CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[blue_gold_84]

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

The NFL wouldn't be doing it from a standpoint of charity.

[Blue In BC]

The NFL wouldn't be doing it from a standpoint of charity.

Of course not but they hold pre season games across the globe every year. It's about exposure. It doesn't mean there isn't some money to be made. It's not only the team / stadium that is involved. Hotels, travel, restaurants and bars all benefit from every game.

[blue_gold_84]

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?

That right there is what arguing in bad faith looks like.



Like I've said at least a few times since the announcement on Tuesday: I don't think what ails this league - both in terms of its financial health and appeal to the masses - is due to its field dimensions, goalpost placement, or the rouge.

This whole situation seems like nothing more than a red herring, with the league's corporate overlords willfully ignoring the reality of things.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

That right there is what arguing in bad faith looks like.



Like I've said at least a few times since the announcement on Tuesday: I don't think what ails this league - both in terms of its financial health and appeal to the masses - is due to its field dimensions, goalpost placement, or the rouge.

This whole situation seems like nothing more than a red herring, with the league's corporate overlords willfully ignoring the reality of things.

Explain to me how someone asking you to provide data and evidence that your point of view is correct is in bad faith? Isn't that what reasonable discourse should entail? Or does it only work for you if you're the one asking? What qualifies you to be the judge only?

[blue_gold_84]

Explain to me how someone asking you to provide data and evidence that your point of view is correct is in bad faith?

You're the one who opted to "reframe" the argument for absolutely no logical reason.

Have a nice Friday.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

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.

If that was the end result and it allowed the CFL to stabilize and increase revenue dramatically the trade-off would be worth it, but I wouldn't hold my breath. In a world of 5,000 viewing options I don't believe Americans are interested in watching more football, especially upcoming generations who are tuning out from long televised sporting events.

[blue_or_die]

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?

The onus should be on the league to come up with reasonable and objective evidence for their thinking as to how the changes will make the game significantly better. Without that, it's throwing **** at the wall and hoping it sticks. Asking for evidence as to why it WON'T work is like asking someone in court to prove how they're innocent. Completely backwards.

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

hahah. Man. 

- Darrian Durant is good guy
- Milt Stegall is bad guy
- Sir B&G is bffs with aardvark   

[Tecno]

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

Publishing the study(s) they referenced would be a good start.  You know, like they published the Harvard study about the Tylenol thing.  So anyone can go look.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

The onus should be on the league to come up with reasonable and objective evidence for their thinking as to how the changes will make the game significantly better. Without that, it's throwing **** at the wall and hoping it sticks. Asking for evidence as to why it WON'T work is like asking someone in court to prove how they're innocent. Completely backwards.

I agree with you that an explanation is a good idea and since they're changing things, they should also tell you why. I think they've tried to do that where they can.

I also want to say that if you're of the opinion that 'you' (not you specifically, but as a general point on contention for each of us) personally won't like the game as much I think that's a totally valid statement. There's lots of styles of football and no one has to like them all (I point out that none of us have seen football played on a 65 yard wide field, with back goal posts and 100 yard field before so maybe wait first to experience it, but if you already know you'll hate it [seems a tad drastic to me] then that's fair too.)

When we get into discussions around the growth of the game and drawing interest from the changes, etc. I think that's where I've tried to challenge because I fundamentally think they're right, and it will ultimately be a good thing from the perspective of growth and the business side of things. It's also fair, in the context of that discussion to ask for proof points or data to back up the opinion that not making these changes would be better for growth and interest. Especially since people seem quite fixated on the league's datapoints and then also judging the methodology behind it. It is not proving why something won't work, but rather why not changing the rules is the better choice for growth?

[Jesse]

Look, I can share the data. But it's with the caveat that this is all BS and has nothing to do with increasing offence and everything to do with making the game look more American on TV broadcasts. These changes are not coming from data on making the league better, they found data to support predetermined changes that TSN wants us to make.

That said, @PFF_Bryson shared some data on twitter (since 2022).

He alleges that endzone targets have the following splits:

Left: 32.8%, Middle: 29.8%, Right: 37.4%

That all seems even enough, but for NON-endzone targets. ie. No cross bar in the way, the stats change to:

Left: 30.6%, Middle: 37.2%, Right: 32.2%

I imagine they whipped out their calculators and did some basic math and pretended everything would just turn into TDs if they removed the cross bar. But, again, these aren't data driven decisions, they're TSN ones.

[theaardvark]

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 get the "post your work" you express.  Most will not accept the "Trust me, these changes make sense when you look at the numbers" and then not showing the numbers.

I wish I could find it, but I saw a posting somewhere that showed targets and completions in the endzones, and how much fewer were in the centre vs. the sides...

[blue_gold_84]

I get the "post your work" you express.  Most will not accept the "Trust me, these changes make sense when you look at the numbers" and then not showing the numbers.

I wish I could find it, but I saw a posting somewhere that showed targets and completions in the endzones, and how much fewer were in the centre vs. the sides...

The expression is "show your work," and neither those making the changes nor the handful of fervent supporters have managed to do so. It's disheartening to me because these changes will have significant upfront costs, despite the league having acknowledged only a few months ago that it's in a financially unsustainable position outside of two franchises.

I'm just at a loss to try and rationalize what's taken place. It's like @blue_or_die said a bit ago:

...it's throwing **** at the wall and hoping it sticks.

The challenges facing the CFL are serious, perhaps bordering on existential. It's bewildering that this is the response by the league's so-called leadership.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Look, I can share the data. But it's with the caveat that this is all BS and has nothing to do with increasing offence and everything to do with making the game look more American on TV broadcasts. These changes are not coming from data on making the league better, they found data to support predetermined changes that TSN wants us to make.

That said, @PFF_Bryson shared some data on twitter (since 2022).

He alleges that endzone targets have the following splits:

Left: 32.8%, Middle: 29.8%, Right: 37.4%

That all seems even enough, but for NON-endzone targets. ie. No cross bar in the way, the stats change to:

Left: 30.6%, Middle: 37.2%, Right: 32.2%

I imagine they whipped out their calculators and did some basic math and pretended everything would just turn into TDs if they removed the cross bar. But, again, these aren't data driven decisions, they're TSN ones.

Short passes over the center are not that common as too many big bodies blocking the vision, most of those passes would be tight to the right or left of the line.

[theaardvark]

The expression is "show your work," and neither those making the changes nor the handful of fervent supporters have managed to do so. It's disheartening to me because these changes will have significant upfront costs, despite the league having acknowledged only a few months ago that it's in a financially unsustainable position outside of two franchises.

I'm just at a loss to try and rationalize what's taken place. It's like @blue_or_die said a bit ago:

The challenges facing the CFL are serious, perhaps bordering on existential. It's bewildering that this the response of the league's so-called leadership.

For the goal posts, sure.  I like the idea because I think it will clean up a lot of goal line play.  Having to adjust your D backfield due to the post being there is silly, using the post to rub a defender out is funny, quirky, but not serious game play.  And when a doink decides a game, even if only once, that adds not to the professionalism of the game, but rather the "weird cousin" ideology of the league.

For the dimensions, MTL and TOR are not building new stadia, and their barns cannot house 110 yd fields with 20 yd EZ's safely or effectively.  Making the field 10 yards shorter and EZ 5 yards shorter should not affect any particular play substantively.  In fact with the posts moved, it might actually make the field play longer in some cases.

[Waffler]

Short passes over the center are not that common as too many big bodies blocking the vision, most of those passes would be tight to the right or left of the line.

Correct. Short passes need their own numbers.

Bombers will still have a goal post though. Willie Jefferson is his name.