New rules / commissioner's statements

[TBURGESS]

The league made the decision; they should pay for the changes. 

[theaardvark]

No issues in the league helping pay for the new turf adjustments, that's what all that extra TV money comes in handy for.  Using a depreciation schedule based on the percentage useful life the field still has.. like tires.

Saying PROFESSIONAL leagues have varying size playing fields, outside baseball, is disingenuous.  Yes, one of the fun parts about baseball is the field dimensions being uber weird, like the Green Monster.

But making a field dimension where it easily fits in any stadium, while maintaining the 65' width and the deeper endzones, no football fan is going to get confused whether its CFL or NFL by the lack of a 55 yard line, or goal posts on the end line instead of the goal line.

The field remains uniquely Canadian, just cleaner, and standardized.

I saw a couple plays during Touchdown BC that would have been made on a proper field, but got cut off by the corners.  And we saw another doink pass recently as well.

And the punters/kickers with the new rouge rules seem to be really stepping up their games.  How many KO singles have we seen?  And punters leaving the ball dead inside the 5, it has been glorious. 

5 years from now, we will still near nostalgic fans bemoaning the loss of the 55, but I think most fans will accept it and enjoy the new fields.  Especially in Mont, Tor and Kelowna.

[Jesse]

This is such a waste of money. What is the purpose of this again??

[blue_gold_84]

This is such a waste of money. What is the purpose of this again??

I'm all for standardization of the field dimensions, but the CFL has always had that. Even if certain venues were marginally noncompliant, there have always been standardized field dimensions.

These changes don't make the CFL cleaner in any way, shape, or form.

[TBURGESS]

I give zero craps about standardizing the fields. We'e played on the current field sizes forever.

[Waffler]

To me different fields are no different than planning for weather, different field surface or hostile fan noise.  Good coaching takes it into account. I never heard anyone we say we lost because of those corner end zones.

[Tecno]

I have been watching the CFL all my life and no one has ever said having cut off corners in one field is exciting. If you're standardizing everything anyways, get rid of them.

Now that's misdirection. Of course no one got excited by slightly different fields. That's inane.

But just the same no one really complained about them either. I can remember twice in the past decade a ball might have been a td had the corners not been cut at Molson. Both guys maybe mention it for a minute then we all move on.

Like Rourke said, we all know about this stuff ahead of time, and God qbs play around it. It's the same for both teams. No one is disadvantaged.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Now that's misdirection. Of course no one got excited by slightly different fields. That's inane.

But just the same no one really complained about them either. I can remember twice in the past decade a ball might have been a td had the corners not been cut at Molson. Both guys maybe mention it for a minute then we all move on.

Like Rourke said, we all know about this stuff ahead of time, and God qbs play around it. It's the same for both teams. No one is disadvantaged.

It's not misdirection you cut out half the paragraph. There are leagues where different field dimensions play well into the ethos of the sport. Like baseball. I don't believe football is one though. So if you're going to make changes anyway, you might as well make them all the same. Nobody complained a lot about them but no one liked them either. They won't be a loss, like removing the green monster would, for example.

[bomber beetle]

I've stated many times and you refuse to acknowledge that the Molson (and Kelowna) corner problem can be solved simply by making all EZ's 12.5Y deep (or close to that), without any other field size changes.

If you ask fans to choose:
a) Make all EZ's 12.5Y deep (or whatever)
or
b) Lose the 55, make fields 100Y, AND make EZ's 15Y or 10Y deep

Which do you think 99% of fans will choose.  You're giving people a false dichotomy.

The league could also just mandate proper sized fields (110+20).  Don't give teams the option.  Don't have that field?  You're not a team.  We could give the league X years to comply... as MTL will in a couple of years have the option of returning to Olympic Stadium after its reno.

I would be in the 1%.

A 100 yd field with 15 yard end zones should result in more scoring compared to 110 yd field with 10 yard endzones.

[theaardvark]

The issue with different field configurations is not with teams not being able to make adjustments, but that teams don't need the distraction of adding that extra prep into their games. 

Teams with non compliant fields get to play on them half the time, and it actually makes a home field advantage above and beyond the fans.

Timing, pattern running, taking advantage of every inch of the field changes when you are on a non compliant field. 

Making the fields all the same literally levels the playing field.

[Tecno]

Making the fields all the same literally levels the playing field.

Then Aards, please answer, I've asked you 8 times in 1 year: why not just make all EZs 12.5Y and keep the 55?

If this issue is so dire it absolutely must be solved, that's the easiest, cheapest and least contentious way to solve it.  5%+ of fans will quit the league if they drop the 55, almost no one will quit the league if they go 12.5Y EZs.

[Tecno]

I would be in the 1%.

A 100 yd field with 15 yard end zones should result in more scoring compared to 110 yd field with 10 yard endzones.

Because 2026 (and 2025!) are such low scoring affairs, with many games being 70, 80, 90 pts.

   

(Add to that that CFL already is higher scoring than NFL... Are we going for 110 pts a game??)

[Waffler]

Nobody complained a lot about them but no one liked them either. They won't be a loss, like removing the green monster would, for example.

It is a loss though. Stadiums are built for the current field. The only way the worst seats are getting sold now is if you make them insanely cheap. There is a city Councillor in Regina that wants to sue the league and she is serious. By your own admission nobody cared a lot about them (field size).

The only thing that makes sense is that DAZN demanded the 100 yard field. If the sport is just going to be something you bet on like a horse race then I have lost interest.

Or is it that we have to change the field every time the Argos move into a new stadium? They have used 4 so far in my lifetime. I would be surprised if I don't see #5.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Then Aards, please answer, I've asked you 8 times in 1 year: why not just make all EZs 12.5Y and keep the 55?

If this issue is so dire it absolutely must be solved, that's the easiest, cheapest and least contentious way to solve it.  5%+ of fans will quit the league if they drop the 55, almost no one will quit the league if they go 12.5Y EZs.

89.25% of stats are made up. I can do it too. Isn't it fun?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

It is a loss though. Stadiums are built for the current field. The only way the worst seats are getting sold now is if you make them insanely cheap. There is a city Councillor in Regina that wants to sue the league and she is serious. By your own admission nobody cared a lot about them (field size).

The only thing that makes sense is that DAZN demanded the 100 yard field. If the sport is just going to be something you bet on like a horse race then I have lost interest.

Or is it that we have to change the field every time the Argos move into a new stadium? They have used 4 so far in my lifetime. I would be surprised if I don't see #5.

After a Google search that took 5 seconds, I don't think you understand the word "sue". The city asked league and team to pay for the changes, which seems fair? The stadium deal works differently in Regina than Winnipeg where that is already the case and is assumed the city wouldn't pay for something like that.

Also agree that for Winnipeg and Regina, the footprint change is a not super great on the surface. Will wait and see what the Bombers do with it though. They're pretty good at the game day experience and have the resources to make the best of it.