchbacks.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 23, 2025, 05:01:18 PMIt may have been said here already but I want to point out that the shorter field pretty much eliminates kickoff returns. In the nfl, kickoffs almost always go right through the endzone, with no return ( touchback). The same will happen here. The nfl has little to do with the foot part of the name. Football ? Kicking and punting is really nothing in the nfl with the touchback and fair catch. Don't move the goalposts and DO NOT shorten the field.
Why?
They will move the KO back 10-15 yards. They already did that recently to increase returns. No reason for a kick to go through the EZ. If anything, we might see non-runouts of deep kicks resulting in the new rouge.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 23, 2025, 04:51:59 PMMOS not consulted on this. Huge fail imo.
Miller was... and agreed wholeheartedly.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 05:51:17 PMWhy?
They will move the KO back 10-15 yards. They already did that recently to increase returns. No reason for a kick to go through the EZ. If anything, we might see non-runouts of deep kicks resulting in the new rouge.
Did they say they're moving the KO back 10 to 15 yards ? Is that what the CFL is doing ? Or are you just suggesting that they will ? Kickers are getting stronger.
There's just no reason to shorten the field... how's that for an answer? It's goofy.
If they wanted to Americanize the game, all the opportunities were there. They took none of them.
Changes in configuration make sense, standardizing is logical long term. If we move the season up and have our useless preseason down south, the fields will be ready to host.
If NFL teams want to preseason up here, we're ready to take the $$$.
One yard off the ball, 12 men, ratio, waggle, 3 downs, the things that make the CFL unique are still there.
Modified rouge, even Westwood is in favour, even though it would take him from 7th to 60th in league scoring... wide right doesn't get a point anymore, although short might.
Clock is the worrisome one for me, with enhanced stats and computerization, it should be less of an issue, and there should be a way to fix it without going to a 35 second clock. I guess we will see how it plays out in preseason, they can still make changes before the season starts. Or even after, like the chipped balls for kicking...
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 23, 2025, 05:57:13 PMDid they say they're moving the KO back 10 to 15 yards ? Is that what the CFL is doing ? Or are you just suggesting that they will ? Kickers are getting stronger.
There's just no reason to shorten the field... how's that for an answer? It's goofy.
The 55 yard line is goofy.
Shortening it makes the field fit in MTL and TOR.
That's a reason.
And more scoring, 10 yards less for drives. 1 set of downs closer to point.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 06:09:12 PMThe 55 yard line is goofy.
Shortening it makes the field fit in MTL and TOR.
That's a reason.
And more scoring, 10 yards less for drives. 1 set of downs closer to point.
You somehow didn't answer the question ... That's ok. It seems the arguments for the changes have a lot of people avoiding the questions.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 23, 2025, 05:57:13 PMDid they say they're moving the KO back 10 to 15 yards ? Is that what the CFL is doing ? Or are you just suggesting that they will ? Kickers are getting stronger.
There's just no reason to shorten the field... how's that for an answer? It's goofy.
I suspect there will be a bunch of consequential rule changes due to the field changes. Scrimmaging from the 40 is nearly starting at mid field now, and that really doesn't make sense. Kicking off from the 40 with no Rouge potential also means a lot of kicks potentially carrying through the end zone which also results in scrimmaging from the 40 with no point benefit.
Punts from inside of center field will also increase, and I suspect if the OOB limit stays as is, you'll see the punting strategy being to punt OOB in the air for the opponents 40 plus.
15 yard no yards penalties are also more significant now with a shorter field.
None of the above makes the game more exciting in my opinion.
Quote from: BlueInCgy on September 23, 2025, 06:16:37 PMNone of the above makes the game more exciting in my opinion.
There's that also. Does any of it make it more exciting ?
I'll stop posting and let the CFL know how I feel by keeping my wallet closed.
Quote from: Freep on September 22, 2025, 09:24:02 PMI have been a season ticket holder for over 40 years. It's the unique things about the CFL that bring me to games. All these changes eliminate or diminish the uniqueness. I am absolutely livid and will no longer be a Bomber fan or a CFL fan if these changes are implemented.
The game you "love" is the same. 3 Downs, ratio, one yard off the ball, waggle. All the stuff that makes CFL unique.
Yes, the silly 55 yard line is gone. The rouge which most people, including kickers, thought was a reward for failure, is reduced. And the goalposts which block sightlines for fans, QB's, and receivers goes outside the playing field.
And teams on opposite sides of the field? How is that a bad thing? The game should not change whether you are playing in the east or west. What if the "long change" dreaded in the NHL second period only happened in half the rinks? You'd think that was dumb.
The clock I can't see getting to implementation in its proposed form. That is too far for the "No lead is safe" league. THAT will be modified in some way.
But the game you watch in 2027 is going to feel just the same, maybe a little faster and higher scoring, but that's a good thing, right?
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 23, 2025, 06:16:06 PMYou somehow didn't answer the question ... That's ok. It seems the arguments for the changes have a lot of people avoiding the questions.
How did I not answer. Shortening the field:
Makes a regulation field fit in TOR and MTL
Reduces distance needed to be covered to score, increasing scoring.
Downside: I can't see any other than loving the difference and having a 55 yard line.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 06:23:21 PMHow did I not answer. Shortening the field:
Makes a regulation field fit in TOR and MTL
Reduces distance needed to be covered to score, increasing scoring.
Downside: I can't see any other than loving the difference and having a 55 yard line.
I'll ask again then..
Did they say they're moving the KO back 10 to 15 yards ? Is that what the CFL is doing ? Or are you just suggesting that they will ?
If Wade wholeheartedly supported this as you say he did, then I will show Wade how I feel by not renewing.
I've heard that the new changes will negatively effect the sightlines for ppl sitting in the end zones.
My lingering back of mind concern, NFL Lite by 2028 notwithstanding, is that there hasn't been a fully thought through plan. If there are more field changes (not ruled out), they need to be done at the same time because it's not like most CFL teams have piles of spare operating cash to make continual upgrades (without jacking up ticket prices which also has a point of diminished returns). Since U Sports wasn't considered in the decision (not exclusively the CFLs problem however a number of fields are shared use facilities), either U Sports retrofits all non shared facilities (at their cost) or abandons the shared facilities, in which case those CFL stadiums lose a tenant and whatever associated revenue stream comes with it (probably not much but also non zero). Practice facilities won't necessarily have to be retrofitted, but it would probably be recommended.
Season ticket seats just got worse for most so they'll either have to be discounted appropriately, or risk forfeiting, neither of which is revenue positive.
And that is independent of fan reaction.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 05:55:38 PMMiller was... and agreed wholeheartedly.
Not the way I would do business. Not a fan of top down changes. Power to the people, man.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 05:55:38 PMMiller was... and agreed wholeheartedly.
And had to sign an NDA and couldn't tell MOS
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 23, 2025, 05:37:26 PMYes I see that. Again, my point is .. the shorter field and short endzone creates a situation where the ball is easy to sail right out of the back of the endzone ( still exists in the NFL) and therefore eliminates all kick returns. This is called a touchback in the NFL and will happen now in the CFL. The touchback still exists with the new dynamic kickoff rule in the NFL.
I don't like the shorter field and endzone for this reason.
I don't see the benefit of kicking the ball through the endzone for 0 pts. and giving the opponent possession on their own 40. I think it will happen by accident as it does now, but the kickoff strategy will still be to pin them as deep as possible.
Did Miller agree or did he acquiesce...?
(https://y.yarn.co/899be05b-ecbf-4644-8883-2c31057a3b2d_text.gif)
Quote from: Jesse on September 23, 2025, 10:54:16 AMMost of the media are toeing the line. They're giving airspace to the former American players who like the changes.
You have to follow the former Canadian players to get their opinions.
Peter Dyakowski:
For now. They gutted everything they could outside of bargaining. Anything that didn't require player approval for health & safety/CBA reasons. They will come for the rest when the CBA expires. These are the first (and major) steps towards full convergence with NFL rules.
Dyakowski served as Treasurer of the CFLPA for a few years so he has insideer knowledge of negotiating with the league.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 23, 2025, 06:58:43 PMDid Miller agree or did he acquiesce...?
(https://y.yarn.co/899be05b-ecbf-4644-8883-2c31057a3b2d_text.gif)
You can read for yourself.
https://3downnation.com/2025/09/22/blue-bombers-president-wade-miller-calls-cfl-changes-positive-step-insists-they-will-not-impact-bisons/ (https://3downnation.com/2025/09/22/blue-bombers-president-wade-miller-calls-cfl-changes-positive-step-insists-they-will-not-impact-bisons/)
Here's one for the "confidence in their due diligence" front. Stewart says the changes will result in 60 more tds, resulting in a 10% increase. If 60 is 10%, then that means they were basing it on 600 tds per season. There are 81 games per season. That means there would have to be 7.4 tds scored per game. I don't think so. I think it's more like 5. And that doesn't factor in defence and teams tds. The percentage then should be more like 15%. A less sellable claim perhaps? We're watching, CFL.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 07:09:49 PMYou can read for yourself.
https://3downnation.com/2025/09/22/blue-bombers-president-wade-miller-calls-cfl-changes-positive-step-insists-they-will-not-impact-bisons/ (https://3downnation.com/2025/09/22/blue-bombers-president-wade-miller-calls-cfl-changes-positive-step-insists-they-will-not-impact-bisons/)
I already did. Much like Johnston yesterday, there's very little substance in what was said. There's no basis that these changes will improve the game, either in terms of its profitability or its appeal.
I question where he actually stands on this whole thing.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 23, 2025, 07:20:37 PMHere's one for the "confidence in their due diligence" front. Stewart says the changes will result in 60 more tds, resulting in a 10% increase. If 60 is 10%, then that means they were basing it on 600 tds per season. There are 81 games per season. That means there would have to be 7.4 tds scored per game. I don't think so. I think it's more like 5. And that doesn't factor in defence and teams tds. The percentage then should be more like 15%. A less sellable claim perhaps? We're watching, CFL.
Save those stats. for his trial, they can be recited aloud at his execution.
Quote from: bomb squad on September 23, 2025, 07:20:37 PMHere's one for the "confidence in their due diligence" front. Stewart says the changes will result in 60 more tds, resulting in a 10% increase. If 60 is 10%, then that means they were basing it on 600 tds per season. There are 81 games per season. That means there would have to be 7.4 tds scored per game. I don't think so. I think it's more like 5. And that doesn't factor in defence and teams tds. The percentage then should be more like 15%. A less sellable claim perhaps? We're watching, CFL.
Yeah that doesn't check. Average combined scores in 2024 per game were between 49 and 52 points. Figure there's probably 2-3 FGs per team per game, that brings your average TDs per game to 4 to 5 total TDs average per game (ignoring singles and safeties and treating offensive and defensive TDs as the same).
Funny enough, the NFL average score in the same period was 6 points per game less. I have no idea what the FG count is in the NFL but I'm assuming it's non zero.
Sounds like Stewie sucks at math.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 07:26:22 PMSave those stats. for his trial, they can be recited aloud at his execution.
Unfortunately it will likely be a eulogy.
Quote from: Waffler on September 23, 2025, 01:59:20 PMOnce the field is shortened in 2027, there will be no going back. There will be stands put in and then be another massive expense to undo it.
They can fill the new endzone space with slot machines to generate extra revenue and add a bit of colour, distraction and background noise. Provide seniors a free ducat to attend games, they can smoke, drink and gamble their pensions, while only having to dodge the occasional FG or bruiser that crashes through their fresh air casino.
One thing I've noticed in the forum discourse - when the pro-change folks concede on any issues raised, they tend to add, "well yeah but they will OBVIOUSLY make x change to compensate for that". Obviously, we will move kickoffs back 10 yards. Obviously, they won't actually implement the 35 s clock, guys.
Without details how can we be so sure about any of these things? This league and its brand new commissioner haven't earned an ounce of the benefit of the doubt.
And once these changes are rolled out, if they're a failure, good luck putting the genie back in the bottle again.
Quote from: blue_or_die on September 23, 2025, 07:54:26 PMOne thing I've noticed in the forum discourse - when the pro-change folks concede on any issues raised, they tend to add, "well yeah but they will OBVIOUSLY make x change to compensate for that". Obviously, we will move kickoffs back 10 yards. Obviously, they won't actually implement the 35 s clock, guys.
Without details how can we be so sure about any of these things? This league and its brand new commissioner haven't earned an ounce of the benefit of the doubt.
And once these changes are rolled out, if they're a failure, good luck putting the genie back in the bottle again.
They'll try and figure that out in the off season and next year. Right now they're field testing the fan base reaction.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 07:49:22 PMThey can fill the new endzone space with slot machines to generate extra revenue and add a bit of colour, distraction and background noise. Provide seniors a free ducat to attend games, they can smoke, drink and gamble their pensions, while only having to dodge the occasional FG and bruiser that crashes through their fresh air casino.
Funny thing is I wouldn't be surprised if something like that wasn't factored in. Maybe not casino, but some kind of premium entertainment zone. Problem is it requires cash up front over and above the cash required for field mods.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 07:49:22 PMThey can fill the new endzone space with slot machines to generate extra revenue and add a bit of colour, distraction and background noise. Provide seniors a free ducat to attend games, they can smoke, drink and gamble their pensions, while only having to dodge the occasional FG and bruiser that crashes through their fresh air casino.
More tickets, more money.
Will only be a 10 yard add in, I can see an entertainment stage being added, or a lounge area with a hot tub and sofa's... "Sponsored by" kind of deal.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 23, 2025, 06:27:30 PMI'll ask again then..
Did they say they're moving the KO back 10 to 15 yards ? Is that what the CFL is doing ? Or are you just suggesting that they will ?
If Wade wholeheartedly supported this as you say he did, then I will show Wade how I feel by not renewing.
I'd be more likely to not renew based on whats happening on the field as opposed to what's happening to the field.
Quote from: jets4life on September 23, 2025, 06:30:55 PMI've heard that the new changes will negatively effect the sightlines for ppl sitting in the end zones.
Again, 10 yards. Sure, it may be a little different, guys who used to be on the goal line are now 5 yards deep in the EZ, but overall, there should be better sightlines for most of the seats with the removal of the goal posts.
I used to have P7's in the corner, where I missed action below on the goal line, new configuration will bring that goal line into view. So some will improve.
EZ seats are not about the view, though, now are they?
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 08:20:53 PMI'd be more likely to not renew based on whats happening on the field as opposed to what's happening to the field.
You're hilarious !
Pat Neufeld discusses the rule changes with Ed Tait.
Zach discusses his health in the first half and rule changes in the second half of the interview.
Quote from: BlueInCgy on September 23, 2025, 06:34:56 PMSeason ticket seats just got worse for most so they'll either have to be discounted appropriately, or risk forfeiting, neither of which is revenue positive.
Discounting season tickets because of this will never happen. Teams can't afford to do that and the degradation of your sight line will be minimal. Many will complain, few will give up their seats.
I don't like it either but it's going to happen so live with it. My seats got worse too.
I do find it hard to believe that Wade Miller was consulted and he never discussed it at all with MOS. Thought the mafia was tighter than that. Interesting that Miller is in favor. Or he has to support it because he has no choice.
Quote from: buckzumhoff on September 23, 2025, 02:52:47 PMThe bombers also wanted a 3 year commitment.
Commitments aren't unheard of. SSK did a 3 year commitment deal in '20-'21 I think? I don't think it was related to any GC, they gave a deal where you locked in your price (no increases) and got a free jersey (so like $200) if you stayed in the program.
It backfired around '23-'24 when they all came up for renewal, the team had stunk for 3+ years under Dickenson The Lesser and the province added a new tax to tickets: caused a ton of STH to drop out and they never came back.
Let's hope WFC plays this much better (even if losing after this). This STH loss cost SSK big time. Need to ease the STH into the next "deal", and don't add new taxes (teams can offset them with discounts), and/or lower prices if the team has been crap.
Quote from: buckzumhoff on September 23, 2025, 02:52:47 PMFunny how they did this the announcement shortly before playoffs with Grey cup in Winnipeg
If anyone wants to dismiss the timing as "conspiracy", keep in mind Johnston has explicitly said he and his board have been talking about these changes and working on them for MONTHS. WM is one of his board. So WM almost certainly had advance knowledge of the NFL changes
before he made up the $100 GC discount 3-year lock-in.
Of course, I can't say for sure with the timing, and I also can't even say one begat the other. But it is certainly possible. I'm not even sure I'd fault him for it. His job is to ensure butts in seats, and any "lies" would only be lies of omission. (And what's he gonna say? "Please lock in to get your discount because if you don't lock in before you hear the NFL news, we know you'll cancel your STH!")
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 06:20:57 PMThe game you "love" is the same. 3 Downs, ratio, one yard off the ball, waggle. All the stuff that makes CFL unique.
Wow! Did Johnston steal Aard's login credentials?
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 06:20:57 PMYes, the silly 55 yard line is gone. The rouge which most people, including kickers, thought was a reward for failure, is reduced. And the goalposts which block sightlines for fans, QB's, and receivers goes outside the playing field.
Aards, think for yourself man! You basically just regurgitated the exact same wording as Johnston gave in the KJME interview I posted!
Everyone's already rebutted every point, but you just toe the party line! At least pro-NFL SB&G is putting thought into his rah-rah posts, understands what we are saying, and isn't parroting the weak talking points.
Did you really think the 55 yard line was "silly" last season? 10 seasons ago? 20? Or do you just think you think that now because the concept has been implanted in your brain as truth by external parties?
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 06:20:57 PMAnd teams on opposite sides of the field? How is that a bad thing?
Inserting the thing no one opposes to justify the changes many oppose. Fallacious.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 06:20:57 PMThe clock I can't see getting to implementation in its proposed form. That is too far for the "No lead is safe" league. THAT will be modified in some way.
Phew, I thought the aliens had completely taken over your brain. At least you had one nonconformist thought in this post. Now go tell Johnston, because as it stands right now, you're getting the 35s clock in the final 3. And agreeing with all his other points only strengthens his ability to do it.
Quote from: gordo on September 24, 2025, 04:20:15 AMI do find it hard to believe that Wade Miller was consulted and he never discussed it at all with MOS. Thought the mafia was tighter than that.
Or maybe he did... we were all noting how ornery and snarky MOS has been for at least 2 months now. And it wasn't just because of the losing (we were looking ok for some of that time).
Maybe WM told MOS, and MOS hated the new rules AND was anticipating the fan backlash that was coming. Sucks when your ultimate boss (the Commish) is a maniacal poop-disturber that wants to destroy the org you have lived/loved your whole life, eh Mike?
Keep in mind, that these changes REALLY impact the "MOS Book For Running His Game", more so than any other HC. For one thing, MOS is a FG-heavy HC. FG's will go the way of the dodo now.
Quote from: BlueInCgy on September 23, 2025, 08:12:38 PMFunny thing is I wouldn't be surprised if something like that wasn't factored in. Maybe not casino, but some kind of premium entertainment zone.
The 3down Madani article I linked to yesterday already came out and said the plan is for field-level seating to fill with people like social media "influencers". It's already in the cards. Basically a done deal.
If you want to talk about cost, many/most big influencers won't pay to go to your game: the opposite... you have to pay THEM. Sometimes hundreds of thousands. If you want to reach the kids...
