HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 2:42 AM
Coldrsx's Avatar
Coldrsx Coldrsx is offline
Community Guy
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canmore, AB
Posts: 66,669
As in the speed of the ball, athletes, play.

Don't get me wrong, I love me the CFL, but the NFL skill level is a step or 3 up.
__________________
"The destructive effects of automobiles are much less a cause than a symptom of our incompetence at city building" - Jane Jacobs 1961ish

Wake me up when I can see skyscrapers
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 2:46 AM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
As in the speed of the ball, athletes, play.

Don't get me wrong, I love me the CFL, but the NFL skill level is a step or 3 up.
I'd never deny the skill level of the NFL either. But I haven't really noticed any difference this season over the others. The games do seem anti-climactic without the crowds though, but this is true of NHL games as well.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 3:55 AM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldrsx View Post
As in the speed of the ball, athletes, play.

Don't get me wrong, I love me the CFL, but the NFL skill level is a step or 3 up.
A step maybe but not three. Talk to any player whose played in both leagues. And I'd listen to them instead of folks who watch the game on their TV at home.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 12:10 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
In relation to my post above about Ambrosie possibly being dumped as CFL commish Justin Dunk from 3downation.com was on the Rod Pedersen show today reporting that the CFL board of governors voted 7-2 in favor of dropping CFL 2.0 the global initiative which was what Amrbosie's baby during his whole tenure as commish which does not look good for him. Here is the link to the interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMZwQKGYmks
Ambrosie has had some exceptionally difficult cards dealt, especially this year. But that said, I don't think he was really been up to the challenge even before covid hit. I still don't see the merit of the CFL 2.0 thing and it's clear from the above that the teams don't either.

I hope that the CFL is able to get the commissioner thing right with its next pick. In the last 30 years there has only really been one true success at the job... Mark Cohon. He's also the only one who has lasted more than 5 years in the position. Other than that it's been a revolving door of faces. Compare with the NFL, NBA, NHL where they have had the same person in place doing the job for years and years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 12:26 PM
jonny24 jonny24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Hamilton, formerly Norfolk County
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post

Make it a league with finances that are based on attendance of say, 12,000 a game instead of 25,000. That also has the huge benefit of opening up smaller markets to expansion... suddenly, places like Halifax, Quebec City, Moncton, Saskatoon, Victoria, K-W, London, etc. all become realistic expansion prospects because you no longer need the mid-major league CFL/MLS style 25,000 seat new stadium.
I've long thought this as well. It would look something like European soccer, but with football.

Part of making that work on the cost-cutting side is roster size I think - it's just really hard to pay 50+ guys enough to make it worth it, on smaller revenues than current (I think TV money would eventually increase, but maybe not enough to make up for splitting it additional ways). A return to two-way players being the norm could be a part of this. It would give us greater distinction from the American game as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 12:46 PM
Hackslack Hackslack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
Ambrosie has had some exceptionally difficult cards dealt, especially this year. But that said, I don't think he was really been up to the challenge even before covid hit. I still don't see the merit of the CFL 2.0 thing and it's clear from the above that the teams don't either.

I hope that the CFL is able to get the commissioner thing right with its next pick. In the last 30 years there has only really been one true success at the job... Mark Cohon. He's also the only one who has lasted more than 5 years in the position. Other than that it's been a revolving door of faces. Compare with the NFL, NBA, NHL where they have had the same person in place doing the job for years and years.
CFL 2.0 was established because of the threat of both the AAF and XFL. The CFL needed to look beyond the borders to discover talent, because he knew that the CFL would likely have been the 3rd choice out of the 3 for attracting new talent in the USA.

I’ve liked Ambrosie. He’s been very vocal with the fans pre-Covid. He’s had to deal with the Als ownership situation which considering that circumstances pre-Covid I’ve thought he’s handled well. Schooners football resurgence had been on the cusp pre-Covid as well.

