CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[theaardvark]

I think the bugaboo is the concept of "Americanization"

It is not an attempt to "Americanize" the CFL, or even make it look like the CFL.

I can see the logic in making it "Globalized" as far as field configuration.  With a FIFA pitch defined as "dimensions can vary, but a common size is 115 yards by 75 yards." the new length and goal post positions means a FIFA pitch can be dropped into any stadium presently used by the CFL, without having to remove the goal posts and fill those holes with potentially hazardous transitions.  So CFL built for purpose stadiums can easily host other events. 

Leaving the 65 yard width, and 15 yd EZ's keeps the basics of CFL ball easily distinguishable from an NFL field.  The only thing that could be a sticking point is the nostalgic 55 yard line.  Which, while people think it is a compliment, has been pointed out as a weird thing about the CFL in Simpson's lore.

Are the rouge changes "Americanizing"?  Does removing the "point for failure" make the game less Canadian, or does the new rule create more interesting opportunities for getting the point when you can't get the FG?

And now, CFL can go to London (England) or Berlin and play on fields that the NFL has created if they should so choose.  Because our fields are more globally compatible.

[blue_gold_84]

Does 3M tell you why they change product features? Why do you expect that level of details here?

Yeah, a company like that tends to make changes to its products with a rationale in mind, particularly with regard to sound science. Details do matter: 3M to exit PFAS manufacturing by end of 2025

I think that's a bad comparison to be CFL, though. And besides, this is a league that doesn't prioritize transparency or accountability when it comes to financial or operational decisions.

Change for the sake of change doesn't come across as business savvy, IMO. Especially when those changes come with substantial upfront costs.

[theaardvark]

Yeah, a company like that tends to make changes to its products with a rationale in mind, particularly with regard to sound science. Details do matter: 3M to exit PFAS manufacturing by end of 2025

I think that's a bad comparison to be CFL, though. And besides, this is a league that doesn't prioritize transparency or accountability when it comes to financial or operational decisions.

Change for the sake of change doesn't come across as business savvy, IMO. Especially when those changes come with substantial upfront costs.

Many are noticing "shrinkflation" in the marketplace, maybe this is just the savvy CFL adopting some current mainstream business models...

The "substantial upfront costs" are not being paid by you or me, they are being paid for by the people that unanimously thought this was a great idea.  They know the costs each will need to pay, and feel that there is a value they are going to get for that investment.

Turf doesn't last forever, and upgrades / resurfacing happen in one or more stadiums every year.  With 2 years to plan for it, many teams will not incur much expense in making the change.  Especially those that may be hosting FIFA events, or other international competitions, where adaptations of the field would have had to be made. 

I'm betting, in some of those cases, the changes to meet other sports configurations and then the change back to the present CFL configuration would actually be more than making the permanent change to the new CFL standard.  So, not an expense, but an actual cost savings.

[wpg#1]

I think the bugaboo is the concept of "Americanization"

It is not an attempt to "Americanize" the CFL, or even make it look like the CFL.

I think it is .. that's why we're not being told why. We are told it will make it more exciting. Is that the only reason, because I believe it is already is more exciting.

[blue_gold_84]

I'm betting, in some of those cases, the changes to meet other sports configurations and then the change back to the present CFL configuration would actually be more than making the permanent change to the new CFL standard.  So, not an expense, but an actual cost savings.

LOL

Sure thing.

[jets4life]

The "substantial upfront costs" are not being paid by you or me, they are being paid for by the people that unanimously thought this was a great idea.  They know the costs each will need to pay, and feel that there is a value they are going to get for that investment.

That's like saying Walmart decided to stop selling all Canadian products, but they pay for all their inventory, so they must know what they are doing in the Canadian market!

I have one question for you. If you have such blind faith with CFL heads, and insist they "know what they are doing," then why have many team habitually lost money for the past 40 years?

Why did the CFL IN American cities" experiment almost bankrupt the league by 1996?

