Wins = 1 point

[Tecno]

With the elimination of tie games, there is zero reason to have each win be worth 2 points in the standings.

So they should make each win worth 1.  They should have thought of this when they changed the no-ties rule.  Probably too late to change it this season, but could do it for '27.

Unless everyone likes the 2 point thing for historical reasons... I'm fine with that too.  I wonder, when did win=2 first show up in the league? ( @Stats Junkie ?)

[Stats Junkie]

Derek Taylor posted the idea of 1 point games on TwiXter today. I think it was JC Abbott of 3DN who mentioned that there is still the unlikely possibility of a tie if a game ends prematurely due to weather and it cannot be made up.

CFL has always awarded 2 points for a win. Several sports including Canadian football have followed this format for more than a century.

There have been exceptions which usually involve unbalanced schedules. 1906 MRFU, 1931 Winnipeg City League, 1936 WIFU, 1960 ORFU are some that I can think off the top of my head.

In the 1949 WIFU, 4 of the 28 games were only worth 1 point in the standings.

[Sir Blue and Gold]

You could just do away with points altogether and use the record only. They could be worth .25 or 500 and it would mean the same thing with the change.

[Blue In BC]

It's moot. What difference does it make if all teams play to the same standings result. Whether it's 1 point 2 points or 3 points it makes zero difference.

What makes a difference is how points may or may not be awarded that determine the score. Eliminating / modifying the rouge for example IMO changes possible outcomes. Is that a good thing or bad thing? I think most of us agree it's a bad thing.

Vaval's 129 yard missed FG return would be the statement example exclamation point. Toronto missing a FG and not getting the single point would be another this week.

The UFL has 3 point PAT options and points for longer FG's. I'm not in favour of either of those, but I digress.

[theaardvark]

It's moot. What difference does it make if all teams play to the same standings result. Whether it's 1 point 2 points or 3 points it makes zero difference.

What makes a difference is how points may or may not be awarded that determine the score. Eliminating / modifying the rouge for example IMO changes possible outcomes. Is that a good thing or bad thing? I think most of us agree it's a bad thing.

Vaval's 129 yard missed FG return would be the statement example exclamation point. Toronto missing a FG and not getting the single point would be another this week.

The UFL has 3 point PAT options and points for longer FG's. I'm not in favour of either of those, but I digress.

Tor didn't earn the tie with a missed FG, especially after the missed PAT.  Giving them a rouge might have given me a third perfect pickems week, but Hajralahu lost that game.  And I'm good with that.  Sidenote, had he not line driven the FG attempt, but lofted it, a miss might have had to be returned...

3 point PAT from the 10 makes sense.  Longer FG's doesn't.

The UFL also has the fourth and 15 onside kick off replacement.  Kinda liked that one. 

[gobombersgo]

I have never looked at how many points teams have had even when there were ties. I would just check their won loss record and their place in the standings.

Having said that, I vote to keep things the way they are.

Two points is synonymous with a win and there is no need to change it.

[Blue In BC]

Tor didn't earn the tie with a missed FG, especially after the missed PAT.  Giving them a rouge might have given me a third perfect pickems week, but Hajralahu lost that game.  And I'm good with that.  Sidenote, had he not line driven the FG attempt, but lofted it, a miss might have had to be returned...

3 point PAT from the 10 makes sense.  Longer FG's doesn't.

The UFL also has the fourth and 15 onside kick off replacement.  Kinda liked that one. 

If you meant they didn't deserve a chance at OT, that's a debatable point. The rule change took that away that opportunity.

All of that is going to become more significant next year with the shorter field and goal posts being moved. The rouge and missed FG returns have been big factors in win loss of games in history.

The strategy of giving up a single or trying to make a return is always of consequence. Missed returns can be long or very short trying to avoid giving up the point. Questions are always asked why didn't a team give up the point instead of a return inside the 5 yard line. Sometimes it works out and other times it results in a punt a great field position for the opponent.

That takes that strategy decision out of the hands of teams. I don't find watching a player watch the ball roll out of the end zone as adding anything to the game.

The argument that teams shouldn't be rewarded for failure is hypocritical. A team is rewarded with great field position by letting the ball roll out of the end zone. Giving up the point was a choice between that outcome and the cost to guarantee that.

[dd]

Doesn't really matter, but stay with tradition, wins have always been worth 2 points, so keep it and in the event of a rain out during the game and it can't be completed, and the game was tied, it goes down as 1 point.

[Tecno]

Great point about the games shortened due to weather. The 2 point wins are here to stay then!