New rules / commissioner's statements

[dd]

I agree. Hope he gets a hearty boo at the game tomorrow.

To care about "vibes" is just silly. I'm all about actions and policy. That's what matters.

Ok, forget about the vibes then, he just strikes me as fake and creepy. Good enough for you oh holier than thou one??

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Old men have a lifetime's worth of perspective. It's called common sense borne of experience. Try it sometime.

 

Ummm...How would one "try" to have a lifetime's worth of perspectives?

An example of common sense, to me, would be logging onto Facebook to get depth charts listed there instead of spending three years coming on here to complain about it... But who knows, that's just my perspective borne of experience.

I'll skip the woke winky emoji.

[Balticfox]

Ummm...How would one "try" to have a lifetime's worth of perspectives?

Live and learn. That comes naturally to most.

An example of common sense, to me, would be logging onto Facebook to get depth charts listed there instead of spending three years coming on here to complain about it... But who knows, that's just my perspective borne of experience.

I'd say you need to work on your perspective if you equate a couple of complaints over three years to three years worth of complaining. That's just the kind of common sense that comes with no experience at all.

 

[DM83]

This new commish is a wannabe. He has no cfl experience.  He seems like. A next door neighbor, who has watched a couple games and claims he is knowledgeable, of what fans want. lol!

Come on at least pretend to conduct some fact finding. A survey?  Nope.  Than the fact finding is bias even in anything the guy says. No sample size revealed.  Maybe he asked his other family over Easter supper.

Winnipeg looks like they were one if the best CFL productions.  Even if the schlepp on tsn'ssaryrday afternoons show was really at the U of W field house niypt somewhere on in the U of M  campus.  Who was the rookie host.  The next commercial break the kid noted it was the U of W.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Live and learn. That comes naturally to most.

I'd say you need to work on your perspective if you equate a couple of complaints over three years to three years worth of complaining. That's just the kind of common sense that comes with no experience at all.

 

Having the answer to your problems a click away but refusing to do it is stubborn and stupid. Not wise and smart.

Pretending you have answers simply because you've lived a long time is equally foolish.

There's young fools and old fools.

Being old simply means your old. You'd know that if you actually used your experience to council anyone or anything of substance.

And people who are old and wise, in my experience, never need to tell anyone they are. The ones who are simply old, do, though.

[Balticfox]

Having the answer to your problems a click away but refusing to do it is stubborn and stupid. Not wise and smart.

Not just a click away. First of all I'd need to join Facebook which is an entity I don't want to support for several reasons, e.g. Facebook has acted to kill discussion forums such as this one.

Pretending you have answers simply because you've lived a long time is equally foolish.

There's young fools and old fools.

Being old simply means your old. You'd know that if you actually used your experience to council anyone or anything of substance.

And people who are old and wise, in my experience, never need to tell anyone they are. The ones who are simply old, do, though.

Excuse me but I wasn't the one who raised the subject of age! That was your buddy who raised the subject of age with the jibe about me being an old guy throwing rocks or something like that. (All that's now been deleted.)

Now you knew that but you still latched onto my reply while ignoring the initial provocative jibe. Would you perhaps like to explain that? Or are you too young (or too old?) for objective assessments?

Like I say, I wasn't the one who raised the question of age.

 

[ModAdmin]

Here's a thought.  Let's stick to the topic at hand.  And on that subject, my belief is that the jury is still out, that he needs time to gain commissioner experience and we have to consider that people who have money in the game chose him as the best candidate for the job.

As with all professions, we sink or swim with our own ability and results.

[Colton]

Here comes maple maga again personally attacking everyone who doesn't like the new rules because he knows the mods will just lock the thread instead of actually moderating it and just silence any criticism of the direction the league is headed.

[ModAdmin]

Here comes maple maga again personally attacking everyone who doesn't like the new rules because he knows the mods will just lock the thread instead of actually moderating it and just silence any criticism of the direction the league is headed.

Some posts were removed because they were political in nature which contravene the rules here.  The thread was modified.  It was not locked.

[Balticfox]

What I don't understand about the Commissioner's office is how the past and present denizens have continued to drop the ball when it comes to marketing the product and league. This is the marketing campaign that would resonate with most Canadian sports fans:

"This is Canada. We are Canadians. We are distinct; we are unique."

cross-Canada film clips shown

"This is our game."

