CFL announces changes to the game - merged topics

[Sir Blue and Gold]

That's literally what we've been asking.

And when you're told the answer you disagree with it or deny the problem even exists or suggest continuing doing the same things will elicit better results.

That latest attendance figure is embarrassing. There is so much work to be done.

[DM83]

My two cents:

One division - top six make it
Hits on QB 25 yard penalty. Second injury producing hit- ejection
Missed field goal and ball is un returnable dead in end zone no point
Start date may long weekend

Do not shorten field
Do not move goal posts
Do not change kickoff alignment

[bomber beetle]

The league should be banking on 20k-25K average crowds, for sure.  BC Place and Commonwealth were not purpose built for CFL, and hence have large numbers of unsold seats except for special occasions.  Every other stadium should be close to capacity for big games, and Ham, SSK and WPG can sell out regularly.

American teams, with no ratio would be a disaster, both from a talent perspective and a $SMS perspective.  There is a deeper pool of talent when half the teams is freed from passports, and you could field a team of above average players on ELC's and overpay your top stars.  I can't see non ratio teams ever being a part of the CFL again, unless they bust the union and drop ratio for everyone in a new CBA.  Which, if the CFL is about to fold, would be an option.  Again.

I agree, that is probably realistic.
The problem though, is revenue based on those numbers.
Interpolating data (an educated guess) from the Bombers' financial report, an average crowd of 23,000 would eliminate most of the profit generated.
New revenue sources are needed with that model for attendance.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

My two cents:

One division - top six make it
Hits on QB 25 yard penalty. Second injury producing hit- ejection
Missed field goal and ball is un returnable dead in end zone no point
Start date may long weekend

Do not shorten field
Do not move goal posts
Do not change kickoff alignment

Why don't you want to shorten the field? Is it simply because the NFL uses a 100 yard field and NFL = bad?

Shorter fields should translate to more aggressive defenses which should result in more exciting football.

Moving the field goal posts back, similarly, requires offenses to be more aggressive because field goal range isn't the 50. It's now the 40 or 35.

Most of these changes fans haven't even thought through. They just don't like it because they don't like it.

[theaardvark]

Why don't you want to shorten the field? Is it simply because the NFL uses a 100 yard field and NFL = bad?

Shorter fields should translate to more aggressive defenses which should result in more exciting football.

Moving the field goal posts back, similarly, requires offenses to be more aggressive because field goal range isn't the 50. It's now the 40 or 35.

Most of these changes fans haven't even thought through. They just don't like it because they don't like it.

Perfectly stated.

Until we see how it plays out, judgment is purely conjecture. This could be a very positive change, as you mentioned.  And with all the stadiums having the exact same fields, more professional.  Watching the aerial shots from Montreal illustrated the issue well, have to wonder if the league asked CTV to put in more of those shots than usual. 

[blue_or_die]

And when you're told the answer you disagree with it or deny the problem even exists or suggest continuing doing the same things will elicit better results.

That latest attendance figure is embarrassing. There is so much work to be done.

We haven't been told any answer. Unless you're referring to your conjecture that a more similar NFL field = more palpable to non-Canadian audiences = more people engaged. Firstly, that's something you came up with. If the league thinks that, unless I've missed something, why don't they come out and say just that, and then tell us why they're so sure about it? You can't say with a straight face that you honestly think the reason non-CFL fans aren't CFL fans is because of the existing rules/field/etc. Talk to any NFL-only person and they'll tell you they don't like the CFL because it's "not the show".

You're making up a story that people on this forum are in denial about the problem. They're not. We're in denial that that the solution is to remove some cherished parts of this game and that they're any issue at all when there's literally zero reason to believe it.

[bomber beetle]

We haven't been told any answer. Unless you're referring to your conjecture that a more similar NFL field = more palpable to non-Canadian audiences = more people engaged. Firstly, that's something you came up with. If the league thinks that, unless I've missed something, why don't they come out and say just that, and then tell us why they're so sure about it? You can't say with a straight face that you honestly think the reason non-CFL fans aren't CFL fans is because of the existing rules/field/etc. Talk to any NFL-only person and they'll tell you they don't like the CFL because it's "not the show".

You're making up a story that people on this forum are in denial about the problem. They're not. We're in denial that that the solution is to remove some cherished parts of this game and that they're any issue at all when there's literally zero reason to believe it.

That answer is easy. Marketing. Pointing out negative aspects of your own product...never.

I agree that we have not been told the 'real' reason.
It is unlikely that we will be given any further reasons.
All we can do is watch it unfold.

[wpg#1]

We haven't been told any answer. Unless you're referring to your conjecture that a more similar NFL field = more palpable to non-Canadian audiences = more people engaged. Firstly, that's something you came up with. If the league thinks that, unless I've missed something, why don't they come out and say just that, and then tell us why they're so sure about it? You can't say with a straight face that you honestly think the reason non-CFL fans aren't CFL fans is because of the existing rules/field/etc. Talk to any NFL-only person and they'll tell you they don't like the CFL because it's "not the show".

