Let’s not let any owner off the hook. They all have a hand in it.
2 Likes
Then why has the whole broad discussion only happening recently? I never read it in newspapers or heard about it on TV and even in the early years of the internet very little of any discussion.
Even the broadcasters on TV or the halftime guys never talk about it. So why is it only a social media thing and not the actual people who represents the league?
As far as I know, there are only three teams that have the benches on the same side. BC Saskatchewan Edmonton Calgary Winnipeg have all had it on opposite sides for a long time
Forde has been taking about it for years
1 Like
Maybe, but I don’t see how it would really hurt either. West owners already lose revenue from home playoff games so changing can only be to their advantage. This year neither Hamilton or Montreal would have clinched a home playoff game as of yet and both could miss out in a one division league, although Hamilton would likely be a lock, but Montreal certainly wouldn’t be, yet they have already clinched one. Also a Saskatchewan vs Winnipeg Grey Cup, for example, would generally attract far more eyeballs than any East vs West GC.
Plus there is a greater likelihood that we all get to see the two best teams in the league in the GC more often, which I would expect would be of greater interest to fans, certainly to fans that understand competitive integrity. In 2022 we had #1 vs #2 in the West Final, making it impossible for the two best teams to even meet and handing Toronto yet another free back door pass into the GC they had not earned via their play up to that time.
2 Likes
Yeah but you have to remember there was a time when in the west. Quite often the first place team was losing the Western final so they weren’t necessarily getting the best team as far as points go in the Grey cup, year after year. It was the best team at that moment.
The argument for a one-division team might have more ground to stand on if every single season. The first place team was always getting into the Grey cup.. but since there’s been many times where it’s not first versus first, it doesn’t really help all that much. Imo
Since 1987 16 times the team who won the championship was not first place in either division. Also 16 times the East has won it.. the weaker division winning..
Complete opposite. 1st vs 1st would be the argument FOR keeping it as it is. Having 2nd place East teams with 9 wins getting a home playoff game and then getting to the Grey Cup hurts the argument immensely
1 Like
What? Any times it happens is a blow to competitive integrity. No one is saying it happens all of the time. I’m also not sure you understand that it also affects the right earned to have a home playoff game and gate, win or lose.
It has been talked about endlessly for decades, even if you haven’t heard of it. Social media is a newcomer to the discussion. It seems you are again deflecting/not understanding/ignoring the issues to protect the sacred cow of no change being the answer to everything
3 Likes
It compromises integrity according to who, you? Crash?
I’m not going to explain that for the 400th time. Are you serious or are you trolling? Perhaps come back to the discussion when you understand it if you are serious.
1 Like
I am serious.. can you provide me any links that shows people in power or decision making roles that have stated this?
Unless someone like Robertson from the CFL or Bettman from the NHL or the NFLs or MLBs or MLS top boss has stated this “integrity” comment.. then it’s an opinion that some have.
You can’t honestly say you watch as many games as you claim to and have never heard Forde talk about the balanced schedule vs divisions for no reason other than geography.
1 Like
Crash you’re on ignore so you’re wasting your breath.
Totally agree.
But the fan you responded to, well he does know people who know people and if he has never heard a sniff about this then we must now question that his people he talks to and listens to really know Diddily squat
2 Likes
You can of course choose to ignore anyone you want on the forum, but you can’t really then participate in this discussion when you cherry pick what you see and hear and pretend that you are delivering an informed opinion.
In any real debate or in court you can’t just decide to ignore one of the participants so perhaps you may wish to sit this one out, which you are already partially doing. 
2 Likes
I’m not saying that, just because I said I haven’t heard it doesn’t mean that it isn’t out there. I’m just claiming that I haven’t.
I’m actually just looking for clarification and more information so I can have a better understanding. I’m asking for evidence
I’m doing it so that I don’t get provoked into saying things that are unnecessary. when one person provokes it’s best if the other person being provoked doesn’t respond.
And by ignoring, it avoids it all together. And I’ve never considered anything He’s said to me as “informed”
But you certainly cherry pick what you hear or do not want to hear in order make your arguments fit. What I am saying is if you do not agree with with anything you hear you pass it by.
Case in point, you claim to know lots of people involved with football in many shapes and forms but they all for some reason all agree with you on these topics. Or so you keep claiming. Then when someone proves you wrong you come back with the…. That’s not whatI said or meant reply.
1 Like
Okay let me just clear the air on some things.
I’m about as Pro CFL Pro Canadian rules as they have been then anyone you’re ever going to meet.
I just want the game to be protected and not used as a guinea pig.
If the commissioner had decided to leave the field dimensions as is instead of making it 100 yd and 15 yd end zones. Who’s to say if all the guys on TV the reporters the the bigwigs of the league would have said as long as the integral rules of the game, the three Downs, the waggle the Rouge the dimensions of the field are intact then it’s still Canadian. But with the changes to the dimensions of the field, they obviously couldn’t use those as an example.
Now of all the people the reporters: Naylor, Madani, etc. And the on-air personality, Stegall, Forde, Suitor lapolice, Muambi, And so on
How many of them when spoke on TSN or in social media were telling the truth and how many of them were just saying these things to avoid controversy and maybe avoid losing their job or being unpopular?
Is it not strange at all that not one single reporter had any pure negative things to say about it?
.
And when? Nathan Rourke said the rule changes were bad. People attacked him and I’m honestly surprised that he didn’t get fined.
This is to me looking like either you go with the majority or face being attacked because you express your true opinion.
Clearly, we’ll never know who really truly believes in it and who lied to the public to save face?
It’s just strange that not one of them had issues with them making all these radical changes.
If let’s say, the CFL in 2030 gets rid of more unique rules that we have for more similar NFL like rules. Is everybody going to keep their mouth shut and all say oh good idea. Good job and not question why?
How come nobody asked the hard questions, the ones that got to the real thick of it? It’s like nobody ever wants to create controversy, We all have to play nice..
I’m not afraid to voice my opinion. I don’t care if people don’t like what I have to say. I’m not afraid why would I care if four or five of you think I’m nuts for that I’m being all crazy because I’m concerned?
Every time someone was hard against the changes everybody was calling him crazy or over the top The sky is falling. But as soon as someone said oh all these world changers are great and anybody says anything about that in a negative way. All got persecuted.
If the people who don’t like the changes are getting attacked and the people who do should have to face the same attack.
Told him twice Forde was a credible person advocating for 1 division. He clearly clicked on my post to read it, to tell me I’m on ignore. But ignores the reference to Forde. 
3 Likes