CFL 2026 Season

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

Keyword in my statement is barely know the CFL. Having my age group simply know the league exists and not actively following it as a fan doesn't help with growth and sustainability of the CFL

How old are you? Just asking since you make incorrect assumptions about my age .

At any rate, I would not doubt that there are less CFL fans 18-34, than there were 30+ years ago. However, it's not as extreme as you are making it out to be. All I know, is if you think making changes that are more in synch with the NFL, is going to somehow "grow the game" for future generations, you are in for an unpleasant surprise.

What the CFL really needs to do, is to market the game better, especially in the larger Canadian cities. Having MLSE as owners certainly has not helped the Argos. However, I like what BC ownership is doing with the Lions. I see no reason that the Argos could not attract nearly 30,000 fans again just as the Argos did just over 15 years ago, a time when demographics were not much different than today.

After the ownership group of McNall/Gretzky/Candy sold the team, attendance was bad for over a decade, before rising dramatically for five seasons (2004-2009). I fail to see why that could not happen again, considering the size of the market.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Like interest is declining overall… it’s insanity if the CFL continues to offer the current product and expect different results… change is needed.

It's been that way all of my life. I first began following the CFL in 1983, as a 6 year old. The Alouettes had technically folded, and were reincarnated as the "Concordes" until folding in 1987. Calgary in 1985, and Saskatchewan in 1986, were days away from folding, until day-long telethons raised enough money to keep them operating.

The Ottawa Rough Riders were in danger of folding for most of the 10 seasons, before the inevitable happened in 1996. Hamilton was on shaky ground. The only teams that seemingly did well in the late 80s, were Edmonton and BC.

Despite most teams struggling with debt, the league turned things around in the 2000s, and with the exception of the new Ottawa team, most clubs were healthy, and by 2007, the league was averaging over 29,100 fans/game, a massive increase from 10 years before, where attendance was at 21,200.

source: https://kenn.com/blog/sports-attenda...fl-attendance/

The league has increased overall attendance for 4 straight years, and I can see this trend continuing, as long as the new rule and field changes are scrapped.

[cjones2451]

I don not agree with the way that the CFL did this, but this is part of a BIG shift in the way the CFL does business. With owners like Doman, PKP, Thompson Family driving this.

I had a chance to talk to Duane Vienneau, the Lions president, at a STH event and while he could not out and out confirm what I said but he said I was very perceptive as this was the first domino in many changes designed to market the league better and drive to get a new TV contract. No one here is saying the rule changes in themselves will attract new fans (yes the league is), but at Grey Cup, the league announced a complete a completely new web page for the league and teams, CFL App, and Year Long Fantasy Football. I believe there is more coming and the goal is the TV contract, which leads to more revenue per team, increase in salary cap, more viewers, merch sales, etc.

I don't believe US expansion / further rule changes would offset the loss in the Canadian markets and the owners (especially the prairies teams know this). The Commish stated when they push for a 10th team, it will be a Canadian Team. The new field dimensions make this easier to get a stadium, especially if Halifax can partner on a CPL stadium, or an expansion team QC, London, Windsor?

As someone who has been a fan of this league to almost 50 years, it seems to be 1 step forward, 2 steps back. I am happy to see them taking a risk and the the Board of Governors are 100% in favour of this (generally WPG, SSK, EDM have been very, very cautions previously)

[trueviking]

I have been a bombers season ticket holder for 20 years.....i told my ticket rep that I will cancel if they change the field and move the goalposts.....the league will be dead to me.

Individual teams need to do a better job of marketing the experience...that has been a game changer in Winnipeg....it is more about the experience than the game for many people.....selling the idea of drinking beer with your friends on a beautiful Canadian summer evening should be the sales pitch as much as the game itself....the bombers have been pretty good at recognizing this...there are 10,000 people hanging out on the concourse in the middle of every game....tailgating has become a big thing before games.....it's a lot of fun even if you don't like football....and it attracts young people.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

How old are you? Just asking since you make incorrect assumptions about my age.

