Blue Bombers Forum

CFL Game Changes FAQ (https://www.cfl.ca/game-changes-faq/)

Not a fan of any of the changes.

A couple of questions. The goal posts moving to the back of the end zone: Where will they now kick PAT's from instead of the 32 yard line? If a missed FG goes wide, chances are it's going to go out of the end zone unless it's really short of the goal posts.

This lengthens every FG by the distance moved of 15 yards. Eliminating the possible single on a punt means teams could be going for a 1st down on the 30 yard line instead of kicking a FG or punting.

I can see wanting to have more TD's and less FG's, but I don't like this aspect at all. It will take away many current returns we see now.

Example: Vaval's missed FG return probably goes through the end zone with a shorter field if it was attempted at all.

Make some good points.  I am sad about less FG returns which is a big part of the fun.  Ah well, at least they didn't change too much.

I don't love the changes either but will live with them.

I see these as a trojan horse for complete Americanization of the game. These changes will not improve the game in any way and there is no reason for them other than to start the gradual process of Americanization. We need to organize against this now before it goes any further.

Quote from: BlueGold8597 on September 22, 2025, 06:04:37 PMI see these as a trojan horse for complete Americanization of the game. These changes will not improve the game in any way and there is no reason for them other than to start the gradual process of Americanization. We need to organize against this now before it goes any further.

Sums it up well.  Change is in the air and it scares me but so does our current trend of attendance and profits.

Yes, Pandora's box has been opened. More could be on the way in the near future. I'd be happier if they could convince me these changes improve our interest in the CFL.

As I mentioned in one string the USFL does a lot of this and they can't attract people to most stadiums.

Quote from: BlueGold8597 on September 22, 2025, 06:04:37 PMI see these as a trojan horse for complete Americanization of the game. These changes will not improve the game in any way and there is no reason for them other than to start the gradual process of Americanization. We need to organize against this now before it goes any further.

Not crazy about the rouge, but other than that, I can see these changes as positives to make the CFL game better and more consistent city to city, and in no way does this portend 4 downs.

We saw the fiasco of the NFL preseason game here with the goalpost issues, etc, this will make our stadia more open to hosting NFL games.  Only thing that will change is putting in narrower sidelines, which means wider benches, which also helps. 

So any venue could host an NFL game, and that could be a very viable revenue stream for owners, a single NFL preseason game could take a team from red ink to black ink.

All without touching what makes the CFL truly distinct.  Except for the rouge (which does exist in Aussie rules by the way).

For those who take his refusal to say never on 4 downs as a signal that they are going 4 downs eventually, I think it was the diplomatic way of not dissing 4 down ball.  Had he said never, that would not have precluded them from ever going 4 down.  They could still do it with a BOG vote.  Who cares what a mouthpiece says at a presser.

Quote from: Blue In BC on September 22, 2025, 06:09:56 PMYes, Pandora's box has been opened. More could be on the way in the near future. I'd be happier if they could convince me these changes improve our interest in the CFL.

As I mentioned in one string the USFL does a lot of this and they can't attract people to most stadiums.

Private owners have had years to market the game to their fan bases and can't figure it out, so instead they choose to revolution the game by changing the rules. When they invested in the CFL did they really expect to make millions in return?  This is why corporate ownership is so bad, it all comes down to "make more money".

Hurts minor football programs from using CFL stadiums.

Quote from: Ridermania on September 22, 2025, 06:57:35 PMHurts minor football programs from using CFL stadiums.

Riders will still get to use Mosaic... oh, you meant youth minor football programs ;)

This actually makes minor programs easier.  New field dimensions fit multi use fields/stadia better.  FG posts off the field means less conflict with other sports.

This actually makes the minor football programmes in Canada easier, not harder.

Quote from: BlueGold8597 on September 22, 2025, 06:04:37 PMI see these as a trojan horse for complete Americanization of the game. These changes will not improve the game in any way and there is no reason for them other than to start the gradual process of Americanization. We need to organize against this now before it goes any further.

BINGO. This is just the start....time to organize the revolt!!!!

Minor and Uni football will change to these rules too. 

Quote from: TBURGESS on September 22, 2025, 07:52:12 PMMinor and Uni football will change to these rules too.

For sure - they politely said as much. Obviously the CFL doesn't make decisions for their behalf but if CIS isn't playing the style of football the CFL is what are they developing for? They basically have no choice.

Quote from: TBURGESS on September 22, 2025, 07:52:12 PMMinor and Uni football will change to these rules too.

That's a lot of expense passed onto universities, high schools and communities to upgrade their fields and stadiums. Less than 9 are shared with CFL teams.

Here is the AI response.

CFL Stadiums: The Canadian Football League (CFL) has nine teams, but there are more than 30 venues associated with it, according to Wikipedia's category of CFL venues.
College Football Venues: There are also at least 15 college football stadiums across Canada.
Other Fields: This number does not account for football fields used by:

    High school teams
    Community sports leagues
    Amateur and recreational leagues
   

Making the field shorter makes it more square. I can see the day they shrink the width too. I would have vastly preferred a 10 yard end zone and the 110 yard field kept.

Goal post at the back of the end zone is the only part of this I like. Field goals have become too routine. MOS plays get across midfield and that's 3 points. Shouldn't be. 40 yards used to be a long one. Not sure how far they could kick when football was invented but I bet the way it is played now is not the way it was intended.

Quote from: Waffler on September 22, 2025, 08:51:32 PMMaking the field shorter makes it more square. I can see the day they shrink the width too. I would have vastly preferred a 10 yard end zone and the 110 yard field kept.

Goal post at the back of the end zone is the only part of this I like. Field goals have become too routine. MOS plays get across midfield and that's 3 points. Shouldn't be. 40 yards used to be a long one. Not sure how far they could kick when football was invented but I bet the way it is played now is not the way it was intended.

Part of the consideration to kick a FG is that a missed FG causes the returner to decide whether to return it or give up a single point.

Winning games by that very single point is a key aspect of the CFL making it different than the NFL. Why on earth would we want to do that?

Occasionally a FG is missed wide but not often it's short or very short. Now that calculation means a miss should be out of the end zone.

Previously a kick from the 40 yard line was 47 yards from launch point. Now it's 57 yards at the back of the end zone.

A miss like the one Vaval returned usually gets caught in the 5-10 yard range in the end zone. In this instance it was much further back.

I fear the league will lose more than gain fans as a result of these rule changes.

It could be a real poor move. Time will tell.

These changes are not a huge deal to me.

Quote from: Blue In BC on September 22, 2025, 08:57:24 PMPart of the consideration to kick a FG is that a missed FG causes the returner to decide whether to return it or give up a single point.

Winning games by that very single point is a key aspect of the CFL making it different than the NFL. Why on earth would we want to do that?

Occasionally a FG is missed wide but not often it's short or very short. Now that calculation means a miss should be out of the end zone.

Previously a kick from the 40 yard line was 47 yards from launch point. Now it's 57 yards at the back of the end zone.

A miss like the one Vaval returned usually gets caught in the 5-10 yard range in the end zone. In this instance it was much further back.

Also the defenders will be 15 yds. closer to the goal-line, which will help cutting off the returner's escape route.

In 2024 there were 30 missed FG returns, the leader the Als James Letcher returned 6 for 251 yds. and a 41.8 yd avg. and 1 TD. Kiss those returns goodbye.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 22, 2025, 09:11:39 PMAlso the defenders will be 15 yds. closer to the goal-line, which will help in cutting off the returner's escape route.

In 2024 there were 30 missed FG returns, the leader the Als James Letcher returned 6 for 251 yds. and a 41.8 yd avg. and 1 TD. Kiss those returns goodbye.

There will still be returns on blocked/shanked FG.

As to minor/uni ball changes, it is mostly paint.  The FG Posts move is not tough to do at all.  If anything, it can make more facilities CFL compliant. This configuration fits more fields by trimming 20 yds off the length in total. 

We'd have 2 less wins this season if they took away the missed FG run back at the beginning of the season. 

Moving the posts:

- safety issues. I could understand this move if it was made for those reasons, but in thr same way I hate the changes to kick off returns.

- Removal of the missed FG return which is a gigantic loss for the league

Rouge:

- Some people hate it, but it's a part of the game and our strategy. Just because it's different than the other league, doesn't make it bad.
- Again, it's not a reward for missing a kick, it's a point for getting close enough to kick it into the endzone without having the other team return it.

Field size:

- A complete joke.
- No justification. Just a complete pandering to the other league.
- The field is going to look ridiculous when you just chop off 20 yards from it.
- End zones being smaller limits the offence, doesn't add to it.

Time clock:

- The one thing TSN gets the most content on is the wild finishes with multiple lead changes. Those are gone now.
- Teams are going to be able to kneel down to end the game now.

Quote from: TBURGESS on September 22, 2025, 10:07:16 PMWe'd have 2 less wins this season if they took away the missed FG run back at the beginning of the season.

Guess we better find a QB who can pass.

Quote from: Jesse on September 22, 2025, 11:03:23 PMMoving the posts:

- safety issues. I could understand this move if it was made for those reasons, but in thr same way I hate the changes to kick off returns.

- Removal of the missed FG return which is a gigantic loss for the league

Rouge:

- Some people hate it, but it's a part of the game and our strategy. Just because it's different than the other league, doesn't make it bad.
- Again, it's not a reward for missing a kick, it's a point for getting close enough to kick it into the endzone without having the other team return it.

Field size:

- A complete joke.
- No justification. Just a complete pandering to the other league.
- The field is going to look ridiculous when you just chop off 20 yards from it.
- End zones being smaller limits the offence, doesn't add to it.

Time clock:

- The one thing TSN gets the most content on is the wild finishes with multiple lead changes. Those are gone now.
- Teams are going to be able to kneel down to end the game now.

