CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[Sir Blue and Gold]

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.

You're probably right. It might 34% of younger Canadians and 23% of Canadians overall like you said. Been a bit busy this week or I would have answered earlier but, either way, there's 11% of Canadians who self-report as engaged fans and ~29% of people who watch a bit - they'd likely watch regardless of how the clock starts or how deep the end zones are. They are there for a kaleidoscope of reasons.

However you slice it, I think this type of data is why the league is making changes. Every business needs to adapt to the shifting preferences of the market or they pay the price. Theoretically, it still seems like there are more Canadians who support a move to four down football than there are engaged CFL fans and the number only gets worse as you look at younger demos.

If that's the reality (plus or minus the margin of error) it really doesn't matter how mad the small minority of current fans are about these changes, they're going to happen.

[TBURGESS]

We agree that the CFL needs to make changes. What we don't agree on is that any of these changes are going to have a positive result. 

The NFL has the market share & they aren't giving any of it up. In fact, it's likely to increase its share with young folks because they are the best football in the world with the best players, coaches, facilities, TV shows etc. The CFL simply can't compete with them. 

'We're just as good' is a horrible marketing strategy.

[theaardvark]

Like Bo Levi said, he likes the "modernization" of the league.

The field changes are NOT going to kill the league, the "THE SKY IS FALLING" fanatics might though.

This is NOT an attempt to make the CFL look like the NFL.  These are logical moves that the people who have to pay for them unanimously agreed to.

Did moving from the 100yard dash to the 100m dash kill NCAA track?

The rules of the most exciting version of football are literally not changing.  The playing field the game is played on is.  Incrementally.  And an obstruction in the field of play is being removed.

The game is still 3 downs, 65 yard wide field, 12 players... even the one point play is still a thing.

And a 114 yard punt return TD is still a thing, which it is not in the NFL.

Losing the 55 and moving the goalposts is a positive thing, for reasons current and future.

We agree that the CFL needs to make changes. What we don't agree on is that any of these changes are going to have a positive result.

The NFL has the market share & they aren't giving any of it up. In fact, it's likely to increase its share with young folks because they are the best football in the world with the best players, coaches, facilities, TV shows etc. The CFL simply can't compete with them.

'We're just as good' is a horrible marketing strategy.

This is not about capturing NFL market share.  It is about cleaning up our game, making it better, making it fit better into the rest of facilities around the globe that are not presently CFL stadiums.  And making the present CFL facilities fit better into games played elsewhere.  Standardization.  Integration. Co-operation.  Instead of isolation.

[theaardvark]

We agree that the CFL needs to make changes. What we don't agree on is that any of these changes are going to have a positive result.

The NFL has the market share & they aren't giving any of it up. In fact, it's likely to increase its share with young folks because they are the best football in the world with the best players, coaches, facilities, TV shows etc. The CFL simply can't compete with them.

'We're just as good' is a horrible marketing strategy.

If changes are necessary, what changes would you prefer?  Other than these modernizations, do you think the CFL gets more popular going to 4 downs?  11 Players?  Exact NFL field size?  Fair catch and crummy OT?  Scrap the ratio? Change the $SMS?

What changes are enough to "save the CFL" while not changing the feel of the CFL?

I think that these are significant changes but won't significantly change the play of the game.  And 5 years from now, no one will question that the changes were a positive.

[bomber beetle]

.... making it fit better into the rest of facilities around the globe that are not presently CFL stadiums.  And making the present CFL facilities fit better into games played elsewhere.

I believe this is could be one of the most important reasons for the change.
I am not sure about the "around the globe" part. It makes sense within our own country as well.
I can't see an appetite in the future to build a stadium in Canada that will be "CFL Specific".
The cost to build a stadium that has a smaller footprint and needs less conversion from soccer to CFL will be a positive.

[bomber beetle]

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.

After your group gets all the signatures on a petition, a media campaign is the next logical step.
I don't think very many writers/publications will come over to your side. Most are onside with the changes now and I can't see too many backtracking.
Not impossible, but a long shot for sure.

If your group does win out and forces the CFL to retreat, what does that do?
This has been one of the biggest and most highly publicized changes ever. Reversing the decision will cause the league to lose most of the credibility it has left. So, success by your group will most likely kill off the league.

[blue_gold_84]

Losing the 55 and moving the goalposts is a positive thing, for reasons current and future.

