Did the commissioners statements and clarifications on the how and why of the rule changes affect how you feel about them going forward?
Does his denying that American expansion and the imposing of any other "Americanization" of the rules quell your fears?
Do you accept that the changes reflect the wisdom of men with hundreds of years of experience in football in general and CFL in particular help you understand that these changes are meant to improve the game and being in more fans?
Or do you think that this is all a ploy to placate the fans and that they are intending on turning the CFL into XFL North?
I don't trust anything this guy says. He just hears what he wants to hear. He gotta go.
I have no confidence in him at all and that's not just because of rule changes recently made or in the future.
The SMS increase in 2025 and the lack of notice or a clear path on how it was to be spent was a big red flag for me. It's still not clear IMO.
Quote from: Blue In BC on November 15, 2025, 03:41:02 PMI have no confidence in him at all and that's not just because of rule changes recently made or in the future.
The SMS increase in 2025 and the lack of notice or a clear path on how it was to be spent was a big red flag for me. It's still not clear IMO.
I trust your opinion regarding the commish because I know you are very up to speed on his goings on.
The optics at a minimum really suck.
Stewart Johnston is a villain.
There was also no official announcement this year to let everyone aware that the East would be home team for the Grey Cup.
If a fan from another city bought Grey Cup tickets with the hopes of sitting on their team's side, (if their team made it) then they would now be sitting on the other team's side.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 15, 2025, 03:08:19 PMDoes his denying that American expansion and the imposing of any other "Americanization" of the rules quell your fears?
Do you accept that the changes reflect the wisdom of men with hundreds of years of experience in football in general and CFL in particular help you understand that these changes are meant to improve the game and being in more fans?
No and no. I'm particularly troubled by the reduction in the length of the field from 110 yards to 100 yards and the reduction in the length of the end zones.
:(
If only we could get peoples honest opinions in an anonymous forum...
The commissioner was hired by the league, given a mandate by the owners, his proposals given 100% endorsement by the teams. Unanimous consent.
I get how some fans may perceive him as a villain, but his actions and intentions are 100% for the betterment and even survival of the league. And the owners of the teams, the people that actually have skin in the game, are unanimously behind him and his actions.
no issues apart from the roll out of the changes could have been better making them less prone to the "americanization" bleating that people adverse to change are making.
if he can't deliver on the things he mentioned in his adress then i will be more inclined to label him as a "dud".
the genius sports nightmare that Randy brought in was handled very very poorly. it should have cost someone their job.
Quote from: The Zipp on November 15, 2025, 05:05:00 PMno issues apart from the roll out of the changes could have been better making them less prone to the "americanization" bleating that people adverse to change are making.
if he can't deliver on the things he mentioned in his adress then i will be more inclined to label him as a "dud".
the genius sports nightmare that Randy brought in was handled very very poorly. it should have cost someone their job.
I agree with your points, communications has not been the forte of the CFL for a long time. The reason I bring up his recent address is that it seems like he is improving that communication. Its not perfect yet, but better.
Using Stew as a figurehead for all the people who have a hand in the changes:
- Continually repeating that there's no "Americanizing" when you've already done it is just gaslighting
- He's walking back comments because of the massive negative reaction. Good. Let's keep it up.
- He's either not paying attention or just trying to control the narrative by talking about all the "positive feedback" he's received.
- He still refuses to communicate a reason behind the changes
- He still refuses to respond to questions about why he didn't consult with football Canada/players/coaches/etc
- He has and deserves zero trust when it comes to any statement he makes about the future
- A new website is good news, but unfortunately the league has been terrible at new rollouts, so gonna reserve judgement and see if it actually works before I think it's a positive step. Our stats system still hasn't recovered from the last technology "upgrade".
Quote from: theaardvark on November 15, 2025, 05:15:01 PMI agree with your points, communications has not been the forte of the CFL for a long time. The reason I bring up his recent address is that it seems like he is improving that communication. Its not perfect yet, but better.
Are you kidding me??? I'd bet a solid nickel you didn't listen to his entire address, it was painful, he speaks to humans as if he's from Mars. It was nothing but reiterated top down corporate mind-speak justifying and defending the dictates he created to radically change the structure of the game which he pulled directly out of his *** with no relevant consultation. Risking millions in revenue by alienating existing fans in the hope that non-interested bystanders will double down and pick up the slack.
This corporate geek is about to go down as the worst commissioner in CFL history. My God how I miss Randy Ambrosie's human touch!!!
He strikes me as a cold, impersonable corporate nerd who has zero credibility in the football world. Zero. He just gives off a weird vibe and I just don't trust or like the guy from the minute I saw him
Quote from: dd on November 15, 2025, 08:44:20 PMHe strikes me as a cold, impersonable corporate nerd who has zero credibility in the football world. Zero. He just gives off a weird vibe and I just don't trust or like the guy from the minute I saw him
I agree. Hope he gets a hearty boo at the game tomorrow.
Quote from: Foxhound on November 16, 2025, 02:50:26 AMI agree. Hope he gets a hearty boo at the game tomorrow.
To care about "vibes" is just silly. I'm all about actions and policy. That's what matters.
Ok, forget about the vibes then, he just strikes me as fake and creepy. Good enough for you oh holier than thou one??
Quote from: Foxhound on November 16, 2025, 02:15:47 AMOld men have a lifetime's worth of perspective. It's called common sense borne of experience. Try it sometime.
;)
Ummm...How would one "try" to have a lifetime's worth of perspectives?
An example of common sense, to me, would be logging onto Facebook to get depth charts listed there instead of spending three years coming on here to complain about it... But who knows, that's just my perspective borne of experience.
I'll skip the woke winky emoji.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 16, 2025, 04:03:48 AMUmmm...How would one "try" to have a lifetime's worth of perspectives?
Live and learn. That comes naturally to most.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 16, 2025, 04:03:48 AMAn example of common sense, to me, would be logging onto Facebook to get depth charts listed there instead of spending three years coming on here to complain about it... But who knows, that's just my perspective borne of experience.
I'd say you need to work on your perspective if you equate a couple of complaints over three years to three years worth of complaining. That's just the kind of common sense that comes with no experience at all.
:P
This new commish is a wannabe. He has no cfl experience. He seems like. A next door neighbor, who has watched a couple games and claims he is knowledgeable, of what fans want. lol!
Come on at least pretend to conduct some fact finding. A survey? Nope. Than the fact finding is bias even in anything the guy says. No sample size revealed. Maybe he asked his other family over Easter supper.
Winnipeg looks like they were one if the best CFL productions. Even if the schlepp on tsn'ssaryrday afternoons show was really at the U of W field house niypt somewhere on in the U of M campus. Who was the rookie host. The next commercial break the kid noted it was the U of W.
Quote from: Foxhound on November 16, 2025, 04:32:05 AMLive and learn. That comes naturally to most.
I'd say you need to work on your perspective if you equate a couple of complaints over three years to three years worth of complaining. That's just the kind of common sense that comes with no experience at all.
:P
Having the answer to your problems a click away but refusing to do it is stubborn and stupid. Not wise and smart.
Pretending you have answers simply because you've lived a long time is equally foolish.
There's young fools and old fools.
Being old simply means your old. You'd know that if you actually used your experience to council anyone or anything of substance.
And people who are old and wise, in my experience, never need to tell anyone they are. The ones who are simply old, do, though.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 16, 2025, 02:39:59 PMHaving the answer to your problems a click away but refusing to do it is stubborn and stupid. Not wise and smart.
Not just a click away. First of all I'd need to join Facebook which is an entity I don't want to support for several reasons, e.g. Facebook has acted to kill discussion forums such as this one.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 16, 2025, 02:39:59 PMPretending you have answers simply because you've lived a long time is equally foolish.
There's young fools and old fools.
Being old simply means your old. You'd know that if you actually used your experience to council anyone or anything of substance.
And people who are old and wise, in my experience, never need to tell anyone they are. The ones who are simply old, do, though.
Excuse me but I wasn't the one who raised the subject of age! That was your buddy who raised the subject of age with the jibe about me being an old guy throwing rocks or something like that. (All that's now been deleted.)
Now you knew that but you still latched onto my reply while ignoring the initial provocative jibe. Would you perhaps like to explain
that? Or are you too young (or too old?) for objective assessments?
Like I say, I wasn't the one who raised the question of age.
>:(
Here's a thought. Let's stick to the topic at hand. And on that subject, my belief is that the jury is still out, that he needs time to gain commissioner experience and we have to consider that people who have money in the game chose him as the best candidate for the job.
As with all professions, we sink or swim with our own ability and results.
Here comes maple maga again personally attacking everyone who doesn't like the new rules because he knows the mods will just lock the thread instead of actually moderating it and just silence any criticism of the direction the league is headed.
Quote from: Colton on November 16, 2025, 07:58:18 PMHere comes maple maga again personally attacking everyone who doesn't like the new rules because he knows the mods will just lock the thread instead of actually moderating it and just silence any criticism of the direction the league is headed.
Some posts were removed because they were political in nature which contravene the rules here. The thread was modified. It was not locked.
What I don't understand about the Commissioner's office is how the past and present denizens have continued to drop the ball when it comes to marketing the product and league. This is the marketing campaign that would resonate with most Canadian sports fans:
"This is Canada. We are Canadians. We are distinct; we are unique."
cross-Canada film clips shown
"This is our game."
CFL game film clips shown ending with the Grey Cup being hoisted in celebration
"Canadian football! Over a century and a half of tradition; over a century and a half of action. Because we are Canadians."
Such a marketing campaign would tug on the heart strings of everybody but hardcore Brit sympathizers, Yanks and Communists.
But no. What they've done without asking the fans is change the rules to make the game more closely resemble the one played south of the border. It is to scream.
:(
Quote from: Colton on November 16, 2025, 07:58:18 PMHere comes maple maga again personally attacking everyone who doesn't like the new rules because he knows the mods will just lock the thread instead of actually moderating it and just silence any criticism of the direction the league is headed.
Yo Colton, good to hear from you.
Are you for the new rules?
Quote from: Foxhound on November 16, 2025, 10:14:31 PMWhat I don't understand about the Commissioner's office is how the past and present denizens have continued to drop the ball when it comes to marketing the product and league. This is the marketing campaign that would resonate with most Canadian sports fans:
"This is Canada. We are Canadians. We are distinct; we are unique. And so is our game."
film clips shown
"Canadian football! Over a century and a half of tradition; over a century and a half of action. Because we are Canadians."
Such a marketing campaign would tug on the heart strings of everybody but hardcore Brit sympathizers, Yanks and Communists.
But no. What they've done without asking the fans is change the rules to make the game more closely resemble the one played south of the border. It is to scream.
:(
I don't think that the changes had anything "to make the game more closely resemble the one played south of the border", and I will stand by those thoughts.
You cannot mistake a 65yard wide CFL field and an NFL field, ever. Sorry, its not a resemblance at all.
Shortening the field so that it fits in more than 7 of 9 stadiums makes sense, as does the implication that it may stimulate scoring which is declining.
Moving the goalposts remedies a stupid quick of the game. As a man who, in minor football back in the day, both hit an upright with a pass (I wasn't supposed to be throwing the ball), and ran flush into a post one play later, I applaud this move. It will clean up the field, and again, the 15 yard endzones cannot be mistaken for the pitiful 10 yard EZ's in the NFL.
Changing the rouge rules retains a limited level of reward for failure which also changes how the game is played, for the better.
The clock, I'm still on the fence, not knowing how it will affect the final 3 minutes. We will see how it affects things.
As to whether junior and USports will adopt the new field dimensions and configuration, I think the CFL will end up helping them make the changes. Teams, like the Bisons, that share a CFL field, are going to have ann interesting conundrum. I can't see PAS having a dual setup...
Having read a number of blogs and analysis from CFL enthusiasts, who break down every change, and debunk everything that is claimed by CFL brass as to the changes will lead to "higher scoring, more TD's, and a more exciting game," I just do not understand why the vocal minority of posters who think this is a great idea, and the league needs to do this to change with the time, have nothing in the way of a convincing argument. It's just personal attacks.
One would think that making the field with the same length of an NFL field, shrinking the end zones, and moving the goalposts outside the end zone, there would be some sort of thorough analysis to back up what the CFL brass and the Commissioner are claiming. On the contrary, every single popular blog, or analytics guru have come out, and said it will make scoring harder, and if anything, make the league less exciting.
By 2027, the CFL will be reduced to a handful of leagues that tried to compete with the NFL, with nearly identical rules, (some exceptions like the 2 point convert, etc were eventually implemented in the NFL). However that does change the fact that there have been no pro football leagues that have been sucessful:
WFL (1970s) folded after 2 seasons
USFL (1983-85) folded after 3 seasons
WLAF (1991-92) exited the North American market, due to financial losses
XFL (2001) folded after one season
UFL (2009-13) folded after 4 seasons, never really had much of a following
AAF (2019) folded in the middle of first season
XFL 2 (2020-23) merged with the USFL
USFL 2 (2022-23) merged with the (XFL)
UFL - USFL/XFL merger (2024-P) league on bring of collapse.
And yet we are trying to make the CFL game nearly identical to all these prior leagues, who have failed miserably. Does anyone even remember the disastrous American expansion of the mid 90s? Once the CFL loses it's Canadian identity, the league will fold.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G5vvfQ3bkAM_TR2?format=jpg&name=small)
In other words the people who are CFL fans, who follow the game closely/very closely (the ones that are most likely to buy tickets, and merchandise), nearly 3/4 of the respondents say "the CFL should try and differentiate itself, from the NFL as much as possible."
For the occasional fan, or people that rarely pay attention to the league (people least likely to buy tickets), people are slightly more receptive to "distinguishing the game from the NFL as much as possible." However, it still results in more fans wanting to leave the rules the way they are, and promote it's Canadian identity, by a 38-30 margin.
Businesses that do not listen to it's customers, are eventually doomed to fail. Imagine if Walmart or Costco ignored their own internal surveys and customer feedback, and insisted that they knew "what was best for the customer? That would be a recipe for disaster. Incidentally, that is exactly what Target did when they entered the Canadian market in late 2012. They lost hundreds of millions, on their Canadian expansion, and have to close all stores by late 2024, as it literally wiped out profit margins for the US.
The moral of the story, from a business perspective, is to listen to your customers. Even the Jets had issues with overall game day experience,and season ticket agents taking them for granted for most of the 2010s. TNSE was forced into a situation where they had to do damage control, and do a better job of addressing season ticket holders concerns, once the Jets attendance streak ended in late 2019, and especially after COVID.
Thanks, I hate it: a traditionalist's reaction to the CFL's rule changes
By Santino Filoso -September 26, 2025
What I'm firmly against is change for the sake of change — adjustments that shrug off decades of tradition as if they don't matter, and alterations that address problems nobody is complaining about.Before diving into the incoming changes that I hate, let's start with the ones I like. Having team benches on opposite sides of the field was long overdue and rectifies a safety issue. Frankly, the CFL is fortunate there's never been a bench-clearing brawl given the proximity of two teams in heated contests.
I also think that changing the play clock to 35 seconds with it starting automatically is a positive. Though the play clock is technically 20 seconds now, it sometimes takes the referees 20 or 30 seconds to blow play in. With that said, I don't understand how Johnston announced this change without explaining how it will impact the final three minutes of a half, which are often the best parts of CFL games. The last three minutes of the half is one of the CFL's biggest strengths as teams are forced to actually play football — not kneel things out — allowing for epic comebacks.
Not clarifying how the new 35-second clock will work at the end of a half naturally leads fans to speculate that CFL teams will run out the clock at the end of games, as is commonplace in the NFL. "No lead is safe" could quickly become "Most leads are safe." It appears the rules committee will be tasked with ensuring things stay exciting but Johnston should have done a better job of clarifying this when speaking to the media.
Speaking of which, people need to stop criticizing fans for saying the announced changes Americanize the league to an extent. They do.
While the CFL is retaining some aspects that make it unique, going to a 100-yard field, shortening the end zones, and moving back the goalposts bring the game more in line with four-down football. If the CFL field looks more like the NFL field, it has indeed been Americanized. Period.
Intended or not, making the CFL aesthetically more American was always going to spark a reaction and it especially comes off as tone deaf given the current political climate. Let's tackle the changes one-by-one.
How can one claim the goalposts must be moved in order for teams to have better access to the end zone, and in the same breath reduce space by shortening them? Smaller end zones will naturally lead to less of the playbook being available to offensive coordinators.
---
The two main justifications for moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone were player safety and to present a cleaner visual product. I've been attending CFL games for my entire life and I've never heard anyone complain about the current location of the goal posts impeding their view. And as someone who literally watches every game on television, there's yet to be a highlight TSN's cameras have missed due to the uprights.
As for safety, while there's a valid concern about someone running into the goalposts and suffering an injury, the CFL's explanation video had to go back several seasons to showcase an example of it happening, which highlights how rare it is.
Is moving the goalposts back and eliminating missed field goal returns — one of the most exciting plays in all of football — worth it because once every five seasons someone runs into the padded post or a quarterback "doinks" a pass? I don't think so.
-----
That leads us to the changes to the rouge. Johnston talked of how the rouge as it currently stands rewards failure. I find that wording to be misleading and the problem is it instantly frames the rouge as something negative, when it's not.
Opponents of the rouge love to say you shouldn't give out points for missing kicks, but that's not how a rouge works. With where the goalposts are currently located, a missed field goal still needs to travel another 20 yards to be worth a single point. That doesn't happen all that often, but when it does, an offence is rewarded with a single point for getting into range to score.
If teams don't want to lose the game by a single point, they should score more in the first 59 minutes of play, not allow the opposition to get that close to the end zone, and return the ball beyond the goal line when a kick is missed.Why take a scoring method away from teams when sports leagues around the world are constantly looking to increase scoring? Why is removing something that makes the game unique a good thing?
Yes, the rouge will exist next season, but with the goalposts at the back of end zones, we'll be seeing fewer returns — particularly on missed field goals.
In his various media hits this week, Johnston talked of trading field goals for touchdowns, but are we sure that's what's going to happen?
What the CFL will probably be trading is points (ie. field goals) for punts. As things currently stand, a team facing third-and-three on the 40-yard line would probably try a 47-yard field goal. A miss would probably still result in points or lead to an exciting return.
With the new rules, this same situation would require a 62-yard field goal attempt. Coaches aren't suddenly going to become more aggressive — they'll probably choose the conservative option and try a coffin-corner punt to pin their opponent deep. It's folly to believe these changes will suddenly make coaches work against their very nature.
These changes are all the more head-scratching given that, according to the CFL's own data, scoring is up six percent, quarterback ratings are historically high, return touchdowns are up 80 percent, and big plays are up 13 percent. What happens when the these rule changes (likely) lead to more punts and fewer missed field goal returns?
Is it a stretch to suggest we'll then start hearing about the need for a fourth down to improve offence and restore excitement? Those fears seem all the more valid as, when gifted an opportunity to promise the CFL would always be a three-down league, Johnston chose to remain non-committal.
---
Finally, we come to the shortening of the field from 110 yards, as it's been since 1896, to 100 yards. Not only is such a change against the history and tradition of the league, it potentially screws over U Sports and minor league football, who all have 110-yard fields.
It's one thing to prioritize secrecy to prevent leaks — it's another to blindside your feeder league and fail to consult with Football Canada. This isn't a simply matter of painting lines, it's a foundational change to the physical structure of where and how the game is played.
The justification for shortening the field is it will be easier for teams to score touchdowns as offences will start closer to the end zone. As mentioned above, I fear the league is merely trading field goals for punts. Scoring is up this season, so is it worth messing with decades and decades of tradition — not to mention the record book — on such a flimsy justification? And does the offence really need another advantage over the defence?
When you put it all together, these changes are being solid as modernizing the game and a way to bring new fans into the fold because it's a cleaner presentation. To me, "cleaner" seems like a pseudonym for "more American." More CFL teams need to be profitable, sure, but will any of the announced changes actually put money in the owners pockets?
NFL fans aren't NFL fans because they love the field dimensions, the location of the goalposts, or small end zones. They're fans because the NFL marketing machine is a behemoth that runs 365 days a year. They're fans because they play fantasy football and have spent two decades playing Madden video games. They're fans because they can consume endless podcasts that dive deep into stats that are freely and easily accessible.
If the CFL wanted to try to attract those fans, they could start with something as simple as having stats on their website that function consistently and predate 2016. For a league playing its 112th Grey Cup this November, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find any stats more than nine years old.
The league could develop an app or significantly increase marketing campaigns beyond annual 30-second video hits. They could invest in telling the stories of their current players and colourful alumni. They could create a season-long fantasy game, which would allow fans to hold preseason drafts. They could partner to have the CFL accessible as a video game. Perhaps those playing it would become familiar with its unique rules and find an appreciation for the Canadian game's quirks.
The CFL could also attempt to grow by improving its on-field product with the elimination of the football operations cap, collectively bargain to extend the hours teams are allowed to actually practice, and invest in getting U Sports football on TV. That could create a buy-in from fans at the lower level so that people are hyped for prospects while they're still in university and let things grow from there.
This week's Americanization of the CFL isn't going to magically bring in more fans. A tweak to the rouge and cutting 10 yards off the field isn't going to cause Canadians who only watch the NFL to suddenly flock to the three-down game.
I'm not arguing the CFL shouldn't be trying to evolve or change or improve its product, but right now I'm worried the CFL's board of governors is changing the fabric of the game in pursuit of an imaginary fan that doesn't actually exist. The problem isn't the CFL product, it's the missing elements of how it's packaged and marketed. The NFL might have more talented players, but the CFL game has always been more entertaining.
If the league continues to remove the things that typify the 'C' in CFL, they'll lose loyal fans and be left with nothing. Then the crisis will really hit.
source; https://3downnation.com/2025/09/26/thanks-i-hate-it-a-traditionalists-reaction-to-the-cfls-rule-changes/ (https://3downnation.com/2025/09/26/thanks-i-hate-it-a-traditionalists-reaction-to-the-cfls-rule-changes/)
If you ask the question with an agenda, by saying something like: Do you want the CFL to be Americanized? Or do you want to align with the NFL? People react negatively.
In the research I've seen, if you ask specific questions about each rule change individually, it's more positive or mixed (even if those rules do align more with the NFL).
The commissioner pointed that out in his state of the league address last week along with a very mum answer on the ratio and a very direct answer of 65 yards wide and three downs.
Quote from: Jesse on November 17, 2025, 12:20:05 AMYo Colton, good to hear from you.
Are you for the new rules?
Not in the slightest. Reeks of the fact those in charge have given up on trying to grow the game in this country and are instead going to make it as accessible as possible to bet on. Im expecting a lot of partnerships/funding from online sportsbooks and doesn't surprise me to hear they're rolling out a new website/app.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 17, 2025, 05:21:57 AMMoving the goalposts remedies a stupid quick of the game.
That is the one change I really like. Rather than moving the placement of the ball for a one point convert kick back to the 25, the CFL should just have moved the goal posts to the back of the twenty yard end zone years/decades ago.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 17, 2025, 05:21:57 AMChanging the rouge rules retains a limited level of reward for failure which also changes how the game is played, for the better.
The rouge was never intended to be a reward for failure and should not be regarded that way. It's a
penalty to the receiving team for not being able to run a kicked/punted ball out of the end zone.
Online sports betting is a scourge.
One rule change I've long wanted to see is that coffin corner kicks should only "count" if the ball bounces on the playing field first. If the punted ball simply sails out of bounds, that should result in the standard ten yard penalty. The potential/possibility for every punt to be returned must be preserved.
I also hate teams being awarded the ball in their 40 yard line after a punt or a kick resulting in a single. If a team couldn't return the thing out of the end zone, the ball at their own 20 is all the "reward" the team deserves.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 17, 2025, 04:03:53 PMIn the research I've seen, if you ask specific questions about each rule change individually, it's more positive or mixed (even if those rules do align more with the NFL).
have seen several polls in regards to this subject, and all are overwhelmingly negative in regards to the changes to the game, especially the reduction of the end zones, and shrinking the field to make it the same length as an American field.
Can you point out any evidence that you claim you have done, that shows people are far more optimistic in regards to the rule changes?
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 17, 2025, 04:53:38 PMOnline sports betting is a scourge.
Huh? How/why? What's your thinking/reasoning?
???
Quote from: Foxhound on November 17, 2025, 05:22:20 PMHuh? How/why? What's your thinking/reasoning?
???
It has nothing to do with my reasoning. It's simply a fact that sports gambling (online or otherwise) does more harm than good in our society.
Gambling is a form of addiction (https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/dont-bet-on-it). Addiction is harmful (https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-illness-and-addiction-index/addiction), particularly among youth (https://www.ccsa.ca/en/online-gambling-among-young-canadian-adults-call-action).
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 17, 2025, 05:34:23 PMIt has nothing to do with my reasoning. It's simply a fact that sports gambling (online or otherwise) does more harm than good in our society.
Gambling is a form of addiction (https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/dont-bet-on-it). Addiction is harmful (https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-illness-and-addiction-index/addiction), particularly among youth (https://www.ccsa.ca/en/online-gambling-among-young-canadian-adults-call-action).
I paid for a TSN+ streaming subscription this year but watched every game on CFL+ instead just to avoid all of the repetitive ads and the gambling promos, they drive me crazy.
Quote from: Foxhound on November 17, 2025, 05:22:20 PMHuh? How/why? What's your thinking/reasoning?
???
try watching the news and report back to us. ;)
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 17, 2025, 05:34:23 PMIt has nothing to do with my reasoning. It's simply a fact that sports gambling (online or otherwise) does more harm than good in our society.
Gambling is a form of addiction (https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/dont-bet-on-it). Addiction is harmful (https://www.camh.ca/en/health-info/mental-illness-and-addiction-index/addiction), particularly among youth (https://www.ccsa.ca/en/online-gambling-among-young-canadian-adults-call-action).
I'm not interested in the impact of gambling on society. There are worse things (which I wouldn't outlaw either). Just give me a (hopefully) reasoned analysis on gambling's impact on the CFL specifically. (For the record I'm an agnostic on the issue.)
Quote from: GOLDMEMBER on November 17, 2025, 06:46:07 PMtry watching the news and report back to us.
What news and why do you think I don't watch it? (Like any prudent individual, I take what I hear on the CBC with a grain of salt of course.)
:-\
Quote from: jets4life on November 17, 2025, 05:21:32 PMhave seen several polls in regards to this subject, and all are overwhelmingly negative in regards to the changes to the game, especially the reduction of the end zones, and shrinking the field to make it the same length as an American field.
Can you point out any evidence that you claim you have done, that shows people are far more optimistic in regards to the rule changes?
Yes. All the initial research by Probe (with the oversample of Manitoba) essentially showed what I described and once again it was also touched on by the commissioner. Go watch the Q&A period if you don't believe me. It's there if you care to look. Obviously "Americanizing" is viewed negatively. Moving the goal posts or shortening the field was much more mixed and in some cases positive It's all in how you ask the question and if you take the emotion out of it it's a much more nuanced conversation.
Quote from: Foxhound on November 17, 2025, 07:55:56 PMI'm not interested in the impact of gambling on society. There are worse things (which I wouldn't outlaw either). Just give me a (hopefully) reasoned analysis on gambling's impact on the CFL specifically. (For the record I'm an agnostic on the issue.)
Second hand source, but I watched a documentary about the rise of sports gambling and one of the most susceptible groups to it's influence are the professional athletes playing the game. Johnson mentioned this in his State of the League address, acknowledging players gambling on games has been a problem in many other professional sports. Many players place their bets through friends or relatives making it difficult to track.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 17, 2025, 08:35:26 PMSecond hand source, but I watched a documentary about the rise of sports gambling and one of the most susceptible groups to it's influence are the professional athletes playing the game. Johnson mentioned this in his State of the League address, acknowledging players gambling on games has been a problem in many other professional sports. Many players place there bets through friends or relatives making it difficult to track.
