Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Noeller said:

The biggest issue is that this is clearly just the first step... They'll get people used to this and then move in to the spicier meatballs like the 4th down...

In its current form the cfl is only sustainable in Winnipeg and maybe Regina (lots of ppl dressed as green seats since Covid) and nowhere else. That appears to be the reality. I’m not sure how old you are, gonna assume late 30s early 40s… I’m in that range, we need to accept that the cfl can’t survive on us and dad really. You need the young ppl and that appears to be a problem league wide. Even here eventho it appears there are younger ppl there is lots of older ones like you and I are getting. Now do I think this attracts younger ppl? Hell to the no x 1000. Attracting ppl to games is market specific 

Edited by Goalie
Posted
38 minutes ago, Goalie said:

In its current form the cfl is only sustainable in Winnipeg and maybe Regina (lots of ppl dressed as green seats since Covid) and nowhere else. That appears to be the reality. I’m not sure how old you are, gonna assume late 30s early 40s… I’m in that range, we need to accept that the cfl can’t survive on us and dad really. You need the young ppl and that appears to be a problem league wide. Even here eventho it appears there are younger ppl there is lots of older ones like you and I are getting. Now do I think this attracts younger ppl? Hell to the no x 1000. Attracting ppl to games is market specific 

That's the big concern though, they're making these changes which will do nothing to attract new fans, while at the same time upsetting the existing ones.  The rules are not and have never been the issue with regard to attracting and retaining fans.  The effort that the marketing teams put in, the game day experience (see Winnipeg), and to an extent the results on the field (see Edmonton for the negative side) are what will bring people to the stadiums and drive revenue.  Even if these rule changes did drive up the scoring and 50 points became a regular thing, it would do nothing to attract new fans.  These changes are short sighted and lazy as far as I'm concerned.

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Sard said:

That's the big concern though, they're making these changes which will do nothing to attract new fans, while at the same time upsetting the existing ones.  The rules are not and have never been the issue with regard to attracting and retaining fans.  The effort that the marketing teams put in, the game day experience (see Winnipeg), and to an extent the results on the field (see Edmonton for the negative side) are what will bring people to the stadiums and drive revenue.  Even if these rule changes did drive up the scoring and 50 points became a regular thing, it would do nothing to attract new fans.  These changes are short sighted and lazy as far as I'm concerned.

This is a move to be able to play the game in the US where the money is. There's no money in Canada. The economy is in the crapper. People don't have a lot of spending money. A team in Halifax will bring in minimal new revenue.

I think a merger is in the works here. If the UFL doesn't fold, the CFL may want to be a part of that, If it folds then they can put new CFL teams in stadiums down there. I saw a picture of the new CFL field fitting perfectly in the domed stadium in St. Louis. Which means it'll fit in almost every UFL stadium except (maybe) the one in Dallas that plays in a baseball stadium. . 

Edited by SpeedFlex27
Posted
14 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 just want your math on 72 games

Posted
1 hour ago, brett_c_b said:

I just want your math on 72 games

My mistake, that should have been 81 games... 9 teams, 18 games each, divided by 2 because each game is played by 2 teams.  So 60 TDs over 81 games is only 0.74 TDs per game, so it's even worse than I thought.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...