Quote from: Tecno on December 07, 2025, 07:16:44 AMThat would be all well and good, except the 110Y->100Y change is a monumental shift and undertaking costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions.
Once this is done (and propagated to all levels), I'm pretty sure it can never be undone. As such it requires a bigger justification than what has been provided to us. A hope and a wish of "more scoring" = "more fans" is simply not enough.
I have an idea: CFL should run some PS games in the USA on a 100Y field, with the posts at the back. Run half down there. Half up here. Compare the results between 110 and 100. Even in the PS, you should be able to draw some conclusions.
I have another idea, Johnston can say he "hears the fans" and do all the changes in '26 and '27, but save the 100Y field for '28. See how the GP move and EZ changes affect things first -- and give more time for fans/pundits to debate the 100Y field.
Quote from: Tecno on December 05, 2025, 10:01:22 AMExcept there's going to be a lot more "short punts", and short punts where the teams are hemmed in on a small amount of field.
Teams will be punting from the opponent 40 all the time now (because it's a 62Y FG attempt!). Good teams will have a P that can coffin corner in the air: NO return at all! Teams with a bad P will likely be dropping most punts onto the field around the 5. The cover team from the 40 will be all over any return, and the every returner will be penned at the rail (no one will kick to the middle -- too short and high chance of it rolling into EZ). Again, NO returns.
Thus I think we'll actually get LESS "good" returns, more coffins, more overall punting vs FGs, and the "going for it more on 3rd & long/medium" will NOT materialize. The whole thing could backfire spectacularly.
Quote from: bomber beetle on December 07, 2025, 04:18:19 PMThe CFL has promised that offenses will start nearer to the opponents goal line.The CFL hasn't made that promise. The claim is that shorter drives = more TD's, that doesn't make it a fact. Shorter field doesn't equal shorter drives anyway.
It is a verifiable fact that shorter drives equal more touchdowns.
The NFL did not change the field size when the goal posts moved.
Did the NFL change any rules in 1974 that made drives shorter? I don't know. If they did not, then the comparison would be invalid.
Quote from: Sir Blue and Gold on December 07, 2025, 04:32:29 PMThe proof is basic common sense that a child could understand. Allow me explain:You might have a point if we were talking about a 20,50 or 75 yard difference, but we're not.
Next time you're on a football field (assuming you've ever been on one) start at the goal line and run to the other end of the field and "score" a touchdown. Note how hard that is. You could even write it down on scale of 1 to 10. If you want to make it more thrilling: invite a friend and have them line up about 7 yards away from you and have them try to stop you from scoring.
Then do the same at centre and note how hard that is. Note that it's about half as difficult, physically.
Then do the same on the 20 and note how hard that is. Following?
You'll find that the further you start from the end zone the harder it is to score.
(Without adding too much complexity here, this is also why a fundamental principle of football exists, punting, should you be curious.)
Now extrapolate your experience to the game of football and discover to your amazement, that the shorter the field, the easier it will be to score.
Quote from: Blue In BC on December 07, 2025, 04:32:48 PMThere were some pros in our use of the 1 game IR. Overall it wasn't very effective IMO. We choose poorly in some of our free agent acquisitions and rode that into the ground.
I'd add Echols and Logon as questionable choices at the end of the season. I would have bumped them back to the PR. I see no future for either in 2026.
Vanterpool might make the AR in 2026 but we've signed a number of import OL earlier than normal. That may be an indication of change. I wouldn't say he's a lock. Lofton is a potential free agent and he's probably not back either.
I'd go further and suggest we may see an entirely new group of imports taking spots across the roster.
Quote from: bunker on December 07, 2025, 08:38:05 PMWho's Edwards?sorry that sb tim white, hamilton could free up 200k by moving on from him to use towards Olivera.
Quote from: bunker on December 07, 2025, 08:35:08 PMI would like to hang on to Holm, Nichols and Kramdi. They are 3 of the most talented and experienced players on a defense that actually performed pretty well if you can get over the frustration of applying no pressure on the QB. They also play positions (HB and SAM) that are not that easy to fill with young inexperienced players. If some rookie lights it up in camp, they could always rethink things, but I would be trying to sign them. The others, I agree with.
Quote from: ModAdmin on December 07, 2025, 08:46:28 PMThe fact the Bombers are slower than normal signing their own free agents suggests to me they might hit the free agency market hard this off season.
Quote from: Pete on December 07, 2025, 07:52:54 PMHamilton would be an option, they bid big for him last time, and could free up cap space by not resigning Edwards. Brady would feel right at home with the hamilton bombers/err tigercats.Who's Edwards?