Maritime Expansion

[OV Argo]

[QUOTE=Argo57;74416]The new commish has it all figured out, you need a good owner, stadium and corporate sponsors for expansion to happen, Thanks Captain Obvious.[/QUOTE

Stadiums - particularly relatively modest ones that only seat 25 K or so, that the CFL now sees as their model - can get built ... yes they can, with fund$ coming from lots of places - federal (the new Liberal govt. just got a massive majority in Atlantic Canada - IF some big-wig within cared about Canadian football and the multi-faceted boost a stadium/entertainment facility could give to Atlantic Canada - this project would EASILY happen) provincial and municipal governments, local investors who have LOTS of money and care about the sport & community (see Ottawa's group now), AND, gasp, the CFL - ALL teams and led by a Commissioner who has some guts & vision - have some dollars they could set aside to contribute there - that's if they're not cheapskates. Combine all the above resources with a concerted effort led by the CFL that would believe expansion could help their sport/business a LOT (IMO - easily the single biggest thing the CFL could do to increase their brand & profile & prestige - expand to a 10 team coast to coast league in Canada - with 5 games on TV per week instead of 4, and 2 seperate Conference play-off semis = no one play-off game win to get to the GC) = the money could be put together. Sorry, financial experts who say no way.

But yes - this would take some vision instead of CFL myopia and cheap$kate greed. This" we kicked the tires a bit in the Atlantic but nobody home" routine by the CFL is total gutless hogwash IMO; they should have somebody full-time on the case - for years now - lobbying all 3 levels of govt., seeking out local business help and a CFL fund in place and growing for this cause. Orridge is not the guy there - I doubt. Could happen / shoulda happened by now - just IMO and sorry bout that to all the excuse makers coming up with reasons why it can't happen.

[argolio]

expand to a 10 team coast to coast league in Canada - with 5 games on TV per week instead of 4, and 2 seperate Conference play-off semis = no one play-off game win to get to the GC)

So you'd want 8 out of 10 teams to make the playoffs?

[R.J]

So you'd want 8 out of 10 teams to make the playoffs?

This would be one issue I would have if the CFL ever gets to 10 teams, I think it's best to stick with 6 teams making the playoffs, but conventional wisdom has taught me that the League would go with whatever makes them more money.

[OV Argo]

So you'd want 8 out of 10 teams to make the playoffs?

Sure; you like it better when 2 teams in a league need to play only one play-off game to get to the league Championship ? - is what it is for a small league, but that's laughable in terms of competition and doesn\t exis in most other sports; the old days at least had East 2 game total point series to qualify for the GC. 1st plays 4th and 2nd plays 3rd in both conference semis; 2 teams miss the play-offs; only 3 miss the play-offs now, so what's the big deal with the change?

Again - one more game a week in the sched. and on TV with 10 teams = BIG improvement for the league - always Thursday Night thru the year; always Friday Night (with some double headers) and a mix of some weekend games; and extra play-off game would be big too.

[argolio]

Sure; you like it better when 2 teams in a league need to play only one play-off game to get to the league Championship ? - is what it is for a small league, but that's laughable in terms of competition and doesn\t exis in most other sports; the old days at least had East 2 game total point series to qualify for the GC. 1st plays 4th and 2nd plays 3rd in both conference semis; 2 teams miss the play-offs; only 3 miss the play-offs now, so what's the big deal with the change?

Again - one more game a week in the sched. and on TV with 10 teams = BIG improvement for the league - always Thursday Night thru the year; always Friday Night (with some double headers) and a mix of some weekend games; and extra play-off game would be big too.

The extra 1st vs 4th games are a recipe for mismatches at a time when you've got the most eyeballs watching the league, and would tax teams trying to sell two home playoff games in consecutive weeks. The OUA showed what a huge mistake it was to have 8 playoff teams in a 10/11 team league, and they sensibly cut back to 6. Eliminating only two teams from a ten team league is fine for a kids league, but it's embarrassing for a pro league to give out what essentially would be participation medals for having mediocre or even terrible seasons. The CFL already gets enough unwarranted criticism. No need to give people a valid excuse to attack the league.

[OV Argo]

The extra 1st vs 4th games are a recipe for mismatches at a time when you've got the most eyeballs watching the league, and would tax teams trying to sell two home playoff games in consecutive weeks. The OUA showed what a huge mistake it was to have 8 playoff teams in a 10/11 team league, and they sensibly cut back to 6. Eliminating only two teams from a ten team league is fine for a kids league, but it's embarrassing for a pro league to give out what essentially would be participation medals for having mediocre or even terrible seasons. The CFL already gets enough unwarranted criticism. No need to give people a valid excuse to attack the league.

Disagree - it's way more "embarassing" and non-competitive to have 2 teams needing to play only one play-off game to get to the league championship - name another sport/league that has a long regular season with that kind of finish? Mismatches happen all the time in the play-offs BTW and CFL history the way you like it has seen teams with terrible records make the play-offs (see 81 East); and there could still be a cross-over rule if the 5th place team in one Division has a better record than the 4th in the other. 2 extra play-off games in the semis would be huge, IMO, for league exposure and provide for more interesting football - the bye set-up now with win one play-off game and you are in the GC is Mickey Mouse if there could be an alternative to make a team better earn it's way to the GC.

[AngeloV]

Disagree - it's way more "embarassing" and non-competitive to have 2 teams needing to play only one play-off game to get to the league championship - name another sport/league that has a long regular season with that kind of finish?

Baseball used to, and it was arguably better then because you were guaranteed of a team earning their way in. The NHL used to have 16 of 21 teams make it, and it was considered a joke at that time, as the Leafs would regularly make the playoffs with 63 or so points. In '81 when the Als made the playoffs with a 3-13 record, just beating out the 2-14 Argos, it was very embarrassing.

IMO, the season has to matter, otherwise people are paying good money for glorified exhibition games. If a .300 winning percentage makes the playoffs, then it really doesn't matter all that much.

[OV Argo]

Baseball used to, and it was arguably better then because you were guaranteed of a team earning their way in. The NHL used to have 16 of 21 teams make it, and it was considered a joke at that time, as the Leafs would regularly make the playoffs with 63 or so points. In '81 when the Als made the playoffs with a 3-13 record, just beating out the 2-14 Argos, it was very embarrassing.

IMO, the season has to matter, otherwise people are paying good money for glorified exhibition games. If a .300 winning percentage makes the playoffs, then it really doesn't matter all that much.

In baseball, you would have to win 4 games, minimum, even if you got a bye to the league Championship, to win the title. I didn't have a big problem with a lot of NHL teams making the play-offs, and at least nobody got to go to the Stanley Cup by winning one play-off game anyways - more than one series and 4 wins to take a series. The CFL has an 18 game sched compared to the 16 regular season NFL and that is more competitive, but at least no NFL team gets to go to the Super Bowl by winning just one play-off game.

CFL GC contestants have often, for a long-time now, only needed to win one play-off game to get a shot at the league Championship. Sorry, but IMO, this is wrong / not competitive enough. A first place finish in the division would give you home field for a one game semi if it was 1st vs. 4th with a 10 team league - that is a nice advantage (ALL home teams won the play-off games this year). The good old days of great CFL football (into the mid 70s) saw 2 game total point East & West finals = you had to win the equivalent of 2 play-off games to get to the GC even if you won first place in the division - I'd be in favor of those play-off days again.