Recent posts

#1

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

Last post by Blue In BC - Today at 01:44:07 PM

This is the week eh?    FA begins on Feb 10, plenty of time to deal with whoever they want to bring back even if they do nuthin before the New Year.

Yes but it's about using up any left over SMS before the end of December, if we have any that can be used as signing bonus.

#2

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

Last post by Waffler - Today at 01:18:04 PM

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.

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

[/O will be from the current location. Ditto for FG's made etc]

#3

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

Last post by Tecno - Today at 10:28:50 AM

We 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.

[verifiable fact that shorter drives equal more touchdowns]

#4

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

Last post by Tecno - Today at 10:24:25 AM

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.

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.

[takes the ball in the air and hits the cover team straight on, and busts through]

#5

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

Last post by Tecno - Today at 10:18:05 AM

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".

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).

[Hundreds of millions? What, is it solid gold paint?]

#6

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

Last post by Tecno - Today at 10:15:59 AM

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?

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.

[Or the rules might be changed to not allow. coffin corner kicks]

#7

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

Last post by Tecno - Today at 10:12:17 AM

Or 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).

[Lions are equally unhappy with the limited revenue streams available at BC Place]

#8

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

Last post by Tecno - Today at 10:08:20 AM

No 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.

[can't put in bad faith offers in the tampering period]

#9

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

Last post by Tecno - Today at 09:58:55 AM

You can't put in bad faith offers in the tampering period. If you make the offer it can't be taken back.

Sure you can, if you know that WPG will pony up at least close to that amount.  It would be a gamble, but you could run the numbers and be fairly safe.  It would be quite a poker accomplishment, though.  Not sure other GMs would want to spend so much brainpower and energy on the singular goal of shafting WFC out of an extra $50k SMS... but they could!

For example, if we offer Brady $250k and every one knows it, then BC could offer $300k knowing that Brady will take $275k to stay in WPG -- and WM will force it to make it happen anyway.

But if BC doesn't offer that $300k, then Brady MUST accept the original $250k or be jobless.  That's a very low-risk situation for BC (or whoever).  In fact the numbers could all go higher (with more risk, of course).

[Basically everyone's a winning team in the CFL]

#10

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

Last post by Tecno - Today at 09:54:50 AM

Really only eliminates Ottawa. Basically everyone's a winning team in the CFL.

Maybe in the E.  In the W you can track clear progressions in the last decade.  No bad team just magically makes it to the GC.  They take 1-3 years (or more) to build up to it, improving most every year.  Just look at SSK.  They've been trying to crack the WPG nut since '19, and Mace had them on a clear uptrend since he arrived, and he made it work in year 2 with the help of an incompetent main rival (us).

So while, say, EDM could go far in the playoffs in '26, it's virtually impossible for them to make the cup.  SSK is at the top and could stay there.  BC & CGY are both on uptrends and could make the cup.

WPG is actually in a strange place -- we have to bounce back fast and make it to at least a WDF, or we may be the next bottom-feeder or perennial x-over team.  Then we'd basically have to start all over again on the long (2-3 season) climb back to cup contention.