Interesting!
:)
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 17, 2025, 07:59:37 PMYes. All the initial research by Probe (with the oversample of Manitoba) essentially showed what I described and once again it was also touched on by the commissioner. Go watch the Q&A period if you don't believe me. It's there if you care to look. Obviously "Americanizing" is viewed negatively. Moving the goal posts or shortening the field was much more mixed and in some cases positive It's all in how you ask the question and if you take the emotion out of it it's a much more nuanced conversation.
A link would help...
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 17, 2025, 05:34:23 PMIt has nothing to do with my reasoning. It's simply a fact that sports gambling (online or otherwise) does more harm than good in our society.
One of my (17 year old) students showed me the Grey Cup bets he made online on his phone. Lost every one, to the tune of dropping almost $400 - money it took him a month to earn. Good thing he still lives at home.
I know I'm a way above average picker from my Fantasy and Blitz Picks results, but I've continued to refrain from dipping my toe into actually betting on the CFL because I know how very difficult it is to beat the house.
:(
I m not a gambler as I find the whole exercise a very greasy sinister way to cheat you out of your hard earned money, and am disappointed all the sports leagues openly advertise and promote it, then hypocritically penalize their players for participating in it, which seems odd--if they can't bet, then you can't promote it, oh, but then you wouldn't get revenue $$$, its sad how we sell our souls to the devil for a nickel.
Quote from: VictorRomano on November 18, 2025, 04:25:40 PMOne of my (17 year old) students showed me the Grey Cup bets he made online on his phone. Lost every one, to the tune of dropping almost $400 - money it took him a month to earn. Good thing he still lives at home.
I thought you had to be at least 18 to place a bet?
Gambling is nothing more than government legalized money laundering.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 17, 2025, 04:53:38 PMOnline sports betting is a scourge.
I bet on the CFL since '24. I put in a couple of hundred a year and play around trying to build it up over the season. There is nothing wrong with modest gambling for fun, unless your life philosophy/religion forbid it. If you want to say it's a "bad addiction", it's no worse than alcohol or other "vices". I don't drink, but if I did I'd have a Singapore Sling a few times a year, and that wouldn't be bad either. If you can't control yourself, you shouldn't be drinking -- and if you can't control yourself (or you're poor) you shouldn't be gambling. If you gamble an amount that is really meaningless to you, who cares?
My favorite CFL bets are the first-TD bets. They have high odds and really make watching the 1st Q a heap more fun. I often pick one team and passing-only as the 1st TD, then I'm "sweating it out" when the other team has the ball, and cheering when my team takes some EZ shots and miffed when there's a DPI in the EZ... I get a big kick out of it, risk $10-$50 and can make $100 a game.
I also bet on WPG to lose/tie the 3rd Q all season long after week 4. I made a killing on that, except the one game they won it, and the ESF (doh! LOL). Often us uber-fan "insiders" will have knowledge Vegas doesn't (they never did adjust the WPG-lose-3rd-Q odds!). I have a few other favorite weird bets, but I won't go into more details.
Overall I find it a fun diversion that makes the games more exciting for me, and lets me toy with "insider stats" and trying to find the edge that Vegas ignored. It's a lot like playing fantasy (which I do think is "the gateway drug", BTW, but am fine with it). My life philosophy is 100% about personal responsibility. If someone blows the farm, that's on them. If you want to outlaw gambling, then outlaw booze too, as it (and drugs) are the cause of 95% of police encounters and crime. No one is wandering down the street harassing people because Ternowski got the 1st TD instead of Snead!
I think the endless booing of the Commish at the GC is the only answer we need. Everyone who was there knows what I'm talking about. I haven't checked how it came across on TV yet. The boos were extremely loud, like Bombers-are-on-D-in-game loud. And they didn't stop even once until he shut up.
Dudes behind me were asking "who is this guy" while I was booing. I said "it's the clown who is getting rid of the 55 yard line". They both started booing just like me.
I hope that sent a message to Johnston. These are the elite of CFL fans, from every province. I didn't see a single person cheering to counter the boos. Everyone was either silent/ignorant, or booing. I can picture Aards in his little Pinnacle box being the lone cheerer. ;D ;D ;D
Good on Johnston finding something most CFL fans, including green & blue/gold ones, can unite around! 8) 8)
Easy way to prove the field changes have nothing to do with "Americanization" or the USA market: make the field 90 yards long (or any even number that's not 100). They say it's "only about more O", well, if 100 gets you more O I promise you 90 will get you even more O!
So make it 90. Or 98. Or whatever, just not 100. They say they still want CFL/Canada to be unique. So pick any number but 100.
Easy peasy. But they won't do it. Because it's not about more O, and it is about Americanization.
Everyone (all 2 of you) who support the 100 yard field, please argue why we can't make it 90? I'll wait. Just think of how much closer those N side EZ seats will be to the S side EZ now for a "better show"!! ::) ::) ::)
Quote from: Tecno on November 20, 2025, 02:53:03 AMI think the endless booing of the Commish at the GC is the only answer we need. Everyone who was there knows what I'm talking about. I haven't checked how it came across on TV yet. The boos were extremely loud, like Bombers-are-on-D-in-game loud. And they didn't stop even once until he shut up.
Dudes behind me were asking "who is this guy" while I was booing. I said "it's the clown who is getting rid of the 55 yard line". They both started booing just like me.
Do you think the boos were all about getting rid of the 55 yard line and the other proposed rule changes and nothing but?
I suspect the CFL brass wants to shorten the field to make it easier to expand into U.S. centres which could otherwise not accommodate a CFL field.
???
Quote from: Balticfox on November 20, 2025, 03:01:49 AMDo you think the boos were all about getting rid of the 55 yard line and the other proposed rule changes and nothing but?
I'm sure every booer had their own reason. But since Johnston is really only known right now for "the changes", I'm sure that was 99% of the rationale. As to which specific change, again: everyone has their own reason. But the polls shown in this thread do hint that the 55YL is the "most popular" booing reason.
I've been to 4 cups with Ambrosie as commish and he never got more boos than Proulx (who got 1/50th the boos Johnston did). And 'Brosie would always get some cheers (as Proulx doe toos). I saw ZERO cheers for Johnston -- didn't matter what jersey you were wearing.
Gary Bettman is constantly booed. Fans don't appreciate the choices he has made but the NHL continues to grow and thrive.
If the CFL grows substantially in the next few years, Johnson will still be booed.
It is what it is.
Quote from: Tecno on November 20, 2025, 02:53:03 AMI think the endless booing of the Commish at the GC is the only answer we need. Everyone who was there knows what I'm talking about. I haven't checked how it came across on TV yet. The boos were extremely loud, like Bombers-are-on-D-in-game loud. And they didn't stop even once until he shut up.
Dudes behind me were asking "who is this guy" while I was booing. I said "it's the clown who is getting rid of the 55 yard line". They both started booing just like me.
I hope that sent a message to Johnston. These are the elite of CFL fans, from every province. I didn't see a single person cheering to counter the boos. Everyone was either silent/ignorant, or booing. I can picture Aards in his little Pinnacle box being the lone cheerer. ;D ;D ;D
Good on Johnston finding something most CFL fans, including green & blue/gold ones, can unite around! 8) 8)
When was that? I recall a couple of other people being booed (the head referee and the Prime Minister twice) but not him. When was he talking?
Quote from: bomb squad on November 20, 2025, 04:55:15 AMWhen was that? I recall a couple of other people being booed (the head referee and the Prime Minister twice) but not him. When was he talking?
Then you bailed before the giving-of-the-trophy. Johnston gave a little speech right as he gave the trophy to SSK. I didn't hear a word of it!
Quote from: Tecno on November 20, 2025, 06:08:38 AMThen you bailed before the giving-of-the-trophy. Johnston gave a little speech right as he gave the trophy to SSK. I didn't hear a word of it!
Oh yeah. You bet I bailed. Thanks for the info. Now I don't have to watch it.
They sure showed him! Stewart's obviously doing something right.
Goodell - Booed everywhere he goes (18 years on the job)
Bettman - Booed everywhere he goes (32 years on the job)
Silver - Booed everywhere he goes (11 years on the job)
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 18, 2025, 06:27:09 PMI thought you had to be at least 18 to place a bet?
Prepaid credit cards for teens are a thing. Nobody is looking up your credit card data to see if the cardholder is of age. You're supposed to be an adult to buy beer, too, but I see kids all the time that have been drinking.
Laws and rules only limit those who follow them.
Should have made the field 100 meters if they wanted to change it. More Canadian, still 110 yards.
Quote from: TBURGESS on November 20, 2025, 03:58:26 PMShould have made the field 100 meters if they wanted to change it. More Canadian, still 110 yards.
Bingo! I'm all over that. If they want the change and to prove it's not to "Amercianize", then switch to 100
M, or my 90Y idea, or anything other than NFL-matching 100Y.
The rah-rah-changes people haven't answered yet...
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 20, 2025, 02:22:03 PMThey sure showed him! Stewart's obviously doing something right.
Goodell - Booed everywhere he goes (18 years on the job)
Bettman - Booed everywhere he goes (32 years on the job)
Silver - Booed everywhere he goes (11 years on the job)
Where you there? I've never heard such sustained booing of any commish in my 12 years of uber-fandom.
I was at the '19, '22, '23, '24, '25 cups. I can tell you that at every other one there was a mix of boos & cheers for the commish, with most people being silent (a lot like what fans do to the head ref announcement). And those combined boos/cheers were
a) 10X quieter than the boos for Johnston, and
b) only a few seconds in duration vs the BOOING THE ENTIRE TIME JOHNSTON WAS SPEAKING.
I was actually very proud to see the level of hate the attendees at PAS were showing. And at that time it was probably over 50% Rider fans, so extra kudos to them for knowing the real deal and letting Johnston know. If your 2 biggest markets (us and the greenies) hate your changes even more than the CFL average, you're doing something wrong.
When I watched that part on TV it looked like he was going to cry a bit. I don't think even he expected that level of disdain. I hope it only gets worse for him until they cancel the 55YL change.
Quote from: Tecno on November 21, 2025, 06:27:25 AMWhere you there? I've never heard such sustained booing of any commish in my 12 years of uber-fandom.
I was at the '19, '22, '23, '24, '25 cups. I can tell you that at every other one there was a mix of boos & cheers for the commish, with most people being silent (a lot like what fans do to the head ref announcement). And those combined boos/cheers were
a) 10X quieter than the boos for Johnston, and
b) only a few seconds in duration vs the BOOING THE ENTIRE TIME JOHNSTON WAS SPEAKING.
I was actually very proud to see the level of hate the attendees at PAS were showing. And at that time it was probably over 50% Rider fans, so extra kudos to them for knowing the real deal and letting Johnston know. If your 2 biggest markets (us and the greenies) hate your changes even more than the CFL average, you're doing something wrong.
When I watched that part on TV it looked like he was going to cry a bit. I don't think even he expected that level of disdain. I hope it only gets worse for him until they cancel the 55YL change.
I didn't stay for the trophy presentation but if it was even audibly louder than those other guys they really, really showed him. High fives all around.
When's the last time a CFL commissioner was booed while presenting the Grey Cup?
Oh, yeah... Never.
Sir Blue and Gold is right, though. Boos = great commissioner job well done happy let's go football man yay.
Quote from: Tecno on November 21, 2025, 06:20:11 AMBingo! I'm all over that. If they want the change and to prove it's not to "Amercianize", then switch to 100M, or my 90Y idea, or anything other than NFL-matching 100Y.
The rah-rah-changes people haven't answered yet...
I really like the 100 m idea and have long wondered why we haven't changed, probably afraid to go against tradition, but so does moving goal posts and shortening the field. Change the field to 100 m!!!
Quote from: dd on November 21, 2025, 06:06:53 PMI really like the 100 m idea and have long wondered why we haven't changed, probably afraid to go against tradition, but so does moving goal posts and shortening the field. Change the field to 100 m!!!
10 meters for a first down is close to 11 yds, not much of a change but could cause a few hiccups. Plus 100 meter field is close to 110 yds (109.361) which is what they're trying to get rid of.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 21, 2025, 06:21:29 PMPlus 100 meter field is close to 110 yds (109.361) which is what they're trying to get rid of.
But what's the rationale for "getting rid of" the 110 yard field (other than alienating existing fans)? I've actually suspected for several years that the CFL brass now believes that it's necessary to alienate the existing fanbase in order to attract new fans and thereby grow the game.
:-\
Quote from: Balticfox on November 21, 2025, 06:33:46 PMBut what's the rationale for "getting rid of" the 110 yard field (other than alienating existing fans)? I've actually suspected for several years that the CFL brass now believes that it's necessary to alienate the existing fanbase in order to attract new fans and thereby grow the game.
:-\
I'm not sure why it isn't presented as such, but the logical reason I see for shortening the field is making it so that all 9 CFL stadiums can fit a full CFL field. MTL and TOR have crappy non-CFL fields that look stupid.
It's not to make it American, the EZ are still 50% deeper, and the field is so much wider. So, its in no way "American" or to fit into an American field for expansion.
Shortening the Endzones allow all stadiums to fit the fields. Shortening the actual field isn't needed.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 21, 2025, 07:14:20 PMI'm not sure why it isn't presented as such, but the logical reason I see for shortening the field is making it so that all 9 CFL stadiums can fit a full CFL field. MTL and TOR have crappy non-CFL fields that look stupid.
All the league had to do was shorten the depth of the endzones so it'd fit the configuration of all nine CFL venues.
There isn't a logical reason for shortening the length of the field from 110 to 100 yards.
This was already covered almost two months ago in the original thread.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 21, 2025, 07:14:20 PMI'm not sure why it isn't presented as such, but the logical reason I see for shortening the field is making it so that all 9 CFL stadiums can fit a full CFL field. MTL and TOR have crappy non-CFL fields that look stupid.
It's not to make it American, the EZ are still 50% deeper, and the field is so much wider. So, its in no way "American" or to fit into an American field for expansion.
I agree, in 2027 all fields will be the same and that is a good thing.
Also, this makes the conversion of BC Place and BMO from soccer to football much less complicated and expensive. Time lapse videos are easy to find...it is quite the process.
Let's face it, this is good for the future. In Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver soccer has either caught up to, or surpassed, the CFL in popularity. There will never be a CFL specific stadium built in those three cities if this trend continues. Calgary, Edmonton and maybe even Halifax will be more inclined to build a stadium that suits both sports. Perhaps the Alouettes can forgo the costs of modernizing Mcgill and move into Saputo. BMO's World Cup renovations will be good for the Argo too, although the fans there will need to wait until 2027 to enjoy the endzone viewing platform. If all else fails, the game fits into U.S. stadiums for expansion, but I don't think that is a priority.
The way I see it, this is 'Soccerization' not 'Americanization'. The CFL is not going to announce that they will increasingly be playing second fiddle to soccer. So we get the message that this will improve the game....which is possible but far from a certainty.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 21, 2025, 07:14:20 PMI'm not sure why it isn't presented as such, but the logical reason I see for shortening the field is making it so that all 9 CFL stadiums can fit a full CFL field. MTL and TOR have crappy non-CFL fields that look stupid.
It's not to make it American, the EZ are still 50% deeper, and the field is so much wider. So, its in no way "American" or to fit into an American field for expansion.
It's because you're the only person who thinks that this is the reason. Stew-Jo included.
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 21, 2025, 07:48:21 PMI agree, in 2027 all fields will be the same and that is a good thing.
Also, this makes the conversion of BC Place and BMO from soccer to football much less complicated and expensive. Time lapse videos are easy to find...it is quite the process.
Let's face it, this is good for the future. In Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver soccer has either caught up to, or surpassed, the CFL in popularity. There will never be a CFL specific stadium built in those three cities if this trend continues. Calgary, Edmonton and maybe even Halifax will be more inclined to build a stadium that suits both sports. Perhaps the Alouettes can forgo the costs of modernizing Mcgill and move into Saputo. BMO's World Cup renovations will be good for the Argo too, although the fans there will need to wait until 2027 to enjoy the endzone viewing platform. If all else fails, the game fits into U.S. stadiums for expansion, but I don't think that is a priority.
The way I see it, this is 'Soccerization' not 'Americanization'. The CFL is not going to announce that they will increasingly be playing second fiddle to soccer. So we get the message that this will improve the game....which is possible but far from a certainty.
This is super true. Soccer is so popular in Canada that today Valour FC announced is ceasing operations indefinitely. The timing of this post is brilliant - thank you.
Quote from: blue_or_die on November 21, 2025, 08:38:37 PMIt's because you're the only person who thinks that this is the reason. Stew-Jo included.
This is super true. Soccer is so popular in Canada that today Valour FC announced is ceasing operations indefinitely. The timing of this post is brilliant - thank you.
The Whitecaps expect 53,000+ for their semi final game. The Lions supposedly drew 26,000 for their semi final. You are welcome. Your timing is brilliant too.
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 21, 2025, 09:15:50 PMThe Whitecaps expect 53,000+ for their semi final game. The Lions supposedly drew 26,000 for their semi final. You are welcome. Your timing is brilliant too.
MLS does well as soccer's best north american league. Has a decent reputation generally. Ratio rules muted: for Canadian teams, three players on the entire 30 man roster must be Canadian. That's it. Valour 's league was atrocious for that and the quality of play sucked bad.
MLS? May the best play and being Canadian doesn't get you on the field.
53,000+ is good.
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 21, 2025, 09:15:50 PMThe Whitecaps expect 53,000+ for their semi final game. The Lions supposedly drew 26,000 for their semi final. You are welcome. Your timing is brilliant too.
What does it cost to go to a MLS soccer game, roughly?? And a CFL game??
Quote from: dd on November 21, 2025, 09:49:00 PMWhat does it cost to go to a MLS soccer game, roughly?? And a CFL game??
Not sure about regular season. Probably comparable.
The Lions had discounts and specials for their playoff game. This Whitecaps game is premium level pricing and the resale market is well over face value.
Quote from: dd on November 21, 2025, 09:49:00 PMWhat does it cost to go to a MLS soccer game, roughly?? And a CFL game??
Whenever I was in Bomber Store doing STH things I always took a look at the little Valour pamhplet. ST's were roughly half the price of Bomber STH. Although it's a bit tough to compare because they only opened the lower bowl and only the home side!! LOL
So for soccer the supply / demand curve was dealing with super tiny demand. And if Whitecaps are doing better they are probably doing it with vastly cheaper ticket prices compared to a CFL game, just like Valour.
Quote from: blue_or_die on November 21, 2025, 08:38:37 PMThis is super true. Soccer is so popular in Canada that today Valour FC announced is ceasing operations indefinitely. The timing of this post is brilliant - thank you.
LOL. Good riddance. WFC lost around $1M a year every single year carrying that lame sport. Every game ends 1-0, fun!
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 21, 2025, 07:48:21 PMThere will never be a CFL specific stadium built in those three cities if this trend continues. Calgary, Edmonton and maybe even Halifax will be more inclined to build a stadium that suits both sports. Perhaps the Alouettes can forgo the costs of modernizing Mcgill and move into Saputo.
That's a decent point, but one big problem: it hasn't been put forward as one of the rationales. If "soccerization" is a big thing, and it will help the CFL get into more Canadian cities and save on stadium costs,
then why not have Johnston just come out and say that.
So it goes back to "no one trusts what they are saying". The FAQ points are easily debunked or nebulous. Just tell people the real reason: whether "Americanization" or "soccerization" or whatever. Just don't lie to us, though.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 21, 2025, 06:21:29 PM10 meters for a first down is close to 11 yds, not much of a change but could cause a few hiccups. Plus 100 meter field is close to 110 yds (109.361) which is what they're trying to get rid of.
Then make it 90
M, roughly 100Y. Voila. If it's really about "fit all stadiums" and "generate more O" and NO OTHER REASONS then they can do 90M. But they won't, because it's all lies.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 21, 2025, 01:28:17 PMI didn't stay for the trophy presentation but if it was even audibly louder than those other guys they really, really showed him. High fives all around.
We did show him. It can't be a good feeling to have been at many GCs (I hope he has, he said he was a "fan"), watched the other commish's muted receptions, and then get the worst/loudest boos ever seen at a GC.
Watch him on TV at that moment. He's visibly shaken and moved. I think the CFL, commish, BoG, massively underestimated the blowback this would cause.
We all sent a message. I think the message was received. I think the polls are all lies/massaged, or they are not properly measuring STHs and other real ticket buyers. "Follow CFL a lot" doesn't really mean anything: that would apply to my buddy who watches on TV and never goes to games. Do a separate poll of just STHs: that will give you better information.
And also ask non-CFL fans / prospective new customers the question: "Will having a 100Y field instead of a 110Y field affect your decision to buy tickets to a CFL game? more likely to buy, no change, less likely to buy".
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 21, 2025, 07:33:23 PMThis was already covered almost two months ago in the original thread.
Paid shills have to shill the pre-provided FAQ talking points...?
Quote from: Tecno on November 22, 2025, 02:06:17 AMWhenever I was in Bomber Store doing STH things I always took a look at the little Valour pamhplet. ST's were roughly half the price of Bomber STH. Although it's a bit tough to compare because they only opened the lower bowl and only the home side!! LOL
So for soccer the supply / demand curve was dealing with super tiny demand. And if Whitecaps are doing better they are probably doing it with vastly cheaper ticket prices compared to a CFL game, just like Valour.
Ticket prices for the lions and whitecaps are very similar.
The whitecaps semi final is sold out. Resale on ticket master ranges from $117 to $760 and they are selling.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 21, 2025, 09:42:11 PMMLS does well as soccer's best north american league. Has a decent reputation generally. Ratio rules muted: for Canadian teams, three players on the entire 30 man roster must be Canadian. That's it. Valour 's league was atrocious for that and the quality of play sucked bad.
MLS? May the best play and being Canadian doesn't get you on the field.
That's one of the reasons I have zilch interest in MLS. I can't embrace any team composed of a bunch of foreign mercenaries as "my" team. There's no way I can identify with such teams. And before you ask me about the Toronto Blue Jays, no I can't identify with them either. I regard the Blue Jays with nothing but mild bemusement.
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 22, 2025, 04:23:11 AMTicket prices for the lions and whitecaps are very similar.
Found the soccer fan! ;)
Quote from: Balticfox on November 22, 2025, 06:12:07 AMThat's one of the reasons I have zilch interest in MLS. I can't embrace any team composed of a bunch of foreign mercenaries as "my" team. There's no way I can identify with such teams. And before you ask me about the Toronto Blue Jays, no I can't identify with them either. I regard the Blue Jays with nothing but mild bemusement.
Fair. But in the grand scheme it doesn't matter on an individual level. It matters what the market thinks and in that, there's a pure truth: attendance, revenue and profit. The CFL would kill for 53,000 in BC.
What we know is they're watching and seemingly willing to do the heavy lift now. Of course it's not just one thing but there's lessons to be learned everywhere. It's about time.
Quote from: Tecno on November 22, 2025, 02:06:17 AMSo for soccer the supply / demand curve was dealing with super tiny demand. And if Whitecaps are doing better they are probably doing it with vastly cheaper ticket prices compared to a CFL game, just like Valour.
The MLS is the best soccer league in North America. The league the Valour played in, is several levels below. It would be like comparing the league the Goldeyes play in, with the MLB.
If Winnipeg were to obtain a MLS franchise, interest would be very strong, equal to the Bombers. Nothing at all to do with ticket prices.
Quote from: Tecno on November 22, 2025, 02:07:57 AMLOL. Good riddance. WFC lost around $1M a year every single year carrying that lame sport. Every game ends 1-0, fun!
This is a ridiculous thing to say, considering the NHL has plenty of games of comparable scoring. It has nothing to do with scoring. Don't believe me? Just look at the demographics of soccer fans, and how fast the sport is growing in North America. I was at two of the World Cup Qualification games in Edmonton, where nearly 50,000 people packed the stadium in sub-zero weather.
Quote from: Balticfox on November 22, 2025, 06:12:07 AMThat's one of the reasons I have zilch interest in MLS. I can't embrace any team composed of a bunch of foreign mercenaries as "my" team. There's no way I can identify with such teams.
50% of the players on Toronto FC are Canadian, which is a higher percentage than the Toronto Argonauts.
Fair enough. But the other thing I hate about soccer here in North America is the copying of Euro club names, e.g. Toronto FC, Real Salt Lake, D.C. United, Orlando City. This is North America! Teams should have names such as Toronto Lynx, Toronto Blizzard, Vancouver Whitecaps (with no FC added), Hamilton Forge, Edmonton Eskimos, Winnipeg Blue Bombers.
>:(
Quote from: jets4life on November 24, 2025, 01:26:22 AMThe MLS is the best soccer league in North America. The league the Valour played in, is several levels below. It would be like comparing the league the Goldeyes play in, with the MLB.
Oh, I didn't know that. I thought all this Canada soccer was all in the same league. I would have never dreamed that Canada could support 1 soccer leagues, let alone 2! I guess that explains why the Whitecaps had more sales and better pricing power.
Quote from: jets4life on November 24, 2025, 01:40:08 AM50% of the players on Toronto FC are Canadian, which is a higher percentage than the Toronto Argonauts.
had no idea...thanks
If we do not stop this Commissioner that is hell bent on making the Canadian game, a cheap knock off of the more popular American version, this will be it for the CFL. It either fold outright by the early 2030s, or revert to the Canadian field.
There is a precedent for a dramatic change in the league. This happened in the 90s, with the American experiment. After that failed miserably, the CFL nearly folded. If it were not for the cash infusion from the NFL, the league would have ended in 1997. I do not think we will be so lucky this time around, mainly since the hardcore fans hate the changes, and already feel alienated. It's easy to make amends with fair weather fans, who rarely purchase CFL tickets and merchandise, much harder for fans invested in the league.
If the CFL were to fold, I guarantee soccer would see an explosion in popularity, and eventually take the place of the Bombers, once a reputable team calls Winnipeg it's home (the Valour played in soccer's equivalent of a beer league).
Quote from: jets4life on November 26, 2025, 01:50:04 PMIf we do not stop this Commissioner that is hell bent on making the Canadian game, a cheap knock off of the more popular American version, this will be it for the CFL. It either fold outright by the early 2030s, or revert to the Canadian field.
There is a precedent for a dramatic change in the league. This happened in the 90s, with the American experiment. After that failed miserably, the CFL nearly folded. If it were not for the cash infusion from the NFL, the league would have ended in 1997. I do not think we will be so lucky this time around, mainly since the hardcore fans hate the changes, and already feel alienated. It's easy to make amends with fair weather fans, who rarely purchase CFL tickets and merchandise, much harder for fans invested in the league.
Agreed.
:(
Quote from: blue_or_die on November 21, 2025, 08:38:37 PMIt's because you're the only person who thinks that this is the reason. Stew-Jo included.
This is super true. Soccer is so popular in Canada that today Valour FC announced is ceasing operations indefinitely. The timing of this post is brilliant - thank you.
Valour FC folding has absolutely nothing to do with the popularity of soccer in Canada. Did the Jets move to Phoenix because hockey wasn't popular in Canada at the time?
https://leaderpost.com/sports/davis-fear-not-football-fans-canadian-game-has-no-reason-to-consider-four-downs (https://leaderpost.com/sports/davis-fear-not-football-fans-canadian-game-has-no-reason-to-consider-four-downs)
The CFL had absolutely no reason to consider going to a 100-yard field, either. And yet, here we are.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 26, 2025, 06:51:17 PMThe CFL had absolutely no reason to consider going to a 100-yard field, either. And yet, here we are.