I think he’s just been dealt an extremely difficult card That has been too much for the CFL to burden
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 6:56 PM
Jasper and one o nin's Avatar
Jasper and one o nin Jasper and one o nin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Лесные Высоты
Posts: 3,339
The CFL is designed so that Canadian amateur athletes can play professional football. Interesting fact that not many people know - especially Americans - is gridiron football originated in Canada. Americans will cite a game between Rutgers University and Princeton as the origins of "American Football". The fact is that game was actually a version of Rugby and was nothing like American Football. That might have been the first organized rugby game played in the states - but it wasn't where the modern day gridiron football rules originated. In the late 1800's Canadian and American university each played a game that wasn't quite soccer and wasn't quite rugby. It was developed in England and was never that popular there, but came to both the US and Canada. Over a few decades, the versions in each County evolved quite differently from each other. The American version didn't resemble anything that looked like today's modern American football - But, the Canadian version did. (Yes, the origins of American Football actually come from Canada)
What is thought to be the United States greatest sport was a result of the Americans becoming exposed to the sport when a game was played between Harvard and (I believe) McGill University. The idea was play an intercollegiate game of this English Version of Soccer Rugby (I think the Canadian game was called Football (because of its soccer roots) and the American game was called Boston Soccer or something), but they realized the two versions were completely different. So they either played one game with one half playing one version and the other half playing the other version - or two games each played with different rules. In the end, Harvard preferred the Canadian version because it involved running with the ball and setting up after each play. The Canadian version had downs, the ability pass forward, a "try line", and tackling. The term touchdown came from the Canadian game because once the player successfully made it past the try line, he had to touch the ball down on the ground (like rugby). After that game, the Americans adopted the new rules and the game evolved in different ways in each Country. The 110 yard field was based on a field that was 100 metres.
The CFL has always been a critical institution for Football Canada because it provides a basis for amateur football throughout Canada. The most crucial facet of the CFL is the provisions for Canadian content. Some people may disagree and argue that it makes the game inferior to the US. The fact that it is different than the US game and it allows Canadian content makes it unique and successful - I shouldn't say that's a fact, but it is my opinion.
__________________
"Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice. Carl Spackler, 1980

Last edited by Jasper and one o nin; Sep 29, 2020 at 7:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 29, 2020, 7:11 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackslack View Post
CFL 2.0 was established because of the threat of both the AAF and XFL. The CFL needed to look beyond the borders to discover talent, because he knew that the CFL would likely have been the 3rd choice out of the 3 for attracting new talent in the USA.
CFL "international" if it's about attracting talent from new sources sounds good, but attracting new fans in other countries seems like a waste of time and energy.

The NFL is such a juggernaut and you can't possibly compete with them. Think about it. If you're an Aussie rules football fan, what are the chances you will be interested in what looks to you like just a Kiwi variant of Aussie rules?

The CFL has a considerable legacy and cultural relevance in Canada and it still has trouble competing with the NFL here.

I suppose some people also think that if people abroad take an interest in the CFL, that Canadians will respect it more, but anyone who remembers the CFL USA fiasco will tell you that doesn't work.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 1:00 AM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 7,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonny24 View Post
I've long thought this as well. It would look something like European soccer, but with football.

Part of making that work on the cost-cutting side is roster size I think - it's just really hard to pay 50+ guys enough to make it worth it, on smaller revenues than current (I think TV money would eventually increase, but maybe not enough to make up for splitting it additional ways). A return to two-way players being the norm could be a part of this. It would give us greater distinction from the American game as well.
Player salaries are only 25% of CFL team costs. Hamilton would be the best "average" prototypical CFL team and their president Scott Mitchell mentioned it costs them roughly $25 million a year to run the team. You have president, marketing staff, athletic therapists, 10-14 assistant coaches, scouting dept, concession staff, yearly lease payments, advertising ect...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 1:11 AM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 7,595
CFL to be successful is hard but not impossible to do it just needs to embrace who it is and stop being ashamed of it. CFL is for blue collar sport fans it is the sport of trades people, farmers ect...CFL needs to promote the hell out of being a great bang for your buck entertainment value, trim ticket costs for children/students to bring them into the ballpark. To trim costs CFL can trim the higher end player salaries for guys like Bo Levi from 800k a year to maybe 450k a year. CFL presidents should have lower salaries and CFL coaching staffs are way too big now you don't need 14 assistant coaches only need maybe 6-8. CFL head office to save money should have interdivisonal play only to save travel costs and maybe get rid of the Toronto instant replay staff and instant replay and constant coaches challenges and reviews as it slows the game so much and takes an element of controversy away from the game that it used to have when calls were done only by the refs on the field.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 12:58 PM
jonny24 jonny24 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Hamilton, formerly Norfolk County
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
CFL to be successful is hard but not impossible to do it just needs to embrace who it is and stop being ashamed of it. CFL is for blue collar sport fans it is the sport of trades people, farmers ect...CFL needs to promote the hell out of being a great bang for your buck entertainment value, trim ticket costs for children/students to bring them into the ballpark. To trim costs CFL can trim the higher end player salaries for guys like Bo Levi from 800k a year to maybe 450k a year. CFL presidents should have lower salaries and CFL coaching staffs are way too big now you don't need 14 assistant coaches only need maybe 6-8. CFL head office to save money should have interdivisonal play only to save travel costs and maybe get rid of the Toronto instant replay staff and instant replay and constant coaches challenges and reviews as it slows the game so much and takes an element of controversy away from the game that it used to have when calls were done only by the refs on the field.
I agree with you on the CFL embracing who they are and not trying to be the NFL, but I think you're a little old fashioned in your "blue collar fans of farmers and trades". That's probably already the base in most places, but pushing that angle won't attract anyone else. I work in a white collar environment with a fair number of CFL fans. I think the biggest way to embrace being unique is to actually be unique, and continue to evolve our rules on our own and not necessarily in the same way as the USA version.

