CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[theaardvark]

If we see more go-for-it-on-3rd-and-shorts and more/more exciting TD shots in the endzone, then that would be an  improvement of the game. I've never seen any evidence that would suggest this will happen by the decisionmakers, though.

And in my admittedly non-expertise in the game, I'm simply punting and trying to pin if I'm at the 37, and I'm betting the play in the endzone is a wash, so if that turns out to be true we are making hallmark changes with the hope there might be a slight improvement and a fair chance it's the same or worse. I don't see the payoff unless it actually does get better. No improvement is a losing proposition IMO.

And dude, still no idea what you're going on about with the preseason stuff. I do not see them doing any of the things you said and the league isn't talking about it at all. You'd think they would be if that was part of the plan, given they're trying to sell the changes to us.

^This is what I fear.

I can't see the game getting worse from the changes.  Maybe the same, but not worse, and maybe better.

The rouge changes the game a lot more than the field size, yet I hear zero complaints about changing the rouge.  That is more Canadian than the 55 yard line.  Changing it changes runbacks, ball placement on missed FG, decisions to punt into the EZ and avoiding OB in the EZ, there will be a lot of ST strategy changes.

As to the league announcing that NFL preseason or moving our preseason as goals, of course they'd avoid doing that, it would gin up the already heated discussion.  But my conjecture is purely that, conjecture.  But I won't be surprised if it happens, I will be more surprised if it doesn't in the next 5-10 years. As to moving our preseason, again conjecture on my part, but it does seem like a logical opportunity.

Correct.

If you spend any time on NFL forums "send him to the CFL"
Is not a compliment. Even their coaches, scouts, management have a low opinion, whatever they may say.

They are not going to follow our league. End of story.

It would be interesting to get the details on where this idea was dreamed up. It Appears not a lot of thought was put into it.

I think that a lot of thought went into these proposals, and the fact that the BOG of the CFL unanimously approved of them says they were not come to lightly or without great thought.

I do not believe Johnston instigated all of these changes, but he definitely was part of the deliberation and approval, because it is his job to sell them and take the blowback.  I'm pretty sure all involved truly think that this is best for the game going forward.  And they are the ones both footing the bill and relying on the income the game provides.  To make these decisions without great thought makes zero sense.

[theaardvark]

I seem to recall the BOG suggesting reducing or eliminating the ratio in the last negotiation with the CFLPA, that might be an indication of a rule change they plan to push again sometime in the future.

Found it, sadly Wade Miller was one of the appointed negotiators.

In the CFL's proposal to date, a number of key issues still concern your bargaining committee:
• A ten-year agreement with zero increases in the cap.
• A revenue sharing program which will not likely show any significant growth by the CFL's own accord, until the TSN contract is renewed in five years
• Although earlier discussions around guaranteed contracts were held, the CFL has now removed the PA's proposal to allow players to negotiate guaranteed contracts.
• The CFL demands our members go back to padded practices, even with a decrease of 35% of on-field injuries, yet refuses to support our proposal for coverage for those same on field injuries.
• Various proposals on the table aimed at what appears to be an effort to try to lock as many players as they can into contracts.
• Full elimination of the Canadian ratio and Veteran American Ratio. As well as a reduction of Canadians on the Roster.
•  The league wants full discretion on practice time that varies during the week (increasing and decreasing hours). Which will create lack of certainty for members.

Your bargaining committee remains devoted to achieving a fair and comprehensive agreement, and we will keep you informed of our deliberations.

https://3downnation.com/2022/05/05/cfl-wants-to-eradicate-canadian-ratio-in-cba-proposal-to-players-association/

Negotiations start with outrageous proposals in an attempt to make the compromise more palatable. 

There is never going to be a CBA where the Nat players vote for elimination of the ratio.  I guess the Imp's outnumber the Nats at any moment, but still, the players know that is a non-starter. but that doesn't stop from it being proposed.  With all CBA negotiations to date, have we seen any moves accepted in that way?