CFL game film clips shown ending with the Grey Cup being hoisted in celebration

"Canadian football! Over a century and a half of tradition; over a century and a half of action. Because we are Canadians."

Such a marketing campaign would tug on the heart strings of everybody but hardcore Brit sympathizers, Yanks and Communists.

But no. What they've done without asking the fans is change the rules to make the game more closely resemble the one played south of the border. It is to scream.

 

[Jesse]

Here comes maple maga again personally attacking everyone who doesn't like the new rules because he knows the mods will just lock the thread instead of actually moderating it and just silence any criticism of the direction the league is headed.

Yo Colton, good to hear from you.

Are you for the new rules?

[theaardvark]

What I don't understand about the Commissioner's office is how the past and present denizens have continued to drop the ball when it comes to marketing the product and league. This is the marketing campaign that would resonate with most Canadian sports fans:

"This is Canada. We are Canadians. We are distinct; we are unique. And so is our game."

film clips shown

"Canadian football! Over a century and a half of tradition; over a century and a half of action. Because we are Canadians."

Such a marketing campaign would tug on the heart strings of everybody but hardcore Brit sympathizers, Yanks and Communists.

But no. What they've done without asking the fans is change the rules to make the game more closely resemble the one played south of the border. It is to scream.

 

I don't think that the changes had anything "to make the game more closely resemble the one played south of the border", and I will stand by those thoughts.

You cannot mistake a 65yard wide CFL field and an NFL field, ever.  Sorry, its not a resemblance at all.

Shortening the field so that it fits in more than 7 of 9 stadiums makes sense, as does the implication that it may stimulate scoring which is declining.

Moving the goalposts remedies a stupid quick of the game.  As a man who, in  minor football back in the day, both hit an upright with a pass (I wasn't supposed to be throwing the ball), and ran flush into a post one play later, I applaud this move.  It will clean up the field, and again, the 15 yard endzones cannot be mistaken for the pitiful 10 yard EZ's in the NFL.

Changing the rouge rules retains a limited level of reward for failure which also changes how the game is played, for the better.

The clock, I'm still on the fence, not knowing how it will affect the final 3 minutes.  We will see how it affects things.

As to whether junior and USports will adopt the new field dimensions and configuration, I think the CFL will end up helping them make the changes.  Teams, like the Bisons, that share a CFL field, are going to have ann interesting conundrum.  I can't see PAS having a dual setup... 

[jets4life]

Having read a number of blogs and analysis from CFL enthusiasts, who break down every change, and debunk everything that is claimed by CFL brass as to the changes will lead to "higher scoring, more TD's, and a more exciting game," I just do not understand why the vocal minority of posters who think this is a great idea, and the league needs to do this to change with the time, have nothing in the way of a convincing argument.  It's just personal attacks.

One would think that making the field with the same length of an NFL field, shrinking the end zones, and moving the goalposts outside the end zone, there would be some sort of thorough analysis to back up what the CFL brass and the Commissioner are claiming.  On the contrary, every single popular blog, or analytics guru have come out, and said it will make scoring harder, and if anything, make the league less exciting.

By 2027, the CFL will be reduced to a handful of leagues that tried to compete with the NFL, with nearly identical rules, (some exceptions like the 2 point convert, etc were eventually implemented in the NFL).  However that does change the fact that there have been no pro football leagues that have been sucessful:

WFL (1970s) folded after 2 seasons
USFL (1983-85) folded after 3 seasons
WLAF (1991-92) exited the North American market, due to financial losses
XFL (2001) folded after one season
UFL (2009-13) folded after 4 seasons, never really had much of a following
AAF (2019) folded in the middle of first season
XFL 2 (2020-23) merged with the USFL
USFL 2 (2022-23) merged with the (XFL)
UFL - USFL/XFL merger (2024-P) league on bring of collapse.

And yet we are trying to make the CFL game nearly identical to all these prior leagues, who have failed miserably. Does anyone even remember the disastrous American expansion of the mid 90s? Once the CFL loses it's Canadian identity, the league will fold.

[jets4life]

In other words the people who are CFL fans, who follow the game closely/very closely (the ones that are most likely to buy tickets, and merchandise), nearly 3/4 of the respondents say "the CFL should try and differentiate itself, from the NFL as much as possible."