You're making up a story that people on this forum are in denial about the problem. They're not. We're in denial that that the solution is to remove some cherished parts of this game and that they're any issue at all when there's literally zero reason to believe it.

PERFECTLY STATED

[wpg#1]

I've never heard someone say .. I don't like the CFL because of the 55 yard line, the big endzone, or the goalpost is at the front of the endzone.
Why change a game that already more exciting as it is.
These changes are not going to draw in more fans, so why do it ?

[wpg#1]

Perfectly stated.

Until we see how it plays out, judgment is purely conjecture. This could be a very positive change, as you mentioned.  And with all the stadiums having the exact same fields, more professional.  Watching the aerial shots from Montreal illustrated the issue well, have to wonder if the league asked CTV to put in more of those shots than usual. 

So 2 stadiums SUCK !! We all know. It's not the rest of the leagues fault. Montreal and Toronto should do something about it.

[dd]

I m sure the proposed changes will help turn things around in Edmonton , a once proud franchise. Drawing barely flies has nothing to do with field size or rouges, their team is losing and until they start winning nobody's coming to watch.

Toronto has always drawn poorly, too many things to do in the centre of the universe and nobody cares about the cfl. Making the field 10 yds shorter and moving the goal posts isn't going to change that demographic either

[wpg#1]

Perfectly stated.

Until we see how it plays out, judgment is purely conjecture. This could be a very positive change, as you mentioned.  And with all the stadiums having the exact same fields, more professional.  Watching the aerial shots from Montreal illustrated the issue well, have to wonder if the league asked CTV to put in more of those shots than usual. 

Yes you're right Aards .. there's hardly ever been "those shots" of stadiums in the past. Almost never, right ?
Overhead shots have been going on since the goodyear blimp. Not sure what games you've been watching ?

[bomber beetle]

Shortly after the changes were announced, my early instinct was that this was about fitting the game into U.S. soccer stadiums.

But maybe it is more about positioning teams to be have better options in Canada:
-the Whitecaps want a new stadium. Would the Lions move in?
-the Impact want a major renovation or a new stadium.
-the Alouettes would prefer not to stay at McGill.
-Halifax will likely soon build a permanent soccer stadium.
-Edmonton would benefit from a smaller and more modern venue.
-Calgary needs a new stadium.

Reducing the field by 20 yards to have more options makes a lot of sense.
No matter how it is accomplished, that reduction will make the field more 'American'. It seems the CFL took the path of keeping things as different as possible. The reality is that only the length of the field between the goal lines is the same as an NFL field. I can handle that relatively insignificant similarity. Seeing this as Americanization is probably blowing things way out of proportion.

If expansion to the U.S. becomes necessary, so be it. The field will fit. I am not so sure that is the primary goal though.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

We haven't been told any answer. Unless you're referring to your conjecture that a more similar NFL field = more palpable to non-Canadian audiences = more people engaged. Firstly, that's something you came up with. If the league thinks that, unless I've missed something, why don't they come out and say just that, and then tell us why they're so sure about it? You can't say with a straight face that you honestly think the reason non-CFL fans aren't CFL fans is because of the existing rules/field/etc. Talk to any NFL-only person and they'll tell you they don't like the CFL because it's "not the show".

You're making up a story that people on this forum are in denial about the problem. They're not. We're in denial that that the solution is to remove some cherished parts of this game and that they're any issue at all when there's literally zero reason to believe it.

Do you really "cherish" the 55 yard line?

And if the league thinks these changes will help and will lead to a stronger league, isn't that the main thing?

To put it bluntly, most of you are  no more qualified to make that decision than you are to teach fencing but in the era of outrage everyone knows now to scale sports entertainment businesses, apparently.

[jets4life]

Why don't you want to shorten the field? Is it simply because the NFL uses a 100 yard field and NFL = bad?

Shorter fields should translate to more aggressive defenses which should result in more exciting football.

Moving the field goal posts back, similarly, requires offenses to be more aggressive because field goal range isn't the 50. It's now the 40 or 35.

Most of these changes fans haven't even thought through. They just don't like it because they don't like it.

Stop being so condescending.  You are the one who has not thought this through. The CFL has always been more exciting than the NFL.  It's a faster game, that is more entertaining, and the scoring is higher. That is the whole appeal of the league. Take that away, and we become nothing more than the XFL.

Leagues that try to mimic the NFL fail. Period.  There is no grey area. None have survived.  Why are we making the game more like the NFL?  The truth of the matter, is that we have to market the game better in different regions.

The sad thing is, that it seems the CFL bigwigs are desperate, and not thinking this through. If we take away the things that make the Canadian game unique, the CFL will fold. It's not going to work. Period.