Whose to say they don't add 3 timeouts per half?  Lots of strategy with those. Allows coaches to control the flow of game better too. There will be a cascade of adjustments to the rules as a result. And the NFL has finishes just as good or better than the CFL. 

Both leagues have a similar amount of plays run per game.

Quote from: Jesse on September 22, 2025, 11:03:23 PMRouge:
- Again, it's not a reward for missing a kick, it's a point for getting close enough to kick it into the endzone without having the other team return it.

I've always joked it's a consolation prize to the kicker: "At least you tried, now here's a single point!"

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:08:34 PMWhose to say they don't add 3 timeouts per half?  Lots of strategy with those. Allows coaches to control the flow of game better too. There will be a cascade of adjustments to the rules as a result. And the NFL has finishes just as good or better than the CFL. 

Both leagues have a similar amount of plays run per game.

Yeah, if they change a bunch more things, maybe they'll make the last 3 minutes of a CFL game exciting!

Quote from: Cool Spot on September 22, 2025, 11:29:35 PMI've always joked it's a consolation prize to the kicker: "At least you tried, now here's a single point!"

That is an easy fix, make a missed field goal the same as a kickoff-you don't get awarded a point unless the opponent touches it. Boom, problem solved I don't know why they haven't changed that decades ago!!

Quote from: Cool Spot on September 22, 2025, 11:29:35 PMI've always joked it's a consolation prize to the kicker: "At least you tried, now here's a single point!"

Why does the defending team get to place the ball at the 40 if the FG misses?  They did nothing to earn that reward.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 01:06:13 AMWhy does the defending team get to place the ball at the 40 if the FG misses?  They did nothing to earn that reward.

They could scrimmage from the spot of the kick which makes way more sense? But oh no ... It's an American rule!

The fact that Wade is on board with this, I do not like. Is he just going with it to be a good guy? I thought he was very pro CFL...not this.

I thought he and Osh (although I don't know how Osh feels), would be the most Canadian of all the CFL, is surprising. 

LOVE Rourke today.  Perhaps my new fave CFL player (sorry Zach..speak up man).  I'd love more players and coaches speaking up. 

I plan to speak with my money and might renew next year but I'm not paying to see that. It starts in 2027, so one more year of a decent sized field.  sigh.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 01:06:13 AMWhy does the defending team get to place the ball at the 40 if the FG misses?  They did nothing to earn that reward.

It's currently the 35.  They kept it the same when they changed the rest to 40.

But ya, I get your point.  But it's gotta start somewhere.  So where else?  If anything the "free starting point" should be consistent through the whole game.  Maybe it will be because now they should start at the 35 again (or 30!) because the field is 10Y shorter!

You could implement a "KO on every free start" rule, but that might screw up the player safety goals.

Quote from: tlf on September 23, 2025, 03:35:33 AMThe fact that Wade is on board with this, I do not like. Is he just going with it to be a good guy? I thought he was very pro CFL...not this.

I thought he and Osh (although I don't know how Osh feels), would be the most Canadian of all the CFL, is surprising. 

LOVE Rourke today.  Perhaps my new fave CFL player (sorry Zach..speak up man).  I'd love more players and coaches speaking up. 

I plan to speak with my money and might renew next year but I'm not paying to see that. It starts in 2027, so one more year of a decent sized field.  sigh.

Just listened to the coaches show on OB... Osh wants the rouge in, and he's a as he says.. a CFL purist and doesn't want the rouge removed, the field changed or the goal post moved.  He'll see how it plays out, but did note about Vaval's play wouldn't have happened.

Osh is a great Canadian who loves our game.  So good.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:08:34 PMWhose to say they don't add 3 timeouts per half?  Lots of strategy with those.

If you don't stop the game clock after the 3 min warning then you WILL have to have something like 2-3 TOs per half, just to get anywhere near the excitement and strategy of the current CFL game.

But there was no talk whatsoever about TO changes, so I doubt that's in the cards.

I don't think the geniuses at league HQ have thought any of this through.  Just winging as they go.  Otherwise why wouldn't they mention how this all impacts the final 3?

If we just go by what they have said, and right now we kind of have to, then the final 3 mins of each half is now RUINED.  2 TOs per game (and you need to keep one in your pocket to challenge), plus a 35s instant-on play clock, plus the game clocking keeping running every time?  Complete disaster.

The MTL Miracle Game (TM) could never have happened under these new rules.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:08:34 PMThere will be a cascade of adjustments to the rules as a result.

Understatement of the century.  There's going to be a cascade of crap that even the Wilkes Road Sewage Treatment Plant couldn't handle.

They will be adding and tweaking dozens of things in the rulebook the entire season just to compensate for the crap headed our way.

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:08:34 PMAnd the NFL has finishes just as good or better than the CFL. 

Hahaha!  NFL finishes are a double ess 99% of the time.  Losing the game because the aging ref couldn't run the ball to its new spot and get out of the way fast enough?  Endless ball spikes because the clock rules are STUPID?

Ya, that's what CFL fans want  ::)  ::)  ::)  ::)

Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on September 22, 2025, 11:08:34 PMBoth leagues have a similar amount of plays run per game.

Uh, if that's true, then the entire argument for the 35s change is thrown out the window.  WM said that it's to get more plays in each game!  Someone is lying.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 03:46:51 AMIf you don't stop the game clock after the 3 min warning then you WILL have to have something like 2-3 TOs per half, just to get anywhere near the excitement and strategy of the current CFL game.

But there was no talk whatsoever about TO changes, so I doubt that's in the cards.

I don't think the geniuses at league HQ have thought any of this through.  Just winging as they go.  Otherwise why wouldn't they mention how this all impacts the final 3?

If we just go by what they have said, and right now we kind of have to, then the final 3 mins of each half is now RUINED.  2 TOs per game (and you need to keep one in your pocket to challenge), plus a 35s instant-on play clock, plus the game clocking keeping running every time?  Complete disaster.

The MTL Miracle Game (TM) could never have happened under these new rules.

How do they adjust the clock for player injuries?  Wonder if this will lead to more fake injuries to stop the clock.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 04:23:38 AMHow do they adjust the clock for player injuries?  Wonder if this will lead to more fake injuries to stop the clock.

Stole my thunder... totally was going to say this.  It'll be 2018 SSK all over again.  Some rando no-name NAT D getting a hangnail every 3 snaps on every good O drive.

It'll be a disaster, whether 3 TOs/H or "injuries".

The post-move arguments are lame.

"Player safety": I've literally seen only 1-2 dudes run full speed blind into the post in 10+ years of CFL watching (every game).  Both were fine.  The pad on it is at least 1 foot thick!

"Improve the game": The post is often used as a very effective and sneaky rub/pick on a short crossing route in the red zone.  When done right it virtually guarantees a TD.  I thought they wanted more TDs?

"Eliminate doinks": On average 1 game a season sees a pass doink.  Solving a problem that does not exist.  Not even worth mentioning unless you want to misdirect from the real reasons.

What's the real reason?  Remember the NFL pre-season in WPG?  Ya, they want to make it an NFL field.  Probably want more NFL PS games here.  But you know what, WM said today that they can have the posts moved at will for CIS, CFL and soccer.  Ya, not remembering the NFL PS debacle, eh?  We moved the post and IT STILL WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH!  They said the little patch of turf over the GL hole was a "hazard".  That little patch will STILL BE THERE unless CIS follows the CFL changes -- AND they re-turf that whole strip/area (or the whole field?).

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 23, 2025, 05:06:34 AMThe post-move arguments are lame.

"Player safety": I've literally seen only 1-2 dudes run full speed blind into the post in 10+ years of CFL watching (every game).  Both were fine.  The pad on it is at least 1 foot thick!

"Improve the game": The post is often used as a very effective and sneaky rub/pick on a short crossing route in the red zone.  When done right it virtually guarantees a TD.  I thought they wanted more TDs?

"Eliminate doinks": On average 1 game a season sees a pass doink.  Solving a problem that does not exist.  Not even worth mentioning unless you want to misdirect from the real reasons.

What's the real reason?  Remember the NFL pre-season in WPG?  Ya, they want to make it an NFL field.  Probably want more NFL PS games here.  But you know what, WM said today that they can have the posts moved at will for CIS, CFL and soccer.  Ya, not remembering the NFL PS debacle, eh?  We moved the post and IT STILL WASN'T GOOD ENOUGH!  They said the little patch of turf over the GL hole was a "hazard".  That little patch will STILL BE THERE unless CIS follows the CFL changes -- AND they re-turf that whole strip/area (or the whole field?).

While not many passes hit the posts, many plays are affected by their placement.  Trying to throw/kick out of the endzone is very limited, likewise throwing in.  Ask Fajardo.  Much as a game shouldn't be decided by a rouge, is it being decided by a doink better?

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 23, 2025, 04:23:38 AMHow do they adjust the clock for player injuries?  Wonder if this will lead to more fake injuries to stop the clock.

Clock stops on injury, starts when player leaves the field, no game time is lost due to player injury

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 12:31:39 AMWhile not many passes hit the posts, many plays are affected by their placement.  Trying to throw/kick out of the endzone is very limited, likewise throwing in.  Ask Fajardo.  Much as a game shouldn't be decided by a rouge, is it being decided by a doink better?

Generally speaking, most smart OC's call the deep corner route to the flag to avoid the goal posts altogether. Dumb dumbs call the deep pass over the middle and run the risk of a doink, and so be it. It's not like the goalposts magically appeared out of nowhere, call your plays accordingly.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 12:31:39 AMWhile not many passes hit the posts, many plays are affected by their placement.  Trying to throw/kick out of the endzone is very limited, likewise throwing in.  Ask Fajardo.

