CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[theaardvark]

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.

I read this a number of times...

I guess you are saying that the changes are to make it more exciting (than the NFL), but it already is more exciting (than the NFL)

But the idea is to make the 2027 CFL more exciting than the 2025 CFL.  Which, if these changes play out in a logical way, it should do.

Just because you have a great product does not mean you can't make it even better, and if you hire a new commissioner and he doesn't try to make it better, then why did you hire a new commissioner?

[TBURGESS]

What's more exciting about a smaller field, moving the goalposts or a 35-second clock? 

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

I read this a number of times...

I guess you are saying that the changes are to make it more exciting (than the NFL), but it already is more exciting (than the NFL)

But the idea is to make the 2027 CFL more exciting than the 2025 CFL.  Which, if these changes play out in a logical way, it should do.

Just because you have a great product does not mean you can't make it even better, and if you hire a new commissioner and he doesn't try to make it better, then why did you hire a new commissioner?

Two scenarios were the proposed changes hamper offensive output.

One of the most exciting aspects of the CFL is the last 3 minutes of play when the lead can change multiple times, in a close game (the best scenario) often a team only needs to get the ball 10 yds past center field to have a shot at stealing the lead with a long FG attempt.  With the goalposts moved 15 yds. deeper the  opportunity to kick a last minute FG will be reduced, because the team has to drive 15 yds. deeper which also takes more time off the clock.  I predict more desperation 3rd down gambles which usually ends up in turning over the ball on downs.

Conversely shortening the field by 10 yds. favours the kicker and likely results with more offences starting out pinned deep in the space formerly referred to as "the shadow of their own goal posts".  Most teams struggle to move the ball effectively in this situation and are generally happy to move it enough to punt it past center field. 

[theaardvark]

What's more exciting about a smaller field, moving the goalposts or a 35-second clock?

The clock is under review, but there has been an issue, crew to crew, in the time it takes to blow a play in.  This addresses that. The final 3 minutes, I think we will return to the 20 second clock.  Or they may scrap the whole 35 second clock in favour of better training the crews.

Shorter field, moved field goal posts has been discussed ad nauseum, but here we go again.

Who loves a game with 8 FG's?  Taking the potenrial FG attempt from your side of centre (63 yd attempt) off the table means more TD's or punts/changes of possession.  The 35 yd line becomes the equivalent of the 50 yd line, and that means 3rd and short on the 40 becomes a different decision.  More action, more excitement.

110 yard field means you need to gain more yards to score when starting in your end.  Fewer yards means fewer potential plays, means more scoring.  Means more excitement.  For series started in the opposing territory, zero change.

Neither change will make things less exciting.  But they can make it more exciting.

More important and zero discussed, the change to the rouge.  THAT will have a much larger implication to the true Canadian heritage of the CFL.  But it seems everyone accepts it as a positive rule change that is good for the game.  Weird.

[theaardvark]

Friday nights game, a season ticket holder and long time fan ( who was not at the last game) who sits in front of me, asked ME what do think of the changes proposed. ALL of the people that were around this fan chimed in and were not in favour of most of the changes. They agreed the opposite side bench, were on the fence about the 35 second rule, but NO ONE... NO ONE liked the smaller field and moving the goal posts. Not a single person. It's a small sample, but these are long time, very dedicated fans.

This is not a sound way to sample opinions. 

And how anyone can have such strong opinions about something they have no idea how it will play out means these are heart not brains talking. 

And any pollster would toss these results out as having undue influence and, I have no doubt, having bias in the way the question was posed.

I get the reactions, of course that weird C or 55 is uniquely Canadian, but the field's width is what makes it special, and now the field is actually proportionately wider.

We won a very big game thanks to the doink.  I'm betting the fans in SSK are happy about the goal post move.  The EZ is still 50% deeper and wider than the NFL, and without the post obstruction, it should open the EZ up for a lot more exciting plays.  But we do lose the rubbing out a defender with a route that uses the post as a pick, just last week we saw the post get in the way of a defender, who then recovered and made an INT.  Can't remember the game, but it almost took the guy out of the play.

