Dumbest post …ever.
I think if the league ever expands past 10 teams, they should go back to Conferences with limited interlocking games (if needed, the Conferences could be divided into divisions, but I doubt the CFL will ever get that big).
Crap, eski-moses, I hope not all eskiblow fans are like you … he’s not asking which name you prefer … perhaps if you’d read the post you’d realize he’s asking more along the lines of if you prefer one big division, or two smaller ones?!?
Personally, I also gotta go with Conferences. More games between teams in one conference, fewer games against teams from the other conference (ie, less interlocking games). That way, you get to see more of the rivalries (eg, Calgary-Edmonton, Sask-Winnipeg, Toronto-Hamilton, and hopefully eventually, Ottawa-Montreal). Also, it guarantees the Grey Cup to be an East vs West affair - more “national”. I think a lot of it has to do with Canada being such a huge country … decreased travel costs, too, if more road games are against “closer” opponents.
We are not a big enough league to even consider this question. After they add a 10th team in the East we still won’t be big enough. What do you want to do, have small divisions within the Conferences? What’s the difference whether you do or not? If you live in Hamilton do you really want to see the Ti-Cats play Toronto and Ottawa and and expansion team four or five times in a season and NOT see BC or Edmonton or Sask or the Stamps?
I would prefer to see every team myself. As far as the cross-over goes I believe that it will be moth balled when they add a 10th team. I’m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but wasn’t it brought about to balance the play offs because the West was so much stronger for a number of years?
As the crossover rule stands now, the top two teams in each division are guaranteed a playoff spot, and only one team can cross over. So in 1981, Saskatchewan would have knocked out Montreal, but Ottawa would still have made the playoffs while Calgary, despite their better record, would have gone home early.
Just to clarify a couple of questions:
1995: Due to the fact that there were 8 Canadian teams and 5 US teams, the playoff format was different that year. 3 US teams and 5 Canadian teams made the playoffs, with the fifth Canadian team, Winnipeg, crossing over into the Southern Division, regardless of their record.
1997: Saskatchewan crossed over instead of B.C. because B.C. won the season series against Saskatchewan, and thus were the third-place team in the west, while Saskatchewan was fourth. It is the fourth-place team in a division that has a chance to cross over to the other division; B.C. played their playoffs in the West.
I doubt they’ll dump the crossover when the league expands. It improves the quality of the post-season teams. Despite the fact that no crossover team has ever won a game, much less a Grey Cup.
Pardon me for being out here in the toolies…Whats the differance between a division and a confrerance? East / West Division? East West Confrerance? Is it only the cross over thingy?
This would be a good one for Elmer from the old huddle to tackle… He’s a stickler for wording?
Maybe one big conferance? Did you have something else in mind KK other than cross overs?
With Conferences, no one plays anyone in the other conference, just like it was pre-80’s, with divisions, there’s no restriction on who can play who or how many times as well as whether you want a cross-over in playoffs or whatever.
I’ve made my position clear in another post but here goes agin’.
I grew up on a CFL that had two conferences. The west played 16 games and the east 14. There were even different playoff formats. The west had a three game series for the final and the east had 2-game total points. So a western team could play 24 games total before the Grey Cup while the east might play 21. We were smug about that, but it meant the east had a physical advantage come the Cup.
Let me tell ya matey that an unbalanced schedule is a lot more exciting than the dry-as-bones excursion we have now. The rivalries were a lot more intense within the division. The Grey Cup was more interesting because of the limited play between conferences. Many times the teams in the final had not seen one another since early in the season.
That’s the way!
Getting the CO spot is not a huge advantage … you have to travel a long ways out of the way, deal with the psyche that you’re not “supposed” to be there … but there have certainly been plenty of years where the west has had the two strongest teams (ditto for the east).
K-K, how do 16 teams each play 22 games? If one team plays every other team once, that’s 15 games. So are the other 7 games just done on a cycle of sorts? ie, you’ll play this team twice this year, but only once next year?
I’m not too surprised to hear that’s how it’s done in Australia - most soccer leagues in the world have only one “division”. But (correct me if I’m wrong) I’m pretty sure Australia’s population is concentrated around Melbourne and Sydney - that said, are there any AFL teams out “west”? If there are a lot of teams spread out over a very large area - as in Canada - then yes, I would be very surprised to hear that the AFL doesn’t have any divisions!