This is the go-to every pro-NFLer is using, and it's a very low energy, very weak point.  In fact, it proves the opposite of what it's intended if you think about it.  It's literally the only example anyone can think of in 10 years!

Yes, a pass will hit a post once a year (happened last week).  No, they usually aren't game-deciding.  But even if they are: once a year.  And the OC and QB knew the risks.  The post didn't magically teleport there from another dimension unexpectedly.

How many passes in a year in the CFL?  5000?  So 1 in 5000 or less?  In my world you don't make drastic and expensive changes for a 1 in 5000 outcome.  And anyone parroting "muh Cody doink" isn't thinking this through, they are just repeating Johnston's weak talking points.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 12:31:39 AMMuch as a game shouldn't be decided by a rouge, is it being decided by a doink better?

Why not?  Can you remember the end of every WDF since '19?  I bet you can't.  But everyone remembers Cody's doink.  It made the game special.  And it will be remembered and talked about forever.  Would Cody throwing an incompletion been any better?  Or a completion?  Would just be another normal game.

Besides, then we'd miss out on Cody's chemistry class in the post-game.

I am trying very hard to look at this with an unbiased view. Because there have been many changes to the game over the years, and if they were done for the betterment and integrity of the game in mind, they were probably for the best.

With that in mind, I can wrap my head around the movement of the goalposts. We can argue that "smart" OCs avoid the goalposts, but that's the point. You have to design your offence around them, limiting the field. It is a safety concern. I can understand it, even if I don't agree with it.

You might even talk me into chopping the end zones a bit so that fields are the same across the league, though I really don't like it. The onus should be on teams to provide stadiums to fit the field.

You'll never talk me into the new field size as that's 100% pandering to outside influences. There's no justification for it and the 110 yard field is one of those inherent parts of the CFL game. Like techno said in another thread, we're being gaslit into thinking that wasn't an untouchable. I commented before the changes were announced that it absolutely was.

The game clock also has the feel of gaslighting to it, as we see CFL and NFL games take the same amount of time and run the same amount of plays already (though there's wide variance between good and bad teams). So "making the game faster" feels like BS.

Of course the one thing that makes all of this incredibly "CFL", is that's it's all happening behind a wall of secrecy with zero transparency even to coaches and players. Were told that the changes are due to data and analytics but are not shared anything of those data points that could lead us to believe these obviously pandering moves are anything but.

But keep on alienating your fan base that has supported you for a century. That will draw new fans in, sure.

Quote from: Jesse on September 24, 2025, 10:19:21 AMWith that in mind, I can wrap my head around the movement of the goalposts. We can argue that "smart" OCs avoid the goalposts, but that's the point. You have to design your offence around them, limiting the field. It is a safety concern.

Great post, I agree with everything.  Glad you see it too.

One quibble, everyone needs to stop saying the goalposts are a "player safety issue".  Name me one player in the last 10 years that missed even one snap or game from running into the goalpost.  One.

Name one memory anyone has of running into the goalpost and getting injured.  One.

You want to talk gaslighting, this is the biggest of them all!  We are being told that we all think this is a concern when it literally has never been ever since 1'+ pads were wrapped around the post.

I strongly recall 1 player, a DB I think, running into the post pretty fast without seeing it, in the last 3-4 seasons.  He got up everyone laughed and he kept playing.  I think I remember 1 other guy doing it in the 6 years before that, but I can't be positive or picture it in my brain.

It's literally not a thing.

For the league/pundits to cry now about the player safety of the post is disingenuous, and rather laughable seeing all the kickoff full-speed blowups and defenseless Wheatie rib-busting and Zach CTE that they used to claim was the Next Big Issue.  There are literally 100 on-field safety/injury issues that occur more frequently, and to worse effect, than any goalpost injury.

So not only should we not repeat this talking point (giving the Commish major ammo, "you're against player safety and killing small puppies! gasp!") but we need to instantly shoot down anyone who brings it up.

P.S. Absolutely nothing against you personally, as at first glance it does sound like a valid argument.

P.P.S. I'm not even that worked up about the post change: I just hate specious and frankly lying arguments used to promote a change.  That makes the motives suspect.

Edit:  Neufeld's "Huddle" episode in Video Links thread Sep 23, 40:20, Neufeld says he's never seen a CFL player run into the post.  That's 14 years of him playing.  Never seen it once.

Quote from: Jesse on September 24, 2025, 10:19:21 AMThe game clock also has the feel of gaslighting to it, as we see CFL and NFL games take the same amount of time and run the same amount of plays already (though there's wide variance between good and bad teams). So "making the game faster" feels like BS.

Great point!  Both leagues produce games that last around 2.75 to 3.25 hours.  3 is what they aim for in the CFL (others can speak to the NFL).  I'm not sure which have more commercial time, though.  CFL is 1.5 minute ads quite often (I know, I edit them out on the PVR), with longer ones at halftime.  They air less ads at the end if the game is running late, always trying to squeeze things into 3 hours.

In fact, maybe this change is to pander to TV and to get more ad time in without reducing the number of plays?  I could see it speeding up the pace of the game allowing them to pack more plays in a smaller space so they can cut to ads more often in terms of wall clock?

It also could keep the games from going over the 3 hours, and from even getting close to going over.  That would allow them to stop the "no more ads" situation they get into in the final 15 mins sometimes when the are running late.  I bet they really hate not being able to run the normal quantity of ads during that time!  That is their bread & butter.

And if these are arguments and considerations they are using, just come out and tell us.  Everyone would understand if they said "we need more ads but don't want to ruin the experience with less plays, so we can have more money to increase SMS".  Instead, so far, all we have to go on is "we want to increase the pace" and that Johnston personally hates the final 3 mins taking half an hour.

So does this mean the posts will be changed to be straight-vertical rather than that curved-hook shape they have now?  Is there any reason to not have the entire structure along one plain?

I wanna know how this affects those that sit in the end zones.  The field resize now makes it a bit further away.  Not the same expierence that we are currently paying for.

Quote from: bluengold204 on September 24, 2025, 01:07:10 PMI wanna know how this affects those that sit in the end zones.  The field resize now makes it a bit further away.  Not the same expierence that we are currently paying for.

You're now 10 yards further away from any action on your side of the field.  Walk the field next PAS game and see just how long it is from the 10YL to the GL.  10Y is actually quite far.

Plus, YOU now get the "obstructed view" the goal post supposedly causes between you and any EZ play.  (Previously you would only get that effect on plays outside the EZ.)  Of course, the whole obstructed view argument is a red herring anyhow.  No one ever complained about this -- the bars are very small in diameter.  But if Commish tries to gaslight you that it's a real issue, remember that they just made it worse for you.

Riderfans pointed out that corner sections, especially uppers, will be ipmacted the most because they won't have a good sightline to anything now!  People who were aligned with the EZ are now well outside the EZ.  They rightly point out that it's WPG & SSK stadiums that are impacted the most.  STHs there may end up being the most upset come opening game of '27.  Prices may have to be reduced.

Quote from: dd on September 24, 2025, 01:07:11 AMGenerally speaking, most smart OC's call the deep corner route to the flag to avoid the goal posts altogether. Dumb dumbs call the deep pass over the middle and run the risk of a doink, and so be it. It's not like the goalposts magically appeared out of nowhere, call your plays accordingly.

Thanks for making their point.

Having to adjust playcalling based on the goal posts is dumb.

Removing the obstacle leaves the entire EZ, corner to corner, open for plays.  15 yards deep only, without obstruction it is more real estate to run routes in that 20yds with posts.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 02:38:55 PMHaving to adjust playcalling based on the goal posts is dumb.

It's only been that way forever, but sure... It's dumb now because you say so.

For a guy who's spent years ripping on the NFL on this forum, it's pretty wild to see how much of a cheerleader you are over these changes that make the game more resemble the NFL.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 02:38:55 PMThanks for making their point.

Having to adjust playcalling based on the goal posts is dumb.

Except Rourke came out and explicitly said they've never considered the crossbar or uprights and it's literally not a thing in their scheme or planning.  He said the other day is the first time he's ever hit one in his life.

Many QBs say they can't hit the crossbar from the 20 even if they tried.  It's so thin, relative to all that empty air around it, that the odds of striking it are slim to none -- even when you pretend it doesn't exist.  And that is borne out by the super miniscule number of times a season QBs accidentally hit it.

I'd say the only real obstacle they avoid is the actual post (bottom part) because of its thick padding.  So right at the post, right behind, and mid-way behind farther at slightly enlarging angles, would/should be the only parts of the EZ you can't throw to.  You can throw to the very back behind the post because you can just put it over it all.

I'm sure I could run the math on the actual % of the EZ "lost" to the post.  And I bet anything that area is smaller than the area they are losing by reducing the EZ by 5x65...

All of the Commish arguments are weak and fragile and most do not stand up to scrutiny.  Or they use one argument for one change, and then make another change that counteracts that same argument!  Case in point: moving the posts increases EZ space for TDs vs we're reducing the EZ by 5Y meaning... uh... it decreases the EZ space for TDs.  Which is it, Commish?

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 24, 2025, 10:58:00 AMGreat point!  Both leagues produce games that last around 2.75 to 3.25 hours.  3 is what they aim for in the CFL (others can speak to the NFL).  I'm not sure which have more commercial time, though.  CFL is 1.5 minute ads quite often (I know, I edit them out on the PVR), with longer ones at halftime.  They air less ads at the end if the game is running late, always trying to squeeze things into 3 hours.

In fact, maybe this change is to pander to TV and to get more ad time in without reducing the number of plays?  I could see it speeding up the pace of the game allowing them to pack more plays in a smaller space so they can cut to ads more often in terms of wall clock?

