CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[Jesse]

I really haven't seen many here being irrational.  For the most part it's a steady diet of good points and arguments, to make us think about all the angles.  Even from you.  Don't try to reduce it to emotion like the paid promoters are.

100% this.

Every argument is met with the same disdain. It's either being too emotional, don't want to "modernize", or bringing up the financial state of the league like field dimensions relate to profit somehow.

[Tecno]

It was a good move for him to come on and do the interview. Still reasonably impressed.

I'm impressed that he seems to be reading my posts (which probably echo many other voices) and mostly eliminated the weak & subversive arguments/talking points, to take that ammo away from us detractors.  Maybe he's waking up to the fact that the CFL base isn't just a bunch of clueless country bumpkins... Not even the Stubblejumpers, who seem to be even more perceptive than on this forum.  And if you aren't fooling the jumpers, change tactics.  Smart move, but a bit scary, as "the borg is adapting".

[Tecno]

i do believe that not having the goalposts in the front middle of the end zone will make more plays possible.  you can't prove something that hasn't been in place. 

I'm working out the math to see precisely how much "working field" they gain or lose by these changes.  In my quick sketches and the eyeball test they are losing way more field with the 15Y change than they gain with moving the post.

Ironically, the prime talking point of Cody's 2019 doink PROVES that OCs/QBs/teams NEVER did plan around the crossbar or upright.  Add to that Rourke's doink last week, and Strev's 2019 GC TD which was over the crossbar.  And Rourke's recent statement that they don't factor those structures into their plan AT ALL: because they don't!  It's not a "limitation" at all!  Ergo, the only "more plays possible" you'll get are ones exactly where the post base/pads are/were, and directly behind them for 5 or 10Y.

Now... subtract 5x65 square yards... is "more plays possible" due to EZ square yardage really a valid point?

embrace change - don't accept the status qui and be positive.

Yes, comrade!  All change good!  Status quo bad!  Onward and upward!

Or, how about, no: stop gaslighting me.  "Hope and change" "progress at all costs" has been falling out of favor for a decade, especially in my world.

it was a very good interview - cfl is in good hands

Are you the eldery Mrs. Johnston by chance?  When has anyone said this about any commish, even ones we "liked"?  I don't think anyone ever said that about even Honest Unca 'Brosie.

[Tecno]

Darian Durant chimed in.  Ya, we hate him, but he is a longtime player, and as a QB can speak directly to some of these changes.

Here's what he says about the post structure being a problem as a rationale for moving the post:

"That's such a low percentage thing that happens in the league. It's a skill that we practice every day as quarterbacks. You know, the goalpost is there, you know, you have to have a little bit of an arc on your throw. Ensure you're aware of it and it's just part of the game."

So while Rourke says it's really not a thing, Durant says it is a thing but a very minor one easily worked around.

I've yet to hear a QB come out and say the crossbar/uprights were a major impediment or major consideration, and that their removal will "open things up" as much as Johnston likes to believe.  (Again, minus the padded area and the area directly behind it.)

Durant also says go slower:
"Change one rule at a time, and maybe throw things out there from a perspective of let's just see if it works. Let's give it a year to see if it changes the game for the good or the bad, or if it affects the game in any way. For all these rules to happen at once, I think you're hurting the little leagues preparing these guys for the CFL game as they get older."

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Never thought I'd see the day on this forum where Darian Durant was the hero and Milt Stegall was the villian.

hahah. Man. 

[blue_gold_84]

Who cares what Darian The Thief has to say on the topic of anything.

So... that did nothing to change my mind. I believe he wants to NFL the CFL.
Moving the goalposts and making the field smaller is not going to make the game more exciting. He claims it will, and has NO proof.

And that's exactly the problem with these "business" types. He's in a position of authority, so he can say whatever and get away with it, regardless of the veracity of what's being claimed. It's absurd.

No actual numbers or data have been presented as to how these changes will "modernize" the game or increase scoring. So much for evidence-based decision making.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Who cares what Darian The Thief has to say on the topic of anything.

And that's exactly the problem with these "business" types. He's in a position of authority, so he can say whatever and get away with it, regardless of the veracity of what's being claimed. It's absurd.

No actual numbers or data have been presented as to how these changes will "modernize" the game or increase scoring. So much for evidence-based decision making.

Realistically, what are you looking for? What evidence would have a meaningful impact on your opinion?

[The Zipp]

I'm working out the math to see precisely how much "working field" they gain or lose by these changes.  In my quick sketches and the eyeball test they are losing way more field with the 15Y change than they gain with moving the post.

Ironically, the prime talking point of Cody's 2019 doink PROVES that OCs/QBs/teams NEVER did plan around the crossbar or upright.  Add to that Rourke's doink last week, and Strev's 2019 GC TD which was over the crossbar.  And Rourke's recent statement that they don't factor those structures into their plan AT ALL: because they don't!  It's not a "limitation" at all!  Ergo, the only "more plays possible" you'll get are ones exactly where the post base/pads are/were, and directly behind them for 5 or 10Y.

Now... subtract 5x65 square yards... is "more plays possible" due to EZ square yardage really a valid point?

Yes, comrade!  All change good!  Status quo bad!  Onward and upward!

Or, how about, no: stop gaslighting me.  "Hope and change" "progress at all costs" has been falling out of favor for a decade, especially in my world.

