New rules / commissioner's statements

[Sir Blue and Gold]

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.

A shorter field in the NFL would likely produce more NFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of NFL touchdowns of the current field.

A shorter field in the CFL would likely produce more CFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of CFL touchdowns of the current field.

The shorter you make the field the more dramatic the increase in scoring would be.

Are you really suggesting that isn't so? And if you are, is it no wonder that the commissioner doesn't seem to be listening to you?

This is beyond absurd, gentleman.

[TBURGESS]

A shorter field in the NFL would likely produce more NFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of NFL touchdowns of the current field.

A shorter field in the CFL would likely produce more CFL touchdowns. Up from the baseline of CFL touchdowns of the current field.

The shorter you make the field the more dramatic the increase in scoring would be.

Are you really suggesting that isn't so? And if you are, is it no wonder that the commissioner doesn't seem to be listening to you?

This is beyond absurd, gentleman.

You're just making stuff up and pretending it's the truth. 

Yes I'm really saying that reducing the field size to 100 yards won't mean more TD's because there is zero evidence that it will. If you think it will, please provide your proof. 

[Stats Junkie]

I think what pisses me off even more is not consulting with Football Canada, U Sport, or the hundreds of  grassroots community football organizations that may have to alter their playing fields with out a cent of financial assistance outside of donations and fund raising. Imagine fund raising for years to create a playable field the community can take pride in, only to be told to re-arrange it based on the whim of one stupid MFer.

I was listening to a podcast several weeks ago (based in Edmonton) and they had a lengthy discussion about how the changes would affect football at the grassroots level. It sounded like a few of these people were quite involved in football at that level.

The part that stood out most was how moving the uprights to the back of the end zone would all but eliminate the field goal for the younger kids.

The group on the podcast said the convert is currently scrimmaged from the 10 yard line which makes the kick 17 yards. Kids at younger ages only have a range of 20-25 yards.

After the uprights are moved, it would be at minimum a 23 yard kick if the scrimmage was the 1 yard line. For this reason alone, the opinion they were taking back to these developmental leagues was to reject the field changes as proposed by the CFL.

[Tecno]

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.

That would be all well and good, except the 110Y->100Y change is a monumental shift and undertaking costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions.

Once this is done (and propagated to all levels), I'm pretty sure it can never be undone.  As such it requires a bigger justification than what has been provided to us.  A hope and a wish of "more scoring" = "more fans" is simply not enough.

I have an idea: CFL should run some PS games in the USA on a 100Y field, with the posts at the back.  Run half down there.  Half up here.  Compare the results between 110 and 100.  Even in the PS, you should be able to draw some conclusions.

I have another idea, Johnston can say he "hears the fans" and do all the changes in '26 and '27, but save the 100Y field for '28.  See how the GP move and EZ changes affect things first -- and give more time for fans/pundits to debate the 100Y field.

[Tecno]

There's also one overlooked argument: I like the 110 yard line.  I think that's quintessential CFL.  I actually don't care at all if scoring increases a bit with a shorter field.  Woopdeedoo, 0.574 more TDs a game.  Don't care.

Lost in all of this scoring talk is just what a lot of us prefer.  And our preference is as important as some mythical scoring.  The CFL propaganda machine has succeeded in eliminating our preferences as a point of merit ("you dinosaur!").  I'm bringing it back.

In addition to all of my other arguments, I just LIKE 110Y.  Bite me, Johnston.

[bomber beetle]

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.

Did Johnston say there would be more points scored? I have not come across that statement anywhere. What are you basing this on?

I have only seen the promise of more touchdowns. Not only because of the shorter field but also because of clear passing lanes created by moving the goal posts.

[Blue In BC]

We haven't heard whether the K/O will be from the current location. Ditto for FG's made etc.

Lots of comments about the field was shortened to allow standard field size to correct the end zone issue.

[bomb squad]

That would be all well and good, except the 110Y->100Y change is a monumental shift and undertaking costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions.

Once this is done (and propagated to all levels), I'm pretty sure it can never be undone.  As such it requires a bigger justification than what has been provided to us.  A hope and a wish of "more scoring" = "more fans" is simply not enough.

I have an idea: CFL should run some PS games in the USA on a 100Y field, with the posts at the back.  Run half down there.  Half up here.  Compare the results between 110 and 100.  Even in the PS, you should be able to draw some conclusions.

I have another idea, Johnston can say he "hears the fans" and do all the changes in '26 and '27, but save the 100Y field for '28.  See how the GP move and EZ changes affect things first -- and give more time for fans/pundits to debate the 100Y field.

I don't see why the development leagues have to do it. And they probably won't, at least until they see how everything plays out. These are CFL rule changes, not Canadian Football. The only level that may have to is University, as some teams play their games on the same field as the CFL.

[TBURGESS]

Did Johnston say there would be more points scored? I have not come across that statement anywhere. What are you basing this on?

I have only seen the promise of more touchdowns. Not only because of the shorter field but also because of clear passing lanes created by moving the goal posts.

Moving the goalposts in the NFL didn't create more TD's. That's a verifiable fact.

Moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone means you need to be 15 yards closer to get a FG. That's a fact too.

That leaves the shorter field as the only reason for a promise of more TD's.

[bomber beetle]

Moving the goalposts in the NFL didn't create more TD's. That's a verifiable fact.

Moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone means you need to be 15 yards closer to get a FG. That's a fact too.

That leaves the shorter field as the only reason for a promise of more TD's.

The CFL has promised that offenses will start nearer to the opponents goal line.
It is a verifiable fact that shorter drives equal more touchdowns.

The NFL did not change the field size when the goal posts moved.