I agree with you on prices, I always get the cheapest season ticket I can - it helps that THF has good sightlines so you aren't really missing anything by being high up. Cheaper student + kid prices would help build future fans, but it's a tradeoff of current revenue for future revenue. Not saying they shouldn't do it, in fact the CFL could stand to have a little more long term thinking, but when the biggest issue is current survival it will be hard to "give up" any ticket revenue. I also think there's a "perception value" - if tickets are dirt cheap, some perceive it as not worth their time. All in all, it's a fina balance for teams to try to walk.

And there is now an operations cap with a limit on salaries and # of coaches, I believe it is 11, so they are working on that.

I think we need more teams before we can have only in-division schedules. I see 3x a year as the max you'd want to play any one team in the regular season or the matchups will be too repetitive. I could see playing in-division more, but wouldn't want to eliminate cross-division play.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 1:10 PM
Acajack's Avatar
Acajack Acajack is online now
Unapologetic Occidental
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Province 2, Canadian Empire
Posts: 67,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
There's no way that the CFL isn't in trouble at the moment. The private owners are wealthy and the community owned teams are in good shape but the league's continued existence pretty well depends on the teams being willing to run at a loss. That's pretty well a given for a year, but it becomes a lot more iffy if the current situation drags on beyond 2021. If Montreal and maybe one other team go under, suddenly the league is teetering on the edge.

That said, I think the CFL has a bit of a problem where it occupies an awkward middle space between major leagues and minor leagues. Team overhead is pretty high with ballooning coaching and administrative budgets, but team income from TV and tickets is not really in line with that. I suppose the NFL could be a lifeline if things get really dire, but I think a better approach is to scale the CFL's expenses down in line with the league's realities. In other words, cut costs and move more in the direction of a CPL scaled league. Make it a league with finances that are based on attendance of say, 12,000 a game instead of 25,000. That also has the huge benefit of opening up smaller markets to expansion... suddenly, places like Halifax, Quebec City, Moncton, Saskatoon, Victoria, K-W, London, etc. all become realistic expansion prospects because you no longer need the mid-major league CFL/MLS style 25,000 seat new stadium. A place like Moncton's stadium augmented by a few temporary stands becomes a perfectly fine venue.
I actually really like this idea - but cautiously if that makes sense.

One concern is that it might make the league seem even more "small time" in the larger markets.

And then we end up with a CHL-style situation where the league is in tons of markets big and small across the country, is actually a national leader in bums in seats, but has little to no national visibility.

OTOH, under a hypothetical scenario (if they can pull it off) having 10,000 people at a CFL game in Vaughan, 8,000 people at a CFL game in Mississauga, 9,000 at a CFL game in Oshawa, and 10,000 people at a CFL game at BMO Field in Toronto, all on the same weekend, would arguably be better than having just 15,000 people from the entire GTA at a single Argos game at BMO.
__________________
Amber alerts welcome at any time
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 1:55 PM
Hackslack Hackslack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
CFL "international" if it's about attracting talent from new sources sounds good, but attracting new fans in other countries seems like a waste of time and energy.