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Negotiations start with outrageous proposals in an attempt to make the compromise more palatable. 

There is never going to be a CBA where the Nat players vote for elimination of the ratio.  I guess the Imp's outnumber the Nats at any moment, but still, the players know that is a non-starter. but that doesn't stop from it being proposed.  With all CBA negotiations to date, have we seen any moves accepted in that way?

CFLPA's compromise was accepting the screwed up designations they have for players that favour American players over Canadian we see now.

[Jesse]

I can't see the game getting worse from the changes.  Maybe the same, but not worse, and maybe better.

The rouge changes the game a lot more than the field size, yet I hear zero complaints about changing the rouge.  That is more Canadian than the 55 yard line.  Changing it changes runbacks, ball placement on missed FG, decisions to punt into the EZ and avoiding OB in the EZ, there will be a lot of ST strategy changes.

As to the league announcing that NFL preseason or moving our preseason as goals, of course they'd avoid doing that, it would gin up the already heated discussion.  But my conjecture is purely that, conjecture.  But I won't be surprised if it happens, I will be more surprised if it doesn't in the next 5-10 years. As to moving our preseason, again conjecture on my part, but it does seem like a logical opportunity.

I think that a lot of thought went into these proposals, and the fact that the BOG of the CFL unanimously approved of them says they were not come to lightly or without great thought.

I do not believe Johnston instigated all of these changes, but he definitely was part of the deliberation and approval, because it is his job to sell them and take the blowback.  I'm pretty sure all involved truly think that this is best for the game going forward.  And they are the ones both footing the bill and relying on the income the game provides.  To make these decisions without great thought makes zero sense.

From beginning to end they spent no more than 5 months on this. Likely much less since they would have had their vote long before we heard about it.

Stew was given a mandate by the league. That's what we keep being told. The status quo was not acceptable is the line Dave Naylor keeps repeating - though he seems like such a shill for the MLSE.

Do you think the mandate the BOG gave Stew was to make the league more exciting? The status quo was our league didn't score enough and we needed to increase scoring? Is that the impression you're under?

The mandate the league gave Stew was to make more money. There's no way to do that by the changes they made unless these are the first steps towards American expansion. These Canadian aspects of the league will be axed immediately if they think it = a larger TV deal or expansion fees. This is where our league leadership is at, apparently.

[The Zipp]

From beginning to end they spent no more than 5 months on this. Likely much less since they would have had their vote long before we heard about it.

Stew was given a mandate by the league. That's what we keep being told. The status quo was not acceptable is the line Dave Naylor keeps repeating - though he seems like such a shill for the MLSE.

Do you think the mandate the BOG gave Stew was to make the league more exciting? The status quo was our league didn't score enough and we needed to increase scoring? Is that the impression you're under?

The mandate the league gave Stew was to make more money. There's no way to do that by the changes they made unless these are the first steps towards American expansion. These Canadian aspects of the league will be axed immediately if they think it = a larger TV deal or expansion fees. This is where our league leadership is at, apparently.

the BOG has been looking at opportunities for longer than 5 months.  they announced that they had discussions with the XFL..this isn't new and yes the almighty dollar is a part of it - always is, always was and always will be...

[dd]

Correct.

If you spend any time on NFL forums "send him to the CFL"
Is not a compliment. Even their coaches, scouts, management have a low opinion, whatever they may say.

They are not going to follow our league. End of story.

It would be interesting to get the details on where this idea was dreamed up. It Appears not a lot of thought was put into it.

Correct.

If you spend any time on NFL forums "send him to the CFL"
Is not a compliment. Even their coaches, scouts, management have a low opinion, whatever they may say.

They are not going to follow our league. End of story.

It would be interesting to get the details on where this idea was dreamed up. It Appears not a lot of thought was put into it.