Quote from: BlueInCgy on September 23, 2025, 08:06:05 PMThey'll try and figure that out in the off season and next year. Right now they're field testing the fan base reaction.
They could have done that saying "we're thinking about" or "we're studying". Not "this is what we're doing 100% screw you".
It seems unlikely a new Commish clearly looking to make a big name for himself will suddenly backtrack on even a single change. Unless it was all a big joke to stir up layman interest in the general media.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 07:49:22 PMThey can fill the new endzone space with slot machines to generate extra revenue and add a bit of colour, distraction and background noise. Provide seniors a free ducat to attend games, they can smoke, drink and gamble their pensions, while only having to dodge the occasional FG or bruiser that crashes through their fresh air casino.
LOL. Maybe! They'd have to make sure the Rum Hut delivers to your VLT though.
Quote from: BlueInCgy on September 23, 2025, 06:34:56 PMSeason ticket seats just got worse for most so they'll either have to be discounted appropriately, or risk forfeiting, neither of which is revenue positive.
True. Fans looking for good views generally measure seats by "within the 30s" or whatever number they find acceptable. Your "within the 30s" seat just turned into a "within the 25s" seat.
And EZ/corner people are now 10Y farther away from any action at all. Say goodbye to any hope of the Hardrick Hop returning to PAS (yes, with a new player, I know -- call it the Vanterpool Vault).
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 06:23:21 PMHow did I not answer. Shortening the field:
Makes a regulation field fit in TOR and MTL
As many have said, this is not a real talking point because they could have done that by making the EZs 17 or 18. They didn't need to go to 15 (or the inevitable 10). Saying "muh TOR and MTL" is at best a misdirection and deflection; and at worst a lie.
Quote from: BlueInCgy on September 23, 2025, 06:16:37 PMPunts from inside of center field will also increase, and I suspect if the OOB limit stays as is, you'll see the punting strategy being to punt OOB in the air for the opponents 40 plus.
None of the above makes the game more exciting in my opinion.
Good point. They have stated they want to decrease FGs because it's "boring". They think the changes will make teams go for it (more TDs) instead. What if teams just end up punting even more!
IOW, they aren't trading FGs for TDs, but FGs for punts. And while
I like punts, most would say they are the most boring play in the CFL, and most people complain when a game turns into a punt-fest.
I can see situations where teams are punting in 3rd & medium (or even short) at the opponent's 35 YL! Something unheard of in the current CFL. Good punters may have to be able to hit the coffin with only 25-30Y of air space! Crazy obtuse-angled punts to the field side might become the norm. Might actually make it easier to hit the coffin corner. Might result in a ton more pinned series-starts, which will definitely not "increase scoring".
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 05:55:38 PMMiller was... and agreed wholeheartedly.
Or was coerced. And him publicly loving the changes doesn't negate that possibility. They could say "WM endorse these changes or your HAVE team will be paying a lot more money to the HAVE NOT teams next season".
I can easily see the big, huge money, billionaire owners that want massive change forcing their will upon lowly community-owned WFC/WM.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 05:51:17 PMThey will move the KO back 10-15 yards. They already did that recently to increase returns.
Pretty soon they'll be kicking off from behind the goal line! Just to get "more O".
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 23, 2025, 05:26:59 PMI would push back on there being some over-arching evil plan that is 100% being rolled out over x amount of time. That's not how strategic choices are typically made.
I wouldn't. Too much of this occurring in normal life the last 25 years. Not a stretch to think the ultimate owners like Disney aren't fulfilling some long term vision. They've been drip-dripping
stuff into the CFL for at least 15 years now.
I'd say it's (at least) equally as likely as this is all benign with the only planned goal being to "increase TDs". You can't say, and I can't say, but we will certainly find out. Problem is, when the CFL is NFL in 5 years, no one will remember this conversation and people will still think "slippery slope" is a fallacy. Rinse, and repeat.
Quote from: BlueInCgy on September 23, 2025, 04:55:59 PMGotta wonder how much influence (if any) TSN had in this decision and if Johnston was installed (from TSN) to execute it.
Bingo. I knew I smelled trouble when he was installed. His sophistry and smarmy style the last couple of days basically proves it.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 04:00:26 PMWhich USports stadium will host an NFL preseason game? I don't see your point.
Uh, us? It's been stated publicly that these changes leading to NFL PS games is one of the side-quest goals.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 23, 2025, 04:00:26 PMAnd I have no idea why you can't see that chalking (or painting) new lines INSIDE any sewn lines is a no brainer.
Once again,
Commish and SSK said that the NEW DIMENIONS, which are "INSIDE any sewn lines" will
REQUIRE new $1.5M turf. For 2-3 stadiums. And if they shrink it again (10Y EZ) after they install these new turfs (if they use sewn-in again), then the same REQUIREMENT will hold true then.
There is no "just chalk it over". I'm not sure how else I can word this for you.
These changes have
guaranteed a
massive cost for 2-3 teams. Doubly as bad because SSK just installed a new turf! Can you imagine if this was WFC with their just-installed turf? Wow.
Thought the new turf at Mosiac was paint.
Quote from: gobombersgo on September 24, 2025, 06:12:08 AMThought the new turf at Mosiac was paint.
Ya, sorry. It looks like it's CGY that just got new turf, not SSK. And CGY did NOT sew in the lines. So no one will have to replace brand new turf in '27. Sounds like MTL & SSK will have to replace sewn-in turf but word is both are overdue for new turf anyhow. If I got anything wrong, let me know.
But it still means at least 2 teams will have to buy new turf for '27, whether they wanted to do it that year or not.
And I doubt anyone will ever sew-in lines again, because we've gone from a "never changes dimensions" league to "we'll change them on a whim" league. And everyone knows the 10Y EZ, and probably narrower field, are coming in later years.
How tall is the crossbar? Can our tallest/jumpiest/wingiest player get his hands above that point? By how much?
Could the new post placement allow teams to put the max-air guy back at the post to block super-long FG attempts as they come just a couple feet above the crossbar? Is that even legal?
I suppose you wouldn't have spared a guy to go for that longshot batdown in the past, because you already had a guy back to return. But now you don't need a returner, so why not put Willie J back there to try to bat one down? And if they need a returner after all, he's already back there to field it...
If they don't add contingencies to protect the final 3 mins from the new 35s rule, then are they really just trading end-of-half/game excitement for all-other-times excitement?
And what do fans like more? Is it better to have a slowish game building to a big wild ending, like we have now? Or have the pacing and (more) scoring more spread out over a whole game, with the final 3 mins nothing special at all?
Johnston did explicitly say (verbally) he (paraphrasing) hates final 3 mins that take "half an hour". If that's his big bugbear (which I find to be a strange one), then I would take that as a hint that there will be NO mitigations to save the final 3 mins. He doesn't want 4 possessions and 2 lead changes anymore: he wants it to roll out and end quickly like the NFL usually does. But in fact quicker, because the NFL has the zillion timeouts, which we probably won't get.
Zach in his Sep 23 presser kind of carefully toes the line. He does repeat the Commish talking point that: the things that define the Canadian game are still there blah blah 12 men, wide field, 3 downs, 1 yard off, yada yada.
We hear that from every pro-NFL-change poster, as they follow the lead of the Commish for their talking points.
QUESTION: If I asked you 3 days ago what "defines the Canadian game", the "untouchable" things for you, would you have included "55 yard line" in your list? Be honest. I know I sure would have, no doubt about it. In fact, I probably would have listed 55YL as most-defining right after 3 downs, and before the 12 men and 1 yard.
And if one is really honest with themselves, and agree that ya, they would have said 110YL is a top defining feature, then why today, after they know they lost it, are they leaving it out of their "defines the CFL" "can't live without it" list?
Realize you're being set up to have another one of your (dwindling) Canadian-game-defining lines in the sand taken away the next time they announce (yet more) changes. Are you going to let them gaslight you then into thinking and saying that other aspect you claim to be critical now is suddenly not important to you?
Everyone watch the MOS presser Sep 23 in the Video Links thread. Great stuff. MOS clearly is more aligned with Rourke, but has to be way more diplomatic about it. But he does come right out and express disappointment with losing Canadian aspects of the game, saying he isn't fond of most of the changes.
I'm glad he said even what he did. All these guys are in tight spots with regards to avoiding trouble for disparaging the league. He also outright expresses support for Rourke's words.
Lalji's an affected Rick... did anyone else catch it? In the Rourke interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD7M3jaWb4s
At 2:00 after Rourke gives his opening opinion on the changes, Lalji answers with
"so um let's talk about couple of things just from like a practical rules as opposed to a philosophical emotional piece which is totally fair".
What a condescending insult, couched in pandering pap. He's mirroring the obvious league-produced talking point which is tell people their arguments and opposition is merely emotional, and that only Your Betters are the ones being logical or practical. If you have an objection, well you're just being emotional.
Rourke had just given some a great rebuttal to the changes question, and had more in the tank. Lalji had to cut him off and redirect because he knew how powerful Rourke's words were going to be to fandom.
I thought Lalji was a BC homer who licked the very ground Rourke walked on. He's always pandering to Rourke. I guess it turns out he's either more BC's Man, or simply a CFL league stooge.
Here's the only current player/coach so far to stand up and say it like it is, rather than couching statements carefully for fear of fines or blacklisting. And lickspittle Lalji tries to shut him down.
And not only does Rourke continue to shoot the changes & Lalji down, he then ignores the presser director who tries to shut down the Change Talk, and continues to speak truth to power.
If Rourke thought Lalji was his "friend" before today, he no longer does.
P4: "But more than that, finally, the stubborn governors — who have longed craved control over improvement, hellbent on keeping power in place of innovation — have agreed to the vision of modern football from the new commissioner, who has already in five months brought more ingenuity and advancement to the on-field product than his predecessors of the last half-century did."
Five months. Let that sink in. Johnston in place 5 months and he's already discarded the 55YL and made a half dozen other drastic, and 95% controversial, changes. 5 months. A) Who does he think he is. B) He clearly had this all planned out well before he was installed. Did he inform the stakeholders at that time what his rough plans were? Or did he lie to them to get the job?
Ingenuity? noun: "cleverness or aptness of design or contrivance". There is nothing clever about these changes. They are brutish, vulgar, grossly overreaching, and merely copies of the NFL. Copying is never considered ingenuity, because there's nothing clever about it.
Advancement? Ah, there's the old "progress for progress' sake", aka "all progress is good, even if it's not". Both are fallacious. Why is Johnston's vision advancement? What if it really is retreat? Instead of standing and fighting the NFL juggernaut we are throwing up a white flag and surrendering.
P5: "These changes will produce more touchdowns than field goals. They will create urgency between the whistles. They will force a modernization from coaches. They will allow full use of the playbook more than ever. If you're pinned inside your two-yard-line after a goal line stand, offences will now have room to maneuver and not be pinned by an immovable object behind them."
Let's assume the "full playbook" comment only applies to when team A is backed up to their own EZ -- otherwise it makes no sense. First, being pinned that deep is a somewhat rare occurrence in the CFL: maybe 1-3 instances a weekend? Again, they are making rare and really inconsequential things sound so dire and disastrous and common, and that justifies really drastic changes with major repercussions from the CFL on down to high school sports.
I've never heard a QB or OC or REC say "man, when we were backed up we were doomed to failure because that darn post was in the way and it cut our playbook in half!". I can't recall even one "doink" example in this scenario -- which at least they can attempt to claim at the other end of the field. A backed-up QB doink literally isn't a thing, probably 1 every 10 years or less.
In fact, I've heard many in the last 48 hours say that they've used or seen used the post as a free blocker -- an extra hoggie. I think it was Zach (Sep 23 presser) who said he used to see 2014 BLM purposely go behind the post to chuck go routes and no one could touch him.
Another example of solving a problem that doesn't exist. Well, at least using that "problem" as one of the excuses. So that's 2 reasons for moving the post destroyed as petty and insignificant: safety and "being backed up". Let's see what he hits us with next...
Great riderforum post regarding "moving the posts improves visibility!"
71 years of impacting the vision of QBs and now it's a problem. --Magnum
==
You could apply the same reasoning to most of the useless "arguments" the league offers for the changes. I love that many people are seeing through the miasma laid down by the Commish.
Amateur football officials in ...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-amateur-football-cfl-reax-1.7641908
Terrible way to make a change
Good way to alienate
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 24, 2025, 12:31:58 PMAmateur football officials in ...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-amateur-football-cfl-reax-1.7641908
Terrible way to make a change
Good way to alienate
The cost is a concerning factor - these univerties and junior football organizations don't have a lot of extra money flating around, hopegfully there will be some assistance in place.
The good news is that there is time before the changes take place and impacts hit.
On the "crying" about not being consulted - pretty hard to consult with 1000's of entities and have meetings and focus groups etc etc. You will be into paralysis by analysis, and nothing will get done - if you know what you are doing and have agreement from the major stakeholders (CFL owners) you roll it out ensuring there is time available for everyone to understand what is happening and work through the details.
IF they provide no opportunity to listen to these impacted organizations and assist with the rollout then I think its fair to "cry".
Quote from: The Zipp on September 24, 2025, 01:17:10 PMYou will be into paralysis by analysis, and nothing will get done - if you know what you are doing and have agreement from the major stakeholders (CFL owners) you roll it out ensuring there is time available for everyone to understand what is happening and work through the details.
Haha! You think Johnston
knows what he is doing? That's one big, perilous assumption right there.
Apparently, total insider plant and stooge Luke Wilson has bashed Rourke, saying Rourke's comments are "utterly ridiculous":
https://x.com/CFLonTSN/status/1970266635052122271
We were all setup, guys. Rourke is risking a lot here, maybe more than he knows. The king(s) are going to try to force him to kiss the ring and toe the line. We'll see what happens. I wouldn't put past them any underhanded tactic.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 24, 2025, 01:20:07 PMHaha! You think Johnston knows what he is doing? That's one big, perilous assumption right there.
absolutely he does - you may not like or agree with it but dude isn't dumb and uninformed. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 24, 2025, 01:23:31 PMApparently, total insider plant and stooge Luke Wilson has bashed Rourke, saying Rourke's comments are "utterly ridiculous":
https://x.com/CFLonTSN/status/1970266635052122271
We were all setup, guys. Rourke is risking a lot here, maybe more than he knows. The king(s) are going to try to force him to kiss the ring and toe the line. We'll see what happens. I wouldn't put past them any underhanded tactic.
Luke Wilson is a ghoul and his opinions on the CFL are garbage. TSN really screwed up giving him a job.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 24, 2025, 01:25:03 PMabsolutely he does - you may not like or agree with it but dude isn't dumb and uninformed. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Unless you know him personally, you're taking a huge leap of faith.
I never said he was dumb. He's probably a genius. He certainly knows all the smooth tricks: I'm having fun documenting all of them here.
But, I may argue, like Rourke does, that he may be
uninformed when it comes to the CFL. He certainly may not "love it" like Rourke (or I, or you) do.
Uh oh. It's getting worse:
https://x.com/OverDrive1050/status/1970269411127726513
Commish interview he says:
"You know me, I try to work with pace and urgency. This isn't going to be the last announcement we make, it is the last amount for now that we are making with rule changes. But we're pushing forward, we want to take this league and move it to another level."
This doesn't sound like someone who is "done" with the drastic changes. This sounds like someone hellbent on rapid change, come hell or high water, with no stopping to gauge success.
I know what "level" he wants to move it to. It's called NFL.
Learned a new term today:
CFL will become Diet NFL
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 24, 2025, 01:32:56 PMUnless you know him personally, you're taking a huge leap of faith.
I never said he was dumb. He's probably a genius. He certainly knows all the smooth tricks: I'm having fun documenting all of them here.
But, I may argue, like Rourke does, that he may be uninformed when it comes to the CFL. He certainly may not "love it" like Rourke (or I, or you) do.
You guys think this one guy is making all the decisions like a king - he works for the CFL Board of Governors - they hire him and they set his mandate. They choose him based on his ability to lead the league but he is not the one soley coming up with these changes. They pick someone who is obviously intelligent, can carry out multiple mandates, talk to the media and stakeholders and has an understanding of the league operations and strategic planning.
he obviously wants to do well and build his career and I do believe he wants to usher in some new growth and refreshed CFL and likely tap into the money tree that is the NFL in some way shape or form.
I'm making an immediate change...
I subscribe to TSN+ for CFL. I watch almost every game all season. Maybe missed a couple this season.
Ratings will be down this week, Bombers only.
"Act fast" lol
I have emailed TSN a few times about problems with my service. I have yet to receive a response.
This guy seems to run the league the way Tsn is run. The customers are probably the last thing they care about or take into consideration.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 24, 2025, 01:42:53 PMYou guys think this one guy is making all the decisions like a king - he works for the CFL Board of Governors
No, I think he's a figurehead, but a complicit one. And I don't even think his ultimate masters are the BOG, but that's tinfoil and not entirely relevant right now.
However, from how I understand it based on Johsnton statements and all I've read, Johnston started basically immediately ("many months ago" he said) working on the changes with a small group of people, including a
subset of the BOG -- with everyone under a secrecy oath (his words, paraphrased). Only then did they take the work to the entire BOG.
So I don't think it's valid to say this is the handiwork of the entire BOG, or that even many/most of them knew what was coming down the pipe.
In any event, the optics are that this is all driven by the Commish. Certainly Ambrosie would not have put us all in this situation. In fact, now we see why he was ousted, and looked like he was going to cry all the time the last few months. He knew what "they" wanted, and he likely hated it. Because Ambrosie WAS one of us, and one of the players, and, and... Johnston is nothing. Is he even a "lifelong fan"?
Quote from: The Zipp on September 24, 2025, 01:42:53 PMhe obviously wants to do well and build his career and I do believe he wants to usher in some new growth and refreshed CFL and likely tap into the money tree that is the NFL in some way shape or form.
Boom there it is
If that's the/a goal, he should come out and say it. Share the vision, outline the path. Let the fans decide whether they want to get him ousted or not for it before he destroys everything. He's insulting us right now.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 24, 2025, 04:43:51 AMWow! Did Johnston steal Aard's login credentials?
Aards, think for yourself man! You basically just regurgitated the exact same wording as Johnston gave in the KJME interview I posted!
Everyone's already rebutted every point, but you just toe the party line! At least pro-NFL SB&G is putting thought into his rah-rah posts, understands what we are saying, and isn't parroting the weak talking points.
Did you really think the 55 yard line was "silly" last season? 10 seasons ago? 20? Or do you just think you think that now because the concept has been implanted in your brain as truth by external parties?
Inserting the thing no one opposes to justify the changes many oppose. Fallacious.
Phew, I thought the aliens had completely taken over your brain. At least you had one nonconformist thought in this post. Now go tell Johnston, because as it stands right now, you're getting the 35s clock in the final 3. And agreeing with all his other points only strengthens his ability to do it.
Using my own mind to confirm the thinking behind the changes could be regarded as "Parroting talking points". I have thought about and agreed with thier thoughts.
55 yard line was unique and a fun difference, for sure. The recent marketing where they made the 55 different font in many places for the ESPN coverage was kinda cool. But losing it and 10 yards is not a hill I'd choose to die on. 3 downs, ratio, waggle... sure. But the 55? Nope. And the CFL field was 100 yards in the past.
