New rules / commissioner's statements

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Or the rules might be changed to not allow. coffin corner kicks. Yet to be determined:

Maybe they'll force them to punt with their opposite foot?

[bomber beetle]

His claim of more TDs being scored would imply more points will be scored.

And remember: this is despite the fact his claim is unsupported and unverifiable at this point.

It's both an odd claim and a pretty stupid promise for him to make.

The commissioner stated 'trading field goals for touchdowns' and 'to ensure scoring remains high'.
To me, based on those words, it implies that scoring would remain about the same.
For sure though, that is unverifiable at this stage.

[bomb squad]

It is a fact that starting closer to the opponent deadball line increases SCORING-per-drive.  It stands to reason it increases TDs-per-drive as well, as a certain percentage of drives will end in TDs, not FGs.  However, this isn't a given.

StatsJunkie regularly posts the X-per-drive stats and can probably answer this question definitively.  We don't need to guess.

The problem is if they move the GPs at the same time we'll have 2 variables at play.  Logically we will get a lot LESS FG's per drive, and possibly more TDs per drive, but also more punts per drive. Will this result in "more TDs" or even "more O"?  That remains to be seen.

Excluding the GPs, this is exactly the change the CFL made when they had drives start at the 40, not the 35.  Scoring did go up.  Did TDs go up too?  Or just FGs?  And it stands to reason.

The CFL for at least 5 years has had a "more O" mantra.  This is yet a more "more O" change.  The problem this time is they are lashing out at fundamental CFL-isms to do it.  Should have just started drives at the 45 and changed the FG rules to somehow incentivize "going for it" on 3rd.

"a lot LESS FG's per drive"

Don't know about "a lot". Remember, there's only 5 yds further to travel to fg range from a point the same distance from your own end. It's also likely long field goal attempts (45+) will be attempted at a higher rate because there is much less risk of a big return.

"but also more punts per drive"

Don't know about that either. See long fg attempts above. Also, there will be a sweet spot (40 yard line +/-) where a coach may consider gambling on 3rd down rather than punting. That situation will arise to a greater extent than it does currently.

We'll have to see how this plays out. It certainly won't be less exciting than it is now.

[bomber beetle]

Maybe they'll force them to punt with their opposite foot?

Haha, shank away.

Personally, I hope the coffin corner possibility remains in play. It is a high skill play.
I don't think there will be more attempts of them with the new field.
The risk factor may go up. A missed coffin corner will probably give your opposition the ball 10 yards closer to the oppenent's goal line.
The reward factor may go down, getting the ball back after a two and out will not likely immediately be in field goal range.

In the NFL, the coffin corner is basically extinct in today's game. Not saying that a direct comparison between leagues is valid due to the fair catch and downed ball rules. Still, the coffin corner when executed is the best guarantee of pinning the opposition deep. It must be about risk vs reward, and it is better in that league to not try it. Even with the likelihood that most of their punters are more skilled than those in the CFL. 

[blue_gold_84]

It certainly won't be less exciting than it is now.

It won't be more exciting, either.

The excitement of CFL games in general hasn't been an issue. The entertainment value has always been there.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It won't be more exciting, either.

The excitement of CFL games in general hasn't been an issue. The entertainment value has always been there.

For you. In Winnipeg. And I agree with you with by the way. I find the CFL super entertaining. However:

Toronto - 15,109
Ottawa - 18,136
Edmonton - 19,050 (lowest in 55 years)
Calgary - 22,295
Hamilton - 22,295
Montreal - 21,131

If you're going to talk about league wide, big picture business changes you need to rise above your personal experience or even the experience in Winnipeg.

Both are largely irrelevant in this context (mine and yours).

[Waffler]

In baseball big changes are tested FIRST in the minor leagues so they know exactly what to expect and managers have some idea how to approach it. Pitch clock, bigger bases, shift rules, pickoff changes all are examples. What we have here in the CFL is a giant chemistry experiment. They are saying let's mix it up and see what happens. 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

In baseball big changes are tested FIRST in the minor leagues so they know exactly what to expect and managers have some idea how to approach it. Pitch clock, bigger bases, shift rules, pickoff changes all are examples. What we have here in the CFL is a giant chemistry experiment. They are saying let's mix it up and see what happens.