[TBURGESS]

...

Who loves a game with 8 FG's?  Taking the potenrial FG attempt from your side of centre (63 yd attempt) off the table means more TD's or punts/changes of possession.  The 35 yd line becomes the equivalent of the 50 yd line, and that means 3rd and short on the 40 becomes a different decision.  More action, more excitement.

110 yard field means you need to gain more yards to score when starting in your end.  Fewer yards means fewer potential plays, means more scoring.  Means more excitement.  For series started in the opposing territory, zero change.

Neither change will make things less exciting.  But they can make it more exciting.

Moving the uprights reduces the number of FG's and eliminates missed FG returns, which is one of the best things about the CFL. That's less scoring and less exciting.

5 yards closer if you get the ball on their side of centre. 10 yards closer if you get it on your side of centre. 1 or .5 less first downs needed for a TD & the uprights at the wrong side of the end zone mean you have to get 15 yards more to get a FG. Less scoring, not more. I'd argue less exciting because it will be harder to get points.

[theaardvark]

Moving the uprights reduces the number of FG's and eliminates missed FG returns, which is one of the best things about the CFL. That's less scoring and less exciting.

5 yards closer if you get the ball on their side of centre. 10 yards closer if you get it on your side of centre. 1 or .5 less first downs needed for a TD & the uprights at the wrong side of the end zone mean you have to get 15 yards more to get a FG. Less scoring, not more. I'd argue less exciting because it will be harder to get points.

Missed FG returns are gone, yes, as is the one point for failure.

But punt returns from 14 yards deep in the EZ are still part of the game.  It is the exact same play as the missed FG return.  So, really, no difference.  Punters will now not be punting the ball out of the end zone, the single only happens if it is fielded in the EZ and goes OOB or the returner is tackled in the EZ, so your EZ returns might actually increase.

Far side of C, -10 yards to EZ.  Inside opponents 50, zero difference.  But no FG try until the 35, or 40 if you have Castillo or Maltos.  So, either you go for it on 3rd down at the 40, or punt (and you get an opportunity for an exciting return.

Harder to get FG's, yes.  But more incentive to get TD's.  Which are more interesting?  A FG battle of a TD battle?

[blue_or_die]

This is nothing like new Coke.

From the data:

11% of Canadians self report as engaged with the CFL.

29% watch occasionally.

60% of Canadians do not follow the CFL at all.

Of the Canadians who are engaged or watch occasionally, only 20% are opposed to the rules changes. 42% support the changes (at least somewhat) and the rest are neutral or undecided.

59% of fans think the changes will make the game more exciting.

It's not a good day for the traditionalists. Yes, some die hards might watch less but I doubt it. And if they do, and they're primarily from the prairies where it's exceptionally well attended, I think the league lives with that in the name of growth elsewhere. I would.

I'm not sure how you can look at this data and call it a win for your side. The results are pretty much what I would expect: about a fifth that are engaged are decisively supportive. I definitely would not put any creedance to the "can live with category" as it essentially just implies that those folks (about a quarter to a third) won't automatically shut it off once the changes are implemented. Hell, I'm in this category right now.

So is the win here that only a smaller portion than you expected will be entirely turned off by this and that most others either are, aren't yet, or haven't thought about it enough or are in wait-and-see? Is it really a victory here that this doesn't disrupt as many paying fans as you maybe thought?

So we have 40% of folks engaged in total with the CFL, leaving 60% who are not. Of that 60%, the first question should be, what portion are engaged NFL fans. Then, what is stopping them from also following the CFL? Then, are the field of play and some rules a part of that, and is there evidence or indication that certain changes would have a high probability of solving that to any extent -- at least to the extent that offsets the portion of the ~25% - 35% that declared they are against the changes who may actually tune out.

[TBURGESS]

But punt returns from 14 yards deep in the EZ are still part of the game.  It is the exact same play as the missed FG return.  So, really, no difference.  Punters will now not be punting the ball out of the end zone, the single only happens if it is fielded in the EZ and goes OOB or the returner is tackled in the EZ, so your EZ returns might actually increase.

