Interesting Globe and Mail story, on how the NFL is becoming the CFL on the field

[Ballstothewall]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/the-making-of-a-cfl-inspired-qb-revolution-in-the-nfl/article8146607/

Do you agree, or not?

[ArgoRavi]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/the-making-of-a-cfl-inspired-qb-revolution-in-the-nfl/article8146607/

Do you agree, or not?

I absolutely agree. The NFL has copied the CFL for years. The trick now is for the CFL to introduce something else new that the NFL can copy a decade from now.

[argotom]

The most important of course, the NFL cannot copy us with our wonderful rules and size of the field.

[1argoholic]

Have to agree with Tom. It kills me everytime I see big guys running up to a ball and watching it roll to a dead stop on a punt. Or balls being booted through the endzone on a kickoff. By the way the NFL has just as many issues with officals if not more. Two non called penalties during the last four plays of the game. Plus I think the San Fran receiver caught the ball then had it knocked out and out of bounds on another of those four plays. They should have had the ball moved up closer. How you can't call penalties that were obvious to everyone but Sims is beyond me. Sims is as bad at Suiter as a colour guy.

[flafson]

It was said last night that they are not likely to throw the flag in the last few minutes of the game unless they were 100% sure it was the right call.

[ArgoRavi]

It was said last night that they are not likely to throw the flag in the last few minutes of the game unless they were 100% sure it was the right call.

The game should be called in the final minute the say way that it is called in the first or thirtieth minute.

[jerrym]

The most important of course, the NFL cannot copy us with our wonderful rules and size of the field.

I loved the way that Barker pointed out on the ESPN video about Armstead how half the players in the NFL weren't suited to play on the CFL field.

[1argoholic]

Jerry a great example of that is the huge linemen on both sides of the ball who would die up here. It's hard to believe that Ray 'KILLER' Lewis is a linebacker. The guy is steroid huge.

[Ballstothewall]

Jerry a great example of that is the huge linemen on both sides of the ball who would die up here. It's hard to believe that Ray 'KILLER' Lewis is a linebacker. The guy is steroid huge.

Mark, do i really need to irrigate my lawn twice a year?

[ArgoZ]

The most important of course, the NFL cannot copy us with our wonderful rules and size of the field.

It is interesting that you mention this. Tonight on Pardon the Interuption on TSN, they were talking about the latest NFL rumours. While it's only in a very early stage, led by Warren Moon, they are proposing to widen the field by 10 more yards to increase the safety of players. The idea is that with more open space would come less big hit concussions. This may be slightly true, but it would tend to allow for smaller players to excell at a big mans game, which we have known for years here in Canada.

I must agree that the NFL has been copying the CFL for years, particulary since the Doug Flutie era. You would never see 5 or even 4 reciever sets with running quarterbacks. It was called back yard football. The game has evolved and if they adopt these new rules, along with fixing the last 2 minutes of an NFL game, I will not be able to claim that our game is better anymore. That's the hard truth wether we admit it or not.

[294life]

The expenses that would come from modifying all 30 NFL fields seem too high for it to ever happen.

[Invader]

The expenses that would come from modifying all 30 NFL fields seem too high for it to ever happen.
Bill Polian, 6-time NFL Executive of the Year, said in this article they could widen the field "out to the white lines" in every NFL stadium without renovation. This would add 6' to each sideline and endzone.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFP-Sunday-Blitz-1048.html

[ArgoRavi]

If they widen the field, then four downs will likely be one down too many so they will have to go to three. ;)

[argotom]

Hey don't we have a trade mark on our game.... rules etc.
If not, can we?

[294life]

Bill Polian, 6-time NFL Executive of the Year, said in this article they could widen the field "out to the white lines" in every NFL stadium without renovation. This would add 6' to each sideline and endzone.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFP-Sunday-Blitz-1048.html

Thanks. Sharing this.

