Not a bad idea
would most likely eliminate the kicker and those onside being able to recover the ball for the kicking team to maintain possession. this I would not like
It would cause confusion as to whether or not to blow the play dead since it's not always obvious whether the punt team player was onside or not.
I didn't think it through
It's okay Joey - this time. You best watch your step now.
Ah, seriously, if there is a good time to brainstorm it is right now in this malaise.
For the kicking game, I oppose most any changes to the rules.
I like perhaps 95% of the rules of the kicking game just fine for Canadian football.
There are only three changes that come to mind that I support so as to open things up all the more:
After a kick like when there is a big return, for penalties away from the play of a radius of at least 20 yards, the penalty shall be applied on the next possession of the receiving team (or on the kickoff or on the convert at the option of the team scored upon if a touchdown).
When a loose ball after any kick goes out of bounds, possession goes to the non-kicking or receiving team and not to the team that last touched the ball (this is a rule that I support altogether on any given scrimmage play that results in a fumble - possession should revert to the team that last possessed the ball not to the team that merely laid a finger nail or clumsy butt cheek on it)
I could get behind some iteration of your first point and I completely agree with your second point.
This loose ball touching rule in Canadian football is inconsistent with the definition of possession earlier in the rule book.
It doesn't stand to reason that there are more no yards penalties than there are punts. Since there are fewer than 2 punts per team per quarter, and some teams are well below that, the perceived problem of too many no yards penalties isn't reasonable. Especially since there obviously isn't a no yards call on every punt and some games have none at all. A five yard penalty on a bouncing ball causing no yards seems pretty minimal.
The rule as it stands is well thought out and has evolved over many decades. Seeking to change something that works so well is a fruitless undertaking.
My take on this article?
It seems one phrase just leaps off the page to me
We know (from the CFL USA experiment) that games involving what the Yanks perceive as non major league cities drew incredibly poorly (eg Saskatchewan)
It seems like XFL (or whatever they rebrand it as) will take in the major Canadian cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver for sure, probably Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton)
Which leaves Saskatchewan and Hamilton out
The million dollar question is if the XFL is less ambitious (eg only takes Toronto and Montreal) to play 4 down football, then can the CFL survive as an 8, 7, 6 or less team league playing 3 down football?
Toronto is an obvious to fold the Argos unless something changes
And then we end up with 2 leagues playing in Canada, some with 4 downs and some with 3 downs
Kinda like how the Montreal Machine went it alone back in the WLAF days
The CFL is dead in the water without the 3 major Canadian cities.
Does absolutely nothing in Canadian tv deals.
That's why there was a huge resistance against having more NHL teams in Canada from both sides of the border.
The Habs and the Leafs led the charge against having more NHL teams in Canada as they didn't want to share their Hockey Night in Canada revenue.
Which is why I don't trust the XFL in their intentions.
Unless the XFL is willing to put down in writing a minimum of 500 million US dollars, with half of that earmarked for CFL teams. There is no merger to talk about.
I believe it's all media speculation propagated by the likes of Dave Naylor, Farhan Lalji, Rod Pedersen among others.
Would be nice if the CFL actually announced something in regards to this season so we have something to talk about like who's the better QB going into the next game etc etc.
It's all about the .
Absolutely, these fools are using this to up their profile, clicks and views south of the border, hoping that this does in fact happen, they will claim they have a following and are the guys to promote to cover the league. The only guy who stood up to the non sense was Arash Madani. Even went a little heavy but considering the level of shilling by the previously mentioned lowlives well it actually balances out.
If somebody is on-the- take or whatever to promote a merger and that leads to interest in the CFL, I see that as a benefit to the league. As it is now, nobody in the US cares about the CFL. With the possible partnership talks ongoing, there is now a few people who are XFL fans who actually might follow the CFL season this year. Personally, I would embrace the publicity.
Somewhat not true. I was listening to CBS Sport Radio last night at 5 in the morning. The host was talking about the NFL proposing a 1 point score for kicking the ball through the uprights on a kickoff like a the rouge that the CFL has. The host didn't like that proposal, but wanted CFL fans to call in to solicit their opinion of the rouge. I don't know what happened because I fell asleep
According to a site poll, about one out of 6 commenters here are from the US. And so are you there "Okie" if you also happen to be from Oklahoma.
Otherwise if you did not care, well you sure would not be here would you now?
I am curious as to whether there is any legit possibilities or whether this is all just smoke and mirrors to get the respective countries interested in the respective leagues. As it stands now there does not seem to be any reason to merge the leagues nor any positives from it (CFL purists want 3 downs, Canadians not watching the CFL want the NFL not 4 downs, the XFL fans it seems to me are unlikely to care about the history of the CFL; if they really wanted history they could far easier and cheaper purchase the history of the USFL which had way more traction than CFL USA ever did. And I doubt there is an XFL non fan who doesn't currently pay to watch Seattle vs Houston but who would become involved with Dallas vs Hamilton instead)
The NFL is an odd juggernaut in that they have absurd amounts of cash onhand. They pay CFL all-stars to stand on sidelines holding clipboards. And the "fans" are more interested in the spectacle of the events, as discussing the latest Super Bowl commercial takes precedence over what happened on the actual field (I will easily stake a bet that people know what happens in commercials 5 to 1 over who won the actual game).
If I was a true die hard tailgating NFL fan I suspect I would be (at best) very annoyed with leagues direction but how can you argue against the deluge of funds and the players who sit on the bench just to get a piece of the action.
I don't believe the Rock when he says he respects the CFL. He hides it well. Playing football was Dwayne's dream, wrestling was a backup plan. The Rock can be vengeful.
Shawn Michaels and Triple H use to bully the Rock when he was starting out in the WWE. Michaels even admonished the Rock for using the same wrestling move as he did. Michaels and HHH tried to get him to quit wrestling. But once the Rock became a star in the WWE, he never worked with Michaels and HHH in storylines or in passing the title over to them.
I still think that the Rock never got over making it in the Pro Football/CFL. He even did a promo on himself not making the CFL on a WWE show. He denigrated the league in his proclamation. The Rocks says he was playing a role.
Hardly mentions the CFL on his "Ballers" program. There was a reference of the CFL on the show when a wife of a QB client of his didn't want to go Saskatchewan. It was a total ignorant comment at the expense of Saskatchewan, the CFL and Canada. Dwayne is the producer of the show, he could've used creative control to rewrite that scene.
I think the Dwayne is a wolf in sheep's clothing
yeah, well he thinks you are a sheep in wolf's clothing. so there
The idea to purchase the XFL was Dany Garcia's. She convinced Johnson and Redbird to also chip in $5 million and buy the XFL because she thought it was a good investment.
Although both leagues have deep pockets if need be, they are not dumb enough to throw away $100 million a year for multiple seasons and hope there is a sustainable revenue stream via tv contract by the 4th year.
That is why I think they would consider the idea of using sister cities as it might be easier to reduce costs and minimize risk that way as I believe any partnership is dependent on the numbers working.
CFL averages roughly 500,000 viewers in Canada. US is somewhere around 100,000. So 1 of 6 is a reasonable number. In the grand scheme of things though, 100,000 in the US with a population of over 300 million is not significant tv-wise as demonstrated by the fact that the CFL only receives $200,000 a year on the ESPN deal.
Well yes, but now as you indicated as well and for which we know the financial reality, there will be either a bigger new TV deal or nothing first and foremost plus the timeline to the gate is also of critical financial importance.