It also could keep the games from going over the 3 hours, and from even getting close to going over.  That would allow them to stop the "no more ads" situation they get into in the final 15 mins sometimes when the are running late.  I bet they really hate not being able to run the normal quantity of ads during that time!  That is their bread & butter.

And if these are arguments and considerations they are using, just come out and tell us.  Everyone would understand if they said "we need more ads but don't want to ruin the experience with less plays, so we can have more money to increase SMS".  Instead, so far, all we have to go on is "we want to increase the pace" and that Johnston personally hates the final 3 mins taking half an hour.

If Johnston worked for TSN he's surely aware of the tension it creates for them when a game runs long, the hatred of that situation and the headaches it causes, probably over-rides every other thought process.  At the game he attended he was probably cheering for the game to end more than the team he wanted to win.

Re the goalpost move:

In addition to the points already made that they've literally never been talked about as an issue from both a safety and playcalling perspective, I oppose this based on the fact that a score in the CFL - aside from the rouge - is based on breaking the plane of the endzone. Now that is only for touchdowns. Takes away from the meaning of getting to that endzone line for scoring while solving a non-issue. More change for the sake of change with no objective explanation.

Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 24, 2025, 02:41:30 PMIt's only been that way forever, but sure... It's dumb now because you say so.

For a guy who's spent years ripping on the NFL on this forum, it's pretty wild to see how much of a cheerleader you are over these changes that make the game more resemble the NFL.

As BLM said, it modernizes the game.  Its not NFL in the least.

3 downs, 65 yd wide field, still a rouge, 12 players, ratio, bad officiating.

Goal posts out of the way, clean sightlines for more of the fans (sure, some EZ seats are less desireable, but how often is the action in the EZ?  And now, regardless which hash mark they are on, your corner is still in play... with the goalpost blocking, its less likely your corner gets targeted. 


I know no very few believe it when I say it, but I think this will do what they are intending, to make the game better.  I'm not 100% happy with the clock, and we will have to see how the ball placement is handled with the new dimensions.  But I've always questioned the goal posts and the EZ 's in TOR and MTL bug the crap out of me.  Even in some of the other fields watching the players exit the field of play and hit track or other substrate change is cringe.

The fact that it makes NFL pre-season games an option is a huge bonus.  I'd never buy a ticket to them, but I know a lot of people that would, and those people don't watch CFL.  Getting them into CFL stadiums can't hurt.

The field does not define the game.  The game defines the game.  And the CFL game is still the same.  Minor tweaks.  The NFL changes of late have been a lot bigger game changers.  There are some that might even have a CFL flavour to them.  Anyone saying that the NFL is Canadianizing? 

I don't like the term "modernizing". To me that means you use technology, like a chip in the football. Or baseball allowing computer decided strike zones. These are just rule changes. What is modern about it? It's just a word they use to shame us poor backward Banjo Bowlers into going along with what they want in the boardrooms of TSN offices. The suits that reside in the big smoke know what's best. They sell out so often there, they must. Ha!

If the commish would come out and say clearly that these rules are not put in place with any intention of going to the american game it would help. The question of can you guarantee that the cfl game will ever turn into the american version is unfair as noone can foresee all the circumstances.
But he needs to put to rest as much as possible that this isn't just the first step in a diabolical plan. (and yes I'd consider it diabolical if it was)

Quote from: Pete on September 24, 2025, 09:44:17 PMIf the commish would come out and say clearly that these rules are not put in place with any intention of going to the american game it would help. The question of can you guarantee that the cfl game will ever turn into the american version is unfair as noone can foresee all the circumstances.
But he needs to put to rest as much as possible that this isn't just the first step in a diabolical plan. (and yes I'd consider it diabolical if it was)

You'd take his word as gospel, and not worry about 4 downs coming north, if he uttered that sentence?

A: its not his call, the BOG and owners call those shots.

B: he's not the commish for life, what happens after he leaves isn't covered by that plattitude.

If he HAD said "We'll never have 4 downs", the same people crowing about him not saying it would say that its not binding and can still happen anyways.

The fact that they could have made more changes, but stopped at the purely cosmetic and didn't touch the sacred cows tells you the intent.

The modified rouge was a long time coming.  The clock, still not sold on. 

We still have 3 downs, 65yd width, deeper EZ, 1 yd off the ball, no fair catch, 12 players, ratio, the things that make the GAME the GAME. 

If the big concern is that the cheap seats are 10 yards further away from the end line, you have to also take the other end, the fact that play in the far end is 10 yards closer... well, that's not a big deal.  And the goal line seats actually improve sightlines.

Just saying that most of the complaints are more about what will happen next, and that's partially my point in that he couldn't promise 4 downs will never come north. But in talking about the benefits of the rules he emphasizes the entertainment value of more tds vs fgs etc.
I just think he could be more clear on the intent. And while I don't know him well enough to say it would be the complete truth there would be less negativity is he made it clear that these rules aren't meant to clear a path to greater americanization

Quote from: Pete on September 24, 2025, 11:13:46 PMJust saying that most of the complaints are more about what will happen next, and that's partially my point in that he couldn't promise 4 downs will never come north. But in talking about the benefits of the rules he emphasizes the entertainment value of more tds vs fgs etc.
I just think he could be more clear on the intent. And while I don't know him well enough to say it would be the complete truth there would be less negativity is he made it clear that these rules aren't meant to clear a path to greater americanization

I am angry about these changes. I am afraid of more changes in the future.

I do not believe for a second the reason behind making these changes had anything to do with improving the game or even making more offence.

Quote from: Pete on September 24, 2025, 11:13:46 PMJust saying that most of the complaints are more about what will happen next, and that's partially my point in that he couldn't promise 4 downs will never come north. But in talking about the benefits of the rules he emphasizes the entertainment value of more tds vs fgs etc.
I just think he could be more clear on the intent. And while I don't know him well enough to say it would be the complete truth there would be less negativity is he made it clear that these rules aren't meant to clear a path to greater americanization

A psychopath can say anything at anytime, but a smart one will never answer that question.

Quote from: Pete on September 24, 2025, 11:13:46 PMJust saying that most of the complaints are more about what will happen next, and that's partially my point in that he couldn't promise 4 downs will never come north. But in talking about the benefits of the rules he emphasizes the entertainment value of more tds vs fgs etc.
I just think he could be more clear on the intent. And while I don't know him well enough to say it would be the complete truth there would be less negativity is he made it clear that these rules aren't meant to clear a path to greater americanization

Yes I am concerned about what comes next but what also bothers me is this is the first major announcement by the commish.

Sure they need to get more fans to the games and increase viewership but is this the solution?

What marketing initiatives have the league implemented? Is the league growing it's relationship with youth (flag) football? Why does the NFL have a larger flag football presence in Canada than the CFL.

If the league and money losing teams have exhausted all other ideas to increase revenue then I would be ok with the changes.

Quote from: gobombersgo on September 25, 2025, 12:36:24 AMSure they need to get more fans to the games and increase viewership but is this the solution?

19y.o. Tanner (female): "Hey, the 'gram just told me CFL changed to a 100 yard field"

20y.o. Skyler (male): "Ya, let's hop in the uber and go to the game tonight!  Wasn't it 110 yards before?  That was so lame, but now CFL is soooo k00l!"

Said no one, ever.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 10:01:13 PMYou'd take his word as gospel, and not worry about 4 downs coming north, if he uttered that sentence?

When Unca 'Brosie said something, we generally believed him.  He had our trust.

Yes, there would be value in Johnston saying "we aren't using this as the launching pad to further Americanization".  Even if you didn't believe him you'd have his own words to hold his feet to the fire and drum up repercussions should he later backtrack.

And you'd think Johnston would be trying to earn our trust like 'Brosie did.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 09:26:12 PMGoal posts out of the way, clean sightlines for more of the fans (sure, some EZ seats are less desireable, but how often is the action in the EZ?

Another talking point I wish would disappear.  It is as lame, stupid, pointless and misdirecting as the "post player safety" one.

No one ever picked or abandoned their seat based on the goalpost structure ruining their view.  No one.  Ever.  No one ever said, "crap I couldn't see that TD in the corner because the 5" thick upright was obstructing my vision from 200' away!".  EVER.

Commish & co have planted these ridiculous ideas in your head and you parrot them like you actually had thought of that before, and like it's some critical issue now!

THERE. IS. NO. CHANGE. TO. SIGHTLINES. -- NO. ONE. EVER. CARED.  Anything else is gaslighting.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 09:26:12 PMBut I've always questioned the goal posts and the EZ 's in TOR and MTL bug the crap out of me.  Even in some of the other fields watching the players exit the field of play and hit track or other substrate change is cringe.

The 2 cutoff EZs "bugged the crap out of" you?  Then you'll be able to link to your many previous posts where you proclaimed this your big #1 bugbear?  There should be many, right?  It was your pet peeve.  Oh wait, there are none?

Weird.  Half the people on this forum know my main CFL loves / hates.  Plenty of proof in previous posts.  You don't hold back either: we know your main loves/hates.  Pretty sure other than the odd "MTL corners are dumb" passing comment once every 2 years, you haven't complained about it any more than anyone else.

And yes, everyone has moaned about turf changes in certain stadiums as lame.  But no one made it one of their top 10 bugbears.

To argue that these issues now justify all these radical changes is disingenuous.  As is saying they were a big beef for you prior to this week.  The MTL/TOR issue would have been solved with the EZ changing to 17Y, and no change to the 110Y.  Saying it justifies anything more drastic is a blatant lie.  And nothing Johnston did will fix the turf-change/substrate problem.

Lastly, how many times do you remember the MTL or TOR EZ length/corners issue impacting the game?  I recall only 1 pass in 7 years to the MTL corner that would have been complete in any other stadium.  1 pass.  Sucks, sure, but worth blowing up the 110Y tradition?  Like Rourke said, both teams have to play around it, it's literally not a big deal.

