https://www.tsn.ca/naylor-many-questions-but-few-answers-on-a-2021-cfl-season-1.1543725

The Canadian Football League has been outrageously quiet since it pulled the plug on its season more than two months ago, leaving behind a wake of speculation about where things are headed next.

With the reality setting in that COVID-19 is likely to still be around in some form next summer, there is real concern about what the 2021 season might look like or if it will occur at all.

There are teams that believe it is vitally important to play in 2021 and that without a season the CFL is in danger of being mothballed. Whether every team believes that is another question. And there is a lot to sort out before anyone can accurately predict what a season might look like and how much pain the teams are collectively willing to stomach to make it happen.

The league and its franchises are currently running through various scenarios for next season, trying to get a handle on true costs of each and working at ways to trim budgets and save money. That’s likely to continue until the league can truly choose a course of action, which feels like next April at the earliest.

Why? Well, there’s not much point in fully committing to a scenario that’s seven months away if that scenario might be totally unrealistic by the time you get there.

There has been no 2021 business plan presented yet, only regular updates to the presidents and governors about what the league is doing to prepare for the unknown.

It should be noted that teams will need to make decisions about retaining assistant coaches with expiring contracts by December, which will be the first real economic commitments to a 2021 season. Restrictions on signing players will need to be lifted well before the opening of February free agency, where players are likely to meet a cautious market – one in which signing bonuses will probably be absent.

There’s a collective bargaining agreement to amend, if not renegotiate, with the players, which will require some kind of pressure point because it always does. But the league can’t sit down with the players until it gets a true handle on revenues and it can’t do that until it chooses a course of action.

Will CFL teams be allowed to have full stadiums next summer? It doesn't seem likely. But just what percentage of capacity will be allowed – if any at all – is impossible to guess. It seems as if the league is counting on the restrictions that currently prevent fans from being in stadiums being lifted. But to what degree?

When will we see a schedule? Good question. Or could we see multiple schedules for different scenarios? Never say never.

Could it be a 21-week, 18-game season played in home stadiums? Unlikely, given the losses teams are expected to take with reduced numbers of fans in the stands. Could we see a return to the 10-week bubble? Maybe. A nine-game schedule played in home stadiums before fans? Perhaps.

The point is no one knows, so demanding answers to questions that can’t possibly be answered right now is a waste of time.

All we know is that there’s going to be a lot less revenue for teams to operate with under any scenario, not just because of crowd restrictions but also due to older fans choosing to stay home for their safety. The CFL’s fan demographics do it no favours in this regard.

Getting consensus on a best course of action won’t be easy for the CFL’s nine teams. Back in the summer, there were teams that were willing to play without government support and teams that weren’t. And just like then, the biggest challenge commissioner Randy Ambrosie faces now is finding a scenario they can all live with.

Adopting a revenue-sharing model so that each team absorbs the same amount of red ink would certainly make consensus-building easier, which many believe should be the direction for the future, COVID-19 or not.

The other elephant in the room is federal government, which many in the CFL believe left it high and dry last summer after months of back-and-forth talks where the league believed it was making progress.

Is the CFL prepared to go down that road again, knowing it doesn’t control the timeline and larger forces can change things in an instant? Perhaps, although it’s not as though the feds don’t have a long list of people coming at them with their hands out.

There will be voices demanding the owners suck up the losses of playing a season under any circumstance, as owners have done in other sports. But the business calculation in sports such as MLB, NFL, NHL and NBA is different because of the percentage of revenues those leagues derive from television.

Losses sustained by playing in those leagues can also be viewed as investments towards protecting massive franchise values. That’s not the case in the CFL, where teams can’t just float money on the backs of their franchise values, and where one third of the teams are publicly owned.

It would be beneficial for the league to soon announce its formal commitment to play some kind of season in 2021.

But beyond that, get ready for months more of waiting with lots of questions and speculation but very few answers.

11 minutes ago, 17to85 said:

I take issue with the average except for a great playoff run assessment. I say good start, good finish and little hiccup in the middle. So what do you choose to go with? The few games they were ho-hum or the bulk of the season where they were one of the best teams? It is hard to compare western teams to Eastern teams because of the difference in quality between divisions.

Take issue with the facts if you want. I'm going with the facts, which is they were 4th overall in the regular season and great in the playoffs.

We were just 1 win ahead of Montreal. Every teams plays every other team twice plus 2 extra against their own division, so playing in the East simply means 2 games against weaker teams. It's not as big an advantage as Western fans make it out to be.

1 hour ago, 17to85 said:

I would argue that the Bombers had a slump during the season and were pretty damned good other than that. 

I can't imagine anyone not seeing this excactly. Slump in the middle after starting strong and losing our starting QB. 

 

Edit: of course I hadn't sent the nonsense post above. Smh. 