Punts caught in the end zone and not run out cost 1 point to get to the 40. That doesn't change.

Zero points for kicking through the end zone means 3 fewer chances to score. (kickoff, missed FG, Punt all through the end zone) 3 fewer ways to catch up when you're behind.

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

Missed FG returns are gone, yes, as is the one point for failure.

But punt returns from 14 yards deep in the EZ are still part of the game.  It is the exact same play as the missed FG return.  So, really, no difference.  Punters will now not be punting the ball out of the end zone, the single only happens if it is fielded in the EZ and goes OOB or the returner is tackled in the EZ, so your EZ returns might actually increase.

Far side of C, -10 yards to EZ.  Inside opponents 50, zero difference.  But no FG try until the 35, or 40 if you have Castillo or Maltos.  So, either you go for it on 3rd down at the 40, or punt (and you get an opportunity for an exciting return.

Harder to get FG's, yes.  But more incentive to get TD's.  Which are more interesting?  A FG battle of a TD battle?

Usually it takes much more time off the clock to drive all the way to the endzone as opposed to kicking a FG, thus less time left for comeback attempts.  Also about 70% chance of failure, increased failure does not make more excitement,

[theaardvark]

Punts caught in the end zone and not run out cost 1 point to get to the 40. That doesn't change.

Zero points for kicking through the end zone means 3 fewer chances to score. (kickoff, missed FG, Punt all through the end zone) 3 fewer ways to catch up when you're behind.

If you are looking for 1 point charity to catch up, you've lost...

[Sir Blue and Gold]

570 out of 40 million is enough? No wonder marketing gets it wrong so often.

How randomly were the group selected? (Not actually random = not actually accurate)

What exactly were the questions? (Most polls ask questions specifically to get the answers they are looking for, then trot out the within 4% margin of error pretending they got the results they wanted.)

Funny that you only disagree with the one part of my post that means almost nothing and ignore the rest of it. Typical.

I'm not even going to read the rest of your asinine assessment if you don't understand how representative samples work fundamentally. Would you like companies to try and reach 25% of the actual population? Haha. So out to lunch it hurts.  What would be the point of discussing the conclusions of the data with someone who doesn't even bother to understand the basics?  No thanks. Continue on being a leading expert that you are. It's all hogwash.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I'm not sure how you can look at this data and call it a win for your side. The results are pretty much what I would expect: about a fifth that are engaged are decisively supportive. I definitely would not put any creedance to the "can live with category" as it essentially just implies that those folks (about a quarter to a third) won't automatically shut it off once the changes are implemented. Hell, I'm in this category right now.

So is the win here that only a smaller portion than you expected will be entirely turned off by this and that most others either are, aren't yet, or haven't thought about it enough or are in wait-and-see? Is it really a victory here that this doesn't disrupt as many paying fans as you maybe thought?

So we have 40% of folks engaged in total with the CFL, leaving 60% who are not. Of that 60%, the first question should be, what portion are engaged NFL fans. Then, what is stopping them from also following the CFL? Then, are the field of play and some rules a part of that, and is there evidence or indication that certain changes would have a high probability of solving that to any extent -- at least to the extent that offsets the portion of the ~25% - 35% that declared they are against the changes who may actually tune out.

I think we've had an excellent conversation so far and I appreciate the dialogue back and forth.

I wouldn't assume a 40% engagement rate. I think it's an 11% engagement rate with a further 29% who watch occasionally for many factors. If you were to create a sales funnel, one of the objectives would be to move more of the 29% further into the 11% category as that would translate to measure returns.

Further rationale: occasional engagement would likely be broken down into a variety of non core factors. There'd be folks that don't even like football (or self describe that preference in a survey, in any event) but attend larger city gatherings generally or folks who attend a game because of a concert at half time or it's family tradition to go to a game a year, etc etc. It would fragment considerably   

I don't think you can rely on that group with much certainly and they're the first group to drop off if outside factors change and although if it's true if you add up the group collectively it makes a big difference overall, they probably don't even come close to revenue the engaged fans create despite being more than twice as large.