Still trying to wrap my head around the rationale for that one. If it was done to increase scoring by having teams go less distance to get points, why not make it 50 yards long? Or 20 yards? ::)
FIFA stipulates an absolute minimum of 132 yards between end zone seating.
New stadiums will allow for some extra elbow room behind the goal.
The new CFL field is 130 yards long. Coincidence?
Sure, we could have a 110 yard field with 10 yard end zones....
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 26, 2025, 07:47:14 PMFIFA stipulates an absolute minimum of 132 yards between end zone seating.
New stadiums will allow for some extra elbow room behind the goal.
The new CFL field is 130 yards long. Coincidence?
Sure, we could have a 110 yard field with 10 yard end zones....
This will come in handy when the new changes lead to the demise of the CFL, and cities that built new stadiums in the past 20 years primarily for the CFL (Regina, Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Ottawa), will be desperate to either apply for an MLS franchise.
I sure hope the CFL isn't taking field dimension cues from a crooked organization like FIFA.
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 26, 2025, 07:47:14 PMFIFA stipulates an absolute minimum of 132 yards between end zone seating.
New stadiums will allow for some extra elbow room behind the goal.
The new CFL field is 130 yards long. Coincidence?
Sure, we could have a 110 yard field with 10 yard end zones....
The old size is also greater than the 132 minimum. I don't think you're making any point at all.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 26, 2025, 06:51:17 PMThe CFL had absolutely no reason to consider going to a 100-yard field, either. And yet, here we are.
Cleaning up the game was a reason for the 100 yd field. Making the field actually fit every stadium made sense. Moving the goalposts had a reason.
Changing the downs, ratio, or any other "Americanization" makes no sense. Has no reason.
I'm sorry, but I just can't get on board with thinking the 100 yard field and goalposts move has anything to do with moving to 4 downs.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 26, 2025, 08:45:06 PMCleaning up the game was a reason for the 100 yd field. Making the field actually fit every stadium made sense. Moving the goalposts had a reason.
Changing the downs, ratio, or any other "Americanization" makes no sense. Has no reason.
I'm sorry, but I just can't get on board with thinking the 100 yard field and goalposts move has anything to do with moving to 4 downs.
The field dimensions relative to stadium fitment would've been addressed by simply reducing the depth of the endzones while retaining the standard 110-yard field length. You've yet to explain how these changes clean up the game since they were announced two months ago, but you continue to repeat the same tired narrative.
Respectfully, your opinions on this topic are immaterial. You make claims without basis and then run away when pressed for clarification.
Quote from: TBURGESS on November 26, 2025, 08:42:08 PMThe old size is also greater than the 132 minimum. I don't think you're making any point at all.
CFL field lengths:
2027: 130 yds < 132 yards
2025: 150 yds > 132 yards
Quote from: The Fresh Prince Of Belair, MB on November 26, 2025, 06:05:47 PMValour FC folding has absolutely nothing to do with the popularity of soccer in Canada. Did the Jets move to Phoenix because hockey wasn't popular in Canada at the time?
The Jets moved to Phoenix because that's the direction the NHL was going at the time.
Valour folded because they consistently lost a million dollars a year. If soccer was so big here, people would still come regardless if the product wasn't properly invested in.
Quote from: jets4life on November 26, 2025, 08:04:35 PMThis will come in handy when the new changes lead to the demise of the CFL, and cities that built new stadiums in the past 20 years primarily for the CFL (Regina, Winnipeg, Hamilton, and Ottawa), will be desperate to either apply for an MLS franchise.
The demise is happening right now.
The new changes will either lead to better times, or it will die anyway.
Let's keep in mind that the Bombers and Riders voted for this, not because these two teams need change but they do need a league to play in.
Regardless of what happens to the CFL, I would love to see an MLS team in Winnipeg.
However, with the most recent expansion fee of $500 million, not likely at all.
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 26, 2025, 09:42:13 PMThe demise is happening right now.
The new changes will either lead to better times, or it will die anyway.
Let's keep in mind that the Bombers and Riders voted for this, not because these two teams need change but they do need a league to play in.
Regardless of what happens to the CFL, I would love to see an MLS team in Winnipeg.
However, with the most recent expansion fee of $500 million, not likely at all.
The CFL isn't dying, I suspect league attendance will go up in multiple cities next season with improved teams and star power in BC, Cgy, Edm, Sask and hopefully Mtl. The money grubbers in T.O. will continue to track the bottom line and whine without lifting a finger to improve game attendance.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 26, 2025, 08:54:55 PMThe field dimensions relative to stadium fitment would've been addressed by simply reducing the depth of the endzones while retaining the standard 110-yard field length. You've yet to explain how these changes clean up the game since they were announced two months ago, but you continue to repeat the same tired narrative.
Respectfully, your opinions on this topic are immaterial. You make claims without basis and then run away when pressed for clarification.
And this surprises you??
Quote from: blue_or_die on November 26, 2025, 09:25:56 PMThe Jets moved to Phoenix because that's the direction the NHL was going at the time.
Valour folded because they consistently lost a million dollars a year. If soccer was so big here, people would still come regardless if the product wasn't properly invested in.
If what you are saying was true, the AHL Moose would have sold out every game they played considering the price was a fraction of the Jets.
Believe it or not, the quality of the league matters a lot. How many people would go to games if the Jets left, and we replaced them with an ECHL team?
If Winnipeg was awarded an MLS team, it would probably kill off the Bombers, considering how popular soccer has become.
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 26, 2025, 09:42:13 PMThe demise is happening right now.
The new changes will either lead to better times, or it will die anyway.
It literally won't. People said it would die in the 80s. Then the 90s. Then the 00's. Then the 10's. Now the 20's. It's always "die die die", but yet here we are. I put a big post about this in the other thread months back regarding my local club, which had the same doomsayers. They always turn out wrong!
Even if tickets sales cratered 25% there's a ton of stuff the CFL could do to stay alive. You know, like "adjusting". Humans have this great ability to adapt to new circumstances. You could slash the 2 caps by 25%, or jack concession prices 50%, or a myriad of things to offset ticket sales. Not even saying it will come to that (it won't), just trying to illustrate that
all other things don't have to remain equal.
I was just at an absolutely packed (even the top of the 200-level East side had a butt in every seat!) 112th GC, in one of the biggest stadiums in the CFL, in a city that just sold out 14 straight home games. Chillax, the CFL is doing just fine.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 26, 2025, 08:45:06 PMCleaning up the game was a reason for the 100 yd field.
What does this even mean? Stick to the talking points handed to you by Johnston. You're not good at winging it.
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 26, 2025, 06:47:38 PMhttps://leaderpost.com/sports/davis-fear-not-football-fans-canadian-game-has-no-reason-to-consider-four-downs (https://leaderpost.com/sports/davis-fear-not-football-fans-canadian-game-has-no-reason-to-consider-four-downs)
This might be one of the dumbest articles yet. Another paid shill for Johnston. I could dissect yet another treatise, but why bother. Everyone can now spot the bunk. It's just more of the Johnston talking points regurgitation and the bullying "you're stupid dinosaurs" post-modernist tripe.
Tiresome. Enjoy your 30 pieces of silver, Darrell Davis.
Quote from: Tecno on November 27, 2025, 05:55:17 AMIt literally won't. People said it would die in the 80s. Then the 90s. Then the 00's. Then the 10's. Now the 20's. It's always "die die die", but yet here we are. I put a big post about this in the other thread months back regarding my local club, which had the same doomsayers. They always turn out wrong!
Even if tickets sales cratered 25% there's a ton of stuff the CFL could do to stay alive. You know, like "adjusting". Humans have this great ability to adapt to new circumstances. You could slash the 2 caps by 25%, or jack concession prices 50%, or a myriad of things to offset ticket sales. Not even saying it will come to that (it won't), just trying to illustrate that all other things don't have to remain equal.
I was just at an absolutely packed (even the top of the 200-level East side had a butt in every seat!) 112th GC, in one of the biggest stadiums in the CFL, in a city that just sold out 14 straight home games. Chillax, the CFL is doing just fine.
Some think that it is 'change or die'.
Others think it will be 'change and die'.
There seem to be doomsayers on both sides of the argument.
Quote from: bomber beetle on November 26, 2025, 09:42:13 PMThe new changes will either lead to better times, or it will die anyway.
Oh, that's a relief. At least the powers that be are taking this existential threat seriously by addressing real issues.
Quote from: dd on November 27, 2025, 01:04:40 AMAnd this surprises you??
(https://y.yarn.co/d7590ae7-e7aa-4d92-b3ac-765315995166_text.gif)
Quote from: jets4life on November 27, 2025, 05:17:11 AMIf what you are saying was true, the AHL Moose would have sold out every game they played considering the price was a fraction of the Jets.
Believe it or not, the quality of the league matters a lot. How many people would go to games if the Jets left, and we replaced them with an ECHL team?
If Winnipeg was awarded an MLS team, it would probably kill off the Bombers, considering how popular soccer has become.
Complete nonsense lol
Insight from the original Valour FC manager Rob Gale on why the team failed, sounds like the Bombers under-financed their operation. Would that make it Wade's responsibility?
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on November 26, 2025, 08:54:55 PMThe field dimensions relative to stadium fitment would've been addressed by simply reducing the depth of the endzones while retaining the standard 110-yard field length. You've yet to explain how these changes clean up the game since they were announced two months ago, but you continue to repeat the same tired narrative.
Respectfully, your opinions on this topic are immaterial. You make claims without basis and then run away when pressed for clarification.
Every CFL stadium will have an identical field. 15 yard deep EZ doesn't happen without the goal post moves. Loss of a 55 yard line when you make FG's 15 yards deeper makes sense.
They all fit together. I can see it making the game better, higher scoring and faster. I cannot see it making anything worse, except losing the nostalgia of C or 55 on the field, many times in a different font than the rest of the field... and of course, the offensive play "doink" / goal post rub plays.
None of the changes needed to be made. None of them will help scoring. All they will do is annoy the older folks who are the ones who buy tickets.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 27, 2025, 07:04:15 PMEvery CFL stadium will have an identical field. 15 yard deep EZ doesn't happen without the goal post moves. Loss of a 55 yard line when you make FG's 15 yards deeper makes sense.
They all fit together. I can see it making the game better, higher scoring and faster. I cannot see it making anything worse, except losing the nostalgia of C or 55 on the field, many times in a different font than the rest of the field... and of course, the offensive play "doink" / goal post rub plays.
Every CFL venue would accommodate fitment even if you left the 110-yard length and changed to 15-yard endzones. Moving the goalposts back didn't improve scoring for the NFL; to claim the CFL doing so will result in any improvement to the game is not realistic. The amount of doinks that take place is basically a rounding error, anyway.
The NFL is objectively no better, faster, or higher scoring than the CFL despite playing on a much smaller field - it's personal preference, which is
subjective. And it's pretty disingenuous for you, the commissioner, or any other shill on board with these changes to make such claims because the data simply doesn't exist.
These changes do nothing to address what's actually ailing the CFL in terms of its financial health or its sustainability as a league.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 27, 2025, 07:04:15 PM55 on the field, many times in a different font than the rest of the field
Well that's it boys. All along the real problem was the font. Johnston hates that font. Certainly we couldn't have just bought a new stencil template for $10. We have to re-turf 2 fields for $1.25M each and destroy all "nostalgia" because it's that darn font!
Amercians weren't watching because the font didn't match! The horror...
Quote from: theaardvark on November 27, 2025, 07:04:15 PMEvery CFL stadium will have an identical field. 15 yard deep EZ doesn't happen without the goal post moves.
Are you just saying stuff hoping that people don't have brains? This doesn't stand to reason -- at all. There is nothing stopping a EZ depth change all on its own. GPs have nothing to do with it.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 27, 2025, 07:04:15 PMLoss of a 55 yard line when you make FG's 15 yards deeper makes sense.
Ah, I see, 1) start with false premise (a). 2) Use false premise (a) to support (b). 3) Pray no one notices.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 27, 2025, 05:14:19 PMInsight from the original Valour FC manager Rob Gale on why the team failed, sounds like the Bombers under-financed their operation. Would that make it Wade's responsibility?
Ya, because a $1M free handout subsidy (stolen from the Bomber side, BTW) wasn't good enough?
On the upside, the Bomber Store will be a heck of a lot less crowded now that they can expand the Bomber merch to the 1/4 of the store that was wasted on Valour!
Maybe they can use the million as marketing money to get some decent free agents here this off-season :D . I'm tired of Walters crying poor and cheaping out. The fans and corporate sponsors have helped make the bombers the most financially successful franchise in the league. Time for some payback.
Quote from: bunker on November 28, 2025, 02:20:32 AMMaybe they can use the million as marketing money to get some decent free agents here this off-season :D . I'm tired of Walters crying poor and cheaping out. The fans and corporate sponsors have helped make the bombers the most financially successful franchise in the league. Time for some payback.
"Marketing money"??? How does that work, you want Walters to use it to bribe the player agents? :D
Quote from: Tecno on November 28, 2025, 01:53:17 AMYa, because a $1M free handout subsidy (stolen from the Bomber side, BTW) wasn't good enough?
On the upside, the Bomber Store will be a heck of a lot less crowded now that they can expand the Bomber merch to the 1/4 of the store that was wasted on Valour!
I've never seen anyone in the city wearing Valour RC gear.
Quote from: Tecno on November 28, 2025, 01:53:17 AMYa, because a $1M free handout subsidy (stolen from the Bomber side, BTW) wasn't good enough?
I suspect you didn't take the time to watch the video before coming up with this take.
Maybe
@ModAdmin or another moderator could move this Valour FC discussion to the actual Valour FC thread...?
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 28, 2025, 03:27:20 AM"Marketing money"??? How does that work, you want Walters to use it to bribe the player agents? :D
\]
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 28, 2025, 03:27:20 AM"Marketing money"??? How does that work, you want Walters to use it to bribe the player agents? :D
I was thinking directly to the players to supplement their salary, but hey whatever it takes...
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 28, 2025, 03:27:20 AM"Marketing money"??? How does that work, you want Walters to use it to bribe the player agents? :D
You didn't read the whole Magic Marketing Money (MMM) thread back when Rourke signed for like $750k last season? MMM is off-SMS LIMITLESS funny money rich teams can use to bribe players to get around SMS limitations. Just pick a number and make up some fake ad / photo shoots or signing table appearances and voila you just got Rourke for $550k SMS hit when he's really pocketing $750k.
And we should 100% be throwing MMM everywhere at everyone we want to snipe from other teams. We are the richest team in the league. Let's Rocket Ishmael ourselves to perpetual GC wins.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 28, 2025, 05:23:00 PMI suspect you didn't take the time to watch the video before coming up with this take.
I watched about 4 mins. I couldn't take the silly soccer hair cut any longer than that! And of course the guy is going to talk up his job and deflect blame.
I'm pretty sure the WFC was more than generous carrying this nonsense at a massive loss for as long as they did. Now just imagine the financials WFC will be able to post in '26 without the soccer albatross around their neck!
One of the narratives when the rule changes were first announced was that new commissioner was just the messenger.
Based on all of his interviews during Grey Cup Week it is quite clear that Stewart Johnston is the one driving the bus. He mentioned several times that many of these changes are ideas he has thought about for a handful of years prior to getting the CFL job. None of rule changes were left dangling from the Randy Ambrosie era.
So, why the urgency to get these rule changes through so quickly?
And more importantly, why was it necessary to bypass the traditional process for approving rule changes?
During Grey Cup Week, the CFL was celebrating increased attendance, increased viewership, and increased revenue. Revenue is a lagging indicator which suggests that it was initiatives started by Randy Ambrosie that are responsible. Probably the biggest revenue generator has been legalized gambling on CFL games. Believe or not, this is a Genius initiative. In fact, legalized gambling is the business arm that Genius Sports does the best.
Out of this, the CFL finally has the funds necessary to upgrade the website, mobile app & fantasy football. Johnston will take the bows for steering the league across the finish line for these initiatives but the groundwork was set before he took over. Most importantly, Genius Sports will not be involved in these initiatives.
It has been suggested that the rule changes will improve excitement and increase scoring. During Grey Cup week, the CFL was celebrating the highest points per game since 2008. The league should also be celebrating the highest points per drive ever. Unfortunately, through other initiatives by the league to reduce game time into a 3 hour time slot, we have lost a number of plays per game. Based on numbers from the mid-1990s, there were about 165 plays per game. Today the league average is a little more than 140 plays per game. If you want to increase scoring, find a way to increase the number of plays. Theoretically, a 10% increase in the number of plays should result in a 10% increase in scoring per game.
The only rule change suggested that addresses the number of plays issue is the 35 second play clock. If done properly, we will see an increase in the number of plays per game. How many more plays really depends on the details. The next big question, if more plays are the result, can we still complete a CFL game in the 3 hour TV time slot?
BTW, I consider a well played defensive football game to be quite enjoyable. More scoring doesn't necessarily mean more excitement.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on November 29, 2025, 04:16:26 PMOne of the narratives when the rule changes were first announced was that new commissioner was just the messenger.
Based on all of his interviews during Grey Cup Week it is quite clear that Stewart Johnston is the one driving the bus. He mentioned several times that many of these changes are ideas he has thought about for a handful of years prior to getting the CFL job. None of rule changes were left dangling from the Randy Ambrosie era.
So, why the urgency to get these rule changes through so quickly?
And more importantly, why was it necessary to bypass the traditional process for approving rule changes?
During Grey Cup Week, the CFL was celebrating increased attendance, increased viewership, and increased revenue. Revenue is a lagging indicator which suggests that it was initiatives started by Randy Ambrosie that are responsible. Probably the biggest revenue generator has been legalized gambling on CFL games. Believe or not, this is a Genius initiative. In fact, legalized gambling is the business arm that Genius Sports does the best.
Out of this, the CFL finally has the funds necessary to upgrade the website, mobile app & fantasy football. Johnston will take the bows for steering the league across the finish line for these initiatives but the groundwork was set before he took over. Most importantly, Genius Sports will not be involved in these initiatives.
It has been suggested that the rule changes will improve excitement and increase scoring. During Grey Cup week, the CFL was celebrating the highest points per game since 2008. The league should also be celebrating the highest points per drive ever. Unfortunately, through other initiatives by the league to reduce game time into a 3 hour time slot, we have lost a number of plays per game. Based on numbers from the mid-1990s, there were about 165 plays per game. Today the league average is a little more than 140 plays per game. If you want to increase scoring, find a way to increase the number of plays. Theoretically, a 10% increase in the number of plays should result in a 10% increase in scoring per game.
The only rule change suggested that addresses the number of plays issue is the 35 second play clock. If done properly, we will see an increase in the number of plays per game. How many more plays really depends on the details. The next big question, if more plays are the result, can we still complete a CFL game in the 3 hour TV time slot?
BTW, I consider a well played defensive football game to be quite enjoyable. More scoring doesn't necessarily mean more excitement.
It does look like the commish is taking all the heat and blame for the changes, which is literally his job.
Why they came together quickly is an interesting question, and makes one wonder how long many of these changes have been percolating before he arrived. Was it his job to put together the best of the ideas that had been around, and package them?
The fact that support for the agenda was 100% unanimous in the ownership group says the only thing we need to know about the commish, he has the full support of the ownership group, who pay his salary.
Many will say that his actual bosses are we, the fans. And in that they are not wrong. Sometimes our boss may make a decision that we initially disagree with, because we've "always done it THIS way". But often, we find out that the new ideas, formulated by those with a lot of knowledge of the history and path the company wants to follow, actually work out good.
Sure, there are Cracker Barrel moments, and New Coke fiascos, but the vast majority of times, leaders in the know make good decisions. Like the original Mustang, or the Caravan. Improvements that changed the fate of those companies. Mustang saved Ford from the Edsel, Caravan saved Dodge from insolvency (yes, I just watched "Cars that Made America last night").
I'm not saying these changes are equivalent to introducing the Mustang Caravan (that one didn't hit so well), but until we see them play out, I am assuming they have a plan, and they expect it to advance the game.
Quote from: Stats Junkie on November 29, 2025, 04:16:26 PMOne of the narratives when the rule changes were first announced was that new commissioner was just the messenger.
Based on all of his interviews during Grey Cup Week it is quite clear that Stewart Johnston is the one driving the bus. He mentioned several times that many of these changes are ideas he has thought about for a handful of years prior to getting the CFL job. None of rule changes were left dangling from the Randy Ambrosie era.
So, why the urgency to get these rule changes through so quickly?
And more importantly, why was it necessary to bypass the traditional process for approving rule changes?
During Grey Cup Week, the CFL was celebrating increased attendance, increased viewership, and increased revenue. Revenue is a lagging indicator which suggests that it was initiatives started by Randy Ambrosie that are responsible. Probably the biggest revenue generator has been legalized gambling on CFL games. Believe or not, this is a Genius initiative. In fact, legalized gambling is the business arm that Genius Sports does the best.
Out of this, the CFL finally has the funds necessary to upgrade the website, mobile app & fantasy football. Johnston will take the bows for steering the league across the finish line for these initiatives but the groundwork was set before he took over. Most importantly, Genius Sports will not be involved in these initiatives.
It has been suggested that the rule changes will improve excitement and increase scoring. During Grey Cup week, the CFL was celebrating the highest points per game since 2008. The league should also be celebrating the highest points per drive ever. Unfortunately, through other initiatives by the league to reduce game time into a 3 hour time slot, we have lost a number of plays per game. Based on numbers from the mid-1990s, there were about 165 plays per game. Today the league average is a little more than 140 plays per game. If you want to increase scoring, find a way to increase the number of plays. Theoretically, a 10% increase in the number of plays should result in a 10% increase in scoring per game.
The only rule change suggested that addresses the number of plays issue is the 35 second play clock. If done properly, we will see an increase in the number of plays per game. How many more plays really depends on the details. The next big question, if more plays are the result, can we still complete a CFL game in the 3 hour TV time slot?
BTW, I consider a well played defensive football game to be quite enjoyable. More scoring doesn't necessarily mean more excitement.
Johnston emerged from within TSN, could be his agenda is driven by their boardroom who are obsessed with number envy over how many Canadians are watching NFL broadcasts while CFL viewer numbers stagnate on their network. They don't give a hoot about the game, to them the broadcast numbers and revenue generated is all that matters, so they choose to imitate to spark growth as they struggle to remain a viable broadcast network. Notice when the accountants get control of an industry, the lifeblood is sucked right out of it, ie the entertainment industry.
I'd love to hear exactly why Ambrosie was fired and where the pressure to do so came from, seems to me most decisions derive from T.O. and the teams just go along for the ride and agree to go wherever they're pointed.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 29, 2025, 04:49:40 PMJohnston emerged from within TSN, could be his agenda is driven by their boardroom who are obsessed with number envy over how many Canadians are watching NFL broadcasts while CFL viewer numbers stagnate on their network. They don't give a hoot about the game, to them the broadcast numbers and revenue generated is all that matters, so they choose to imitate to spark growth as they struggle to remain a viable broadcast network. Notice when the accountants get control of an industry, the lifeblood is sucked right out of it, ie the entertainment industry.
I'd love to hear exactly why Ambrosie was fired and where the pressure to do so came from, seems to me most decisions derive from T.O. and the teams just go along for the ride and agree to go wherever they're pointed.
Was Ambrosie fired? I thought he gave his notice, and the league went hunting for his replacement...
Quote from: theaardvark on November 29, 2025, 04:43:27 PMMany will say that his actual bosses are we, the fans. And in that they are not wrong. Sometimes our boss may make a decision that we initially disagree with, because we've "always done it THIS way". But often, we find out that the new ideas, formulated by those with a lot of knowledge of the history and path the company wants to follow, actually work out good.
Sure, there are Cracker Barrel moments, and New Coke fiascos, but the vast majority of times, leaders in the know make good decisions. Like the original Mustang, or the Caravan. Improvements that changed the fate of those companies. Mustang saved Ford from the Edsel, Caravan saved Dodge from insolvency (yes, I just watched "Cars that Made America last night").
I'm not saying these changes are equivalent to introducing the Mustang Caravan (that one didn't hit so well), but until we see them play out, I am assuming they have a plan, and they expect it to advance the game.
Smart companies listen to the input of its customer base. The CFL is obviously not a smart company.
Quote from: jets4life on November 29, 2025, 09:52:19 PMSmart companies listen to the input of its customer base. The CFL is obviously not a smart company.
Listen, yes. Do whatever a segment of customer base posts online? No.
Welcome to real life. The adults are in charge in seems.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 29, 2025, 05:49:34 PMWas Ambrosie fired? I thought he gave his notice, and the league went hunting for his replacement...
He did, but it was after the BOG voted 5-4 in favour of removing him, they needed 7 votes against to remove him, but he decided not to continue on.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 30, 2025, 03:39:31 AMHe did, but it was after the BOG voted 5-4 in favour of removing him, they needed 7 votes against to remove him, but he decided not to continue on.
I haven't heard that stat before, but I'll take your word for it. You could tell by his last pressers that he wanted to still be commish. I also think he had an idea Johnston was going to come in and ruin everything. Ambrosie was practically in tears in those last pressers. And no, I don't think it was just "I'll miss my job".
Quote from: jets4life on November 29, 2025, 09:52:19 PMSmart companies listen to the input of its customer base. The CFL is obviously not a smart company.
Yes, especially the last few years where customers are quick to ruin a brand should they feel disrespected or ignored. See Cracker Barrel (as mentioned), Bud Light, etc.
Gone are the days where you can force feed loyal customers an antithetical agenda.
CFL may be in the process of finding this out...
Quote from: Stats Junkie on November 29, 2025, 04:16:26 PMUnfortunately, through other initiatives by the league to reduce game time into a 3 hour time slot, we have lost a number of plays per game. Based on numbers from the mid-1990s, there were about 165 plays per game. Today the league average is a little more than 140 plays per game. If you want to increase scoring, find a way to increase the number of plays. Theoretically, a 10% increase in the number of plays should result in a 10% increase in scoring per game.
Very interesting details. I think a lot of the "lower plays per game" comes from teams that are active clock-bleeders. And I don't just mean outside the whistles, which the 35s clock will put a stop to. I mean bleeding the clock within the 20s by taking it down to 2-5s every single snap (unless down at the end of the halves).
WPG is one of these clock-bleeding teams. SSK turned into one as well: since they copied everything that made WPG great for 5 straight seasons. I think there were 1-2 more teams, but I can't remember who. Wouldn't surprise me if Buck/BC was one.
I don't think teams in 90's were smart enough or cared enough to mold their strategy around "shortening the game" (reducing the plays). Clearly some HCs(etc.) have run the numbers and decided it's a winning strategy. Or it could be that "top teams" (or "running teams"?) have an advantage when doing so.
These same clock-bleeding teams will bleed that new 35s down to the last 2-5s all the same. I'm not sure how'd you stop a team from doing this -- or if you'd even want to. But it would increase the play count.
I'm reminding of F1's Niki Lauda, whose philosophy was to win races as slowly as possible -- basically do as little as possible to win, but still win. That's totally a MOS philosophy. Why put the ball in the air 90 times a game when you can win by running 40 and passing 30?
I'm unclear what happens to this 35 second clock when the officials want to confer over a call as they often do. Does this force them to hurry their process or do they pause the clock while they figure out what just happened?
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on November 30, 2025, 06:50:11 PMI'm unclear what happens to this 35 second clock when the officials want to confer over a call as they often do. Does this force them to hurry their process or do they pause the clock while they figure out what just happened?
