New rules / commissioner's statements

[ModAdmin]

If they are arguing faulty logic it does.

If they're comparing the NFL to the CFL and concluding that shorter fields equal less scoring then they're wrong on that point as I've outlined.

People who are wrong can be called wrong. Feel free to argue the logic the poster has presented as correct if you like. That's what a discussion is.

Except that not a single down has been played yet under the new CFL rules/arrangements. 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Except that not a single down has been played yet under the new CFL rules/arrangements. 

...So we should all reserve judgement until the changes come into play in 2027 and beyond?

[ModAdmin]

...So we should all reserve judgement until the changes come into play in 2027 and beyond?

Yup....precisely my take (opinion).  The people making these decisions, in all probability, know more than me.  Personally I'm prepared to see the results and judge them later. 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

Yup....precisely my take (opinion).  The people making these decisions, in all probability, know more than me.  Personally I'm prepared to see the results and judge them later. 

Agree completely... That's why they're making them.

[jets4life]

Yup....precisely my take (opinion).  The people making these decisions, in all probability, know more than me.  Personally I'm prepared to see the results and judge them later. 

I would have to disagree with the bolded statement. These changes reek of desperation, to the point of throwing something at a wall, and going with whatever sticks. The fact that a bunch of executives out of a Toronto board room concocted these changes, with zero consultation with U Sports football, or any other amateur Canadian league (high school, youth, etc,) who actually use and accept the 110 yard field, and long end zones, gives you an insight about how little they care about Canadian football.

They may as well come out and say they want to Americanise the CFL game. Pretending it is in some way, going to make our game "more exciting" is an insult to the intelligence of Canadian football fans.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I would have to disagree with the bolded statement. These changes reek of desperation, to the point of throwing something at a wall, and going with whatever sticks. The fact that a bunch of executives out of a Toronto board room concocted these changes, with zero consultation with U Sports football, or any other amateur Canadian league (high school, youth, etc,) who actually use and accept the 110 yard field, and long end zones, gives you an insight about how little they care about Canadian football.

They may as well come out and say they want to Americanise the CFL game. Pretending it is in some way, going to make our game "more exciting" is an insult to the intelligence of Canadian football fans.

Why don't you just pretend they said they're going to Americanize it? Then your intelligence would only be pretend insulted and you might feel better?

[jets4life]

These "arguments" are all hilarious and wrong. But since the pitchforks are out who cares, ya?

So when the inevitable happens- scoring drops, the games become dull and boring, the changes fail to increase attendance, and alienated hardcore fans stop buying tickets, do you promise to admit you are wrong?

[Sir Blue and Gold]

So when the inevitable happens- scoring drops, the games become dull and boring, the changes fail to increase attendance, and alienated hardcore fans stop buying tickets, do you promise to admit you are wrong?

See 2025 attendance in approximately half the cities the CFL operates in.

[jets4life]

If they're comparing the NFL to the CFL and concluding that shorter fields equal less scoring then they're wrong on that point as I've outlined.

https://3downnation.com/2023/01/10/nfl-finishes-regular-season-well-shy-of-cfl-in-scoring-passing-yards-per-game-in-2022/

The CFL averages more scoring than the NFL does, yet the NFL fields are much shorter. 

People who are wrong can be called wrong. Feel free to argue the logic the poster has presented as correct if you like. That's what a discussion is.

Perhaps you should look in the mirror, and tell the person in the reflection, that they are wrong. 

[Sir Blue and Gold]

I've already explained to you why the NFL example doesn't pass the logic test.

...And I know you are but what am I?

[jets4life]

I've already explained to you why the NFL example doesn't pass the logic test.

You are somewhat hard to interpret. You also mentioned a few posts ago:

"Soccer wants to increase scoring. They compare hockey and basketball and come to the conclusion that smaller nets mean more points. They recommend shrinking the net size. Nonsense."


I have no idea if you are being serious, sarcastic, or facetious...

[TBURGESS]

If NFL doesn't pass the 'logic' test what does in your mind?

The NFL is the best comparison we have. The logic is simple... if a smaller field doesn't equal more points in the NFL, why would in the CFL?

[jets4life]

See 2025 attendance in approximately half the cities the CFL operates in.

What about them?  The CFL attendance has actually  increased every year this decade.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

If NFL doesn't pass the 'logic' test what does in your mind?

The NFL is the best comparison we have. The logic is simple... if a smaller field doesn't equal more points in the NFL, why would in the CFL?

Sigh.

You've taken a single variable from the NFL and CFL, compared it and drawn conclusions from that.

NFL field shorter. CFL field longer.
CFL more points. NFL less points.

Therefore, the longer the field the more points should be scored?

Okay let's test it:  a 200 yard field should result in double the scoring? Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to a five year old?

A shorter field means less points. What if the field was 20 yards? Then almost no one would score? Rubbish.

Your comparison doesn't work. You've isolated one difference between the leagues and put them on an x and y axis. Congratulations on failing basic statistics, rhetoric and reasoning all at once.

I genuinely can't believe I had to explain that to you all.

[TBURGESS]

Rubbish!  No one is suggesting 20 or a 200-yard field. We are specifically talking about changing to the same 100 yard field that the NFL is using. It's an apples to apples comparison. 

One stated reason for the change is more scoring. IE: Shorter field = more TD's. It's a ridiculous idea, but if it was true, then the NFL with its shorter field should have more scoring, but it doesn't. Therefore, a shorter field doesn't equal more scoring.