https://www.cfl.ca/schedule/

 

Put all your Non-Back-to-Back Champion discussion in here. 

don't mind most of the changes, but the 15 yards for all no yards one is brutal. that's overkill 

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by Dr Zaius

9 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

In the deal with the City that fell through, the Flames wouldn't own the arena. The City would have. But they would have controlled concessions & revenue from the games & concerts. 

I thought the deal was 50/50 and fell through over a cost over run? You are suggesting that the Flames would have had no ownership stake in the building but were on the hook for 300 million? No wonder they walked if that was the scenario. If it was City building and owning and Flames getting all revenues then that is equally as bad of a deal.

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by GCn20

1 minute ago, GCn20 said:

I thought the deal was 50/50?

In exchange the Flames pay property tax. I THINK. For more details, you'll have to google it, sorry. 

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by SpeedFlex27

4 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

In exchange the Flames pay property tax. I THINK. 

I thought they both agreed to put up 250 million into an arena with cost overruns to be paid by Flames, and then the city kept adding on to the build and the deal fell through. No way in hades i would put up 250-300 million without the equivalent  ownership stake. It would be highly unusual for an ownership group to signficantly fund an arena or stadium without requiring ownership. 

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by GCn20

10 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

So how exactly would Tsuu Tina ever recover it's money? It wouldn't. No wonder the City of Calgary bailed....what a horrible deal.

They have just ruined the CFL game. Just putting the first overly exaggerated opinion out there. Seriously though, I like the hashmark rule and really the other rules are just changing them for the sake of changing them, they won't do much.

Starting at the 40 after a FG will change the game. It was fine the way it was. But of course other than the hash marks, they had to go overboard. to make it look like they actually did something. 

Just now, SpeedFlex27 said:

Starting at the 40 after a FG will change the game. It was fine the way it was. But of course other than the hash marks, they had to go overboard. to make it look like they actually did something. 

Agreed. Cosmetic changes at best.

 

.

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by Goldkobra
Double post

I think these are reasonable changes to the rules. Nothing that can't be undone if they don't work out. 

13 minutes ago, GCn20 said:

So how exactly would Tsuu Tina ever recover it's money? It wouldn't. No wonder the City of Calgary bailed....what a horrible deal.

They have just ruined the CFL game. Just putting the first overly exaggerated opinion out there. Seriously though, I like the hashmark rule and really the other rules are just changing them for the sake of changing them, they won't do much.

At first glance it would seem that all the “yardage” changes are meant to create more scoring by shortening the field. Also may discourage giving up a safety instead of punting, almost like giving the other team 2 points and then the ball at centre field. May encourage giving up a single rather than running out a missed FG given the starting point, but otherwise opens up the kick return game. Watch for frustrated fans on the bounce-back punts that nail you for 15 yards now. Still wish they would change the OT rule to start the team at the 45 and not the 35, don’t make a field goal an almost automatic minimum scoring play. 

2 minutes ago, JCon said:

I think these are reasonable changes to the rules. Nothing that can't be undone if they don't work out. 

This is a return to old rules on a No Yards penalty. It used to be 15 yards no matter what back in th day & fans howled & screamed for years how unfair it was. Especially in windy conditions, Now they go back to the way it was?? Cue the yelling, screaming & gnashing of teeth from a generation ago. Messing with No Yards is just ridiculous as it becomes blantly unfair to the kick cover team. This one rule alone will **** teams over like it did back then.  

1 minute ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

This is a return to old rules on a No Yards penalty. It used to be 15 yards no matter what back in th day & fans howled & screamed for years how unfair it was. Especially in windy conditions, Now they go back to the way it was?? Cue the yelling, screaming & gnashing of teeth from a generation ago. Messing with No Yards is just ridiculous as it becomes blantly unfair to the kick cover team. This one rule alone will **** teams over like it did back then.  

Rules don't screw teams over unless they aren't paying attention. This will be no different.

I like all the changes. I'm not gonna hold my breath for it, but I'm hoping someone takes advantage of the 2 qbs on the field at 1 time rule.