An entire shed load of actual rules will have to be rewritten to accommodate the 35s clock. I would assume "ref conference" will have to work however they do it in the NFL (probably a clock pause/reset). But there's also a lot of rules about EITS / command auto-reviews and the clock.
For people who hate auto-reviews, they'll be happy because most of the "no-pause" reviews will disappear, simply because there won't be enough time.
It will also force teams to pre-strategize every single contingency, especially "to kick or not to kick" or "to FG or to punt" -- they won't have the luxury of the somewhat usual buffoonery of sending out the kick team, then withdrawing them, then sending them back out.
I could also foresee a LOT more 3rd down "draw them offside" nonsense, not because they think it will work, but because the team will use that extra time to decide what they actually want to do. And that "draw them offside / timecount" is one of the lamest plays in all of football.
I can see teams having charts all drawn up ahead of time that lay out every scenario and then just following them to a T. There won't be enough time to think it through (or guess what your gut is saying) then get your desired unit on the field and get the huddle done, etc.
And the teams that come up with the best pre-drawn plans may have the biggest advantage. And I'm pretty sure this is NOT one of MOS's strengths -- so I hope he hires some top people to figure all of this out.
Quote from: theaardvark on November 29, 2025, 04:43:27 PMIt does look like the commish is taking all the heat and blame for the changes, which is literally his job.
That's not the job of a commissioner. The same way it's not his job to ram through arbitrary changes without consultation of the players -
at the very least.
The "heat and blame" he's facing are self-inflicted.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on November 30, 2025, 03:04:46 AMListen, yes. Do whatever a segment of customer base posts online? No.
Welcome to real life. The adults are in charge it seems.
The league didn't bother to engage with its customer base - online or otherwise.
**gestures broadly at basically everything**You think the adults are in charge in real life...?
(https://y.yarn.co/c01c1f2e-c1fa-4181-b7a7-d1513f95ecbc_text.gif)
The process was fast-tracked, but it seems that not consulting the players (and the fans, obviously) is a valid choice that was made.
Lauther stated the CFLPA wasn't consulted about the changes but also noted this wasn't something the CFL had to bring to them.
"I think maybe a lot of guys think (consultation) would have been nice as 25 per cent revenue partners to know a little bit more but at the end of the day, they don't have to," Lauther said. "They made the decision to make the changes they wanted and for us, especially as a vice-president, we are worried about player safety and growing revenue and if this does that, there's not much we can complain about," Lauther said.
https://www.ckom.com/2025/09/23/see-where-it-goes-from-here-riders-react-to-cfl-rule-changes/ (https://www.ckom.com/2025/09/23/see-where-it-goes-from-here-riders-react-to-cfl-rule-changes/)
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 01, 2025, 02:00:54 PMThat's not the job of a commissioner. The same way it's not his job to ram through arbitrary changes without consultation of the players - at the very least.
(https://y.yarn.co/c01c1f2e-c1fa-4181-b7a7-d1513f95ecbc_text.gif)
Arbitrary? The commissioner and owners have been incredibly forthright in their careful research, planning and execution of these efforts. They've clearly communicated with their paying fanbase how these modifications will grow interest and revenues and make the league financially sustainable for decades to come. The people in charge know way more about football than you or me and so we shall put our unrelenting trust in them. Can you even name a time where they've made silly mistakes, dumbfounded initiatives or shown a lackadaisical approach to running the league?
It's time we all just calm down and be happy that the grown ups are running the league now and we are in good hands. Non-issue, handled internally.
Quote from: blue_or_die on December 01, 2025, 06:40:47 PMArbitrary? The commissioner and owners have been incredibly forthright in their careful research, planning and execution of these efforts. They've clearly communicated with their paying fanbase how these modifications will grow interest and revenues and make the league financially sustainable for decades to come. The people in charge know way more about football that you or me and so we shall put our unrelenting trust in them. Can you even name a time where they've made silly mistakes, dumbfounded initiatives or shown a lackadaisical approach to running the league?
It's time we all just calm down and be happy that the grown ups are running the league now and we are in good hands. Non-issue, handled internally.
BS
Can anyone check in on
@blue_or_die? I think his sarcasm machine might have exploded.
Quote from: blue_or_die on December 01, 2025, 06:40:47 PMArbitrary? The commissioner and owners have been incredibly forthright in their careful research, planning and execution of these efforts. They've clearly communicated with their paying fanbase how these modifications will grow interest and revenues and make the league financially sustainable for decades to come. The people in charge know way more about football than you or me and so we shall put our unrelenting trust in them. Can you even name a time where they've made silly mistakes, dumbfounded initiatives or shown a lackadaisical approach to running the league?
It's time we all just calm down and be happy that the grown ups are running the league now and we are in good hands. Non-issue, handled internally.
Love it, you made my day!
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 01, 2025, 06:30:40 PMThe process was fast-tracked, but it seems that not consulting the players (and the fans, obviously) is a valid choice that was made.
I think what pisses me off even more is not consulting with Football Canada, U Sport, or the hundreds of grassroots community football organizations that may have to alter their playing fields with out a cent of financial assistance outside of donations and fund raising. Imagine fund raising for years to create a playable field the community can take pride in, only to be told to re-arrange it based on the whim of one stupid MFer.
I propose they hang an effigy of Stewart Johnston strung high between their goal posts and the kicker gets an extra point for nailing it.
How long does the mindless echo chamber need to echo on for?
Do something about it or move on already. 'Back in my day' is getting so tiresome.
Here's the cold hard truth:
The league owes you nothing. Not an explanation. Not a reason. Not a dime. Businesses aren't your friends. The CFL is not yours. You only get to decide to be a customer or not. Make your choice already. The league has. Nobody cares either way.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 02, 2025, 01:04:12 AMI think what pisses me off even more is not consulting with Football Canada, U Sport, or the hundreds of grassroots community football organizations that may have to alter their playing fields with out a cent of financial assistance outside of donations and fund raising. Imagine fund raising for years to create a playable field the community can take pride in, only to be told to re-arrange it based on the whim of one stupid MFer.
I propose they hang an effigy of Stewart Johnston strung high between their goal posts and the kicker gets an extra point for nailing it.
Consultations would be pointless. The CFL wants to play on a field that is 130 yards long. End of story.
Don't get me wrong, the fallout at the grassroots level is unfortunate and a big deal, for sure.
For the sake of argument, let's imagine that without these changes the CFL continues its decline and ceases operations in a few years. Without the CFL, all football in Canada would eventually be played on American sized fields. So perhaps a rearrangement of all football fields is inevitable.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 02, 2025, 04:25:00 AMFor the sake of argument, let's imagine that without these changes the CFL continues its decline and ceases operations in a few years.
Literally not a thing. The league was so "in decline" that it made enough extra $ in '24 to up the SMS by $400k per team?
I was at the GC. I saw no hint of decline -- well, except the relentless boos at Johnston.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 03:11:34 AMHow long does the mindless echo chamber need to echo on for?
The only mindless echoing is coming from the 2-3 people constantly regurgitating the lame Johnston FAQ talking points over and over, long after they've been debunked.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 03:11:34 AMDo something about it or move on already. 'Back in my day' is getting so tiresome.
Be careful what you ask for. There's the 5% of fans that say they are quitting come '27. There are a ton more on the fence who aren't happy with the direction. You really don't want to tell that vast swath of fans "move on already". You may just end up losing 25% of fans in '27.
And literally no one said "back in my day" like we're 90 with our pants up to our shoulders.
As for "do something about it": we are. We're utilizing one of the few avenues we have make our voices heard. I guarantee you there are people reporting back to the CFL bigwigs on the general sentiment of fans on the team/league forums.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 03:11:34 AMMake your choice already. The league has. Nobody cares either way.
There's still 1.5 years to get them to change their mind. Johnston could be ousted tomorrow and a 180 could be done on the 100Y field idea. It could literally happen at any moment. Keep up the pressure.
Your post, like the pundit articles, reads like a demoralization campaign. "Give up, it's hopeless, you dinosaur, be on the right side of history, you're in the tiny marjority". OK Tokyo Rose. Doesn't work here because on all the forums it's clear the true tiny minority is the "yay no more 55YL!". Your careful maneuver to the "hard sell" won't work either.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 03:11:34 AMHow long does the mindless echo chamber need to echo on for?
And nice subtle request for censorship -- trying to get another thread shut down. If everything is all unicorns and rainbows then what's the harm in talking about it? After all, it is the most important set of changes to the game in 40 years. (Yes, even more than the failed X-Era.)
Shutting off legitimate discussion is what the side that is losing tries to do. I have an idea, ignore the thread.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 03:11:34 AMHere's the cold hard truth:
The league owes you nothing. Not an explanation. Not a reason. Not a dime. Businesses aren't your friends. The CFL is not yours. You only get to decide to be a customer or not. Make your choice already. The league has. Nobody cares either way.
Here's the cold hard truth:
The CFL does owe it's diehard fans, who repeatedly purchase tickets, and merchandise a say in the new changes. You're "if you don't like the changes, not only are you wrong, nobody cares about your opinion, nobody cares about you, etc" is an example of a 12 year old child that continuously adds nothing to the conversation, but to personally attack and try to dehumanise the fan base.
Maybe grow up, and stop acting like a petulant 12 year old boy.
.
Quote from: jets4life link=msg=168date=1764676447Here's the cold hard truth:
The CFL does owe it's diehard fans, who repeatedly purchase tickets, and merchandise a say in the new changes. You're "if you don't like the changes, not only are you wrong, nobody cares about your opinion, nobody cares about you, etc" is an example of a 12 year old child that continuously adds nothing to the conversation, but to personally attack and try to dehumanise the fan base.
Maybe grow up, and stop acting like a petulant 12 year old boy.
Let's review:
The CFL is a business. You are a customer. You've spent literal months whining about the changes on a forum they provide you for free. They've heard YOUR complaints. They've listened. They just don't agree with you or think they're valid enough to course correct. Thems the breaks.
Are you guys really going to spend the entire off season complaining about how the clock starts counting down and then the entire next year's off-season on the goal posts? But I'm "the child?"
One again the brass tax: be a customer or don't. It's pretty simple.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 03:11:34 AMHere's the cold hard truth:
[proceeds to post a bunch of useless, condescending gibberish that's actually not truth at all - it's just an opinion, and a pretty bitter one at that]
Why not just ignore what others are discussing as it relates to the topic of changes? Ya know, instead of getting triggered and lashing out at strangers on a forum.
It's pretty hilarious for you to label anyone else's schtick on here as tiresome. Your bootlicker routine was tiresome two months ago when the changes were first announced.
Maybe you should to take a break from this place for a while. Your unhinged rants are rude, childish, and add zero value to the discussion. Your behaviour on here has become utterly insufferable. You've spent literal months defending rich bozos.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 02, 2025, 01:42:16 PMWhy not just ignore what others are discussing as it relates to the topic of changes? Ya know, instead of getting triggered and lashing out at strangers on a forum.
It's pretty hilarious for you to label anyone else's schtick on here as tiresome. Your bootlicker routine was tiresome two months ago when the changes were first announced.
Maybe you should to take a break from this place for a while. Your unhinged rants are rude, childish, and add zero value to the discussion. Your behaviour on here has become utterly insufferable. You've spent literal months defending rich bozos.
You're the ones who seem triggered. I'm just telling you how it is.
Far be it from me to tell you how to spend your time but the 10 of you patting each other on the back for things like booing the commissioner and telling yourselves how correct you are is a total waste of time. It was an interesting debate at first. But they decision seems made, yes? Time to move on.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 02, 2025, 01:04:12 AMI propose they hang an effigy of Stewart Johnston strung high between their goal posts and the kicker gets an extra point for nailing it.
NOW THAT'S FUNNY ! :D
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 01:48:08 PMYou're the ones who seem triggered. I'm just telling you how it is.
[more pointless blathering]
(https://y.yarn.co/a645c1b7-6cbd-4e0c-8d4d-34c600e26553_text.gif)
The "no, you!" retort is so infantile. You're not telling anyone how anything is; you're just being needlessly argumentative for no apparent reason.
Speaking of telling others how it is:
the decision was made before we even began the debate on this forum.
Maybe take your own advice and move on; others can continue to discuss the topic without your useless, unbearable interference.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 01:48:08 PMYou're the ones who seem triggered. I'm just telling you how it is.
Far be it from me to tell you how to spend your time but the 10 of you patting each other on the back for things like booing the commissioner and telling yourselves how correct you are is a total waste of time. It was an interesting debate at first. But they decision seems made, yes? Time to move on.
lol, you're just as triggered. You can't help yourself but to re-enter this discussion despite trying to post these thought-terminating zingers, "just get over it lol", "don't like it, leave". How about if you don't like the "10 of us" b****ing and moaning on a public fan forum, you just choose to not spend your time berating? Literally no one is making you come here and continue to s*** off Stew-Jo & co.
And since you're of the opinion the CFL is clearly a completely soulless and 100% transactional organization with no values or respect for its traditions, legacy or base, maybe you're right that the 10 people you're so annoyed with who care about this issue should just stop spending our money and go elsewhere. Is this the message they have for the fans? I mean the actual, paying fans, not the hoards of new fans that you think will be attracted now that we have a 100 yard field.
At this point, I actually think you're right that this is the attitude the league has adopted. We have nothing else to point to because they've been dodgy and radio silent other than "this is what we are doing".
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 02, 2025, 02:54:39 PM(https://y.yarn.co/a645c1b7-6cbd-4e0c-8d4d-34c600e26553_text.gif)
The "no, you!" retort is so infantile. You're not telling anyone how anything is; you're just being needlessly argumentative for no apparent reason.
Speaking of telling others how it is: the decision was made before we even began the debate on this forum.
Maybe take your own advice and move on; others can continue to discuss the topic without your useless, unbearable interference.
You mean you would like to continue the echo chamber free of other opinions and points of view.
I've been here for a long time and am not going anywhere, please be assured, regardless of the fit you're throwing and your insistence that you should be left alone to talk in circles about how "correct" your opinion is.
I exactly told you how it is. You just don't like it. I'm really not sure what about my comments can possibly be untrue. They're blunt and not subtle. But they are the truth.
Quote from: blue_or_die on December 02, 2025, 03:40:52 PMAt this point, I actually think you're right that this is the attitude the league has adopted. We have nothing else to point to because they've been dodgy and radio silent other than "this is what we are doing".
Good that you can recognize it and I mean that kindly and with compassion.
Oh, we're apparently now at the stage of fabricated victimhood and projection.
(https://y.yarn.co/6c061a52-5ecf-4fff-a658-7224ca50c7aa_text.gif)
The only thing I will say is, nothing has been proven or dis proven with the new rules/arrangements.
The results of these changes will only truly be known when the changes come into effect and how the changes actually affect the game and the fans' perception of the actual changes.
This is not to dissuade the discussion but to suggest a real determination is only possible with reaction to the changes when they come into effect.
Not completely true. For example the NFL moved the goalposts to the back of the end-zone so we can use their experience to show what our will be. Did it help with scoring? Did it open up the middle of the field?
I don't recall that more scoring was a stated objective.
The only projection was that there would be more touchdowns and less field goals.
Touchdowns are more exciting than field goals...that was the stated objective that I do recall.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 02, 2025, 09:13:05 PMI don't recall that more scoring was a stated objective.
The only projection was that there would be more touchdowns and less field goals.
Touchdowns are more exciting than field goals...that was the stated objective that I do recall.
Is that what happened in the NFL? If it is then, the stated objective might come true. If not, then the stated objective doesn't match with the reality.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 02, 2025, 11:59:53 PMIs that what happened in the NFL? If it is then, the stated objective might come true. If not, then the stated objective doesn't match with the reality.
The number of field goals in the NFL went down dramatically immediately after the change. It took many years to see a meaningful change in touchdowns and total points scored per game.
I would be reluctant, though, to compare 1974 to what could happen in 2027. All aspects of the game have evolved significantly since that time. Particularly in the skill levels of players and in coaching strategies. No doubt, there will be less field goals but we will have to wait to see what happens when it comes to touchdowns and total points scored.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 01:38:13 PMAre you guys really going to spend the entire off season complaining
Yes. Yes I will. And all 2026 reg season. And post-season. And FA27. Nonstop, until they reverse the 100Y decision. Just like the booing was
nonstop.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 02, 2025, 01:38:13 PMabout how the clock starts counting down
More deflection. Straw man. Some people always go straight to the least offensive changes and ignore the big ones people are REALLY upset about. Like how everyone used to start with the "sidelines will be on opposite sides" schtick when that was never a point of contention for anyone. Likewise almost no one is hung up on the 35s clock change, except insofar as it affects the final 3 mins.
P.S. This is all done on purpose by skillful marketing firms who mix in "we will all love puppies" with "100 yard field", and then lambast you "what, you don't love puppies!" when you complain about real issue at hand. We'd take the pro-change crowd more seriously if they'd just be honest and forthright.
Everyone be careful. We are being trolled into going against forum rules so that they can shut the thread down again. If someone posts a marginal rebuttal that's "good enough", leave it at that, don't pile on. Just upvote it.
Try to keep addressing the points, debunking the weak arguments, and continuing with the "we're not going to just roll over" mantra. That is what will keep the pressure on Johnston. Their main hope has always been we'll get tired of all their bullying and cajoling. Just be firm in your beliefs, and realize you are the majority.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 03, 2025, 03:52:45 AMThe number of field goals in the NFL went down dramatically immediately after the change.
Please present the data to back up that claim.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 03, 2025, 03:52:45 AMThe number of field goals in the NFL went down dramatically immediately after the change. It took many years to see a meaningful change in touchdowns and total points scored per game.
I would be reluctant, though, to compare 1974 to what could happen in 2027. All aspects of the game have evolved significantly since that time. Particularly in the skill levels of players and in coaching strategies. No doubt, there will be less field goals but we will have to wait to see what happens when it comes to touchdowns and total points scored.
FG's down is an expected result because you have to get closer to the goal line to make one.
TD's going up many years later isn't related to moving the goal posts, it's got to be related to something else.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 03, 2025, 02:23:07 PMPlease present the data to back up that claim.
Finally, in 1974, the league pushed the goal posts back to the end line. The change was made mostly to encourage offenses to score touchdowns rather than field goals. The three-pointer had become an increasingly common occurrence by 1973. The move achieved the league's desired effect, field goals dropped from a total of 543 successful conversions off 861 attempts in 1973 to 335 field goals made on 553 attempts the following year.https://www.profootballhof.com/blogs/2018/10/blogs-stories-from-the-pro-football-hall-of-fame-archives-evolution-of-the-game-goal-posts/ (https://www.profootballhof.com/blogs/2018/10/blogs-stories-from-the-pro-football-hall-of-fame-archives-evolution-of-the-game-goal-posts/)
Looks like the CFL is only 50+ years behind in that regard.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 03, 2025, 03:27:48 PMLooks like the CFL is only 50+ years behind in that regard.
And you wonder why people are viewing this as "Americanization", when the comparison is doing whatever the NFL does, apparently.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 03, 2025, 03:25:19 PMFinally, in 1974, the league pushed the goal posts back to the end line. The change was made mostly to encourage offenses to score touchdowns rather than field goals. The three-pointer had become an increasingly common occurrence by 1973. The move achieved the league's desired effect, field goals dropped from a total of 543 successful conversions off 861 attempts in 1973 to 335 field goals made on 553 attempts the following year.
https://www.profootballhof.com/blogs/2018/10/blogs-stories-from-the-pro-football-hall-of-fame-archives-evolution-of-the-game-goal-posts/ (https://www.profootballhof.com/blogs/2018/10/blogs-stories-from-the-pro-football-hall-of-fame-archives-evolution-of-the-game-goal-posts/)
That looks like the same information I found here (https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/21/history-nfl-goal-posts#:~:text=In%201973%2C%20a,of%20the%20scoring.).
In 1973, FGs made up 23% of the scoring. In 1974, FGs made up 15% of the scoring.
I don't think I'd qualify a decrease of 8% over a tiny sample size of two seasons as being dramatic; in either instance, TDs made up the vast majority of scoring. I think there needs to be considerably more data in order to make a proper determination.
I'd also be hesitant to apply such a small dataset from another league from half a century ago. It begs the question if this change will be worthwhile, IMO. The CFL doesn't struggle with scoring as we see below:
(https://media.cfldb.ca/images/cfl-scoring-1958-2024.png)
From the 2027 season onward, we will no longer see missed FG returns, either. That's a unique entertainment aspect to the CFL that won't exist after next season.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 03, 2025, 03:05:31 PMFG's down is an expected result because you have to get closer to the goal line to make one.
TD's going up many years later isn't related to moving the goal posts, it's got to be related to something else.
That could very well be, simply moving the goalposts does not make touchdowns that much easier.
Again though, drawing conclusions from what happened the NFL 50 years ago and applying that to CFL 2027 is subject to other variables. I mentioned the evolution of the game. There is also the variable of the CFL moving the goalposts
and significantly changing the field dimensions.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 03, 2025, 03:25:19 PMFinally, in 1974, the league pushed the goal posts back to the end line. The change was made mostly to encourage offenses to score touchdowns rather than field goals. The three-pointer had become an increasingly common occurrence by 1973. The move achieved the league's desired effect, field goals dropped from a total of 543 successful conversions off 861 attempts in 1973 to 335 field goals made on 553 attempts the following year.
https://www.profootballhof.com/blogs/2018/10/blogs-stories-from-the-pro-football-hall-of-fame-archives-evolution-of-the-game-goal-posts/ (https://www.profootballhof.com/blogs/2018/10/blogs-stories-from-the-pro-football-hall-of-fame-archives-evolution-of-the-game-goal-posts/)
But aardvark has been telling us that the posts are being moved to 'clean up the game'. So confusing.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 03, 2025, 03:46:06 PMThat looks like the same information I found here (https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/06/21/history-nfl-goal-posts#:~:text=In%201973%2C%20a,of%20the%20scoring.).
In 1973, FGs made up 23% of the scoring. In 1974, FGs made up 15% of the scoring.
I don't think I'd qualify a decrease of 8% over a tiny sample size of two seasons as being dramatic; in either instance, TDs made up the vast majority of scoring. I think there needs to be considerably more data in order to make a proper determination.
I'd also be hesitant to apply such a small dataset from another league from half a century ago. It begs the question if this change will be worthwhile, IMO. The CFL doesn't struggle with scoring as we see below:
(https://media.cfldb.ca/images/cfl-scoring-1958-2024.png)
From the 2027 season onward, we will no longer see missed FG returns, either. That's a unique entertainment aspect to the CFL that won't exist after next season.
I think we could expect overall scoring to go down.
60 extra touchdowns translates to about 4.2 points per game.
How many fewer field goals? If it averages out to two fewer per game then there is a deficit in overall scoring.
So the big question is: will the game be more entertaining as stated by the commissioner?
At this point, no one can answer that question.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 03, 2025, 03:25:19 PMFinally, in 1974, the league pushed the goal posts back to the end line. The change was made mostly to encourage offenses to score touchdowns rather than field goals. The three-pointer had become an increasingly common occurrence by 1973. The move achieved the league's desired effect, field goals dropped from a total of 543 successful conversions off 861 attempts in 1973 to 335 field goals made on 553 attempts the following year.
https://www.profootballhof.com/blogs/2018/10/blogs-stories-from-the-pro-football-hall-of-fame-archives-evolution-of-the-game-goal-posts/ (https://www.profootballhof.com/blogs/2018/10/blogs-stories-from-the-pro-football-hall-of-fame-archives-evolution-of-the-game-goal-posts/)
In fairness, I'm not that opposed to moving the goalposts. I actually support the "rouge" change. I never understood why a team can win a game, if they miss a FG, or punt a ball through the back of the end zone, without the opposing team having a chance to run it out.
It's the elimination of the 55 yard line, reducing the field to 100 yards, and shrinking the length of the end zones that IMHO, will kill off the uniqueness of the CFL. It will become essentially an NFL clone, but far inferior in play. Fans and viewers will see it as such, and will turn out in droves.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 03, 2025, 03:46:06 PMFrom the 2027 season onward, we will no longer see missed FG returns, either. That's a unique entertainment aspect to the CFL that won't exist after next season.
Perhaps I was mistaken. I was under the assumption that teams would not get a rouge only if the ball sailed out of the back of the end zone, without the opponent having the chance to field the ball. If the ball is ruled "dead" after a missed FG, and the return is eliminated, the new rules are even worse than I had imagined.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 03, 2025, 06:53:59 PMI think we could expect overall scoring to go down.
60 extra touchdowns translates to about 4.2 points per game.
How many fewer field goals? If it averages out to two fewer per game then there is a deficit in overall scoring.
So the big question is: will the game be more entertaining as stated by the commissioner?
At this point, no one can answer that question.
It's not going to be as entertaining. That's fairly obvious to anyone who is a lifelong CFL fan. I'm beginning to think that the fans of the new rule changes, secretly hate the Canadian rules, and would implement the NFL rules, including adding a 4th down. Let's make this league as boring as possible. (sarcasm)
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 03, 2025, 06:53:59 PMI think we could expect overall scoring to go down.
60 extra touchdowns translates to about 4.2 points per game.
How many fewer field goals? If it averages out to two fewer per game then there is a deficit in overall scoring.
So the big question is: will the game be more entertaining as stated by the commissioner?
At this point, no one can answer that question.
Punting for the corner from within the 50 might become a common strategy, Aussie punters will hem teams deep repeatedly with less chance of a return due to the shorter distance the kicking team needs to cover. Note, offences tend to stutter a lot more when starting deep in their own end, the goal post move is more likely to favour the defence than the offence and over all scoring will fall.
Quote from: jets4life on December 03, 2025, 08:19:11 PMPerhaps I was mistaken. I was under the assumption that teams would not get a rouge only if the ball sailed out of the back of the end zone, without the opponent having the chance to field the ball. If the ball is ruled "dead" after a missed FG, and the return is eliminated, the new rules are even worse than I had imagined.
I should've been clearer with that comment. The relocation of the goalposts to the back of the endzone would all but eliminate missed FG returns save for FG attempts that end up short.
FG attempts that end up short are already pretty rare.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 03, 2025, 06:53:59 PMI think we could expect overall scoring to go down.
60 extra touchdowns translates to about 4.2 points per game.
How many fewer field goals? If it averages out to two fewer per game then there is a deficit in overall scoring.
So the big question is: will the game be more entertaining as stated by the commissioner?
At this point, no one can answer that question.
What we do know is that the missed field goal return will be virtually eliminated. One of, if not the, most exciting aspects of the CFL game. That's a lot of ground (no pun intended) to make up. The proposed changes are huge. If this all goes through, this will be the most significant period of time we have seen in the CFL in a long time, if not ever. However... I do not think it's make or break. I'm nervous about it for sure. But I would be lying if I said wasn't intrigued about seeing it play out.
Quote from: jets4life on November 27, 2025, 05:17:11 AMIf what you are saying was true, the AHL Moose would have sold out every game they played considering the price was a fraction of the Jets.
Believe it or not, the quality of the league matters a lot. How many people would go to games if the Jets left, and we replaced them with an ECHL team?
Not that the untrained observer can see the difference in the quality of play between the NHL and the ECHL let alone the AHL. I'm sure though that these observers would all still insist that they can tell the difference but that's only because they "know" the NHL is supposed to have the better players. I mean the GMs can't be that clueless, or can they?
???
