re-earl- not to return to rugby, But imo the closest thing to what the game as a hybrid could be is FlutieBall , the way he could stretch playes for up to ten seconds or more, Since he went south , the cfl game has retracted back to more of a static game again!
In the NFL there is a kickoff after a successful fieldgoal
In the CFL the receiving team has the option to play the ball on the 35 yard line.
In the NFL the hash marks are a very narrow 18 feet, 6 inches wide.
In the CFL the hash marks are a much wider 51 feet.
I think the width of the hash marks makes a big difference for stategy and variation of play.
In the NFL the narrow hash marks may favour the planning of defences because there isn't much variation of ball placement.
In the CFL, having the ball placed on either of the hash marks should allow for more offensive variations in play-calling.
While Canadian football may have been inspired by rugby, we have been playing a unique brand of "Rugby Football" since the 1860's.
Our game of football predates the organization of rugby and soccer leagues, even in Europe.
The CFL field is 110 yards, not 150.
I'd say the biggest difference is the type of athletes each game attracts, which I believe is a product of the 3rd down.
I think the most appropriate comparison should be the number of yds^2/player goal-line to goal-line,
242.42 yds^2/player NFL
297.92 yds^2/player CFL
Though on reflection, I conceed your point on/in the red zone.
It's not a case of the Rugby people being better organised or what ever, It was Rugby--albeit a localised version--that was first played in Canada.
The form of the game the CFL now plays had over time drifted toward the US version. But I'm sure I don't have to give you a history lesson. 8)
From end line to end line the CFL field is 110 yards plus 20 for each endzone, which is 150 yards long.
I think the CFL is at something of a crossroads. Now that it has matured into a television sport, the league will face more and pressure to become more like the U.S. version of the game. The NFL is designed for TV -- those 40 seconds between plays were a concession to Monday Night Football so announcers could hype the action. The CFL has traditionally been a "live" game, hence the 20 seconds to keep the play moving for fans in the stands. If you've ever watched rugby live it really is beautiful though the game doesn't translate on TV. If the CFL wants to appease spectators, it ought to look at its roots (specifically some of the more entertaining aspects of rugby). If it wants more viewers, it needs to adopt more of the things that have been so successful for the NFL.
What bothers me (as always) is why ANYONE would suggest ANY changes to the Canadian game that makes it look even remotely like it's younger cousin to the south? Field size is what it is!....goal posts are where they are!...People who are truly happy with the CFL should be making suggestions to shape the nfl to be more like it! NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND Enough already!
There are more than 20 seconds between plays in the CFL! I don't get why we blindly celebrate the 20 second clock other than its use under 3 minutes.
CFL --> 20 seconds from 'time-in' signal...
NFL---> 40 seconds from end of previous play...
Actual Time ----> On average, the same.
Outside of the warnings, we leave it to referees to make sure the ball is reset & the game clock blown in without too much of the game clock wasted. In the NFL, this is simply fixed to 40 seconds.
The CFL gets better use of the 20 second clock under 3 minutes. Where the game clock won't run without the playclock AND the playclock won't run without a properly reset ball. In the NFL the game clock and playclock will roll on plays of scrimmage with open field tackles while the referee bumbles around with the ball trying to reset it.
The one thing that drives me crazy is watching those punts sail into row 10. I love seeing a punter make a coffin corner punt to pin a team deep, and I'd love seeing a well executed punt return for a TD. We need to penalize those teams that prevent the opportunity for a return by kicking out of bounds.
Wouldnt more space in the CFL mean that its easier to make plays and get open for a pass ? Wouldnt that make QB's who can thread the needle into tighter spaces, and receivers who can make grabs being jammed even tighter, better at what they do, for the most part ?
More space coupled with one less down just means the average pass has to travel farther hence your precision will have less resolution. So is it 'easier'? Not neccessarily.
Sure you could throw to your TE in triple coverage and with practice & timed routes likely come up with the ball more often than not. But a 5 yard gain isn't as valuble in Canadian ball as it is in the NFL.
- Government subsidized stadiums
I believe every CFL team plays in a stadium that was built with 100% taxpayers money. Some may be old and decrepit, but at least they didn't cost the team anything (unless they wanted a replay screen). (Actually not sure about McMahon in Calgary, which is owned by the University...The Als also may have invested a bit to spruce up Molson.)
Incidentily, until recently we had the distinction of playing in the two most expensive football stadiums in the world, although some of the new NFL super stadiums have eclisped the $540,000,000 Skydome's loftiness...but none has matched the grandiosness of the $1,000,000,000 Big O. The 60,000-seat BC Place dome was built for $140,000,000 in 1983.
Actually the billion was not just for the Big O. The cost overruns included the Big O, the velodrome, the Olympic village and others.
The Als have invested quite a bit for the upgrade of Molsons stadium
But the NFL averages as many yds per.And you see atleast as many big plays in the NFL. Nicer ones too. Its gotta be more difficult with less space to work with, especially in the endzone.
Not sure where you're gettting your numbers from. Avg gains are larger in CFL (even though this has been an "off year" for the CFL with offensive production significantly below normal).
Stats for top ten rushers/receivers in each league so far this year:
Rush: NFL 4.4 yd/carry, CFL 5.7 (CFL 30% higher)
Receiving: NFL 14.6 yd/catch, CFL 15.9 (CFL 9% higher)
Keep in mind the NFL has 4 times as many teams so the pool of players that could be in the top 10 is basically 4 times larger.
I agree with your comment that you "see at least as many big plays in the NFL"... but I agree on a per week basis, not a per game basis. With 4 times as many games, the number of highlights per week in the NFL is roughly comparable to the CFL. On a game per game basis, the NFL is slow and pedestrian in comparison. How many times can you watch a guy run for 3 yards?
Bigglesworth hits it bang on...
A good selling point for the NFL is that with 4 times the games, there will always be a crazy play or remarkable performance to digest where the CFL classically has done this with a forth of the playing time.
Several quick google searches state the stadium alone was 1b while the entire games final cost was 1.5b
basically, your numbers show the cfl with slightly over a yrd per pass. to me, that is the same. that one yrd means nothing. and im talking on avg per game theres as many nice plays. because theres more games, you get a couple, maybe a few slow games.but not many to be honest with you.i beleive the best of the nfl games and plays, are better than the best of what the cfl has to offer up.