CFL records this century

2001 through 2012 seasons:

Montreal Alouettes

Regular Season: 136-80, .630

best record: 2009: 15-3
worst record: 2007: 8-10

Playoffs Record: 11-9

made playoffs 12 out of 12 times

Grey Cup champions in 2002, 2009, and 2010

Total Record: 147-89, .623

B.C. Lions

Regular Season: 132-83-1, .613

best record: 2007: 14-3-1
worst record: 2001, 2009, 2010: 8-10

Playoffs Record: 7-10

made playoffs 12 out of 12 times

Grey Cup champions in 2006 and 2011

Total Record: 139-93-1, .599

Edmonton Eskimos

Regular Season: 111-104-1, .516

best record: 2002 and 2003: 13-5
worst record: 2007: 5-12-1

Playoffs Record: 8-7

made playoffs 10 out of 12 times, not qualifying in 2006, 2007, and 2010

Grey Cup champions in 2003 and 2005

Total Record: 119-111-1, .517

Calgary Stampeders

Regular Season: 110-104-2, .514

best record: 2008 and 2010: 13-5
worst record: 2004: 4-14

Playoffs Record: 8-7

made playoffs 9 out of 12 times, not qualifying in 2002, 2003, and 2004

Grey Cup champions in 2001 and 2008

Total Record: 118-111-2, .515

Saskatchewan Roughriders

Regular Season: 109-106-1, .507

best record: 2007 and 2008: 12-6
worst record: 2011: 5-13

Playoffs Record: 9-9

made playoffs 10 out of 12 times, not qualifying in 2001 and 2011

Grey Cup champions in 2007

Total Record: 118-115-1, .506

Winnipeg Blue Bombers

Regular Season: 103-112-1, .479

best record: 2001: 14-4
worst record: 2010: 4-14

Playoffs Record: 5-7

made playoffs 7 out of 12 times, not qualifying in 2004, 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2012

Total Record: 108-119-1, .476

Toronto Argonauts

Regular Season: 97-118-1, .451

best record: 2005 and 2007: 11-7
worst record: 2009: 3-15

Playoffs Record: 10-6

made playoffs 8 out of 12 times, not qualifying in 2001, 2008, 2009, and 2011

Grey Cup champions in 2004 and 2012

Total Record: 107-124-1, .463

Hamilton Tiger-cats

Regular Season: 75-140-1, .350

best record: 2001: 11-7
worst record: 2003: 1-17

Playoffs Record: 2-5

made playoffs 5 out of 12 times, not qualifying in 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2012

Total Record: 77-145-1, .348

Ottawa Renegades

Regular Season: 23-49, .319

best record: 2003 and 2005: 7-11
worst record: 2002: 4-14

never made playoffs out of 4 times in 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005

Interesting to see, but I believe more relevant is 2007 onward, when the CFL began enforcing Salary Cap.

..............Season....w/ playoffs

You can see that the cap has helped teams that were struggling compared to other teams finances get better, and at a glance seems to have made the league more competitive overall.

I would like to see an increase in the salary cap that would go along with an increase in the TV contract, and a reduction in the NI numbers. The NI ratio does cost teams more money in salaries. A reduction in the numbers by 2 or 3 would allow teams the option to bring in some better OLs with NFL or NCAA experience. Most teams have big problems trying to juggle their OLs and their NI ratios. The ration must be reduced, there are just not enough good OLs coming out of the CIS and there is a big competition to snatch up any good NI O linemen.

Those numbers can't be right. Everything has to even out to .500, and you have 3 teams above .700, only 2 below .500, and they're both above .400.

good catch...I exported the records, ran a totalizator and threw in a denominator for the season in one cell to spit % for each club, but had it at 90 instead of 108 (missed a year) at least they were all wrong the same :slight_smile:

Here are the corrected numbers.

..............Season....w/ playoffs

I personally am against the decreasing of the ratio. What does it matter if it increases NI player salaries...the teams all play under the same cap so it effects each team the same. I know I buck the trend, but I would actually like to see a couple more NI requirements...even if that means expanding the rosters by a couple spots. I say fall in line with the ole CRTC reg...60/40.

I do agree that seeing some of the extra revenue filter down would be nice, and it probably will in 2014. The Cap has been increasing at 50K a year as a part of CBA, which expires after the coming season, and thus will be open for re-negotiation. If they can shore up some US deals that might help as well.

The deal right now is that the clubs get 1.8-2 mil per season from TV money. While there is essentially a handshake deal, financial terms of the new TSN contract are actually still being negotiated, so we do not know how much TV revenue is going to be going up. The players will get a hike for 2014 I'm sure. Perhaps the league will step up and offer all players a percentage hike for ratifying a contract prior to season end and they will actually see some of it this season.

can you do the same for the NHL since flyers came into the league? In the other forum of course.

here it is...sorry, not sure if there is a way to import spreadsheet / excel stuff.

  • It is for the 1967/68 season through 2011/2012
  • It is regular season only
  • it is by team name, not franchise, not city (IE Minnesota has had a resurrection and it is split, but the Jets are all grouped together...I can change that easy if you want)
  • The exception to above is that I changed 'Mighty Ducks of Anaheim' to pool up with Anaheim Ducks...I also see there is a Blackhawks and a Black Hawks (I'll fix later)
  • The percentages are a little convoluted. The NHL has changed the way OT wins work a few times...OTW/OTL/Tie/ROW/etc.
    ----To simplify:
    - I made a win a win...regulation or not
    - I made a Tie 0.5 wins
    - I made a OTL 1/3 of a win (note that there is a column "WP w/o OTL) that excludes the OTL as these are really charted on most sights for back in the day)
    - The OT changes make it so that the numbers do not exactly balance if you take all games over that 45 years...but it is pretty close.

too funny...


Oh I just took it that the guy was asking out of some weird sense of comment.
and you were able to come up with it.

sort of like asking how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if....

and then getting a real answer

well done

now about the woodchuck...

the answer for the woodchuck is of course....42 :cowboy:

it is not hard to get the data if I can find a well defined board. This was a bit harder because 4 macros were required due to changes in OT.

ah of course…how could I have not known that…
7 hours of work times 6…