CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[wpg#1]

I remember the NFL having goalposts at the front of the endzone. Just saying

[blue_gold_84]

I remember the NFL having goalposts at the front of the endzone. Just saying

History of goalpost location in the NFL

1920: on the goal line
1927: back of endzone
1933: back on the goal line
1974: back to the back of the end zone

Hilarious.

[wpg#1]

History of goalpost location in the NFL

1920: on the goal line
1927: back of endzone
1933: back on the goal line
1974: back to the back of the end zone

Hilarious.

And .. back then, NFL games were notorious for low scoring games. Even after the move. Just saying !

[bomber beetle]

I don't think the game will be adversely affected by these changes. It will be different, maybe slightly better. It might take some time for it to evolve but only time will tell.

I also don't think it will move the needle much in terms of attendance and viewership. The entertainment value is not the problem.

One thing is certain, the new field opens up expansion to existing soccer stadiums in North America. I am not saying that expansion to the U.S. would save the league but it allows for that measure to be taken.

The CFL has seven private ownership groups that are all losing fistfuls of money. There are some good samaritans in there but I don't think this scenario is sustainable for much longer. Regardless, we don't have much choice other than putting this in their hands and hope that they figure something out. It is their money that is on the line, after all.

In the meantime, I will support the Bombers and enjoy the game for however long it is viable in a version that is still uniquely Canadian. 

[blue_gold_84]

I also don't think it will move the needle much in terms of attendance and viewership. The entertainment value is not the problem.

[theaardvark]

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.

But when you have big bodies to throw over, and goal posts to throw under, that limits the throw.

No goal posts and you can lob into the EZ anywhere...

[blue_or_die]

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.)

For the anti-change group, I think there's a portion of people who just don't want change for tradition's sake or something like that. While that's a factor for me too, the contention for another portion of that group (like me) is not understanding what makes us think any of these things will be better. If we change these fundamental aspects and it's not better or worse, you've gotta think that's a fail if we lose unique aspects and just have something that's NFL Lite for no good reason. I strongly doubt that if these changes fail to gain traction, changing back can be done within my lifetime and they're gone forever.

So I'm of the belief that if I watch the new CFL and don't totally hate the changes (and to be clear, I'm open minded and will wait and see), that's still a net loss because we upended the game significantly from cherished (maybe not by you or aardvark) aspects for absolutely nothing. And aside from the result being a significantly improved game that leads to league growth or future stability (which I think is not going to happen at all), that's actually a best case scenario. So it's an enormous risk without justification.

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.

That's great that you're optimistic, I just don't understand why or how, logically.

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?

Well for starters, the league has been around (in a few forms) for well over a century with much of its rules and traditions enshrined in the fabric of the fandom. The league is supported by old timers who you risk alienating and actually decreasing viewership. There's a multiplier effect in that they in turn won't nurture future generations of CFL fans, leading to the slow death of the league.

As for new fans, there is nothing about the changes that will attract them to the game. Onlookers don't care or hardly notice a 55 yard line or goalposts at the actual goal line or the amount of time to get plays off within the last 3 minutes. They care about being entertained first and foremost and if they aren't already entertained when they come across the CFL, these little nuances that they do not value (but loyal fans already do) are not going to change anything, even if you add a touchdown to every game. If you're a more 'fundamental' football fan, you're going to like the CFL as is and if not, I have a hard time believing it's because it looks so much different from NFL. I'll maintain that the vast majority of NFL fans are there to be part of the show and enjoy the celebrity of that league rather than appreciating the fundamentals.

So to answer your last question, changing the rules gambles largely cherished aspects of the game and the current fanbase that has been supporting it for many decades for the theory that changing some rules might gain net new fans. The chances of the latter happening are non-existent in my opinion. But you can change my mind if you show me the logic, which is what I've been asking for from the beginning.

Seems like a small ask from someone who has season tickets, buys merch, and works their life around their CFL team.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

For the anti-change group, I think there's a portion of people who just don't want change for tradition's sake or something like that. While that's a factor for me too, the contention for another portion of that group (like me) is not understanding what makes us think any of these things will be better. If we change these fundamental aspects and it's not better or worse, you've gotta think that's a fail if we lose unique aspects and just have something that's NFL Lite for no good reason. I strongly doubt that if these changes fail to gain traction, changing back can be done within my lifetime and they're gone forever.

So I'm of the belief that if I watch the new CFL and don't totally hate the changes (and to be clear, I'm open minded and will wait and see), that's still a net loss because we upended the game significantly from cherished (maybe not by you or aardvark) aspects for absolutely nothing. And aside from the result being a significantly improved game that leads to league growth or future stability (which I think is not going to happen at all), that's actually a best case scenario. So it's an enormous risk without justification.

The way this usually goes is if the changes they make do not move the needle as far as attendance or revenue goes, the claim will be the changes did not go far enough.  It's never going back to the way it was unless the league falters and gets another re-start driven by traditionalists.  Remembering the first thing Wade Miller did as Bomber president was to restore the royal blue colours.

