CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[blue_gold_84]

That's the point.  New commissioner, new ideas at the top.

What's your marketing idea?  "Come watch the CFL, its exactly the same as you've seen before".  How do you market without making positive changes?

What's positive about making arbitrary changes that may not have any real impact on the sustainability of this league? Nothing. There's nothing positive to take away from any of this right now.
Also, giving people "something to talk about" as it relates to these nonsensical changes doesn't accomplish anything. The league continues to hemorrhage money, anyway. 

I'm not in marketing, nor do I work for the CFL, so your inane questions will go unanswered.

[TBURGESS]

Ooops! Sorry, I meant to quote someone else.

That's the point.  New commissioner, new ideas at the top.

What's your marketing idea?  "Come watch the CFL, its exactly the same as you've seen before".  How do you market without making positive changes?

Small, cosmetic changes give you something to talk about.  And the tweaks, in the commissioner and BOD's eyes, are positives, that can gain more viewers.

Market the uniqueness of the Canadian game especially when the US started a trade war with us. It's completely tone-deaf to Americanize anything right now. It's like changing things to be more German just before WW2.

The only positive change is putting the teams on opposite sides of the field. Nothing to market there.

Moving the goal posts eliminates single points & missed FG returns. It also reduces the number of FG's because they are 15 yards deeper. More 1st downs needed to score a FG. In other words, reduces scoring, eliminating one of the most exciting plays in the CFL, and some of the uniqueness of the CFL.

Shrinking the end-zones removes 65x5 = 325 square yards of end-zone. But we are eliminating less than 1 square yard in the middle by moving the goal posts. More uniqueness gone and that much less field to work with will most likely decrease scoring making the games less exciting.

Changing the clock timing + removing ways to score changes our game from no lead is safe to most leads are safe. Every 3 downs now drains 105 (1:45) of the clock plus the time each play takes compared to 60 seconds. Just 3 first downs drains 5:25 plus the time to run the plays. Down by more than a TD in the last 3 minutes, and you've lost 99 times out of a 100.

Removing 10 yards in the middle of the field means one less first down to get a TD if you start outside the opposition's 50. Less offence doesn't equal more exciting or positive.

TLDR.. Rules aren't the problem. The new rules don't make a more exciting game so they aren't a marketing play.

[theaardvark]

What's positive about making arbitrary changes that may not have any real impact on the sustainability of this league? Nothing. There's nothing positive to take away from any of this right now.
Also, giving people "something to talk about" as it relates to these nonsensical changes doesn't accomplish anything. The league continues to hemorrhage money, anyway. 

I'm not in marketing, nor do I work for the CFL, so your inane questions will go unanswered.

What's the positive in change?  New Coke, bad idea.  Sure.  Change for change's sake is not a positive.

But this group has a plan.  We are not privy to it.  But I can see how these "arbitrary" changes are a positive, moving forward.

These are changes that should have the least negative impact, while offering the most positive opportunity.  And they are visual.  While many are lamenting the loss of 55 and the 15 yd EZ, I think the new field visual with the uncluttered EZ will be an improvement.

Until we have a season under our belts with the new rules and fields, we have no idea how it will affect the gameplay or scoring.  But men who's lives have been spent working in this league think it will improve the game.  I'm taking their carefully considered thoughts over the feedback from a group of potentially drunk fans around a guy who obviously doesn't like the changes.

[theaardvark]

Ooops! Sorry, I meant to quote someone else. Market the uniqueness of the Canadian game especially when the US started a trade war with us. It's completely tone-deaf to Americanize anything right now. It's like changing things to be more German just before WW2.

The only positive change is putting the teams on opposite sides of the field. Nothing to market there.

Moving the goal posts eliminates single points & missed FG returns. It also reduces the number of FG's because they are 15 yards deeper. More 1st downs needed to score a FG. In other words, reduces scoring, eliminating one of the most exciting plays in the CFL, and some of the uniqueness of the CFL.

Shrinking the end-zones removes 65x5 = 325 square yards of end-zone. But we are eliminating less than 1 square yard in the middle by moving the goal posts. More uniqueness gone and that much less field to work with will most likely decrease scoring making the games less exciting.

Changing the clock timing + removing ways to score changes our game from no lead is safe to most leads are safe. Every 3 downs now drains 105 (1:45) of the clock plus the time each play takes compared to 60 seconds. Just 3 first downs drains 5:25 plus the time to run the plays. Down by more than a TD in the last 3 minutes, and you've lost 99 times out of a 100.

Removing 10 yards in the middle of the field means one less first down to get a TD if you start outside the opposition's 50. Less offence doesn't equal more exciting or positive.

TLDR.. Rules aren't the problem. The new rules don't make a more exciting game so they aren't a marketing play.

If you can't market that the CFL is unique in having 12 men on a 65yard wide field who have to accomplish the same 10 yards for a first down, but in 3 plays instead of 4, and that we don't have a wussy "wave you arm in the air so you don't get smoked" rule, you have a sad marketing team and deserve to fold.