The NFL is such a juggernaut and you can't possibly compete with them. Think about it. If you're an Aussie rules football fan, what are the chances you will be interested in what looks to you like just a Kiwi variant of Aussie rules?

The CFL has a considerable legacy and cultural relevance in Canada and it still has trouble competing with the NFL here.

I suppose some people also think that if people abroad take an interest in the CFL, that Canadians will respect it more, but anyone who remembers the CFL USA fiasco will tell you that doesn't work.
I didn't mention the CFL was competing with the NFL, as I agree with you, it is such a juggernaut. I was saying the CFL was competing with the AAF and XFL with respect to talent.

I would debate that the CFL is "competing" for fans with the NFL in Canada. In some cases, for sure, people tune out the CFL in favour of the NFL, but I would argue much of that has to do with the way the NFL has been able to capture fans simply through fantasy football. I would be the NFL would not be near as popular in Canada at least if there was no such thing as fantasy football. Fans of the NFL simply root for the players on their fantasy football team and the defenses of their selected team. To me that doesn't translate into being an NFL football fan, rather a fantasy football fan.... this is something the CFL needs to desperately figure how to engage fantasy football fans the same way.

The US expansion was overall a failure, but there certainly was a very bright light our of Baltimore. Correct me if I am wrong because I was very young at the time, but wasn't it in large part of the CFL success in Baltimore that the NFL returned?

In my opinion, the CFL needs to market their players by hanging on to their NCAA success, market their successes in the NCAA and huge football colleges and stadiums, and market them in those respective college markets as well. To me, fans would like to continue to follow the players they rooted for in the college days... this is just one idea.

Week in and week out the CFL tv rating are on par if not higher than the NFL weekly ratings... some years the same can be said for the Grey Cup vs Super Bowl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 1:58 PM
Hackslack Hackslack is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 2,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
CFL to be successful is hard but not impossible to do it just needs to embrace who it is and stop being ashamed of it. CFL is for blue collar sport fans it is the sport of trades people, farmers ect...CFL needs to promote the hell out of being a great bang for your buck entertainment value, trim ticket costs for children/students to bring them into the ballpark. To trim costs CFL can trim the higher end player salaries for guys like Bo Levi from 800k a year to maybe 450k a year. CFL presidents should have lower salaries and CFL coaching staffs are way too big now you don't need 14 assistant coaches only need maybe 6-8. CFL head office to save money should have interdivisonal play only to save travel costs and maybe get rid of the Toronto instant replay staff and instant replay and constant coaches challenges and reviews as it slows the game so much and takes an element of controversy away from the game that it used to have when calls were done only by the refs on the field.
Yup, the CFL needs to make it cheap for a family to bring children to the game, market to the kids at a young age, and make the star players very accessible to the kids.

Another idea is to have bigger events pre-game, for example the CF-18 fly overs at calgary labour day... I know that it would be probably too expensive to do that sort of thing every week, but the league needs to turn these "games" into more of an "entertainment" outing
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 2:26 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
I actually really like this idea - but cautiously if that makes sense.

One concern is that it might make the league seem even more "small time" in the larger markets.

And then we end up with a CHL-style situation where the league is in tons of markets big and small across the country, is actually a national leader in bums in seats, but has little to no national visibility.

OTOH, under a hypothetical scenario (if they can pull it off) having 10,000 people at a CFL game in Vaughan, 8,000 people at a CFL game in Mississauga, 9,000 at a CFL game in Oshawa, and 10,000 people at a CFL game at BMO Field in Toronto, all on the same weekend, would arguably be better than having just 15,000 people from the entire GTA at a single Argos game at BMO.
I take your point, but I guess it comes down to the possible benefits of the competing scenarios... is it more realistic to expect the CFL to find a foothold in potential expansion cities and thrive there (the Saskatoon, Halifax, Quebec, type places), or to expect the CFL to roar back in Toronto and play to sellout crowds again? Given that attempts at the latter have been going on for nearly 40 years with little sustained success, you have to wonder if it's time to change things up a bit? In other words, take the pressure off the Toronto franchise a bit.

Unlike the CHL, the CFL has a pretty solid track record with respect to TV. It's not like the networks would suddenly abandon the league if it expanded to smaller markets.

