New rules / commissioner's statements

[Sir Blue and Gold]

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)

Correct. A 47 yard field goal is currently scrimmage yard 40.

In 2027 a 47 yard field goal is scrimmage yard 25.

This means field goal range starts about the 30.

If you're third down on the 35 yard line you effectively have the option to punt to net maybe 30 yards or go for it for a fresh set. You guys are the experts but I think you'll see more coaches go for it in that spot. Right now it's a FG decision almost every time.

I'm sure you've al thought that through carefully.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

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

Missed FG's will still scrimmage on the 40 as long as they clear the endzone, why push a FG kicker well beyond his range when a punter can do a better job of hemming them within 10 yds. of their endzone? I would choose the second scenario every time, as it's usually pretty difficult to drive the ball the entire length of the field.

[Tecno]

If you're third down on the 35 yard line you effectively have the option to punt to net maybe 30 yards or go for it for a fresh set. You guys are the experts but I think you'll see more coaches go for it in that spot. Right now it's a FG decision almost every time.

But also consider that if you're on the team B 35 and you blow it on 3rd & medium, that team is only 15Y from midfield, and only 65Y from the other EZ.  In other words, if you blow the gamble you're giving them pretty good starting field position.

Coffin or hem them at their 5 and they must drive the entire field.

I can see only ONE thing possibly increasing: many 3rd & mediums in "no mans land" will be a 5YL, GL or EZ shot -- in other words a deep low-percentage shot -- because an INT will be equal to a punt.  However, once coaches coach every DB on batting down these shots instead of INTing them, it'll revert to being a failed gamble and you have that field position problem in my first paragraph again.

The CFL already has a no mans land area, and yet still only 1-2 coaches "go for it" regularly.  Namely Dickenson The Greater.  Why would the ultra-conservative other coaches suddenly be in The Gamblin' Mood?  MOS will still take his deep FG shots -- 62Y will become the norm for Castillo.  Teams with 43Y max FG range (read: Parades) and a strong Ozzie P will do a lot of coffin shots.

Maybe you'll have a few in-between coaches going for it more... maybe.  But if they get burned by a lot of failures, they'll be forced to do more kicking, less gambling.

[Tecno]

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)

What's confusing people on the "net yards for FGs with the GP move" math is there are 2 different ways to look at it, and some are conflating them:

1. The distance a team will need to gain to get in new FG range.
or
2. How far a FG attempt is from a given yard line (on the opponent's side).

For #1, the question remains where do teams start?  If the 40YL still, then team A must gain 5Y more than before to reach the same FG range (10Y lost in the middle, but 15 farther out the back = 5 farther).

For #2, it's easy: every FG attempt is 15Y farther away (because the lost 10Y at center field has no bearing).

So when arguing the "how much longer is a FG attempt", please specify if you mean #1 or #2.  As Einstein would say, it's all relative.

[Tecno]

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.

It's already been reported here that Johnston came in and whipped up all these changes, not that BOG/owners brought him in with these changes already laid out saying "do this".

Someone is lying.

[Tecno]

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

I appreciate your points.  But I don't see how you can make this one statement.  Yes, it seems possible, or even likely, that the changes will make things better or be a "no-op" (no change) in terms of excitement.  However, there certainly is a possibility it makes things worse.

Remember, all of these numbers and tweaks and situations were honed over 112 years of Grey Cup.  There may be a ton of hidden gotchas once you start screwing with the fundamentals of the game.

"When you come across a fence, before you tear it down, ask yourself why it is there."

[jets4life]

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).

CFL attendance has risen every season since 2021. There is no reason to suspect this will not continue, considering Edmonton, who have traditionally led the CFL in attendance for most of the past 40 years, are beginning to field a competitive team after nearly a decade of ineptitude.

Calgary will also likely see increase in attendance, especially with the talk of constructing a new stadium within the next decade. The league went through this during and after the disastrous American expansion of the 90s, which saw attendance increase from a low of 21,300 in 1997 to 29,000 by 2007.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It's already been reported here that Johnston came in and whipped up all these changes, not that BOG/owners brought him in with these changes already laid out saying "do this".

Someone is lying.

Spoiler: It's you.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

You keep ignoring the fact that CFL attendance has risen every season since 2022. There is no reason to suspect this will not continue, considering Edmonton, who have traditionally led the CFL in attendance for most of the past 40 years, are beginning to field a competitive team after nearly a decade of ineptitude.