Exactly, they view us as a minor league for sure that plays in Canada, so we aren't even on the radar screen for US fans. It would be like trying to sell the goldeyes after watching the Jays for years. Ain't gonna happen.


With that said, there's still the young Canadian market to tap, and it's going to be tough as most of them are into NFL. I know I got hooked when I was 17 because it was our hometown team and the fans were very loud/passionate when I went to my first game and I just started following them as they were our hometown team.

Our attendance and ticket sales are strong but for teams struggling ie Toronto , Ottawa etc I think the team has got to do more connecting with the community via youth programs and appearances at social events—sell themselves to their own community , not to folks south of the 49th

[jets4life]

[jets4life]

I had a lengthy reply but for some reason it did not post my comments.  The changes are terrible. It's an insult to Winnipeg and Regina, who just happened to build new stadiums to specifically accommodate the current field.  Also, the people sitting behind the end zone are now going to be completely shafted.

My guess is these "wonderful" new changes came out of a board meeting in Downtown Toronto, where the CFL is an afterthought.

[jets4life]

They have actually said they need more study on the clock.

The rest are done deals.

As to implementing them slowly, its far better to make the changes to the playing field in one fell swoop, which re-assures me that the 65yd wide field is not going to change.  New turf / goal posts at the same time makes sense.

My buddy and I were looking at the field during the game, and calculating where the posts would be, and the endzones, and he pointed out that now we will be 5 yards closer to both goal lines, and 10 yards closer to the back of the endzone. 

So, literally, our seats just got better.  We won't be on the 50 yard line, we will be at the 45, so it doesn't sound as cool, but we are still 5 yards from the centre of the field.

The majority of CFL seats are between the current goal lines, EZ seats are discounted and prime giveaway seats.  Look at where all the orange shirts were last game, EZ corner.

Most CFL revenue comes from seats that just got better.  More seats at higher prices.

Even the upper decks, all of the OB lines are closer.  Except the discounted seats, if you were on the 5, now you are goal line.  But the far goal line is 5 yards closer.  So, again, not as cool sounding a seat location, but actually better sightline.

No reason to re-assess these changes, IMHO.  They did thier work, BOG unanimously agreed, they've committed the $$ and now hand it over to the ticket sales and marketing groups.

With all due respect, you must be delusional, if you think the new shortened field will make sight-lines better.

[theaardvark]

From beginning to end they spent no more than 5 months on this. Likely much less since they would have had their vote long before we heard about it.

Stew was given a mandate by the league. That's what we keep being told. The status quo was not acceptable is the line Dave Naylor keeps repeating - though he seems like such a shill for the MLSE.

Do you think the mandate the BOG gave Stew was to make the league more exciting? The status quo was our league didn't score enough and we needed to increase scoring? Is that the impression you're under?

The mandate the league gave Stew was to make more money. There's no way to do that by the changes they made unless these are the first steps towards American expansion. These Canadian aspects of the league will be axed immediately if they think it = a larger TV deal or expansion fees. This is where our league leadership is at, apparently.

OK, I can't believe I have to say this, but if you think all these ideas happened since "Stew" was appointed, well, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona for you...

Making CFL fields all the same has been a subject since MTL went into Molson stadium, and reiterated when BMO came on stream.  Other than baseball, no league has fields that are different sizes based on stadia. Its just not a thing.  And having one sideline in eastern stadiums and opposite ones in western stadiums, that's just so stupid.  Putting warriors beside each other, having to walk through the oppositions bench to return to yours, subbing from mid field for an EZ SY play, why wasn't this change mandated day one?

Goal posts, pivotal games being decided by doinks, well, there haven't been many, but one would be enough.

The rouge:  Re-imagining a better implementation for the rouge is something that has been a long time coming.  "Reward for failure" has always been a joke, the "participation ribbon" for kickers.  This rule makes a rouge become an earned scoring play.  Still a thing, but we won't see 4-1 hockey scores anymore. Or a game won by a missed FG.