As I said, 28 -- maybe it's also a combination of age and location (Ontario). But again, it's not an exaggeration when I say less than 10% of the people I know in my demographic (through school, work, activities, life in general) have an idea what the CFL is. Perhaps recognize the league name and that's it.

I'm sure there's a different vibe out west, but western Canada alone won't sustain the league

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

I don't believe US expansion / further rule changes would offset the loss in the Canadian markets and the owners (especially the prairies teams know this). The Commish stated when they push for a 10th team, it will be a Canadian Team. The new field dimensions make this easier to get a stadium, especially if Halifax can partner on a CPL stadium, or an expansion team QC, London, Windsor?

why in the world would a slightly smaller field help an expansion franchise get a new stadium? That is the most ridiculous justification I've heard yet.

The current field size is perfect for soccer because the nets can be on the football goal line...make it 100 yards between goal lines and it doesn't work....this also goes for every amateur sports field in the country that shares soccer and football uprights....this change will make sharing impossible, or force soccer to play on a shorter field than regulation....this isn't just about the CFL...its changing the Canadian game at all levels....and their fields.

Changing the field is about looking more like NFL. That's it. Full stop.

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by trueviking

why in the world would a slightly smaller field help an expansion franchise get a new stadium? That is the most ridiculous justification I've heard yet.

The current field size is perfect for soccer because the nets can be on the football goal line...make it 100 yards between goal lines and it doesn't work....this also goes for every amateur sports field in the country that shares soccer and football uprights....this change will make sharing impossible, or force soccer to play on a shorter field than regulation....this isn't just about the CFL...its changing the Canadian game at all levels....and their fields.

Changing the field is about looking more like NFL. That's it. Full stop.

Did you see when Soccer was played at IG Field. The most desirable seats are behind the goals for the key supporter demo and if the field dimensions for soccer and the CFL are similar they can build a stadium that does not have add additional costs for retractable seating or an overall bigger footprint.

No one is forcing other levels to change if they don't want to. Even the league said they would pay for changing the posts (in SSK, CGY, MTL and OTT) in USports if they do not adapt the rule changes

If they really wanted to look like the NFL, why 15 year end zones ? Why not a 40 second clock? Its still 3 downs, 12 men, 65 yards wide.

Answer me this, do you think the CFL BoG really think that chasing a game more like the NFL is going to being them more money and grow the game?

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Brilliant post, much better for educating those who make the stupid argument that the CFL is being Americanized. I’m going to reference this is the future.

Every single change is in the NFL direction. Not exactly the same, but not a single change was in a way that wasn't closer to the NFL.

CFL: has rouges, NFL: no rouges. We will see fewer rouges = more NFL like.

CFL: Ref blows in the play clock, NFL: automatic start to play clock. Adopting auto clock = more NFL like.

CFL:110 yards, NFL: 100 yards. Adopting 100 yards = exactly NFL like.

CFL: 20 yard end zone, used to have 25 yards, NFL: 10 yard endzone. Shrinking to 15 yards = more NFL like.

CFL: Goal posts on the goal line, NFL: back of end zone. Moving to back of end zone = exactly NFL like.

CFL: team benches where they made sense for each stadium, or where the home team preferred them. NFL: apparently feels the need to dictate this minutia, and that chosen dictation is opposite apparently? Adopting the need to dictate this = more NFL like

I expect you to retract your "stupid" insult above.

The direction is clearly 100% in the direction the American game. Not a single change became less like the American game. By definition the changes ARE Americanizations. Calling then out as such is not "stupid"

Originally Posted by cjones2451

If they really wanted to look like the NFL, why 15 year end zones ? Why not a 40 second clock? Its still 3 downs, 12 men, 65 yards wide.

Because, it lets people exactly like you get to say "see? It's not the same!".

It muddies the waters, so people get bogged down nitpicking the details, and miss the forest for the trees.

Which, IMO, is that there is a ~5 year plan to sell out to private equity / betting interests for easy money, rather do the hard work of developing and promoting a unique Canadian game.