Drop the parrot routine, and think up better arguments yourself.  You're more than capable.

Quote from: blue_or_die on September 24, 2025, 06:22:14 PMI oppose this based on the fact that a score in the CFL - aside from the rouge - is based on breaking the plane of the endzone. Now that is only for touchdowns.

This is a good, new, point as well.  Many articles and the Commish have used the word "consistency" to justify all the changes.  Well, there's one aspect where the game will be less consistent after the changes.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 24, 2025, 04:54:10 PMIf Johnston worked for TSN he's surely aware of the tension it creates for them when a game runs long, the hatred of that situation and the headaches it causes, probably over-rides every other thought process.  At the game he attended he was probably cheering for the game to end more than the team he wanted to win.

Yes, it certainly appears he's attacking his job from the TV/commercial(/NFL) perspective, whereas 'Brosie always seemed to come at it from a fan/player standpoint.

However, Commish/TSN shouldn't get too antsy about games going long... it's just taking a little chunk of time out of the following SportsCentre.  They play like 7 hours of SC on 2 to 4 of their stations every single night... we can live without that extra 15 mins.

Quote from: tlf on September 23, 2025, 03:43:34 AMJust listened to the coaches show on OB... Osh wants the rouge in, and he's a as he says.. a CFL purist and doesn't want the rouge removed, the field changed or the goal post moved.  He'll see how it plays out, but did note about Vaval's play wouldn't have happened.

Osh is a great Canadian who loves our game.  So good.

Yup, I just listened now.  MOS, while subtle and careful, truly hates the changes.  I'm probably at 99% agreement with what he's really thinking, and vice versa.  And I think it pains him, both that these things are happening, and how it's causing pain to the long time fans.

Remember, he's not at liberty to just speak his mind more like Rourke did.  He doesn't want the grief that would come down from the Commish and his bullies.

I'm proud of MOS for saying even what he did.  I also note the strong contrast between MOS's take and WM's...

I wholeheartedly recommend everyone listen to the show:
https://globalnews.ca/pages/audio-vault-cjob/
sept 22, 7pm, move the red bar ahead to skip the ads

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 06:39:48 AMI wholeheartedly recommend everyone listen to the show:
https://globalnews.ca/pages/audio-vault-cjob/
sept 22, 7pm, move the red bar ahead to skip the ads

Or you could listen to the podcast version where the commercials are taken out already.

Search Blue Bomber Podcast on your podcast app or access it through the CJOB website:

https://globalnews.ca/pages/podcastscjob/

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 04:16:14 AM19y.o. Tanner (female): "Hey, the 'gram just told me CFL changed to a 100 yard field"

20y.o. Skyler (male): "Ya, let's hop in the uber and go to the game tonight!  Wasn't it 110 yards before?  That was so lame, but now CFL is soooo k00l!"

Said no one, ever.

All about how it looks on TV.

Random American #1, channel surfing: "Hey, there's a game on! Wait, *** is this? The field looks messed up" [changes channel]

This is 100% an attempt to get increased viewer numbers by creating a stronger buy in from Americans to keep the game on. They don't want anything that creates a strong, immediate aversion by the way the game looks. That will make it easier to add American teams and fit our field into American stadiums down the line.

Quote from: Jesse on September 25, 2025, 10:14:42 AMRandom American #1, channel surfing: "Hey, there's a game on! Wait, *** is this? The field looks messed up" [changes channel]

I'm not sold on this.  Random American:

"There's a 55YL, that's weird, why is that?  That's new.  I'm going to watch a little to see if I can figure it out"

vs

"Hey NFL is on in June, this is great!  Why are the players so small, they aren't all 6'3!  Why aren't the making catches like usual?  Hey this is one of those AAF, XFL thingies, this is crap, click"

Quote from: Jesse on September 25, 2025, 10:14:42 AMThat will make it easier to add American teams and fit our field into American stadiums down the line.

If they do another "X Era" thing then I'm out.  It's one of the few things that I would quit over.  There cannot be a Canadian ratio for half the league but not the other.  Period.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 10:21:56 AMI'm not sold on this.  Random American:

"There's a 55YL, that's weird, why is that?  That's new. I'm going to watch a little to see if I can figure it out"

vs

"Hey NFL is on in June, this is great!  Why are the players so small, they aren't all 6'3!  Why aren't the making catches like usual?  Hey this is one of those AAF, XFL thingies, this is crap, click"

If they do another "X Era" thing then I'm out.  It's one of the few things that I would quit over.  There cannot be a Canadian ratio for half the league but not the other.  Period.

To be fair, we have a lot of decades worth of proof that Americans are not curious about the differences.

But, that said, I believe that to be proof that the CFL is unable to significantly break into that market, and dismantling our league to attempt what so many failed spring leagues have tried over and over to do (including the CFL in the 90s), is insanity.

The single point changes I actually can live with. Don't reward failure. Remember they only changed giving a single on a kickoff out of bounds in the end zone  not many years ago i believe.

Yeah I don't ever remember anyone complaining about the goal post location before outside that Sask playoff game where Fajardo doinked an pass off of it!

My main issue I have with all this is how is this supposedly going to attract
More fans/viewers? What "data" shows this will do Anything? Seems more like someone threw a  few darts at the wall just for the sake of change to be in the news. 

Quote from: ichabod_crane on September 25, 2025, 10:51:22 AMThe single point changes I actually can live with. Don't reward failure. Remember they only changed giving a single on a kickoff out of bounds in the end zone  not many years ago i believe.

Yeah I don't ever remember anyone complaining about the goal post location before outside that Sask playoff game where Fajardo doinked an pass off of it!

My main issue I have with all this is how is this supposedly going to attract
More fans/viewers? What "data" shows this will do Anything? Seems more like someone threw a  few darts at the wall just for the sake of change to be in the news. 

This is part of it too. Stew made a comment about wanting to be a bigger part of the "Attention Economy".

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 09:26:12 PMAs BLM said, it modernizes the game.

How? Nobody's explained how.

Are you okay?

Quote from: theaardvark on September 24, 2025, 09:26:12 PMAs BLM said, it modernizes the game.  Its not NFL in the least.

3 downs, 65 yd wide field, still a rouge, 12 players, ratio, bad officiating.

Goal posts out of the way, clean sightlines for more of the fans (sure, some EZ seats are less desireable, but how often is the action in the EZ?  And now, regardless which hash mark they are on, your corner is still in play... with the goalpost blocking, its less likely your corner gets targeted. 


I know no very few believe it when I say it, but I think this will do what they are intending, to make the game better.  I'm not 100% happy with the clock, and we will have to see how the ball placement is handled with the new dimensions.  But I've always questioned the goal posts and the EZ 's in TOR and MTL bug the crap out of me.  Even in some of the other fields watching the players exit the field of play and hit track or other substrate change is cringe.

The fact that it makes NFL pre-season games an option is a huge bonus.  I'd never buy a ticket to them, but I know a lot of people that would, and those people don't watch CFL.  Getting them into CFL stadiums can't hurt.

The field does not define the game.  The game defines the game.  And the CFL game is still the same.  Minor tweaks.  The NFL changes of late have been a lot bigger game changers.  There are some that might even have a CFL flavour to them.  Anyone saying that the NFL is Canadianizing? 

1) I think only you and maybe 4 other people in the world only are annoyed by the goalposts obscuring sightlines or limiting offensive options in the red zone. I've literally never thought of this.

2) You concede that the endzone seat quality decreases (i.e. takes bad seats and makes things even worse, which I didn't think was possible) but that the endzone play is relatively small. Firstly, what happens near the endzone is OBVIOUSLY THE MOST EXCITING PART OF THE GAME OMFG. Second, if you're sitting in the endzone seats, your view of the ENTIRE game just got ****ier, since you're physically further removed from the entire field.

3) Regarding the endzones being cut off in some stadiums (I refuse to type stadia like you do), while it also drove me nuts, I never at any point blamed the field and instead wonder why TF these stadiums are so ghetto that they didn't build a stadium to accommodate a CFL field. Just as you say seeing the track is cringe, that's the stadium design, not the field.

4) You are way way way overstating the NFL preseason game thing. There might be one here or there over the next few decades and the field differences are probably the smallest factor in the NFL's decision making to play elsewhere.

5) The field LITERALLY defines the game in one of the biggest ways.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 25, 2025, 10:21:56 AMI'm not sold on this.  Random American:

"There's a 55YL, that's weird, why is that?  That's new.  I'm going to watch a little to see if I can figure it out"

vs

"Hey NFL is on in June, this is great!  Why are the players so small, they aren't all 6'3!  Why aren't the making catches like usual?  Hey this is one of those AAF, XFL thingies, this is crap, click"

If they do another "X Era" thing then I'm out.  It's one of the few things that I would quit over.  There cannot be a Canadian ratio for half the league but not the other.  Period.

Here's the issue with that...

Bringing an NFL preseason game to a CFL stadium is a little paint on the field.  Nothing else.

Bringing a CFL team into an NFL/NCAA size field means adding in 15 yards to the width.  The would NOT be an easy change, likely needing a new turf, and maybe removing seats.

It could be done, but its not as easy or as cheap as you would conjecture.

10 yards of length and 5 yds of EZ may modify the game slightly, but it far from changes it from a play calling perspective.  Changing where the FG becomes a factor, again, does not change the game, but may change the strategy slightly.

Yes, ST coaches are going to have to modify their playbooks, but there is still no fair catch, and we haven't seen where the balls will be placed for KO's or after FG's.  And the new rouge will change ST plays as well.  So I can see why ST coach Miller and ex ST coach MOS might have issue.

