Blue Bombers - 2025 Regular Season - Discussion Thread

[wpgallday1960]

Regardless of whether the changes become successful or not, NOT consulting the players and coaches is comically bad.

[wbbfan]

4 minutes ago, wpgallday1960 said:

Regardless of whether the changes become successful or not, NOT consulting the players and coaches is comically bad.

Yep, and Usports. They should've tried to get a bunch of the Usports teams trialing this change before us if any thing. 

[Stickem]

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

 

I'm not sure Wade is really on board with all the changes. I think the league is quickly becoming unviable financially for half the teams if not more. I bet the BOG was brow beaten in this, some thing like, its either this or in 2 years it's a 4 team league with no tv deal. 

I think you're pretty close to the truth..Pinball looks like he's on board, and you can see why with all of the push in TO to cozy up to the nfl.... Change/changes are not easy for old fossils of the league like myself...Seeing those goal posts at the back of the endzone will look foreign for sure....Don't like the fact returns off of missed 3 pointers will be diminished and that takes away from the game ..The fact it's safer for the players is a positive and that's about it ....Will be awhile to see all of the changes put into a game, so I along with alot of others, will be a wait and see ....

[SpeedFlex27]

23 minutes ago, wpgallday1960 said:

Regardless of whether the changes become successful or not, NOT consulting the players and coaches is comically bad.

Just askin' but if your boss at work decides to implement changes in the workplace does he talk to you or your co worker to ask permission? Nope, it just gets done. The CFL isn't a democracy.

[Wanna-B-Fanboy]

4 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Just askin' but if your boss at work decides to implement changes in the workplace does he talk to you or your co worker to ask permission? Nope, it just gets done. The CFL isn't a democracy.

A good employer would 100% consult with their employees, managers and stake holders before large changes to the identity, branding and product of said company. 

 

edit: 

 

Doesn't mean that the employer needs to heed all or any of the suggestions- it's just good business sense to consult those mentioned above. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Wanna-B-Fanboy

[SpeedFlex27]

21 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Yep, and Usports. They should've tried to get a bunch of the Usports teams trialing this change before us if any thing. 

U sport is going to have to adapt. Whp pays for the maintenance of the stadiums U Sport teams play in at McGill, manitoba, Regina, Calgary?? CFL teams do out of reven ue charged thru rent. All these teams mentioned in U Sport play for free in their stadiums because of the CFL. So, unless they want to build their own stadiums which maybe they should, U Sport teams will have to buck up. 

[SpeedFlex27]

9 minutes ago, Wanna-B-Fanboy said:

A good employer would 100% consult with their employees, managers and stake holders before large changes to the identity, branding and product of said company. 

Yeah, yeah, good employers. Sure. Lol. If you're an employee in private industry then you're replaceable anytime. You have no say unless you're unionized. I was in past situations when company reorganizations took place especially as an adjuster. Management just changed things with no consultation as to the handling of claims. Everything from company policy to new technology. We had no say. And I'd say most employees would have still said that working at that company was a good experience even with changes we/ they didn't like. 

Edited 4 hours ago by SpeedFlex27

[wpgallday1960]

10 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Just askin' but if your boss at work decides to implement changes in the workplace does he talk to you or your co worker to ask permission? Nope, it just gets done. The CFL isn't a democracy.

As wbbfan noted, a good employer would consult stakeholders before major changes are made.

[SpeedFlex27]

2 minutes ago, wpgallday1960 said:

As wbbfan noted, a good employer would consult stakeholders before major changes are made.

How many "good employers" are out there? Anyway, semantics. they didn't consult the players & that's not going to change. 

Edited 4 hours ago by SpeedFlex27

[Tracker]

In a nutshell:

 

                                                            

[wbbfan]

39 minutes ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

U sport is going to have to adapt. Whp pays for the maintenance of the stadiums U Sport teams play in at McGill, manitoba, Regina, Calgary?? CFL teams do out of reven ue charged thru rent. All these teams mentioned in U Sport play for free in their stadiums because of the CFL. So, unless they want to build their own stadiums which maybe they should, U Sport teams will have to buck up. 