6 minutes ago, TrueBlue4ever said:

At first glance it would seem that all the “yardage” changes are meant to create more scoring by shortening the field. Also may discourage giving up a safety instead of punting, almost like giving the other team 2 points and then the ball at centre field. May encourage giving up a single rather than running out a missed FG given the starting point, but otherwise opens up the kick return game. Watch for frustrated fans on the bounce-back punts that nail you for 15 yards now. Still wish they would change the OT rule to start the team at the 45 and not the 35, don’t make a field goal an almost automatic minimum scoring play. 

Oh God, don't change the OT rules. It works. Let's just play two handed touch. 

9 minutes ago, JCon said:

I think these are reasonable changes to the rules. Nothing that can't be undone if they don't work out. 

Agreed. Should be some good improvements. Wish they'd adjust the play clock and increase roster sizes. 

13 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Rules don't screw teams over unless they aren't paying attention. This will be no different.

I like all the changes. I'm not gonna hold my breath for it, but I'm hoping someone takes advantage of the 2 qbs on the field at 1 time rule.

We'll see what you say when a football kicked into the wind goes 30 yards & lwe ose15 yards like it used to be. Or No yards on a bounce back. No exceptions, No ifs, ands or buts. 

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by SpeedFlex27

1 minute ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

We'll see what you say when a football kicked into the wind goes 30 yards, the Bombers are called for No yards & lose 15 like it used to be. Or No yards on a bounce back. No exceptions, No ifs, ands or buts. 

Yeah that's the way she goes. I'll say this when a bomber gets a penalty...he either needs to pay more attention and/or be coached up.

10 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

Rules don't screw teams over unless they aren't paying attention. This will be no different.

I like all the changes. I'm not gonna hold my breath for it, but I'm hoping someone takes advantage of the 2 qbs on the field at 1 time rule.

Strevelers asking price just went up 

Introduce the 2 forward passes allowed in one play rule!

I don't love starting at the 40, and I think the no yards will have it's draw backs too. It's just attempts to artificially create offence and I think that's stupid.

The rest seem like reasonable attempts to shorten the game and make it faster/more exciting.

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by Jesse
grammar

1 minute ago, Jesse said:

I don't love starting at the 40, and I think the no yards will have it's draw backs too. It's just attempts to artificially create offence and I think that's stupid.

The seem like resonable attempts to shorten the game and make it faster/more exciting.

Agreed. Kinda like giving a bike racer training wheels. 

i'm calling it now: the 15  yard no yards penalty is going to end terribly 

the punishment doesn't fit the crime on that one 

essentially what they're saying is that a borderline, bouncing no yards is equivalent to a roughing the passer or unnecessary roughness.

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by Dr Zaius

2 minutes ago, Dr Zaius said:

i'm calling it now: the 15  yard no yards penalty is going to end terribly 

the punishment doesn't fit the crime on that one 

essentially what they're saying with that one is that a bouncing no yards is equivalent to a roughing the passer or unnecessary roughness for a play that happens 10+ a game

Teams will be very motivated to give that halo to returners.

Also, tackling a guy who has his head down, picking up a ball is absolutely the equivalent to roughing the passer. 

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by Jesse
additional point

1 minute ago, Jesse said:

Teams will be very motivated to give that halo to returners.

It's the wind that'll play a factor. Not motivation. No matter how hard the cover team may try they'll get caught at some point & if we're the kick over team it will suck. Especially if it costs us a game. This will be the equivalent of how the PI  & Incidental Contact rules were changed a few years ago & almoist every long ball was flagged. It affected the outcome of games. The rule changes were stupid & had to be tightened up.  Now this. Ugh. 

I like the Cody Fajardo rule they brought in. He's been faking committing then running some more for years and it was a pretty blatant abuse of the rule. I am sure Rider fans will object to that rule change though, they thought it was brilliant every time he did it.

53 minutes ago, Jesse said:

Teams will be very motivated to give that halo to returners.

Also, tackling a guy who has his head down, picking up a ball is absolutely the equivalent to roughing the passer. 

I don't mind that rule change. There was not much incentive to keep the no yards after the ball hit the turf.

Edited April 27, 20223 yr by GCn20