PLay clock is still an issue, we don't know how certain aspect will be addressed, and I can see fine tuning in preseason next year.

But the field, getting to a "normal" length and moving the FG posts makes a lot of sense taking the sentimental out of it.  Its still 3 down ball, but now it will be the same game in every stadium.

And, IF we can get a little NFL preseason money, it could save the league.

We had an NFL preseason here. What happened? The NFL hated it. Made us change the field because it "wasn't safe" and in fact played the game on an 80 yard field. Contrary to promises both Packers and Raiders held out almost all their starters. Attendance: 21,992  Enjoyed by no one.

Imagine thinking some chump change from a handful of boring NFL preseason games will help the financial viability of the CFL.

The mental gymnastics got me like:

(https://media2.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdDY4cm5jNnlqY3BkYWNwNnZmbHZqOGc2bGxkaG51NjBnaXYyOWpwcyZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/NPyHgTkMStCXC/giphy.gif)

What is the real goal of these changes? 

Well, let's get the fans in Toronto to come and watch NFL style of football until they are screaming for an NFL team.  Main market gone, CFL gone, TSN wetting themselves.

Just saying.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 02:35:15 PMHere's the issue with that...

Bringing an NFL preseason game to a CFL stadium is a little paint on the field.  Nothing else.

Bringing a CFL team into an NFL/NCAA size field means adding in 15 yards to the width.  The would NOT be an easy change, likely needing a new turf, and maybe removing seats.

It could be done, but its not as easy or as cheap as you would conjecture.

10 yards of length and 5 yds of EZ may modify the game slightly, but it far from changes it from a play calling perspective.  Changing where the FG becomes a factor, again, does not change the game, but may change the strategy slightly.

Yes, ST coaches are going to have to modify their playbooks, but there is still no fair catch, and we haven't seen where the balls will be placed for KO's or after FG's.  And the new rouge will change ST plays as well.  So I can see why ST coach Miller and ex ST coach MOS might have issue.

PLay clock is still an issue, we don't know how certain aspect will be addressed, and I can see fine tuning in preseason next year.

But the field, getting to a "normal" length and moving the FG posts makes a lot of sense taking the sentimental out of it.  Its still 3 down ball, but now it will be the same game in every stadium.

And, IF we can get a little NFL preseason money, it could save the league.

This is unhinged.

You cannot possibly believe that the NFL is going to start playing numerous preseason games annually (needed to "save the league") now that the field situation is a little easier to work with.

Quote from: Waffler on September 25, 2025, 02:42:55 PMWe had an NFL preseason here. What happened? The NFL hated it. Made us change the field because it "wasn't safe" and in fact played the game on an 80 yard field. Contrary to promises both Packers and Raiders held out almost all their starters. Attendance: 21,992  Enjoyed by no one.

I didn't pay much attention to the NFL pre-season game held in Wpg. but I do recall the reaction from all sides was hugely negative.  Some complained about the high price of tickets and the fact not a single star or starter for either team appeared or played in the game. I believe the conclusion was the event was a ripoff and an NFL money grab and wouldn't be attempted again.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 25, 2025, 07:11:20 PMI didn't pay much attention to the NFL pre-season game held in Wpg. but I do recall the reaction from all sides was hugely negative.  Some complained about the high price of tickets and the fact not a single star or starter for either team appeared or played in the game. I believe the conclusion was the event was a ripoff and an NFL money grab and wouldn't be attempted again.

I could see an NFL regular season game being played in Canada in the next few years.

Since teams are now playing a 17 games a season there has been an increased focus to play games outside the US.

This season there are 7 games outside the US.

Quote from: gobombersgo on September 25, 2025, 07:27:14 PMI could see an NFL regular season game being played in Canada in the next few years.

The only venues that even come close to NFL size are BC Place and Commonwealth Stadium. Of the two, BC Place would make the most sense (I use the term very loosely). Although, I'm sure Rogers Centre could also handle NFL games as it once did.

The seating capacity of the international venues hosting NFL games this season eclipses both aforementioned CFL venues, with Arena Corinthians in Sao Paulo being the only exception.

I'd also have to think the NFL would want guarantees of some sort to ensure having a regular season NFL game in Canada would be profitable, and who would foot the bill.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 02:35:15 PMBut the field, getting to a "normal" length and moving the FG posts makes a lot of sense taking the sentimental out of it.  Its still 3 down ball, but now it will be the same game in every stadium.

And, IF we can get a little NFL preseason money, it could save the league.

Normal length ? Normal field length for the CFL is, and always has been, 110 yards.

Quote from: Waffler on September 25, 2025, 02:42:55 PMWe had an NFL preseason here. What happened? The NFL hated it. Made us change the field because it "wasn't safe" and in fact played the game on an 80 yard field. Contrary to promises both Packers and Raiders held out almost all their starters. Attendance: 21,992  Enjoyed by no one.

And that will hurt the next attempt, for sure.

But 100% of those concerns will be answered by the field dimension changes.

If no NFL preseason games come, I'm fine with that, I'llnever buy a ticket to one, for sure.

But, if making rational changes to the field dimensions makes it a possibility for teams that NEED the cashflow, and don't have a past issue like ours, it only helps the league.

Quote from: Justin Case on September 25, 2025, 06:20:55 PMWhat is the real goal of these changes? 

Well, let's get the fans in Toronto to come and watch NFL style of football until they are screaming for an NFL team.  Main market gone, CFL gone, TSN wetting themselves.

Just saying.

A: NFL even in Toronto of Van will never happen.  Just not viable.

B: Buffalo hosting some games (not just preseason) in Toronto IS a possibility.  And that could help the league.

C: Toronto fans won't be seeing "NFL style" football just because the field is 20 yards short and the goal posts are moved.  Its still 100% CFL rules and game.  Its still a more exciting game than 4 down 11 player fair kick ball.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 08:26:10 PMB: Buffalo hosting some games (not just preseason) in Toronto IS a possibility.  And that could help the league.

How does Toronto hosting a regular season NFL game help the CFL? What tangible benefit does the CFL receive?

I probably shouldn't even ask but show your work.

Quote from: Waffler on September 25, 2025, 02:42:55 PMWe had an NFL preseason here. What happened? The NFL hated it. Made us change the field because it "wasn't safe" and in fact played the game on an 80 yard field. Contrary to promises both Packers and Raiders held out almost all their starters. Attendance: 21,992  Enjoyed by no one.

The funny thing is that the Raiders were the home team, so if this game hadn't been played in Winnipeg, it would have been at the Oakland Coliseum (they moved to Vegas the next season).  So the 2'x2' patch where the goal post would have been was a safety factor, but the sewn turf on a baseball infield, the hard clay warning tracks surrounding the endzones, and the stands being 6' from the back of the endzones weren't.

https://cdn.abcotvs.com/dip/images/5171681_030619-ap-raiders-coliseum-generic-img.jpg?w=992

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 08:26:10 PMA: NFL even in Toronto of Van will never happen.  Just not viable.

I had some clown telling me the NFL wants into Montreal.  Nonsense.  The NFL ownership group has no interest in kowtowing to Quebec's "distinct culture" and language laws.  The chance of an NFL team in any place other than Toronto and perhaps BC is ZERO due to demographics - there just aren't enough people anywhere in Canada to support an NFL team *except* in those 2 cities.

This entire idea of these changes is to torpedo the league so that Toronto (or more specifically, MLSE) can vie for the only pro football franchise in Canada, even if it means destroying the CFL.  Just another example of Toronto's self-absorbed view of itself as "the centre of Canada".  I'm sure MLSE and most people in Toronto would be just fine with TSN only airing Blue Jays/Raptors/Leafs/NFL games to every household in Canada, as they always see themselves as "Canada's team".

I for one cannot support this, even if it means I never watch or go to another CFL game.  It was a good time while it lasted, but this is my last season supporting the CFL if this nonsense is allowed to stand.  I'm out.

For those wanting the Commish to say "4 down ball is never coming", you got that on WST today:

Winnipeg Sports Talk@SportsTalkWPG

"There was no nefarious Americanization intention with these rules."

"Going forward, we are committed to the game that we have got. No percentage of my thought process, or anyone at the league office's thought process, is on other rule changes."

- #CFL Commissioner Stewart

Watch it here...

https://youtu.be/z_8XZSfiFJo?t=2042

On another point, *IF* somehow, Toronto gets an NFL franchise, why would that mean "death" to the CFL?

If anything, losing Toronto eliminates on of our most problematic franchises.  And leaves us with an 8 team league. 

It would probably shift from east/west division to one.  Otherwise we move east again, taking away the best rivalry in sport. 

Does TSN feel that not having a team in the largest TV market changes the deal?  I don't have the viewership numbers by region, but if gate reflects TV, I can't see losing Toronto changing the market that much.  There will still be CFL fans watching TSN in the GTA.

So, even if Toronto manages to get an NFL franchise (who has more than a billion that will be needed for the franchise purchase, and another billion to make an NFL stadium?), the CFL will continue. 

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 08:53:03 PMOn another point, *IF* somehow, Toronto gets an NFL franchise, why would that mean "death" to the CFL?

If anything, losing Toronto eliminates on of our most problematic franchises.  And leaves us with an 8 team league. 

It would probably shift from east/west division to one.  Otherwise we move east again, taking away the best rivalry in sport. 

Does TSN feel that not having a team in the largest TV market changes the deal?  I don't have the viewership numbers by region, but if gate reflects TV, I can't see losing Toronto changing the market that much.  There will still be CFL fans watching TSN in the GTA.

So, even if Toronto manages to get an NFL franchise (who has more than a billion that will be needed for the franchise purchase, and another billion to make an NFL stadium?), the CFL will continue.