EZ shrink does lose 5 yards, but when you take out the obstruction, it probably actually opens it up more than the 20 yard deep EZ.

The clock, we all agree on.  And it has not been etched in stone, we will see some mods to the clock, but threatening the 3 minutes "no lead is safe" by allowing a burning off of 35 instead of 20 (still only 3 downs to burn, not 4), well, that's not going to fly.  35 sec clock until the last 3 min, then revert, makes sense, and speeds up the game while preserving the exciting ends.

It is still a unique league, with exciting rules.  Its just a little cleaner looking.

[TBURGESS]

[TBURGESS]

EZ shrink does lose 5 yards, but when you take out the obstruction, it probably actually opens it up more than the 20 yard deep EZ.

It is still a unique league, with exciting rules.  Its just a little cleaner looking.

EZ shrink removes a huge amount of field. Goal post move eliminates 1 or 2 plays a year when the QB hits them. It's not even close to opening up more space. It's huge shrinkage. 


There is nothing 'cleaner looking' about any of the rules.

[blue_gold_84]

In what universe do these changes make the game cleaner in any way, shape, or form; much less more profitable or sustainable?



It's going to be a long off-season.

[blue_or_die]

I love the appeal to authority when we literally make fun of the league and its incompetence on a regular basis 

Some see this as the league finally coming to their senses, the others see it all playing out business as usual...

[blue_gold_84]

I love the appeal to authority when we literally make fun of the league and its incompetence on a regular basis

But it's different this time - or something. Because this group has a plan - or something.

[bomb squad]

I think this thread has gotten stale. It's seems to be a small number of posters on each side repeating the same arguments over and over again ( and some long winded to boot). And, as with what happens with other emotional topics, it eventually gets personal. I'm not suggesting shut it down yet. But it would be nice to at least hear from some different people. 

[wpg#1]

I'm taking their carefully considered thoughts over the feedback from a group of potentially drunk fans around a guy who obviously doesn't like the changes.

Gee Aards, are you talking about me ? That's a little disrespectful. I'll have you know, that none of the fans I spoke to were drunk, and neither was I. But thanks for the mention.
I will also say again, I was asked first, then the "non drunk" fans around me chimed in.
You should come by my seats the next game and ask these non drunk fans. You will see how they feel. message me, and I'll let you know where I sit.

[ModAdmin]

Although a somewhat heated topic, please avoid insulting comments, veiled or otherwise. Thanks.

[jets4life]

The problem is that once they're implemented, there's very likely no going back. If you think they are going to do damage, having this attitude is just rolling over.

Dissuading discussion is pretty counterintuitive to the point of this forum, isn't it?

But you're right that they're going to be implemented. We will "wait and see" - if the changes have a positive impact, result in growing the fanbase, and it turns out the elements being removed weren't as big a deal as some of us think, great. If the changes result in forever losing what many paying customers believe are some of the cultural/core identity pieces of the league and reduce their loyalty while simultaneously having nil effect on growing revenue, then what? In that case, well, we waited...and we saw...

I'm so sure these changes will kill off the league, that myself and a select group of others are going to start a nationwide petition during the off-season, demanding that the CFL brass leave the game as it is. This includes people from Regina.

We will not take this sitting down. We plan to fight.

[jets4life]

That's the point.  New commissioner, new ideas at the top.

What's your marketing idea?  "Come watch the CFL, its exactly the same as you've seen before".  How do you market without making positive changes?

Small, cosmetic changes give you something to talk about.  And the tweaks, in the commissioner and BOD's eyes, are positives, that can gain more viewers.

Why change only the CFL? Let's try for a double play- lets change the NHL too!.

Suggested rules to "improve the game" of hockey:

1. Instead of 3 periods of 20 minutes, let's go with 4 periods, that will be renamed "quarters." There will be a 5 minute break in between quarters, with the exception of the end of the 2nd Quarter, which will be renamed "halftime" in place of "intermission."

2. Let's make the nets 3x as wide. What's with 3-2 games, when the score should be in the double digits.

3. Fights. Instead of two players dropping the gloves, in a heated game, why not have WWE style angles to them? This would be great for TV!

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Why change only the CFL? Let's try for a double play- lets change the NHL too!.

Suggested rules to "improve the game" of hockey:

1. Instead of 3 periods of 20 minutes, let's go with 4 periods, that will be renamed "quarters." There will be a 5 minute break in between quarters, with the exception of the end of the 2nd Quarter, which will be renamed "halftime" in place of "intermission."

2. Let's make the nets 3x as wide. What's with 3-2 games, when the score should be in the double digits.

3. Fights. Instead of two players dropping the gloves, in a heated game, why not have WWE style angles to them? This would be great for TV!

Is the NHL trying to adapt to, and thrive alongside, an increasingly more popular version of hockey that differs from theirs's? No? Oh okay.