How? How are these changes positive? You've yet to list the reasons for these changes, much less how they're positive.

It is about cleaning up our game, making it better, making it fit better into the rest of facilities around the globe that are not presently CFL stadiums.  And making the present CFL facilities fit better into games played elsewhere.  Standardization.  Integration. Co-operation.  Instead of isolation.

You keep saying clean up the game, make the game better. What's cleaner or better about these changes? Be serious.

What facilities around the globe are going to host a CFL game? The CFL, by changing its field dimensions*, goalpost location, rouge, and gameclock, is not going to magically make its brand or game more appealing on some global scale, much less to the point where international games will become a thing. The CFL can't afford such lofty ventures.

Respectfully, get a grip on reality. None of these changes make the CFL more robust in terms of its financial sustainability.

* dimensions that are still exclusive to the CFL (there go your claims of standardization)

This has been one of the biggest and most highly publicized changes ever. Reversing the decision will cause the league to lose most of the credibility it has left.

That doesn't really mean anything considering how much the media landscape has changed in the past 15 years. The fabric of the CFL has remained wholly untouched for decades until this half-baked development, anyway.

And let's be honest here: the CFL has virtually no credibility as it is. That's probably part of why it's struggling to pay the bills across much of its landscape.

I think I can speak for this entire forum when I say this: we want the league to be successful, we want it to be appealing, and we want it to be financially healthy.

However, I'm at a loss to see how this current set of changes will solidify any of those things for the better.

[blue_or_die]

You're probably right. It might 34% of younger Canadians and 23% of Canadians overall like you said. Been a bit busy this week or I would have answered earlier but, either way, there's 11% of Canadians who self-report as engaged fans and ~29% of people who watch a bit - they'd likely watch regardless of how the clock starts or how deep the end zones are. They are there for a kaleidoscope of reasons.

However you slice it, I think this type of data is why the league is making changes. Every business needs to adapt to the shifting preferences of the market or they pay the price. Theoretically, it still seems like there are more Canadians who support a move to four down football than there are engaged CFL fans and the number only gets worse as you look at younger demos.

If that's the reality (plus or minus the margin of error) it really doesn't matter how mad the small minority of current fans are about these changes, they're going to happen.

I don't see how the fact that a portion of people saying they're "supportive" (which, of course, can mean anything from "I would like that more" to "I would like that more but still don't care" to "I think that would be smart of them to do than what they're doing now but I still don't care") necessarily leads to net growth. A portion of them might, but if I were to guess, that would be extremely, extremely small. We would need more a more descriptive survey with more concise language to be able to draw any conclusion from that.

Actually on that note, maybe you can help me understand something about this survey. Are the questions about preferences regarding the rule changes representative of all Canadians or CFL-engaged Canadians? I thought it was all (i.e. the 23% supporting changing to 4 downs meaning 23% of those polled) but in the 3DN article it says:

Of the original polling sample, just 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. That reduced the number of people who were asked the rule change questions in this poll to just 586.

That's an important clarification I think.

I think you're being pretty dismissive of this "small minority" of people concerned about this. This demo is who has reliably paid the bills all these years while the league was busy failing at expansion and spending energy on a "global initiative" that, after years, has borne zero fruit. Even if no one actually disengages altogether, they have more of a reason to put one foot out the door and go from that 11% group into the 29% group, just like rule changes might get a select few to tip over from the 29% to the 11%. The difference is that one group pays money today and the other one might if we hope hard enough.

[TBURGESS]

If changes are necessary, what changes would you prefer?  Other than these modernizations, do you think the CFL gets more popular going to 4 downs?  11 Players?  Exact NFL field size?  Fair catch and crummy OT?  Scrap the ratio? Change the $SMS?

What changes are enough to "save the CFL" while not changing the feel of the CFL?

I think that these are significant changes but won't significantly change the play of the game.  And 5 years from now, no one will question that the changes were a positive.

None of these things are modernizations. None of the currently proposed changes are going to make the CFL more popular. None of your suggestions will make it more popular either. All of them are in the 'We're just as good as the NFL' column when it's obvious that we aren't. 

Off the top of my head:

Saving the CFL comes down to learning to exist with the number of fans we have. Making changes that annoys current fans, and these changes do that, will most likely result in fans watching less CFL (That's what the poll says). 