Not sure their end logic, but could be MLSE wants to own "Canada's NFL team", the way they own Canada's baseball and basketball teams.  The extra revenue they pull in from the rest of the country being exclusive must have them convinced their brand is golden.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 25, 2025, 09:22:58 PMNot sure their end logic, but could be MLSE wants to own "Canada's NFL team", the way they own Canada's baseball and basketball teams.  The extra revenue they pull in from the rest of the country being exclusive must have them convinced their brand is golden.

Don't forget "Canada's NHL team"...  lol

Lived in Toronto 20 years, don't miss it a second.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 10:55:25 PMDon't forget "Canada's NHL team"...  lol

Lived in Toronto 20 years, don't miss it a second.

With 6 other Canadian NHL teams is that still the mindset?

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 08:22:43 PMAnd that will hurt the next attempt, for sure.

But 100% of those concerns will be answered by the field dimension changes.

If no NFL preseason games come, I'm fine with that, I'llnever buy a ticket to one, for sure.

But, if making rational changes to the field dimensions makes it a possibility for teams that NEED the cashflow, and don't have a past issue like ours, it only helps the league.

It's going to fix the $400 tickets that no one wanted to buy?

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 08:45:10 PM"There was no nefarious Americanization intention with these rules."

"Going forward, we are committed to the game that we have got. No percentage of my thought process, or anyone at the league office's thought process, is on other rule changes."

No percentage RIGHT NOW.  They are fully immersed in putting out all the fires they've ignited.  They know they need to ease off the gas pedal for a little while, as the climate wouldn't allow them to keep pushing without losing 75% instead of just 5% of the fans.

He also says: "analyzing one step... I want to emphasize it is one step."  This jives with his CJME interview where he clearly makes these changes sound like the tip of the iceberg, NOT that they are "done" like you imply.

I have zero doubt and would bet the farm that he will do some other drastic (read: taboo/controversial) change between now and 2028.  And I'll bet my neighbours farm that it makes us further NFL like.  IF his changes work out rather than backfire (50/50) then he'll take that as a mandate to go even farther.

And at that time some here will fully believe that "what defines the CFL game is..." with the list magically one item shorter, and with no awareness of the wool pulled over their eyes.  And they'll argue that's what they always believed.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 25, 2025, 08:22:43 PMBut, if making rational changes to the field dimensions makes it a possibility for teams that NEED the cashflow, and don't have a past issue like ours, it only helps the league.

How is a 100Y field any more "rational" than 110Y?  If anything, doing what we've done for 111 years should seem more rational.  Doing what will cost lesser-league football a combined tens of millions of dollars is rational?  Potentially having a split with our "feeder leagues" so their players won't be used to our game is rational?

The Riderfan forum poll showed that 5% of fans (likely STHs) will quit the CFL if some of these changes (most likely the 110Y field).  Seems like the same number here.  You alienate multi-year/decade fans and lose ST renewals for a "possibility" of some scraps from the NFL?  In what world does anyone do this??  That's rational?  What's rational is: a STH in the hand is worth 5 non-fan millennials who never leave their cheap apartment.

You may have other arguments to support the changes, but this avenue is a dead end.

I'll just say this one more time .. I think the CFL is way more fun and exciting than the nfl as it is. Why make these changes ? I especially don't like the smaller field and the goalpost move. Those are drastic changes and my number one beefs.
I believe these moves are to make the CFL more NFL, and if they go through, I will make my own changes.
I can still be a fan, just watch on TV or just go fishing.

Quote from: Throw Long Bannatyne on September 26, 2025, 12:03:44 AMWith 6 other Canadian NHL teams is that still the mindset?

In Toronto it is...

Quote from: wpg#1 on September 26, 2025, 12:51:07 PMI'll just say this one more time .. I think the CFL is way more fun and exciting than the nfl as it is. Why make these changes ? I especially don't like the smaller field and the goalpost move. Those are drastic changes and my number one beefs.
I believe these moves are to make the CFL more NFL, and if they go through, I will make my own changes.
I can still be a fan, just watch on TV or just go fishing.

Shorter field is not really smaller on any given play. 

Goal post move, sorry, but I love the idea, it was always goofy having them in the field of play.  But that's some of the charm of the CFL is its goofy rules that we can cling to.

3 downs, waggle, 1 yard off the ball, no fair catches, 12 men, ratio, rouge (even in its modified form, when now becomes an earned point rather than a participation ribbon), real OT rules, actual gunners on kicking plays... so many quirks to love, I'll happily give up the 55 yard line if the league thinks it's a good move.

Now, if only we could get back to 2 teams named Roughriders...

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 26, 2025, 09:16:31 AMHow is a 100Y field any more "rational" than 110Y?  If anything, doing what we've done for 111 years should seem more rational.  Doing what will cost lesser-league football a combined tens of millions of dollars is rational?  Potentially having a split with our "feeder leagues" so their players won't be used to our game is rational?

The Riderfan forum poll showed that 5% of fans (likely STHs) will quit the CFL if some of these changes (most likely the 110Y field).  Seems like the same number here.  You alienate multi-year/decade fans and lose ST renewals for a "possibility" of some scraps from the NFL?  In what world does anyone do this??  That's rational?  What's rational is: a STH in the hand is worth 5 non-fan millennials who never leave their cheap apartment.

You may have other arguments to support the changes, but this avenue is a dead end.

DON'T BE DAFT MAN, AS SOON AS THOSE NON-CFL FANS SEE THE 55 IS GONE THEY'LL FLOCK TO GAMES TO CELEBRATE IT'S ABSENCE! IT'S BETTER THIS WAY WILL THE THE CFL'S NEW MOTTO.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 26, 2025, 09:16:31 AMHow is a 100Y field any more "rational" than 110Y?  If anything, doing what we've done for 111 years should seem more rational.  Doing what will cost lesser-league football a combined tens of millions of dollars is rational?  Potentially having a split with our "feeder leagues" so their players won't be used to our game is rational?

The Riderfan forum poll showed that 5% of fans (likely STHs) will quit the CFL if some of these changes (most likely the 110Y field).  Seems like the same number here.  You alienate multi-year/decade fans and lose ST renewals for a "possibility" of some scraps from the NFL?  In what world does anyone do this??  That's rational?  What's rational is: a STH in the hand is worth 5 non-fan millennials who never leave their cheap apartment.

You may have other arguments to support the changes, but this avenue is a dead end.

Rational in that 100yd fields fit in all stadiums. 

Its something the NHL did decades ago.  Some rinks were smaller because their barns couldn't fit a standard rink.  But now, every rink has the same dimensions.

Throwing a pass into the EZ in MTL is different from WPG, and different from TOR.  Not just the actual lines, but the surfaces immediately outside the lines.  How many players wipe out because of the transitions, let alone the missing corners or depth.

Now, every field will be the same, and there should be room to have less drastic transitions at the lines.

We celebrate the differences in baseball, and no one disputes what the home field advantage means in Boston, and many other parks.  Teams draft, build and sign based on the fact half their games are going to be played with certain distinct differences.

But not in any other pro league.  The fact that a player knows they are facing the same playing surface regardless the venue literally means there is a level playing field.

If every team had a venue that could house a 110 yard field and 20 yard EZ, you can bet moving the goal posts would have been the only change. 

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 05:44:32 PMGoal post move, sorry, but I love the idea, it was always goofy having them in the field of play.  But that's some of the charm of the CFL is its goofy rules that we can cling to.

It's pretty weird how you've never complained about the goalposts up until this week.

This is what's goofy. (https://forums.bluebombers.com/index.php?topic=56799.msg1674331#msg1674331)

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 06:01:31 PMRational in that 100yd fields fit in all stadiums.

110 yard fields fit in all current CFL venues. That'd still be the case if the endzones were reduced by five yards on either end.

Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 07:05:39 PMIt's pretty weird how you've never complained about the goalposts up until this week.



110 yard fields fit in all current CFL venues. That'd still be the case if the endzones were reduced by five yards on either end.

I never complained, because I never thought they'd have the guts to move them. 

110 yard fields do NOT fit in all venues, otherwise, MTL and TOR would have them. 

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 08:00:26 PMI never complained, because I never thought they'd have the guts to move them. 

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeHI5YnNxaGk4bGFma285amY4MWhxazh1N3NyN3lid3o4dHhzZ2V0dCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif)

You might as well profess your eternal and undying love for Mark Scheifele at this rate.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 08:00:26 PM110 yard fields do NOT fit in all venues, otherwise, MTL and TOR would have them. 

It's like you don't even care to make an effort.

BMO Field (110 yards) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/BMO_Field%2C_104th_Grey_Cup.jpeg)

Inaugural Season Seating Chart with 110 yard field (https://www.cfl.ca/2016/02/01/argonauts-release-pricing-for-inaugural-season-at-bmo-field/)

Percival Molson Stadium (110 yards) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Molson_Memorial_Stadium#/media/File:Percival_Molson_Memorial_Stadium_-_panoramio.jpg)

Alouettes Official Stadium plan showing 110 yard field (https://en.montrealalouettes.com/seating-plan/)

Like I said, 110 yard fields fit in all venues.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 08:00:26 PMI never complained, because I never thought they'd have the guts to move them. 

110 yard fields do NOT fit in all venues, otherwise, MTL and TOR would have them. 

WAIT are you saying MTL and TOR don't have 110 yards ??? YIKES
Aards when they go to 4 downs and 11 players, you'll say.. I never liked those silly CFL rules anyway.

Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 08:12:39 PM(https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeHI5YnNxaGk4bGFma285amY4MWhxazh1N3NyN3lid3o4dHhzZ2V0dCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif)

It's like you don't even care to make an effort.