[1argoholic]

I heard them talking about this yesterday on that show with Wilbon and Kornheizer or however it's spelled. They both agreed that if Warren Moon and Polien thought it was a good idea they would trust them. I guess the NFL believes that with wider fields and faster smaller players there would be less bone crushing hits. That's what they discussed yesterday. Perhaps there would be less bone crushing hits if players didn't work out all year round and bulk up to huge sizes. Look at all sports in the 70's
where guys didn't worry about diet and working out year round and yes there wasn't all this suppliment intake. We still get huge crushing hit in the CFL. It's football!! Remember that massive block that made all the highlight reels by an Al against the Ticats I believe.
Seems to me that the NFL is in a real mess with more and more talk about player safety. Huge guys playing on a small field. The reason they moved kickoffs up is so there would be less returns. I think it's good that they are worried about player safety but they could go too far. They could totally ruin the game. Pretty soon you won't be able to touch the qb's either.

[argolio]

Hey don't we have a trade mark on our game.... rules etc.
If not, can we?You can trademark names, but I'm pretty sure sports rules & regulations are fair game for anyone to use.




If they widen the field, then four downs will likely be one down too many so they will have to go to three. ;)Ha-ha!

I find the history of football rules and rule changes to be an interesting topic. There is conflicting info online about the evolution of rules in early American football, but most people agree that the first recognized American football games between Princeton and Rutgers starting in 1869 were played on fields as wide as 75 yards with 25 players per side, and you were not allowed to run with the ball (apparently those early games looked like a giant rugby scrum with the ball in the middle on the ground being pushed or kicked back and forth). McGill went down to Princeton in 1874 and brought a form of rugby football which allowed players to run with the ball. After playing two games using both sets of rules, Princeton liked the McGill version better, and carrying the ball soon entered American football.

Then came major rule innovations starting in the 1880's. 25 players were reduced to 15, and then 11. The line of scrimmage was invented, as well as the position of quarterback. Under the existing rules, teams with the lead eventually figured out they could run out the clock by keeping the ball indefinitely, so a system of downs was invented to limit possessions. It started as 3 downs for 5 yards, then 3 for 10, and finally 4 for 10 about a century ago.

Hope no one has a heart attack, but online articles about the development of Canadian football in the late 19th and early 20th centuries say that we copied or adapted most of the early American innovations.

As for their field, no one seems to know why the Americans eventually settled on a 53 1/3-yard width. Hard to believe that some rules committee sat down and came up with an odd number like that out of the blue. Something must have forced them to go with 53 1/3.

If the NFL does widen the field, I think 60 yards is the way to go. They could always grandfather this in as new stadiums are built if existing stadiums can't handle 60 yards.

[ArgoZ]

You can trademark names, but I'm pretty sure sports rules & regulations are fair game for anyone to use.

Hope no one has a heart attack, but online articles about the development of Canadian football in the late 19th and early 20th centuries say that we copied or adapted most of the early American innovations.

As for their field, no one seems to know why the Americans eventually settled on a 53 1/3-yard width. Hard to believe that some rules committee sat down and came up with an odd number like that out of the blue. Something must have forced them to go with 53 1/3.

If the NFL does widen the field, I think 60 yards is the way to go. They could always grandfather this in as new stadiums are built if existing stadiums can't handle 60 yards.

I did a whole research on the evolution of football back in High School. I'm too lazy to do research right now, but I remember that when the Americans were setting a standard of rules, they wanted the biggest field possible, and it was Harvard I believe, that could only fit a 53 1/3 size field in their stadium for whatever reason, so they went with that. It's funny that it seems to have stuck all these years. The smaller field also led to 11 a side instead of 15.

While both games did evolve seperately, the Americans first introduced downs and more importantly the forward pass in the 1920's. It wasn't until over a decade later, that the Canadians adopted the pass. So even though we did introduce them to the game, the way we play it today is really a form of American football more than anything else.

[Invader]

Hope no one has a heart attack, but online articles about the development of Canadian football in the late 19th and early 20th centuries say that we copied or adapted most of the early American innovations.

As for their field, no one seems to know why the Americans eventually settled on a 53 1/3-yard width. Hard to believe that some rules committee sat down and came up with an odd number like that out of the blue. Something must have forced them to go with 53 1/3.