Quote from: bomb squad on December 03, 2025, 08:48:05 PMWhat we do know is that the missed field goal return will be virtually eliminated. One of, if not the, most exciting aspects of the CFL game. That's a lot of ground (no pun intended) to make up. The proposed changes are huge. If this all goes through, this will be the most significant period of time we have seen in the CFL in a long time, if not ever. However... I do not think it's make or break. I'm nervous about it for sure. But I would be lying if I said wasn't intrigued about seeing it play out.
I do think the missed field goal return is an actual loss. I think overall the changes are going to be a net positive over time (especially if we can figure out a way out of the ratio as it is at present) but I do think if you zoomed in to look at that field goal returns specifically, they will be missed.
Quote from: Balticfox on December 03, 2025, 09:01:21 PMNot that the untrained observer can see the difference in the quality of play between the NHL and the ECHL let alone the AHL.
Most people could tell the difference. Even in the US sunbelt, most clubs average 98% capacity in 18,000 seat arenas. In the minor leagues, they are lucky to draw 5,000 people at s fraction of the price.
Believe it or not, the majority of people attending hockey games can tell the difference in quality of play. That's why Premier league games outdraw MLS in most places in North America in TV viewership.
You are underestimating the fans in general.
Quote from: Balticfox on December 03, 2025, 09:01:21 PMNot that the untrained observer can see the difference in the quality of play between the NHL and the ECHL let alone the AHL. I'm sure though that these observers would all still insist that they can tell the difference but that's only because they "know" the NHL is supposed to have the better players. I mean the GMs can't be that clueless, or can they?
???
Do you watch hockey? I don't even really understand the rules of the game and the difference between the AHL and NHL is very pronounced.
I don't understand how touchdowns will increase. If you're on the 40 yard line or even the 30 yard line, and it's 3rd and 10 ... now you would try a field goal. In 2027 you're not going to try a field goal or go for a touchdown. Scoring will decrease then.
Am I missing something ?
Quote from: wpg#1 on December 04, 2025, 01:41:35 PMI don't understand how touchdowns will increase. If you're on the 40 yard line or even the 30 yard line, and it's 3rd and 10 ... now you would try a field goal. In 2027 you're not going to try a field goal or go for a touchdown. Scoring will decrease then.
Am I missing something ?
What they are trying to do is force offenses and defenses to play more aggressively. A shorter field means overall, defenses will have less yards to prevent touchdowns. From the perspective of an entire season this means less two and three high shell coverages that stifle big, long passing plays because the clsoer to the end zone the less effective that type of defense is.
On offense, by shrinking the effective field goal range, you ensure they keep pushing the ball down the field for longer. Right now, 3 first downs (if you start on the 40 or so) gets you in long field goal range. Offensives (again from a entire season perspective) get more conservative as they get into field goal range because points on drive is a big thing from a coaching perspective.
This is why the league is talking about it in terms of "entertainment" value and is not promising a % increase in scoring (we could very well see more TDs, less field goals and a slight decline in overall scoring). To me, no brainer. It should work (again on the totality of a season, year over year).
One thing that has been true since the sport has been played. Defenses adjust. Once the dust settles I think all these changes will add nothing.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 04, 2025, 01:53:06 PMWhat they are trying to do is force offenses and defenses to play more aggressively. A shorter field means overall, defenses will have less yards to prevent touchdowns. From the perspective of an entire season this means less two and three high shell coverages that stifle big, long passing plays because the clsoer to the end zone the less effective that type of defense is.
On offense, by shrinking the effective field goal range, you ensure they keep pushing the ball down the field for longer. Right now, 3 first downs (if you start on the 40 or so) gets you in long field goal range. Offensives (again from a entire season perspective) get more conservative as they get into field goal range because points on drive is a big thing from a coaching perspective.
This is why the league is talking about it in terms of "entertainment" value and is not promising a % increase in scoring (we could very well see more TDs, less field goals and a slight decline in overall scoring). To me, no brainer. It should work (again on the totality of a season, year over year).
Well, 3rd and 10 is still 3rd and 10 regardless how short the field is. I see less field goals, and no better chance at scoring touchdowns. I don't see these changes as making the game more exciting. So I will be out if they go ahead.
It will be interesting to see if there will be any associated rule changes.
Will kickoff placement and points of scrimmage change to suit a shorter field? Possibly.
Any new rules regarding the above may impact the number of field goals as well. Technically, getting to field goal range is only five yards longer than it is now when a team is driving from its own end of the field.
Additionally, without the concern of a return on a missed field goal, will that increase attempts of longer field goals?
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 04, 2025, 06:06:18 PMTechnically, getting to field goal range is only five yards longer than it is now when a team is driving from its own end of the field.
Additionally, without the concern of a return on a missed field goal, will that increase attempts of longer field goals?
You're forgetting the goal posts at the back of the endzone. field goal range would change by 20 yards, since the endzones are changed to 20 yards and goalposts at the back of the endzone.
End zones will be 15 yards and the hold length adds 7. So it's the LOS +22 yards to calculate field goal length in the CFL in 2027 (the NFL is +17).
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 04, 2025, 06:45:54 PMEnd zones will be 15 yards and the hold length adds 7. So it's the LOS +22 yards to calculate field goal length in the CFL in 2027 (the NFL is +17).
Regardless what the endzone depth is, there's less chance you're going for a field goal because the goalpost is at the back of the endzone, and it in no way makes it easier to score a touchdown. So, no greater amounts of touchdowns, and less field goals means less scoring altogether. It's not like a shorter field, and shorter endzone will promote more scoring or make the game more exciting.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 04, 2025, 06:06:18 PMIt will be interesting to see if there will be any associated rule changes.
Will kickoff placement and points of scrimmage change to suit a shorter field? Possibly.
Any new rules regarding the above may impact the number of field goals as well. Technically, getting to field goal range is only five yards longer than it is now when a team is driving from its own end of the field.
Additionally, without the concern of a return on a missed field goal, will that increase attempts of longer field goals?
5 yards. Interesting. I believe that was the one of the reasons given for shortening the field. Ie;so that the difference in how far you needed to move the ball to get into field goal range wasn't so pronounced.
Quote from: wpg#1 on December 04, 2025, 06:36:26 PMYou're forgetting the goal posts at the back of the endzone. field goal range would change by 20 yards, since the endzones are changed to 20 yards and goalposts at the back of the endzone.
He didn't forget.
Quote from: wpg#1 on December 04, 2025, 06:36:26 PMYou're forgetting the goal posts at the back of the endzone. field goal range would change by 20 yards, since the endzones are changed to 20 yards and goalposts at the back of the endzone.
The new end zones will be 15 yards deep.
With a 100 yard field, a drive for a field goal, starting in a team's own side of the field will be 10 yards closer to the opponent's goaline.
So that team will need to drive the ball 10 yards less to kick a field goal that is 15 yards further away.
That equates to 5 more yards to move the ball to get into range.
If my calculation is wrong...someone please correct me!
Quote from: bomb squad on December 03, 2025, 08:48:05 PMWhat we do know is that the missed field goal return will be virtually eliminated. One of, if not the, most exciting aspects of the CFL game. That's a lot of ground (no pun intended) to make up. The proposed changes are huge. If this all goes through, this will be the most significant period of time we have seen in the CFL in a long time, if not ever. However... I do not think it's make or break. I'm nervous about it for sure. But I would be lying if I said wasn't intrigued about seeing it play out.
All the talk about "missed field goal returns" assumes that there will no longer be kick returns.
The whole kicking game has changed. No rouge, punting for the corner becomes more important, punting to stop before the goal line is going to be a thing. Both of these mean more returns. Exciting returns, just like missed FG's.
So, really, are we losing the return game?
Quote from: theaardvark on December 05, 2025, 12:29:56 AMAll the talk about "missed field goal returns" assumes that there will no longer be kick returns.
The whole kicking game has changed. No rouge, punting for the corner becomes more important, punting to stop before the goal line is going to be a thing. Both of these mean more returns. Exciting returns, just like missed FG's.
So, really, are we losing the return game?
No. But I don't know where your getting the idea that anybody thought we were losing the entire return game. It's missed field goal returns we're talking about. Those will essentially disappear. I don't agree that much will change with the punting game as you describe.
Quote from: theaardvark on December 05, 2025, 12:29:56 AMThe whole kicking game has changed. No rouge, punting for the corner becomes more important, punting to stop before the goal line is going to be a thing. Both of these mean more returns. Exciting returns, just like missed FG's.
Except there's going to be a lot more "short punts", and short punts where the teams are hemmed in on a small amount of field.
Teams will be punting from the opponent 40 all the time now (because it's a 62Y FG attempt!). Good teams will have a P that can coffin corner in the air: NO return at all! Teams with a bad P will likely be dropping most punts onto the field around the 5. The cover team from the 40 will be all over any return, and the every returner will be penned at the rail (no one will kick to the middle -- too short and high chance of it rolling into EZ). Again, NO returns.
Thus I think we'll actually get LESS "good" returns, more coffins, more overall punting vs FGs, and the "going for it more on 3rd & long/medium" will NOT materialize. The whole thing could backfire spectacularly.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 04, 2025, 01:53:06 PMOn offense, by shrinking the effective field goal range, you ensure they keep pushing the ball down the field for longer. Right now, 3 first downs (if you start on the 40 or so) gets you in long field goal range. Offensives (again from a entire season perspective) get more conservative as they get into field goal range because points on drive is a big thing from a coaching perspective.
Except MOS (and others) have repeatedly said (including MOS in EOY pressers) that CFL is entirely a game of "field position" (FP). I think PPD counts for almost nothing in MOS's eyes when he can gain the FP. If he's on the opponent's 35-50YL, he's going to Sheahan that sucker into the 5-10Y coffin in the air OOB and lock his opponents into the tough "QB in their EZ" situation and have specific D plays to try to 2 & out (or safety) them.
MOS won't just magically start going for it at the opponent 45 on 3rd & 5 just because he can't kick a FG! He'll play the FP long game. Most coaches not named Dickenson The Greater will likely do similarly. Teams starting on their 5 half the game will mean scoring will go DOWN -- unless 5 safeties a game becomes a thing!
Quote from: Tecno on December 05, 2025, 10:06:49 AMExcept MOS (and others) have repeatedly said (including MOS in EOY pressers) that CFL is entirely a game of "field position" (FP). I think PPD counts for almost nothing in MOS's eyes when he can gain the FP. If he's on the opponent's 35-50YL, he's going to Sheahan that sucker into the 5-10Y coffin in the air OOB and lock his opponents into the tough "QB in their EZ" situation and have specific D plays to try to 2 & out (or safety) them.
MOS won't just magically start going for it at the opponent 45 on 3rd & 5 just because he can't kick a FG! He'll play the FP long game. Most coaches not named Dickenson The Greater will likely do similarly. Teams starting on their 5 half the game will mean scoring will go DOWN -- unless 5 safeties a game becomes a thing!
Fact: O'Shea doesn't publicly state anything of importance to game day strategy let alone how he's going to handle rule changes two years from now.
If a shorter field means more scoring, then the NFL should be outscoring the CFL but...
The Canadian Football League (CFL) consistently averages more points per game than the National Football League (NFL). Recent seasons have reported average scores exceeding 50 points per game in the CFL, which is roughly equivalent to one additional touchdown compared to the NFL's typical average of around 42 points per game.
In the UFL, the ball is placed at the 25 if punted out of bounds between the goal line and the 25.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 05, 2025, 02:50:07 PMIf a shorter field means more scoring, then the NFL should be outscoring the CFL but...
The Canadian Football League (CFL) consistently averages more points per game than the National Football League (NFL). Recent seasons have reported average scores exceeding 50 points per game in the CFL, which is roughly equivalent to one additional touchdown compared to the NFL's typical average of around 42 points per game.
You can't compare different leagues/games using field size on it's own unless the other variables were the same, which they're not.
You can make a CFL vs CFL field size comparison (once we get the data) but you can't do it across games or sports. It stands to reason when you shrink a CFL field you'll get more touchdowns in CFL games compared to CFL games on a longer field.
But of course "field size" doesn't
determine scoring on its own. Obviously. A premier league field is 115 yards long but average goals is around 3.5 a game.
Correlation and causation.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 05, 2025, 04:38:56 PMYou can't compare different leagues/games using field size on it's own unless the other variables were the same, which they're not.
You can make a CFL vs CFL field size comparison (once we get the data) but you can't do it across games or sports. It stands to reason when you shrink a CFL field you'll get more touchdowns in CFL games compared to CFL games on a longer field.
But of course "field size" doesn't determine scoring on its own. Obviously. A premier league field is 115 yards long but average goals is around 3.5 a game.
Correlation and causation.
Football is football. TD's are TD's. FG's are FG's. The NFL and CFL are way more alike than they are different. They are the best comparison that we have & they already have smaller fields with the uprights at the back end.
It doesn't stand to reason the smaller field = more TD's. Nor does it stand to reason that less FG's = more TD's or even more aggressive offence.
Correlation isn't causation, but facts are facts.
Quote from: Tecno on December 05, 2025, 10:01:22 AMExcept there's going to be a lot more "short punts", and short punts where the teams are hemmed in on a small amount of field.
Teams will be punting from the opponent 40 all the time now (because it's a 62Y FG attempt!). Good teams will have a P that can coffin corner in the air: NO return at all! Teams with a bad P will likely be dropping most punts onto the field around the 5. The cover team from the 40 will be all over any return, and the every returner will be penned at the rail (no one will kick to the middle -- too short and high chance of it rolling into EZ). Again, NO returns.
Thus I think we'll actually get LESS "good" returns, more coffins, more overall punting vs FGs, and the "going for it more on 3rd & long/medium" will NOT materialize. The whole thing could backfire spectacularly.
Agree completely with this perspective, one change I would like to see implemented is a penalty for punting the ball out of bounds in the air no matter where. Forcing the punters to land the ball in play will create more return and turnover opportunities.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 05, 2025, 02:50:07 PMIf a shorter field means more scoring, then the NFL should be outscoring the CFL but...
The Canadian Football League (CFL) consistently averages more points per game than the National Football League (NFL). Recent seasons have reported average scores exceeding 50 points per game in the CFL, which is roughly equivalent to one additional touchdown compared to the NFL's typical average of around 42 points per game.
On paper, the higher scoring statistic is a good look for the CFL.
Does more scoring make the CFL more exciting though?
Both leagues score touchdowns at the same rate. The CFL sees more field goals.
So the difference in scoring would be more accurately stated as roughly three extra field goals rather than 'roughly equivalent to one additional touchdown'.
A field goal attempt is generally not the most exciting play in football, even though success generates points.
There have been enough CFL games that do become boring field goal fests.
If the CFL delivers on the extra 60 touchdowns per season, that should make it more exciting overall even if scoring does not increase or actually slightly decreases. We would then see more touchdowns per game than the NFL. Considering that the CFL has more passing touchdowns on average compared to the NFL, those extra touchdowns are generally going to be more entertaining than the touchdowns produced in the NFL. Potentially, that could make a great game even better.
I know I'm sounding like a broken record ... but I just don't understand how a smaller field is going to create more touchdowns. Once a team is inside the 50 yard line, even if there's a 55 yard line ... nothing changes. It's the same. So why bother.
The claim of more touchdowns is BS as far as I can tell.
Quote from: wpg#1 on December 05, 2025, 05:32:53 PMI know I'm sounding like a broken record ... but I just don't understand how a smaller field is going to create more touchdowns. Once a team is inside the 50 yard line, even if there's a 55 yard line ... nothing changes. It's the same. So why bother.
The claim of more touchdowns is BS as far as I can tell.
In most situations, to get inside the 50 a team will travel 10 yards less.
There could be a lot of other variables that will affect this, but if drives to the opposition's goal line become shorter there should be the odd extra touchdown.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 05, 2025, 04:46:43 PMFootball is football. TD's are TD's. FG's are FG's. The NFL and CFL are way more alike than they are different. They are the best comparison that we have & they already have smaller fields with the uprights at the back end.
It doesn't stand to reason the smaller field = more TD's. Nor does it stand to reason that less FG's = more TD's or even more aggressive offence.
Correlation isn't causation, but facts are facts.
TDs are TDs, facts are facts and Abra cadbra I've said smart things.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 05, 2025, 02:50:07 PMIf a shorter field means more scoring, then the NFL should be outscoring the CFL but...
The Canadian Football League (CFL) consistently averages more points per game than the National Football League (NFL). Recent seasons have reported average scores exceeding 50 points per game in the CFL, which is roughly equivalent to one additional touchdown compared to the NFL's typical average of around 42 points per game.
Check mate!
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 05, 2025, 01:22:02 PMFact: O'Shea doesn't publicly state anything of importance to game day strategy let alone how he's going to handle rule changes two years from now.
Well, he did actually state what I said he did in a recent presser. If you're too lazy to watch them all, I guess I can dig it up for you and find the citation and exact quote.
And if you're watched every MOS presser over the years, you'll know that he does drop some nuggets of his overall philosophy once in a while. And I don't believe they are misdirections. Maybe saying something like "field position is everything" (paraphrasing) is so obvious to the entire league that he feels it gives away nothing by stating it.
You do have to watch like 4-8 pressers before you get some insight into his actual brain, but I do believe that you actually get it. That's why I think I'm decent at predicting what MOS is going to do sometimes.
Quote from: jets4life on December 06, 2025, 02:06:40 AMCheck mate!
Soccer wants to increase scoring. They compare hockey and basketball and come to the conclusion that smaller nets mean more points. They recommend shrinking the net size. Nonsense.
Someone wants to argue that shorter fields mean less points are scored. They compare NFL to CFL and deduce longer fields score more TDs. They recommend playing on a 200 yard field. Nonsense.
These "arguments" are all hilarious and wrong. But since the pitchforks are out who cares, ya?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 06, 2025, 03:49:45 PMSoccer wants to increase scoring. They compare hockey and basketball and come to the conclusion that smaller nets mean more points. They recommend shrinking the net size. Nonsense.
Someone wants to argue that shorter fields mean less points are scored. They compare NFL to CFL and deduce longer fields score more TDs. They recommend playing on a 200 yard field. Nonsense.
These "arguments" are all hilarious and wrong. But since the pitchforks are out who cares, ya?
People have varying opinions on this and they are entitled to those opinions. You may disagree but that doesn't change anything and it certainly doesn't make you "right" and others "wrong".
Quote from: ModAdmin on December 06, 2025, 04:14:15 PMPeople have varying opinions on this and they are entitled to those opinions. You may disagree but that doesn't change anything and it certainly doesn't make you "right" and others "wrong".
If they are arguing faulty logic it does.
If they're comparing the NFL to the CFL and concluding that shorter fields equal less scoring then they're wrong on that point as I've outlined.
People who are wrong can be called wrong. Feel free to argue the logic the poster has presented as correct if you like. That's what a discussion is.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 06, 2025, 04:23:29 PMIf they are arguing faulty logic it does.
If they're comparing the NFL to the CFL and concluding that shorter fields equal less scoring then they're wrong on that point as I've outlined.
People who are wrong can be called wrong. Feel free to argue the logic the poster has presented as correct if you like. That's what a discussion is.
Except that not a single down has been played yet under the new CFL rules/arrangements.
Quote from: ModAdmin on December 06, 2025, 05:13:26 PMExcept that not a single down has been played yet under the new CFL rules/arrangements.
...So we should all reserve judgement until the changes come into play in 2027 and beyond?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 06, 2025, 06:05:54 PM...So we should all reserve judgement until the changes come into play in 2027 and beyond?
Yup....precisely my take (opinion). The people making these decisions, in all probability, know more than me. Personally I'm prepared to see the results and judge them later.
Quote from: ModAdmin on December 06, 2025, 06:14:08 PMYup....precisely my take (opinion). The people making these decisions, in all probability, know more than me. Personally I'm prepared to see the results and judge them later.
Agree completely... That's why they're making them.
Quote from: ModAdmin on December 06, 2025, 06:14:08 PMYup....precisely my take (opinion). The people making these decisions, in all probability, know more than me. Personally I'm prepared to see the results and judge them later.
I would have to disagree with the bolded statement. These changes reek of desperation, to the point of throwing something at a wall, and going with whatever sticks. The fact that a bunch of executives out of a Toronto board room concocted these changes, with zero consultation with U Sports football, or any other amateur Canadian league (high school, youth, etc,) who actually use and accept the 110 yard field, and long end zones, gives you an insight about how little they care about Canadian football.
They may as well come out and say they want to Americanise the CFL game. Pretending it is in some way, going to make our game "more exciting" is an insult to the intelligence of Canadian football fans.
Quote from: jets4life on December 06, 2025, 11:46:39 PMI would have to disagree with the bolded statement. These changes reek of desperation, to the point of throwing something at a wall, and going with whatever sticks. The fact that a bunch of executives out of a Toronto board room concocted these changes, with zero consultation with U Sports football, or any other amateur Canadian league (high school, youth, etc,) who actually use and accept the 110 yard field, and long end zones, gives you an insight about how little they care about Canadian football.
They may as well come out and say they want to Americanise the CFL game. Pretending it is in some way, going to make our game "more exciting" is an insult to the intelligence of Canadian football fans.
Why don't you just pretend they said they're going to Americanize it? Then your intelligence would only be pretend insulted and you might feel better?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 06, 2025, 03:49:45 PMThese "arguments" are all hilarious and wrong. But since the pitchforks are out who cares, ya?
So when the inevitable happens- scoring drops, the games become dull and boring, the changes fail to increase attendance, and alienated hardcore fans stop buying tickets, do you promise to admit you are wrong?
Quote from: jets4life on December 07, 2025, 12:25:15 AMSo when the inevitable happens- scoring drops, the games become dull and boring, the changes fail to increase attendance, and alienated hardcore fans stop buying tickets, do you promise to admit you are wrong?
See 2025 attendance in approximately half the cities the CFL operates in.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 06, 2025, 04:23:29 PMIf they're comparing the NFL to the CFL and concluding that shorter fields equal less scoring then they're wrong on that point as I've outlined.
https://3downnation.com/2023/01/10/nfl-finishes-regular-season-well-shy-of-cfl-in-scoring-passing-yards-per-game-in-2022/ (https://3downnation.com/2023/01/10/nfl-finishes-regular-season-well-shy-of-cfl-in-scoring-passing-yards-per-game-in-2022/)
The CFL averages more scoring than the NFL does, yet the NFL fields are much shorter.
QuotePeople who are wrong can be called wrong. Feel free to argue the logic the poster has presented as correct if you like. That's what a discussion is.
Perhaps you should look in the mirror, and tell the person in the reflection, that they are wrong. :)
I've already explained to you why the NFL example doesn't pass the logic test.
...And I know you are but what am I?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 07, 2025, 12:34:23 AMI've already explained to you why the NFL example doesn't pass the logic test.
You are somewhat hard to interpret. You also mentioned a few posts ago:
"Soccer wants to increase scoring. They compare hockey and basketball and come to the conclusion that smaller nets mean more points. They recommend shrinking the net size. Nonsense."I have no idea if you are being serious, sarcastic, or facetious...
If NFL doesn't pass the 'logic' test what does in your mind?
The NFL is the best comparison we have. The logic is simple... if a smaller field doesn't equal more points in the NFL, why would in the CFL?
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 07, 2025, 12:26:24 AMSee 2025 attendance in approximately half the cities the CFL operates in.
What about them? The CFL attendance has actually increased every year this decade.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 07, 2025, 12:51:52 AMIf NFL doesn't pass the 'logic' test what does in your mind?
The NFL is the best comparison we have. The logic is simple... if a smaller field doesn't equal more points in the NFL, why would in the CFL?
Sigh.
You've taken a single variable from the NFL and CFL, compared it and drawn conclusions from that.
NFL field shorter. CFL field longer.
CFL more points. NFL less points.
Therefore, the longer the field the more points should be scored?
Okay let's test it: a 200 yard field should result in double the scoring? Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to a five year old?
A shorter field means less points. What if the field was 20 yards? Then almost no one would score? Rubbish.
Your comparison doesn't work. You've isolated one difference between the leagues and put them on an x and y axis. Congratulations on failing basic statistics, rhetoric and reasoning all at once.
I genuinely can't believe I had to explain that to you all.
Rubbish! No one is suggesting 20 or a 200-yard field. We are specifically talking about changing to the same 100 yard field that the NFL is using. It's an apples to apples comparison.
One stated reason for the change is more scoring. IE: Shorter field = more TD's. It's a ridiculous idea, but if it was true, then the NFL with its shorter field should have more scoring, but it doesn't. Therefore, a shorter field doesn't equal more scoring.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 07, 2025, 01:33:44 AMRubbish! No one is suggesting 20 or a 200-yard field. We are specifically talking about changing to the same 100 yard field that the NFL is using. It's an apples to apples comparison.
One stated reason for the change is more scoring. IE: Shorter field = more TD's. It's a ridiculous idea, but if it was true, then the NFL with its shorter field should have more scoring, but it doesn't. Therefore, a shorter field doesn't equal more scoring.
A shorter field in the NFL would likely produce more NFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of NFL touchdowns of the current field.
A shorter field in the CFL would likely produce more CFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of CFL touchdowns of the current field.
The shorter you make the field the more dramatic the increase in scoring would be.
Are you really suggesting that isn't so? And if you are, is it no wonder that the commissioner doesn't seem to be listening to you?
This is beyond absurd, gentleman.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 07, 2025, 01:36:46 AMA shorter field in the NFL would likely produce more NFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of NFL touchdowns of the current field.
A shorter field in the CFL would likely produce more CFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of CFL touchdowns of the current field.
The shorter you make the field the more dramatic the increase in scoring would be.
Are you really suggesting that isn't so? And if you are, is it no wonder that the commissioner doesn't seem to be listening to you?
This is beyond absurd, gentleman.
You're just making stuff up and pretending it's the truth.
Yes I'm really saying that reducing the field size to 100 yards won't mean more TD's because there is zero evidence that it will. If you think it will, please provide your proof.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 02, 2025, 01:04:12 AMI think what pisses me off even more is not consulting with Football Canada, U Sport, or the hundreds of grassroots community football organizations that may have to alter their playing fields with out a cent of financial assistance outside of donations and fund raising. Imagine fund raising for years to create a playable field the community can take pride in, only to be told to re-arrange it based on the whim of one stupid MFer.
I was listening to a podcast several weeks ago (based in Edmonton) and they had a lengthy discussion about how the changes would affect football at the grassroots level. It sounded like a few of these people were quite involved in football at that level.
The part that stood out most was how moving the uprights to the back of the end zone would all but eliminate the field goal for the younger kids.
The group on the podcast said the convert is currently scrimmaged from the 10 yard line which makes the kick 17 yards. Kids at younger ages only have a range of 20-25 yards.
After the uprights are moved, it would be at minimum a 23 yard kick if the scrimmage was the 1 yard line. For this reason alone, the opinion they were taking back to these developmental leagues was to reject the field changes as proposed by the CFL.
Quote from: ModAdmin on December 06, 2025, 06:14:08 PMYup....precisely my take (opinion). The people making these decisions, in all probability, know more than me. Personally I'm prepared to see the results and judge them later.
That would be all well and good, except the 110Y->100Y change is a monumental shift and undertaking costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions.
Once this is done (and propagated to all levels), I'm pretty sure it can never be undone. As such it requires a bigger justification than what has been provided to us. A hope and a wish of "more scoring" = "more fans" is simply not enough.
I have an idea: CFL should run some PS games in the USA on a 100Y field, with the posts at the back. Run half down there. Half up here. Compare the results between 110 and 100. Even in the PS, you should be able to draw some conclusions.
I have another idea, Johnston can say he "hears the fans" and do all the changes in '26 and '27, but save the 100Y field for '28. See how the GP move and EZ changes affect things first -- and give more time for fans/pundits to debate the 100Y field.
