New rules / commissioner's statements

[theaardvark]

One of the narratives when the rule changes were first announced was that new commissioner was just the messenger.

Based on all of his interviews during Grey Cup Week it is quite clear that Stewart Johnston is the one driving the bus. He mentioned several times that many of these changes are ideas he has thought about for a handful of years prior to getting the CFL job. None of rule changes were left dangling from the Randy Ambrosie era.

So, why the urgency to get these rule changes through so quickly?

And more importantly, why was it necessary to bypass the traditional process for approving rule changes?

During Grey Cup Week, the CFL was celebrating increased attendance, increased viewership, and increased revenue. Revenue is a lagging indicator which suggests that it was initiatives started by Randy Ambrosie that are responsible. Probably the biggest revenue generator has been legalized gambling on CFL games. Believe or not, this is a Genius initiative. In fact, legalized gambling is the business arm that Genius Sports does the best.

Out of this, the CFL finally has the funds necessary to upgrade the website, mobile app & fantasy football. Johnston will take the bows for steering the league across the finish line for these initiatives but the groundwork was set before he took over. Most importantly, Genius Sports will not be involved in these initiatives.

It has been suggested that the rule changes will improve excitement and increase scoring. During Grey Cup week, the CFL was celebrating the highest points per game since 2008. The league should also be celebrating the highest points per drive ever. Unfortunately, through other initiatives by the league to reduce game time into a 3 hour time slot, we have lost a number of plays per game. Based on numbers from the mid-1990s, there were about 165 plays per game. Today the league average is a little more than 140 plays per game. If you want to increase scoring, find a way to increase the number of plays. Theoretically, a 10% increase in the number of plays should result in a 10% increase in scoring per game.

The only rule change suggested that addresses the number of plays issue is the 35 second play clock. If done properly, we will see an increase in the number of plays per game. How many more plays really depends on the details. The next big question, if more plays are the result, can we still complete a CFL game in the 3 hour TV time slot?

BTW, I consider a well played defensive football game to be quite enjoyable. More scoring doesn't necessarily mean more excitement.

It does look like the commish is taking all the heat and blame for the changes, which is literally his job.

Why they came together quickly is an interesting question, and makes one wonder how long many of these changes have been percolating before he arrived. Was it his job to put together the best of the ideas that had been around, and package them?

The fact that support for the agenda was 100% unanimous in the ownership group says the only thing we need to know about the commish, he has the full support of the ownership group, who pay his salary.

Many will say that his actual bosses are we, the fans.  And in that they are not wrong.  Sometimes our boss may make a decision that we initially disagree with, because we've "always done it THIS way".  But often, we find out that the new ideas, formulated by those with a lot of knowledge of the history and path the company wants to follow, actually work out good.

Sure, there are Cracker Barrel moments, and New Coke fiascos, but the vast majority of times, leaders in the know make good decisions.  Like the original Mustang, or the Caravan.  Improvements that changed the fate of those companies.  Mustang saved Ford from the Edsel, Caravan saved Dodge from insolvency (yes, I just watched "Cars that Made America last night"). 

I'm not saying these changes are equivalent to introducing the Mustang Caravan (that one didn't hit so well), but until we see them play out, I am assuming they have a plan, and they expect it to advance the game.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

One of the narratives when the rule changes were first announced was that new commissioner was just the messenger.

Based on all of his interviews during Grey Cup Week it is quite clear that Stewart Johnston is the one driving the bus. He mentioned several times that many of these changes are ideas he has thought about for a handful of years prior to getting the CFL job. None of rule changes were left dangling from the Randy Ambrosie era.

So, why the urgency to get these rule changes through so quickly?

And more importantly, why was it necessary to bypass the traditional process for approving rule changes?

During Grey Cup Week, the CFL was celebrating increased attendance, increased viewership, and increased revenue. Revenue is a lagging indicator which suggests that it was initiatives started by Randy Ambrosie that are responsible. Probably the biggest revenue generator has been legalized gambling on CFL games. Believe or not, this is a Genius initiative. In fact, legalized gambling is the business arm that Genius Sports does the best.

Out of this, the CFL finally has the funds necessary to upgrade the website, mobile app & fantasy football. Johnston will take the bows for steering the league across the finish line for these initiatives but the groundwork was set before he took over. Most importantly, Genius Sports will not be involved in these initiatives.

It has been suggested that the rule changes will improve excitement and increase scoring. During Grey Cup week, the CFL was celebrating the highest points per game since 2008. The league should also be celebrating the highest points per drive ever. Unfortunately, through other initiatives by the league to reduce game time into a 3 hour time slot, we have lost a number of plays per game. Based on numbers from the mid-1990s, there were about 165 plays per game. Today the league average is a little more than 140 plays per game. If you want to increase scoring, find a way to increase the number of plays. Theoretically, a 10% increase in the number of plays should result in a 10% increase in scoring per game.

The only rule change suggested that addresses the number of plays issue is the 35 second play clock. If done properly, we will see an increase in the number of plays per game. How many more plays really depends on the details. The next big question, if more plays are the result, can we still complete a CFL game in the 3 hour TV time slot?