For the occasional fan, or people that rarely pay attention to the league (people least likely to buy tickets), people are slightly more receptive to "distinguishing the game from the NFL as much as possible." However, it still results in more fans wanting to leave the rules the way they are, and promote it's Canadian identity, by a 38-30 margin.

Businesses that do not listen to it's customers, are eventually doomed to fail. Imagine if Walmart or Costco ignored their own internal surveys and customer feedback, and insisted that they knew "what was best for the customer? That would be a recipe for disaster. Incidentally, that is exactly what Target did when they entered the Canadian market in late 2012.  They lost hundreds of millions, on their Canadian expansion, and have to close all stores by late 2024, as it literally wiped out profit margins for the US.

The moral of the story, from a business perspective, is to listen to your customers.  Even the Jets had issues with overall game day experience,and season ticket agents taking them for granted for most of the 2010s. TNSE was forced into a situation where they had to do damage control, and do a better job of addressing season ticket holders concerns, once the Jets attendance streak ended in late 2019, and especially after COVID.

[jets4life]

Thanks, I hate it: a traditionalist's reaction to the CFL's rule changes

By Santino Filoso -September 26, 2025

What I'm firmly against is change for the sake of change — adjustments that shrug off decades of tradition as if they don't matter, and alterations that address problems nobody is complaining about.Before diving into the incoming changes that I hate, let's start with the ones I like. Having team benches on opposite sides of the field was long overdue and rectifies a safety issue. Frankly, the CFL is fortunate there's never been a bench-clearing brawl given the proximity of two teams in heated contests.

I also think that changing the play clock to 35 seconds with it starting automatically is a positive. Though the play clock is technically 20 seconds now, it sometimes takes the referees 20 or 30 seconds to blow play in. With that said, I don't understand how Johnston announced this change without explaining how it will impact the final three minutes of a half, which are often the best parts of CFL games. The last three minutes of the half is one of the CFL's biggest strengths as teams are forced to actually play football — not kneel things out — allowing for epic comebacks.


Not clarifying how the new 35-second clock will work at the end of a half naturally leads fans to speculate that CFL teams will run out the clock at the end of games, as is commonplace in the NFL. "No lead is safe" could quickly become "Most leads are safe." It appears the rules committee will be tasked with ensuring things stay exciting but Johnston should have done a better job of clarifying this when speaking to the media.

Speaking of which, people need to stop criticizing fans for saying the announced changes Americanize the league to an extent. They do.


While the CFL is retaining some aspects that make it unique, going to a 100-yard field, shortening the end zones, and moving back the goalposts bring the game more in line with four-down football. If the CFL field looks more like the NFL field, it has indeed been Americanized. Period.

Intended or not, making the CFL aesthetically more American was always going to spark a reaction and it especially comes off as tone deaf given the current political climate. Let's tackle the changes one-by-one.


How can one claim the goalposts must be moved in order for teams to have better access to the end zone, and in the same breath reduce space by shortening them? Smaller end zones will naturally lead to less of the playbook being available to offensive coordinators.

---

The two main justifications for moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone were player safety and to present a cleaner visual product. I've been attending CFL games for my entire life and I've never heard anyone complain about the current location of the goal posts impeding their view. And as someone who literally watches every game on television, there's yet to be a highlight TSN's cameras have missed due to the uprights.

As for safety, while there's a valid concern about someone running into the goalposts and suffering an injury, the CFL's explanation video had to go back several seasons to showcase an example of it happening, which highlights how rare it is.


Is moving the goalposts back and eliminating missed field goal returns — one of the most exciting plays in all of football — worth it because once every five seasons someone runs into the padded post or a quarterback "doinks" a pass? I don't think so.

-----


That leads us to the changes to the rouge. Johnston talked of how the rouge as it currently stands rewards failure. I find that wording to be misleading and the problem is it instantly frames the rouge as something negative, when it's not.

Opponents of the rouge love to say you shouldn't give out points for missing kicks, but that's not how a rouge works. With where the goalposts are currently located, a missed field goal still needs to travel another 20 yards to be worth a single point. That doesn't happen all that often, but when it does, an offence is rewarded with a single point for getting into range to score.

If teams don't want to lose the game by a single point, they should score more in the first 59 minutes of play, not allow the opposition to get that close to the end zone, and return the ball beyond the goal line when a kick is missed.Why take a scoring method away from teams when sports leagues around the world are constantly looking to increase scoring? Why is removing something that makes the game unique a good thing?