There's also one overlooked argument: I like the 110 yard line. I think that's quintessential CFL. I actually don't care at all if scoring increases a bit with a shorter field. Woopdeedoo, 0.574 more TDs a game. Don't care.
Lost in all of this scoring talk is just what a lot of us prefer. And our preference is as important as some mythical scoring. The CFL propaganda machine has succeeded in eliminating our preferences as a point of merit ("you dinosaur!"). I'm bringing it back.
In addition to all of my other arguments, I just LIKE 110Y. Bite me, Johnston.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 07, 2025, 01:33:44 AMRubbish! No one is suggesting 20 or a 200-yard field. We are specifically talking about changing to the same 100 yard field that the NFL is using. It's an apples to apples comparison.
One stated reason for the change is more scoring. IE: Shorter field = more TD's. It's a ridiculous idea, but if it was true, then the NFL with its shorter field should have more scoring, but it doesn't. Therefore, a shorter field doesn't equal more scoring.
Did Johnston say there would be more points scored? I have not come across that statement anywhere. What are you basing this on?
I have only seen the promise of more touchdowns. Not only because of the shorter field but also because of clear passing lanes created by moving the goal posts.
We haven't heard whether the K/O will be from the current location. Ditto for FG's made etc.
Lots of comments about the field was shortened to allow standard field size to correct the end zone issue.
Quote from: Tecno on December 07, 2025, 07:16:44 AMThat would be all well and good, except the 110Y->100Y change is a monumental shift and undertaking costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions.
Once this is done (and propagated to all levels), I'm pretty sure it can never be undone. As such it requires a bigger justification than what has been provided to us. A hope and a wish of "more scoring" = "more fans" is simply not enough.
I have an idea: CFL should run some PS games in the USA on a 100Y field, with the posts at the back. Run half down there. Half up here. Compare the results between 110 and 100. Even in the PS, you should be able to draw some conclusions.
I have another idea, Johnston can say he "hears the fans" and do all the changes in '26 and '27, but save the 100Y field for '28. See how the GP move and EZ changes affect things first -- and give more time for fans/pundits to debate the 100Y field.
I don't see why the development leagues have to do it. And they probably won't, at least until they see how everything plays out. These are CFL rule changes, not Canadian Football. The only level that may have to is University, as some teams play their games on the same field as the CFL.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 07, 2025, 07:42:29 AMDid Johnston say there would be more points scored? I have not come across that statement anywhere. What are you basing this on?
I have only seen the promise of more touchdowns. Not only because of the shorter field but also because of clear passing lanes created by moving the goal posts.
Moving the goalposts in the NFL didn't create more TD's. That's a verifiable fact.
Moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone means you need to be 15 yards closer to get a FG. That's a fact too.
That leaves the shorter field as the only reason for a promise of more TD's.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 07, 2025, 03:11:35 PMMoving the goalposts in the NFL didn't create more TD's. That's a verifiable fact.
Moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone means you need to be 15 yards closer to get a FG. That's a fact too.
That leaves the shorter field as the only reason for a promise of more TD's.
The CFL has promised that offenses will start nearer to the opponents goal line.
It is a verifiable fact that shorter drives equal more touchdowns.
The NFL did not change the field size when the goal posts moved.
Did the NFL change any rules in 1974 that made drives shorter? I don't know. If they did not, then the comparison would be invalid.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 07, 2025, 03:41:13 AMYou're just making stuff up and pretending it's the truth.
Yes I'm really saying that reducing the field size (to 100 yards won't mean more TD's because there is zero evidence that it will. If you think it will, please provide your proof.
The proof is basic common sense. Allow me explain:
Next time you're on a football field (assuming you've ever been on one) start at the goal line and run to the other end of the field and "score" a touchdown. Note how hard that is. You could even write it down on scale of 1 to 10. If you want to make it more thrilling: invite a friend and have them line up about 7 yards away from you and have them try to stop you from scoring.
Then do the same at centre and note how hard that is. Note that it's about half as difficult, physically.
Then do the same on the 20 and note how hard that is. Following?
You'll find that the further you start from the end zone the harder it is to score.
(Without adding too much complexity here, this is also why a fundamental principle of football exists, punting, should you be curious.)
Now extrapolate your experience to the game of football and discover to your amazement, that the shorter the field, the easier it will be to score.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 07, 2025, 04:18:19 PMThe CFL has promised that offenses will start nearer to the opponents goal line.
It is a verifiable fact that shorter drives equal more touchdowns.
The NFL did not change the field size when the goal posts moved.
Did the NFL change any rules in 1974 that made drives shorter? I don't know. If they did not, then the comparison would be invalid.
The CFL hasn't made that promise. The claim is that shorter drives = more TD's, that doesn't make it a fact. Shorter field doesn't equal shorter drives anyway.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 07, 2025, 04:32:29 PMThe proof is basic common sense. Allow me explain:
Next time you're on a football field (assuming you've ever been on one) start at the goal line and run to the other end of the field and "score" a touchdown. Note how hard that is. You could even write it down on scale of 1 to 10. If you want to make it more thrilling: invite a friend and have them line up about 7 yards away from you and have them try to stop you from scoring.
Then do the same at centre and note how hard that is. Note that it's about half as difficult, physically.
Then do the same on the 20 and note how hard that is. Following?
You'll find that the further you start from the end zone the harder it is to score.
(Without adding too much complexity here, this is also why a fundamental principle of football exists, punting, should you be curious.)
Now extrapolate your experience to the game of football and discover to your amazement, that the shorter the field, the easier it will be to score.
You might have a point if we were talking about a 20,50 or 75 yard difference, but we're not.
You're assuming, wrongly, 5-10 closer to the opponents' goal line means extra TD's. What will actually happen is teams, who can't get FG's without being 15 yards closer, will strategically kick inside the 10. The 10 yards closer means 1 fewer first downs, but most of the time, they won't even get past centre (50). Note that the 10 yards in the middle of the field are 10 yards that kickers don't have to kick past so it's easier to push the opponents back that 'extra' 10 yards.
Quote from: Tecno on December 05, 2025, 10:01:22 AMExcept there's going to be a lot more "short punts", and short punts where the teams are hemmed in on a small amount of field.
Teams will be punting from the opponent 40 all the time now (because it's a 62Y FG attempt!). Good teams will have a P that can coffin corner in the air: NO return at all! Teams with a bad P will likely be dropping most punts onto the field around the 5. The cover team from the 40 will be all over any return, and the every returner will be penned at the rail (no one will kick to the middle -- too short and high chance of it rolling into EZ). Again, NO returns.
Thus I think we'll actually get LESS "good" returns, more coffins, more overall punting vs FGs, and the "going for it more on 3rd & long/medium" will NOT materialize. The whole thing could backfire spectacularly.
Most of the best returns happen when the returner takes the ball in the air and hits the cover team straight on, and busts through. Which will be more of the returns in the new game. As you say, "hemmed in".
I'm willing to give it the chance, and see what the changes make.
The other option is watching the NFL, which I have watched a few games lately in the background at poker, and its been pretty sad considering this is supposed to be the best of the best.
Quote from: Tecno on December 07, 2025, 07:16:44 AMThat would be all well and good, except the 110Y->100Y change is a monumental shift and undertaking costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions.
Once this is done (and propagated to all levels), I'm pretty sure it can never be undone. As such it requires a bigger justification than what has been provided to us. A hope and a wish of "more scoring" = "more fans" is simply not enough.
I have an idea: CFL should run some PS games in the USA on a 100Y field, with the posts at the back. Run half down there. Half up here. Compare the results between 110 and 100. Even in the PS, you should be able to draw some conclusions.
I have another idea, Johnston can say he "hears the fans" and do all the changes in '26 and '27, but save the 100Y field for '28. See how the GP move and EZ changes affect things first -- and give more time for fans/pundits to debate the 100Y field.
The goal posts move backwards 5 yards, and some paint. Because the new field is shorter than the old, no changes need t be made to turf. There's a hole to patch where the posts move from, that's it.
And some paint.
Hundreds of millions? What, is it solid gold paint?
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 08, 2025, 01:59:27 AMThe CFL hasn't made that promise. The claim is that shorter drives = more TD's, that doesn't make it a fact. Shorter field doesn't equal shorter drives anyway. You might have a point if we were talking about a 20,50 or 75 yard difference, but we're not.
You're assuming, wrongly, 5-10 closer to the opponents' goal line means extra TD's. What will actually happen is teams, who can't get FG's without being 15 yards closer, will strategically kick inside the 10. The 10 yards closer means 1 fewer first downs, but most of the time, they won't even get past centre (50). Note that the 10 yards in the middle of the field are 10 yards that kickers don't have to kick past so it's easier to push the opponents back that 'extra' 10 yards.
I predict a sizable upsurge in the number of punts per game, on stalled drives teams will be punting from the 40 attempting to box the returner in the coffin corner and with lots of practice they'll get very good at it.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 08, 2025, 01:59:27 AMThe CFL hasn't made that promise. The claim is that shorter drives = more TD's, that doesn't make it a fact. Shorter field doesn't equal shorter drives anyway. You might have a point if we were talking about a 20,50 or 75 yard difference, but we're not.
You're assuming, wrongly, 5-10 closer to the opponents' goal line means extra TD's. What will actually happen is teams, who can't get FG's without being 15 yards closer, will strategically kick inside the 10. The 10 yards closer means 1 fewer first downs, but most of the time, they won't even get past centre (50). Note that the 10 yards in the middle of the field are 10 yards that kickers don't have to kick past so it's easier to push the opponents back that 'extra' 10 yards.
https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/ (https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/)
Offences will start closer to the opponent's end zone
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 08, 2025, 03:04:42 AMI predict a sizable upsurge in the number of punts per game, on stalled drives teams will be punting from the 40 attempting to box the returner in the coffin corner and with lots of practice they'll get very good at it.
Or the rules might be changed to not allow. coffin corner kicks. Yet to be determined:
The CFL Rules Committee – composed of the Commissioner, CFL Head Coaches, the CFL Players' Association and CFL officials – will review and address the nuances of rules impacted by these changes in the upcoming off-season.https://www.cfl.ca/2025/09/22/tradition-meets-innovation-cfl-announces-major-changes-to-the-game/ (https://www.cfl.ca/2025/09/22/tradition-meets-innovation-cfl-announces-major-changes-to-the-game/)
https://theprovince.com/sports/soccer/mls/vancouver-whitecaps/hastings-racecourse-abandons-horse-racing-so-is-a-whitecaps-stadium-next (https://theprovince.com/sports/soccer/mls/vancouver-whitecaps/hastings-racecourse-abandons-horse-racing-so-is-a-whitecaps-stadium-next)
Would the province put up money? The city? Might the Lions be willing to partner on a stadium project? If public money did go toward the stadium, how would revenues be split?
No doubt, the Lions are equally unhappy with the limited revenue streams available at BC Place.
The new CFL field size makes a partnership far more likely, which is a good thing.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 08, 2025, 04:16:55 AMNo doubt, the Lions are equally unhappy with the limited revenue streams available at BC Place.
Why would the Lions not love BC Place? Assuming they aren't paying an arm & leg to use it (it is an old stadium, probably already paid for, with limited other uses), it's literally the perfect stadium: indoors, big enough even for GCs & playoffs, subway goes literally right to its doorstep, 100 hotels within 5 block's walk, freeways going right to it, and actually decent parking lot size!
An outdoor stadium for the Lions would suck bigly. You know how junky the weather is in BC in Sept/Oct?? For a football game I'd take -10C & sunny in WPG over +3C and rain in BC.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 08, 2025, 03:41:59 AMOr the rules might be changed to not allow. coffin corner kicks. Yet to be determined:
You're giving the CFL too much credit. This is second order thinking (or more) and Johnston hasn't even thought through the first order effects yet.
Nope, they'll have to wait until there are a zillion failures caused by these changes, and
then get all reactionary. It will take years to shake out.
This is why the "oh, the field is too wide for its length now, we'll just have to go 50Y wide too" slippery slope predictions sound more plausible than not. Take what's working, create a "problem", impose the solution (what you wanted all along).
Quote from: theaardvark on December 08, 2025, 02:16:35 AMThe goal posts move backwards 5 yards, and some paint. Because the new field is shorter than the old, no changes need t be made to turf. There's a hole to patch where the posts move from, that's it.
And some paint.
Hundreds of millions? What, is it solid gold paint?
Don't you read every post? This is like week-of-announcement knowledge. 2 teams have to re-turf their field (one of them who just replaced it) at a cost of $1.5M each. TOR & SSK. Because their existing turf has SEWN IN lines.
So not just some "paint and patches".
How many HS/U/JF fields have sewn in lines too? No idea, but it's probably non-zero. And even if it's just moving GPs, how many fields in Canada? 1000? 2000? $10k each an you're easily at tens of millions.
There have been people involved with these levels of the sport already sounding the alarm. They wouldn't be doing that if they didn't foresee costs they cannot afford.
Quote from: theaardvark on December 08, 2025, 02:12:37 AMMost of the best returns happen when the returner takes the ball in the air and hits the cover team straight on, and busts through. Which will be more of the returns in the new game. As you say, "hemmed in".
LOL. Literally never happens when a team punts to a corner from the team B side of the field. They can get that ball high enough that every cover guy is completely surrounding the returner's halo. Those are zero-return situations every time. Or it's just a coffin kick (even less of a return), or a rouge (mistake).
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 07, 2025, 04:18:19 PMThe CFL has promised that offenses will start nearer to the opponents goal line.
It is a verifiable fact that shorter drives equal more touchdowns.
It is a fact that starting closer to the opponent deadball line increases SCORING-per-drive. It stands to reason it increases TDs-per-drive as well, as a certain percentage of drives will end in TDs, not FGs. However, this isn't a given.
StatsJunkie regularly posts the X-per-drive stats and can probably answer this question definitively. We don't need to guess.
The problem is if they move the GPs at the same time we'll have 2 variables at play. Logically we will get a lot LESS FG's per drive, and possibly more TDs per drive, but also more punts per drive. Will this result in "more TDs" or even "more O"? That remains to be seen.
Excluding the GPs, this is exactly the change the CFL made when they had drives start at the 40, not the 35. Scoring did go up. Did TDs go up too? Or just FGs? And it stands to reason.
The CFL for at least 5 years has had a "more O" mantra. This is yet a more "more O" change. The problem this time is they are lashing out at fundamental CFL-isms to do it. Should have just started drives at the 45 and changed the FG rules to somehow incentivize "going for it" on 3rd.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 07, 2025, 01:03:03 PMWe haven't heard whether the K/O will be from the current location. Ditto for FG's made etc.
I would think the "40Y start" thing will revert back to what it was, and will match the NFL. Starting 10Y away from team B's side for "free" seems kind of lame. So back to the 35YL it will go -- assuming the losers in charge are even thinking this far ahead.
What's next? Starting at the C-YL 50YL because it'll produce "more O"? How much help do these sad-sack O's need?
I have a better idea: put a cap on what teams can spend on D's (say 2/5ths SMS), or force 3-4 NATs to start on every D. You'll instantly get more O, that's for sure. The problem now is you have top all-IMP DL beating the tar out of always-declining mostly-NAT OLs, and a bevvy of weak NAT RECs.
Quote from: Tecno on December 08, 2025, 10:08:20 AMoutdoor stadium for the Lions would suck bigly. You know how junky the weather is in BC in Sept/Oct?? For a football game I'd take -10C & sunny in WPG over +3C and rain in BC.
I remember Empire stadium. They had a lot of rain games there. One of the more famous Grey Cups had the biggest play of the game impacted by just that. 1971 and the Leon McQuay fumble. HC Leo Cahill later would say "When Leon slipped, I fell".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcxTlejEbXU
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 08, 2025, 03:33:39 AMhttps://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/ (https://forums.bluebombers.com/%5C"https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/%5C")
Offences will start closer to the opponent's end zone
That's a projection, not a promise.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 07, 2025, 07:42:29 AMDid Johnston say there would be more points scored?
I have only seen the promise of more touchdowns.
His claim of more TDs being scored would imply more points will be scored.
And remember: this is despite the fact his claim is unsupported and unverifiable at this point.
It's both an odd claim and a pretty stupid promise for him to make.
Quote from: theaardvark on December 08, 2025, 02:16:35 AMThe goal posts move backwards 5 yards
The goalposts have been at the goal line (0 yard line) for the entirety of the CFL's existence, and are now moving to the back of the new revised 15-yard endzone.
That's 15 yards backwards, not 5.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 08, 2025, 02:54:11 PMThat's a projection, not a promise.
It would be really strange if the field was shunk and teams started on average, further away from the end zone. Basic math and reasoning applies irrespective of whether or not you believe 2 + 2 = 4.
Quote from: Tecno on December 08, 2025, 10:28:50 AMI would think the "40Y start" thing will revert back to what it was, and will match the NFL. Starting 10Y away from team B's side for "free" seems kind of lame. So back to the 35YL it will go -- assuming the losers in charge are even thinking this far ahead.
What's next? Starting at the C-YL 50YL because it'll produce "more O"? How much help do these sad-sack O's need?
I have a better idea: put a cap on what teams can spend on D's (say 2/5ths SMS), or force 3-4 NATs to start on every D. You'll instantly get more O, that's for sure. The problem now is you have top all-IMP DL beating the tar out of always-declining mostly-NAT OLs, and a bevvy of weak NAT RECs.
I agree with you on the problem diagnoses but I don't think the best solve is to force salary cap by unit. Allow the best players to play regardless of where they are from. Fans win. Entertainment wins. Value for money (from an SMS perspective) wins. And the CFL takes another step forward from a credibility standpoint.
Will there be more changes to the game?
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, which includes representation from CFL coaches, the CFLPA, officials, and league office staff.
This statement, from the CFL FAQ page, indicates that many rule adjustments will be made prior to 2027.
It is in the league's control to enact rules that will see offenses starting nearer to the opponent's goal line. I think this statement is hinting at that happening.
Until the associated rules are presented, there is no big picture....so kind of pointless for fans to project what will happen with regards to scoring.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 08, 2025, 03:41:59 AMOr the rules might be changed to not allow. coffin corner kicks. Yet to be determined:
Maybe they'll force them to punt with their opposite foot?
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 08, 2025, 03:21:51 PMHis claim of more TDs being scored would imply more points will be scored.
And remember: this is despite the fact his claim is unsupported and unverifiable at this point.
It's both an odd claim and a pretty stupid promise for him to make.
The commissioner stated 'trading field goals for touchdowns' and 'to ensure scoring remains high'.
To me, based on those words, it implies that scoring would remain about the same.
For sure though, that is unverifiable at this stage.
Quote from: Tecno on December 08, 2025, 10:24:25 AMIt is a fact that starting closer to the opponent deadball line increases SCORING-per-drive. It stands to reason it increases TDs-per-drive as well, as a certain percentage of drives will end in TDs, not FGs. However, this isn't a given.
StatsJunkie regularly posts the X-per-drive stats and can probably answer this question definitively. We don't need to guess.
The problem is if they move the GPs at the same time we'll have 2 variables at play. Logically we will get a lot LESS FG's per drive, and possibly more TDs per drive, but also more punts per drive. Will this result in "more TDs" or even "more O"? That remains to be seen.
Excluding the GPs, this is exactly the change the CFL made when they had drives start at the 40, not the 35. Scoring did go up. Did TDs go up too? Or just FGs? And it stands to reason.
The CFL for at least 5 years has had a "more O" mantra. This is yet a more "more O" change. The problem this time is they are lashing out at fundamental CFL-isms to do it. Should have just started drives at the 45 and changed the FG rules to somehow incentivize "going for it" on 3rd.
"a lot LESS FG's per drive"
Don't know about "a lot". Remember, there's only 5 yds further to travel to fg range from a point the same distance from your own end. It's also likely long field goal attempts (45+) will be attempted at a higher rate because there is much less risk of a big return.
"but also more punts per drive"
Don't know about that either. See long fg attempts above. Also, there will be a sweet spot (40 yard line +/-) where a coach may consider gambling on 3rd down rather than punting. That situation will arise to a greater extent than it does currently.
We'll have to see how this plays out. It certainly won't be less exciting than it is now.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 08, 2025, 06:15:44 PMMaybe they'll force them to punt with their opposite foot?
Haha, shank away.
Personally, I hope the coffin corner possibility remains in play. It is a high skill play.
I don't think there will be more attempts of them with the new field.
The risk factor may go up. A missed coffin corner will probably give your opposition the ball 10 yards closer to the oppenent's goal line.
The reward factor may go down, getting the ball back after a two and out will not likely immediately be in field goal range.
In the NFL, the coffin corner is basically extinct in today's game. Not saying that a direct comparison between leagues is valid due to the fair catch and downed ball rules. Still, the coffin corner when executed is the best guarantee of pinning the opposition deep. It must be about risk vs reward, and it is better in that league to not try it. Even with the likelihood that most of their punters are more skilled than those in the CFL.
Quote from: bomb squad on December 08, 2025, 06:35:17 PMIt certainly won't be less exciting than it is now.
It won't be more exciting, either.
The excitement of CFL games in general hasn't been an issue. The entertainment value has always been there.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 08, 2025, 07:28:27 PMIt won't be more exciting, either.
The excitement of CFL games in general hasn't been an issue. The entertainment value has always been there.
For you. In Winnipeg. And I agree with you with by the way. I find the CFL super entertaining. However:
Toronto - 15,109
Ottawa - 18,136
Edmonton - 19,050 (lowest in 55 years)
Calgary - 22,295
Hamilton - 22,295
Montreal - 21,131
If you're going to talk about league wide, big picture business changes you need to rise above your personal experience or even the experience in Winnipeg.
Both are largely irrelevant in this context (mine and yours).
In baseball big changes are tested FIRST in the minor leagues so they know exactly what to expect and managers have some idea how to approach it. Pitch clock, bigger bases, shift rules, pickoff changes all are examples. What we have here in the CFL is a giant chemistry experiment. They are saying let's mix it up and see what happens.
Quote from: Waffler on December 08, 2025, 08:07:42 PMIn baseball big changes are tested FIRST in the minor leagues so they know exactly what to expect and managers have some idea how to approach it. Pitch clock, bigger bases, shift rules, pickoff changes all are examples. What we have here in the CFL is a giant chemistry experiment. They are saying let's mix it up and see what happens.
It only feels that way
to you because you were just told this information. The member clubs have been working on this for a long time and they're unlikely to be the last changes either.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 08, 2025, 08:06:26 PMFor you. In Winnipeg. And I agree with you with by the way. I find the CFL super entertaining. However:
Toronto - 15,109
Ottawa - 18,136
Edmonton - 19,050 (lowest in 55 years)
Calgary - 22,295
Hamilton - 22,295
Montreal - 21,131
If you're going to talk about league wide, big picture business changes you need to rise above your personal experience or even the experience in Winnipeg.
Both are largely irrelevant in this context (mine and yours).
Posting attendance figures doesn't prove anything as it relates to the overall excitement of CFL games.
Attendance issues are far more complex than that.
Also, FWIW: attendance was up this past season (https://3downnation.com/2025/10/26/cfl-attendance-up-less-than-one-percent-in-2025/).
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 08, 2025, 08:22:25 PMPosting attendance figures doesn't prove anything as it relates to the overall excitement of CFL games.
Attendance issues are far more complex than that.
Also, FWIW: attendance was up this past season (https://3downnation.com/2025/10/26/cfl-attendance-up-less-than-one-percent-in-2025/).
six of nine teams with pretty bad draws ? Edmonton had the lowest attendance in 55 years. Who cares. You don't write the cheques, right?
And brain-dead? I'll file that away with boot licker and class traitor and you better believe I'll be cheering on the changes in 2027 and beyond baby. Because whatever points you're failing to grasp are the ones the league is addressing whether you understand them or not.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 08, 2025, 03:35:59 PMIt would be really strange if the field was shunk and teams started on average, further away from the end zone. Basic math and reasoning applies irrespective of whether or not you believe 2 + 2 = 4.
Removing 10 yards in the middle of the field helps both the offence and the kicking team equally, making it net-zero in terms of field position. Example, a punt that would have come down on the 40, now comes down on the 30. Which is the same distance from the goal line as it always was.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 08, 2025, 09:29:27 PMRemoving 10 yards in the middle of the field helps both the offence and the kicking team equally, making it net-zero in terms of field position. Example, a punt that would have come down on the 40, now comes down on the 30. Which is the same distance from the goal line as it always was.
It does not.
Kicking team currently kicks the ball out at the 1. The offense is 109 yards from a TD.
2027: same kick out at the one. The offense is 99 yards from a TD.
You're so close to getting it. I can feel it!
The field has been reduced by 10 yards and goal posts moved to back of 15 yd end zone so field goals will be a net of 5 yds further. With very little return threat I think there will be more field goals as you don't have to cover them you either make it or if it's wide it's out of bounds. A 10 yds reducing on field dimensions won't impact TD production at all, it's a 5 yard pass, insignificant. But I think mos will have Costillo bombing the long field goals as he either makes them or it's a touch back, no need to have your cover team run 50 yards to cover a wide kick
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 08, 2025, 09:35:34 PMIt does not.
Kicking team currently kicks the ball out at the 1. The offense is 109 yards from a TD.
2027: same kick out at the one. The offense is 99 yards from a TD.
You're so close to getting it. I can feel it!
If that same kick came from the opposing team's 50, it would have gone out at 11 instead of the 1 because of the missing 10 yards.
You can't argue that the missing 10 yards is only an advantage to the offence, because that's clearly wrong.
Quote from: dd on December 08, 2025, 09:40:48 PMThe field has been reduced by 10 yards and goal posts moved to back of 15 yd end zone so field goals will be a net of 5 yds further. With very little return threat I think there will be more field goals as you don't have to cover them you either make it or if it's wide it's out of bounds. A 10 yds reducing on field dimensions won't impact TD production at all, it's a 5 yard pass, insignificant. But I think mos will have Costillo bombing the long field goals as he either makes them or it's a touch back, no need to have your cover team run 50 yards to cover a wide kick
Those 10 yards are taken from the middle of the field so any FG from inside the 50 are 15 yards longer. (The length of the end-zone) Note that's all the FG's because of the extra 15 yards would make a 50 yard FG 65 yards)
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 08, 2025, 09:44:40 PMThose 10 yards are taken from the middle of the field so any FG from inside the 50 are 15 yards longer. (The length of the end-zone) Note that's all the FG's because of the extra 15 yards would make a 50 yard FG 65 yards)
Correct. A 47 yard field goal is currently scrimmage yard 40.
In 2027 a 47 yard field goal is scrimmage yard 25.
This means field goal range starts about the 30.
If you're third down on the 35 yard line you effectively have the option to punt to net maybe 30 yards or go for it for a fresh set. You guys are the experts but I think you'll see more coaches go for it in that spot. Right now it's a FG decision almost every time.
I'm sure you've al thought that through carefully.
Quote from: dd on December 08, 2025, 09:40:48 PMThe field has been reduced by 10 yards and goal posts moved to back of 15 yd end zone so field goals will be a net of 5 yds further. With very little return threat I think there will be more field goals as you don't have to cover them you either make it or if it's wide it's out of bounds. A 10 yds reducing on field dimensions won't impact TD production at all, it's a 5 yard pass, insignificant. But I think mos will have Costillo bombing the long field goals as he either makes them or it's a touch back, no need to have your cover team run 50 yards to cover a wide kick
Missed FG's will still scrimmage on the 40 as long as they clear the endzone, why push a FG kicker well beyond his range when a punter can do a better job of hemming them within 10 yds. of their endzone? I would choose the second scenario every time, as it's usually pretty difficult to drive the ball the entire length of the field.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 08, 2025, 09:55:32 PMIf you're third down on the 35 yard line you effectively have the option to punt to net maybe 30 yards or go for it for a fresh set. You guys are the experts but I think you'll see more coaches go for it in that spot. Right now it's a FG decision almost every time.