BMO Field (110 yards) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/BMO_Field%2C_104th_Grey_Cup.jpeg)

Percival Molson Stadium (110 yards) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Molson_Memorial_Stadium#/media/File:Percival_Molson_Memorial_Stadium_-_panoramio.jpg)

Like I said, 110 yard fields fit in all venues.

Wow, he's lost all integrity saying this stuff. Aards, just stop !

Quote from: wpg#1 on September 26, 2025, 08:20:47 PMWow, he's lost all integrity saying this stuff. Aards, just stop !

Ya can't lose what you never had. ;D

Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 08:12:39 PM[img]https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeHI5YnNxaGk4bGFma285amY4MWhxazh1N3NyN3lid3o4dHhzZ2V0dCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/You might as well profess your eternal and undying love for Mark Scheifele at this rate.

It's like you don't even care to make an effort.

BMO Field (110 yards) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/BMO_Field%2C_104th_Grey_Cup.jpeg)

Inaugural Season Seating Chart with 110 yard field (https://www.cfl.ca/2016/02/01/argonauts-release-pricing-for-inaugural-season-at-bmo-field/)

Percival Molson Stadium (110 yards) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percival_Molson_Memorial_Stadium#/media/File:Percival_Molson_Memorial_Stadium_-_panoramio.jpg)

Alouettes Official Stadium plan showing 110 yard field (https://en.montrealalouettes.com/seating-plan/)

Like I said, 110 yard fields fit in all venues.

Neither of those fields is a complete field, BMO is shortened EZ, Molson has truncated corners.  As indicated by your images.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 08:23:50 PMNeither of those fields is a complete field, BMO is shortened EZ, Molson has truncated corners.  As indicated by your images.

The 20-yard endzones don't fit. The 110-yard field does, though. The league could've simply reduced the endzone depth by 5 yards and moved the goalposts to the back of each endzone.

At no point did the 110-yard CFL field not fit in either venue.

(https://y.yarn.co/b11f0c5b-9d1e-4659-80fe-cd2e0b40f1ee_text.gif)

Quote from: wpg#1 on September 26, 2025, 08:17:57 PMWAIT are you saying MTL and TOR don't have 110 yards ??? YIKES
Aards when they go to 4 downs and 11 players, you'll say.. I never liked those silly CFL rules anyway.

Moving goal posts and shortening the field to make all stadiums the same and safer makes sense, as it does not affect the uniquely Canadian part of the game.

Saying that 4 downs, 11 players are even in the same realm of discussion is insulting.  3 downs, 12 players, ratio, kicking game, 1 yard off the ball... those are uniquely Canadian.  THAT would get my ire.

Changing dimensions doesn't.  4 years from now, I bet most people will be saying "That actually works better."

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 05:44:32 PMGoal post move, sorry, but I love the idea, it was always goofy having them in the field of play.

Oh, then you can post to your posts over the years where you complain about those darn goofy posts?  After all, you "always" thought it was goofy, and certainly have not recently been gaslighted.

I'll wait for you to post the post links.  Forum has a "search" function to aid in your quest.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 06:01:31 PMRational in that 100yd fields fit in all stadiums.

But the 15Y EZ already takes care of that Aards.  So, once again, why did they have to do 15Y EZ plus 100 yard field?  You haven't addressed this point, even though I've said it about 10 times on every thread.

Don't be gaslit.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 06:01:31 PMHow many players wipe out because of the transitions, let alone the missing corners or depth.

Are we sure the new changes take care of the TOR turf transition?  I'm pretty sure it was right at the goal line.  EZ shrunk by 5.  That side of the field shrunk by 5.  To my calculations that means there will still be a turf transition in TOR, 5Y from the dead ball line.

So say goodbye to "fixing turf transition" as a valid talking point!  The new changes do no such thing.

Doh!

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 08:00:26 PMI never complained, because I never thought they'd have the guts to move them.

Haha!!  This is the biggest lie I've ever read on this forum.  Seriously, sorry.  Like Aards was ever shy about telling us his controversial opinions before?  Heck, after me he's probably the MOST controversial.

I think you need to go think this all over.  You pretend 110Y never meant anything and wouldn't have been on your "top 3 things that I'd tell an American makes our game different", and now you pretend the goal posts have bugged you for decades?  Seriously sit down and think about what thoughts are yours and what are being planted by the gaslighting.

No insult.  I'm worried about you.

Quote from: blue_gold_84 on September 26, 2025, 08:21:39 PMYa can't lose what you never had. ;D

That's not fair.  Aards has had differing opinions frequently, but they were always sane (if odd).  This latest tack is new.  This is off the deep end, and no, not like Aards.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 08:27:49 PMSaying that 4 downs, 11 players are even in the same realm of discussion is insulting.  3 downs, 12 players, ratio, kicking game, 1 yard off the ball... those are uniquely Canadian.  THAT would get my ire.

Changing dimensions doesn't.

Every single one of us, including you, 1 month ago, if asked by an American buddy "what is the main difference with the CFL game", would have included "110Y field" in their list.  ALL OF US.

Whether you also would have thought it was critical to our game or not is debateable, but I guarantee you would have put it in your list.  Why?  Because everyone always has.  I'm sure if you dig up any article trying to explain the CFL to Americans, ever last one of them would mention the 110Y, probably in the first 3 items.

The only reason anyone now thinks any of the above is false is that there is a major gaslighting campaign emanating from the CFL/Commish right now.

Quote from: theaardvark on September 26, 2025, 08:27:49 PMMoving goal posts and shortening the field to make all stadiums the same and safer makes sense, as it does not affect the uniquely Canadian part of the game.

Saying that 4 downs, 11 players are even in the same realm of discussion is insulting.  3 downs, 12 players, ratio, kicking game, 1 yard off the ball... those are uniquely Canadian.  THAT would get my ire.

Changing dimensions doesn't.  4 years from now, I bet most people will be saying "That actually works better."

1. If anyone had asked a week ago, "what makes the CFL unique/what it is, etc"; 110 yards is going to be one of the first things anyone would said guaranteed.

2. Not a single person will say it works better. What are you even expecting to see happen differently? Best we can hope for is that we don't notice a change. We're literally ripping a foundational stone out of our field for zero functional benefit.

Quote from: Jesse on September 27, 2025, 01:50:26 AM1. If anyone had asked a week ago, "what makes the CFL unique/what it is, etc"; 110 yards is going to be one of the first things anyone would said guaranteed.

2. Not a single person will say it works better. What are you even expecting to see happen differently? Best we can hope for is that we don't notice a change. We're literally ripping a foundational stone out of our field for zero functional benefit.

We had a person from California come up to our office this past summer, he was very excited to go to a CFL game and did with a couple of our staff. The first things I told him prior to going is, the field is longer, wider, and we have 12 players on the field. We gave him all of the details of the differences, but for sure the longer wider field was the first thing mentioned to him. He loved the game, the field size, and had an absolute blast. He said he was going to spread the word in LA.

Quote from: Jesse on September 27, 2025, 01:50:26 AM2. Not a single person will say it works better. What are you even expecting to see happen differently? Best we can hope for is that we don't notice a change. We're literally ripping a foundational stone out of our field for zero functional benefit.

The idea that 100Y field will lead to more scoring may have some merit.  After every punt you are 10Y closer to the EZ by definition.  And if they don't re-adjust the default 40Y starting point, many series will start 10Y closer too (I think they will adjust this back).

However, 110Y is so critical to our identity that you would have thought they would have tried other cheaper/easier/fan-friendly ideas first.  For example, you can have the same effect on default starting point series starts by switching from the 40 to the 50.  On punts it's a bit trickier: either nothing an be done about it, or you could take the return dead ball point and just add 10Y for free.

I'm sure many (other, better) ideas can be thought up by fans, players, coaches, etc.  You could probably get 90% of what the 100Y change would get you, without having to lose a top-3 aspect of our Canadian identity.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 27, 2025, 12:14:58 PMThe idea that 100Y field will lead to more scoring may have some merit.  After every punt you are 10Y closer to the EZ by definition.  And if they don't re-adjust the default 40Y starting point, many series will start 10Y closer too (I think they will adjust this back).

However, 110Y is so critical to our identity that you would have thought they would have tried other cheaper/easier/fan-friendly ideas first.  For example, you can have the same effect on default starting point series starts by switching from the 40 to the 50.  On punts it's a bit trickier: either nothing an be done about it, or you could take the return dead ball point and just add 10Y for free.

I'm sure many (other, better) ideas can be thought up by fans, players, coaches, etc.  You could probably get 90% of what the 100Y change would get you, without having to lose a top-3 aspect of our Canadian identity.

Exactly. I don't believe artificially creating more scoring is so crucial that you can undermine everything else.

Quote from: TecnoGenius on September 26, 2025, 11:48:13 PMOh, then you can post to your posts over the years where you complain about those darn goofy posts?  After all, you "always" thought it was goofy, and certainly have not recently been gaslighted.

I'll wait for you to post the post links.  Forum has a "search" function to aid in your quest.

Again, the thought of moving them, or complaining about it, does not become a thing until the league actually does it.  You don't have to complain about something to actually agree with it being changed.

Quote from: wpg#1 on September 27, 2025, 02:09:00 AMWe had a person from California come up to our office this past summer, he was very excited to go to a CFL game and did with a couple of our staff. The first things I told him prior to going is, the field is longer, wider, and we have 12 players on the field. We gave him all of the details of the differences, but for sure the longer wider field was the first thing mentioned to him. He loved the game, the field size, and had an absolute blast. He said he was going to spread the word in LA.

It's like the t-shirts from the 90s - longer, wider, faster.

Quote from: gobombersgo on September 27, 2025, 03:57:30 PMIt's like the t-shirts from the 90s - longer, wider, faster.

Its not the length, it width that makes it better  ::) .  And the game is still faster, if anything, they are trying to improve that with the new clock.