Although I have to wonder if this is all moot right now... I suspect that the CFL must be in the early stages of an existential crisis now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 2:34 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 37,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackslack View Post
The US expansion was overall a failure, but there certainly was a very bright light our of Baltimore. Correct me if I am wrong because I was very young at the time, but wasn't it in large part of the CFL success in Baltimore that the NFL returned?
Yes. Baltimore was the only truly successful US expansion franchise. A lot of it was motivated by a love-hate stance with regard to the NFL, i.e. they wanted to show the NFL what it was missing by rallying around their new CFL team, and it worked to the point where the Browns ended up moving there.

That said, the other situations were not total busts as the popular myth goes. Sacramento was working reasonably well but only fell apart when they couldn't reach a deal for a new stadium, so they moved to San Antonio. The San Antonio franchise only shut down after it became apparent that the other US teams were not going to operate after the 1995 season.

Shreveport was reasonably well supported considering what a basketcase team they were and they could have possibly pulled through had the other US teams stuck it out.

Las Vegas was obviously a total failure and Memphis and Birmingham were not that great either.

The thing I don't get with the US expansion teams in the CFL, or with the startup leagues like the XFL, is how they expect to be successful right off the hop. It's not like the NFL was playing in front of 75,000 fans a game right from day one... it takes years to build up a fanbase. So how guys like Fred Smith in Memphis or Art Williams in Birmingham expected to have packed houses for an unknown product right from the get-go is puzzling to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 30, 2020, 11:34 PM
thurmas's Avatar
thurmas thurmas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Posts: 7,595
I think it is a false assumption people have that CFL competes with NFL that is simply no longer the case. So many people in my age group (30's) and people in their 20's 40's and 50's that I know are football fans here in Winnipeg are fans of both CFL an NFL. So many of us love watching the Vikings Bears or Packers but also love our Bombers or some here are Sasky transplants love their Riders but also the Titans or Raiders and we go on Labour day/Banjo bowl road trips but also road trips to see the Vikings at US bank or go see the Pack at Lambeau. CFL should be emulating college football the fan experience of it and not try to be NFL lite which never turns out well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2020, 2:35 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,741
[QUOTE=esquire;
Make it a league with finances that are based on attendance of say, 12,000 a game instead of 25,000. That also has the huge benefit of opening up smaller markets to expansion... suddenly, places like Halifax, Quebec City, Moncton, Saskatoon, Victoria, K-W, London, etc. all become realistic expansion prospects because you no longer need the mid-major league CFL/MLS style 25,000 seat new stadium. A place like Moncton's stadium augmented by a few temporary stands becomes a perfectly fine venue.[/QUOTE]

I really like this idea
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2020, 3:52 AM
VANRIDERFAN's Avatar
VANRIDERFAN VANRIDERFAN is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regina
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by thurmas View Post
I think it is a false assumption people have that CFL competes with NFL that is simply no longer the case. So many people in my age group (30's) and people in their 20's 40's and 50's that I know are football fans here in Winnipeg are fans of both CFL an NFL. So many of us love watching the Vikings Bears or Packers but also love our Bombers or some here are Sasky transplants love their Riders but also the Titans or Raiders and we go on Labour day/Banjo bowl road trips but also road trips to see the Vikings at US bank or go see the Pack at Lambeau. CFL should be emulating college football the fan experience of it and not try to be NFL lite which never turns out well.
You are so right Thurmas. I do not have a favourite NFL/NCAA team but I enjoy watching good games in all leagues (including USports). The Canadian NFL only fans are missing out and that's their loss.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 1, 2020, 11:09 PM
osmo osmo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
CFL "international" if it's about attracting talent from new sources sounds good, but attracting new fans in other countries seems like a waste of time and energy.

The NFL is such a juggernaut and you can't possibly compete with them. Think about it. If you're an Aussie rules football fan, what are the chances you will be interested in what looks to you like just a Kiwi variant of Aussie rules?

The CFL has a considerable legacy and cultural relevance in Canada and it still has trouble competing with the NFL here.

I suppose some people also think that if people abroad take an interest in the CFL, that Canadians will respect it more, but anyone who remembers the CFL USA fiasco will tell you that doesn't work.
NFL does not have a large following internationally. The league overwhelms the North American market but globally it is crickets aside from hot pockets in places like Brazil and Germany.

Foreigners who are getting their first exposure to gridiron football don't really know the difference of the leagues.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.