But also consider that if you're on the team B 35 and you blow it on 3rd & medium, that team is only 15Y from midfield, and only 65Y from the other EZ. In other words, if you blow the gamble you're giving them pretty good starting field position.
Coffin or hem them at their 5 and they must drive the entire field.
I can see only ONE thing possibly increasing: many 3rd & mediums in "no mans land" will be a 5YL, GL or EZ shot -- in other words a deep low-percentage shot -- because an INT will be equal to a punt. However, once coaches coach every DB on batting down these shots instead of INTing them, it'll revert to being a failed gamble and you have that field position problem in my first paragraph again.
The CFL already has a no mans land area, and yet still only 1-2 coaches "go for it" regularly. Namely Dickenson The Greater. Why would the ultra-conservative other coaches suddenly be in The Gamblin' Mood? MOS will still take his deep FG shots -- 62Y will become the norm for Castillo. Teams with 43Y max FG range (read: Parades) and a strong Ozzie P will do a lot of coffin shots.
Maybe you'll have a few in-between coaches going for it more... maybe. But if they get burned by a lot of failures, they'll be forced to do more kicking, less gambling.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 08, 2025, 09:44:40 PMThose 10 yards are taken from the middle of the field so any FG from inside the 50 are 15 yards longer. (The length of the end-zone) Note that's all the FG's because of the extra 15 yards would make a 50 yard FG 65 yards)
What's confusing people on the "net yards for FGs with the GP move" math is there are 2 different ways to look at it, and some are conflating them:
1. The distance a team will need to gain to get in new FG range.
or
2. How far a FG attempt is from a given yard line (on the opponent's side).
For #1, the question remains where do teams start? If the 40YL still, then team A must gain 5Y more than before to reach the same FG range (10Y lost in the middle, but 15 farther out the back = 5 farther).
For #2, it's easy: every FG attempt is 15Y farther away (because the lost 10Y at center field has no bearing).
So when arguing the "how much longer is a FG attempt", please specify if you mean #1 or #2. As Einstein would say, it's all relative.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 08, 2025, 08:15:38 PMIt only feels that way to you because you were just told this information. The member clubs have been working on this for a long time and they're unlikely to be the last changes either.
It's already been reported here that Johnston came in and whipped up all these changes, not that BOG/owners brought him in with these changes already laid out saying "do this".
Someone is lying.
Quote from: bomb squad on December 08, 2025, 06:35:17 PMWe'll have to see how this plays out. It certainly won't be less exciting than it is now.
I appreciate your points. But I don't see how you can make this one statement. Yes, it seems possible, or even likely, that the changes will make things better or be a "no-op" (no change) in terms of excitement. However, there certainly is a
possibility it makes things worse.
Remember, all of these numbers and tweaks and situations were honed over 112 years of Grey Cup. There may be a ton of hidden gotchas once you start screwing with the fundamentals of the game.
"When you come across a fence, before you tear it down, ask yourself why it is there."
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 08, 2025, 08:06:26 PMFor you. In Winnipeg. And I agree with you with by the way. I find the CFL super entertaining. However:
Toronto - 15,109
Ottawa - 18,136
Edmonton - 19,050 (lowest in 55 years)
Calgary - 22,295
Hamilton - 22,295
Montreal - 21,131
If you're going to talk about league wide, big picture business changes you need to rise above your personal experience or even the experience in Winnipeg.
Both are largely irrelevant in this context (mine and yours).
CFL attendance has risen every season since 2021. There is no reason to suspect this will not continue, considering Edmonton, who have traditionally led the CFL in attendance for most of the past 40 years, are beginning to field a competitive team after nearly a decade of ineptitude.
Calgary will also likely see increase in attendance, especially with the talk of constructing a new stadium within the next decade. The league went through this during and after the disastrous American expansion of the 90s, which saw attendance increase from a low of 21,300 in 1997 to 29,000 by 2007.
Quote from: Tecno on December 08, 2025, 10:20:08 PMIt's already been reported here that Johnston came in and whipped up all these changes, not that BOG/owners brought him in with these changes already laid out saying "do this".
Someone is lying.
Spoiler: It's you.
Quote from: jets4life on December 08, 2025, 10:45:16 PMYou keep ignoring the fact that CFL attendance has risen every season since 2022. There is no reason to suspect this will not continue, considering Edmonton, who have traditionally led the CFL in attendance for most of the past 40 years, are beginning to field a competitive team after nearly a decade of ineptitude.
Calgary will also likely see increase in attendance, especially with the talk of constructing a new stadium within the next decade. The league went through this during and after the disastrous American expansion of the 90s, which saw attendance increase to 29,000 by the late 2000s.
The everything is okay argument is so silly.
It's okay for
you.
It's not okay with: the head of the CFL and the owners and CEO of every single CFL team.
If it was, they wouldn't be making changes. Surely that can be appreciated? Or are we that far lost?
Quote from: Tecno on December 08, 2025, 10:13:59 PMBut also consider that if you're on the team B 35 and you blow it on 3rd & medium, that team is only 15Y from midfield, and only 65Y from the other EZ. In other words, if you blow the gamble you're giving them pretty good starting field position.
Coffin or hem them at their 5 and they must drive the entire field.
I can see only ONE thing possibly increasing: many 3rd & mediums in "no mans land" will be a 5YL, GL or EZ shot -- in other words a deep low-percentage shot -- because an INT will be equal to a punt. However, once coaches coach every DB on batting down these shots instead of INTing them, it'll revert to being a failed gamble and you have that field position problem in my first paragraph again.
The CFL already has a no mans land area, and yet still only 1-2 coaches "go for it" regularly. Namely Dickenson The Greater. Why would the ultra-conservative other coaches suddenly be in The Gamblin' Mood? MOS will still take his deep FG shots -- 62Y will become the norm for Castillo. Teams with 43Y max FG range (read: Parades) and a strong Ozzie P will do a lot of coffin shots.
Maybe you'll have a few in-between coaches going for it more... maybe. But if they get burned by a lot of failures, they'll be forced to do more kicking, less gambling.
I'll have to take your word for it, after all you know what O'Shea is going to do in 2027 by listening to his press conferences with the media in 2025.
Quote from: Tecno on December 08, 2025, 10:23:20 PMI appreciate your points. But I don't see how you can make this one statement. Yes, it seems possible, or even likely, that the changes will make things better or be a "no-op" (no change) in terms of excitement. However, there certainly is a possibility it makes things worse.
Remember, all of these numbers and tweaks and situations were honed over 112 years of Grey Cup. There may be a ton of hidden gotchas once you start screwing with the fundamentals of the game.
"When you come across a fence, before you tear it down, ask yourself why it is there."
Fair enough. If it wasn't for the missed field goal return issue though, I think it's a certainty that it would add more excitement to the game. At this point, we just don't know how much the net gain or loss will be. Let me put it this way then. I think there's a greater potential or possibility of it being more exciting than less.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 08, 2025, 11:02:16 PMThe everything is okay argument is so silly.
It's okay for you.
It's not without precedent. CFL attendance hit an all time low in the aftermath of the American expansion. Ottawa moved and attendance dipped below 22,000.
The CFL recovered, and was nearly at 30,000 fans per game within a decade. The league ebbs and flows. The league needs to do a better job of selling the existing product, and eventually attendance will improve to what it was 20 years ago.
All this talk about if the new field format will increase scoring by 0.574 PPG or decrease scoring by 0.574 PPG and regardless, the best-case outcome is we increase attendance by 0.574 people per game. That's the "logic" discussion that ought to be had.
Quote from: Tecno on December 08, 2025, 10:20:08 PMIt's already been reported here that Johnston came in and whipped up all these changes, not that BOG/owners brought him in with these changes already laid out saying "do this".
Someone is lying.
There is also the theory that MLSE demanded these changes and the league bent to their demands.
Maybe this is the truth. And if it is, what of it?
If MLSE is not happy the Argos are probably dead and gone. The Argos could easily be the next Valour. Who could blame MLSE for dumping this franchise that almost no one in a huge city wants to watch?
Regardless of what the truth is, everyone should keep in mind the precarious state the league is in.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 09, 2025, 12:27:53 AMThere is also the theory that MLSE demanded these changes and the league bent to their demands.
Maybe this is the truth. And if it is, what of it?
If MLSE is not happy the Argos are probably dead and gone. The Argos could easily be the next Valour. Who could blame MLSE for dumping this franchise that almost no one in a huge city wants to watch?
Regardless of what the truth is, everyone should keep in mind the precarious state the league is in.
It's possible that the sports culture in Toronto has changed to the point that the people in the city no longer will support a league that they consider "second class."
The Argos are not alone. The city has tried the AHL and OHL either in the city or nearby suburbs (Mississauga, etc). If the team is not the Leafs, the people tend not to support it
Toronto has gone from a metro area of under 3 million people to an international city of over 7 million. My guess is that nothing other than the NFL will work there.
Quote from: Tecno on December 08, 2025, 10:13:59 PMBut also consider that if you're on the team B 35 and you blow it on 3rd & medium, that team is only 15Y from midfield, and only 65Y from the other EZ. In other words, if you blow the gamble you're giving them pretty good starting field position.
Coffin or hem them at their 5 and they must drive the entire field.
I can see only ONE thing possibly increasing: many 3rd & mediums in "no mans land" will be a 5YL, GL or EZ shot -- in other words a deep low-percentage shot -- because an INT will be equal to a punt. However, once coaches coach every DB on batting down these shots instead of INTing them, it'll revert to being a failed gamble and you have that field position problem in my first paragraph again.
The CFL already has a no mans land area, and yet still only 1-2 coaches "go for it" regularly. Namely Dickenson The Greater. Why would the ultra-conservative other coaches suddenly be in The Gamblin' Mood? MOS will still take his deep FG shots -- 62Y will become the norm for Castillo. Teams with 43Y max FG range (read: Parades) and a strong Ozzie P will do a lot of coffin shots.
Maybe you'll have a few in-between coaches going for it more... maybe. But if they get burned by a lot of failures, they'll be forced to do more kicking, less gambling.
That's just it. There really isn't a "no man's land area" now. Sure, maybe when you're close in, but that's not what we're talking about with NMLA. Where would it be then? 45 and in, it's field goal attempt. 45+? A full length punt and cover. If a coach wants to be bold and "go for it", that's his prerogative, but there is no place in the normal course of a game where a 3rd and mid gamble makes sense measured against a punt or a field goal. Unless your in desperation catch up mode.
There will be a "no man's land area" with new field
NFL Monday night chargers eagles
End of 3d quarter
Total scoring
One td
Five field goals
We need MORE field goals, not less!
Quote from: jets4life on December 09, 2025, 12:35:11 AMIt's possible that the sports culture in Toronto has changed to the point that the people in the city no longer will support a league that they consider "second class."
The Argos are not alone. The city has tried the AHL and OHL either in the city or nearby suburbs (Mississauga, etc). If the team is not the Leafs, the people tend not to support it
Toronto has gone from a metro area of under 3 million people to an international city of over 7 million. My guess is that nothing other than the NFL will work there.
You are probably right.
The one glimmer of hope might be seen in the city's support for TFC of the MLS.
If the Argos could somehow gain an equal amount of credibility and fan support, they might do ok.
That's a tall order though. The NFL casts a huge shadow compared to overseas soccer.
I want to think it could happen. The new rules won't move the needle, but this might be the first baby step in the attempt.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 09, 2025, 02:28:31 PMAt the end of the day, come 2027, I'll be happy with the changes and you'll be... what? Here? Sulking?
And what will you do if the 100Y change is cancelled? Will you take your ball and go home? A loooot can happen between now and TC2027. Johnston can be canned just as fast as he was brought in.
Nothing is set in stone. The push back is real.
Quote from: bomb squad on December 09, 2025, 12:37:05 AMThat's just it. There really isn't a "no man's land area" now. Sure, maybe when you're close in, but that's not what we're talking about with NMLA. Where would it be then? 45 and in, it's field goal attempt. 45+?
Dickenson T.G. has shown us where the NML is, and it exists because his K is not reliable from 45+. It's the 37-47 YL range. Some teams will go for it there. sometimes, especially if it's &short or &medium.
Yes, once the GPs are moved there will be a slightly bigger, and slightly more tempting NML. Yes, more teams will "go for it", sometimes. But it won't be this huge NML like NFL has where every team goes for it.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 09, 2025, 12:27:53 AMIf MLSE is not happy the Argos are probably dead and gone. The Argos could easily be the next Valour. Who could blame MLSE for dumping this franchise that almost no one in a huge city wants to watch?
Meh, let them go then. Pinball can have that legacy hanging around his neck.
We would reach way more cups if we were back in the E anyhow. The league has survived quite well with 8 teams for a lot of years.
Screw MLSE. Let them have their NFL team, or not. I don't care.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 08, 2025, 11:00:57 PMSpoiler: It's you.
Uh, I wasn't the one who posited either sides of this. I'm just pointing out your supposition is no better or truer than the other guy's -- until someone provides citations.
Quote from: Tecno on December 09, 2025, 02:47:21 PMThe league has survived quite well with 8 teams for a lot of years.
Agree, but I would seriously look at Quebec City to keep it 9 teams. Laval gets over 15,000 fans and that's just college ball.
Montreal and Quebec had a good rivalry going in the NHL. I am sure it would be a natural in the CFL too.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 09, 2025, 03:55:40 PMMLSE doesn't care about the Argonauts.
I suppose you could be right.
Why, though, would they choose to lose millions of dollars each year on something they don't care about?
Quote from: Tecno on December 09, 2025, 02:42:40 PMAnd what will you do if the 100Y change is cancelled? Will you take your ball and go home? A loooot can happen between now and TC2027. Johnston can be canned just as fast as he was brought in.
Nothing is set in stone. The push back is real.
Probably about a 1 in 1,000,000 chance, to be realistic.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 09, 2025, 04:09:34 PMI suppose you could be right.
Why, though, would they choose to lose millions of dollars each year on something they don't care about?
Probably because MLSE makes hundreds of millions from their other teams so the Argo losses don't hurt and may even be used as a write off. If nothing else they'll keep the Argos/football alive for future strategic purposes.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 09, 2025, 04:09:34 PMI suppose you could be right.
Why, though, would they choose to lose millions of dollars each year on something they don't care about?
MLSE's total equity exceeded $12B as of last year. I'd have to guess the financial losses of the Argonauts since MLSE acquired the franchise have been tolerable, and more than likely offset by the substantial financial gains of its other subsidiaries (Maple Leafs, Raptors, Toronto FC, etc.). From a business standpoint, that's not a sustainable approach.
The Argonauts seem like an afterthought in the GTA, and it doesn't seem like MLSE does much to promote the franchise. Hence my opinion that I don't think the powers that be within MLSE care much about them, if at all.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 09, 2025, 04:11:43 PMProbably about a 1 in 1,000,000 chance, to be realistic.
That's what
they want you to believe. Perception is everything. They want you to think you're in the minority, when "Save The 110 YL" people are clearly in the vast, nay overwhelming, majority.
Until the 2 new turf orders are placed (and even past that) anything can happen. The first people cancelling their STHs over the changes will hit this year. Then it snowballs before the '27 season. It all depends how big that group turns out to be.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 09, 2025, 05:10:28 PMMLSE's total equity exceeded $12B as of last year. I'd have to guess the financial losses of the Argonauts since MLSE acquired the franchise have been tolerable, and more than likely offset by the substantial financial gains of its other subsidiaries (Maple Leafs, Raptors, Toronto FC, etc.). From a business standpoint, that's not a sustainable approach.
The Argonauts seem like an afterthought in the GTA, and it doesn't seem like MLSE does much to promote the franchise. Hence my opinion that I don't think the powers that be within MLSE care much about them, if at all.
I don't think the Argos are even trying, probably half the population of the GTA can't afford $100 tickets to attend other sporting events. The Argos could capitalize on that market and do well by appealing to families with children by promoting reasonable pricing and fun alone. One thing I've noticed attending NHL games in the last few years, the fun aspect seems artificially generated.
Quote from: Tecno on December 09, 2025, 05:28:42 PMThat's what they want you to believe. Perception is everything. They want you to think you're in the minority, when "Save The 110 YL" people are clearly in the vast, nay overwhelming, majority.
Until the 2 new turf orders are placed (and even past that) anything can happen. The first people cancelling their STHs over the changes will hit this year. Then it snowballs before the '27 season. It all depends how big that group turns out to be.
The CFL has told me what they are changing.
I
believe that I have the choice to accept the changes or move on. That is it.
I agree, most fans do not like the reduction in field length.
However, I just do not sense there are enough that are willing to die on that hill.
The CFL is willing to lose the ones that are.
I just don't see any realistic situation where the league will not plow ahead with this.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 09, 2025, 08:51:20 PMThe CFL has told me what they are changing.
I believe that I have the choice to accept the changes or move on. That is it.
I agree, most fans do not like the reduction in field length.
However, I just do not sense there are enough that are willing to die on that hill.
The CFL is willing to lose the ones that are.
I just don't see any realistic situation where the league will not plow ahead with this.
I see where your coming from, but I'm more with Techno on this one. I think the CFL was expecting some backlash on this, but probably underestimated the magnitude of it. The noise alone won't get their attention and that's all they have to deal with right now. When season ticket renewals come up though, that will tell the real story. We're going to find out how serious people are.
There is a limit to how much financial backlash the teams will be willing to accept and absorb, and it could very well exceed that limit. This is definitely not a done deal.
I wonder if people are overestimating how much this will affect people's willingness to buy tickets to the game.
I bet a significant percentage of fans are unaware of the details of the changes, and will barely notice them when they are introduced.
The die-hards like us are angry right now. I hate the changes. But I know myself well enough to know I can rant for the next year, but when the weather warms up, and the season starts, I will be at PAS as usual.
Quote from: bomb squad on December 09, 2025, 09:30:18 PMI see where your coming from, but I'm more with Techno on this one. I think the CFL was expecting some backlash on this, but probably underestimated the magnitude of it. The noise alone won't get their attention and that's all they have to deal with right now. When season ticket renewals come up though, that will tell the real story. We're going to find out how serious people are.
There is a limit to how much financial backlash the teams will be willing to accept and absorb, and it could very well exceed that limit. This is definitely not a done deal.
The noise was mostly a backlash against Americanization.
As the dust clears, and more people see this for what it is, the noise is going away.
To add a bit more clarity to the situation, McGill announced this week that the turf at Molson Stadium is past it's lifespan and is dangerous.
To place a rectangular field in that stadium, the limit is basically at 130 yards in length.
The CFL said it wanted to standardize the fields, now the Alouettes have the option to do that at their current stadium.
The league has stadium limitations in each of it's three largest cities. The rule changes go a long way towards easing those problems while maintaining consistency at all other venues.
Eventually, it will be seen that this is not Americanization and people will be far less intent on cancelling their tickets.
Quote from: bomb squad on December 09, 2025, 09:30:18 PMI see where your coming from, but I'm more with Techno on this one. I think the CFL was expecting some backlash on this, but probably underestimated the magnitude of it. The noise alone won't get their attention and that's all they have to deal with right now. When season ticket renewals come up though, that will tell the real story. We're going to find out how serious people are.
There is a limit to how much financial backlash the teams will be willing to accept and absorb, and it could very well exceed that limit. This is definitely not a done deal.
If there is too much backlash, or a grassroots effort to force the CFL to abandon the changes (hundreds of cancellations from long time season ticket holders), the changes will probably be abandoned.
I just love how some people are siding with the oligarchs (MLSE,etc) that want to change the game to make it more like the NFL, and pretty much say "deal with it."
There is a reason many have called the NFL, the No Fun League. The level of play is obviously superior to the CFL, but the actual flow of the game is less exciting.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 10, 2025, 02:14:10 AMThe noise was mostly a backlash against Americanization.
As the dust clears, and more people see this for what it is,
A less exciting version of the current CFL?
There is going to be very minimal real-world impact. Here's why:
The angriest people about this are the 1% of the 1% and that group are very accurately represented on this forum, in this thread, and every one of them is still here. In this thread. In all the others talking about all the usual off season stuff.
If they don't leave no one will. And so, the "backlash" is simply hot air. Happens so much these days. Consumers freak out about some change or another and three months later you look at the quarter and consumer buying habits have hardly moved at all.
Quote from: bunker on December 09, 2025, 11:46:51 PMI wonder if people are overestimating how much this will affect people's willingness to buy tickets to the game.
I bet a significant percentage of fans are unaware of the details of the changes, and will barely notice them when they are introduced.
The die-hards like us are angry right now. I hate the changes. But I know myself well enough to know I can rant for the next year, but when the weather warms up, and the season starts, I will be at PAS as usual.
1000% yes. The number of people who buy tickets for a 110 field is probably statistically zero.
The average consumer will not care and to your point, probably won't even notice.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 10, 2025, 03:15:27 AMThere is going to be very minimal real-world impact. Here's why:
The angriest people about this are the 1% of the 1% and that group are very accurately represented on this forum, in this thread, and every one of them is still here. In this thread. In all the others talking about all the usual off season stuff.
If they don't leave no one will. And so, the "backlash" is simply hot air. Happens so much these days. Consumers freak out about some change or another and three months later you look at the quarter and consumer buying habits have hardly moved at all.
As it is, CFL fans are against the new changes by an approximate ratio of 3:1. It's even more pronounced when it comes to the most passionate CFL fans.
No idea where you come up with "angry" and "1%" but judging by posting history on this topic, you could be judged as the angriest poster, as it's off putting to be belittled and insulted, if some of us comment on our displeasure with the new changes to the game.
Quote from: jets4life on December 10, 2025, 04:05:54 AMAs it is, CFL fans are against the new changes by an approximate ratio of 3:1. It's even more pronounced when it comes to the most passionate CFL fans.
That poll result is only relevant if the CFL's actual intention is to Americanize the game. Right now, that is speculation, not a fact.
As a CFL fan, the 1 number in that ratio is alarming. 25% percent of CFL fans want to see the game become more like the NFL? Wow.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 10, 2025, 04:59:40 AMThat poll result is only relevant if the CFL's actual intention is to Americanize the game. Right now, that is speculation, not a fact.
As a CFL fan, the 1 number in that ratio is alarming. 25% percent of CFL fans want to see the game become more like the NFL? Wow.
Perhaps that is because the intention IS to Americanise the game. Only a buffoon would not notice that the changes are most likely made to make the Canadian game far more like the American game. That is an undeniable fact.
New poll shows more Canadians want CFL to differentiate itself from NFL, oppose shortening fieldlink: https://3downnation.com/2025/11/13/new-poll-shows-more-canadians-want-cfl-to-differentiate-itself-from-nfl-oppose-shortening-field/ (https://3downnation.com/2025/11/13/new-poll-shows-more-canadians-want-cfl-to-differentiate-itself-from-nfl-oppose-shortening-field/)
Even in that poll, 39% of people are against shortening the field and 28% are for it with a lot of people undecided or neutral.
The question is what percentage of the 39% change their buying habits because of it? Very few is my guess because literally everyone on this forum who is against it strongly doesn't appear to be leaving.
People say all kinds of things the Internet. It's buying actions that matter when it comes to revenue and profits.
In 2027, I'll be at the home opener. Where will you be?
Quote from: jets4life on December 10, 2025, 07:13:08 AMPerhaps that is because the intention IS to Americanise the game. Only a buffoon would not notice that the changes are most likely made to make the Canadian game far more like the American game. That is an undeniable fact.
New poll shows more Canadians want CFL to differentiate itself from NFL, oppose shortening field
link: https://3downnation.com/2025/11/13/new-poll-shows-more-canadians-want-cfl-to-differentiate-itself-from-nfl-oppose-shortening-field/ (https://3downnation.com/2025/11/13/new-poll-shows-more-canadians-want-cfl-to-differentiate-itself-from-nfl-oppose-shortening-field/)
Ad hominem? Keep the discussion non personal please.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 10, 2025, 02:14:10 AMAs the dust clears, and more people see this for what it is...
What is it? We've yet to get a reasonable answer more than two months since these useless changes were announced.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 10, 2025, 01:17:18 PMWhat is it? We've yet to get a reasonable answer more than two months since these useless changes were announced.
One of the stated reasons is to harmonize the field size.
In a fast and violent game like football, there is no denying it should be.
In Montréal, the rectangle available is 130 yards long.
How would you have reorganized the field ?
Before you start calculating, keep in mind, it also has to be less'american'.
The faq page is just a marketing ad for the new rules. It shows only one view of the rules, the one the CFL wants people to see. The only thinking on it is 'How can we sell this to fans?'.
Quote from: TBURGESS on December 10, 2025, 03:09:01 PMThe faq page is just a marketing ad for the new rules. It shows only one view of the rules, the one the CFL wants people to see. The only thinking on it is 'How can we sell this to fans?'.
100% correct. That is key to marketing.
The league could have trotted out the issues of viability, credibility, sustainability etc., etc. as reasons.
Why though? Among committed CFL fans, it is widely accepted that the league is facing major challenges.
Would the inclusion of these challenges have made it easier to sell to casual or future fans? What would the media do with it?
Quote from: dd on December 08, 2025, 09:40:48 PMThe field has been reduced by 10 yards and goal posts moved to back of 15 yd end zone so field goals will be a net of 5 yds further. With very little return threat I think there will be more field goals as you don't have to cover them you either make it or if it's wide it's out of bounds. A 10 yds reducing on field dimensions won't impact TD production at all, it's a 5 yard pass, insignificant. But I think mos will have Costillo bombing the long field goals as he either makes them or it's a touch back, no need to have your cover team run 50 yards to cover a wide kick
No, FG will still be 15 yards further. Sure, only 5 yards further from the other side of C, but 15 yards deeper, moving max Castillo FG range from the 55 to the 40.
A punt from your 40 needs to go 60 yards to get to the EZ instead of 70.
Coffin corner kicks become a thing outside the 40, much easier to pin than from the 55. And kicks into the EZ but not through (new rouge) from outside the 40 are easier, but will also look pretty much like a missed FG return yardage.
It will be interesting to see how ST coaches change their play calls on the new field.
Quote from: theaardvark on December 10, 2025, 05:22:42 PMNo, FG will still be 15 yards further. Sure, only 5 yards further from the other side of C, but 15 yards deeper, moving max Castillo FG range from the 55 to the 40.
A punt from your 40 needs to go 60 yards to get to the EZ instead of 70.
Coffin corner kicks become a thing outside the 40, much easier to pin than from the 55. And kicks into the EZ but not through (new rouge) from outside the 40 are easier, but will also look pretty much like a missed FG return yardage.
It will be interesting to see how ST coaches change their play calls on the new field.
Good points! And I think field goal range will be even shorter because of the holding distance. If you're on the 30, that's +15 for the endzone and +7 for the hold, making it a 52 yard field goal. Scrimmaging from the 40 is probably more like 62 yards which he can probably hit in the right conditions but I'm not sure we'd want to try it very often.
You know is going to like these rules is a punter like Sheahan. Have to say his shorter but more accurate leg could be perfect for the new field.
Quote from: blue_gold_84 on December 10, 2025, 04:50:54 PMQuote from: blue_gold_84 on December 10, 2025, 04:50:54 PMDo you have a source for that?
If it's a legitimate safety issue related to available space, I can understand the need to make it safer. Although, the CFL never mentioned that in the FAQ.