It only feels that way to you because you were just told this information. The member clubs have been working on this for a long time and they're unlikely to be the last changes either.

[blue_gold_84]

For you. In Winnipeg. And I agree with you with by the way. I find the CFL super entertaining. However:

Toronto - 15,109
Ottawa - 18,136
Edmonton - 19,050 (lowest in 55 years)
Calgary - 22,295
Hamilton - 22,295
Montreal - 21,131

If you're going to talk about league wide, big picture business changes you need to rise above your personal experience or even the experience in Winnipeg.

Both are largely irrelevant in this context (mine and yours).

Posting attendance figures doesn't prove anything as it relates to the overall excitement of CFL games.

Attendance issues are far more complex than that.

Also, FWIW: attendance was up this past season.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Posting attendance figures doesn't prove anything as it relates to the overall excitement of CFL games.

Attendance issues are far more complex than that.

Also, FWIW: attendance was up this past season.

six of nine teams with pretty bad draws ? Edmonton had the lowest attendance in 55 years. Who cares. You don't write the cheques, right?

And brain-dead? I'll file that away with boot licker and class traitor and you better believe I'll be cheering on the changes in 2027 and beyond baby. Because whatever points you're failing to grasp are the ones the league is addressing whether you understand them or not.

[TBURGESS]

It would be really strange if the field was shunk and teams started on average, further away from the end zone. Basic math and reasoning applies irrespective of whether or not you believe 2 + 2 = 4.

Removing 10 yards in the middle of the field helps both the offence and the kicking team equally, making it net-zero in terms of field position. Example, a punt that would have come down on the 40, now comes down on the 30. Which is the same distance from the goal line as it always was.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Removing 10 yards in the middle of the field helps both the offence and the kicking team equally, making it net-zero in terms of field position. Example, a punt that would have come down on the 40, now comes down on the 30. Which is the same distance from the goal line as it always was.

It does not.

Kicking team currently kicks the ball out at the 1. The offense is 109 yards from a TD.

2027: same kick out at the one. The offense is 99 yards from a TD.

You're so close to getting it. I can feel it!

[dd]

The field has been reduced by 10 yards and goal posts moved to back of 15 yd end zone so field goals will be a net of 5 yds further. With very little return threat I think there will be more field goals as you don't have to cover them you either make it or if it's wide it's out of bounds. A 10 yds reducing on field dimensions won't impact TD production at all, it's a 5 yard pass, insignificant. But I think mos will have Costillo bombing the long field goals as he either makes them or it's a touch back, no need to have your cover team run 50 yards to cover a wide kick

[TBURGESS]

It does not.

Kicking team currently kicks the ball out at the 1. The offense is 109 yards from a TD.

2027: same kick out at the one. The offense is 99 yards from a TD.

You're so close to getting it. I can feel it!

If that same kick came from the opposing team's 50, it would have gone out at 11 instead of the 1 because of the missing 10 yards.

You can't argue that the missing 10 yards is only an advantage to the offence, because that's clearly wrong.

[TBURGESS]

The field has been reduced by 10 yards and goal posts moved to back of 15 yd end zone so field goals will be a net of 5 yds further. With very little return threat I think there will be more field goals as you don't have to cover them you either make it or if it's wide it's out of bounds. A 10 yds reducing on field dimensions won't impact TD production at all, it's a 5 yard pass, insignificant. But I think mos will have Costillo bombing the long field goals as he either makes them or it's a touch back, no need to have your cover team run 50 yards to cover a wide kick

Those 10 yards are taken from the middle of the field so any FG from inside the 50 are 15 yards longer. (The length of the end-zone) Note that's all the FG's because of the extra 15 yards would make a 50 yard FG 65 yards)