And I am saying things out loud that the board of governors obviously discussed but refuse to say. These cosmetic changes ARE a marketing ploy to the NFL. These make preseason games in Canada a thing, or even in season games like in Buffalo/Toronto. Being able to make minimal changes to the markings to make the field NFL compatible opens up millions in new revenue streams that most CFL teams desperately need. The present layout eliminates these possibilities, as seen with the IGF hosting fiasco.
The Commish was tasked with moving forward. We have no idea if any of these were his ideas, or were they ideas already in the office or being discussed by the BOG, and he's just the spokesperson for them, or how much of each there was. What we do know is that the owners and managers who's money is on the line here decided unanimously to make these changes.
It's their money, their franchises, they can run them as they want. I think the changes were well thought out, and minimize any change to that which makes the CFL unique.
As to other points about not consulting players and coaches, seriously? The fact that you have them coming out on both sides shows that would have been futile. And while business owners will ask employees about operational modalities, the final decisions on which direction they take the company is 100% their decision.
Letting the employees decide does not always take into account the big picture.
Were I making these changes and announcements, I would have added a biscuit for the players and coaches. I would have added 1 DI to the roster, expanding it by 1, and I would have added a significant amount to the Front Office $SMS and added a 6 game IR type forgiveness for firing a coach.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 24, 2025, 02:08:53 PMNo, I think he's a figurehead, but a complicit one. And I don't even think his ultimate masters are the BOG, but that's tinfoil and not entirely relevant right now.
However, from how I understand it based on Johsnton statements and all I've read, Johnston started basically immediately ("many months ago" he said) working on the changes with a small group of people, including a subset of the BOG -- with everyone under a secrecy oath (his words, paraphrased). Only then did they take the work to the entire BOG.
So I don't think it's valid to say this is the handiwork of the entire BOG, or that even many/most of them knew what was coming down the pipe.
In any event, the optics are that this is all driven by the Commish. Certainly Ambrosie would not have put us all in this situation. In fact, now we see why he was ousted, and looked like he was going to cry all the time the last few months. He knew what "they" wanted, and he likely hated it. Because Ambrosie WAS one of us, and one of the players, and, and... Johnston is nothing. Is he even a "lifelong fan"?
Boom there it is
If that's the/a goal, he should come out and say it. Share the vision, outline the path. Let the fans decide whether they want to get him ousted or not for it before he destroys everything. He's insulting us right now.
of course the entire BOG knew and it is typical to put together a small subset of people to work on the approved mandate and the details...it only fits your narrative to skew the truth to make the optics look like its one person so that you have a single named entity to blame. It is clearly the BOG wanted to do this not just the commish. Take your angst out on them - this will include Wade Miller - if he was against it he could say so or resign from his position if it is that important to him.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 02:31:50 PMLetting the employees decide does not always take into account the big picture.
Undermining employees - the players and coaches who make this league great - to force through a bunch of changes doesn't take into account the big picture, either. On the contrary, it's created a wedge at a time when this league needs more unity than ever. Johnston and the BOG should be ashamed of themselves for how this came about.
Also: consider the slippery slope here. Just because the waggle and three downs haven't been changed doesn't mean they're set in stone, especially when you consider the commish's non-answer when asked about the latter the other day.
Capitulating to the NFL also ain't it.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 24, 2025, 02:36:19 PMUndermining employees - the players and coaches who make this league great - to force through a bunch of changes doesn't take into account the big picture, either. On the contrary, it's created a wedge at a time when this league needs more unity than ever. Johnston and the BOG should be ashamed of themselves for how this came about.
Also: consider the slippery slope here. Just because the waggle and three downs haven't been changed doesn't mean they're set in stone, especially when you consider the commish's non-answer when asked about the latter the other day.
Capitulating to the NFL also ain't it.
Capitulating to the NFL? I will take odds on the fact that no one in the NFL placed any requests or suggestions here.
But I think any business person who can identify a potential partnership opportunity, and makes no effort to create the option is pretty dumb.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 02:42:41 PMCapitulating to the NFL? I will take odds on the fact that no one in the NFL placed any requests or suggestions here.
But I think any business person who can identify a potential partnership opportunity, and makes no effort to create the option is pretty dumb.
You gotta learn to read between the lines, man. It seemed like you did:
Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 02:31:50 PMThese cosmetic changes ARE a marketing ploy to the NFL.
Capitulation to the NFL money machine doesn't magically mean some windfall of riches for the CFL just because changes were made to field size or goalpost location. On the contrary, the NFL only cares about further enriching itself, so I'd be leery about the CFL attempting to align itself any closer to it.
It's also so hilarious when you ignore the rest of a reply. Never change. LOL
Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 02:31:50 PM55 yard line was unique and a fun difference, for sure. The recent marketing where they made the 55 different font in many places for the ESPN coverage was kinda cool. But losing it and 10 yards is not a hill I'd choose to die on. 3 downs, ratio, waggle... sure. But the 55? Nope. And the CFL field was 100 yards in the past.
When ? When as the CFL field 100 yards ? Not in my lifetime .. and I've been around for many many years.
Of course, I don't expect an answer. ::)
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 24, 2025, 03:09:48 PMWhen ? When as the CFL field 100 yards ? Not in my lifetime .. and I've been around for many many years.
Of course, I don't expect an answer. ::)
Because he's lying. The CFL field has always been 110 yards in length.
How shameless.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 24, 2025, 03:22:31 PMBecause he's lying. The CFL field has always been 110 yards in length.
How shameless.
Even when I was a kid, and had my Coleco CFL electric football ( not the handheld one ) it had 110 yards. :D
I agree with the endzone changes, just so every stadium is the same.
Teams on opposite sides? Should have been enforced from the get go.
Shorten the field? Hard no. Makes it harder for offences. Less space favours a defence. Once it is done, the next thing will be "too congested in the smaller space, we are going to 11 men a side"
Move the goal posts? We had a precision throw from Strevvie in the 2019 GC to Andrew Harris over the upright! Of course, we wouldn't have been in the GC if Cody hadn't doinked it off the cross bar in the WF.
Also, as mentioned by many, kiss the electrifying missed field goal return goodbye.
Will I still watch? Of course. will the games be as interesting or more so? Doubt it.
I certainly think the Commish's projection of 60 more TDs is crap.
I had this one. Fun as a kid. You spin for what play you want to call.
55 yard line was there.
Quote from: 1chad on September 24, 2025, 03:46:35 PMI certainly think the Commish's projection of 60 more TDs is crap.
He presented no actual data to back up his feeble claim. Johnston's full of it, just like
@theaardvark when he claimed the CFL had 100-yard fields in the past.
Liars are the worst.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 24, 2025, 03:53:49 PMHe presented no actual data to back up his feeble claim. Johnston's full of it, just like @theaardvark when he claimed the CFL had 100-yard fields in the past.
Liars are the worst.
I've asked AARDS a few times to back up his claims with questions .. and he just avoids them.
Quote from: Waffler on September 24, 2025, 03:49:22 PMI had this one. Fun as a kid. You spin for what play you want to call.
55 yard line was there.
That is cool. I had a board game also, but it was cards you flipped over. It also had a 55 yard line.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 24, 2025, 03:53:49 PMHe presented no actual data to back up his feeble claim. Johnston's full of it, just like @theaardvark when he claimed the CFL had 100-yard fields in the past.
The big thing on Riderforum by the pro-change few is "the CFL had 25Y EZs in the past". I don't know if that's true (and not from the Rugby era...), but it's another fallacious talking point because if the Commish had just said 2 days ago he was
moving benches and
shortening the EZ to 17 or 15 so all fields are the same AND THAT'S IT, no one would have said boo or been upset or had any issue with anything.
I think they slipped the couple of "well, duh" changes in with the "people gonna hate it" ones just to muddy the waters. And allow people to go "der derp muh 25Y EZs in 1946".
The Commish & co (and marketing/propaganda dept) are nothing if not slick & smooth. I couldn't have structured this whole thing any better, and I know all the techniques.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 24, 2025, 03:58:42 PMI've asked AARDS a few times to back up his claims with questions .. and he just avoids them.
It's what he does. ;D
The yanks reduced the field length to 100 yards. It was also the yanks who added an extra down. Buncha softies.
Quote from: 1chad on September 24, 2025, 03:46:35 PMMove the goal posts? We had a precision throw from Strevvie in the 2019 GC to Andrew Harris over the upright! Of course, we wouldn't have been in the GC if Cody hadn't doinked it off the cross bar in the WF.
Good post. But I want to correct one thing that EVERYONE GETS WRONG EVERY TIME, on both forums...
If Cody makes that final TD instead of doink (or incomplete or INT or batdown as I predicted would have happened from computer PVR analysis), AND they make the PAT,
the score is only TIED.
SSK would have still had to beat us in overtime.
The final score was
20-13. We were playing well enough to win. SSK had 4th Q comeback momo, but remember they were in desperation 3-down mode. No rule says they carry that juice into OT.
So many people think that if Cody makes that pass, "if there was no crossbar", that SSK instantly wins the game. It's false.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 24, 2025, 04:00:26 PMThat is cool. I had a board game also, but it was cards you flipped over. It also had a 55 yard line.
I had the Coleco hand held model, bought it from Consumers Distributing in 1978!
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 24, 2025, 04:11:04 PMGood post. But I want to correct one thing that EVERYONE GETS WRONG EVERY TIME, on both forums...
If Cody makes that final TD instead of doink (or incomplete or INT or batdown as I predicted would have happened from computer PVR analysis), AND they make the PAT, the score is only TIED.
SSK would have still had to beat us in overtime.
The final score was 20-13. We were playing well enough to win. SSK had 4th Q comeback momo, but remember they were in desperation 3-down mode. No rule says they carry that juice into OT.
So many people think that if Cody makes that pass, "if there was no crossbar", that SSK instantly wins the game. It's false.
Not to mention the insanely fortuitous catch by Kyran Moore on 3rd & long (https://www.cfl.ca/2020/07/02/cfl-game-40-goalpost/) to keep the Riders alive beforehand.
The revisionist history is comical, particularly by greenies who still aren't over that loss.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 24, 2025, 01:17:10 PMThe cost is a concerning factor - these univerties and junior football organizations don't have a lot of extra money flating around, hopegfully there will be some assistance in place.
The good news is that there is time before the changes take place and impacts hit.
On the "crying" about not being consulted - pretty hard to consult with 1000's of entities and have meetings and focus groups etc etc. You will be into paralysis by analysis, and nothing will get done - if you know what you are doing and have agreement from the major stakeholders (CFL owners) you roll it out ensuring there is time available for everyone to understand what is happening and work through the details.
IF they provide no opportunity to listen to these impacted organizations and assist with the rollout then I think its fair to "cry".
They consulted too little. Yes a problem if consult too much. Not hard to find the balance. They fumbled this one.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 24, 2025, 04:22:44 PMI had the Coleco hand held model, bought it from Consumers Distributing in 1978!
Both of those take me back. That awesome !!
The feedback I'm seeing, anyone who is a fan of the NFL doesn't seem to mind some of them, anyone who doesn't like the NFL or doesn't watch it much..doesn't really like them.
I am not an NFL fan and hate them.
The players supporting them are American, no surprise. BLM spoke out today about liking them. Zach prob likes them a bit. Canadians don't really.
Quote from: markf on September 24, 2025, 02:01:48 PMI'm making an immediate change...
I subscribe to TSN+ for CFL. I watch almost every game all season. Maybe missed a couple this season.
Ratings will be down this week, Bombers only.
"Act fast" lol
I have emailed TSN a few times about problems with my service. I have yet to receive a response.
This guy seems to run the league the way Tsn is run. The customers are probably the last thing they care about or take into consideration.
Yeah I'm doing the same. Only Bomber games for the duration of the season and I'll be citing Luke Wilson as one of the reasons when I cancel TSN and Crave when the Bombers are done this season. I have zero doubt TSN is complicit in the NFL push and they deserve to feel the pain
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 24, 2025, 03:09:48 PMWhen ? When as the CFL field 100 yards ? Not in my lifetime .. and I've been around for many many years.
Of course, I don't expect an answer. ::)
Joe Pascucci@Pascucci015
·
Sep 22
Blue Bombers played on a 100 yard field with 15 yard end zones back in the day they played at Osborne Stadium. Seems everything old is new again.
The CFL's broadcasting deal with TSN, which currently pays them about $50 million dollars per year, is set to expire in 2026. Interesting to speculate whether these changes are being driven, in part, by TSN wanting a more "entertaining" and "American " product before being willing to commit to a new media deal, especially with Johnston having just come over from TSN/Bell Media.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 24, 2025, 04:11:04 PMSo many people think that if Cody makes that pass, "if there was no crossbar", that SSK instantly wins the game. It's false.
I'll go to my grave saying it was an over throw cross bar or no.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 24, 2025, 01:17:10 PMThe cost is a concerning factor - these univerties and junior football organizations don't have a lot of extra money flating around, hopegfully there will be some assistance in place.
The good news is that there is time before the changes take place and impacts hit.
On the "crying" about not being consulted - pretty hard to consult with 1000's of entities and have meetings and focus groups etc etc. You will be into paralysis by analysis, and nothing will get done - if you know what you are doing and have agreement from the major stakeholders (CFL owners) you roll it out ensuring there is time available for everyone to understand what is happening and work through the details.
IF they provide no opportunity to listen to these impacted organizations and assist with the rollout then I think its fair to "cry".
But the CFL is a national entity and receives tons of federal, provincial, and municipal support. Our very stadium would not have been built if not for public funds that were dependent on making the field available for those other organizations you mention.
None of the rich guys who are behind these changes paid for their buildings. Public funds. The exemption of taxes. Free land. Yet none of the concerned parties who use these buildings have any say? Or the right to be consulted?
The CFL is the steward of the Canadian game I heard somewhere recently. That's not charity. It's a responsibility that's given for all of the public dollars they have been rewarded.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 24, 2025, 04:06:50 PM"the CFL had 25Y EZs in the past". I don't know if that's true (and not from the Rugby era...), but it's another fallacious talking point because if the Commish had just said 2 days ago he was moving benches and shortening the EZ to 17 or 15 so all fields are the same AND THAT'S IT,
Yes, the first field with 20 yard end zones was BC Place in 1983. It didn't fit in the building. Anyway all this fuss about standard end zones makes me think of baseball where they take pride in unique ball park shapes.
No Major League ballparks are exactly alike. Anyone who has seen pics of the green monster in Fenway or the cavernous Polo Grounds know what I mean. Those places are legend.
Quote from: Waffler on September 24, 2025, 09:19:09 PMYes, the first field with 20 yard end zones was BC Place in 1983. It didn't fit in the building. Anyway all this fuss about standard end zones makes me think of baseball where they take pride in unique ball park shapes. No Major League ballparks are exactly alike. Anyone who has seen pics of the green monster in Fenway or the cavernous Polo Grounds know what I mean. Those places are legend.
But every soccer field is identical, every NHL ice surface is the same, every NBA court is the same size, every NFL field is the same size, every NCAA is the same size, every Tennis court is the same size.
Boston Garden, Chicago Stadium, Memorial in Buffalo were different sizes, but were modernized to match the NFL standard when they moved.
Every golf course is different, every baseball field is different. But those games are different, and the variety is actually an accent to the game, not a detriment.
The different fields in MTL and TOR weren't "cute" or "kitchy", they were odd and ungainly.
MTL and TOR are not getting new stadia, so this fixes that.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 08:52:45 PMJoe Pascucci@Pascucci015
·
Sep 22
Blue Bombers played on a 100 yard field with 15 yard end zones back in the day they played at Osborne Stadium. Seems everything old is new again.
I have the same recollection of Osborne Stadium - 100 yard field and 15 yard EZs.
Quote from: bunker on September 24, 2025, 08:59:39 PMThe CFL's broadcasting deal with TSN, which currently pays them about $50 million dollars per year, is set to expire in 2026. Interesting to speculate whether these changes are being driven, in part, by TSN wanting a more "entertaining" and "American " product before being willing to commit to a new media deal, especially with Johnston having just come over from TSN/Bell Media.
This has been lost in the shuffle and I feel this is 99% of the impetus behind the changes.
When the deal comes up, TSN is either saying make these changes in order to raise the value of the deal or they're holding it over our heads saying there is no deal without changes that make our product on TV look and feel similar to the other product.
All these changes are reflected in how the game looks when you're watching it on TV. The new rules need to be in place before the new TV deal is signed. It all seems so clear.
We can call these new rules "necessary evils" in order to maintain our very dependent relationship with TSN, but I am absolutely sick of people saying it's to "improve" or "modernize" the game. That's not what is happening. It's pandering to potential new viewers.
Quote from: Jesse on September 24, 2025, 09:08:55 PMBut the CFL is a national entity and receives tons of federal, provincial, and municipal support. Our very stadium would not have been built if not for public funds that were dependent on making the field available for those other organizations you mention.
None of the rich guys who are behind these changes paid for their buildings. Public funds. The exemption of taxes. Free land. Yet none of the concerned parties who use these buildings have any say? Or the right to be consulted?
The CFL is the steward of the Canadian game I heard somewhere recently. That's not charity. It's a responsibility that's given for all of the public dollars they have been rewarded.
that is why i said that they should be assisting with the rollout and implementation.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 24, 2025, 11:10:59 PMthat is why i said that they should be assisting with the rollout and implementation.
Yeah, that should be mandatory.
But I still hold the league accountable for being poor steward's of the game and feel they've gone outside their purview by instituting these changes without consultation from all stakeholders.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 24, 2025, 03:58:42 PMI've asked AARDS a few times to back up his claims with questions .. and he just avoids them.
he did - with a quote from joe pascucci and our own modadmin..personally i don't ever remember but seems like there was truth to what aards said.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 08:52:45 PMBlue Bombers played on a 100 yard field with 15 yard end zones back in the day they played at Osborne Stadium. Seems everything old is new again.
Oh, so it was just 1 field, not a CFL-wide thing. You know, like the MTL EZ corners exception.
So it
is true the CFL
never had 100Y fields as the rule. And if Aards hates/hated and lambasts the MTL corners problem, the he surely must hate/lambast the Osborne stadium problem. And it surely can't then be used as a talking point to justify the current changes.
Oh ya, and you need to go back to 1956 to even bring up Osborne as an argument.
Quote from: Waffler on September 24, 2025, 09:03:58 PMI'll go to my grave saying it was an over throw cross bar or no.
Overthrow, behind-throw, or INT/batdown. I virtually guarantee it. I thought it was going behind the REC. Our guy was in his hip pocket. That doesn't end well. Yes, the trajectory was very high: hence why it hit to bar. With that much zip and height it might have been a tough jump ball, which isn't easy at the far back of the EZ with a DB draped on you -- especially if it's slightly behind.
One of the most memorable CFL moments ever. For everyone: blue, green or other color.
From riderfans:
since the goal posts are not longer on the goal line, do we have to call them the endzone posts now? --GreenTea
Good point
Another Riderfans:
A field goal is just as much a reward for failure --El Guapo
For a league that has the mantra "diversity is strength", they sure do seem to be moving towards conformity -- every single change they made moves us closer to being the same as the NFL. How is that being diverse?