Edited December 19, 20205 yr by JCon

We were the best team in the league until Nichols went down. Struggled with Strev, got much better with Collaros, who is Nichols 2.0

23 minutes ago, Noeller said:

We were the best team in the league until Nichols went down. Struggled with Strev, got much better with Collaros, who is Nichols 2.0

Agreed. And, you don't have to believe anyone on here,just watch the last three games of the year. Overwhelming evidence. Some people just love to hate the Bombers. 

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

Take issue with the facts if you want. I'm going with the facts, which is they were 4th overall in the regular season and great in the playoffs.

We were just 1 win ahead of Montreal. Every teams plays every other team twice plus 2 extra against their own division, so playing in the East simply means 2 games against weaker teams. It's not as big an advantage as Western fans make it out to be.

They were 14 - 7 in 2019, and won the championship - those are also facts.

Those extra two games against Eastern opponents verus Western opponents is the chance to pick up a potential two extra wins.

If we don't make the trade for Collaros, we don't win the last game and go to 10 wins. (3rd string QB, whose thrown 3 passes in the CFL, starting his first game) We go one and done in the playoffs again because we're forced to start our 3rd string QB in his second start against Regina in Regina. Do you still say we were good start to finish with just a little hiccup in the middle? Of course not. You say we were average with a poor playoff run.

Montreal played Hamilton 3 times last year. Hamilton was the best team in the league during the regular season. The other extra game was Ottawa, which was easier than our extra game against either Sask or Calg. I give them 1 easier game than us, which I don't consider a huge advantage. BTW: We lost 4 games to eastern teams last year and 3 to the stronger West.

I'm not changing anyone's mind here, but I stick to my point that we were an average regular season team. Above average regular season teams have a home playoff game and good ones come in 1st in their division.

Edited December 19, 20205 yr by TBURGESS

Guess it's a bad thing to have a proactive gm making moves to shore up depth. 

That's why they were better than average. Because Kyle walters puts in the work to make sure we have depth.

@TBURGESS you lost me when you said ‘poor playoff run.’ 

Who cares what the Bomber record was in 2019? Who got the Cup? We got the Cup. Who got the Cup? We got the Cup!! 

IDGAF what our regular season record was. I only want to crap on the Roughriders and bring home the cup. 

2021 news: Bob Irving has confirmed he's coming back for one more year... Great news. There are few things in life I enjoy more than the CJOB pre game show with Bob, Ed and Doug... 

We could go 6-12, stumble backwards into the playoffs and if we won 3 games in a row in any fashion I would still say we were the GOATs.

And 11-7 with a Grey Cup is a heck of a lot better than 15-3 without one. How is this even a real conversation right now?

Edited December 20, 20205 yr by Dr Zaius

This is all in retrospect though. Just to be clear, I am very invested in the Bombers winning every game.

So Winnipeg wins more games, in a tougher division and then wins the Grey Cup and we're arguing that the Als who won less game, in a weaker division and who didn't win the cup are better?

19 minutes ago, rebusrankin said:

So Winnipeg wins more games, in a tougher division and then wins the Grey Cup and we're arguing that the Als who won less game, in a weaker division and who didn't win the cup are better?

So, no... that's not the argument. To restate. The Bombers had an average season followed by a great playoff to win the cup.

The tougher division argument means we had 1 harder game than Montreal last year.

 

15 hours ago, Mark H. said:

@TBURGESS you lost me when you said ‘poor playoff run.’ 

I said IF we hadn't made the trade for Collaros, we'd have lost the first playoff game,, we'd have 1 less regular season win and a poor playoff run. Losing 1 addtional game against Calgary doesn't change the regular season much, but losing the playoff game changes the way we'd think about last season immensly. Therefore it's the playoff wins that make people remember the regular season as being good to great, not the season itself.

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

So, no... that's not the argument. To restate. The Bombers had an average season followed by a great playoff to win the cup.

The tougher division argument means we had 1 harder game than Montreal last year.

 

I said IF we hadn't made the trade for Collaros, we'd have lost the first playoff game,, we'd have 1 less regular season win and a poor playoff run. Losing 1 addtional game against Calgary doesn't change the regular season much, but losing the playoff game changes the way we'd think about last season immensly. Therefore it's the playoff wins that make people remember the regular season as being good to great, not the season itself.

Interesting take on a successful year.

What would have considered the cut off for a great regular season?

Did the riders have a great regular season? Ti-cats, absolutely. 

On 2020-12-18 at 4:26 PM, Noeller said:

on top of the fact that WE'RE THE ******* CHAMPS (!!!!!!) they also played in the absolute JOKE that is the East Div. Their record means next to nothing...

 

On 2020-12-19 at 9:18 AM, Mark H. said:

We were 14 - 7, they were 10 - 9.

