So, looking ahead....what's our off season going to look like? Coaches and GM all still under contract, right? Players? Who's going to the NFL? Who do we think might bolt in FA? Pieces that we'd like to see the WBB pick up in FA? 

Edited January 10, 20224 yr by Noeller

6 hours ago, Bomber_fanaddict said:

So now we have a Priest and a Nunn?

Not gonna toot my own horn but I did say what's next after the Nunn signing was gonna be a priest or Jesus 

Farhan is at it again. Now it's the CFL fans' fault. 

 

1 minute ago, JCon said:

Farhan is at it again. Now it's the CFL fans' fault. 

 

I see the NFL didn't consider changing something as fundamental as the number of downs... all these media types need to get off their own dicks trying to make the cfl a shittier Northern nfl

I have not seen a single "traditional" CFL fan complain about the proposed changes to the hash marks? Anyone else?

The CFL has never tweaked their rules, right?

https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/rule-changes/

 

 

That is a garbage tweet from Farhan.

34 minutes ago, JCon said:

Farhan is at it again. Now it's the CFL fans' fault. 

 

I would say that moving 2nd base is equivalent to moving the hashmarks.

Going to 4 downs would be like going to 4 outs, or 4 strikes.  If those changes were being proposed for baseball, you can sure as hell expect fans to be up in arms about it.

3 minutes ago, Sard said:

I would say that moving 2nd base is equivalent to moving the hashmarks.

Going to 4 downs would be like going to 4 outs, or 4 strikes.  If those changes were being proposed for baseball, you can sure as hell expect fans to be up in arms about it.

heh.... I tweeted almost the identical take. It was a trash comparison by Farhan, who clearly wants NFL-North. Changing # of downs and Canadians is akin to changing # balls and strikes in MLB. It's a fundamental change that would be wholly unwelcome. Absurd. 

32 minutes ago, Rich said:

The CFL has never tweaked their rules, right?

https://cfldb.ca/rulebook/rule-changes/

 

 

Honestly, he has no fracking clue what he's talking about. 

 

Farhan goes onto explain himself a bit. 

I haven't seen much pushback against 100 yard fields but I didn't think that they were really considering that. Instinctively, I am against the change but it probably wouldn't hurt the league. 

I like the rouge, so I am not in favour of eliminating it. But, what is the impact on the game, if they did remove it? How much does the strategy change? 

Edited March 29, 20223 yr by JCon

11 minutes ago, JCon said:

 

Farhan goes onto explain himself a bit. 

I haven't seen much pushback against 100 yard fields but I didn't think that they were really considering that. Instinctively, I am against the change but it probably wouldn't hurt the league. 

I like the rouge, so I am not in favour of eliminating it. But, what is the impact on the game, if they did remove it? How much does the strategy change? 

But when he talks about changes, he doesn't give any reasons for why they should be considered.

8 minutes ago, Jesse said:

But when he talks about changes, he doesn't give any reasons for why they should be considered.

He did bring up the change to 100 yards earlier. It was the first time in recent memory that I had heard the proposal. He defended it that it would allow for more scoring. I guess it would? 

 

Edited March 29, 20223 yr by JCon

I'm fine with the harsh marks change.

I don't like a 100 yard field.

I like the rougue since it adds to the return game.

4 downs is a no way.

Farhan is terrible.

32 minutes ago, Jesse said:

But when he talks about changes, he doesn't give any reasons for why they should be considered.

This is a great point.

I think it's a reasonable requirement that any proposed changes come with rationale other than saying 'to improve the game'.

3 minutes ago, HardCoreBlue said:

This is a great point.

I think it's a reasonable requirement that any proposed changes come with rationale other than saying 'to improve the game'.

Yes… Or ‘don’t be afraid of change’.

Shortening the field is an example of a big change that *could* have benefits without changing the game too much. It would get push back, but fans would be open to it if the benefits were clear.

4 downs is something different entirely.

I don't like changing the dimensions of the field.  That's a big change. 

Look everyone wants the CFL to thrive,  but most of the pushback to proposed changes has little to do with the changes themselves and more the fact that there is the perception that the league is only trying to find an easy fix to get asses in the stands and eyes on TV. Which isn't going to happen. The game is already exciting, if people aren't watching it is for other reasons that the league needs to address first.

I'm not AS averse to 100yd field as I am to reducing the number of Canadian players, but I'd still prefer 110. There's something special about the fact that our field is so much bigger (length and width) than the NFL field that makes it seem "tougher" to me.... like our game is tougher to play. I dig that and don't want to change it. 

There are a number of rules that all work hand in hand with the 3 downs.  The field size, the clock in the CFL, the number of players.  All of these things work together to balance out the game.  If they are going to want to change any of those things, there better be a clear hypothesis as to why, then test it out in either exhibition or CIS before bringing it to the main game.

Change like this for the sake of change will alienate existing fans and not likely bring in the flood of new fans they want.

I don't have a fundamental problem with changing the length of the field from 110 to 100 yards. A change in the width of the field would play a more significant role changing the game, IMO. The width could impact each play, where as the length would only impact the game on a more macro level. Possibly allowing more scoring? This may reduce the number of plays before scoring. 

What can you even say about that guy at this point. IF he truly does not understand the push back against 3 downs, I'm certain he never will. He can point to other leagues changing rules and pretend like the CFL never does that all he wants. But he's just making himself look completely out of touch with the CFL and like a bit of a clown as well.

I think moving the hash marks in. Kickoffs from deeper in your own end. I think would be a good start for this year. 

14 hours ago, Goalie said:

Not gonna toot my own horn but I did say what's next after the Nunn signing was gonna be a priest or Jesus 

You did mention that lol. The only Jesus in the CFL is sprinkles Fajardo and I sure hope they aren’t signing him anytime soon! But what’s going down at IGF this year??? I thought we exorcised all of the demons. 

14 minutes ago, Jpan85 said:

I think moving the hash marks in. Kickoffs from deeper in your own end. I think would be a good start for this year. 

I don't quite understand the kickoff thing, like what's the point? Most drives gotta start around the 30 already no? 

I would also like to point out that the NFL made rule changes to make their game more like the CFL...

If we're going to change the field size it should be to 100 Meters. Uniquely Canadian. Still 110 yards. 

My personal rule change never gets brought up: Missed FG that goes through the endzone without being touched = zero points. Allows for missed FG's to be run back, but doesn't reward misses with a single point unless you can tackle the returner in the endzone.

IMO the CFL is going about this all wrong. The rules are great as is. Changing rules won't get more fans in the stands or more fans watching on TV & that's what the CFL needs.