And supposedly the "younger generations" are the most "diverse" and certainly "quirky" ever. Wouldn't a generation where every other kid invents a new pronoun, hair color, and piercing location welcome and cherish the equally quirky rouge and 110 yards? If anything, they'll now "laugh" at the CFL for caving and conforming and sucking up to "the man" and pandering to the almighty buck. At least before we had cajones -- and an identity. Diet NFL, indeed.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 09:33:27 AMFor a league that has the mantra "diversity is strength", they sure do seem to be moving towards conformity -- every single change they made moves us closer to being the same as the NFL. How is that being diverse?
And supposedly the "younger generations" are the most "diverse" and certainly "quirky" ever. Wouldn't a generation where every other kid invents a new pronoun, hair color, and piercing location welcome and cherish the equally quirky rouge and 110 yards? If anything, they'll now "laugh" at the CFL for caving and conforming and sucking up to "the man" and pandering to the almighty buck. At least before we had cajones -- and an identity. Diet NFL, indeed.
My brother is an NFL fan. He thinks the product is better and only watches the CFL when I bring him out to games.
He thinks these changes are absolutely ridiculous too. And that's exactly why he thinks that, he sees it as the CFL trying to conform with the NFL and he has no respect for the idea.
Quote from: Jesse on September 24, 2025, 11:14:49 PMYeah, that should be mandatory.
But I still hold the league accountable for being poor steward's of the game and feel they've gone outside their purview by instituting these changes without consultation from all stakeholders.
Interestingly enough the chair of the BOG is also the Chancellor for the U of Sask so while he isn't directly representing USports he would have an indirect linkage to them and certainly an understanding of their challenges and should be championing their cause through these changes. His title alone will open the doors to the discussions and I am sure when talk of these changes was begin discussed every member of the BOG would have had the opportunity to being their ideas, thoughts and concerns.
They aren't a bunch of dimwits - these people have likely worked on other transformational changes in their careers and have thought through this process - doesn't mean mistakes don't happen but the hyperbole on this is pretty intense ..and maybe that is good - perhaps people and fans have been a bit lukewarm towards the CFL and this has got them a bit more passionate.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 08:52:45 PMJoe Pascucci@Pascucci015
·
Sep 22
Blue Bombers played on a 100 yard field with 15 yard end zones back in the day they played at Osborne Stadium. Seems everything old is new again.
All this proves is that Obsorne Stadium - a single venue - wasn't compliant with CFL rules.
Have we not figured it out yet?
The CFL isn't Canadian because of three downs or wider fields. It's Canadian because it's ours. It's played here, in our towns and cities, in front of Canadian fans who grew up with Bombers vs Riders on Labour Day, the Banjo Bowl, Grey Cup legends. It's about families in the stands, community groups getting recognized, and Northern kids being flown in to take part (see you Saturday). It's the flag on the field, the anthem sung by Stacy, and the parade in fur coats and snowstorms.
Changing a couple of rules doesn't suddenly make it the NFL. There is no chance that that can happen because it's not a possible outcome EVEN if you changed every rule to mirror. The CFL will never be the NFL.
The identity of the league comes from the people in the seats and the stories around the game. The CFL brings communities together in a way no other league does. That's why it's Canadian.
I say this kindly, think about it some more. Step back from the ledge.
I wonder how much the owners of some of the teams actually care about their team and the league.
" At the end of the survey, Stampeders players were also able to provide anonymous feedback.
Stamps anonymous player comments:
"Most players have to get a gym membership to get a real workout during the season. The field in Calgary has also led to many major and minor injuries."
"We need a new field and need meals. We also need help with transportation to and from the facility for guys that are from the US and don't have cars out here in Canada."
"Calgary's practice and game field are unacceptable"
Saw on Reddit today commissioner seems to be feeling the heat, and saying no four downs planned at all.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CFL/s/EB9wrL0cBq
It's funny, he's not actually sweating, but it's close.
Maybe he should get out and actually meet the actual fans. Has he been to a game? Did he ever show up at Princess Auto stadium to see what works?
Glad to see fans might actually have some power. Another big difference from the NFL.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 01:47:51 PMThe CFL isn't Canadian because of three downs or wider fields.
Yes, it is. The three downs and rugby-influenced fields have been the fabric of the CFL since its inception.
You and Aardsy don't seem to have a clue.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 25, 2025, 01:32:19 PMAll this proves is that Obsorne Stadium - a single venue - wasn't compliant with CFL rules.
Osborne stadium. Opened in 1932 with seating for 4,000. Going on a hundred years ago and 3 years after the first forward pass was completed in 1929. Great example of how we should "modernize" with that 100 yard field.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 25, 2025, 02:01:08 PMYes, it is. The three downs and rugby-influenced fields have been the fabric of the CFL since its inception.
You and Aardsy don't seem to have a clue.
I get you feel that way. And there's probably 150-250 (being generous) die-hard fans who post here who agree with you. The question I have for you is whether the hundreds of thousands of other fans who attend games across Canada (or watch on TV) also agree with you, or if they align closer with my way of thinking.
I've done lots of work around consumer sentimates, outrage, social listening, etc. in a business context and I think it's you who doesn't have the proper market orientation here.
Quote from: Waffler on September 25, 2025, 02:07:11 PMOsborne stadium. Opened in 1932 with seating for 4,000. Going on a hundred years ago and 3 years after the first forward pass was completed in 1929. Great example of how we should "modernize" with that 100 yard field.
(https://media.tenor.com/zLLgtFqb_QYAAAAM/simpsons-sarcastic.gif)
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 02:10:59 PMI get you feel that way. And there's probably 150-250 (being generous) die-hard fans who post here who agree with you. The question I have for you is whether the hundreds of thousands of other fans who attend games across Canada (or watch on TV) also agree with you, or if they align closer with my way of thinking.
I've done lots of work around consumer sentimates, outrage, social listening, etc. in a business context and I think it's you who doesn't have the proper market orientation here.
Fans were never consulted in any meaningful way. The commissioner basically admitted as much.
Get over yourself. Also: what's a sentimate?
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 25, 2025, 02:12:44 PMFans were never consulted in any meaningful way. The commissioner basically admitted as much.
Get over yourself.
And if you had a chance to be "consulted" but they went off and did it anyway because they think it's the best course of action for the business how would you have felt?
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 25, 2025, 02:12:44 PMFans were never consulted in any meaningful way. The commissioner basically admitted as much.
Get over yourself. Also: what's a sentimate?
sentiments :) My bad!
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 02:14:09 PMAnd if you had a chance to be "consulted" but they went off and did it anyway because they think it's the best course of action for the business how would you have felt?
Quite a pointless question, wouldn't you say? I mean, you can read through my comments over the last few days to see how I feel about this whole situation.
The CFL isn't in financial shambles because of its field dimensions, goalpost location, or the rouge - and the changes proposed don't make its business model more sustainable. Those in charge don't seem interested in having that tough conversation, though.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 05:04:30 AMOh, so it was just 1 field, not a CFL-wide thing. You know, like the MTL EZ corners exception.
So it is true the CFL never had 100Y fields as the rule. And if Aards hates/hated and lambasts the MTL corners problem, the he surely must hate/lambast the Osborne stadium problem. And it surely can't then be used as a talking point to justify the current changes.
Oh ya, and you need to go back to 1956 to even bring up Osborne as an argument.
Thanks Tecno, exactly what I was thinking. It was not CFL wide.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 25, 2025, 02:21:46 PMQuite a pointless question, wouldn't you say? I mean, you can read through my comments over the last few days to see how I feel about this whole situation.
The CFL isn't in financial shambles because of its field dimensions, goalpost location, or the rouge - and the changes proposed don't make its business model more sustainable. Those in charge don't seem interested in having that tough conversation, though.
I can tell you what tends to happen if they did what would be a mostly disingenuous fan outreach effort seeing as they clearly decided that they were going to do:
You would get an email with a link to a survey. You'd fill out the survey.
Then they'd have done the announcement anyway and it would naturally cause even more anger because you took the time to share your feelings and they were ignored. The data isn't even really usable from their perspective because I don't think these moves are really aimed at the hardcore CFL fan (who are all on this board) and that's really the only person (or at least a largely disproportionate number) who would be motivated enough to do it anyway. they already knew how you'd feel, to be blunt.
And I don't think you actually want to shift the narrative to the financial health of the league, do you? There's a salary cap. An operations cap. And outside the praries there's attendance issues. in half the major markets.
And they complain about grass in Argoland...
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 02:30:47 PMAnd I don't think you actually want to shift the narrative to the financial health of the league, do you? There's a salary cap. An operations cap. And outside the praries there's attendance issues. in half the major markets.
I'm saying the caretakers of this league don't seem to want to have the discussion, despite how pressing a matter it apparently is. Only two franchises turned a profit last year; alarm bells should be blaring.
Trotting out a bunch of arbitrary, mostly pointless changes - while leaving players and coaches out of the loop - fails to address why the CFL is not sustainable from a so-called business standpoint.
I don't see the benefits here, either in the short- or long-term.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 24, 2025, 11:10:59 PMthat is why i said that they should be assisting with the rollout and implementation.
Uh, what good does that do now? Usports/highschools/junior had zero say, zero heads up, zero anything. How are they going to assist in "rollout and implementation" if they don't even want to follow the changes? And if they do want the changes, what does "assisting" buy them? Is the CFL paying for all their new fields and posts?
This is a case of a dad telling the kids they have to help bag the leaves on the lawn and saying "I'll allow you to assist me with implementation". Not a case of treating grown adults and old & storied institutions (as well as your future source of players) as valued peers and stakeholders.
If I was any of these leagues, I'd be livid.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 03:44:02 PMIf I was any of these leagues, I'd be livid.
I wouldn't be surprised for it to take years if not decades before all fields are changed. There is no legal requirement for them to do so. I don't even know know what their motivation would be. Only a tiny fraction end up in the pros, this is not why they exist.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 01:47:51 PMChanging a couple of rules doesn't suddenly make it the NFL. There is no chance that that can happen because it's not a possible outcome EVEN if you changed every rule to mirror. The CFL will never be the NFL.
Yes, it can never be the NFL. What it can be is Diet NFL. Or XFL/AAF. A cheap copy of the NFL. And that's even worse than if the NFL just came in and expanded to all 9 CFL cities.
For me the ultimate betrayal will be the loss of the ratio. Even more so than 3 downs. The day the ratio is banished, and most teams start 24 IMPs, and 90% of NATs lose their jobs, THAT will be the day we are no longer the CFL. That is the day we're just another feeder / film league.
And not only is that possible, with the new Commish I might guess it's even probable.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 01:47:51 PMI say this kindly, think about it some more. Step back from the ledge.
I really haven't seen many here being irrational. For the most part it's a steady diet of good points and arguments, to make us think about all the angles. Even from you. Don't try to reduce it to emotion like the paid promoters are.
Even on the call in shows (both blue and green cities) it's only a small fraction that are saying their STs are being cancelled for '26. Those are the only people I'd say are "on the ledge". And even then, most are providing rational reasons.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 02:10:59 PMI get you feel that way. And there's probably 150-250 (being generous) die-hard fans who post here who agree with you. The question I have for you is whether the hundreds of thousands of other fans who attend games across Canada (or watch on TV) also agree with you, or if they align closer with my way of thinking.
Well, we all have a great opportunity to find out on Saturday. I for one will be asking nearly everyone in ear shot around my seat what they think. I'm in a 99% STH area. These are the fans whose opinion matters most. If even 10% of STHs cancel next year, that will be disaster for WFC and the league.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 02:30:47 PMThen they'd have done the announcement anyway and it would naturally cause even more anger because you took the time to share your feelings and they were ignored. The data isn't even really usable from their perspective because I don't think these moves are really aimed at the hardcore CFL fan
But at least they could have offered some numbers in the presser instead of just alluding to vague (probably non-existent) "data". They could have just come out and said "our surveys show 50% of you will hate these changes but 50% will like them", or whatever. At least they'd be more transparent and honest.
And maybe, just maybe, if they found out 75% of STH hated the changes, 20% liked them, and 5% would cancel their STHs over them, maybe they'd survey which change was the worst (110Y!) and take that one off the table.
The opaqueness of the process and final goal, and insulting extremely poor arguments proffered, is half of the problem people are having. It could have been done sooo much better. Unless... the final goal is so ugly, they have to keep it hidden or that STH cancel number goes up to 30%...
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 03:58:59 PMWell, we all have a great opportunity to find out on Saturday. I for one will be asking nearly everyone in ear shot around my seat what they think. I'm in a 99% STH area. These are the fans whose opinion matters most. If even 10% of STHs cancel next year, that will be disaster for WFC and the league.
I agree. I will be asking the people around us on Saturday. ALL season ticket holders. I'm willing to cancel if the field is made smaller. I just don't like it !! I can spend my whole summer fishing, and just listen to the games on the radio. Maybe this is the excuse/reason I use. I've had season tickets for 15 years, after a "kids" break from having season tickets for 4 years when I was a younger man.
To me it's sad .. I never thought of not renewing, now I am.
From riderfans:
Slogans for the "new" CFL:
No rule is safe
Diversity is strength... until 2026
Our balls are the same
Keep it Unstable
Great for MLSE, ok for you
Radically American
-- Soylent
Go Bills Go!
Continental Football League
This used to be Our League
You'll watch it and you'll like it, or else...
No numpty's allowed
Rules will keep changing until morale improves
-- gilligan
They'll have to change the Friday Night Football lyrics. "The CFL is America's game"
-- greenwhitenadwin
The ACFL, The Almost Canadian Football League where magic mushrooms are a command center staple!
- Bioben
So much for being wider, longer and having bigger balls....
-- Tyree
Consultation's For Losers
-- El Guapo
"Our Balls are Red, White, and BLUE!"
-- danno
CFL - We are only Wider...for now
-- Wheathead Guy
Slogans, CFL:
Where EVERY lead is safe
You too can go home with 6 minutes on the clock
We won't protect the QBs, but we'll sure protect that post
Distinctly American
Keep it unrelated to Canada
Keep it under renovation
What we're made of... means nothing
-- me
Acronyms, CFL:
Condescending Football League
Commissioner Feels Like-it
Commissioner Frequently Lies
Continuous Fieldsize Lowering
Crazy Fawning League
Costs a F Load (to Usports/HS/junior)
Changing For Little (scraps from the NFL)
-- me
Quote from: Waffler on September 25, 2025, 03:49:39 PMI wouldn't be surprised for it to take years if not decades before all fields are changed. There is no legal requirement for them to do so. I don't even know know what their motivation would be. Only a tiny fraction end up in the pros, this is not why they exist.
Yep, at the community level much of these changes are going to be ignored or voted down and they'll continue on with what they have as best they can, as most of the infrastructure and equipment is paid for through the fundraising of volunteers and donations. When it comes to improving recreation facilities in many communities across Canada the funding pot is empty. The 10 ****** in the room that decided to invoke these changes are disconnected from the grassroots of sport.
The CFL: "We're pretty much broke, our business model is unsustainable, and the bulk of our franchises can't turn a profit."
Also the CFL: "Let's make a bunch of unilateral changes that will cost millions - with no guarantee of a return on investment."
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExYTNrc3h6am8zOHZqY2F6Z3RqYW92b3k0ZW5tb2w0N3lsb3IybndlbyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/7Jq6ufAgpblcm0Ih2z/giphy.gif)
Quote from: The Zipp on September 25, 2025, 01:22:03 PMInterestingly enough the chair of the BOG is also the Chancellor for the U of Sask so while he isn't directly representing USports he would have an indirect linkage to them and certainly an understanding of their challenges and should be championing their cause through these changes. His title alone will open the doors to the discussions and I am sure when talk of these changes was begin discussed every member of the BOG would have had the opportunity to being their ideas, thoughts and concerns.
They aren't a bunch of dimwits - these people have likely worked on other transformational changes in their careers and have thought through this process - doesn't mean mistakes don't happen but the hyperbole on this is pretty intense ..and maybe that is good - perhaps people and fans have been a bit lukewarm towards the CFL and this has got them a bit more passionate.
Not likely what happened, the league hired Johnston specifically to investigate changes and come up with suggestions to improve the game. He produced a report in record time with a small team of data nerds without consultation from other interested or affected parties. The BOG convened for a meeting, maybe 2-3 hours, had a steak dinner threw back a few drinks and approved the recommended changes on the spot. What little input or objection any had was likely washed away in a bid for conformity among peers, who are far from equal parties.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 25, 2025, 05:24:36 PMNot likely what happened, the league hired Johnston specifically to investigate changes and come up with suggestions to improve the game. He produced a report in record time with a small team of data nerds without consultation from other interested or affected parties. The BOG convened for a meeting, maybe 2-3 hours, had a steak dinner threw back a few drinks and approved the recommended changes on the spot. What little input or objection any had was likely washed away in a bid for conformity among peers, who are far from equal parties.
you are free to believe what you want but I do think Ambrosie was well aware of the BOG plans and he wasn't the guy to be the spokesperson and implementer of them, hence the retirement...this has been ongoing since 2021 when there were formal and announced discussions with the XFL. This is not 5 months old
The commish is going to be on Winnipeg Sports Talk shortly.
Quote from: gobombersgo on September 25, 2025, 06:23:44 PMThe commish is going to be on Winnipeg Sports Talk shortly.
https://youtu.be/z_8XZSfiFJo?t=2042
So... that did nothing to change my mind. I believe he wants to NFL the CFL.
Moving the goalposts and making the field smaller is not going to make the game more exciting. He claims it will, and has NO proof.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 25, 2025, 10:18:09 PMSo... that did nothing to change my mind. I believe he wants to NFL the CFL.
Moving the goalposts and making the field smaller is not going to make the game more exciting. He claims it will, and has NO proof.
i didn't hear that at all.
i do believe that not having the goalposts in the front middle of the end zone will make more plays possible. you can't prove something that hasn't been in place.
embrace change - don't accept the status qui and be positive.
it was a very good interview - cfl is in good hands
He claims it will be more exciting. I already think the CFL is the more exciting of the 2, and these changes will not make a difference or bring in more fans, especially in Toronto where they don't care anyway.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 25, 2025, 10:18:09 PMSo... that did nothing to change my mind. I believe he wants to NFL the CFL.
Moving the goalposts and making the field smaller is not going to make the game more exciting. He claims it will, and has NO proof.
Funny, does "grow the game" immediately equate to "change the game"? Did anyone consult Wade about improvements that could be made to the game day experience?
Delusional "we want to solidify our place at the top of the North American professional sports echelon".
Fact: The CFL is a small market league, limited by the population of Canada.
I got to meet the commissioner early this season and was left generally impressed. It was a good move for him to come on and do the interview. Still reasonably impressed. He seems reasonable. He spoke with data when it was possible and relevant. He talked through some scenarios that he and the membership worked through as they worked through the process. They talked about the clock and why they went with the changes. They remain committed to ensuring the end of the game clock still works for comebacks and excitement and they're going to look at it to make sure it stays awesome.
Agree
Thought he did a good interview. Hope he's genuine about the true motivation for the changes. Time will tell.
Hustler did a good job being respectful but touching on all the controversies.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 03:55:26 PMI really haven't seen many here being irrational. For the most part it's a steady diet of good points and arguments, to make us think about all the angles. Even from you. Don't try to reduce it to emotion like the paid promoters are.