Clock, still in discussion the actual implementation.  Again, not a new topic, one that has been waiting action for years.

For "Stew" to put together a list of proposed changes for the league should have been an afternoons worth of work.  The BOG discussing them, a few hours meeting, sending "Stew" back to come up with the final proposal, which again, a few days at most, maybe a week.  A week or two for the BOG to mull it over, and give notes, another couple days for "Stew" to come up with the final proposal, and then a unanimous vote by the BOG.  A couple weeks to put together the media slides and presentations, and that's a timeline of a few months at worst.

5 months is far more than enough window to come up with this.  It might even have been ready sooner, but delayed for precisely the reason you give, that fans would think this was happening too fast after "Stew" took charge.

I don't doubt that this was not the full first package "Stew" presented.  And while they could have chosen to leave clock and rouge until after the field changes, logistics here make more sense.

TV contracts are what fuels this league, and "Stew" was brought on to negotiate those more than anything else.  I have no doubt he has justified these changes with making those contracts easier to negotiate for larger dollars.  Making the game less weird make it more sellable.  Americanizing it would make it less sellable, keeping it odd keeps it distinct and we all think a better game.

Changes that are CBA related will come in a different package, and will require consultation with teams, coaches, and players.  These changes did not require those consultations.

[wpg#1]

STEW ??       

[theaardvark]

STEW ??       

I used it because the post I was responding to decided to call him that...

[Jesse]

TV contracts are what fuels this league, and "Stew" was brought on to negotiate those more than anything else.  I have no doubt he has justified these changes with making those contracts easier to negotiate for larger dollars.  Making the game less weird make it more sellable.  Americanizing it would make it less sellable, keeping it odd keeps it distinct and we all think a better game.

Changes that are CBA related will come in a different package, and will require consultation with teams, coaches, and players.  These changes did not require those consultations.

And this is what's relevant. We are being Americanized because there remains a delusion that we can grow the market beyond the Canadian border.

It's not to improve the game, to improve scoring, or because anyone had a problem with the clock, field size, or goal posts. It's 100% about making the product more palatable to an American audience.

Suggesting there is anymore to this is just an insult to our intelligence.

[blue_or_die]

Talking in circles still of course, but this can all be solved if we just had information on the thought process involved.

If it's to make the game better, tell us how. Not by giving aardvarkian thoughts like "everyone has been talking about reducing the field size bc Molson/BMO stadiums for a while now" (which is completely made up) or a single instance of a ball hitting a goal post (at the goal line) being enough to justify a reconfiguration that essentially eliminates exciting missed fg returns. Give us the thought process of the commish, BOG, and anyone else leading. So far it's a lot of trust me bro.

If it's to appeal to a larger audience (Americans and/or young Canadians), tell us your thought process and show us your market study data that lead us here. If there's a signed ESPN deal in a drawer somewhere that brings in millions to our franchises, while still sucky to lose these elements of the game, I'd happily take one in the back if it meant the health of the league. Barring some secret wild deal, there's no evidence or explanation of anything of the sort. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to the league office which frankly hasn't earned it. It would be fair to call them mostly incompetent, even.

An interesting comparison is Ambrosie's Global program. It was a weird concept. No one understood why or what benefit it would bring. No good explanation was given. We speculated that there "must be" reason to believe we could grow the game globally and at least nudge the gauge on audience size. Of course, none of that materialized and all we have to show for it is roster spots around the league now used for aussie rules kicker has-beens.

Without reasons, why would any of this be any different?

[gobombersgo]

Aards, no one made a big deal about the endzones in Montreal.

Also, I never heard complaints about the 18 yard enzones in Toronto. Only issue people had was players used to slip where the playing surface changed.

When a game is played in those stadiums both teams play under the same conditions, thats all thats important.

How many years did Edmonton have cut off corners to their endzones? We all managed to live through that horror.