Changes the CFL needs to make are around marketing the differences between the CFL and NFL, like the old 'Our balls are bigger' campaign. Lean into the current Canadian Nationalism that Trumps Tariff war has ignited. 

Grassroots campaigns. Kids playing football at half-time. Players and/or coaches visiting kids practices to give out swag and to be local heros. Both things were done, when I was a kid in the 60s & those fans are still keeping the lights on in the CFL.

The CFL needs to look at what the Bombers and the Riders are doing and use those lessons for the rest of the league. 

Next is fixing TSN. Dolts yelling straight fire & and other dumb 'comedy' bits need to go as does in game interviews where the play by play is ignored. We need more professionalism in CFL reporting top to bottom. This is what we should be taking from the NFL, not the rules or field sizes. 

We need to fix our stats systems to encourage more betting because that's the future of all sports.  

Change the coaching SMS so it only includes current coaches. Teams should not be financially strapped because they made bad hires. They shouldn't have to hold onto coaches who aren't great because that hampers the teams' competitiveness for years. Less competitive teams = less exciting football. 

[Stats Junkie]

This is a very long read that dives into the details of the upcoming rule changes. I don't agree with the author on every detail but he does address several important points.

https://cfldb.ca/articles/2025/10/ignoring-the-cause/index.html

From the moment these changes were announced, the message has been that the status quo is not acceptable. That statement has also implied that the CFL hasn't done much to address the issues in recent seasons and drastic changes were required.

One thing this article touches on is that the CFL has initiated many rule changes (and I'll add new partnerships) on a regular basis. Perhaps the CFL needs to acknowledge and celebrate the changes that have been successful. The league also needs to reflect on the changes that have failed and identify why these changes did not succeed. Somewhere in there are a handful of changes that addressed the issue at hand but resulted in unintended consequences.

It is patently false to suggest that the CFL has been running back the status quo year after year.

[Slimy Sculpin]

Yesterday I received an email from the Bombers thanking me for being "part of something special", a sold out PAS for this season and going back to mid-season last year. As season ticket holders or casual ticket purchasers, I'm guessing that more than a few of you got the same email. The sender was "Wade Miller <info@news.bluebombers.com>". This appears to be the Bombers' generic mailbox with Miller's name attached to it. However, when I hit "reply", I got what appears to be Miller's actual Bomber email address (wmiller@bluebombers.com). So, if you're less than happy about the CFL's proposed rule changes and/or changes to the field dimensions as I am, this might be an opportunity to let the President of the team know how you feel about it. Cheers.

[blue_gold_84]

Thanks for sharing that link, @Stats Junkie. A ton of good info and data in that read and a very thorough analysis overall. This part really stuck out for me:

Analyzing the Changes — Reasons For, Impacts and Musings

The communication of these changes was bungled completely for something the commissioner and board knew was going to be a hot button issue. Everything from the tone, the grouping and positioning of the changes, the decision to play cheerleader for the changes instead of talking about the process and how each change was arrived at left me reading a lot between the lines. Once I reviewed the material in more detail, different things emerged. None of that means it is all just a matter of a botched message. That only contributed to the many issues with the announcement from the commissioner that has eroded what little trust he had established in his short tenure. Some of those overall deficiencies are:

- Deciding to spin the changes in the announcement, providing no concrete information on the need to jump start scoring and increase entertainment value.
- Failing to consult with players.
- Failing to consult with coaches.
- Failing to consult with or consider other levels of football.
- Expressing to have all the answers after less than five months on the job, while getting only "indirect fan feedback".
- Trying to portray confidence in the plan with his statement he isn't worried about an exodus of existing fans, coming off as either naive or misleading.
- Rushing an announcement when no urgency (if getting ahead of leak, this was one time a leak would have allowed the league to understand reaction, and prepare and better roll out the ideas).

Bungled. That's exactly how to describe this entire development. And it could easily lead to a slippery slope type of situation, IMO.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

A union being upset about everything? I'm shocked.

[blue_gold_84]

A union being upset about everything? I'm shocked.

What a ridiculous and petulant comment. Don't be a class traitor.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

What a ridiculous and petulant comment. Don't be a class traitor.

...Have you ever seen a union put out a statement that they're thrilled about the changes to the operation of their business and company leadership is awesome?

Didn't think so. Look: all of what the CFLPA said might be true. It doesn't mean jack about the MERIT or necessity of the changes.