[bomber beetle]

That's like saying Walmart decided to stop selling all Canadian products, but they pay for all their inventory, so they must know what they are doing in the Canadian market!

I have one question for you. If you have such blind faith with CFL heads, and insist they "know what they are doing," then why have many team habitually lost money for the past 40 years?

Why did the CFL IN American cities" experiment almost bankrupt the league by 1996?

I am going from memory, but I believe the league brought in more than $14million in expansion fees.
The bulk of that was lost by the owners of the American teams, not the CFL.

The league was already a total mess before expansion. The move bought the Canadian teams some time:

"The league needed money. The Tiger-Cats were in such dire straits that one of Smith's first acts as commissioner was to show up at Hamilton city council and ask for a loan to keep the beleaguered franchise afloat."
""We needed the money," B.C. Lions GM Wally Buono tells Willes in the book. "It bought time for everyone. You can say what you want about Larry, but I guarantee you that money allowed the Stampeders to survive.""

https://www.nsnews.com/local-arts/cfl-fumbled-its-way-through-southern-expansion-2966832

Regardless, it was a failure. After that, the NFL money bought some more time and it was probably the TSN's involvement that finally gave the league some semblance of stability.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

That's like saying Walmart decided to stop selling all Canadian products, but they pay for all their inventory, so they must know what they are doing in the Canadian market!

I have one question for you. If you have such blind faith with CFL heads, and insist they "know what they are doing," then why have many team habitually lost money for the past 40 years?

Why did the CFL IN American cities" experiment almost bankrupt the league by 1996?

What a dumb arugment.

I think some people might just have more faith in Amar Dolman, Bob Young, Wade Miller, etc versus you and your ideas. I think it's reasonable to suspect they know what they are doing on this topic, wait for it, again....more than you.

I think anyone who steps aside and puts on adult clothing and looks at things rationally, sees that.

[blue_or_die]

All fair and reasonable. I see what you mean and everything you've said makes a ton of sense. Since it seems we agree that "NFL fans in Canada" is a good group to try to expand CFL interest to, but not in approach, how would suggest they do it instead?

I think they need to probe & determine and/or confirm the culprit for why this segment is so resistive to the CFL.

Then they need to come up with a set of options of actions that can be taken to try and capture that segment. They need to determine the stakes of the actions and possible side effects, etc, and make a judgement of what will provide the most effective result.

The details of what this plan looks like depends on the findings, and without that I can only speculate. If I were to make a guess, like I said in my previous post, I think the reason NFL-only fans in Canada aren't CFL fans is because the CFL does not have the same spectacle and celebrity of the NFL. Making it so is very likely impossible, so the question becomes: what tools are at the league's disposal to give that impression? I'll stop there as I'm not an expert in that but there are people who are.

If the findings from the first step indicated that this segment was significantly turned off of the CFL due to its field of play being different than the NFL, particularly the length of the field between the goal lines, location of the goal posts and how the clock works inside of 3 minutes, and the findings gave a strong indication that making changes to these items would lure in a significant amount of this segment, I would then weigh what the implications would be to the existing fanbase, understanding the fragility of it and understanding that the changes are significant to a portion of that existing fanbase segment (quantifying that would also be a good idea imo).

If it was found the juice is worth the squeeze, I would roll out a campaign to communicate the findings and decision-making to the existing fanbase segment to ease the pain of the changes to come and make it clear the reasons as to why they are happening to demonstrate recognition of the loss of identity-tied and distinguished elements of the game. I would confirm that the weight of these changes aren't lost on the league and that they're being undertaken in a measured and careful way, and most of all, that it's being done with a clear goal to grow the league and make it better and more sustainable for generations to come.

Then I would execute that plan and monitor progress.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Some super interesting insights. Once you get past the 3Down slant, it largely tracks:

Largely expected but Manitoba and Sask most resistive to changes. Older men, especially, hate it. Ontario and younger Canadians generally supportive.