Answer me this, do you think the CFL BoG really think that chasing a game more like the NFL is going to being them more money and grow the game?

I think the BOG does think that. Well certainly the money part. And I think they don't care about "grow Canadian Football", I think they care about "grow CFL incomes".

I can't agree with them on that, which is why I can't commit to giving them money for a whole year at a time.

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by jonny24

Every single change is in the NFL direction. Not exactly the same, but not a single change was in a way that wasn't closer to the NFL.

CFL: has rouges, NFL: no rouges. We will see fewer rouges = more NFL like.

CFL: Ref blows in the play clock, NFL: automatic start to play clock. Adopting auto clock = more NFL like.

CFL:110 yards, NFL: 100 yards. Adopting 100 yards = exactly NFL like.

CFL: 20 yard end zone, used to have 25 yards, NFL: 10 yard endzone. Shrinking to 15 yards = more NFL like.

CFL: Goal posts on the goal line, NFL: back of end zone. Moving to back of end zone = exactly NFL like.

CFL: team benches where they made sense for each stadium, or where the home team preferred them. NFL: apparently feels the need to dictate this minutia, and that chosen dictation is opposite apparently? Adopting the need to dictate this = more NFL like

I expect you to retract your "stupid" insult above.

The direction is clearly 100% in the direction the American game. Not a single change became less like the American game. By definition the changes ARE Americanizations. Calling then out as such is not "stupid"




Because, it lets people exactly like you get to say "see? It's not the same!".

It muddies the waters, so people get bogged down nitpicking the details, and miss the forest for the trees.

Which, IMO, is that there is a ~5 year plan to sell out to private equity / betting interests for easy money, rather do the hard work of developing and promoting a unique Canadian game.



I think the BOG does think that. Well certainly the money part. And I think they don't care about "grow Canadian Football", I think they care about "grow CFL incomes".

I can't agree with them on that, which is why I can't commit to giving them money for a whole year at a time.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and spend their money where they see fit. You believe they are going in one direction to take the easy money, I do not think that is true, or there is no way the prairie teams would have gone for that.

However when there is only 2 professional gridiron football leagues, any changes to one (especially the smaller one) is going to be compared to the other. I believe there are more on the BoG than not that, that care about the CFL game and would not sell it out for a quick buck, even if others would. Maybe I am not a cynical.

I guess we will see over the next few years

[elly63]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and spend their money where they see fit. You believe they are going in one direction to take the easy money, I do not think that is true, or there is no way the prairie teams would have gone for that.

However when there is only 2 professional gridiron football leagues, any changes to one (especially the smaller one) is going to be compared to the other. I believe there are more on the BoG than not that, that care about the CFL game and would not sell it out for a quick buck, even if others would. Maybe I am not a cynical.

I guess we will see over the next few years

Although I disagree, I appreciate your civility in this debate, but I think jonny made excellent and provable points.

You mention easy money, I have yet to see any definite proof that there will be money made. I hope there is but I don't see how a new website or things on that level will generate it anymore than what is available now. What is it in changing field length that is going to drive more eyeballs to the league? If these off field changes are successful why do they need to change on field issues.

I would much rather hear possible truth (believing Americanization is good) than what little I've heard about the efficacy of these changes.

As for the righteousness of the BOG, I'm pretty sure if they could get away with it, the ratio would be gone and let's not forget two ownership groups were ready to follow the folly of the XFL.

[Hackslack]

In my opinion the main driver of the field dimensional changes was to move the goalposts to the back of the end zone, they had to modify the length of the field… and modifying the end zone also allows for every stadium to have the exact same field dimensions.

Modifying the rouge was a no brainer, though I hope they modify it again to allow for a rouge when a kick is playable in the end zone. Modifying the rouge eliminates the ability to win a game on a missed field goal, which I hope everyone agrees that’s the right decision.

The time clock is a no brainer.