100% this.
Every argument is met with the same disdain. It's either being too emotional, don't want to "modernize", or bringing up the financial state of the league like field dimensions relate to profit somehow.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 25, 2025, 11:55:24 PMIt was a good move for him to come on and do the interview. Still reasonably impressed.
I'm impressed that he seems to be reading my posts (which probably echo many other voices) and mostly eliminated the weak & subversive arguments/talking points, to take that ammo away from us detractors. Maybe he's waking up to the fact that the CFL base isn't just a bunch of clueless country bumpkins... Not even the Stubblejumpers, who seem to be even more perceptive than on this forum. And if you aren't fooling the jumpers, change tactics. Smart move, but a bit scary, as "the borg is adapting".
Quote from: The Zipp on September 25, 2025, 10:36:28 PMi do believe that not having the goalposts in the front middle of the end zone will make more plays possible. you can't prove something that hasn't been in place.
I'm working out the math to see precisely how much "working field" they gain or lose by these changes. In my quick sketches and the eyeball test they are losing way more field with the 15Y change than they gain with moving the post.
Ironically, the prime talking point of Cody's 2019 doink PROVES that OCs/QBs/teams NEVER did plan around the crossbar or upright. Add to that Rourke's doink last week, and Strev's 2019 GC TD which was over the crossbar. And Rourke's recent statement that they don't factor those structures into their plan AT ALL: because they don't! It's not a "limitation" at all! Ergo, the only "more plays possible" you'll get are ones exactly where the post base/pads are/were, and directly behind them for 5 or 10Y.
Now... subtract 5x65 square yards... is "more plays possible" due to EZ square yardage really a valid point?
Quote from: The Zipp on September 25, 2025, 10:36:28 PMembrace change - don't accept the status qui and be positive.
Yes, comrade! All change good! Status quo bad! Onward and upward!
Or, how about,
no: stop gaslighting me. "Hope and change" "progress at all costs" has been falling out of favor for a decade, especially in my world.
Quote from: The Zipp on September 25, 2025, 10:36:28 PMit was a very good interview - cfl is in good hands
Are you the eldery Mrs. Johnston by chance? When has anyone said this about any commish, even ones we "liked"? I don't think anyone ever said that about even Honest Unca 'Brosie.
Darian Durant chimed in. Ya, we hate him, but he is a longtime player, and as a QB can speak directly to some of these changes.
Here's what he says about the post structure being a problem as a rationale for moving the post:
"That's such a low percentage thing that happens in the league. It's a skill that we practice every day as quarterbacks. You know, the goalpost is there, you know, you have to have a little bit of an arc on your throw. Ensure you're aware of it and it's just part of the game."
So while Rourke says it's really not a thing, Durant says it is a thing but a very minor one easily worked around.
I've yet to hear a QB come out and say the crossbar/uprights were a major impediment or major consideration, and that their removal will "open things up" as much as Johnston likes to believe. (Again, minus the padded area and the area directly behind it.)
Durant also says go slower:
"Change one rule at a time, and maybe throw things out there from a perspective of let's just see if it works. Let's give it a year to see if it changes the game for the good or the bad, or if it affects the game in any way. For all these rules to happen at once, I think you're hurting the little leagues preparing these guys for the CFL game as they get older."
Never thought I'd see the day on this forum where Darian Durant was the hero and Milt Stegall was the villian.
hahah. Man.
Who cares what Darian The Thief has to say on the topic of anything.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 25, 2025, 10:18:09 PMSo... that did nothing to change my mind. I believe he wants to NFL the CFL.
Moving the goalposts and making the field smaller is not going to make the game more exciting. He claims it will, and has NO proof.
And that's exactly the problem with these "business" types. He's in a position of authority, so he can say whatever and get away with it, regardless of the veracity of what's being claimed. It's absurd.
No actual numbers or data have been presented as to how these changes will "modernize" the game or increase scoring. So much for evidence-based decision making.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 01:54:18 PMWho cares what Darian The Thief has to say on the topic of anything.
And that's exactly the problem with these "business" types. He's in a position of authority, so he can say whatever and get away with it, regardless of the veracity of what's being claimed. It's absurd.
No actual numbers or data have been presented as to how these changes will "modernize" the game or increase scoring. So much for evidence-based decision making.
Realistically, what are you looking for? What evidence would have a meaningful impact on your opinion?
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 26, 2025, 10:06:49 AMI'm working out the math to see precisely how much "working field" they gain or lose by these changes. In my quick sketches and the eyeball test they are losing way more field with the 15Y change than they gain with moving the post.
Ironically, the prime talking point of Cody's 2019 doink PROVES that OCs/QBs/teams NEVER did plan around the crossbar or upright. Add to that Rourke's doink last week, and Strev's 2019 GC TD which was over the crossbar. And Rourke's recent statement that they don't factor those structures into their plan AT ALL: because they don't! It's not a "limitation" at all! Ergo, the only "more plays possible" you'll get are ones exactly where the post base/pads are/were, and directly behind them for 5 or 10Y.
Now... subtract 5x65 square yards... is "more plays possible" due to EZ square yardage really a valid point?
Yes, comrade! All change good! Status quo bad! Onward and upward!
Or, how about, no: stop gaslighting me. "Hope and change" "progress at all costs" has been falling out of favor for a decade, especially in my world.
Are you the eldery Mrs. Johnston by chance? When has anyone said this about any commish, even ones we "liked"? I don't think anyone ever said that about even Honest Unca 'Brosie.
I think the BOG has a plan for changing the game to encourage more offense, and they have said that marketing and the business side are going to be reviewed next - Winnipeg is the model franchise for the CFL but it was taken Wade a number of years to get there. I am willing to accept that this is going to happen and I think they deserve an opportunity to make changes. Good for the CFL - love it!
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 02:19:29 PMRealistically, what are you looking for? What evidence would have a meaningful impact on your opinion?
You know I can't answer that question. And therein lies the issue: major changes made based on nothing more than feelings. That's not a rational way to operate, especially when the league is on such supposed shaky ground financially.
Case in point: Johnston claimed on Tuesday there would be 10% more endzone completions and 60 more TDs scored in a season (https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/#:~:text=The%20league%20projects,touchdowns%20each%20year) due to these changes. But how he came up with those numbers was never explained or substantiated.
If the NHL suggested changing the size of the rink, there would be outrage.
Have baseball fields ever been made smaller? Or bigger? They make movies about their hallowed fields
How about basketball courts.
I can't be bothered to check, I doubt it. I saw an American field a few years ago, it's a bloody postage stamp. Ridiculously small.
Might be A case of doing something to be seen doing something. At no cost to the CFL. Unlike what say, Doman is doing... those things cost MONEY! No way!
Anyway, what would NFL fans think if the league said they were making the field bigger.... To generate more offence?
😂
Also, how many NFL games this season were won on last second field goals? Two this week.
The days of anything and everything American is better, are well over.
And, well done! great timing right in the middle of a significant "buy Canadian" movement that's happening here.
Blunder. And no, I do not trust them. They've shown their hand.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 25, 2025, 11:02:19 PMFunny, does "grow the game" immediately equate to "change the game"? Did anyone consult Wade about improvements that could be made to the game day experience?
Delusional "we want to solidify our place at the top of the North American professional sports echelon".
Fact: The CFL is a small market league, limited by the population of Canada.
"Grow the game" without changes is a pretty pie in the sky sentiment.
The old saying "any publicity is good publicity" is the real key here.
If the marketing team didn't orchestrate some of this, I'd be disappointed in them.
No mention of NFL preseason games, which avoids the comparison. But you can bet that every owner )other than WFC) is salivating over the potential extra bucks. But no one will say it.
No declaration of 3 downs not on the block, Commish evading the question, making people discuss and speculate what could be coming. And then, after the media storm, coming out and saying the core values of the CFL (3 downs, 12 men, wider field, 1 yard, no yards halo, waggle) are all sacred cows and will not be touched. He could have said that day one, but how much extra coverage did things get with that speculation.
There ahve been a huge number of eyeballs on this story, fans leading it of course, but you can bet there are water coolers where 9 out of 10 people do not watch the CFL, but now that one is making them all aware that the Canadian game is under attack...
And when, next spring for the clock and rouge changes, and the spring after, with the dimension changes, every CFL fan is going to see it is a better game with the changes, we will also see those people on the periphery having tuned in to see what the change has done.
There will be the few who stand on tradition, and maybe even some STH that drop out, but I really think this media coverage alone and then the stories that will follow about how it does improve the game in practice will grow the league.
Well done Commish, and well done for bearing the sling and arrows though the announcement, covering for the BOG that made the decisions on what changes to make.
I have no doubt that every rule, including the sacred cows, was discussed by the Board, and these ones were the ones found to have merit of doing more good than harm. And while the BOG made the final decisions, the Commish took announcing them on the chin.
These new rules have nothing to do with making the game better and everything to do with an Ex-TSN guy telling the BOG the complaints he's heard from US TV about the CFL. I'm sure they think that these changes will allow them to get a better TV deal down south.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 02:59:46 PMNo mention of NFL preseason games, which avoids the comparison. But you can bet that every owner )other than WFC) is salivating over the potential extra bucks. But no one will say it.
No one will say it because it's not rooted in reality.
Hosting NFL preseason games - if that even comes to pass - isn't as lucrative as you claim. Remember 2019? IGF wasn't even 2/3 full (https://www.espn.com/nfl/game/_/gameId/401136833/packers-raiders#:~:text=Winnipeg%2C%20MB-,Attendance%3A%2021%2C992,-Raiders%20edge%20Packers) for that bungled experiment.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 03:30:52 PMNo one will say it because it's not rooted in reality.
Hosting NFL preseason games - if that even comes to pass - isn't as lucrative as you claim. Remember 2019? IGF wasn't even 2/3 full (https://www.espn.com/nfl/game/_/gameId/401136833/packers-raiders#:~:text=Winnipeg%2C%20MB-,Attendance%3A%2021%2C992,-Raiders%20edge%20Packers) for that bungled experiment.
Well it's an extra game so it depends on how much the CFL has to pay the NFL to host a game.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 02:40:54 PMYou know I can't answer that question. And therein lies the issue: major changes made based on nothing more than feelings. That's not a rational way to operate, especially when the league is on such supposed shaky ground financially.
Case in point: Johnston claimed on Tuesday there would be 10% more endzone completions and 60 more TDs scored in a season (https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/#:~:text=The%20league%20projects,touchdowns%20each%20year) due to these changes. But how he came up with those numbers was never explained or substantiated.
I agree it would be interesting to see the methodology the league is using there. Realistically, it's probably a series of educated guesses because it's hard to have data for something that doesn't yet exist and has never existed (as he said recently, you need to get in the minds of coaches and how they may react to these and there's a very real human element here). Business plans, even good ones, never guarantee success so if you want data to prove this is the right decision beyond a shadow of doubt that's not a realistic ask.
Your entire argument can be easily reframed: Can you provide me some data points that keeping everything the same will lead to a stronger league or increased attendance?
Quote from: Blue In BC on September 26, 2025, 03:34:24 PMWell it's an extra game so it depends on how much the CFL has to pay the NFL to host a game.
(https://y.yarn.co/ee030e09-7ca1-42bf-8848-ace47f1bef68_text.gif)
The NFL wouldn't be doing it from a standpoint of charity.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 03:41:38 PM(https://y.yarn.co/ee030e09-7ca1-42bf-8848-ace47f1bef68_text.gif)
The NFL wouldn't be doing it from a standpoint of charity.
Of course not but they hold pre season games across the globe every year. It's about exposure. It doesn't mean there isn't some money to be made. It's not only the team / stadium that is involved. Hotels, travel, restaurants and bars all benefit from every game.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 03:38:14 PMYour entire argument can be easily reframed: Can you provide me some data points that keeping everything the same will lead to a stronger league or increased attendance?
That right there is what arguing in bad faith looks like.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdW1yY3Y2Y2ppb2d3bWJucmQwb2wyMjZ5aWs1a2dvZ3c1bGx2Nnd4ayZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/SWoRKslHVtqEasqYCJ/giphy.gif)
Like I've said at least a few times since the announcement on Tuesday: I don't think what ails this league - both in terms of its financial health and appeal to the masses - is due to its field dimensions, goalpost placement, or the rouge.
This whole situation seems like nothing more than a red herring, with the league's corporate overlords willfully ignoring the reality of things.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 03:52:53 PMThat right there is what arguing in bad faith looks like.
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdW1yY3Y2Y2ppb2d3bWJucmQwb2wyMjZ5aWs1a2dvZ3c1bGx2Nnd4ayZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/SWoRKslHVtqEasqYCJ/giphy.gif)
Like I've said at least a few times since the announcement on Tuesday: I don't think what ails this league - both in terms of its financial health and appeal to the masses - is due to its field dimensions, goalpost placement, or the rouge.
This whole situation seems like nothing more than a red herring, with the league's corporate overlords willfully ignoring the reality of things.
Explain to me how someone asking you to provide data and evidence that your point of view is correct is in bad faith? Isn't that what reasonable discourse should entail? Or does it only work for you if you're the one asking? What qualifies you to be the judge only?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 03:56:08 PMExplain to me how someone asking you to provide data and evidence that your point of view is correct is in bad faith?
You're the one who opted to "reframe" the argument for absolutely no logical reason.
Have a nice Friday. :)
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 26, 2025, 03:27:42 PMThese new rules have nothing to do with making the game better and everything to do with an Ex-TSN guy telling the BOG the complaints he's heard from US TV about the CFL. I'm sure they think that these changes will allow them to get a better TV deal down south.
If that was the end result and it allowed the CFL to stabilize and increase revenue dramatically the trade-off would be worth it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. In a world of 5,000 viewing options I don't believe Americans are interested in watching more football, especially upcoming generations who are tuning out from long televised sporting events.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 03:38:14 PMYour entire argument can be easily reframed: Can you provide me some data points that keeping everything the same will lead to a stronger league or increased attendance?
The onus should be on the league to come up with reasonable and objective evidence for their thinking as to how the changes will make the game significantly better. Without that, it's throwing **** at the wall and hoping it sticks. Asking for evidence as to why it WON'T work is like asking someone in court to prove how they're innocent. Completely backwards.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 11:37:54 AMNever thought I'd see the day on this forum where Darian Durant was the hero and Milt Stegall was the villian.
hahah. Man.
- Darrian Durant is good guy
- Milt Stegall is bad guy
- Sir B&G is bffs with aardvark :D :D
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 02:19:29 PMRealistically, what are you looking for? What evidence would have a meaningful impact on your opinion?
Publishing the study(s) they referenced would be a good start. You know, like they published the Harvard study about the Tylenol thing. So anyone can go look.
Quote from: blue_or_die on September 26, 2025, 04:41:09 PMThe onus should be on the league to come up with reasonable and objective evidence for their thinking as to how the changes will make the game significantly better. Without that, it's throwing **** at the wall and hoping it sticks. Asking for evidence as to why it WON'T work is like asking someone in court to prove how they're innocent. Completely backwards.
I agree with you that an explanation is a good idea and since they're changing things, they should also tell you why. I think they've tried to do that where they can.
I also want to say that if you're of the opinion that 'you' (not you specifically, but as a general point on contention for each of us) personally won't like the game as much I think that's a totally valid statement. There's lots of styles of football and no one has to like them all (I point out that none of us have seen football played on a 65 yard wide field, with back goal posts and 100 yard field before so maybe wait first to experience it, but if you already know you'll hate it [seems a tad drastic to me] then that's fair too.)
When we get into discussions around the growth of the game and drawing interest from the changes, etc. I think that's where I've tried to challenge because I fundamentally think they're right, and it will ultimately be a good thing from the perspective of growth and the business side of things. It's also fair, in the context of that discussion to ask for proof points or data to back up the opinion that not making these changes would be better for growth and interest. Especially since people seem quite fixated on the league's datapoints and then also judging the methodology behind it. It is not proving why something won't work, but rather why not changing the rules is the better choice for growth?
Look, I can share the data. But it's with the caveat that this is all BS and has nothing to do with increasing offence and everything to do with making the game look more American on TV broadcasts. These changes are not coming from data on making the league better, they found data to support predetermined changes that TSN wants us to make.
That said, @PFF_Bryson shared some data on twitter (since 2022).
He alleges that endzone targets have the following splits:
Left: 32.8%, Middle: 29.8%, Right: 37.4%
That all seems even enough, but for NON-endzone targets. ie. No cross bar in the way, the stats change to:
Left: 30.6%, Middle: 37.2%, Right: 32.2%
I imagine they whipped out their calculators and did some basic math and pretended everything would just turn into TDs if they removed the cross bar. But, again, these aren't data driven decisions, they're TSN ones.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 02:40:54 PMYou know I can't answer that question. And therein lies the issue: major changes made based on nothing more than feelings. That's not a rational way to operate, especially when the league is on such supposed shaky ground financially.
Case in point: Johnston claimed on Tuesday there would be 10% more endzone completions and 60 more TDs scored in a season (https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/#:~:text=The%20league%20projects,touchdowns%20each%20year) due to these changes. But how he came up with those numbers was never explained or substantiated.
I get the "post your work" you express. Most will not accept the "Trust me, these changes make sense when you look at the numbers" and then not showing the numbers.
I wish I could find it, but I saw a posting somewhere that showed targets and completions in the endzones, and how much fewer were in the centre vs. the sides...
Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 05:35:56 PMI get the "post your work" you express. Most will not accept the "Trust me, these changes make sense when you look at the numbers" and then not showing the numbers.
I wish I could find it, but I saw a posting somewhere that showed targets and completions in the endzones, and how much fewer were in the centre vs. the sides...
The expression is "show your work," and neither those making the changes nor the handful of fervent supporters have managed to do so. It's disheartening to me because these changes will have significant upfront costs, despite the league having acknowledged only a few months ago that it's in a financially unsustainable position outside of two franchises.
I'm just at a loss to try and rationalize what's taken place. It's like
@blue_or_die said a bit ago:
Quote from: blue_or_die on September 26, 2025, 04:41:09 PM...it's throwing **** at the wall and hoping it sticks.
The challenges facing the CFL are serious, perhaps bordering on existential. It's bewildering that this is the response by the league's so-called leadership.
Quote from: Jesse on September 26, 2025, 05:31:23 PMLook, I can share the data. But it's with the caveat that this is all BS and has nothing to do with increasing offence and everything to do with making the game look more American on TV broadcasts. These changes are not coming from data on making the league better, they found data to support predetermined changes that TSN wants us to make.
That said, @PFF_Bryson shared some data on twitter (since 2022).
He alleges that endzone targets have the following splits:
Left: 32.8%, Middle: 29.8%, Right: 37.4%
That all seems even enough, but for NON-endzone targets. ie. No cross bar in the way, the stats change to:
Left: 30.6%, Middle: 37.2%, Right: 32.2%
I imagine they whipped out their calculators and did some basic math and pretended everything would just turn into TDs if they removed the cross bar. But, again, these aren't data driven decisions, they're TSN ones.
