CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[Tecno]

Coaches game the current timing system through substitutions.

Perhaps.  I don't track or watch that aspect.  I do know that this is the first time I'm hearing a fan say this or complain about it.  You'd think that if this was a huge issue it would have been written about many times on this forum?  You may have mentioned it before?  The forum has a search and history: is there a post someone can point to before this month?

You very well may be right.  Let's say you are.  Was this the only solution?  The best solution?  Why does it just coincidentally align closely with how the NFL does it?

As for MOS, if he can bleed more clock with slow subs, ya, that totally fits his M.O. and overall game plan.  This may hurt us.  (Ya, it's not all about us...)

All the change does is give both teams a max of 35 second to get ready for the next play.  Many plays will be snapped earlier than that.

Except when EITS needs a spot revision.  Or the refs spot a clock problem.  This won't help either, and there may be more confusion in those cases.  Do they reset the play clock to 35 again?  That could actually add more time between snaps, not reduce it.  And clearly there will be teething pains as the refs learn to cope.  Games may look even more bush league for the first 6 weeks.

[Tecno]

Just because his opinions aren't yours doesn't make him brain-dead. He actually offers a view into what a lot of non CFL fans think about the game. It's okay that they think that.

No, his opinions aren't braindead -- his presentation of them, the constant (even blatant) insults, and the specious reasoning and weak-to-the-point-of-useless arguments and cherry-picked examples are what's braindead.

You are providing a FAR more sane and palatable argument for basically the same points and positions.  YOU should have written that article.

The good news is all the purists get to decide if it's still worth your time or not.  Here's your chance...

You're not getting rid of me that easily!  Until now, I mainly have been pointing out the flaws in the arguments.  As for how I feel?  If you want to know, these changes aren't nearly as bad as they could have been.  I wouldn't have made any of them except the bench move.  But I can easily live with most.  The worst is the 35s one in the last 3 mins, because this has massive knock-on effects that are not being properly anticipated.

In short, no way I stop being a fan because of what we see here.  Even if it completely destroys the last 3 mins and we get spikes & refs running like keystone cops.  I'll live with it.

What I may stop being a fan over is going to 4 downs, or finding out there is/was an (NFL) agenda all along.  Way too many hidden agendas in this world the last 20 years, I don't need one in my "leisure" pursuit too.  As a fan, I mostly just ask "don't insult my intelligence".  If they want to be the NFL, just say it.

And even if they go 4 down in '28 or '29, I'd still give it a shot.  But if by then they've basically aligned with all the NFL rules, then I could easily see myself quitting.  I watch NFL playoffs and SB, and I spend most of the time irritated and unamused.

[markf]

Some people think the way Disney subscribers dealt with Jimmy Kimmel should be followed.

Why not. League will be diminished significantly anyway if they follow through with four downs.

[BlueInCgy]

I find it sad that the justification for the field changes is higher scoring, when the average CFL scores are 3 points higher than NFL scores.  Four downs by 2028.

[Tecno]

Many on this forum when some of us tried to explain the writing on the wall.

Bear with me.  I am a member of a local club, which meets in person once a month.  In fact, I'm on the board, for like 20 years.  Pre-covid, for many years, some board members would bring up all the time how "the writing was on the wall" and "membership was dwindling" and "soon we'll have no members and be kaput" and "our membership is too old, they are dying off".  You know, exactly what people have been saying about the CFL for the entire time I've been a fan.

Those fellow board members would always propose drastic changes, that usually didn't stand up to scrutiny, thinking they had the magic answers to get butts in our seats.  They insisted something had to change NOW, and many changes, and often.  They didn't always know what those changes should be.  But if we didn't make those changes we were surely doomed, and fast.

So those board members came and went, and our membership, like most butts-in-seats evening-out organizations, fell off a bit, mostly at the usual pace.  We continually tweaked our "product" here and there, but nothing drastic like was suggested.  And you know what, our membership stabilized.  The forecast "down to zero" scenario never happened, just as I knew it wouldn't.  At the worst we dropped down to around 66% normal levels -- kind of like the CFL.

Covid was challenging (no butts in seats allowed) but we survived.  And you know what, we started growing again and stabilized.  And you know what else, new 18-29 year olds started showing up, just like I did when I was that age.  Old people still died, but new ones came in.  Many joined the board.  And here we are today, a fairly "thriving" in-person club, doing better in a space that many predicted would die.  And, encouraging for the CFL's situation, our membership exploded with the "new Canadian" set.