What I don't understand is that it hasn't seemed to be enough of a concern to bring about change/modification despite the fact the Alouettes have been playing in that venue since 1998.
The safety angle seems a bit questionable.
IMO, modifying one noncompliant venue to accommodate the CFL field (in either the current format or the updated reduced one) would make more sense than changing the field dimensions of the game itself and then modifying all nine venues to fit those new parameters.
I think the decision to reduce the field length to 100 yards does it make more "American," irrespective of the CFL's intent behind the decision.
Look up any image or map view. The endzones both taper in from 10-20 yards deep.
A tapered endzone is the only practical solution available at McGill to fit the current field.
If the Alouettes bought Molson stadium, they could get rid of the track. Buying it is not happening though, so a shorter field is the best trade-off.
Safety: receivers should not need to be aware of different end zones from one stadium to another. They can't focus on where they are going when watching a ball in the air. It is a 'feel' for where they are. A deep corner route in PAS is on the running track in Montreal.
The NHL is concerned about safety issues in the Olympics because the ice surface is slightly smaller.
A Blue Jays player suffered a head injury when crashing into the Green Monster.
It applies to all sports.
Harmonizing the size of the playing surface equals better safety.
Montreal and Toronto would need new stadiums to properly fit the current field dimensions.
It is far more realistic to modify the nine existing fields.
Sure, the field will look more American. However, if the present scenario dictates 130 yard fields, what else can be done?
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 10, 2025, 04:40:49 PM100% correct. That is key to marketing.
The league could have trotted out the issues of viability, credibility, sustainability etc., etc. as reasons.
Why though? Among committed CFL fans, it is widely accepted that the league is facing major challenges.
Poor marketing of the product. It does not help that the Toronto franchise has been driven into the ground by MLSE. 15 years ago the Argos were averaging nearly 30,000 fans/game.
If MLSE sold the team and got put of Canadian football, I have zero doubt that these horrible changes to the game would have never been implemented.
Not only that, it's been proven that community ownership is the way to go.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 10, 2025, 06:18:06 PMLook up any image or map view. The endzones both taper in from 10-20 yards deep.
I was just there. I was checking it out from the upper deck. I also checked the overhead images on the internet.
You could probably fit the whole field in just with the 15Y EZ change. And if not, it would just be a tiny little cut corner of 1-2 Y maybe on one end.
If "must fit Molson" is the biggest reason for shortening the field, and having "no cut corners" is non-negotiable, then they could set the EZ to 14Y. That would 100% fit Molson. Problem solved, with no need to lose the 55YL. And there's zero argument one could make for 15Y EZs being fine but not 14. Talk about an imperceptible difference.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 10, 2025, 06:18:06 PMMontreal and Toronto would need new stadiums to properly fit the current field dimensions.
It is far more realistic to modify the nine existing fields.
Uh, what? 8 teams have to change to accommodate the one misfit location? That sounds bass ackwards to me!
MTL should have to build a "real" stadium and solve their own freakin' problem. And MTL is probably the 2nd most archaic, outdated, and decrepit stadium -- after CGY. I was just there. It's falling apart, rust and chipped concrete everywhere. Tiny bathrooms. Everything too small and croweded. Almost all the seats (including mine at C field) are benches still.
And, strange how Molson was perfectly acceptable for CFL for like 50 years, but all of a sudden the cut corners are the end of the world? Pffft. It's just an excuse. There's no safety issue. In 10 years I've seen maybe 3 plays impacted by those corners, all of them guys being OOB when they'd be inbounds in any other field. It's as much as a non-issue as the "throws are hitting the goalposts" "problem".
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 10, 2025, 03:42:07 AMThe average consumer will not care and to your point, probably won't even notice.
Is insulting your fans' intelligence a good idea? One thing I've learned about CFL fans is they are almost universally very intelligent about their game. Yes, even fans wearing green, and other colors in their cities. I know, because I talk to everyone and I've been to the majority of stadiums now.
So many times I've chatted up someone thinking they probably don't know very much, but it turns out they are uber fans too, know all of their team and are very passionate.
The average walk-up and maybe 1st year STH may not notice the 110, but everyone else will. If you go to games and talk with people, you'd find the same.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 10, 2025, 03:15:27 AMThe angriest people about this are the 1% of the 1% and that group are very accurately represented on this forum, in this thread, and every one of them is still here. In this thread. In all the others talking about all the usual off season stuff.
I wouldn't say that at all. This forum seems to have people from all walks of life and political bents and personal philosophies. And there are people who go to every game, and ones that go to zero games. It's not homogeneous in any way.
As such I would not assume the peak-miffed are all here. Nor would I assume that the people not here are more peachy keen with the changes.
I've actually never accidentally come across a forum member (of any team) in all my years of going to games (in many cities). And yet I've come across a whack ton that don't like the changes. In fact, I haven't come across (in person) a single person who LIKES the changes. They either don't care, or hate it.
I've yet to personally meet someone who says "to heck with that 55YL, I hate that thing!". The ONLY people saying that are the 2-3 HERE on the forum.
Quote from: Tecno on December 11, 2025, 06:58:09 PMI was just there. I was checking it out from the upper deck. I also checked the overhead images on the internet.
You could probably fit the whole field in just with the 15Y EZ change. And if not, it would just be a tiny little cut corner of 1-2 Y maybe on one end.
If "must fit Molson" is the biggest reason for shortening the field, and having "no cut corners" is non-negotiable, then they could set the EZ to 14Y. That would 100% fit Molson. Problem solved, with no need to lose the 55YL. And there's zero argument one could make for 15Y EZs being fine but not 14. Talk about an imperceptible difference.
Uh, what? 8 teams have to change to accommodate the one misfit location? That sounds bass ackwards to me!
MTL should have to build a "real" stadium and solve their own freakin' problem. And MTL is probably the 2nd most archaic, outdated, and decrepit stadium -- after CGY. I was just there. It's falling apart, rust and chipped concrete everywhere. Tiny bathrooms. Everything too small and croweded. Almost all the seats (including mine at C field) are benches still.
And, strange how Molson was perfectly acceptable for CFL for like 50 years, but all of a sudden the cut corners are the end of the world? Pffft. It's just an excuse. There's no safety issue. In 10 years I've seen maybe 3 plays impacted by those corners, all of them guys being OOB when they'd be inbounds in any other field. It's as much as a non-issue as the "throws are hitting the goalposts" "problem".
IMO a more dangerous situation exists when there are paved segments on the outside edge of football fields and receivers and DB's land on hard pavement or slide across it out of control into a wall. Can't recall which stadiums have that set up but know there are a few of them.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 10, 2025, 02:14:10 AMThe noise was mostly a backlash against Americanization.
Maybe for some. Not for me. The "Americanization" is the fear for the future, but not the immediate hear and now issue.
I cry for the loss of the 55YL. If they had decided to make the field 90Y, I would have cried just the same -- which proves it's not just "Americanization".
Johnston can make a blood oath there are no American aspirations, and sacrifice his first born son in its name, and I wouldn't change my stance one bit.
Quote from: bunker on December 09, 2025, 11:46:51 PMThe die-hards like us are angry right now. I hate the changes. But I know myself well enough to know I can rant for the next year, but when the weather warms up, and the season starts, I will be at PAS as usual.
As will I. In fact, the 5%ish that have said they are quitting come '27 is a bit surprising to me. But I can totally understand it, and can relate to it. I even respect it.
Quote from: bomb squad on December 09, 2025, 09:30:18 PMI see where your coming from, but I'm more with Techno on this one. I think the CFL was expecting some backlash on this, but probably underestimated the magnitude of it. The noise alone won't get their attention and that's all they have to deal with right now.
100%. They probably thought they'd get like 25% of uberfans a
bit miffed, not 75% a
lot miffed. I bet they also didn't expect
any STH losses. They didn't realize it's 2025 and you can't just roll out the same tired propaganda techniques that used to work 5-10 years ago -- a vast swath of humanity has wised up.
However, I think the noise is impacting them more than you think. The neverending booing of Johnston at the GC and the look on his face sent a big message to the BOG. WM, too, was probably keeping a close eye on it from his box.
We will start seeing the skakedown effect in about 11 months.
In Montreal: either put new turf in Mcgill or look at the possibility of the Als moving into Saputo.
Toronto: BMO will make its final reconfiguration to better suit the CFL field for 2027.
Vancouver: The Lions will have decided if they are in on the new Whitecaps stadium.
Beyond what happens in 2026-2027: There will never be a new stadium built that fits the current CFL field in any of these three cities.
If there is no future, there will be no league. The field size must change.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 11, 2025, 08:39:40 PMWe will start seeing the skakedown effect in about 11 months.
In Montreal: either put new turf in Mcgill or look at the possibility of the Als moving into Saputo.
Toronto: BMO will make its final reconfiguration to better suit the CFL field for 2027.
Vancouver: The Lions will have decided if they are in on the new Whitecaps stadium.
Beyond what happens in 2026-2027: There will never be a new stadium built that fits the current CFL field in any of these three cities.
If there is no future, there will be no league. The field size must change.
I can't see the Whitecaps actually getting the new field. Cost will be too high IMO and I don't see the city or Province willing to carry the load.
Why would the Lions want to move when the Whitecaps WANT their own field etc etc. A fortune has been spent to renovate PCP previously and now for FIFA. Being where the stadium is now generates TONS of money in that area for hotel and restaurants.
https://www.biv.com/news/commentary/kirk-lapointe-a-new-stadium-era-is-knocking-on-vancouvers-door-11611675 (https://www.biv.com/news/commentary/kirk-lapointe-a-new-stadium-era-is-knocking-on-vancouvers-door-11611675)
One perspective on the Lions' situation.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 12, 2025, 03:35:32 PMOne perspective on the Lions' situation.
Who owns BC Place? Why on earth would they want to give up Lions a reliable and constant revenue source? There is literally no reason for the CFL to move out of BC Place.
I think your soccer takes are off base. No one is adapting the CFL to fit soccer. If anything it's the other way around. I bet every soccer league in Canada combined doesn't bring in as much revenue as the CFL. Heck, probably not as much as just the WFC+Riders.
If Johnston is making moves & plans around soccer, then he's even more lost than I originally thought.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 11, 2025, 08:39:40 PMBeyond what happens in 2026-2027: There will never be a new stadium built that fits the current CFL field in any of these three cities.
If there is no future, there will be no league. The field size must change.
This doesn't even make any sense. There will be new stadiums built in cities that need them (like CGY and maybe MTL? -- BC is not one of them), though it may take 1 to 2 decades for the teams & cities to get off their duffs.
Making a statement about a city "never" getting a new stadium, even 15 years out, is ridiculous. A lot can happen in that time frame.
An extra 10Y on the field literally has nothing to do with any of the above.
BC Place is owned by the Province.
The last report I saw indicates that it loses about 10 million each year in operating costs.
I don't want to speculate on what the land is worth that it sits on. It is huge though.
Will it be worth keeping it open when the only major tenant is the Lions football team?
It would be very difficult to find numbers to compare revenue between teams. Value is much easier: the latest MLS expansion fee was $500 million. Three teams in Canada = 1.5 billion plus whatever else is considered an asset.
There have been rumblings in Edmonton about an MLS team.
Long term, I just can't see two new stadiums.
Commonwealth is not a long term solution for the Elks.
MLSE may have forced the league's hand on this.
It is easy to see how much easier and economically favourable it will be to fit the new CFL field into their soccer stadium.
This is pure speculation, still it makes sense.
The CFL field is being reduced by 20 yards, not 10.
That makes sharing a stadium viable...so why not do it?
Current CFL owners probably won't hang in there for decades waiting for new stadiums with a 150 yard field to magically appear. The league needs some vsion of a viable future now.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 12, 2025, 07:49:10 PMThe CFL field is being reduced by 20 yards, not 10.
That makes sharing a stadium viable...so why not do it?
Current CFL owners probably won't hang in there for decades waiting for new stadiums with a 150 yard field to magically appear. The league needs some vsion of a viable future now.
If this has anything at all to do with the New Rules, then why not just come out and say it? On this point there wouldn't be any screams of the dreaded "Americanization", so why not just tell the truth then?
That's half the problem with the changes: we all suspect there are ulterior motives and yet we're told nothing. If we assume benign/beneficial motives (like fitting in soccer stadiums) then why not just come out and admit it? Wouldn't people be more understanding? Heck, I would.
The fact they don't is the hint that either the hidden motives are in fact not benign, or there's really no thought process going on behind the scenes at all!
Quote from: Tecno on December 12, 2025, 09:00:36 PMIf this has anything at all to do with the New Rules, then why not just come out and say it? On this point there wouldn't be any screams of the dreaded "Americanization", so why not just tell the truth then?
That's half the problem with the changes: we all suspect there are ulterior motives and yet we're told nothing. If we assume benign/beneficial motives (like fitting in soccer stadiums) then why not just come out and admit it? Wouldn't people be more understanding? Heck, I would.
The fact they don't is the hint that either the hidden motives are in fact not benign, or there's really no thought process going on behind the scenes at all!
My speculation is that there are people who have been told what those "additional benefits" are. Even if they're only possibilities. Otherwise, they may not have bought the idea, I don't think. They are not talking either. I think it's because they are only possibilities and therefore risky to say publicly.
Quote from: Tecno on December 12, 2025, 09:00:36 PMIf this has anything at all to do with the New Rules, then why not just come out and say it? On this point there wouldn't be any screams of the dreaded "Americanization", so why not just tell the truth then?
That's half the problem with the changes: we all suspect there are ulterior motives and yet we're told nothing. If we assume benign/beneficial motives (like fitting in soccer stadiums) then why not just come out and admit it? Wouldn't people be more understanding? Heck, I would.
The fact they don't is the hint that either the hidden motives are in fact not benign, or there's really no thought process going on behind the scenes at all!
The CFL stated that this was a move to harmonize the field. Sounds nice.
Beyond that, it is up to us as fans to interpret the motives.
In the context of my theory, the truth does not sound so inspiring: We need to fit on smaller fields because we will probably not get a new CFL field anytime soon, if ever. Not exactly a positive marketing message.
I also believe that if fans in Canada do not start supporting the league in the next 5 years or so, there will probably be American expansion. Given the current circumstances, it is smart of the owners to prepare for that scenario. I don't think it is what they want to do, but they know they might need to. This is probably the ulterior motive that comes to mind for most of us. As much as I hate it...I get it.
It is interesting, this is what Peladeau said 15 months before the rule changes were announced:
"We'll find out what we can do. It's gonna be a tough possibility to consider building a stadium only for a football team," Péladeau said. "I think at the end of the day, we need to consider how can we do things that will put professional teams together in Montreal to represent this city and this province as good as possible."This message seems benign...but the reality is that the CFL field and soccer fields are not compatible so where does the priority go? At this time, in the big centers, it goes to Soccer.
The timing of Peladeau's statement, leads me to believe that this process started well before Johnson became the new commissioner. MLSE, Doman and perhaps others were probably on this train as well,....but we will never really know.
USA expansion with the ratio is impossible, and anyone thinking that's the future should be b slapped. I watched the X-era games TSN re-ran a few years back and the whole situation was a joke. Didn't the GC go to the "ratio free" teams all but one of the years? You want to lose all your Canadian CFL fans, that's how you do it.
And as for "we must fit in a soccer stadium if we are to ever see a new CFL stadium again", since CFL is the bigger field, why is this even a thing? You can build for current CFL size and plunk a soccer field inside with a re-paint. WFC has been doing this for years... Are you saying there's really some soccer team/fans out there that insists any new stadium can't have that extra few yards to fit a current CFL field?
The only way your soccer theory makes sense is if you're talking only EXISTING soccer stadiums. Outside of a couple of smaller cities, I don't see a ton of great soccer stadiums just waiting for the CFL to use them...
Plus, you still haven't addressed how all the revenue/money currently sits in the CFL, not in any major/minor league soccer in Canada. Maybe soccer is growing, or maybe it's big in the 2 big metro areas, but that doesn't make it bigger than the CFL currently is. Why would the CFL care what these "small fry" teams/venues are doing?
Your love of soccer is clouding your judgement a bit. I don't know a single person in Canada who gives a rat's butt about soccer. Most don't give a rat's butt about the CFL either, but at least I know 10 or so who watch the Bombers on TV. I feel fairly confident in saying I doubt the commish & BOG are planning everything around soccer.
Quote from: Tecno on December 13, 2025, 05:53:44 PMUSA expansion with the ratio is impossible, and anyone thinking that's the future should be b slapped. I watched the X-era games TSN re-ran a few years back and the whole situation was a joke. Didn't the GC go to the "ratio free" teams all but one of the years? You want to lose all your Canadian CFL fans, that's how you do it.
And as for "we must fit in a soccer stadium if we are to ever see a new CFL stadium again", since CFL is the bigger field, why is this even a thing? You can build for current CFL size and plunk a soccer field inside with a re-paint. WFC has been doing this for years... Are you saying there's really some soccer team/fans out there that insists any new stadium can't have that extra few yards to fit a current CFL field?
The only way your soccer theory makes sense is if you're talking only EXISTING soccer stadiums. Outside of a couple of smaller cities, I don't see a ton of great soccer stadiums just waiting for the CFL to use them...
Plus, you still haven't addressed how all the revenue/money currently sits in the CFL, not in any major/minor league soccer in Canada. Maybe soccer is growing, or maybe it's big in the 2 big metro areas, but that doesn't make it bigger than the CFL currently is. Why would the CFL care what these "small fry" teams/venues are doing?
Your love of soccer is clouding your judgement a bit. I don't know a single person in Canada who gives a rat's butt about soccer. Most don't give a rat's butt about the CFL either, but at least I know 10 or so who watch the Bombers on TV. I feel fairly confident in saying I doubt the commish & BOG are planning everything around soccer.
If expansion happens, I absolutely believe it will not be anything like the first attempt.
Every soccer team and it's fans demand prime end zone seats, right near the goal line.
If there will be a new stadium in Vancouver, it will be built by the whitecaps. The lions will not be invited to the table if the field they play on is more than 130 yards long.
The whitecaps drew over 50000 for their last game. The Lions drew half of that. Average ticket price was much higher for the whitecaps game. That is one reason why the whitecaps could swing a new stadium and the lions might be a minority partner.
I love the cfl. I can enjoy a soccer game once in awhile but it is not my go to.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 14, 2025, 06:25:29 AMIf expansion happens it will not be anything like the first attempt.
Every soccer team and it's fans wants prime end zone seats, right near the goal line.
The whitecaps drew over 50000 for their last game. The Lions drew half of that. Average ticket price was much higher for the whitecaps game.
I love the cfl. I can enjoy a soccer game once in awhile but it is not my go to.
I maintain the CFL is the only professional sport - or maybe any sport - that brings Canadians together, regardless of which team you are pulling for. Just be at a Grey Cup game to witness how fans and observers come together in a way no other sport does. It really is unique.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 14, 2025, 06:25:29 AMIf expansion happens, I absolutely believe it will not be anything like the first attempt.
Every soccer team and it's fans demand prime end zone seats, right near the goal line.
If there will be a new stadium in Vancouver, it will be built by the whitecaps. The lions will not be invited to the table if the field they play on is more than 130 yards long.
The whitecaps drew over 50000 for their last game. The Lions drew half of that. Average ticket price was much higher for the whitecaps game. That is one reason why the whitecaps could swing a new stadium and the lions might be a minority partner.
I love the cfl. I can enjoy a soccer game once in awhile but it is not my go to.
You literally cherry picked one game attendance in the MLS semi-finals to make your point, Whitecaps average attendance was sometimes above 20,000 more times below, while the Lions average game attendance was published at 27,124.
Soccer is lauded as "the game of the future" in Canada, here's the AI overview.
Soccer is widely considered the "game of the future" in Canada because it is the country's most popular participatory sport, especially among youth, and is experiencing significant growth fueled by the upcoming 2026 FIFA World Cup and the success of its national teams and professional leagues.
Key Drivers of Soccer's Rise in Canada
Highest Participation Rates: Soccer has more registered players than any other sport in the country, including ice hockey. Studies consistently show it is the most popular team sport for Canadian children and youth.
Accessibility and Diversity: Soccer's appeal stems from its accessibility and low equipment costs, making it a popular choice for immigrant families and lower-income communities, which contributes to a diverse and growing player base across the nation.All of the above maybe true but here is my experience, I spent over a decade on the sidelines watching my kids play soccer, often travelling every Sunday in the spring to play league games in nearby communities as did every other parent.
In all that time I never became more than a casual soccer fan and neither did most of the other parents, of course we attended the games and cheered on our team and had fun doing so but that's as far as it went, no passion spawned. Coach tried to organize international soccer viewing parties with little enthusiasm and poor results from both parents and kids. Turns out most of the kids didn't become big soccer fans either, as the participation drop off started around age 14 and worsened every year due to other priorities and interests. They simply ate up the experience because we plopped it on their plate, just as they would any other fun experience.
Soccer is a great game, but to say it's Canada's future #1 sport is misleading, as participation is largely driven by it's affordability, easy access and relentless soccer moms who are more focused on the presentation of the snacks than the score of the game.
Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on December 14, 2025, 06:54:33 PMYou literally cherry picked one game attendance in the MLS semi-finals to make your point, Whitecaps average attendance was sometimes above 20,000 more times below, while the Lions average game attendance was published at 27,124.
True.
My point is more about revenue potential.
It does not look like the Lions will ever see a crowd of that size, with that level of ticket pricing, anytime soon.
MLS teams in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver report revenue of $70M, $45M and $40M in $US. All three teams lost money.
The Blue Bombers reports nearly $55M CDN in revenue in 2024. The Bombers made money.
Value is another story. At a minimum, an MLS team is worth $0.5B if it was sold and relocated.
Numerous teams in the league are worth over $1.0B and making money.
Within this financial environment, there is a path to a new soccer specific stadium in Vancouver that will be financed by the Whitecaps and partners.
For the CFL to survive and thrive, it will need franchises in the three largest cities.
The money for any future stadiums or stadium renovations in those cities will come from soccer.
bomber beetle has just overtaken the title as the forum's official tin foil hatter. Congratulations and sorry Tecno.
Quote from: blue_or_die on December 15, 2025, 06:15:15 PMbomber beetle has just overtaken the title as the forum's official tin foil hatter. Congratulations and sorry Tecno.
Please provide your theories on why the CFL is changing the field size.
https://x.com/LWillson_82/status/2000742835302068573/mediaViewer?currentTweet=2000742835302068573¤tTweetUser=LWillson_82 (https://x.com/LWillson_82/status/2000742835302068573/mediaViewer?currentTweet=2000742835302068573¤tTweetUser=LWillson_82)
Luke will be talking about the "online tin hat community" with the commissioner.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 16, 2025, 06:22:51 AMPlease provide your theories on why the CFL is changing the field size.
My theory is the exact same as Sir Blue & Gold's theory: doing nothing is not an option.
Therefore, the logic goes as: change field size --> ?? --> profit.
Maybe one day the league will tell us the real answer. Probably not, though.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 16, 2025, 06:22:51 AMPlease provide your theories on why the CFL is changing the field size.
Part of my theory is they are doing it as a humiliation and demoralization ritual, like so much in our society & politics right now. It's change for change sake and "we don't give a poop if you don't like it -- in fact we like that you don't like it".
And they poke that bear further by trying to
gaslight us that "55YL wasn't really important", "no one thought it was a defining CFL characteristic", "hey look at all these other CFL-isms that aren't changing". Since it's absurd, it furthers the demoralization.
There's other reasons too, but this may be the crux, and it may be due to the evil ultimate owners of TSN, and thus the ultimate leash-holders of the league. Also, I think Johnston isn't a CFL fan in the slightest, is a slimy used car salesman, and wants to stamp the biggest, ugliest mark on the league right away as a power move.
Hey, you asked!
Brady just said late in The Huddle you gotta keep the 55 YL. Way to go Brady!
I wonder if there will be a compromise. 15 yard EZ with the posts moved could fit the fields into the current stadiums. Not sure it fits Molson perfectly, but a lot better.
Or, you could have 2 50 yard lines and no 55... shortening it by 5 yards instead of 10...
Nah, it will go ahead as planned
Quote from: theaardvark on December 18, 2025, 03:12:24 AMI wonder if there will be a compromise. 15 yard EZ with the posts moved could fit the fields into the current stadiums. Not sure it fits Molson perfectly, but a lot better.
Or, you could have 2 50 yard lines and no 55... shortening it by 5 yards instead of 10...
Nah, it will go ahead as planned
Math not your strong suit? There are 5 yards on each side of the 55 yard line to the 50 yard line. Drawing an imaginary line to create a 50 yard line " center " eliminates 10 yards.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 18, 2025, 04:43:07 PMMath not your strong suit? There are 5 yards on each side of the 55 yard line to the 50 yard line. Drawing an imaginary line to create a 50 yard line " center " eliminates 10 yards.
"Centre" of the field without a 55 but still with 2 50's would actually be the 52.5 yard line, which would not be marked. 40 45 50 50 45 40 instead of 40 45 50 55 50 45 40. Makes a 105 yard field instead of 110 or 100.
With the shortened EZ, would trim 15 yards off the total length, and 7.5 yards off each end line, which should make Molson fit.
I typed that real slow so the math would be easier.
Quote from: theaardvark on December 18, 2025, 04:58:32 PM"Centre" of the field without a 55 but still with 2 50's would actually be the 52.5 yard line, which would not be marked. 40 45 50 50 45 40 instead of 40 45 50 55 50 45 40. Makes a 105 yard field instead of 110 or 100.
With the shortened EZ, would trim 15 yards off the total length, and 7.5 yards off each end line, which should make Molson fit.
I typed that real slow so the math would be easier.
You're just making things up. You can't call the center of the field anything you want and have any distance on either side instead of the 55 yard line. It what world are you living where there is 2 1/2 yards between one line marker and another?
The CFL field has 5 yard line markers every 5 yards. If you eliminate the 55 yard line, then you have an imaginary Center as I said with 50 yard lines on either side as I indicated.
You do realize that the smaller stadium end zones could have been fixed by removing seating to accommodate the larger end zone playing depth?
Quote from: theaardvark on December 18, 2025, 04:58:32 PM"Centre" of the field without a 55 but still with 2 50's would actually be the 52.5 yard line, which would not be marked. 40 45 50 50 45 40 instead of 40 45 50 55 50 45 40. Makes a 105 yard field instead of 110 or 100.
With the shortened EZ, would trim 15 yards off the total length, and 7.5 yards off each end line, which should make Molson fit.
I typed that real slow so the math would be easier.
I bet the league will "compromise" by painting a C at center field instead of a 50, pretending they're meeting fans half way.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 18, 2025, 05:23:24 PMYou're just making things up. You can't call the center of the field anything you want and have any distance on either side instead of the 55 yard line. It what world are you living where there is 2 1/2 yards between one line marker and another?
The CFL field has 5 yard line markers every 5 yards. If you eliminate the 55 yard line, then you have an imaginary Center as I said with 50 yard lines on either side as I indicated.
You do realize that the smaller stadium end zones could have been fixed by removing seating to accommodate the larger end zone playing depth?
Again, there would be no "centre" line at 52.5 yards, but the literal centre of the field would be at that distance.
You could even paint the space between the 2 50's a different colour, maybe like the EZ's.
As to removing seating to fit the field in, are you that unaware of the issue at Molson stadium? Its not the physical space that is the issue, but the fact they have a track and field track that the football field must fit inside. They cannot remove / adapt the track surface to put turf in, so the EZ has trapazoidal shape cutting off the back corners.
BMO is a different issue, and the 5 yard reduction in EZ makes it physically fit into the space.