Short passes over the center are not that common as too many big bodies blocking the vision, most of those passes would be tight to the right or left of the line.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 05:53:17 PMThe expression is "show your work," and neither those making the changes nor the handful of fervent supporters have managed to do so. It's disheartening to me because these changes will have significant upfront costs, despite the league having acknowledged only a few months ago that it's in a financially unsustainable position outside of two franchises.
I'm just at a loss to try and rationalize what's taken place. It's like @blue_or_die said a bit ago:
The challenges facing the CFL are serious, perhaps bordering on existential. It's bewildering that this the response of the league's so-called leadership.
For the goal posts, sure. I like the idea because I think it will clean up a lot of goal line play. Having to adjust your D backfield due to the post being there is silly, using the post to rub a defender out is funny, quirky, but not serious game play. And when a doink decides a game, even if only once, that adds not to the professionalism of the game, but rather the "weird cousin" ideology of the league.
For the dimensions, MTL and TOR are not building new stadia, and their barns cannot house 110 yd fields with 20 yd EZ's safely or effectively. Making the field 10 yards shorter and EZ 5 yards shorter should not affect any particular play substantively. In fact with the posts moved, it might actually make the field play longer in some cases.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 26, 2025, 05:56:36 PMShort passes over the center are not that common as too many big bodies blocking the vision, most of those passes would be tight to the right or left of the line.
Correct. Short passes need their own numbers.
Bombers will still have a goal post though. Willie Jefferson is his name.
I remember the NFL having goalposts at the front of the endzone. Just saying
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 26, 2025, 06:46:56 PMI remember the NFL having goalposts at the front of the endzone. Just saying
History of goalpost location in the NFL (https://www.nfl.com/100/originals/100-greatest/game-changers-58)
1920: on the goal line
1927: back of endzone
1933: back on the goal line
1974: back to the back of the end zone
Hilarious.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 06:53:18 PMHistory of goalpost location in the NFL (https://www.nfl.com/100/originals/100-greatest/game-changers-58)
1920: on the goal line
1927: back of endzone
1933: back on the goal line
1974: back to the back of the end zone
Hilarious.
And .. back then, NFL games were notorious for low scoring games. Even after the move. Just saying !
I don't think the game will be adversely affected by these changes. It will be different, maybe slightly better. It might take some time for it to evolve but only time will tell.
I also don't think it will move the needle much in terms of attendance and viewership. The entertainment value is not the problem.
One thing is certain, the new field opens up expansion to existing soccer stadiums in North America. I am not saying that expansion to the U.S. would save the league but it allows for that measure to be taken.
The CFL has seven private ownership groups that are all losing fistfuls of money. There are some good samaritans in there but I don't think this scenario is sustainable for much longer. Regardless, we don't have much choice other than putting this in their hands and hope that they figure something out. It is their money that is on the line, after all.
In the meantime, I will support the Bombers and enjoy the game for however long it is viable in a version that is still uniquely Canadian.
Quote from: bomber beetle on September 26, 2025, 07:30:14 PMI also don't think it will move the needle much in terms of attendance and viewership. The entertainment value is not the problem.
(https://media.tenor.com/ynST0DWtFqgAAAAM/pointing-that-is-correct.gif)
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 26, 2025, 05:56:36 PMShort passes over the center are not that common as too many big bodies blocking the vision, most of those passes would be tight to the right or left of the line.
But when you have big bodies to throw over, and goal posts to throw under, that limits the throw.
No goal posts and you can lob into the EZ anywhere...
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 05:12:08 PMI also want to say that if you're of the opinion that 'you' (not you specifically, but as a general point on contention for each of us) personally won't like the game as much I think that's a totally valid statement. There's lots of styles of football and no one has to like them all (I point out that none of us have seen football played on a 65 yard wide field, with back goal posts and 100 yard field before so maybe wait first to experience it, but if you already know you'll hate it [seems a tad drastic to me] then that's fair too.)
For the anti-change group, I think there's a portion of people who just don't want change for tradition's sake or something like that. While that's a factor for me too, the contention for another portion of that group (like me) is not understanding what makes us think any of these things will be better. If we change these fundamental aspects and it's not better or worse, you've gotta think that's a fail if we lose unique aspects and just have something that's NFL Lite for no good reason. I strongly doubt that if these changes fail to gain traction, changing back can be done within my lifetime and they're gone forever.
So I'm of the belief that if I watch the new CFL and don't totally hate the changes (and to be clear, I'm open minded and will wait and see), that's still a net loss because we upended the game significantly from cherished (maybe not by you or aardvark) aspects for absolutely nothing. And aside from the result being a significantly improved game that leads to league growth or future stability (which I think is not going to happen at all), that's actually a best case scenario. So it's an enormous risk without justification.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 05:12:08 PMWhen we get into discussions around the growth of the game and drawing interest from the changes, etc. I think that's where I've tried to challenge because I fundamentally think they're right, and it will ultimately be a good thing from the perspective of growth and the business side of things.
That's great that you're optimistic, I just don't understand why or how, logically.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 05:12:08 PMIt's also fair, in the context of that discussion to ask for proof points or data to back up the opinion that not making these changes would be better for growth and interest. Especially since people seem quite fixated on the league's datapoints and then also judging the methodology behind it. It is not proving why something won't work, but rather why not changing the rules is the better choice for growth?
Well for starters, the league has been around (in a few forms) for well over a century with much of its rules and traditions enshrined in the fabric of the fandom. The league is supported by old timers who you risk alienating and actually decreasing viewership. There's a multiplier effect in that they in turn won't nurture future generations of CFL fans, leading to the slow death of the league.
As for new fans, there is nothing about the changes that will attract them to the game. Onlookers don't care or hardly notice a 55 yard line or goalposts at the actual goal line or the amount of time to get plays off within the last 3 minutes. They care about being entertained first and foremost and if they aren't already entertained when they come across the CFL, these little nuances that they do not value (but loyal fans already do) are not going to change anything, even if you add a touchdown to every game. If you're a more 'fundamental' football fan, you're going to like the CFL as is and if not, I have a hard time believing it's because it looks so much different from NFL. I'll maintain that the vast majority of NFL fans are there to be part of the show and enjoy the celebrity of that league rather than appreciating the fundamentals.
So to answer your last question, changing the rules gambles largely cherished aspects of the game and the current fanbase that has been supporting it for many decades for the theory that changing some rules might gain net new fans. The chances of the latter happening are non-existent in my opinion. But you can change my mind if you show me the logic, which is what I've been asking for from the beginning.
Seems like a small ask from someone who has season tickets, buys merch, and works their life around their CFL team.
Quote from: blue_or_die on September 26, 2025, 08:07:40 PMFor the anti-change group, I think there's a portion of people who just don't want change for tradition's sake or something like that. While that's a factor for me too, the contention for another portion of that group (like me) is not understanding what makes us think any of these things will be better. If we change these fundamental aspects and it's not better or worse, you've gotta think that's a fail if we lose unique aspects and just have something that's NFL Lite for no good reason. I strongly doubt that if these changes fail to gain traction, changing back can be done within my lifetime and they're gone forever.
So I'm of the belief that if I watch the new CFL and don't totally hate the changes (and to be clear, I'm open minded and will wait and see), that's still a net loss because we upended the game significantly from cherished (maybe not by you or aardvark) aspects for absolutely nothing. And aside from the result being a significantly improved game that leads to league growth or future stability (which I think is not going to happen at all), that's actually a best case scenario. So it's an enormous risk without justification.
The way this usually goes is if the changes they make do not move the needle as far as attendance or revenue goes, the claim will be the changes did not go far enough. It's never going back to the way it was unless the league falters and gets another re-start driven by traditionalists. Remembering the first thing Wade Miller did as Bomber president was to restore the royal blue colours.
Local CFL fans question loyalty, selling season tickets in light of new rules changes https://share.google/Tch5IJ0v89TD2AwfJ
Don't spoke the herd
The herd pays the bills
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 06:53:18 PMHistory of goalpost location in the NFL (https://www.nfl.com/100/originals/100-greatest/game-changers-58)
1920: on the goal line
1927: back of endzone
1933: back on the goal line
1974: back to the back of the end zone
The reason they were moved was to discourage long field goals, especially game winners. This player safety reason is a load of you know what. I would prefer the CFL look at other options such as narrower and higher uprights or have the kicks from the old wider hash marks, just for field goals.
I wonder how many more ties we will see? Even in the over time your field goal is no longer make-able from first scrimmage. 57 yarder.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 26, 2025, 08:50:32 PMLocal CFL fans question loyalty, selling season tickets in light of new rules changes https://share.google/Tch5IJ0v89TD2AwfJ
Don't spoke the herd
The herd pays the bills
It's really quite sad. Even me ! I never thought I'd feel this way about the CFL. I've been a fan since I was 5 years old. Now I'm just not happy about this.
For me, the 2026 changes seem reasonable conditional on the league getting the new timing rules right. I was extremely disappointed in the 2027 changes to the field with the biggest gut punch being the field reduction from 110 yards to 100 yards. I have yet to see reasonable explanation for why that one was necessary.
I am glad that there are a handful of people in the media who are taking an objective look at the rule changes and in the process questioning the decision making that went into the changes. Most notable in the Winnipeg market are Derek Taylor and Jeff Hamilton.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 05:35:56 PMI wish I could find it, but I saw a posting somewhere that showed targets and completions in the endzones, and how much fewer were in the centre vs. the sides...
I think that you are referring to a graphic posted by Dave Naylor. As posted, the middle section of the field appears to be about 20% of the width of a CFL field. It really remains undefined as to what parameters are being used to determine the width of each zone (left, middle, right). As Derek Taylor suggests, if it is truly divided into thirds then this data has some relevance. If middle is determined by the width of the goal posts or the hash marks then the graphic is very misleading. One thing that is clear from Dave Naylor's graphic, the highest completion percentages in the end zones are in 15-20 yard depths regardless of whether the pass is to the left, middle or right. If true, why are we eliminating the deep portion of the end zones?
Quote from: Jesse on September 26, 2025, 05:31:23 PMLook, I can share the data. But it's with the caveat that this is all BS and has nothing to do with increasing offence and everything to do with making the game look more American on TV broadcasts. These changes are not coming from data on making the league better, they found data to support predetermined changes that TSN wants us to make.
That said, @PFF_Bryson shared some data on twitter (since 2022).
He alleges that endzone targets have the following splits:
Left: 32.8%, Middle: 29.8%, Right: 37.4%
That all seems even enough, but for NON-endzone targets. ie. No cross bar in the way, the stats change to:
Left: 30.6%, Middle: 37.2%, Right: 32.2%
I imagine they whipped out their calculators and did some basic math and pretended everything would just turn into TDs if they removed the cross bar. But, again, these aren't data driven decisions, they're TSN ones.
Yes, as Bryson points out, the middle of the field is used more outside of the end zone versus into the end zone. A lot of the passes that qualify as middle of the field under any set of parameters are the chest passes to receivers doing a fly sweep or running back screen passes. Perhaps all passes behind the line of scrimmage should be factored out of the calculations for a better comparison.
Changing so many aspects of the game at one time seems like a bad science experiment. Farhan Lalji referred back to the narrowing of the hash marks resulting in more scoring. I can see the narrow hash marks increasing the field goal percentages because kicks are more straight away than before and longer kicks from the hash marks actually have a shorter distance to travel. There is no way to determine if the hash marks actually made any difference in the ability of an offence to move the ball because that change was done in conjunction with other changes that moved the ball spots by 5 yards in many circumstances. Like I said, it is bad science.
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 26, 2025, 09:11:34 PMIt's really quite sad. Even me ! I never thought I'd feel this way about the CFL. I've been a fan since I was 5 years old. Now I'm just not happy about this.
I feel the same way too. I was always proud our league was different than the NFL, proud of who we are as Canadians. Now we're cowtailing to the US of A. We're trying to look like the NFL. It makes me sick, really. From the first day I saw Johnston, I never trusted him. This only adds fuel to that fire. Disappointed really that our old version was somehow not good enough for the powers that be. Well have at er boys, I hope it works out, as this may blow up in your face and you'll have a serious mess.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 26, 2025, 08:42:33 PMThe way this usually goes is if the changes they make do not move the needle as far as attendance or revenue goes, the claim will be the changes did not go far enough. It's never going back to the way it was unless the league falters and gets another re-start driven by traditionalists. Remembering the first thing Wade Miller did as Bomber president was to restore the royal blue colours.
I don't think the changes "success" will be measured at the gate primarily. Making the changes is meant to improve the on field product, and increase interest, for sure. But as much as we'd like to see a rise, I think reducing the loss might be a more realistic goal.
We hear people whining and complaining and saying they won't buy tickets, etc. I'm not confident any of those will come to light over such minimal changes. Much as those who paint the moves as "Americanizing" the game protest, watching a game after the changes is where the rubber hits the road.
Once the smoke has cleared and the hurt fee fees heal, watching the refined CFL game is the key. For fans, players and coaches, until we've seen the effect on the game, both sides can either moan or cheer.
As long as they preserve the final 3 minutes, I really think this is going to be a positive step going forward. And I don't think the commish or the BOG will ever dare move on any of the sacred cows we hold dear as CFL fans.
The commish has done what he was brought in to do, he has put the game front and centre in sports casts and socials, even though the NHL is starting, MLB is hitting the playoffs, and the NFL is in full swing.
Making more drastic changes would be silly, especially after the blowback on losing the 55 yard line. Yeesh.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 26, 2025, 03:56:08 PMExplain to me how someone asking you to provide data and evidence that your point of view is correct is in bad faith?
When drastic change is proposed, the onus is on the changer to justify it, not the person who wants the status quo. And nothing is more drastic at this moment than changing the field. That should demand maximum justification and transparency.
Instead we're given... Johnston saying "don't get emotional, trust us brah"
Quote from: blue_or_die on September 26, 2025, 04:41:09 PMThe onus should be on the league to come up with reasonable and objective evidence for their thinking as to how the changes will make the game significantly better.
Doh! You beat me to it.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 07:56:20 PMBut when you have big bodies to throw over, and goal posts to throw under, that limits the throw.
No one throws UNDER the crossbar, unless it's someone right at the bar. Every pass I've ever seen by the structure is OVER the crossbar.
CFL fans start petition to delay rule changes, call for two-week blackout - 3DownNation https://share.google/5Ot5OFhQuztNxUsPZ
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 26, 2025, 11:21:31 PMCFL fans start petition to delay rule changes, call for two-week blackout - 3DownNation https://share.google/5Ot5OFhQuztNxUsPZ
I signed it.
Quote from: Waffler on September 26, 2025, 09:06:59 PMI wonder how many more ties we will see? Even in the over time your field goal is no longer make-able from first scrimmage. 57 yarder.
Oooh! No one thought of that yet! I thought we might get more Q/H ties because of the rouge going away...
But what about... OVERTIME?! Teams won't start in FG range anymore. How many yards will they have to produce to get in range? So teams will have to go for it on 3rd down a lot in OT?? That might suck because whoever goes first may turn the ball over and almost instantly lose? Well, I guess their D gets a chance to hold them out of FG range too...
Completely changes the calculus of overtime. And maybe once and for all "you want to go second" will go out the door.
Quote from: Blueforlife on September 26, 2025, 11:21:31 PMCFL fans start petition to delay rule changes, call for two-week blackout - 3DownNation https://share.google/5Ot5OFhQuztNxUsPZ
Signed
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 27, 2025, 12:42:26 AMSigned
thanks for the link, I signed it as well. Everyone should!!! This is ridiculous!!!
There is absolutely nothing wrong with our game, it doesn't need any novelty changes to make us look like the NFL.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 10:37:04 PMWe hear people whining and complaining and saying they won't buy tickets, etc. I'm not confident any of those will come to light over such minimal changes.
The loss of the 55YL is not a "minimal change", not historically or logistically. It is actually the most drastic, costly, visible change you could make!
Quote from: Stats Junkie on September 26, 2025, 09:30:18 PMI was extremely disappointed in the 2027 changes to the field with the biggest gut punch being the field reduction from 110 yards to 100 yards. I have yet to see reasonable explanation for why that one was necessary.
Welcome, Junkie. It's good to have you onboard because your opinion carries more weight than ours when it comes to perhaps making a difference. The more "internal to the CFL" people that speak out, the more TPTB might listen.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on September 26, 2025, 09:30:18 PMI think that you are referring to a graphic posted by Dave Naylor. As posted, the middle section of the field
There's also the stat obfuscation due to fact that tight to the EZ D's put a lot of players in/near the box because of the run-TD threat. This would seem to promote passing to the edges, rather than the cramped middle. In other words, taking away the post structure may not do what they think for opening up the middle for passing.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on September 26, 2025, 09:30:18 PMChanging so many aspects of the game at one time seems like a bad science experiment.
Great point and example. But, it makes sense if this is done
intentionally (both before and now). Conflating causes is a pretty typical tactic.
Another great point from riderforum. Regarding the signage down on the field along the sidelines and the hypocrisy of the league:
I see more players tripping and bashing into those signs than I ever have seen run into the goalpost if they are so da[r]n serious about player safety.
-- Tyree
Darn right, Tyree. If "player safety" is a main talking point for moving the posts, then you also have to get rid of all sideline signage. Oh wait, one will cost you BOG/owners gobs of ad money, so of course that's not on the table.
Hypocrites.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 27, 2025, 12:44:35 PMAnother great point from riderforum. Regarding the signage down on the field along the sidelines and the hypocrisy of the league:
I see more players tripping and bashing into those signs than I ever have seen run into the goalpost if they are so da[r]n serious about player safety.
-- Tyree
Darn right, Tyree. If "player safety" is a main talking point for moving the posts, then you also have to get rid of all sideline signage. Oh wait, one will cost you BOG/owners gobs of ad money, so of course that's not on the table.
Hypocrites.
That'll be the excuse to make the width of the field the same as the NFL one in 2028.
Minimal changes? Once the ball goes into the end-zone, returners will simply knock it out the back or side (using the hand or else it would be given to the other team). No single, just get the ball on the 35 or 40 or where the FG was tried from. Running the ball out of the end-zone will be a thing of the past.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 10:37:04 PMMaking the changes is meant to improve the on field product, and increase interest...
...such minimal changes.
...watching the refined CFL game is the key.
How do these changes improve the on-field product or increase interest from non-traditional fans?
They're minimal changes but somehow, they're going to improve the on-field product. Huh?
How do these minimal changes refine the CFL game?
Much like the commissioner, you're not making sense.
Found the graph"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G1uo8YVW4AEx8hn?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 27, 2025, 02:42:08 PMMinimal changes? Once the ball goes into the end-zone, returners will simply knock it out the back or side (using the hand or else it would be given to the other team). No single, just get the ball on the 35 or 40 or where the FG was tried from. Running the ball out of the end-zone will be a thing of the past.
That's still a rouge. Only if the ball goes out unassisted is it not a rouge.
Placing a punt in the EZ without going over becomes the play.
Punters have to start watching "The Price is Right".
Sideline signage probably becomes less an issue when eastern teams need to put teams on both side lines...
And yes, they are stupid and should be eliminated. They are for TV mainly, and there is no reason they can't be virtual.
Quote from: TBURGESS on September 27, 2025, 02:42:08 PMMinimal changes? Once the ball goes into the end-zone, returners will simply knock it out the back or side (using the hand or else it would be given to the other team). No single, just get the ball on the 35 or 40 or where the FG was tried from. Running the ball out of the end-zone will be a thing of the past.
