With Rookie Camps getting underway Wednesday, it's time to talk about the 2026 CFL season!

19 hours ago, Stickem said:

The philosophy that Bud Grant had was to take the wind, if you have the opportunity, from the get go....He always said that the predictability of just what the wind was going to do during a game was 'changeable' at best...so take it initially and go from there....That worked out alright for him

Didn't work out for him very well in 1965. The Grey Cup that year was nicknamed, "The Wind Bowl" due to sustained winds of 70 kph gusting to almost 90. Pinned deep in their end 3 times against the wind, Grant elected to concede 3 safeties or 6 points. That was the margin of defeat in a 22-16 loss to the Ti Cats.

It should be noted that in that era, conceding a safety meant the conceding team would retain possession at the 35 yard line. For Grant, it was a way to get better field position rather than punt short into the wind & risk giving up a touchdown. Ed Ulmer really struggled as Bomber punter that day. I believe that at least one of his punts went backwards in that gale & was recovered by Hamilton BEHIND the LOS for a loss.

That rule was changed a number of years later. Today, after conceding two points the team doing so has to kick off.

10 hours ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Except for 1964

No, 1965... The Lions played the Ti Cats in 64. The Lions won their very first Grey Cup that season by a score of 34-24.

Edited September 22Sep 22 by SpeedFlex27

The Bombers only won one game in 64, hence why I highlighted that year. But your example was even better. No coach is infallible.

I think that everyone would agree that 'overall' Bud had a very successful career as head coach in Winnipeg...hence the statue of him for his career....If there was a glitch it was the year we only won one game...The other Cup winning years speak for themselves.....wind or no wind ...and I would bet, during those winning seasons, his call to take the wind when available was proven true

27 minutes ago, Stickem said:

I think that everyone would agree that 'overall' Bud had a very successful career as head coach in Winnipeg...hence the statue of him for his career....If there was a glitch it was the year we only won one game...The other Cup winning years speak for themselves.....wind or no wind ...and I would bet, during those winning seasons, his call to take the wind when available was proven true

Don't think the one bad year had much to do with the wind.

53 minutes ago, Stickem said:

I think that everyone would agree that 'overall' Bud had a very successful career as head coach in Winnipeg...hence the statue of him for his career....If there was a glitch it was the year we only won one game...The other Cup winning years speak for themselves.....wind or no wind ...and I would bet, during those winning seasons, his call to take the wind when available was proven true

Grant went 7-9 in 1963 & finished fourth in the West out of the playoffs. The bottom fell out of the team in 64 finishing 1-14-1 & dead last in the CFL. They retooled in 65 & went 11-5 & got to the Grey Cup & lost. Grant's last kick at the can for Grey Cups.

https://x.com/CFLLATENEWS/status/2102433130682716427?s=20

23 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

https://x.com/CFLLATENEWS/status/2102433130682716427?s=20

I think this is the profile that has come out with "Sources" about major news, that just never materialized. I'd take this with a grain of salt.

55 minutes ago, Bigblue204 said:

I think this is the profile that has come out with "Sources" about major news, that just never materialized. I'd take this with a grain of salt.

Citation for the source is "trust me bro"

Keeping the 55 would be good, but that's only part of the issue with the changes. Putting the uprights at the back of the end zone is as big a problem, if not worse. Doesn't make sense with the grassroots field issue to change one and not the other either.

If you stick with the 15-yard end zone change and move the uprights to the back of the end zone, even if you keep the 55-yard line, you are still 50 yards out from the 35 before the holder puts down the ball. That means the red zone is really your fg range.

You could drive from deep in your zone to the 35-40, hit 3rd and long, and be out of range for a field goal. Do you punt from within the 45? The 40? Even if punters start hanging perfect NFL-style kicks, all the rule changes succeed in is killing the return game.

The BOG really needs to rethink this one.

9 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

Citation for the source is "trust me bro"

Keeping the 55 would be good, but that's only part of the issue with the changes. Putting the uprights at the back of the end zone is as big a problem, if not worse. Doesn't make sense with the grassroots field issue to change one and not the other either.

If you stick with the 15-yard end zone change and move the uprights to the back of the end zone, even if you keep the 55-yard line, you are still 50 yards out from the 35 before the holder puts down the ball. That means the red zone is really your fg range.

You could drive from deep in your zone to the 35-40, hit 3rd and long, and be out of range for a field goal. Do you punt from within the 45? The 40? Even if punters start hanging perfect NFL-style kicks, all the rule changes succeed in is killing the return game.

The BOG really needs to rethink this one.

It would make more sense if they wanted to make some change just for the sake of change is eliminate the 55 and just keep the rest the same...gives them the shorter field they desire for whatever reason...and in all honesty it has no impact on scoring anyway

And all amateur football would just keep the 55...All you would need to do for the professional stadiums is move the goal posts 5 yards in...and would allow a lil more space at end of endzones for safety outside the field of play where its tight in some stadiums now...and every endzone would be a true 20 yards

Sure the fields would need to be re-lined but thats a small price to pay and inconvenience other than any stadium that have them stitched in...Not sure how many or if any do in the CFL...I think the Regina dump does and that was just dumb in first place in my opinion..