My point (and CFL tie in) is that doomsayers are often wrong, as all they see is doom.  If you believe in your product, and what brought you, personally, into it in the first place, then you can tweak & survive.  If "young you" liked it, then some new young people will like it too.  You don't have to blow everything up with drastic changes just because a few voices are saying you do.  If you turn it into a product that young-you wouldn't have liked, what basis do you have for saying the new young people will like the new product either?  What if you create something that neither likes?

One last thing, now assume I (and people like me) weren't on that board.  Assume it was nothing but doomsayers and chicken littles.  Or worse, assume someone, maybe the chair, has harm as the end goal.  How would the story end then?

When you come upon a fence, do not blindly tear it down, first ask yourself: why is this fence here?

[peg_city]

The difficult thing with a UFL merger is, only one team has a higher average attendance than the argos (St. Louis). Who knows, maybe Mexico is in the plans.

[Tecno]

Gambling angle: the rouge really screws up with "draw" chances in 3-way quarter/half outcomes.  I play the draw at strategic times, and whenever there's a rouge I know that my chance of winning the draw bet is basically zero -- in most cases the other team would also have to get a rouge in that Q or H -- which rarely happens.

I wonder how many of these changes are to accommodate all the new gambling.  If that has become HUGE money, it may start taking priority over fan desires.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I totally get it, Techno. And from a lot of fans. I really do. I grew up playing CFL style football (I was the littlest receiver on the field who waggled with the best of them). I love the CFL, and all of us on here contribute to the health of the CFL way more than the average Canadian.

What I think everyone really wants, is a strong league that is big and relevant in every market. And the reality is it hasn't been that way in a long time.

I truly believe the CFL can be better than it is. We can have better players if we changed the ratios and some of the rules. We can have a better viewing experience if we shrink the field both in person and on TV. I don't think we'll actually get to a carbon copy of the NFL in terms of rules in the foreseeable future (maybe ever) but I think we're well served to be closer.

And the proof will be in the reality. I could be dead wrong. Wouldn't be the first time! But I don't think any of these changes will cause a meaningful drop-off in attendance and I think it will help in the long run.

[Pete]

It appears that the main objection to these rules is that they are a precursor to transform the game into the american version.
And if thats the vision then Im fully against it.
But im not privy to the financial state of the cfl. What if the alternative is that we cant survive. Gate revenues are limited in what they provide. If the tv/streaming services wont support the current product ....,Hopefully theres a middle ground
  If the nfl were to adopt the waggle, and decide to widen fields would there be an outcry. Taking ideas from other leagues to increase scoring isnt a bad thing

[Waffler]

Oooh, I'm soooo itching to see what MOS really thinks about all of this... Alas, outside of his wife(?) and close PAS circle we shall never know.

He speaks a bit on the coaches show. Says he hasn't had time to read it all because busy preparing for Hamilton but likes the rules as they are now when pressed about it.

[Tecno]

Riderforum had a post saying there's some "CFL Constitution", or maybe bylaws?  Or maybe they are thinking of the CBA?  Does anyone have a link to a copy of whatever might govern the fundamental aspects of the game, such as "12 players".

They posited that the rouge was kept in one case (and ditched in all others) because the rouge is in whatever "constitution"-like thing may exist.  They really wanted to get rid of it completely, but couldn't.  Yet.

[Tecno]

It appears that the main objection to these rules is that they are a precursor to transform the game into the american version.  And if thats the vision then Im fully against it.

Yes, and yes.

But im not privy to the financial state of the cfl. What if the alternative is that we cant survive.

Yet they were rolling in enough dough to assure teams there was an extra $400k per team per year coming to up the SMS in FA25...

If the nfl were to adopt the waggle, and decide to widen fields would there be an outcry. Taking ideas from other leagues to increase scoring isnt a bad thing

But smacks of "we who are alive and in charge right now are smarter than everyone who came before and we know better than them all and we will make drastic changes to an always-slowly-evolving entity to shape it into our vision and consequences be darned because we'll be on to the next gig by then anyhow and I already got paid".  That always gets my radar beeping.

[Pete]

The 400k may be a blip and mainly due to tv revenues, which the league is becoming more dependent on and have a bigger say than we think.
And the changes weren't just one guy saying hey look at me, Research and data went into it, according to the league and reporters.
 As well EVERY team had to sign off on it not just the majority

[blue_gold_84]

The fact that players and coaches were not included in any of the decisions, much less any discussion, is honestly sickening.

Johnston and the BOG really crapped the bed here.

[blue_gold_84]

I'm good with more changes. Getting rid of the yard off the ball would be a good next step.

Why? How would that improve anything?