It is my opinion that it’s all possible. Since you won’t disprove any of it it must be a fact lol.
Changing the field size will make the move more possible.
Changing the rules is meaningless, aside from optics for 4dn fans. Meaningless otherwise. It may translate into better TV deals down south. I would suggest that the more we make it look like 4dn football the less appeal it will have to viewers south of the border searching for a different look.
2 Likes
Basically you’re saying that the owners are 4 down fans which probably has some truth to it. I would go further and say that they are fans of making money. If these changes don’t work out then they’ll make even more changes.
4 Likes
Suggest that most talk show hosts and sports casters are 4dn fans. Also think that Stew did his research in an echo chamber. Nothing else could explain his surprise at the backlash.
4 Likes
It’s acting. This has been in the works long before Stewart. He just finished it. Probably why Ambrosie isn’t there anymore.
2 Likes
Disagree… CFL lies to people… that’s another explanation 
They claimed the vote was 8-1 against and the truth later came out that it was 5-4 in favour.
2 Likes
What year was this?
Looks like somewhere around 1970 +/- a year.
2 Likes
Okay, George Costanza, believe your own lies too then.
According to Taylor and Francis Online, the attempt by Robert E Schmertz occurred in 1972.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09523367.2017.1336160
29. Notions of CFL expansion into the United States dates back to 1972 when New York real estate developer Robert Schmertz petitioned the CFL for an expansion franchise to play out of Yankee Stadium. Schmertz owned the New England Whalers of the renegade World Hockey Association (WHA) and co-owned the Boston Celtics of the National Basketball Association (NBA). Previous to that investment, however, he was a founding co-owner of the expansion Portland Traiblazers in the NBA in 1970. Schmertz threatened the CFL that if they did not grant him an expansion franchise that he would simply create his own league and put them out of business.
2 Likes
Wow, so in the end, a majority of CFL owners approved of this attempt, but that majority was two votes short of the required 7.
Alas, an attempt was made.
Thank you all for sharing the details about this hidden and forgotten history.
2 Likes
The CFL did lay out an excellent article here with regards to the changes, which is complete with graphics and screen shots.
The days of kickers like Lirim H. jumping around in uncontrolled, childlike glee, yet also probably soiling himself, after a missed field goal attempt sails on high out of bounds to score to win the game, are OVER too.
2 Likes
That FAQ sheet, as should be expected, is a pretty robust overview of the rule changes and why the CFL brass implemented them.
Upon reading it, there are a couple of additional perspectives that I don’t think have been mentioned, primarily the viewing obstruction on big plays.
There is also a discussion of increasing “premium” seating at the end zones, but I don’t think that’s premium seating to begin with. You can’t see most of the game from there. Will be great for the party crowd though.
4 Likes
It’s premium because you’re at field level close to the action and it’s a suite. NFL teams are increasingly implementing these because they’re selling them for around $20k USD/game. Obviously CFL teams won’t get close to that but if they can bring in like $4-5K CAD/game and sell 10-12 of them/game that’s almost an extra $500K per team.
4 Likes
They could have just said the point had to be playable. Likely would have forced teams to drop two returners deep. We may have even seen the odd play from the old days where a team would punt the ball back out. Instead we are removing plays from the game. Boring crap from visionless leaders.
They could have made that small change to the rules while still droping the goal posts back.
2 Likes
They didn’t mention it because it never blocks all the cameras or the one camera with a view angle. Once in a while it might block the best view but that’s the extent of it.
2 Likes
the video
3 Likes
The only changes I agree with are the play clock, rouge and benches.
4 Likes
Don’t believe that the league could do a better job of making the refs manage the clock by getting plays started on time? Just hand out delay of game bench penalties untill the teams get the message. That will be easier to do once the benches are on both sides mind you. This is another one step forward and one step back change. The rouge is the step back.
The excuse they used for needing to require benches on both sides is what actually bugs me the most. If they just went with “easier to manage the clock” i’d buy that. The atlercations babble is just useless babble.
2 Likes
It definitely is an obstruction of view inside a stadium though. In the heat of the moment of a big play you don’t think about it, but relying less on the replay is a bonus.
2 Likes