Moving teams to opposite sides of the field is a no brainer too.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

However when there is only 2 professional gridiron football leagues, any changes to one (especially the smaller one) is going to be compared to the other.

...

I guess we will see over the next few years

You're 100% right, and that's why I think moving only in the American direction (in general), and (specifically) at the time of "Elbows Up" type sentiment, was a wild miss on their part.

If launching a slate of major changes to "shake things up" is a given, it should have been at most 50% "Americanizing" and 50% true innovation, or at the very least borrowing from non-gridiron football codes. They ought to have seen how this would be taken. And the fact that they either missed it, or saw nothing wrong with it, is a big part of my reservations about the BOGs interests.

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by elly63

Although I disagree, I appreciate your civility in this debate, but I think jonny made excellent and provable points.

You mention easy money, I have yet to see any definite proof that there will be money made. I hope there is but I don't see how a new website or things on that level will generate it anymore than what is available now. What is it in changing field length that is going to drive more eyeballs to the league? If these off field changes are successful why do they need to change on field issues.

I would much rather hear possible truth (believing Americanization is good) than what little I've heard about the efficacy of these changes.

As for the righteousness of the BOG, I'm pretty sure if they could get away with it, the ratio would be gone and let's not forget two ownership groups were ready to follow the folly of the XFL.

I love the debate and talking CFL and want nothing more than the league to succeed and grow, and hey we are talking CFL in December so that is always good

I think the totality of the changes is going to make the difference on getting more eyeballs on the league. The TV contract is a HUGE pivot point. If you can get a Amazon or Netflix on board or even Sportsnet, I think that gets more attention and eyeballs on the CFL. Even if league attendance averages went up by 2000, its not even close to the revenue that they would get if TV money went from $50M per year to say $100M and if you look at the money TSN and Sportsnet pay for the local rights for the NHL in Canada and being only in that local market and those ratings, the CFL, get 3-4 more viewers per broadcast so they are grossly underpaid

MLSE and CSEC are very corporate and wanted the quick fix, but the rest if the league said no, so if they are inline with the rest if the board, that should be encouraging, right?

As far as getting rid of the ratio, the thing I would think they would push for us a reduction in the number of required starters, but keep the overall ratio. many domestic leagues in soccer have this. Just my opinion though

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by jonny24

Every single change is in the NFL direction. Not exactly the same, but not a single change was in a way that wasn't closer to the NFL.

CFL: has rouges, NFL: no rouges. We will see fewer rouges = more NFL like.

CFL: Ref blows in the play clock, NFL: automatic start to play clock. Adopting auto clock = more NFL like.

CFL:110 yards, NFL: 100 yards. Adopting 100 yards = exactly NFL like.

CFL: 20 yard end zone, used to have 25 yards, NFL: 10 yard endzone. Shrinking to 15 yards = more NFL like.

CFL: Goal posts on the goal line, NFL: back of end zone. Moving to back of end zone = exactly NFL like.

CFL: team benches where they made sense for each stadium, or where the home team preferred them. NFL: apparently feels the need to dictate this minutia, and that chosen dictation is opposite apparently? Adopting the need to dictate this = more NFL like

I expect you to retract your "stupid" insult above.

The direction is clearly 100% in the direction the American game. Not a single change became less like the American game. By definition the changes ARE Americanizations. Calling then out as such is not "stupid"




Because, it lets people exactly like you get to say "see? It's not the same!".

It muddies the waters, so people get bogged down nitpicking the details, and miss the forest for the trees.

Which, IMO, is that there is a ~5 year plan to sell out to private equity / betting interests for easy money, rather do the hard work of developing and promoting a unique Canadian game.



I think the BOG does think that. Well certainly the money part. And I think they don't care about "grow Canadian Football", I think they care about "grow CFL incomes".

I can't agree with them on that, which is why I can't commit to giving them money for a whole year at a time.

