CFL Game Changes FAQ

[wpg#1]

It's like you don't even care to make an effort.

BMO Field (110 yards)

Percival Molson Stadium (110 yards)

Like I said, 110 yard fields fit in all venues.

Wow, he's lost all integrity saying this stuff. Aards, just stop !

[blue_gold_84]

Wow, he's lost all integrity saying this stuff. Aards, just stop !

Ya can't lose what you never had.

[theaardvark]

[img]https://media0.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExeHI5YnNxaGk4bGFma285amY4MWhxazh1N3NyN3lid3o4dHhzZ2V0dCZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/You might as well profess your eternal and undying love for Mark Scheifele at this rate.

It's like you don't even care to make an effort.

BMO Field (110 yards)

Inaugural Season Seating Chart with 110 yard field

Percival Molson Stadium (110 yards)

Alouettes Official Stadium plan showing 110 yard field

Like I said, 110 yard fields fit in all venues.

Neither of those fields is a complete field, BMO is shortened EZ, Molson has truncated corners.  As indicated by your images.

[blue_gold_84]

Neither of those fields is a complete field, BMO is shortened EZ, Molson has truncated corners.  As indicated by your images.

The 20-yard endzones don't fit. The 110-yard field does, though. The league could've simply reduced the endzone depth by 5 yards and moved the goalposts to the back of each endzone.

At no point did the 110-yard CFL field not fit in either venue.

[theaardvark]

WAIT are you saying MTL and TOR don't have 110 yards YIKES
Aards when they go to 4 downs and 11 players, you'll say.. I never liked those silly CFL rules anyway.

Moving goal posts and shortening the field to make all stadiums the same and safer makes sense, as it does not affect the uniquely Canadian part of the game.

Saying that 4 downs, 11 players are even in the same realm of discussion is insulting.  3 downs, 12 players, ratio, kicking game, 1 yard off the ball... those are uniquely Canadian.  THAT would get my ire.

Changing dimensions doesn't.  4 years from now, I bet most people will be saying "That actually works better."

[Tecno]

Goal post move, sorry, but I love the idea, it was always goofy having them in the field of play.

Oh, then you can post to your posts over the years where you complain about those darn goofy posts?  After all, you "always" thought it was goofy, and certainly have not recently been gaslighted.

I'll wait for you to post the post links.  Forum has a "search" function to aid in your quest.

[Tecno]

Rational in that 100yd fields fit in all stadiums.

But the 15Y EZ already takes care of that Aards.  So, once again, why did they have to do 15Y EZ plus 100 yard field?  You haven't addressed this point, even though I've said it about 10 times on every thread.

Don't be gaslit.

[Tecno]

How many players wipe out because of the transitions, let alone the missing corners or depth.

Are we sure the new changes take care of the TOR turf transition?  I'm pretty sure it was right at the goal line.  EZ shrunk by 5.  That side of the field shrunk by 5.  To my calculations that means there will still be a turf transition in TOR, 5Y from the dead ball line.

So say goodbye to "fixing turf transition" as a valid talking point!  The new changes do no such thing.

Doh!

[Tecno]

I never complained, because I never thought they'd have the guts to move them.

Haha!!  This is the biggest lie I've ever read on this forum.  Seriously, sorry.  Like Aards was ever shy about telling us his controversial opinions before?  Heck, after me he's probably the MOST controversial.

I think you need to go think this all over.  You pretend 110Y never meant anything and wouldn't have been on your "top 3 things that I'd tell an American makes our game different", and now you pretend the goal posts have bugged you for decades?  Seriously sit down and think about what thoughts are yours and what are being planted by the gaslighting.

No insult.  I'm worried about you.

[Tecno]

Ya can't lose what you never had.

That's not fair.  Aards has had differing opinions frequently, but they were always sane (if odd).  This latest tack is new.  This is off the deep end, and no, not like Aards.

