Recent posts

#1

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by TBURGESS - Today at 03:41:13 AM

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.

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. 

#2

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by Sir Blue and Gold - Today at 01:36:46 AM

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.

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.

#3

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by TBURGESS - Today at 01:33:44 AM

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. 

#4

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by Sir Blue and Gold - Today at 12:59:57 AM

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?

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.

#5

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by jets4life - Today at 12:52:57 AM

See 2025 attendance in approximately half the cities the CFL operates in.

What about them?  The CFL attendance has actually  increased every year this decade.

#6

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by TBURGESS - Today at 12:51:52 AM

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?

#7

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by jets4life - Today at 12:50:21 AM

I'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...

#8

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by Sir Blue and Gold - Today at 12:34:23 AM

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?

#9

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: New rules / commissioner's...

Last post by jets4life - Today at 12:31:44 AM

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.

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. 

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.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror, and tell the person in the reflection, that they are wrong. 

#10

Blue Bomber & CFL Discussion Forum / Re: 1st & 10 | The Complete Bl...

Last post by ModAdmin - Today at 12:28:08 AM

Never thought Buck was a problem. His offence got us to the Cup a few times.