According to PFRA this is how the U.S. field dimensions evolved:

In 1890, the field was 110 yards long by 53 1/3 yards wide. The reason for the odd width goes back to an 1881 rule change. At that time, the field was reduced from 140 yards long and 70 yards wide. However, the dimensions were given in feet, 420 and 210. Because they were taking 20 percent off the length, the rulemakers chose a width to the round number of feet that would lop about 20 percent off the distance from sideline to sideline, making the new field 330 feet (from goal line to goal line) by 160 feet. Apparently no one cared that 160 feet changed into yards is the curious 53 1/3. The strange width proved quite satisfactory and was retained when the length of the playing field went down to a hundred yards in 1912.
While Canadians did introduce rugby football to the U.S colleges in 1874, Americans took the ball and ran with it. One of their first major changes was the Line of Scrimmage introduction in 1879 (vs. the Rugby scrum) which Canadian football adopted in 1880...and so on throughout the years. Luckily we retained our large field and live-action kicking which adds so much to the game of football.

[dmont]

. The Canadian game introduced the touchdown to American football. Until then, all points came from kicks, like soccer. But you're right, while the American game adopted a few Canadian/Rugby rules initially, over time the Canadian game adopted quite a few American innovations.

[argolio]

Correction: McGill visited Harvard in May 1874, not Princeton.

And according to http://www.mcgill.ca/about/history/features/birth-3-sports , McGill also introduced tackling and downs to American football. I'm assuming by downs they mean stopping and starting rather than the full system of down and distance that came later, but no doubt Canada positively influenced the game's early development.

[OV Argo]

It's good that this history of football lesson comes out every once in awhile, IMO. Football - as we know it in North America - is every bit a Canadian game as well as it is an American game; started in both countries at the same time and evolved on their own paths.

However - this lesson will probably remain lost on a lot of joe average sports fans and also the wannabe media dullards up here; who will continue to insist hockey is our one and only game - and ram and hype that to death. Sorry wannabes who view Canadian football as some sort of minor league aberrant to an American game - you're wrong and clueless; and football IS a CANADIAN game - every bit as much as hockey is (and the CFL has the highest average per game attendance of any sport in Canada and is up there in that regard in WORLD rankings).

[argos1873]

It's good that this history of football lesson comes out every once in awhile, IMO. Football - as we know it in North America - is every bit a Canadian game as well as it is an American game; started in both countries at the same time and evolved on their own paths.

However - this lesson will probably remain lost on a lot of joe average sports fans and also the wannabe media dullards up here; who will continue to insist hockey is our one and only game - and ram and hype that to death. Sorry wannabes who view Canadian football as some sort of minor league aberrant to an American game - you're wrong and clueless; and football IS a CANADIAN game - every bit as much as hockey is (and the CFL has the highest average per game attendance of any sport in Canada and is up there in that regard in WORLD rankings).

I agree 100%. However these same joe average sports fans, and wannabe media dullards up here, who insist on such things as Canadian football being an aberrant to an American game, don't care about REAL history, and will only become more prevalent IF the American game decides to adapt certain Canadian rules. The fact that the American game developed partial from the Canadian game, means nothing to them. The fact that the Canadian game later adopted certain American rules, means nothing to them. The only thing that means anything to them, is that the Canadian game is too similar to what they believe is a superior game, and therefore it is the Canadian game with its lower payroll, and fan support that is the inferior game, and minor league (of course add the inevitable Canadian inferiority complex to that).

Fans of the Canadian game may relish the fact that the NFL is considering becoming "more Canadian", but trust me, that relish will soon turn sour. If anything the Canadian game needs to become even MORE distinct than the American one. I cannot say that it was folly for the Canadian game to follow and become American like over the decades; we do not know what would have become of Canadian football if it had not. However, it is imperative that the Canadian game remains distinct from the American one for its survival. If anything would lock the Canadian game into a minor league role, would be for it to be exactly the same as the American one. Therefore, the only thing that would break it from the perception of the average sports fan and media dullard, would for it to become truly unique. IMHO, that would be MORE unique than it already is, which, is not unique enough.

If the CFL and the Canadian game wants to rid itself of this "minor league" stigma, and truly become major league, it needs to slowly, but dramatically change itself. It in conjunction with the CIS, needs to slowly but dramatically change the rules of Canadian football, that will truly make the CFL a Canadian game. Drawing primarily on Canadian players that ARE the BEST at the Canadian game. A game that is fast paced and truly unique. A game that draws on its roots, but looks to the future. Then and only then will the Canadian game thrive. Until then, with its similarities to the American game, and its situation left to compete for similar talent with a dwarfed payroll, it will be considered minor league by the average fan and the media dullard.

