Yesterday I started a series of columns on the CFL changes announced Monday. I object to almost all of them.
My first column set out my objection to the process that was secretly conducted by the CFL.
Today I want to address field issues.
Businesses strive to be distinctive to get attention for their brand. I say the 115 yard field and 20 yard end zones made the CFL and Canadian amateur football unique.
Lion quarterback Nathan Rourke got it right when he said: "The CFL game has existed for longer than the NFL and there’s a reason for that. It’s unique, the fans love it, I grew up loving this game and they’re changing that – they’re getting rid of a lot of things."
The CFL used to honour its distinct character by advertising that the Canadian game was “longer, wider and faster”. It was clever, emphasizing what made the CFL special. The proposed new CFL will no longer be longer.
It is poor business to compromise your brand.
The field is being homogenized to resemble the NFL field. Only the end zones would be different with the CFL end zones being five yards deeper at 15 yards.
When fans look out at the proposed re-designed field it will not look right. It will look like an American field.
At the core of a sport is the field, floor or ice on which it is played. The existing dimensions of the CFL field are well suited to the style of play and rules of the CFL.
In its efforts to increase scoring, major league baseball did not shorten the distances between bases.
The announced reason for shortening the field to 100 yards was to allow “offences to start closer to the opposition’s end zone”. The concept appears to have originated with the secret working group.
As with the decision to move the goalposts which brought about the change in the end zones the purpose appears to be to try to increase scoring.
It was stated that shortening the end zones was needed to keep the kicking game “relevant”.
I doubt either change on field dimensions will increase scoring. There is abundant scoring in the CFL when starting quarterbacks are on the field. Scoring goes down dramatically when second and third string quarterbacks are playing.
You will not make offences guided by non-starting quarterbacks more productive by shortening the field. They will continue to struggle to move the ball. It may mean more field goals which is hardly a worthy goal for the game.
Shortening the end zone conflicts with the rationale for moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone. The secret working group believes there will be “10 per cent more end zone completions” and “60 more touchdowns per season”. They have their analytical analysis but there could be none on field analysis.
While the CFL touts the CFL end zone will still be the largest in professional football the reduced size will affect plays. NFL teams are sharply reduced in the number of plays they can use close to the goal line as the 10 yard end zone prevents any longer pass routes. The existing 20 yard end zone has allowed much greater variety in the CFL game. Reducing the end zone by five yards will limit CFL teams offsetting the asserted increase in completions and touchdowns.
With regard to the kicking game the changed field will have multiple consequences.
Kickoffs from the 30 yard on the current field often reach the five yard line. On a shortened field they will be routinely going into the end zone and, when coupled with the proposed changes to the rouge, I expect returning teams will, as used to happen in the NFL, just let the ball bounce through the end zone.
Moving back kickoffs will potentially have kickoffs from the 20 yard line. The more likely alternative is going to the NFL’s dynamic kickoff with forced alignments of players.
There was drama in seeing field goals kicked from the vicinity of mid-field. That drama will disappear. A 50 yard field goal will be kicked from the 35 yard line.
More importantly the goalposts at the back of the end zone will absolutely make field goals the same as in the NFL. There will be virtually no missed field goals returned. For entertainment and scoring missed field goals are exciting. They will be no more missed field goal returns as kickers will be kicking 99 per cent of field goals through the end zone.
There was no discussion in the press release about punting. Shorter fields make it harder to get punt returns. In the NFL about 22 per cent of punts are returned. With a shorter field punters can concentrate on maximizing air time making it difficult to return a punt. The longer CFL field forces teams to balance height and distance. I am positive the number of punt returns as opposed to punt catches will quickly go down in the CFL to NFL levels. The five yard halo on CFL returns does not help returns and soon there will be discussion on going to the American fair catch rule.
The CFL was justly famed for making every play count. Reducing kickoff returns, eliminating missed field goal returns and diluting punt returns to irrelevancy all diminish the entertainment of the game.