Who owns the stadium in Mcgill though? They aren't exactly hurting for money either. Toronto is already far below pro standards in their cis accomoditations, you think they are gonna bend over backwards to support the arogs? The OSU teams aren't gonna care about the west either. 

20 minutes ago, Tracker said:

In a nutshell:

 

                                                            

This is some pretty terrible cherry picking and dare I say, goal post moving? 

[SpeedFlex27]

35 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Who owns the stadium in Mcgill though? They aren't exactly hurting for money either. Toronto is already far below pro standards in their cis accomoditations, you think they are gonna bend over backwards to support the arogs? The OSU teams aren't gonna care about the west either. 

 

U Sport will have to go along. The field changes won't be stopping for a collegiate league that contributes nothing monetarily to the upkeep of CFL stadiums they play in. They really have no say.

As far as McGill goes, it was the Wettenhalls who owned the Als that refurbed the stadium they play in. I don't recall the university contributing a penny 20 years ago. Remember in 1996, there was a tree growing up thru the stands at McGill before the Als came back, the university did nothing to remove it. McGill allowed the stadium to fall into a sad state of disrepair.

As far as the Argos go, I'm not quite sure of your point as the Argos don't play in a collegiate stadium. It's really a non factor as BMO is their home field. 

U Sports is going to have to figure it out. They will. My feelings always has been that all U Sport teams should have their own stadiums. As some don't & let someone else pay the bills they should be paying for stadium maintenamce then they have no say. 

Edited 3 hours ago by SpeedFlex27

[Brandon]

6 hours ago, rebusrankin said:

Marketing to newcomers to Canada is an important step. The Raptors when they started did this, as well as trying to get more woman going to the games and they've built a great fanbase.

Good luck on that.    Basketball is a global sport that is known worldwide and the barrier to entry is one ball for a group of people and a court which most schools/parks already have.  NBA is also well ingrained in younger people culture. 

I can't imagine how impossible of a challenge it would be to do so for the CFL.    

[SpeedFlex27]

6 minutes ago, Brandon said:

Good luck on that.    Basketball is a global sport that is known worldwide and the barrier to entry is one ball for a group of people and a court which most schools/parks already have.  NBA is also well ingrained in younger people culture. 

I can't imagine how impossible of a challenge it would be to do so for the CFL.    

Well as of today, the CFL doesn't even try, so there's that. It's just too hard for the CFL to get off its corporate ass & at least try. 

[WinnipegGordo]

 

 

[Sard]

One of the things they are using to try and sell the goalpost move is that their analytics says there will be 60 more TDs per year... that's less than 1 per game (72 games per year), but did they measure how many less field goals there will be because you need to get up inside the 30 yard line before you try for one?  If there are 2 less field goals per game, the change is awash, but I believe that the change of kicks happening from the 45 yard line (and sometimes further) to the 30 yard line will reduce the number of field goals by far more, so now you've reduced scoring overall and made the game less exciting.

Sure TDs are more exciting than field goals, but multiple lead changes because of more opportunities to scored is also more exciting.  Overall 0.83 more TD per game is not going to be more exciting than the lead changing 10 times (like the Edmonton & Hamilton game last week).

[Tracker]

1 hour ago, wbbfan said:

Who owns the stadium in Mcgill though? They aren't exactly hurting for money either. Toronto is already far below pro standards in their cis accomoditations, you think they are gonna bend over backwards to support the arogs? The OSU teams aren't gonna care about the west either. 

This is some pretty terrible cherry picking and dare I say, goal post moving? 

Don't shoot the messenger! It was all tongue in cheek.

[17to85]

22 minutes ago, Sard said:

One of the things they are using to try and sell the goalpost move is that their analytics says there will be 60 more TDs per year... that's less than 1 per game (72 games per year), but did they measure how many less field goals there will be because you need to get up inside the 30 yard line before you try for one?  If there are 2 less field goals per game, the change is awash, but I believe that the change of kicks happening from the 45 yard line (and sometimes further) to the 30 yard line will reduce the number of field goals by far more, so now you've reduced scoring overall and made the game less exciting.

