Poll: should the CFL move goal posts to the end dead line as in the NFL ?

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Whether you believe it or not their hypothesis is that there will be more touchdowns, better viewing angles without an obstructions and universal field dimensions in all 9 stadiums. Add year long fantasy (look at the ad rev from gaming/betting sites) and it does make it more attractive to other properties to look at acquiring some of the CFL rights.

This is completely unsubstantiated. There is zero evidence the field changes will lead to "more touchdowns, better viewing, etc." That is what is called your "personal opinion." The chance that there will be less touchdowns is equally possible.

Again, yes they could have stayed status quo, but that does not get other networks interested with slight uptick in ratings last year (overall, I know the GC was up about 10%). I think that interest at least gets TSN to up their offer and/or put more revenue into the CFL broadcasts.

It's far more likely that the new changes backfire, alienate hardcore CFL fans, and result in a decrease in attendance and viewership.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

CFL Rule Changes:

1956 - TDs went from being worth 5 points to 6 points
1986 - endzones were reduced from 25 yards to 20 yards
2022 - hashmarks moved further to the middle of the field

The league has constantly been updating rules, all of which have made it more "American in appearance". Where was the outcry and boycotting when these rule/game changes were made?

The hashmarks change should not even be considered on par with the new field changes. It was negligible, and very few people noticed.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by elly63

I'm trying to think of how many times I've thought to myself oh I wish those goalposts weren't there to obstruct my view. The answer is ZERO.

He is grasping at straws. For players, it can be an issue. However, in my 40 years of being a fan, and attending games, I have NEVER heard from anyone that their view is obstructed by the goal posts.

.[/QUOTE]

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

It's far more likely that the new changes backfire, alienate hardcore CFL fans, and result in a decrease in attendance and viewership.

Let's be real here - the most realistic outcome is that nothing changes. There is no significant increase or decrease in attendance and viewership and the league maintains its status quo

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by elly63

Was it obstructing their view as a fan as is being claimed? Ironically a real life example of moving the goalposts. And yet miraculously the game survived for over 100 years until this Commissioner who wanted to move the goalposts since childhood, I wonder why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGVorrcPYWo

Just because it has survived like this for 100 years doesn't mean it can't evolved. The posted went from the H design to the Y design. And so what if the Commish has not liked the posts for 40 years, he made a proposal and his bosses the BoG voted 100% for it

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

This is completely unsubstantiated. There is zero evidence the field changes will lead to "more touchdowns, better viewing, etc." That is what is called your "personal opinion." The chance that there will be less touchdowns is equally possible.




It's far more likely that the new changes backfire, alienate hardcore CFL fans, and result in a decrease in attendance and viewership.

It's all conjecture until it happens. The CFL says they have the data, and have not released that so only they know the thought process. I have one opinion and you have another. I guess we will see what happens and ultimately they can change it if it doesn't work. The NFL has been messing with Kickoffs for the last few years, and gets a ton of complaints from fans, but I'm guessing few have stopped watching because of it

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

Let's be real here - the most realistic outcome is that nothing changes. There is no significant increase or decrease in attendance and viewership and the league maintains its status quo

If nothing changes then what was the point. I don't think in stadium attendance is the goal for the changes. I think the indirect change can be more "party decks" VIP sideline / endzone areas in stadium, which may attract a younger demo to games, BUT I think the ultimate goal of this is the TV Contract for 2027 and beyond (which should lead to more sponsorship dollars)

[elly63]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

And so what if the Commish has not liked the posts for 40 years, he made a proposal and his bosses the BoG voted 100% for it

Because the BOG approved it makes it right? Will it be right if they vote 100% to get rid of the ratio? Will it be right if they vote 100% to go to four downs?

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by elly63

Because the BOG approved it makes it right? Will it be right if they vote 100% to get rid of the ratio? Will it be right if they vote 100% to go to four downs?

Not what I said, you made it sounds like Johnston just came in a changed something he didn't like. He made a proposal to the BoG and they voted 9-0 in favour. The people that pay the bills agreed and they are follow up changes that have also been announced, I am waiting to part 3 they alluded to (watch the Commish on Dustin Neilson's show) which is a league wide marketing campaign will be announced.

