One league or two divisions Poll

Poll vote and comment .

  • One League No divisions
  • Keep it the same Two Divisions
  • One league no divisions .
  • Two divisions keep it the same .

0 voters


I'll admit I'm a traditionalist who doesn't much like change, but playoff matchups would benefit from merging. I would keep the divisions as they are but merge them for playoff matchups. Not too sure that makes sense but I'd like to see it that way.


EZ's spirit lives on. . .


How would that work? Do you mean to just have an unbalanced (division-heavy) schedule for the regular season?

I'd like to say schedule as normal but whoever put this year's schedule together was smoking better stuff than I have. Division heavy, but only where it makes total sense.


There's a little EZ in all of us :scream_cat:


Sure I can go with that too. We have 18 games mandated by the CBA and board of governors for business purposes. With 9 teams we can't completely balance the schedule anyways. Playing every other team home and away would mean 16 games.

My preferred way to assign opponents for the extra 2 games would be to have each team square up one more time with the two other teams that finished in the same third of the previous year's standings. So last year's 1st place team would faceoff once more against 2nd and 3rd place. The same would apply for teams grouped in 4th to 6th and 7th to 9th.

You could alternatively assign seeds for scheduling purposes based on playoff performance as well. 1st and 2nd would be the previous year's Grey Cup winner and loser respectively. 3rd and 4th would be the better and worse of the semi-final losers. 5th and 6th would likewise come from the losers of the first round.

Or finally, we could just have traditional rivals from the former divisions makeup those extra games. Hamilton and Toronto for example.

1 Like

Can I vote for both? :slight_smile:

This is what I'd like to see, too.

1 Like

Get a 10th team or get rid of CFL management. Just get it done.


I'd eventually like to see two 6-team divisions with only 3 interlocking game on the schedule. Each team would play 3 games against each divisional rival for 15. Then, they'd play 3 other games against teams from the other division.

But that doesn't seem likely this century, so I'd vote for a unified league for the time being.

10 teams makes it so much easier.
Play your division each 3 times = 12
Opposite division 1 each = 5
Extra game vs. other division with the same place in standings from previous season.


I think I'd still slightly favour a unified set up, but I think this would be a nice improvement over the current situation.

Looks like a lot of Eastern voters so far.


They are CFL voters

1 Like


1 Like

I think they should try the single division with top 6/7 making the playoffs for a couple years then see what may be best. Not against current set up - but think it would be interesting to see how this would work - - but must have a balanced schedule.

Doubtful considering attendance figures in east vs west
You guys not only have an extra team, but even your weakest draw (Elks) still outdraw 3 of the 4 east teams

It would be absurd to imply there are more eastern fans
(as well many east fans have been quite vocal in the one division to rule them all)

I was only referring to this forum. While there are definitely more Western fans of the CFL in Canada there are just as definitely more Eastern fans active on this forum.

As well, the Elks outdraw all Eastern teams in attendance and are third in the CFL. The Stampeders are fourth. The top Eastern team is Hamilton in fifth and the only western team they outdraw is BC.


One division. Top 6 teams make the playoffs. Similar format to today - 1 and 2 get byes. 3 v 6, 4 v 5. Or change it up and go with 1 v 6, 2 v 5 and 3 v 4.

Every team plays every other team twice, once at home and once on the road. Either reduce the schedule to 16 games or add a 10th team to the league.

1 Like