Are you the eldery Mrs. Johnston by chance?  When has anyone said this about any commish, even ones we "liked"?  I don't think anyone ever said that about even Honest Unca 'Brosie.

I think the BOG has a plan for changing the game to encourage more offense, and they have said that marketing and the business side are going to be reviewed next - Winnipeg is the model franchise for the CFL but it was taken Wade a number of years to get there.  I am willing to accept that this is going to happen and I think they deserve an opportunity to make changes.  Good for the CFL - love it!

[blue_gold_84]

Realistically, what are you looking for? What evidence would have a meaningful impact on your opinion?

You know I can't answer that question. And therein lies the issue: major changes made based on nothing more than feelings. That's not a rational way to operate, especially when the league is on such supposed shaky ground financially.

Case in point: Johnston claimed on Tuesday there would be 10% more endzone completions and 60 more TDs scored in a season due to these changes. But how he came up with those numbers was never explained or substantiated.

[markf]

If the NHL suggested changing the size of the rink, there would be outrage.

Have baseball fields ever been made smaller? Or bigger?  They make movies about their hallowed fields

How about basketball courts.

I can't be bothered to check,  I doubt it. I saw an American field a few years ago, it's a bloody postage stamp. Ridiculously small.

Might be A case of  doing something to be seen doing something. At no cost to the CFL. Unlike what say, Doman is doing... those things cost MONEY!   No way!

Anyway, what would NFL fans think if the league said they were making the field bigger.... To generate more offence?


😂

Also, how many NFL games this season were won on last second field goals? Two this week.

The days of anything  and everything American is better, are well over.

And, well done!   great timing right in the middle of a significant "buy Canadian" movement that's happening here.

Blunder. And no, I do not trust them. They've shown their hand.

[theaardvark]

Funny, does "grow the game" immediately equate to "change the game"?  Did anyone consult Wade about improvements that could be made to the game day experience?

Delusional "we want to solidify our place at the top of the North American professional sports echelon".

Fact: The CFL is a small market league, limited by the population of Canada.

"Grow the game" without changes is a pretty pie in the sky sentiment.

The old saying "any publicity is good publicity" is the real key here.

If the marketing team didn't orchestrate some of this, I'd be disappointed in them.

No mention of NFL preseason games, which avoids the comparison.  But you can bet that every owner )other than WFC) is salivating over the potential extra bucks.  But no one will say it.

No declaration of 3 downs not on the block, Commish evading the question, making people discuss and speculate what could be coming.  And then, after the media storm, coming out and saying the core values of the CFL (3 downs, 12 men, wider field, 1 yard, no yards halo, waggle) are all sacred cows and will not be touched.  He could have said that day one, but how much extra coverage did things get with that speculation.

There ahve been a huge number of eyeballs on this story, fans leading it of course, but you can bet there are water coolers where 9 out of 10 people do not watch the CFL, but now that one is making them all aware that the Canadian game is under attack...

And when, next spring for the clock and rouge changes, and the spring after, with the dimension changes, every CFL fan is going to see it is a better game with the changes, we will also see those people on the periphery having tuned in to see what the change has done.

There will be the few who stand on tradition, and maybe even some STH that drop out, but I really think this media coverage alone and then the stories that will follow about how it does improve the game in practice will grow the league.

Well done Commish, and well done for bearing the sling and arrows though the announcement, covering for the BOG that made the decisions on what changes to make. 

I have no doubt that every rule, including the sacred cows, was discussed by the Board, and these ones were the ones found to have merit of doing more good than harm.  And while the BOG made the final decisions, the Commish took announcing them on the chin.

[TBURGESS]

These new rules have nothing to do with making the game better and everything to do with an Ex-TSN guy telling the BOG the complaints he's heard from US TV about the CFL. I'm sure they think that these changes will allow them to get a better TV deal down south. 

[blue_gold_84]

No mention of NFL preseason games, which avoids the comparison.  But you can bet that every owner )other than WFC) is salivating over the potential extra bucks.  But no one will say it.

No one will say it because it's not rooted in reality.

Hosting NFL preseason games - if that even comes to pass - isn't as lucrative as you claim. Remember 2019? IGF wasn't even 2/3 full for that bungled experiment.

[Blue In BC]

No one will say it because it's not rooted in reality.

Hosting NFL preseason games - if that even comes to pass - isn't as lucrative as you claim. Remember 2019? IGF wasn't even 2/3 full for that bungled experiment.

Well it's an extra game so it depends on how much the CFL has to pay the NFL to host a game.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

You know I can't answer that question. And therein lies the issue: major changes made based on nothing more than feelings. That's not a rational way to operate, especially when the league is on such supposed shaky ground financially.

Case in point: Johnston claimed on Tuesday there would be 10% more endzone completions and 60 more TDs scored in a season due to these changes. But how he came up with those numbers was never explained or substantiated.

I agree it would be interesting to see the methodology the league is using there. Realistically, it's probably a series of educated guesses because it's hard to have data for something that doesn't yet exist and has never existed (as he said recently, you need to get in the minds of coaches and how they may react to these and there's a very real human element here). Business plans, even good ones, never guarantee success so if you want data to prove this is the right decision beyond a shadow of doubt that's not a realistic ask.

Your entire argument can be easily reframed: Can you provide me some data points that keeping everything the same will lead to a stronger league or increased attendance?