From that perspective, an 11% engagement rate may change your perceptions of the rest of the research? Or not. But either way you've got about 35% of Canadians favoriting four down football and 11% who identify as engaged CFL fans. I think that's the crux of it if you read nothing else or take away anything more. That's the problem to solve.

[TBURGESS]

I'm not even going to read the rest of your asinine assessment if you don't understand how representative samples work fundamentally. Would you like companies to try and reach 25% of the actual population? Haha. So out to lunch it hurts.  What would be the point of discussing the conclusions of the data with someone who doesn't even bother to understand the basics?  No thanks. Continue on being a leading expert that you are. It's all hogwash.

I understand representative samples. They have to be completely random to be accurate. I also understand who marketing people work for and that's the people who pay them. You want a poll that represents the data you're looking for, it's easy. Poll a nonrepresentative group. Ask questions that you can manipulate the answers. It's done all the time.

Example: Ask the same questions of MAGA supporters and a random group of Americans, and you're going to get very different answers. Both can claim the same statistical accuracy. 

Do I want 25% of the population? No, but I don't trust a marketing picked 0.001425% of the population being asked marketing picked questions as representative either. 

BTW: If you're thinking Marketing people wouldn't lie to you, then there is a bridge I'd like to sell you. 

All that being said, 42% of respondents said they'd watch LESS CFL. That's the big takeaway of the unscientific poll.

[blue_or_die]

I think we've had an excellent conversation so far and I appreciate the dialogue back and forth.

I wouldn't assume a 40% engagement rate. I think it's an 11% engagement rate with a further 29% who watch occasionally for many factors. If you were to create a sales funnel, one of the objectives would be to move more of the 29% further into the 11% category as that would translate to measure returns.

Further rationale: occasional engagement would likely be broken down into a variety of non core factors. There'd be folks that don't even like football (or self describe that preference in a survey, in any event) but attend larger city gatherings generally or folks who attend a game because of a concert at half time or it's family tradition to go to a game a year, etc etc. It would fragment considerably   

I don't think you can rely on that group with much certainly and they're the first group to drop off if outside factors change and although if it's true if you add up the group collectively it makes a big difference overall, they probably don't even come close to revenue the engaged fans create despite being more than twice as large.

From that perspective, an 11% engagement rate may change your perceptions of the rest of the research? Or not. But either way you've got about 35% of Canadians favoriting four down football and 11% who identify as engaged CFL fans. I think that's the crux of it if you read nothing else or take away anything more. That's the problem to solve.

No argument from me on the 29% fairweather segment being the group to target. I don't think you'd need to convince anyone else here of that, either.

For your question if the 11% engagement rate changes my perception? No it does not. It still means there is some percentage of Canadians who like football but not the CFL and we should be going after that group. You say 35%, and while that sounds right, can you point me to where you see that? Genuinely curious, as I couldn't find that in skimming the report links.

Actually, what your post says is that 35% prefers 4 down ball, but on the Probe site it shows that statistic is 23% (in favour of changing CFL to 4 downs). On he 3DN site it says 34% aged 18-34 would support moving to 4 downs - are these the numbers you're referring to?

If so, these aren't the same statistic as this non-CFL segment we're talking about capturing. More so, being accepting of that rule change is not an indicator of potential to be captured (for those in that statistic who are not yet CFL fans). The information we are still missing is: 1) percent of Canadians who like football but not the CFL (NFL-only Canadians - unless your 35% number is true and I just missed it), and 2) most importantly, if American-like rules have any bearing on their affinity for NFL and/or distaste for CFL. It's this last part we disagree on, because - and please correct me if I'm wrong - you think the rules in question play a significant enough bearing as to whether a football fan is a CFL fan or not such that a significant (say, 5-10%) of that segment can be captured by aligning to the other product they also like. I don't think we have the information to draw that conclusion and my leaning until we know that is a resounding "no".

I appreciate the dialogue as well.