[Tecno]

Saying that 4 downs, 11 players are even in the same realm of discussion is insulting.  3 downs, 12 players, ratio, kicking game, 1 yard off the ball... those are uniquely Canadian.  THAT would get my ire.

Changing dimensions doesn't.

Every single one of us, including you, 1 month ago, if asked by an American buddy "what is the main difference with the CFL game", would have included "110Y field" in their list.  ALL OF US.

Whether you also would have thought it was critical to our game or not is debateable, but I guarantee you would have put it in your list.  Why?  Because everyone always has.  I'm sure if you dig up any article trying to explain the CFL to Americans, ever last one of them would mention the 110Y, probably in the first 3 items.

The only reason anyone now thinks any of the above is false is that there is a major gaslighting campaign emanating from the CFL/Commish right now.

[Jesse]

Moving goal posts and shortening the field to make all stadiums the same and safer makes sense, as it does not affect the uniquely Canadian part of the game.

Saying that 4 downs, 11 players are even in the same realm of discussion is insulting.  3 downs, 12 players, ratio, kicking game, 1 yard off the ball... those are uniquely Canadian.  THAT would get my ire.

Changing dimensions doesn't.  4 years from now, I bet most people will be saying "That actually works better."

1. If anyone had asked a week ago, "what makes the CFL unique/what it is, etc"; 110 yards is going to be one of the first things anyone would said guaranteed.

2. Not a single person will say it works better. What are you even expecting to see happen differently? Best we can hope for is that we don't notice a change. We're literally ripping a foundational stone out of our field for zero functional benefit.

[wpg#1]

1. If anyone had asked a week ago, "what makes the CFL unique/what it is, etc"; 110 yards is going to be one of the first things anyone would said guaranteed.

2. Not a single person will say it works better. What are you even expecting to see happen differently? Best we can hope for is that we don't notice a change. We're literally ripping a foundational stone out of our field for zero functional benefit.

We had a person from California come up to our office this past summer, he was very excited to go to a CFL game and did with a couple of our staff. The first things I told him prior to going is, the field is longer, wider, and we have 12 players on the field. We gave him all of the details of the differences, but for sure the longer wider field was the first thing mentioned to him. He loved the game, the field size, and had an absolute blast. He said he was going to spread the word in LA.

[Tecno]

2. Not a single person will say it works better. What are you even expecting to see happen differently? Best we can hope for is that we don't notice a change. We're literally ripping a foundational stone out of our field for zero functional benefit.

The idea that 100Y field will lead to more scoring may have some merit.  After every punt you are 10Y closer to the EZ by definition.  And if they don't re-adjust the default 40Y starting point, many series will start 10Y closer too (I think they will adjust this back).

However, 110Y is so critical to our identity that you would have thought they would have tried other cheaper/easier/fan-friendly ideas first.  For example, you can have the same effect on default starting point series starts by switching from the 40 to the 50.  On punts it's a bit trickier: either nothing an be done about it, or you could take the return dead ball point and just add 10Y for free.

I'm sure many (other, better) ideas can be thought up by fans, players, coaches, etc.  You could probably get 90% of what the 100Y change would get you, without having to lose a top-3 aspect of our Canadian identity.

[Jesse]

The idea that 100Y field will lead to more scoring may have some merit.  After every punt you are 10Y closer to the EZ by definition.  And if they don't re-adjust the default 40Y starting point, many series will start 10Y closer too (I think they will adjust this back).

However, 110Y is so critical to our identity that you would have thought they would have tried other cheaper/easier/fan-friendly ideas first.  For example, you can have the same effect on default starting point series starts by switching from the 40 to the 50.  On punts it's a bit trickier: either nothing an be done about it, or you could take the return dead ball point and just add 10Y for free.

I'm sure many (other, better) ideas can be thought up by fans, players, coaches, etc.  You could probably get 90% of what the 100Y change would get you, without having to lose a top-3 aspect of our Canadian identity.

Exactly. I don't believe artificially creating more scoring is so crucial that you can undermine everything else.