New rules / commissioner's statements

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Rubbish!  No one is suggesting 20 or a 200-yard field. We are specifically talking about changing to the same 100 yard field that the NFL is using. It's an apples to apples comparison.

One stated reason for the change is more scoring. IE: Shorter field = more TD's. It's a ridiculous idea, but if it was true, then the NFL with its shorter field should have more scoring, but it doesn't. Therefore, a shorter field doesn't equal more scoring.

A shorter field in the NFL would likely produce more NFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of NFL touchdowns of the current field.

A shorter field in the CFL would likely produce more CFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of CFL touchdowns of the current field.

The shorter you make the field the more dramatic the increase in scoring would be.

Are you really suggesting that isn't so? And if you are, is it no wonder that the commissioner doesn't seem to be listening to you?

This is beyond absurd, gentleman.

[TBURGESS]

A shorter field in the NFL would likely produce more NFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of NFL touchdowns of the current field.

A shorter field in the CFL would likely produce more CFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of CFL touchdowns of the current field.

The shorter you make the field the more dramatic the increase in scoring would be.

Are you really suggesting that isn't so? And if you are, is it no wonder that the commissioner doesn't seem to be listening to you?

This is beyond absurd, gentleman.

You're just making stuff up and pretending it's the truth. 

Yes I'm really saying that reducing the field size to 100 yards won't mean more TD's because there is zero evidence that it will. If you think it will, please provide your proof. 

[Stats Junkie]

I think what pisses me off even more is not consulting with Football Canada, U Sport, or the hundreds of  grassroots community football organizations that may have to alter their playing fields with out a cent of financial assistance outside of donations and fund raising. Imagine fund raising for years to create a playable field the community can take pride in, only to be told to re-arrange it based on the whim of one stupid MFer.

I was listening to a podcast several weeks ago (based in Edmonton) and they had a lengthy discussion about how the changes would affect football at the grassroots level. It sounded like a few of these people were quite involved in football at that level.

The part that stood out most was how moving the uprights to the back of the end zone would all but eliminate the field goal for the younger kids.

The group on the podcast said the convert is currently scrimmaged from the 10 yard line which makes the kick 17 yards. Kids at younger ages only have a range of 20-25 yards.

After the uprights are moved, it would be at minimum a 23 yard kick if the scrimmage was the 1 yard line. For this reason alone, the opinion they were taking back to these developmental leagues was to reject the field changes as proposed by the CFL.

[Tecno]

Yup....precisely my take (opinion).  The people making these decisions, in all probability, know more than me.  Personally I'm prepared to see the results and judge them later.

That would be all well and good, except the 110Y->100Y change is a monumental shift and undertaking costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions.

Once this is done (and propagated to all levels), I'm pretty sure it can never be undone.  As such it requires a bigger justification than what has been provided to us.  A hope and a wish of "more scoring" = "more fans" is simply not enough.

I have an idea: CFL should run some PS games in the USA on a 100Y field, with the posts at the back.  Run half down there.  Half up here.  Compare the results between 110 and 100.  Even in the PS, you should be able to draw some conclusions.

I have another idea, Johnston can say he "hears the fans" and do all the changes in '26 and '27, but save the 100Y field for '28.  See how the GP move and EZ changes affect things first -- and give more time for fans/pundits to debate the 100Y field.

[Tecno]

There's also one overlooked argument: I like the 110 yard line.  I think that's quintessential CFL.  I actually don't care at all if scoring increases a bit with a shorter field.  Woopdeedoo, 0.574 more TDs a game.  Don't care.

Lost in all of this scoring talk is just what a lot of us prefer.  And our preference is as important as some mythical scoring.  The CFL propaganda machine has succeeded in eliminating our preferences as a point of merit ("you dinosaur!").  I'm bringing it back.

In addition to all of my other arguments, I just LIKE 110Y.  Bite me, Johnston.

[bomber beetle]

Rubbish!  No one is suggesting 20 or a 200-yard field. We are specifically talking about changing to the same 100 yard field that the NFL is using. It's an apples to apples comparison.

One stated reason for the change is more scoring. IE: Shorter field = more TD's. It's a ridiculous idea, but if it was true, then the NFL with its shorter field should have more scoring, but it doesn't. Therefore, a shorter field doesn't equal more scoring.

Did Johnston say there would be more points scored? I have not come across that statement anywhere. What are you basing this on?

I have only seen the promise of more touchdowns. Not only because of the shorter field but also because of clear passing lanes created by moving the goal posts.