New rules / commissioner's statements

[bomber beetle]

The CFL hasn't made that promise. The claim is that shorter drives = more TD's, that doesn't make it a fact. Shorter field doesn't equal shorter drives anyway. You might have a point if we were talking about a 20,50 or 75 yard difference, but we're not.

You're assuming, wrongly, 5-10 closer to the opponents' goal line means extra TD's. What will actually happen is teams, who can't get FG's without being 15 yards closer, will strategically kick inside the 10. The 10 yards closer means 1 fewer first downs, but most of the time, they won't even get past centre (50). Note that the 10 yards in the middle of the field are 10 yards that kickers don't have to kick past so it's easier to push the opponents back that 'extra' 10 yards.

https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/

Offences will start closer to the opponent's end zone

[bomber beetle]

I predict a sizable upsurge in the number of punts per game, on stalled drives teams will be punting from the 40 attempting to box the returner in the coffin corner and with lots of practice they'll get very good at it.

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

The CFL Rules Committee – composed of the Commissioner, CFL Head Coaches, the CFL Players' Association and CFL officials – will review and address the nuances of rules impacted by these changes in the upcoming off-season.

https://www.cfl.ca/2025/09/22/tradition-meets-innovation-cfl-announces-major-changes-to-the-game/

[bomber beetle]

https://theprovince.com/sports/soccer/mls/vancouver-whitecaps/hastings-racecourse-abandons-horse-racing-so-is-a-whitecaps-stadium-next

Would the province put up money? The city? Might the Lions be willing to partner on a stadium project? If public money did go toward the stadium, how would revenues be split?

No doubt, the Lions are equally unhappy with the limited revenue streams available at BC Place.

The new CFL field size makes a partnership far more likely, which is a good thing.

[Tecno]

No doubt, the Lions are equally unhappy with the limited revenue streams available at BC Place.

Why would the Lions not love BC Place?  Assuming they aren't paying an arm & leg to use it (it is an old stadium, probably already paid for, with limited other uses), it's literally the perfect stadium: indoors, big enough even for GCs & playoffs, subway goes literally right to its doorstep, 100 hotels within 5 block's walk, freeways going right to it, and actually decent parking lot size!

An outdoor stadium for the Lions would suck bigly.  You know how junky the weather is in BC in Sept/Oct??  For a football game I'd take -10C & sunny in WPG over +3C and rain in BC.

[Tecno]

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

You're giving the CFL too much credit.  This is second order thinking (or more) and Johnston hasn't even thought through the first order effects yet.

Nope, they'll have to wait until there are a zillion failures caused by these changes, and then get all reactionary.  It will take years to shake out.

This is why the "oh, the field is too wide for its length now, we'll just have to go 50Y wide too" slippery slope predictions sound more plausible than not.  Take what's working, create a "problem", impose the solution (what you wanted all along).

[Tecno]

The goal posts move backwards 5 yards, and some paint.  Because the new field is shorter than the old, no changes need t be made to turf.  There's a hole to patch where the posts move from, that's it.

And some paint.

Hundreds of millions?  What, is it solid gold paint?

Don't you read every post?  This is like week-of-announcement knowledge.  2 teams have to re-turf their field (one of them who just replaced it) at a cost of $1.5M each.  TOR & SSK.  Because their existing turf has SEWN IN lines.

So not just some "paint and patches".

How many HS/U/JF fields have sewn in lines too?  No idea, but it's probably non-zero.  And even if it's just moving GPs, how many fields in Canada?  1000?  2000?  $10k each an you're easily at tens of millions.

There have been people involved with these levels of the sport already sounding the alarm.  They wouldn't be doing that if they didn't foresee costs they cannot afford.

[Tecno]

Most of the best returns happen when the returner takes the ball in the air and hits the cover team straight on, and busts through.  Which will be more of the returns in the new game.  As you say, "hemmed in".

LOL.  Literally never happens when a team punts to a corner from the team B side of the field.  They can get that ball high enough that every cover guy is completely surrounding the returner's halo.  Those are zero-return situations every time.  Or it's just a coffin kick (even less of a return), or a rouge (mistake).

[Tecno]

The CFL has promised that offenses will start nearer to the opponents goal line.
It is a verifiable fact that shorter drives equal more touchdowns.

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.

[Tecno]

We haven't heard whether the K/O will be from the current location. Ditto for FG's made etc.

I would think the "40Y start" thing will revert back to what it was, and will match the NFL.  Starting 10Y away from team B's side for "free" seems kind of lame.  So back to the 35YL it will go -- assuming the losers in charge are even thinking this far ahead.

What's next?  Starting at the C-YL 50YL because it'll produce "more O"?  How much help do these sad-sack O's need?

I have a better idea: put a cap on what teams can spend on D's (say 2/5ths SMS), or force 3-4 NATs to start on every D.  You'll instantly get more O, that's for sure.  The problem now is you have top all-IMP DL beating the tar out of always-declining mostly-NAT OLs, and a bevvy of weak NAT RECs.

[Waffler]

outdoor stadium for the Lions would suck bigly.  You know how junky the weather is in BC in Sept/Oct??  For a football game I'd take -10C & sunny in WPG over +3C and rain in BC.

I remember Empire stadium. They had a lot of rain games there. One of the more famous Grey Cups had the biggest play of the game impacted by just that. 1971 and the Leon McQuay fumble. HC Leo Cahill later would say "When Leon slipped, I fell".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcxTlejEbXU

[TBURGESS]

https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/

Offences will start closer to the opponent's end zone

That's a projection, not a promise. 

[blue_gold_84]

Did Johnston say there would be more points scored?

I have only seen the promise of more touchdowns.

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 goal posts move backwards 5 yards

The goalposts have been at the goal line (0 yard line) for the entirety of the CFL's existence, and are now moving to the back of the new revised 15-yard endzone.

That's 15 yards backwards, not 5.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

That's a projection, not a promise.

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.