New rules / commissioner's statements

[Stretch]

I could go through the 25+ pages of discussion but am too lazy. 15 yard end zones with the goal posts at the back? Sure, but does anyone recall the rationale for shortening the field of play from 110 to 100 yards?

[Jesse]

Good for the frenchies then. But why would their CFL governing board guy ever agree to it to begin with? I knew some were being railroaded. Johnston even hinted as much about how he did it all in secret with his cronies and then sprung it on the board.

If Montreal saves our 55 I'll definitely be a bigger fan of their club going forward.

No way Johnston can just ignore and make exceptions for one team. That completely ruins the whole point of homogenizing the fields.

Well that's where the online speculation kind of falls apart. Although they did make that decision independent of McGill, where they play. The CFL and Alouettes have no authority to force changes on McGill.

[Stats Junkie]

I could go through the 25+ pages of discussion but am too lazy. 15 yard end zones with the goal posts at the back? Sure, but does anyone recall the rationale for shortening the field of play from 110 to 100 yards?

From the CFL FAQ on the rule changes, later reclassified as structural changes

(Coming in 2027) the field will be changed from 110 yards to 100
Why?

•  The 65-yard width will be maintained
Doesn't really explain why. It is just one a handful of statements made to justify that the CFL game is still uniquely Canadian.
•  Offences will start closer to the opponent's end zone
Translation : after shrinking the end zone and moving the uprights to the back of the end zone, an adjustment was required to offset the reduction in scoring that will happen (TDs & FGs). This change assumes that the ball will still be placed at the 40 yard line after a kick into the end zone. The rules committee still has the ability to take a critical look at the changes and decide that the 40 yard line is now too generous.
•  Encourages more aggressive play-calling on third down with offences starting drives 10 yards closer to the opponent's end zone and field goals being only 5 yards further, despite the shifted goalposts
Johnston apologists have already claimed that if we don't see more aggressive play calling it is on the coaches and not the rule changes.
•  Condensed field and end zones create extra space, allowing teams more opportunities for premium seating in the end zone
A handful of teams had field level premium seating on the sidelines and that disappeared in some stadiums when benches were mandated to be on opposite sides of the field. Teams with more modern stadiums already have premium seating in locations with better sightlines. Stadiums with a bowl setup will have many spectators who are now further away from the field with possible obstructed views because of premium end zone seating.

One argument made for the shorter field is that expansion will be easier now as a 130 yard field can fit into more soccer specific (or shared) stadiums than a 150 yard field can. This was never stated by the CFL as a reason for the reduction in field size. Quite honestly, if the commissioner had stated that upon reviewing past expansion talks, a key stumbling block has been the size of the Canadian football field. By reducing the size of the field it opens the door to more possibilities. This type of statement would have been more palatable to many who are against the structural changes.

[Tecno]

Reason? Ostensibly: more O, more show. However, you could achieve the same thing much more cheaply and less controversially by putting the ball on the 45.

Junkie is right, smart people know there are ulterior motives and we're being gaslit. Instead of insulting our intelligence they should have just been upfront and honest.

[blueandgoldguy]

I seem to recall someone saying that one of the likely reasons for the move of the field goal posts to the back of the end zone is that it all but eliminates the opportunity for a 10 point swing in the game....and gambling sites don't like this.  Given the CFL's increased partnership with various gambling outlets over the past few years and the increased reliance on those revenues to decrease owners' losses, this could very well be primary impetus for this move.

[theaardvark]

Reason? Ostensibly: more O, more show. However, you could achieve the same thing much more cheaply and less controversially by putting the ball on the 45.

Junkie is right, smart people know there are ulterior motives and we're being gaslit. Instead of insulting our intelligence they should have just been upfront and honest.

So, you think shortening the field is a precursor to narrowing it?  And dropping to 11 players, because 12 won't fit?  That this is a slippery slope?

And not just that it is easier to fit a 130 yard field into a multi purpose stadium than a 150 yard field?

I think the 55 will get the reprieve.  It may just have been left in there as a stalking horse, so that when it gets put back, people shut up about the goal posts moving.

If it stays gone, with some chalk, and you can now play NFL preseason or even in season (Vancouver has enough capacity) games on this field, and leave the 15 yard EZ.  Watch the NFL move to 15yd EZ's with the additional room for scoring after trying it out. 

Would that be viewed as "Canadianizing" the game if the NFL deepened the EZ's?

[Tecno]

And not just that it is easier to fit a 130 yard field into a multi purpose stadium than a 150 yard field?

Then why not just say that? If that's the main impetus, then Johnston should had just said so. But instead they give us the fake and lame talking points.

That's half the problem with Johnston.

[blue_or_die]

Then why not just say that? If that's the main impetus, then Johnston should had just said so. But instead they give us the fake and lame talking points.

That's half the problem with Johnston.

It's aardvark's reasoning only, not Stew-Jo's.