[Blueforlife]

Local CFL fans question loyalty, selling season tickets in light of new rules changes https://share.google/Tch5IJ0v89TD2AwfJ

Don't spoke the herd

The herd pays the bills

[Waffler]

History of goalpost location in the NFL

1920: on the goal line
1927: back of endzone
1933: back on the goal line
1974: back to the back of the end zone

The reason they were moved was to discourage long field goals, especially game winners. This player safety reason is a load of you know what. I would prefer the CFL look at other options such as narrower and higher uprights or have the kicks from the old wider hash marks, just for field goals.

I wonder how many more ties we will see? Even in the over time your field goal is no longer make-able from first scrimmage. 57 yarder.

[wpg#1]

Local CFL fans question loyalty, selling season tickets in light of new rules changes https://share.google/Tch5IJ0v89TD2AwfJ

Don't spoke the herd

The herd pays the bills

It's really quite sad. Even me ! I never thought I'd feel this way about the CFL. I've been a fan since I was 5 years old. Now I'm just not happy about this.

[Stats Junkie]

For me, the 2026 changes seem reasonable conditional on the league getting the new timing rules right. I was extremely disappointed in the 2027 changes to the field with the biggest gut punch being the field reduction from 110 yards to 100 yards. I have yet to see reasonable explanation for why that one was necessary.

I am glad that there are a handful of people in the media who are taking an objective look at the rule changes and in the process questioning the decision making that went into the changes. Most notable in the Winnipeg market are Derek Taylor and Jeff Hamilton.

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...

I think that you are referring to a graphic posted by Dave Naylor. As posted, the middle section of the field appears to be about 20% of the width of a CFL field. It really remains undefined as to what parameters are being used to determine the width of each zone (left, middle, right). As Derek Taylor suggests, if it is truly divided into thirds then this data has some relevance. If middle is determined by the width of the goal posts or the hash marks then the graphic is very misleading. One thing that is clear from Dave Naylor's graphic, the highest completion percentages in the end zones are in 15-20 yard depths regardless of whether the pass is to the left, middle or right. If true, why are we eliminating the deep portion of the end zones?

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.

Yes, as Bryson points out, the middle of the field is used more outside of the end zone versus into the end zone. A lot of the passes that qualify as middle of the field under any set of parameters are the chest passes to receivers doing a fly sweep or running back screen passes. Perhaps all passes behind the line of scrimmage should be factored out of the calculations for a better comparison.


Changing so many aspects of the game at one time seems like a bad science experiment. Farhan Lalji referred back to the narrowing of the hash marks resulting in more scoring. I can see the narrow hash marks increasing the field goal percentages because kicks are more straight away than before and longer kicks from the hash marks actually have a shorter distance to travel. There is no way to determine if the hash marks actually made any difference in the ability of an offence to move the ball because that change was done in conjunction with other changes that moved the ball spots by 5 yards in many circumstances. Like I said, it is bad science.

[dd]

It's really quite sad. Even me ! I never thought I'd feel this way about the CFL. I've been a fan since I was 5 years old. Now I'm just not happy about this.

I feel the same way too. I was always proud our league was different than the NFL, proud of who we are as Canadians. Now we're cowtailing to the US of A. We're trying to look like the NFL. It makes me sick, really. From the first day I saw Johnston, I never trusted him. This only adds fuel to that fire. Disappointed really that our old version was somehow not good enough for the powers that be. Well have at er boys, I hope it works out, as this may blow up in your face and you'll have a serious mess.

[theaardvark]

The way this usually goes is if the changes they make do not move the needle as far as attendance or revenue goes, the claim will be the changes did not go far enough.  It's never going back to the way it was unless the league falters and gets another re-start driven by traditionalists.  Remembering the first thing Wade Miller did as Bomber president was to restore the royal blue colours.

I don't think the changes "success" will be measured at the gate primarily.  Making the changes is meant to improve the on field product, and increase interest, for sure.  But as much as we'd like to see a rise, I think reducing the loss might be a more realistic goal.

We hear people whining and complaining and saying they won't buy tickets, etc.  I'm not confident any of those will come to light over such minimal changes.  Much as those who paint the moves as "Americanizing" the game protest, watching a game after the changes is where the rubber hits the road. 

Once the smoke has cleared and the hurt fee fees heal, watching the refined CFL game is the key.  For fans, players and coaches, until we've seen the effect on the game, both sides can either moan or cheer.

As long as they preserve the final 3 minutes, I really think this is going to be a positive step going forward.  And I don't think the commish or the BOG will ever dare move on any of the sacred cows we hold dear as CFL fans. 

The commish has done what he was brought in to do, he has put the game front and centre in sports casts and socials, even though the NHL is starting, MLB is hitting the playoffs, and the NFL is in full swing.

Making more drastic changes would be silly, especially after the blowback on losing the 55 yard line.  Yeesh.

[Tecno]

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

When drastic change is proposed, the onus is on the changer to justify it, not the person who wants the status quo.  And nothing is more drastic at this moment than changing the field.  That should demand maximum justification and transparency.

Instead we're given... Johnston saying "don't get emotional, trust us brah"