Edited September 22Sep 22 by Booch

4 minutes ago, Booch said:

It would make more sense if they wanted to make some change just for the sake of change is eliminate the 55 and just keep the rest the same...gives them the shorter field they desire for whatever reason...and in all honesty it has no impact on scoring anyway

And all amateur football would just keep the 55...All you would need to do for the professional stadiums is move the goal posts 5 yards in...and would allow a lil more space at end of endzones for safety outside the field of play where its tight in some stadiums now...and every endzone would be a true 20 yards

Sure the fields would need to be re-lined but thats a small price to pay and inconvenience other than any stadium that have them stitched in...Not sure how many or if any do in the CFL...I think the Regina dump does and that was just dumb in first place in my opinion..

True. You would see more TD drives from that than from moving the upright out of the front of the endzone any way.

Any way it's cut, moving the uprights to the back of the end zone means you either kill the return and FG game, or you need some quirky rule to make it work. Like, if you get to the opponent's 40-yard line, you can try a FG of 40 yards, and 20 for 20. You then couldn't allow fake FGs, though. Or you have all kickoffs done from the goal line. Meaning the other team is driving from within your side of the field more frequently. But even then, it would make low-scoring games so much worse and strange.

The upright move really is the strange and worst of the changes.

There's no justification to make any of these changes. There's no data that proves anything and they are just as likely to have the opposite effect as what they are touting.

55 differentiates the product, being a traditional part of the game and not some made up bullshit.

Uprights at the back of the endzone just makes it harder to score. There's no way a coach who wouldn't go for it on 3rd and 6 today is going to go for it on 3rd and 6 because the uprights are at the back of the endzone. They'll just punt instead of kicking for 3. How exciting...more coffin corner punts and teams starting drives inside their own 5.

NFL average team points per game right now are 23. CFL is 29 in a season with a lot of backup QB's playing. NCAA any game I watch that is actually competitive is usually like 17-14 or 24-21.

There's no reason to make these changes if higher scoring is what you care about.

The 20 yard endzone makes defense incredibly hard to play because the O can basically run anything all the way down the field. Watch NFL/NCAA games when teams get inside the 10. Hardly any field for the D to cover. No reason to make any move in that direction if you want to see scoring.

Edited September 23Sep 23 by JuranBoldenRules

To me, the rule changes were made to make it easier for a CFL field to fit into soccer stadiums where 2 teams can share the facility. It's easier to fit a CFL field into these stadiums. I'm thinking Halifax & QC.

Did Ottawa disturb some ancient burial grounds and unleash a curse or something?

All those guys on the 6-game and they listed 18 players on the injury list yesterday

51 minutes ago, ShyGuy said:

Did Ottawa disturb some ancient burial grounds and unleash a curse or something?

All those guys on the 6-game and they listed 18 players on the injury list yesterday

No curse, just life as a Redblack under Ryan Dinwiddie.

2 minutes ago, bigg jay said:

No curse, just life as a Redblack under Ryan Dinwiddie.

They're going to six-game themselves into a contender....Dimwoodie's way

Dinwiddie would look at this thread and say

6 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:

To me, the rule changes were made to make it easier for a CFL field to fit into soccer stadiums where 2 teams can share the facility. It's easier to fit a CFL field into these stadiums. I'm thinking Halifax & QC.

I dont think they would get the teams in cis stadiums on board with that reasoning though.

17 hours ago, wbbfan said:

True. You would see more TD drives from that than from moving the upright out of the front of the endzone any way.

Any way it's cut, moving the uprights to the back of the end zone means you either kill the return and FG game, or you need some quirky rule to make it work. Like, if you get to the opponent's 40-yard line, you can try a FG of 40 yards, and 20 for 20. You then couldn't allow fake FGs, though. Or you have all kickoffs done from the goal line. Meaning the other team is driving from within your side of the field more frequently. But even then, it would make low-scoring games so much worse and strange.

The upright move really is the strange and worst of the changes.

These changes smell like change for the sake of change and I believe will lead to a worse outcome.

44 minutes ago, Tracker said:

These changes smell like change for the sake of change and I believe will lead to a worse outcome.

agree 100%

17 hours ago, JuranBoldenRules said:

There's no justification to make any of these changes. There's no data that proves anything and they are just as likely to have the opposite effect as what they are touting.

55 differentiates the product, being a traditional part of the game and not some made up bullshit.

Uprights at the back of the endzone just makes it harder to score. There's no way a coach who wouldn't go for it on 3rd and 6 today is going to go for it on 3rd and 6 because the uprights are at the back of the endzone. They'll just punt instead of kicking for 3. How exciting...more coffin corner punts and teams starting drives inside their own 5.

NFL average team points per game right now are 23. CFL is 29 in a season with a lot of backup QB's playing. NCAA any game I watch that is actually competitive is usually like 17-14 or 24-21.

There's no reason to make these changes if higher scoring is what you care about.

The 20 yard endzone makes defense incredibly hard to play because the O can basically run anything all the way down the field. Watch NFL/NCAA games when teams get inside the 10. Hardly any field for the D to cover. No reason to make any move in that direction if you want to see scoring.

Was it you brought up a theory about it being driven by gambling sites who dislike the big swings? Because that to me seems the most likely reason

2 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Was it you brought up a theory about it being driven by gambling sites who dislike the big swings? Because that to me seems the most likely reason

that was me.

https://3downnation.com/2026/09/23/cfl-board-of-governors-unanimously-approves-quebec-city-expansion-report/

Okay potential team names.....AND GO!

I'm thinking Voyageurs (it should be something french sounding like the Canadiens or the Nordiques or the Alouettes)

This seems a long way from happening, if there's not even a stadium yet...

1 hour ago, Noeller said:

This seems a long way from happening, if there's not even a stadium yet...

To be fair, Calgary is playing without a stadium 😉