[paulwoods13]

If the CFL and the Canadian game wants to rid itself of this "minor league" stigma, and truly become major league, it needs to slowly, but dramatically change itself. It in conjunction with the CIS, needs to slowly but dramatically change the rules of Canadian football, that will truly make the CFL a Canadian game. Drawing primarily on Canadian players that ARE the BEST at the Canadian game. A game that is fast paced and truly unique. A game that draws on its roots, but looks to the future. Then and only then will the Canadian game thrive. Until then, with its similarities to the American game, and its situation left to compete for similar talent with a dwarfed payroll, it will be considered minor league by the average fan and the media dullard.

Other than increasing non-imports and reducing imports (which you seem to be implying with your references to the CIS and Canadian players being better for Cdn football), what sort of dramatic rules changes are you hoping to see?

[argos1873]

Other than increasing non-imports and reducing imports (which you seem to be implying with your references to the CIS and Canadian players being better for Cdn football), what sort of dramatic rules changes are you hoping to see?

Well that is a tough question to answer. I've been toying with this idea in my mind actually for a quarter century, and quite honestly have not come to a conclusion of how I think the game would (should?) change. I've thought of rule changes that bring the game back somewhat to its Rugby roots, ie. more kicking, more laterals, and a more free flowing game. I've also thought about a game that allows more than 1 forward pass per play, or even unlimited forward passes, but like I said quite honestly I don't exactly know.

What essentially I would like to see, is a game that does not compare to American football enough, so that Canadian football does not rely on American football players, coaches and GMs. Its not that I don't want American football players playing in the CFL, I could care where the players are from. But so long as Canadian football is close enough to American football, that players, coaches and GMs can relatively easily transition to the game, Canadian football will always be considered the lesser brother of grid-iron football because for the most part we will get players, coaches and GMs from the US that are not the cream of the crop. And generally speaking, the more American influence there is in the game, the more the game will resemble American football, just as it changed over the last 100 years from something we would almost not recognize today, to something that is very similar to American football. And its not that I don't like American football, or that I don't like what Canadian football is today, its just that I think its very hard to sustain a product that is very similar to another product, that has way more resources than Canadian football could ever dare to match.

I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that the CFL can't compete head to head with the NFL for players with the resources it has, so why continue compete with a game that is 90% the same? Sure our game is different enough that some few players who perform at high-levels in the NFL, can't compete well in the CFL, but why not make the game different enough so that there is little comparison, or at least reduced enough, so that the Canadian game can stand alone? As it stands now, the general public sees the Canadian game as an inferior copy of the American game, whereas if there was a big enough difference in the play of the games, the general public might see Canadian football rightfully as a game of its own, which for a number of decades in the early years it was.

[Invader]

The CFL is a perfect game in my book. The rules have been fine-tuned year by year, adapting, evolving into the game we have today. I don't think we need to radically change it. The import debate was over by the late 1940's. The eastern league had always been all-Canadian while the western league was allowing imports since the 30's. At first western teams were banned from competing for the Grey Cup unless they benched their imports. Finally they gave in and imports were accepted. That late 40's Argo team was the last all-Canadian squad to win the Grey Cup.

I don't think you can go back. Fans are accustomed to and expect a certain level of professionalism in their football teams...and that means playing imports. We can see how an all-Canadian squad would perform in the CIS games. Would 30,000 fans still want to come out to watch them? Or would Canadian football regress to 10,000 crowds?

All we really can do is tinker with the game. I'd suggest replacing the 3 QB positions with 2 import roster spots and 1 non-import spot.

That would be 21 imports (-1) and 21 non-imports (+1) = 17 import starters; 7 non-import starters; 4 designated-imports; 14 non-imports. This would increase Canadian content in each team by 1 and allow non-import QB's to be counted in the ratio...while reducing the import roster by 1.

[Midnight Blue]

Wow. What an amazing thread this has turned out be, what with all of the evolving history of Football, on both sides of the border, that has been re-introduced here, for the benefit of those of us, who had no idea.

There is not much, that I could possibly add, except to say, that I, along with other crazies, in our pre-teens, would often play tackle football, wearing nothing but protective jock-straps. With no hard cup (it only slows you down, and cramps your style). Though we did wear shoes (for traction), and t-shirts and shorts (so as not to scare off parental fans). We played hard. If you really creamed someone, the other team would get even; so we all played fair. It was fun. We trained for real life.


Ka' Pla !