The entire grid iron game of Canadian football is almost like the NFL, not exactly the same, but very similar…

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the rule changes that become more similar to the NFL, though still very different, aside from the upright position behind the end zone, and 100 yard field… the NFL is the largest most powerhouse professional league in the world, they are doing something right. The Canadian game rules that make the Canadian game distinct are all very much intact, namely, 3 down ball, 12 men, and bigger field, the waggle, 1 yrd off the line, all that encourages more passing.

My opinion, which is different than others, and that’s ok… we’ll find out how things play out

[cjones2451]

3 year extension for Brady Oliveira to stay in Winnipeg. Great for the Bombers and good for the league to see some stability with top players signing 2 and 3 year contracts with their teams

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

I don't believe US expansion / further rule changes would offset the loss in the Canadian markets and the owners (especially the prairies teams know this). The Commish stated when they push for a 10th team, it will be a Canadian Team. The new field dimensions make this easier to get a stadium, especially if Halifax can partner on a CPL stadium, or an expansion team QC, London, Windsor?

I really doubt there will be a 10th Canadian team anytime soon. It would have happened decades ago.

[BlackDog204]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

As I said, 28 -- maybe it's also a combination of age and location (Ontario). But again, it's not an exaggeration when I say less than 10% of the people I know in my demographic (through school, work, activities, life in general) have an idea what the CFL is.

I don't buy this. Maybe only 10% of people in some regions of Ontario follow the CFL, but to say over 90% of people in any part of Canada do not even know what the CFL is, is stretching credibility.

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

I really doubt there will be a 10th Canadian team anytime soon. It would have happened decades ago.

Previously, if there was talk of expansion, there always needed to be a commitment for a 23-25,000 seat stadium. Now it seems the bar has been lowered to talk of temporary stadiums or even smaller capacity with room for expanding down the road. That and the CPL in existence does give me some guarded hope it may happen. Would be nice to see a stadium in Halifax that is for the Wanderers, CFL, University and community use (concerts, etc) but we shall see.

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by cjones2451

Did you see when Soccer was played at IG Field. The most desirable seats are behind the goals for the key supporter demo and if the field dimensions for soccer and the CFL are similar they can build a stadium that does not have add additional costs for retractable seating or an overall bigger footprint.

No one is forcing other levels to change if they don't want to. Even the league said they would pay for changing the posts (in SSK, CGY, MTL and OTT) in USports if they do not adapt the rule changes

If they really wanted to look like the NFL, why 15 year end zones ? Why not a 40 second clock? Its still 3 downs, 12 men, 65 yards wide.

Answer me this, do you think the CFL BoG really think that chasing a game more like the NFL is going to being them more money and grow the game?

you really think all the other levels of football in canada would play one set of rules on a different field and the university and professional game a different one?

I think you are definitely scrounging for justification if you think a football stadium is cheaper with a smaller field....nobody is building retractable seats for the CPL.

They want it to look like the NFL but couldn't go all the way for fear of complete backlash.....they think that will make the game more popular....its misguided but that's the reason...its not to make stadiums cheaper for a mythical franchise partnering with a minor-pro soccer league that draws 4,000 fans per game.

[cjones2451]

Originally Posted by trueviking

you really think all the other levels of football in canada would play one set of rules on a different field and the university and professional game a different one?

I think you are definitely scrounging for justification if you think a football stadium is cheaper with a smaller field....nobody is building retractable seats for the CPL.

They want it to look like the NFL but couldn't go all the way for fear of complete backlash.....they think that will make the game more popular....its misguided but that's the reason...its not to make stadiums cheaper for a mythical franchise partnering with a minor-pro soccer league that draws 4,000 fans per game.

It happens already, the CFL moved the hashmarks in, and USports did not follow; Div I NCAA has some different rules than the NFL.

You just amplified my point, they aren't building retractable seats for the CPL, so the Wanderers are trying to get a permanent stadium in Halifax, it makes it easier to justify if it is a share stadium. if the seating can be the same and it is just painting different lines. The Wanderers already get 7,200 for their current temp stadium, its not inconceivable to picture a shared stadium with some financial help from government. Long shot sure, but not impossible.