Yes, the rouge will exist next season, but with the goalposts at the back of end zones, we'll be seeing fewer returns — particularly on missed field goals.

In his various media hits this week, Johnston talked of trading field goals for touchdowns, but are we sure that's what's going to happen?

What the CFL will probably be trading is points (ie. field goals) for punts. As things currently stand, a team facing third-and-three on the 40-yard line would probably try a 47-yard field goal. A miss would probably still result in points or lead to an exciting return.

With the new rules, this same situation would require a 62-yard field goal attempt. Coaches aren't suddenly going to become more aggressive — they'll probably choose the conservative option and try a coffin-corner punt to pin their opponent deep. It's folly to believe these changes will suddenly make coaches work against their very nature.

These changes are all the more head-scratching given that, according to the CFL's own data, scoring is up six percent, quarterback ratings are historically high, return touchdowns are up 80 percent, and big plays are up 13 percent. What happens when the these rule changes (likely) lead to more punts and fewer missed field goal returns?

Is it a stretch to suggest we'll then start hearing about the need for a fourth down to improve offence and restore excitement? Those fears seem all the more valid as, when gifted an opportunity to promise the CFL would always be a three-down league, Johnston chose to remain non-committal.

---

Finally, we come to the shortening of the field from 110 yards, as it's been since 1896, to 100 yards. Not only is such a change against the history and tradition of the league, it potentially screws over U Sports and minor league football, who all have 110-yard fields.

It's one thing to prioritize secrecy to prevent leaks — it's another to blindside your feeder league and fail to consult with Football Canada. This isn't a simply matter of painting lines, it's a foundational change to the physical structure of where and how the game is played.

The justification for shortening the field is it will be easier for teams to score touchdowns as offences will start closer to the end zone. As mentioned above, I fear the league is merely trading field goals for punts. Scoring is up this season, so is it worth messing with decades and decades of tradition — not to mention the record book — on such a flimsy justification? And does the offence really need another advantage over the defence?

When you put it all together, these changes are being solid as modernizing the game and a way to bring new fans into the fold because it's a cleaner presentation. To me, "cleaner" seems like a pseudonym for "more American." More CFL teams need to be profitable, sure, but will any of the announced changes actually put money in the owners pockets?

NFL fans aren't NFL fans because they love the field dimensions, the location of the goalposts, or small end zones. They're fans because the NFL marketing machine is a behemoth that runs 365 days a year. They're fans because they play fantasy football and have spent two decades playing Madden video games. They're fans because they can consume endless podcasts that dive deep into stats that are freely and easily accessible.

If the CFL wanted to try to attract those fans, they could start with something as simple as having stats on their website that function consistently and predate 2016. For a league playing its 112th Grey Cup this November, you'd be extremely hard-pressed to find any stats more than nine years old.

The league could develop an app or significantly increase marketing campaigns beyond annual 30-second video hits. They could invest in telling the stories of their current players and colourful alumni. They could create a season-long fantasy game, which would allow fans to hold preseason drafts. They could partner to have the CFL accessible as a video game. Perhaps those playing it would become familiar with its unique rules and find an appreciation for the Canadian game's quirks.

The CFL could also attempt to grow by improving its on-field product with the elimination of the football operations cap, collectively bargain to extend the hours teams are allowed to actually practice, and invest in getting U Sports football on TV. That could create a buy-in from fans at the lower level so that people are hyped for prospects while they're still in university and let things grow from there.

This week's Americanization of the CFL isn't going to magically bring in more fans. A tweak to the rouge and cutting 10 yards off the field isn't going to cause Canadians who only watch the NFL to suddenly flock to the three-down game.

I'm not arguing the CFL shouldn't be trying to evolve or change or improve its product, but right now I'm worried the CFL's board of governors is changing the fabric of the game in pursuit of an imaginary fan that doesn't actually exist. The problem isn't the CFL product, it's the missing elements of how it's packaged and marketed. The NFL might have more talented players, but the CFL game has always been more entertaining.

If the league continues to remove the things that typify the 'C' in CFL, they'll lose loyal fans and be left with nothing. Then the crisis will really hit.

source;  https://3downnation.com/2025/09/26/thanks-i-hate-it-a-traditionalists-reaction-to-the-cfls-rule-changes/