People say they'll watch less overall, but a roughly equal number agree the changes will make it more exciting. Odd that those numbers are so close but not uncommon in research like this to get back mixed messages. It's really hard to ask consumers what they'll do before changes happen because it's based off of nothing concrete. A more exciting product should, over time, increase engagement.

The writer also doesn't totally understand this type of work because he says 1% of people will think it's more exciting but will tune in less. There's a margin or error of ~7-8% here 9 times out of 10. These things give you reads, not conclusions down to the 1%, so you can't make that claim. You can say that those sentiments are roughly balanced. Which is interesting.

No single rule change is universally hated, more so the general dea of "Americanization" which I think is a separate senitment than adjusting CFL rules and is informed by everything from the president to geopolitical tensions as much as a upright post change.

Either way, I think the league will be happy with this, overall and probably could have assumed this beforehand even though I'm sure they ran their own research.

Finally, seeing as Manitoba was oversampled, and oversampling Manitoba is comparatively expensive, my assumption is the Bombers paid for this and leaked it though that's my speculation.

https://3downnation.com/2025/10/18/poll-shows-42-percent-of-fans-wont-watch-as-much-cfl-after-new-rule-changes-majority-oppose-americanization/

[TBURGESS]

In a random sampling of 1,230 Canadian adults conducted by online survey, as well as a supplemental survey of 448 Manitoba adults, the company found that 42 percent of those who identified as fans or who were aware of the rule changes agreed that they would watch less CFL football if the changes were implemented. That number rose to 58 percent among respondents who were considered engaged fans.

You're spinning around half of the fans polled said they'd watch less CFL as a good thing? 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

You're spinning around half of the fans polled said they'd watch less CFL as a good thing?

Facts from the findings:

Most interesting: The broadest consensus on any topic came on the subject of Americanization, with 64 percent stating that making the CFL more like its U.S. counterpart was the wrong move right now. However, there was no agreement on what that actually means, as 54 percent said they'd be supportive of or could live with the CFL moving to 11 players on the field, and 50 percent were okay with a narrowing of the field.

Most surprising: 34 percent who would support a shift to four downs. Do some messaging and a marketing around this and it will go higher. 34% is way higher than I'd have thought. In fact, more people surveyed SUPPORTED 4 downs than identified as ENGAGED CFL fans (11%). Any alarm bells yet for the status quo folks here?! Ring. Ring. Ring. 

Best evaluation of change amongst current fans: Overall, 42 percent of fans said they were at least partially in favour of the changes, compared to just 20 percent who stated they were opposed. 37 percent remain unsure of their stance. Take away: Twice the number of fans are at least partially okay with this than opposed. A big chunk is unsure or doesn't care. 

Keep in mind, since it was a random sample of ALL Canadians:11 percent identified as engaged CFL fans who go to games and watch on TV regularly, while 29 percent were casual or intermittent fans who watch the occasional game on TV and check scores of the total sample.

The CFL can and needs to do better.

[TBURGESS]

Yes the CFL needs to do better, but none of the changes are in the better category. 

You like business comparisons... This is like New Coke, no one asked for it, Coke didn't ask their users, made the change, no one wanted it and it was one of the biggest disasters in the history of business.

[theaardvark]

Yes the CFL needs to do better, but none of the changes are in the better category.

You like business comparisons... This is like New Coke, no one asked for it, Coke didn't ask their users, made the change, no one wanted it and it was one of the biggest disasters in the history of business.

Comparing the CFL changes to New Coke is really, really stretching it.

It would be more akin to Coke going from 24 can cases to 20 can cases.  I really like the 20 can cases as they are a little smaller, and fill one shelf of my barfridge perfectly.  But a lot of people think the 20 can pack is a cash grab "shrinkflation", but I usually buy them at $9.99, which is a good price.

[TBURGESS]

You suggesting that tickets should be less due to shrinkage?