As a 50+ year fan I am tired of the CFL being stagnant and want to see some effort to grow. Will it work, I am not sure, but the core fan base is aging out and has been difficult to reach younger fans. The completely ignored this for a couple of generations.

Are the rules changes in isolation going to change it, no, but I think all the changes together will move the needle

Again, just my opinion and until it happens we don't know. But for those who think there will be more punts, I believe they will change the OB rule if that becomes the case and incentivise coaches to gamble on 3rd down on the opponents 40 yard line

[craner]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

This is completely unsubstantiated. There is zero evidence the field changes will lead to "more touchdowns, better viewing, etc." That is what is called your "personal opinion." The chance that there will be less touchdowns is equally possible.

That’s true - no guarantee there will be more touchdowns but field goals will be harder with the uprights now 15 yards further away. It stands to reason that teams will “go for it” more often rather than attempt a field goal. More TD attempts will likely result in more TDs scored (& less field goals).

[elly63]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Not what I said, you made it sounds like Johnston just came in a changed something he didn't like.

Essentially, he did and the BOG bought his reasoning. Thalidomide sounded like a great idea too.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

He made a proposal to the BoG and they voted 9-0 in favour. The people that pay the bills agreed

I saw this explained elsewhere and I think it's applicable here. These types of votes get hashed out in private, but when it comes down to the actual vote, it's already clear what the answer is. So they vote unanimously, because if it's going to happen anyway, then you might as give it the best chance of succeeding and present a united front.

As a 50+ year fan I am tired of the CFL being stagnant and want to see some effort to grow. Will it work, I am not sure, but the core fan base is aging out and has been difficult to reach younger fans. The completely ignored this for a couple of generations.

Maybe I'm just getting older, but IMO the fan base here in Hamilton is not "aging out" - I see tons of families/kids, and tons of 20-30 year olds at the games. No idea about other markets of course.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by craner

That’s true - no guarantee there will be more touchdowns but field goals will be harder with the uprights now 15 yards further away. It stands to reason that teams will “go for it” more often rather than attempt a field goal. More TD attempts will likely result in more TDs scored (& less field goals).

...and less points.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

It's all conjecture until it happens. The CFL says they have the data, and have not released that so only they know the the data

The CFL is full of shit. There is no data. The CFL would have released it, if it validates their argument.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by jonny24

Maybe I'm just getting older, but IMO the fan base here in Hamilton is not "aging out" - I see tons of families/kids, and tons of 20-30 year olds at the games. No idea about other markets of course.

I don't buy the aging out argument either. I specifically watch for that in mid framed crowd shots. Five of the nine teams had significant per game attendance increases this year (sixth team Toronto was negligible). Is that old people coming back to games? And why did they increase? The goalposts?

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by elly63

I don't buy the aging out argument either. I specifically watch for that in mid framed crowd shots. Five of the nine teams had significant per game attendance increases this year (sixth team Toronto was negligible). Is that old people coming back to games? And why did they increase? The goalposts?

The overall number is 0.6% growth, hardly something to hang your hat on

Just say " I don't like the changes" instead of saying "what about this, what about that" and comparing this to thalidomide is a bit off. Its a game

All leagues change and adapt - NBA has changed the 3 point line, MLS pitch clock, NHL center line, Trapezoid, goal crease / blue paint

Has the CFL done this the best way, far from it, but I am willing to see where this leads

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

...and less points.

Surprised Elly63 hasn't corrected your grammar "....fewer points."

Nobody knows how this is going to turn out until it happens.

Unless you have insight the rest of us don't

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

The CFL is full of shit. There is no data. The CFL would have released it, if it validates their argument.

Some Data Behind End Zone Passing Distribution







Surely with more passing attempts up the middle, and more importantly an increase in completion rates, will lead to more touchdowns.

[elly63]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Surprised Elly63 hasn't corrected your grammar "....fewer points."

Was that necessary?

[elly63]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Just say " I don't like the changes" instead of saying "what about this, what about that" and comparing this to thalidomide is a bit off. Its a game

Sorry that I can't buy your narrative and puppet what you want me to say. I just want to know what you guys will say if they want to go to four downs. Oh, we still have the wider field, we still have 12 men. And I have said I don't like the changes, too many, terrible timing, too American (as jonny proved) and totally unnecessary. Elbows Up!