Sure TDs are more exciting than field goals, but multiple lead changes because of more opportunities to scored is also more exciting.  Overall 0.83 more TD per game is not going to be more exciting than the lead changing 10 times (like the Edmonton & Hamilton game last week).

Also, with more punts deep to pin an opponent you probably get less scoring as well since it becomes a game of kicking unreturnable balls back and forth to each other. 

It's just pants on head ******** logic.

[Tracker]

2 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

Just askin' but if your boss at work decides to implement changes in the workplace does he talk to you or your co worker to ask permission? Nope, it just gets done. The CFL isn't a democracy.

Sometimes, it looks like an idiocrasy.

[Bomberguy]

 

From the failed NFL experimental exhibition game here a few years ago 🤣

Imagine a Bomber Logo, a bit wider field, and a bit deeper end zone. Sure that looks like the CFL to me 😳😢

Who’s changing the lines and moving the goalposts for Bison games BTW?

[brett_c_b]

On 2025-09-22 at 12:29 PM, Mike said:

I don’t think it’s the changing of the rules. I’m sure it’s not lost on any one of these executives that they are gaining 25 yards of space at field level - how do they use that? Field level patios? Influencer bullshit?

I will say I watched a game in Hamilton from behind the end zone in their patio setup and it was decent

[wbbfan]

2 hours ago, WinnipegGordo said:

 

 

zachs right that they didn’t change any of the most important parts. but they did just about every thing under that. They have no place to go now but into the critical territory. 

2 hours ago, Sard said:

One of the things they are using to try and sell the goalpost move is that their analytics says there will be 60 more TDs per year... that's less than 1 per game (72 games per year), but did they measure how many less field goals there will be because you need to get up inside the 30 yard line before you try for one?  If there are 2 less field goals per game, the change is awash, but I believe that the change of kicks happening from the 45 yard line (and sometimes further) to the 30 yard line will reduce the number of field goals by far more, so now you've reduced scoring overall and made the game less exciting.

Sure TDs are more exciting than field goals, but multiple lead changes because of more opportunities to scored is also more exciting.  Overall 0.83 more TD per game is not going to be more exciting than the lead changing 10 times (like the Edmonton & Hamilton game last week).

I bet they had their new stats place do it. which means the info would be worthless lol. 

Agree, we see far more punts and far less fgs. I don’t think we will see any significant bump in tds. 

If they really wanted to boost scoring, which we don’t need to, they could formalize new blocking rules. it’s all over the place in terms of enforcement, but far far from the rules currently. 

[Goalie]

I’d imagine there’s a direct correlation between teams with healthy starting QBs vs teams without in terms of points scored so want more points? Protect the starting QBs. The fact Zach took a non called head shot that has kept him out for 3 weeks and O’Shea had to challenge the call is the problem. 

3 hours ago, wpgallday1960 said:

As wbbfan noted, a good employer would consult stakeholders before major changes are made.

The cfl tho is a private league with private owners from community to billionaires. They did consult them. What happens if you consult the players is you get the extremes. Like Rourke yesterday and Arbuckle today saying the exact opposite.  The players aren’t gonna be paying for field modifications. Pretty sure Zach ain’t gonna be installing hot tubs on patio levels in the end zones. PS. Wade, install hot tubs on the field level end zone sides now. My friends and I went to a mlb game and they had that and it was pretty cool. Baseball more boring than football tho. Less action. Winnipeg and Sask are making money. The rest aren’t. The players are but the ppl paying them aren’t. No need to consult. I think ppl need to realize us here in Winnipeg, we good we happy but Toronto Montreal bc Alberta more important in terms of demographics. It’s basically like Winnipeg and Regina will always show up but Toronto doesn’t. This is more to appeal to Toronto eventho I personally don’t think it adds any excitement and actually eliminates fg returns almost. 

Edited 22 minutes ago by Goalie