Did the NFL change any rules in 1974 that made drives shorter? I don't know. If they did not, then the comparison would be invalid.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

You're just making stuff up and pretending it's the truth.

Yes I'm really saying that reducing the field size (to 100 yards won't mean more TD's because there is zero evidence that it will. If you think it will, please provide your proof.

The proof is basic common sense that a child could understand. Allow me explain:

Next time you're on a football field (assuming you've ever been on one) start at the goal line and run to the other end of the field and "score" a touchdown. Note how hard that is. You could even write it down on scale of 1 to 10.  If you want to make it more thrilling: invite a friend and have them line up about 7 yards away from you and have them try to stop you from scoring.

Then do the same at centre and note how hard that is. Note that it's about half as difficult, physically.

Then do the same on the 20 and note how hard that is. Following?

You'll find that the further you start from the end zone the harder it is to score.

(Without adding too much complexity here, this is also why a fundamental principle of football exists, punting, should you be curious.)

Now extrapolate your experience to the game of football and discover to your amazement, that the shorter the field, the easier it will be to score.

[TBURGESS]

The CFL has promised that offenses will start nearer to the opponents goal line.
It is a verifiable fact that shorter drives equal more touchdowns.

The NFL did not change the field size when the goal posts moved.

Did the NFL change any rules in 1974 that made drives shorter? I don't know. If they did not, then the comparison would be invalid.

The CFL hasn't made that promise. The claim is that shorter drives = more TD's, that doesn't make it a fact. Shorter field doesn't equal shorter drives anyway. 

The proof is basic common sense that a child could understand. Allow me explain:

Next time you're on a football field (assuming you've ever been on one) start at the goal line and run to the other end of the field and "score" a touchdown. Note how hard that is. You could even write it down on scale of 1 to 10.  If you want to make it more thrilling: invite a friend and have them line up about 7 yards away from you and have them try to stop you from scoring.

Then do the same at centre and note how hard that is. Note that it's about half as difficult, physically.

Then do the same on the 20 and note how hard that is. Following?

You'll find that the further you start from the end zone the harder it is to score.

(Without adding too much complexity here, this is also why a fundamental principle of football exists, punting, should you be curious.)

Now extrapolate your experience to the game of football and discover to your amazement, that the shorter the field, the easier it will be to score.

You might have a point if we were talking about a 20,50 or 75 yard difference, but we're not. 

You're assuming, wrongly, 5-10 closer to the opponents' goal line means extra TD's. What will actually happen is teams, who can't get FG's without being 15 yards closer, will strategically kick inside the 10. The 10 yards closer means 1 fewer first downs, but most of the time, they won't even get past centre (50). Note that the 10 yards in the middle of the field are 10 yards that kickers don't have to kick past so it's easier to push the opponents back that 'extra' 10 yards. 

[theaardvark]

Except there's going to be a lot more "short punts", and short punts where the teams are hemmed in on a small amount of field.

Teams will be punting from the opponent 40 all the time now (because it's a 62Y FG attempt!).  Good teams will have a P that can coffin corner in the air: NO return at all!  Teams with a bad P will likely be dropping most punts onto the field around the 5.  The cover team from the 40 will be all over any return, and the every returner will be penned at the rail (no one will kick to the middle -- too short and high chance of it rolling into EZ).  Again, NO returns.

Thus I think we'll actually get LESS "good" returns, more coffins, more overall punting vs FGs, and the "going for it more on 3rd & long/medium" will NOT materialize.  The whole thing could backfire spectacularly.

Most of the best returns happen when the returner takes the ball in the air and hits the cover team straight on, and busts through.  Which will be more of the returns in the new game.  As you say, "hemmed in".

I'm willing to give it the chance, and see what the changes make.

The other option is watching the NFL, which I have watched a few games lately in the background at poker, and its been pretty sad considering this is supposed to be the best of the best.
 

[theaardvark]

That would be all well and good, except the 110Y->100Y change is a monumental shift and undertaking costing the CFL literally millions and all the dev/feeder leagues/systems hundreds of millions.

Once this is done (and propagated to all levels), I'm pretty sure it can never be undone.  As such it requires a bigger justification than what has been provided to us.  A hope and a wish of "more scoring" = "more fans" is simply not enough.

I have an idea: CFL should run some PS games in the USA on a 100Y field, with the posts at the back.  Run half down there.  Half up here.  Compare the results between 110 and 100.  Even in the PS, you should be able to draw some conclusions.

I have another idea, Johnston can say he "hears the fans" and do all the changes in '26 and '27, but save the 100Y field for '28.  See how the GP move and EZ changes affect things first -- and give more time for fans/pundits to debate the 100Y field.

The goal posts move backwards 5 yards, and some paint.  Because the new field is shorter than the old, no changes need t be made to turf.  There's a hole to patch where the posts move from, that's it.

And some paint.

Hundreds of millions?  What, is it solid gold paint?

[Throw Long Bannatyne]

The CFL hasn't made that promise. The claim is that shorter drives = more TD's, that doesn't make it a fact. Shorter field doesn't equal shorter drives anyway. You might have a point if we were talking about a 20,50 or 75 yard difference, but we're not.

You're assuming, wrongly, 5-10 closer to the opponents' goal line means extra TD's. What will actually happen is teams, who can't get FG's without being 15 yards closer, will strategically kick inside the 10. The 10 yards closer means 1 fewer first downs, but most of the time, they won't even get past centre (50). Note that the 10 yards in the middle of the field are 10 yards that kickers don't have to kick past so it's easier to push the opponents back that 'extra' 10 yards.

I predict a sizable upsurge in the number of punts per game, on stalled drives teams will be punting from the 40 attempting to box the returner in the coffin corner and with lots of practice they'll get very good at it.