BTW, I consider a well played defensive football game to be quite enjoyable. More scoring doesn't necessarily mean more excitement.

Johnston emerged from within TSN, could be his agenda is driven by their boardroom who are obsessed with number envy over how many Canadians are watching NFL broadcasts while CFL viewer numbers stagnate on their network.  They don't give a hoot about the game, to them the broadcast numbers and revenue generated is all that matters, so they choose to imitate to spark growth as they struggle to remain a viable broadcast network. Notice when the accountants get control of an industry, the lifeblood is sucked right out of it, ie the entertainment industry.

I'd love to hear exactly why Ambrosie was fired and where the pressure to do so came from, seems to me most decisions derive from T.O. and the teams just go along for the ride and agree to go wherever they're pointed.

[theaardvark]

Johnston emerged from within TSN, could be his agenda is driven by their boardroom who are obsessed with number envy over how many Canadians are watching NFL broadcasts while CFL viewer numbers stagnate on their network.  They don't give a hoot about the game, to them the broadcast numbers and revenue generated is all that matters, so they choose to imitate to spark growth as they struggle to remain a viable broadcast network. Notice when the accountants get control of an industry, the lifeblood is sucked right out of it, ie the entertainment industry.

I'd love to hear exactly why Ambrosie was fired and where the pressure to do so came from, seems to me most decisions derive from T.O. and the teams just go along for the ride and agree to go wherever they're pointed.

Was Ambrosie fired?  I thought he gave his notice, and the league went hunting for his replacement...

[jets4life]

Many will say that his actual bosses are we, the fans.  And in that they are not wrong.  Sometimes our boss may make a decision that we initially disagree with, because we've "always done it THIS way".  But often, we find out that the new ideas, formulated by those with a lot of knowledge of the history and path the company wants to follow, actually work out good.

Sure, there are Cracker Barrel moments, and New Coke fiascos, but the vast majority of times, leaders in the know make good decisions.  Like the original Mustang, or the Caravan.  Improvements that changed the fate of those companies.  Mustang saved Ford from the Edsel, Caravan saved Dodge from insolvency (yes, I just watched "Cars that Made America last night"). 

I'm not saying these changes are equivalent to introducing the Mustang Caravan (that one didn't hit so well), but until we see them play out, I am assuming they have a plan, and they expect it to advance the game.

Smart companies listen to the input of its customer base. The CFL is obviously not a smart company.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Smart companies listen to the input of its customer base. The CFL is obviously not a smart company.

Listen, yes. Do whatever a segment of customer base posts online? No.

Welcome to real life. The adults are in charge in seems.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Was Ambrosie fired?  I thought he gave his notice, and the league went hunting for his replacement...

He did, but it was after the BOG voted 5-4 in favour of removing him, they needed 7 votes against to remove him, but he decided not to continue on.

[Tecno]

He did, but it was after the BOG voted 5-4 in favour of removing him, they needed 7 votes against to remove him, but he decided not to continue on.

I haven't heard that stat before, but I'll take your word for it.  You could tell by his last pressers that he wanted to still be commish.  I also think he had an idea Johnston was going to come in and ruin everything.  Ambrosie was practically in tears in those last pressers.  And no, I don't think it was just "I'll miss my job".

[Tecno]

Smart companies listen to the input of its customer base. The CFL is obviously not a smart company.

Yes, especially the last few years where customers are quick to ruin a brand should they feel disrespected or ignored.  See Cracker Barrel (as mentioned), Bud Light, etc.

Gone are the days where you can force feed loyal customers an antithetical agenda.

CFL may be in the process of finding this out...

[Tecno]

Unfortunately, through other initiatives by the league to reduce game time into a 3 hour time slot, we have lost a number of plays per game. Based on numbers from the mid-1990s, there were about 165 plays per game. Today the league average is a little more than 140 plays per game. If you want to increase scoring, find a way to increase the number of plays. Theoretically, a 10% increase in the number of plays should result in a 10% increase in scoring per game.

Very interesting details.  I think a lot of the "lower plays per game" comes from teams that are active clock-bleeders.  And I don't just mean outside the whistles, which the 35s clock will put a stop to.  I mean bleeding the clock within the 20s by taking it down to 2-5s every single snap (unless down at the end of the halves).

WPG is one of these clock-bleeding teams.  SSK turned into one as well: since they copied everything that made WPG great for 5 straight seasons.  I think there were 1-2 more teams, but I can't remember who.  Wouldn't surprise me if Buck/BC was one.

I don't think teams in 90's were smart enough or cared enough to mold their strategy around "shortening the game" (reducing the plays).  Clearly some HCs(etc.) have run the numbers and decided it's a winning strategy.  Or it could be that "top teams" (or "running teams"?) have an advantage when doing so.

These same clock-bleeding teams will bleed that new 35s down to the last 2-5s all the same.  I'm not sure how'd you stop a team from doing this -- or if you'd even want to.  But it would increase the play count.

I'm reminding of F1's Niki Lauda, whose philosophy was to win races as slowly as possible -- basically do as little as possible to win, but still win.  That's totally a MOS philosophy.  Why put the ball in the air 90 times a game when you can win by running 40 and passing 30?