New rules / commissioner's statements

[TBURGESS]

The faq page is just a marketing ad for the new rules. It shows only one view of the rules, the one the CFL wants people to see. The only thinking on it is 'How can we sell this to fans?'.

[bomber beetle]

The faq page is just a marketing ad for the new rules. It shows only one view of the rules, the one the CFL wants people to see. The only thinking on it is 'How can we sell this to fans?'.

100% correct. That is key to marketing.

The league could have trotted out the issues of viability, credibility, sustainability etc., etc. as reasons.
Why though? Among committed CFL fans, it is widely accepted that the league is facing major challenges. 
Would the inclusion of these challenges have made it easier to sell to casual or future fans? What would the media do with it?

[theaardvark]

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

No, FG will still be 15 yards further.  Sure, only 5 yards further from the other side of C, but 15 yards deeper, moving max Castillo FG range from the 55 to the 40.

A punt from your 40 needs to go 60 yards to get to the EZ instead of 70.

Coffin corner kicks become a thing outside the 40, much easier to pin than from the 55.  And kicks into the EZ but not through (new rouge) from outside the 40 are easier, but will also look pretty much like a missed FG return yardage.

It will be interesting to see how ST coaches change their play calls on the new field. 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

No, FG will still be 15 yards further.  Sure, only 5 yards further from the other side of C, but 15 yards deeper, moving max Castillo FG range from the 55 to the 40.

A punt from your 40 needs to go 60 yards to get to the EZ instead of 70.

Coffin corner kicks become a thing outside the 40, much easier to pin than from the 55.  And kicks into the EZ but not through (new rouge) from outside the 40 are easier, but will also look pretty much like a missed FG return yardage.

It will be interesting to see how ST coaches change their play calls on the new field. 

Good points! And I think field goal range will be even shorter because of the holding distance. If you're on the 30, that's +15 for the endzone and +7 for the hold, making it a 52 yard field goal. Scrimmaging from the 40 is probably more like 62 yards which he can probably hit in the right conditions but I'm not sure we'd want to try it very often.

You know is going to like these rules is a punter like Sheahan. Have to say his shorter but more accurate leg could be perfect for the new field.

[bomber beetle]

Do you have a source for that?

If it's a legitimate safety issue related to available space, I can understand the need to make it safer. Although, the CFL never mentioned that in the FAQ.
What I don't understand is that it hasn't seemed to be enough of a concern to bring about change/modification despite the fact the Alouettes have been playing in that venue since 1998.
The safety angle seems a bit questionable.

IMO, modifying one noncompliant venue to accommodate the CFL field (in either the current format or the updated reduced one) would make more sense than changing the field dimensions of the game itself and then modifying all nine venues to fit those new parameters.

I think the decision to reduce the field length to 100 yards does it make more "American," irrespective of the CFL's intent behind the decision.

Look up any image or map view. The endzones both taper in from 10-20 yards deep.
A tapered endzone is the only practical solution available at McGill to fit the current field.
If the Alouettes bought Molson stadium, they could get rid of the track. Buying it is not happening though, so a shorter field is the best trade-off.

Safety: receivers should not need to be aware of different end zones from one stadium to another. They can't focus on where they are going when watching a ball in the air. It is a 'feel' for where they are. A deep corner route in PAS is on the running track in Montreal.

The NHL is concerned about safety issues in the Olympics because the ice surface is slightly smaller.

A Blue Jays player suffered a head injury when crashing into the Green Monster.

It applies to all sports.
Harmonizing the size of the playing surface equals better safety.

Montreal and Toronto would need new stadiums to properly fit the current field dimensions.
It is far more realistic to modify the nine existing fields.

Sure, the field will look more American. However, if the present scenario dictates 130 yard fields, what else can be done?

[jets4life]

100% correct. That is key to marketing.

The league could have trotted out the issues of viability, credibility, sustainability etc., etc. as reasons.
Why though? Among committed CFL fans, it is widely accepted that the league is facing major challenges. 

Poor marketing of the product. It does not help that the Toronto franchise has been driven into the ground by MLSE. 15 years ago the Argos were averaging nearly 30,000 fans/game.

If MLSE sold the team and got put of Canadian football, I have zero doubt that these horrible changes to the game would have never been implemented.

Not only that, it's been proven that community ownership is the way to go.