That's a huge difference, sir.

I think the bigger discrepancy is not just in 2019, where the Bombers obviously did better... but also just look at the last five seasons...

The Bombers posted a winning season every season from 2015-2019 except 2015, which I would argue they were still in the rebuilding phase. For the Als, 2019 was their first above 0.500 season since 2012 (though they did have a 9-9 season in 2014).

1 hour ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

Interesting take on a successful year.

What would have considered the cut off for a great regular season?

Did the riders have a great regular season? Ti-cats, absolutely. 

All of Hamilton, Regina, Calgary, Winnipeg and Montreal had successful regular seasons. Edmonton was semi-successful, but being sub-.500 and 6th overall is below average IMO.

Both the Riders and Ticats had great regular seasons. You can't do any better than coming in 1st.

Montreal had a great regular season too. They went from the free space on the bingo card at 5-13 to 2nd in the East at 10-8 with a rookie HC who got the job at the last minute and without a bonifide starting QB. We went from 3rd to 3rd and won one more game in 2019 than we did in 2018. Successful and average.

Calgary had a less successful season in 2019 than they did in 2018, but they still beat us and got a home game. I'd call it just above average.

Edited December 20, 20205 yr by TBURGESS

24 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

All of Hamilton, Regina, Calgary, Winnipeg and Montreal had successful regular seasons. Edmonton was semi-successful, but being sub-.500 and 6th overall is below average IMO.

Both the Riders and Ticats had great regular seasons. You can't do any better than coming in 1st.

Montreal had a great regular season too. They went from the free space on the bingo card at 5-13 to 2nd in the East at 10-8 with a rookie HC who got the job at the last minute and without a bonifide starting QB. We went from 3rd to 3rd and won one more game in 2019 than we did in 2018. Successful and average.

Calgary had a less successful season in 2019 than they did in 2018, but they still beat us and got a home game. I'd call it just above average.

I just don't get your take. You are almost saying that regular season wins are more important than playoff wins. After 29 years that is your summary of the 2019 season? That Montreal is no longer an easy win? With your logic, it means that even though the Ti Cats were slaughtered in the GC they had a more successful season than the Bombers because they won more games in a weaker division during the regular season. After 13 months you should be happy we won instead of looking for things to nitpick. The Ti Cats can't even say that the Bomber victory was a fluke because their offense was destroyed by the Bomber defense. & Andrew Harris took care of the rest.

47 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

 

Both the Riders and Ticats had great regular seasons. You can't do any better than coming in 1st.

 

I beg to differ.....winning the Cup is a helluva lot better than finishing in the top rung...The whole point to any season is the culmination of it ending in a Grey Cup win....Ask any first place team that finished without the Cup and they'd say ..'yeah it's nice to finish first ...but winning the Cup is the main aim...everything else is anticlimactic '....So there's that AND your statement is incorrect

1 hour ago, TBURGESS said:

You can't do any better than coming in 1st.

Unless you go 18-0 you can always do better. 

 

Your definitions seem arbitrary, and goes to show what we have all known for a long long time: you are more critical of the Bombers than you are any other team.

Collaros was a difference maker, the D was dominant, and Andrew Harris did what he does.

I think the performance that is too often overlooked is the D in the semi - final against Calgary.  BLM was completely confused and under pressure for long stretches of that game. 

It was after THAT GAME that I think most of us diehards knew - this was going to be our year. 

Posters here know my feelings about the 1972 Blue Bombers going 10-6 & being the regular season Western Conference Champs in the CFL during the regular season that year before losing to the 8-8 Saskatchewan Roughriders in the Western Final. We were heavy favourites to take care of the Riders in the Western Final that day having gone undefeated at home that season. Instead we lost 27-24 & 48 years later I still remember how disappointed & sad I was walking out of Winnipeg Stadium that day. How that loss had stuck with me all these years.

It didn't matter that we went 10-6, were the best team in the CFL, were the champs of the West  & heavy favourites to win the GC. We didn't do it. We didn't get the job done. We lost on a ******* gadget play & lousy officiating. The season turned into a failure on just one play. Ask any player who wore a Bomber uniform that day & any Bomber fan who was alive when that game was played. The season was a failure. Regular season pennants & trophies mean squat. The Grey Cup is EVERYTHING. I don't care what you say, TBurgess.

Edited December 20, 20205 yr by SpeedFlex27

4 hours ago, Mark H. said:

Collaros was a difference maker, the D was dominant, and Andrew Harris did what he does.

I think the performance that is too often overlooked is the D in the semi - final against Calgary.  BLM was completely confused and under pressure for long stretches of that game. 

It was after THAT GAME that I think most of us diehards knew - this was going to be our year. 

Wasn't just the D in that game either. The O in the 2nd half steam rolled the stamps D, something that had been a challenge for this team for a while.