Calgary will also likely see increase in attendance, especially with the talk of constructing a new stadium within the next decade. The league went through this during and after the disastrous American expansion of the 90s, which saw attendance increase to 29,000 by the late 2000s.

The everything is okay argument is so silly.

It's okay for you.

It's not okay with: the head of the CFL and the owners and CEO of every single CFL team.

If it was, they wouldn't be making changes. Surely that can be appreciated? Or are we that far lost?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

But also consider that if you're on the team B 35 and you blow it on 3rd & medium, that team is only 15Y from midfield, and only 65Y from the other EZ.  In other words, if you blow the gamble you're giving them pretty good starting field position.

Coffin or hem them at their 5 and they must drive the entire field.

I can see only ONE thing possibly increasing: many 3rd & mediums in "no mans land" will be a 5YL, GL or EZ shot -- in other words a deep low-percentage shot -- because an INT will be equal to a punt.  However, once coaches coach every DB on batting down these shots instead of INTing them, it'll revert to being a failed gamble and you have that field position problem in my first paragraph again.

The CFL already has a no mans land area, and yet still only 1-2 coaches "go for it" regularly.  Namely Dickenson The Greater.  Why would the ultra-conservative other coaches suddenly be in The Gamblin' Mood?  MOS will still take his deep FG shots -- 62Y will become the norm for Castillo.  Teams with 43Y max FG range (read: Parades) and a strong Ozzie P will do a lot of coffin shots.

Maybe you'll have a few in-between coaches going for it more... maybe.  But if they get burned by a lot of failures, they'll be forced to do more kicking, less gambling.

I'll have to take your word for it, after all you know what O'Shea is going to do in 2027 by listening to his press conferences with the media in 2025.

[bomb squad]

I appreciate your points.  But I don't see how you can make this one statement.  Yes, it seems possible, or even likely, that the changes will make things better or be a "no-op" (no change) in terms of excitement.  However, there certainly is a possibility it makes things worse.

Remember, all of these numbers and tweaks and situations were honed over 112 years of Grey Cup.  There may be a ton of hidden gotchas once you start screwing with the fundamentals of the game.

"When you come across a fence, before you tear it down, ask yourself why it is there."

Fair enough. If it wasn't for the missed field goal return issue though, I think it's a certainty that it would add more excitement to the game. At this point, we just don't know how much the net gain or loss will be. Let me put it this way then. I think there's a greater potential or possibility of it being more exciting than less. 

[jets4life]

The everything is okay argument is so silly.

It's okay for you.

It's not without precedent. CFL attendance hit an all time low in the aftermath of the American expansion. Ottawa moved and attendance dipped below 22,000.

The CFL recovered, and was nearly at 30,000 fans per game within a decade. The league ebbs and flows. The league needs to do a better job of selling the existing product, and eventually attendance will improve to what it was 20 years ago.

[blue_or_die]

All this talk about if the new field format will increase scoring by 0.574 PPG or decrease scoring by 0.574 PPG and regardless, the best-case outcome is we increase attendance by 0.574 people per game. That's the "logic" discussion that ought to be had.

[bomber beetle]

It's already been reported here that Johnston came in and whipped up all these changes, not that BOG/owners brought him in with these changes already laid out saying "do this".

Someone is lying.

There is also the theory that MLSE demanded these changes and the league bent to their demands.
Maybe this is the truth. And if it is, what of it?
If MLSE is not happy the Argos are probably dead and gone. The Argos could easily be the next Valour. Who could blame MLSE for dumping this franchise that almost no one in a huge city wants to watch?

Regardless of what the truth is, everyone should keep in mind the precarious state the league is in.
 

[jets4life]

There is also the theory that MLSE demanded these changes and the league bent to their demands.
Maybe this is the truth. And if it is, what of it?
If MLSE is not happy the Argos are probably dead and gone. The Argos could easily be the next Valour. Who could blame MLSE for dumping this franchise that almost no one in a huge city wants to watch?

Regardless of what the truth is, everyone should keep in mind the precarious state the league is in.
 

It's possible that the sports culture in Toronto has changed to the point that the people in the city no longer will support a league that they consider "second class."

The Argos are not alone. The city has tried the AHL and OHL either in the city or nearby suburbs (Mississauga, etc).  If the team is not the Leafs, the people tend not to support it

Toronto has gone from a metro area of under 3 million people to an international  city of over 7 million. My guess is that nothing other than the NFL will work there.