Doubt it, for sure they will give up a single if they knock the ball out of bounds on a missed FG.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 27, 2025, 03:43:35 PMThat's still a rouge. Only if the ball goes out unassisted is it not a rouge.
On the subject of the rouge, let's start using the term properly. Rouge involves an action by the scoring team at the point of the score. A kick through the back of the end zone is just a deadline kick.
Other uses of 'rouge' in Canadian football:
Rouge (v) - to tackle an opponent in the end zone for a score.
Rouged (past tense) - tackled
Here is an example of rouge and rouged used in a scoring summary along with deadline kick.
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/in48nvx6x8tvosx1a1zf9/Rouge-Deadline-kick.jpg?rlkey=t3ycw5s2y9xwt8d6s2bgbfowe&st=o7lfgnur&raw=1)
Notice that 'rouged' on single points involves a tackle and it is also used on a safety touch where the QB was tackled. Rouge is also used to describe a scoring play that involved a blocked punt in the end zone (that same play became a safety touch in 1978).
Another Canadian term is 'convert' vs the distinctly American 'PAT'. Extra Point is somewhat acceptable.
'Convert' is derived from the early days of Canadian football before a points scoring system was introduced. Back then, the team with the most 'Goals' won the game. If tied, the team with the most 'Trys' won. If still tied, the team with the most minor points or singles won the game.
There were a couple of ways to score a goal. One was to kick a goal from the field by kicking the ball through the goal posts (which were located on the goal line). Today we call it a field goal. The other way required a team to score a try. The scoring team could then 'convert' the 'try' into a 'goal' by kicking the ball between the goal posts.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 27, 2025, 03:41:46 PMFound the graph"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G1uo8YVW4AEx8hn?format=jpg&name=small)
That is the graphic from the Dave Naylor post. As Jeff Hamilton notes, there are a lot of missing details from this graphic. What time frame are we talking about - Jeff speculates that it is data from 2025 which is a small sample size.
Jeff was building on comments from Derek Taylor where he questioned how large each zone (left, middle, right) actually is.
Since then, DT has posted his own graphic with data dating back to 2015 although he admits that data since 2021 is incomplete. DT divides the field into 5 sections:
- sideline to numbers (left & right)
- numbers to hash marks (left & right)
- hash mark to hash mark (pre-2022 width).
DT also divides the end zone into 4 equal 5 yard depths.
His data shows a much more even distribution of passes to all areas of the end zone which is based on a much more statistically significant sample size.
https://x.com/DTonOB/status/1971664645078548841?t=ORJYbc67BDZKlm2YHqu5VA&s=19 (https://x.com/DTonOB/status/1971664645078548841?t=ORJYbc67BDZKlm2YHqu5VA&s=19)
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 27, 2025, 04:49:08 PMDoubt it, for sure they will give up a single if they knock the ball out of bounds on a missed FG.
Ah no. If the receiving team handles the ball in any way in the endzone (be it kickoff/field goal or punt) in any way or bats it out of bounds that is still a single. It's untouched balls or missed field goals out of bounds which no longer will be singles as I understand it.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on September 27, 2025, 05:20:46 PMThat is the graphic from the Dave Naylor post. As Jeff Hamilton notes, there are a lot of missing details from this graphic. What time frame are we talking about - Jeff speculates that it is data from 2025 which is a small sample size.
Jeff was building on comments from Derek Taylor where he questioned how large each zone (left, middle, right) actually is.
Since then, DT has posted his own graphic with data dating back to 2015 although he admits that data since 2021 is incomplete. DT divides the field into 5 sections:
- sideline to numbers (left & right)
- numbers to hash marks (left & right)
- hash mark to hash mark (pre-2022 width).
DT also divides the end zone into 4 equal 5 yard depths.
His data shows a much more even distribution of passes to all areas of the end zone which is based on a much more statistically significant sample size.
https://x.com/DTonOB/status/1971664645078548841?t=ORJYbc67BDZKlm2YHqu5VA&s=19 (https://x.com/DTonOB/status/1971664645078548841?t=ORJYbc67BDZKlm2YHqu5VA&s=19)
Yup. DT tracked from 2015 and his data shows all the talking points are full of hot air.
More passes are already attempted to the middle of the field and scoring is up over the past few years.
Quote from: ichabod_crane on September 27, 2025, 05:31:20 PMAh no. If the receiving team handles the ball in any way in the endzone (be it kickoff/field goal or punt) in any way or bats it out of bounds that is still a single. It's untouched balls or missed field goals out of bounds which no longer will be singles as I understand it.
That's what I said Ichabod Crane, that's exactly what I said.
Just think, if the posts were moved back we would have shut the Cats out yesterday. ;D
Idea...
Put together a montage of the last two minutes of some of the last second, down to the final play games from this season.
Publish it, Show it to Mr. Commissioner Rule change and ask why he thinks the games aren't exciting enough.
Based on the actual games, His argument does not hold water.
Quote from: markf on September 28, 2025, 01:53:22 PMIdea...
Put together a montage of the last two minutes of some of the last second, down to the final play games from this season.
Publish it, Show it to Mr. Commissioner Rule change and ask why he thinks the games aren't exciting enough.
Based on the actual games, His argument does not hold water.
The clock is not to create more excitement, but to increase pace.
We do have rules that change inside 3 minutes, I have no issue with changes that speed up 57 minutes of the game, but leave the final 3 alone...
Quote from: theaardvark on September 28, 2025, 03:13:42 PMThe clock is not to create more excitement, but to increase pace.
We do have rules that change inside 3 minutes, I have no issue with changes that speed up 57 minutes of the game, but leave the final 3 alone...
I think so too. Although I'll say that every football league I've ever watched generates thrilling endings to games and anyone who tries to tell you that the NFL or NCAA somehow doesn't is either lying or doesn't watch it.
I do enjoy the tactical changes that occur when the offense needs to drive the field and the clock doesn't stop for them for 30 seconds every 5 seconds play. They use the sidelines. They run different plays. They have to run to the line. All of that is also entertaining and fun even if it's a bit different than what we see in the CFL.
Quote from: markf on September 28, 2025, 01:53:22 PMIdea...
Put together a montage of the last two minutes of some of the last second, down to the final play games from this season.
Publish it, Show it to Mr. Commissioner Rule change and ask why he thinks the games aren't exciting enough.
Based on the actual games, His argument does not hold water.
Teams will have to drive to the 35 to have a long shot at making a last minute FG. Leiegghio soils himself on FG's over 50 yds.
Quote from: Jesse on September 27, 2025, 06:23:27 PMYup. DT tracked from 2015 and his data shows all the talking points are full of hot air.
More passes are already attempted to the middle of the field and scoring is up over the past few years.
What do you mean? How do you get that from that chart?
I asked everyone around me @PAS about the changes. Had some interesting takes. On theory in particular stood out to me, as they guy was pretty sure he was right.
Dude thought the '27 changes aren't in stone and are negotiating tactics for when the USA TV deal is renewed between 26'-'27. If USA guys pay up for TV rights then we do this Diet-NFL changes. If USA doesn't pay up, we ditch the 110Y/GP changes.
Certainly as possible as some of my theories. And gives us 110-is-sacrosanct people possible hope. Though now we're hoping CFL only gets the normal pittance from the USA deal, LOL.
Can't recall if I saw this here or not. Just in case, here's a petition for the league to pause and think through these changes a bit.
Petition to pause rule changes (https://www.change.org/p/delay-changes-to-cfl-rules-until-a-thorough-consultation?source_location=search)
If you're even remotely on the "nay" side, sign it. It's not saying you hate all the changes, or that you don't want any changes, it just means there should be more discussion and external input.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 29, 2025, 12:22:30 AMI asked everyone around me @PAS about the changes. Had some interesting takes. On theory in particular stood out to me, as they guy was pretty sure he was right.
Dude thought the '27 changes aren't in stone and are negotiating tactics for when the USA TV deal is renewed between 26'-'27. If USA guys pay up for TV rights then we do this Diet-NFL changes. If USA doesn't pay up, we ditch the 110Y/GP changes.
Certainly as possible as some of my theories. And gives us 110-is-sacrosanct people possible hope. Though now we're hoping CFL only gets the normal pittance from the USA deal, LOL.
I haven't heard mention of their deal with CBS Sports Network this season, nothing about ratings or future plans.
Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 29, 2025, 04:52:27 PMCan't recall if I saw this here or not. Just in case, here's a petition for the league to pause and think through these changes a bit.
Petition to pause rule changes (https://www.change.org/p/delay-changes-to-cfl-rules-until-a-thorough-consultation?source_location=search)
If you're even remotely on the "nay" side, sign it. It's not saying you hate all the changes, or that you don't want any changes, it just means there should be more discussion and external input.
I love the passion fans have, but I think the league is getting all the feedback they need without a petition... and each BOG will get new input from his team (players and coaches) that will let them decide if an rethinking is needed.
Regardless, other than the clock, I can't see them going bock on the cosmetic changes on field size and goal posts. With unanimous consent from the guys that are going to have to pay for the changes, I can't see fan "outrage" or "protests" causing them to change what are very logical updates. Even without any thought toward US expansion or hosting NFL games, the only real downside is cost, and the guys who have to pay have OK'd that.
But yes, the clock they need more input. From coaches, players and fans. And they have already committed to that.
I'd like to see either side come up with proposals for how to address the 35 second clock.
I'm all for standardizing the clock regardless crew. Which it sound like is why this was proposed.
I don't want fewer plays, so game clock should only run during the last 20 seconds of the play clock, or not until the snap as per current rules.
Does that fix everything?
Meanwhile it was 30-27 with 4:50 left in Sunday Night Football, and then 34-30 with 1:45 and 37-37 at the end of regulation.
BuT iT OnlY happENs in tHe CFl. ::)
Too many changes all at once... should do it slowly to see what works and what doesn't. I think the CFL needs to expand and market itself more to young fans rather than change the game. The game works as it is now. Yes, the field is big, but that's what makes it different from the NFL. I would prefer to keep the rouge and field goal posts as it is now. The field and end zones can get smaller to encourage more scoring, I don't mind that.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 29, 2025, 05:24:27 PMI love the passion fans have, but I think the league is getting all the feedback they need without a petition... and each BOG will get new input from his team (players and coaches) that will let them decide if an rethinking is needed.
Regardless, other than the clock, I can't see them going bock on the cosmetic changes on field size and goal posts. With unanimous consent from the guys that are going to have to pay for the changes, I can't see fan "outrage" or "protests" causing them to change what are very logical updates. Even without any thought toward US expansion or hosting NFL games, the only real downside is cost, and the guys who have to pay have OK'd that.
But yes, the clock they need more input. From coaches, players and fans. And they have already committed to that.
I'd like to see either side come up with proposals for how to address the 35 second clock.
I'm all for standardizing the clock regardless crew. Which it sound like is why this was proposed.
I don't want fewer plays, so game clock should only run during the last 20 seconds of the play clock, or not until the snap as per current rules.
Does that fix everything?
You can't see them changing the new rules you like, but definitely they will look into rethinking the new rule you don't like?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 29, 2025, 06:13:42 PMMeanwhile it was 30-27 with 4:50 left in Sunday Night Football, and then 34-30 with 1:45 and 37-37 at the end of regulation.
BuT iT OnlY happENs in tHe CFl. ::)
The question is actually if the new clock will result in less instances of "interesting endings" overall in the CFL. Just as it would be equally fascinating if the CFL clock rules would be implemented in the NFL and we could see if the instances of "interesting endings" increased, decreased or staying the same.
I don't think anyone doubts that the best players in the world are capable of storming back on each other and creating some real drama in the last 2 minutes of one single game, but the question is if it's maximized within the rules of the game. Showing an instance of that (while a good one) is cherry picking if we're going to be fair. And it would be equally egregious for anyone to point out the opposite if the NFL has a dud ending tonight.
Quote from: blue_or_die on September 29, 2025, 06:21:54 PMYou can't see them changing the new rules you like, but definitely they will look into rethinking the new rule you don't like?
They have actually said they need more study on the clock.
The rest are done deals.
As to implementing them slowly, its far better to make the changes to the playing field in one fell swoop, which re-assures me that the 65yd wide field is not going to change. New turf / goal posts at the same time makes sense.
My buddy and I were looking at the field during the game, and calculating where the posts would be, and the endzones, and he pointed out that now we will be 5 yards closer to both goal lines, and 10 yards closer to the back of the endzone.
So, literally, our seats just got better. We won't be on the 50 yard line, we will be at the 45, so it doesn't sound as cool, but we are still 5 yards from the centre of the field.
The majority of CFL seats are between the current goal lines, EZ seats are discounted and prime giveaway seats. Look at where all the orange shirts were last game, EZ corner.
Most CFL revenue comes from seats that just got better. More seats at higher prices.
Even the upper decks, all of the OB lines are closer. Except the discounted seats, if you were on the 5, now you are goal line. But the far goal line is 5 yards closer. So, again, not as cool sounding a seat location, but actually better sightline.
No reason to re-assess these changes, IMHO. They did thier work, BOG unanimously agreed, they've committed the $$ and now hand it over to the ticket sales and marketing groups.
Quote from: BLUEBOMBER on September 29, 2025, 06:21:31 PMI think the CFL needs to expand and market itself more to young fans rather than change the game.
I've said for years that every team needs to do the fans-on-field post-game thing like PAS. It shocks the heck out of me that they don't.
Every kid/youth/20's person goes down after the games to have fun and scope things out. For my kids this is the #1 draw of going to games. Tons of "influencer"-looking people on the field last game taking pics/videos for social media.
Johnston should mandate this for every team starting yesterday. Cost is an extra 30mins for security staff. Upside is you get the exact demo market you are trying to get in the stadium!! CFL ads on TV should loudly proclaim this feature and show videos of what it's like.
Shame on all the other teams for not doing this already. I think 1 other team besides us does this? Shame on SSK.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 29, 2025, 07:20:16 PMThey have actually said they need more study on the clock.
The rest are done deals.
As to implementing them slowly, its far better to make the changes to the playing field in one fell swoop, which re-assures me that the 65yd wide field is not going to change. New turf / goal posts at the same time makes sense.
My buddy and I were looking at the field during the game, and calculating where the posts would be, and the endzones, and he pointed out that now we will be 5 yards closer to both goal lines, and 10 yards closer to the back of the endzone.
So, literally, our seats just got better. We won't be on the 50 yard line, we will be at the 45, so it doesn't sound as cool, but we are still 5 yards from the centre of the field.
The majority of CFL seats are between the current goal lines, EZ seats are discounted and prime giveaway seats. Look at where all the orange shirts were last game, EZ corner.
Most CFL revenue comes from seats that just got better. More seats at higher prices.
Even the upper decks, all of the OB lines are closer. Except the discounted seats, if you were on the 5, now you are goal line. But the far goal line is 5 yards closer. So, again, not as cool sounding a seat location, but actually better sightline.
No reason to re-assess these changes, IMHO. They did thier work, BOG unanimously agreed, they've committed the $$ and now hand it over to the ticket sales and marketing groups.
You know you're not convincing the 78%, right ?
Quote from: wpg#1 on September 29, 2025, 09:01:25 PMYou know you're not convincing the 78%, right ?
I don't need to, the only ones that matter are the ones footing the bills, the BOG. Yes, the fans pay the way, and you have to have the fan's support, but at the end of the day, I don't think this will have a negative effect on gate.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 29, 2025, 07:20:16 PMMost CFL revenue comes from seats that just got better. More seats at higher prices.
Even the upper decks, all of the OB lines are closer. Except the discounted seats, if you were on the 5, now you are goal line. But the far goal line is 5 yards closer. So, again, not as cool sounding a seat location, but actually better sightline.
What this doesn't take into account is the 20 yards worth of seating that is still sufficiently high priced currently that have now essentially turned into endzone seating. So if your plan is to simply charge more money for seats between the goal lines, that's going to go to just compensating for once decent seats that are now worse. And with the EZ seats further removed, I guess reduce the cost of those as well as their value has now dropped?
Quote from: theaardvark on September 29, 2025, 07:20:16 PMNo reason to re-assess these changes, IMHO. They did thier work, BOG unanimously agreed, they've committed the $$ and now hand it over to the ticket sales and marketing groups.
Dying to hear the campaign. "The field is a bit shorter and we moved the goal posts. It's just like watching Pat Mahomes and the gang now guys! Come buy tickets that just got worse sightlines, or pay more for the fewer good seats we just created!" That'll get the kids in the door.
Quote from: theaardvark on September 29, 2025, 10:00:19 PMI don't need to, the only ones that matter are the ones footing the bills, the BOG. Yes, the fans pay the way, and you have to have the fan's support, but at the end of the day, I don't think this will have a negative effect on gate.
i have informed the Bombers that i will not be renewing my tickets for the 27 season. i do not think these changes will put more bums in seats at PAS
I don't think these changes are going to attract any new fans. Techo's idea about copying what it done at PAS is infinitely better.
Quote from: eddie8 on September 30, 2025, 11:50:50 PMi have informed the Bombers that i will not be renewing my tickets for the 27 season. i do not think these changes will put more bums in seats at PAS
Sorry to hear that, Eddie. I totally understand. Riderforum showed 5% were going to cancel. And that's huge because that forum has 5X the regular users & traffic as this place (as seen by poll users count).
What was the 1 or 2 changes you hated the most? If they reversed that/those change(s) would you reconsider?
There is hope Johnston can see the light, at least on 1 or 2 of the '27 changes.
Quote from: eddie8 on September 30, 2025, 11:50:50 PMi have informed the Bombers that i will not be renewing my tickets for the 27 season. i do not think these changes will put more bums in seats at PAS
Sorry to lose you as a fan. If minor changes in field size and goal post placement changes your view of the distinctive CFL game, there's no way we can change your mind.
You will see that the game is not going to change dramatically with these modifications, and probably will be a game you will enjoy more.
Hopefully, when you decide to change your mind on ST's, there are good seats left...
Quote from: theaardvark on October 01, 2025, 03:23:22 AMSorry to lose you as a fan. If minor changes in field size and goal post placement changes your view of the distinctive CFL game, there's no way we can change your mind.
Using the CFL's own words:
'Major announcement regarding significant changes'
Quote from: theaardvark on October 01, 2025, 03:23:22 AMSorry to lose you as a fan. If minor changes in field size and goal post placement changes your view of the distinctive CFL game, there's no way we can change your mind.
You will see that the game is not going to change dramatically with these modifications, and probably will be a game you will enjoy more.
Hopefully, when you decide to change your mind on ST's, there are good seats left...
You keep saying
MINOR changes. Do you really think there would be this uproar if these changes were minor ? They're not minor. But, you can keep trying to convince yourself.
Quote from: theaardvark on October 01, 2025, 03:23:22 AMSorry to lose you as a fan. If minor changes in field size and goal post placement changes your view of the distinctive CFL game, there's no way we can change your mind.
You will see that the game is not going to change dramatically with these modifications, and probably will be a game you will enjoy more.
Hopefully, when you decide to change your mind on ST's, there are good seats left...
If the game isn't going to change much, why make the changes at all?
And what evidence or explanation suggests that the game will meaningfully improve if that's the only other scenario in your mind?
A lot of it may be perception by the American audience. Like it or not there are more people in California than in all of Canada
The elimination of the missed fg point, the 100 yd field and the post placement makes it a bit more recognizable.
Get them watching and the excitement of the cfl game could get more viewers and revenue which the league needs to survive
And before others go on about whats next, lets see how it pans out and if Johnson is serious about not changing the fabric of the game.The best thing about the uproar the changes have caused is it conveys the passion cfl fans have about this
so I applaud all the comments and criticism
It certainly has also brought attention to the league in a time of year where mlb playoffs, nhl, and nfl normally get all the attention .
Quote from: Pete on October 01, 2025, 02:39:54 PMA lot of it may be perception by the American audience. Like it or not there are more people in California than in all of Canada
The elimination of the missed fg point, the 100 yd field and the post placement makes it a bit more recognizable.
Get them watching and the excitement of the cfl game could get more viewers and revenue which the league needs to survive
And before others go on about whats next, lets see how it pans out and if Johnson is serious about not changing the fabric of the game.The best thing about the uproar the changes have caused is it conveys the passion cfl fans have about this
so I applaud all the comments and criticism
It certainly has also brought attention to the league in a time of year where mlb playoffs, nhl, and nfl normally get all the attention .
It's an interesting theory but those same Americans don't support the USFL which already has those aspects of the game.
I wonder how many Americans know where Regina or Ottawa are let alone what football is played there.
My biggest argument is .. is the CFL more exciting ? Everyone always says YES. So my next question is .. So why the changes ?
I believe these changes are not going to make the game more exciting or draw in new fans. Spend the money on promoting the excitement and the unique aspects of this game. Some will say they've already tried that .. then I say to who ? They promoted to fans that were already there. I saw them promoting the "Canadian" aspect over the years, but did they promote it to the people that they need to draw in ?
These changes are not going to make it more exciting, but I do know for sure that it will be one step closer to look like the NFL, and I think it's just the first step of many.
Quote from: blue_or_die on October 01, 2025, 01:44:36 PMIf the game isn't going to change much, why make the changes at all?
And what evidence or explanation suggests that the game will meaningfully improve if that's the only other scenario in your mind?
I don't think that the down by down play changes much, except that by being shorter, there will be more TD's. And because the "go for a FG line" just moved from the 52 to 37, and no rouge for missed FG, there will be more 3rd and short attempts.
No FG posts makes red zone plays a lot more interesting, they have the full field to work. 12 men on an unobstructed 65yd wide field, even with the EZ's 5 yds shorter, it should make for more excitement and action.
So, yeah, I think it improves the play and TD scoring.
And, while I have been contending that NFL preseason becomes a thing with the new field, OTOH, our preseason moving south becomes a lot easier as well. We can move the GC to Oct by moving our preseason to Fla/AZ. Southern preseason puts tryout players closer to home, less VISA issues, and even puts some eyes on the game from local fans starved for football in the spring.
The CFL can drop into any NCAA field with just some chalk for wider field. 10yd EZ will be different, but that's minor. I bet there are a lot of snowbirds that would come, and maybe new fans. I'm sure the Jays have fans in Dunedin that should be Rays or Marlins fans.
While these are "major" changes in the CFL game, I view them as minor changes in dimensions. Semantics, I guess.
Quote from: Pete on October 01, 2025, 02:39:54 PMA lot of it may be perception by the American audience. Like it or not there are more people in California than in all of Canada
The elimination of the missed fg point, the 100 yd field and the post placement makes it a bit more recognizable.
Get them watching and the excitement of the cfl game could get more viewers and revenue which the league needs to survive
Do Americans have an easy way to view CFL games presently? Has the league done all that they can to negotiate a contract with a visible American broadcaster or streaming service? I think not, so who cares what Americans think about the CFL field if they are unlikely to watch the game. There are millions of Canadian NFL football fans they can not convince to follow the CFL, they can start by solving that nut.
We are trying to 'sell' the league to an audience that has already made up its mind. They follow the NFL and the NCAA for various reasons and ain't about to change. You can change our field and rules to be similar to the NFL, but folks still won't tune in.
Case in point. If the USFL changed its field and rules to be exactly like the CFL, would you tune in?? Would it matter?? No it wouldn't. Why, because the cities and teams have no relevance to Canada and the play is really substandard to even the CFL. Its bush league. That's exactly how Americans view the CFL.
The only way I'd tune into a USFL game is if we had draft picks playing in the game that may somehow come to the CFL, then I would tune it to see how they play vs the players up here.
No FG posts mean 100% of the end-zone is available instead of 99% (2 6" uprights + 1 6" crossbar). Explain how that's going to create more than 1% more TD's.
Quote from: dd on October 01, 2025, 05:44:07 PMWe are trying to 'sell' the league to an audience that has already made up its mind. They follow the NFL and the NCAA for various reasons and ain't about to change. You can change our field and rules to be similar to the NFL, but folks still won't tune in. . Its bush league.
That's exactly how Americans view the CFL.
Correct.
If you spend any time on NFL forums "send him to the CFL"
Is not a compliment. Even their coaches, scouts, management have a low opinion, whatever they may say.
They are not going to follow our league. End of story.
It would be interesting to get the details on where this idea was dreamed up. It Appears not a lot of thought was put into it.
UFL viewership is in the 600,000 range.
That is better than the MLS and NHL in the US.
It looks like the demise of the UFL is imminent. Other than St. Louis there is simply not enough revenue from tickets sales etc..
If this happens, can the CFL/TSN sell the broadcast to American cable and get similar numbers with our three down game?
The potential is there for sure.
I hope that would be enough to keep this league afloat.
Expansion to the U.S. seems iffy, but if that step needs to happen we will have a field that can be adapted in existing soccer stadiums.
I doubt that the CFL brass believes, even with the changes, that the league will see significant future growth in Canada.
But it allows for some hope that new revenue can be created south of the border.
Quote from: TBURGESS on October 01, 2025, 06:03:39 PMNo FG posts mean 100% of the end-zone is available instead of 99% (2 6" uprights + 1 6" crossbar). Explain how that's going to create more than 1% more TD's.
Posts may be 1% of the cross section of the EZ, but their presence influences routes and throws. No QB wants to wing it past a post and have it hit, ask Cody. And while some routes can use the post as a rub, they get in the way more than they protect.
More TD's isn't primarily because of posts, its because every series you start in your own end is 10 yards closer, and the FG option from 37-52 yards out is off the board, so teams will go for it more on SY in that range. And KR/PR have 10 yards less to cover on kicks fielded in their own half. PR/KR out at the 5 are now scores. Most exciting play in football gets better.
Quote from: theaardvark on October 01, 2025, 04:58:46 PMI don't think that the down by down play changes much, except that by being shorter, there will be more TD's. And because the "go for a FG line" just moved from the 52 to 37, and no rouge for missed FG, there will be more 3rd and short attempts.
No FG posts makes red zone plays a lot more interesting, they have the full field to work. 12 men on an unobstructed 65yd wide field, even with the EZ's 5 yds shorter, it should make for more excitement and action.
So, yeah, I think it improves the play and TD scoring.
And, while I have been contending that NFL preseason becomes a thing with the new field, OTOH, our preseason moving south becomes a lot easier as well. We can move the GC to Oct by moving our preseason to Fla/AZ. Southern preseason puts tryout players closer to home, less VISA issues, and even puts some eyes on the game from local fans starved for football in the spring.
The CFL can drop into any NCAA field with just some chalk for wider field. 10yd EZ will be different, but that's minor. I bet there are a lot of snowbirds that would come, and maybe new fans. I'm sure the Jays have fans in Dunedin that should be Rays or Marlins fans.
While these are "major" changes in the CFL game, I view them as minor changes in dimensions. Semantics, I guess.
If we see more go-for-it-on-3rd-and-shorts and more/more exciting TD shots in the endzone, then that would be an improvement of the game. I've never seen any evidence that would suggest this will happen by the decisionmakers, though.
And in my admittedly non-expertise in the game, I'm simply punting and trying to pin if I'm at the 37, and I'm betting the play in the endzone is a wash, so if that turns out to be true we are making hallmark changes with the hope there might be a slight improvement and a fair chance it's the same or worse. I don't see the payoff unless it actually does get better. No improvement is a losing proposition IMO.
And dude, still no idea what you're going on about with the preseason stuff. I do not see them doing any of the things you said and the league isn't talking about it at all. You'd think they would be if that was part of the plan, given they're trying to sell the changes to us.
Quote from: markf on October 01, 2025, 06:22:51 PMIt would be interesting to get the details on where this idea was dreamed up. It Appears not a lot of thought was put into it.
^This is what I fear.
Quote from: Pete on October 01, 2025, 02:39:54 PMA lot of it may be perception by the American audience. Like it or not there are more people in California than in all of Canada
The elimination of the missed fg point, the 100 yd field and the post placement makes it a bit more recognizable.
Get them watching and the excitement of the cfl game could get more viewers and revenue which the league needs to survive
And before others go on about whats next, lets see how it pans out and if Johnson is serious about not changing the fabric of the game.The best thing about the uproar the changes have caused is it conveys the passion cfl fans have about this.
I seem to recall the BOG suggesting reducing or eliminating the ratio in the last negotiation with the CFLPA, that might be an indication of a rule change they plan to push again sometime in the future.
Found it, sadly Wade Miller was one of the appointed negotiators.
In the CFL's proposal to date, a number of key issues still concern your bargaining committee:
• A ten-year agreement with zero increases in the cap.
• A revenue sharing program which will not likely show any significant growth by the CFL's own accord, until the TSN contract is renewed in five years
• Although earlier discussions around guaranteed contracts were held, the CFL has now removed the PA's proposal to allow players to negotiate guaranteed contracts.
• The CFL demands our members go back to padded practices, even with a decrease of 35% of on-field injuries, yet refuses to support our proposal for coverage for those same on field injuries.
• Various proposals on the table aimed at what appears to be an effort to try to lock as many players as they can into contracts.
• Full elimination of the Canadian ratio and Veteran American Ratio. As well as a reduction of Canadians on the Roster. • The league wants full discretion on practice time that varies during the week (increasing and decreasing hours). Which will create lack of certainty for members.
Your bargaining committee remains devoted to achieving a fair and comprehensive agreement, and we will keep you informed of our deliberations.
https://3downnation.com/2022/05/05/cfl-wants-to-eradicate-canadian-ratio-in-cba-proposal-to-players-association/ (https://3downnation.com/2022/05/05/cfl-wants-to-eradicate-canadian-ratio-in-cba-proposal-to-players-association/)
Quote from: blue_or_die on October 01, 2025, 07:59:07 PMIf we see more go-for-it-on-3rd-and-shorts and more/more exciting TD shots in the endzone, then that would be an improvement of the game. I've never seen any evidence that would suggest this will happen by the decisionmakers, though.
And in my admittedly non-expertise in the game, I'm simply punting and trying to pin if I'm at the 37, and I'm betting the play in the endzone is a wash, so if that turns out to be true we are making hallmark changes with the hope there might be a slight improvement and a fair chance it's the same or worse. I don't see the payoff unless it actually does get better. No improvement is a losing proposition IMO.
And dude, still no idea what you're going on about with the preseason stuff. I do not see them doing any of the things you said and the league isn't talking about it at all. You'd think they would be if that was part of the plan, given they're trying to sell the changes to us.
^This is what I fear.
I can't see the game getting worse from the changes. Maybe the same, but not worse, and maybe better.
The rouge changes the game a lot more than the field size, yet I hear zero complaints about changing the rouge. That is more Canadian than the 55 yard line. Changing it changes runbacks, ball placement on missed FG, decisions to punt into the EZ and avoiding OB in the EZ, there will be a lot of ST strategy changes.
As to the league announcing that NFL preseason or moving our preseason as goals, of course they'd avoid doing that, it would gin up the already heated discussion. But my conjecture is purely that, conjecture. But I won't be surprised if it happens, I will be more surprised if it doesn't in the next 5-10 years. As to moving our preseason, again conjecture on my part, but it does seem like a logical opportunity.
Quote from: markf on October 01, 2025, 06:22:51 PMCorrect.
If you spend any time on NFL forums "send him to the CFL"
Is not a compliment. Even their coaches, scouts, management have a low opinion, whatever they may say.
They are not going to follow our league. End of story.
It would be interesting to get the details on where this idea was dreamed up. It Appears not a lot of thought was put into it.
I think that a lot of thought went into these proposals, and the fact that the BOG of the CFL unanimously approved of them says they were not come to lightly or without great thought.
I do not believe Johnston instigated all of these changes, but he definitely was part of the deliberation and approval, because it is his job to sell them and take the blowback. I'm pretty sure all involved truly think that this is best for the game going forward. And they are the ones both footing the bill and relying on the income the game provides. To make these decisions without great thought makes zero sense.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on October 01, 2025, 09:17:06 PMI seem to recall the BOG suggesting reducing or eliminating the ratio in the last negotiation with the CFLPA, that might be an indication of a rule change they plan to push again sometime in the future.
Found it, sadly Wade Miller was one of the appointed negotiators.
In the CFL's proposal to date, a number of key issues still concern your bargaining committee:
• A ten-year agreement with zero increases in the cap.
• A revenue sharing program which will not likely show any significant growth by the CFL's own accord, until the TSN contract is renewed in five years
• Although earlier discussions around guaranteed contracts were held, the CFL has now removed the PA's proposal to allow players to negotiate guaranteed contracts.
• The CFL demands our members go back to padded practices, even with a decrease of 35% of on-field injuries, yet refuses to support our proposal for coverage for those same on field injuries.
• Various proposals on the table aimed at what appears to be an effort to try to lock as many players as they can into contracts.
• Full elimination of the Canadian ratio and Veteran American Ratio. As well as a reduction of Canadians on the Roster.
• The league wants full discretion on practice time that varies during the week (increasing and decreasing hours). Which will create lack of certainty for members.
Your bargaining committee remains devoted to achieving a fair and comprehensive agreement, and we will keep you informed of our deliberations.
https://3downnation.com/2022/05/05/cfl-wants-to-eradicate-canadian-ratio-in-cba-proposal-to-players-association/ (https://3downnation.com/2022/05/05/cfl-wants-to-eradicate-canadian-ratio-in-cba-proposal-to-players-association/)
Negotiations start with outrageous proposals in an attempt to make the compromise more palatable.
There is never going to be a CBA where the Nat players vote for elimination of the ratio. I guess the Imp's outnumber the Nats at any moment, but still, the players know that is a non-starter. but that doesn't stop from it being proposed. With all CBA negotiations to date, have we seen any moves accepted in that way?
Quote from: theaardvark on October 01, 2025, 09:50:31 PMNegotiations start with outrageous proposals in an attempt to make the compromise more palatable.
There is never going to be a CBA where the Nat players vote for elimination of the ratio. I guess the Imp's outnumber the Nats at any moment, but still, the players know that is a non-starter. but that doesn't stop from it being proposed. With all CBA negotiations to date, have we seen any moves accepted in that way?
CFLPA's compromise was accepting the screwed up designations they have for players that favour American players over Canadian we see now.
Quote from: theaardvark on October 01, 2025, 09:35:22 PMI can't see the game getting worse from the changes. Maybe the same, but not worse, and maybe better.
The rouge changes the game a lot more than the field size, yet I hear zero complaints about changing the rouge. That is more Canadian than the 55 yard line. Changing it changes runbacks, ball placement on missed FG, decisions to punt into the EZ and avoiding OB in the EZ, there will be a lot of ST strategy changes.
As to the league announcing that NFL preseason or moving our preseason as goals, of course they'd avoid doing that, it would gin up the already heated discussion. But my conjecture is purely that, conjecture. But I won't be surprised if it happens, I will be more surprised if it doesn't in the next 5-10 years. As to moving our preseason, again conjecture on my part, but it does seem like a logical opportunity.
I think that a lot of thought went into these proposals, and the fact that the BOG of the CFL unanimously approved of them says they were not come to lightly or without great thought.
I do not believe Johnston instigated all of these changes, but he definitely was part of the deliberation and approval, because it is his job to sell them and take the blowback. I'm pretty sure all involved truly think that this is best for the game going forward. And they are the ones both footing the bill and relying on the income the game provides. To make these decisions without great thought makes zero sense.
From beginning to end they spent no more than 5 months on this. Likely much less since they would have had their vote long before we heard about it.
Stew was given a mandate by the league. That's what we keep being told. The status quo was not acceptable is the line Dave Naylor keeps repeating - though he seems like such a shill for the MLSE.
Do you think the mandate the BOG gave Stew was to make the league more exciting? The status quo was our league didn't score enough and we needed to increase scoring? Is that the impression you're under?
The mandate the league gave Stew was to make more money. There's no way to do that by the changes they made unless these are the first steps towards American expansion. These Canadian aspects of the league will be axed immediately if they think it = a larger TV deal or expansion fees. This is where our league leadership is at, apparently.
Quote from: Jesse on October 01, 2025, 11:02:41 PMFrom beginning to end they spent no more than 5 months on this. Likely much less since they would have had their vote long before we heard about it.
Stew was given a mandate by the league. That's what we keep being told. The status quo was not acceptable is the line Dave Naylor keeps repeating - though he seems like such a shill for the MLSE.
Do you think the mandate the BOG gave Stew was to make the league more exciting? The status quo was our league didn't score enough and we needed to increase scoring? Is that the impression you're under?
The mandate the league gave Stew was to make more money. There's no way to do that by the changes they made unless these are the first steps towards American expansion. These Canadian aspects of the league will be axed immediately if they think it = a larger TV deal or expansion fees. This is where our league leadership is at, apparently.
the BOG has been looking at opportunities for longer than 5 months. they announced that they had discussions with the XFL..this isn't new and yes the almighty dollar is a part of it - always is, always was and always will be...
Quote from: markf on October 01, 2025, 06:22:51 PMCorrect.
If you spend any time on NFL forums "send him to the CFL"
Is not a compliment. Even their coaches, scouts, management have a low opinion, whatever they may say.
They are not going to follow our league. End of story.
It would be interesting to get the details on where this idea was dreamed up. It Appears not a lot of thought was put into it.
Quote from: markf on October 01, 2025, 06:22:51 PMCorrect.
If you spend any time on NFL forums "send him to the CFL"
Is not a compliment. Even their coaches, scouts, management have a low opinion, whatever they may say.
They are not going to follow our league. End of story.
It would be interesting to get the details on where this idea was dreamed up. It Appears not a lot of thought was put into it.
Exactly, they view us as a minor league for sure that plays in Canada, so we aren't even on the radar screen for US fans. It would be like trying to sell the goldeyes after watching the Jays for years. Ain't gonna happen.
With that said, there's still the young Canadian market to tap, and it's going to be tough as most of them are into NFL. I know I got hooked when I was 17 because it was our hometown team and the fans were very loud/passionate when I went to my first game and I just started following them as they were our hometown team.
Our attendance and ticket sales are strong but for teams struggling ie Toronto , Ottawa etc I think the team has got to do more connecting with the community via youth programs and appearances at social events—sell themselves to their own community , not to folks south of the 49th
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G1iei9DaoAQZ5aI?format=png&name=900x900)