re:ottawa getting its team back...uneven numbers?

hey guys, I am a new CFL fan (mostly Argo’s) so i do not know all that much about it,

there is talk in the ottawa forum that they will get their team back by 2014, however my thinking is is that if they do come back wont the number of teams be unbalanced?

If so, will they put a new team elsewhere?

I hope they are using the Argo’s-Eskie’s game in Moncton in September to gauge interest for putting a team out there…

Welcome to the CFL and glad you're an Argo's fan. Could use another. The league for along period of time had nine teams. I think from the 1950's until 1987 when the Als/Concordes folded. It had nine teams from 2002-2006 when the Renegades played. So it can have an odd number again. Basically each team would get a couple of byes. (they get one now anyways). So they'll always be eight teams playing.

There are a lot of places in Canada the would love to have a CFL team, however the aren't a lot of people interested in spending the money on CFL stadiums. Basically which every city (Quebec City, London ON, Moncton NB, or Halifax) build a stadium that can seat 30,000 and have an owner can afford the franchise fee and is Ok with losing money for a few seasons they'll have a team.

Please feel honoured that I used my 100th post on answering yours :wink:

its the losing money part that seems to be the kicker...

I know of only one man who's Team-less atm who can afford to do all that.... Jim Balsili... though I think he's a hockey nut...

That works out perfectly for a 16 game schedule with nine teams. You'd have an 18 week schedule with one team taking a break each week for a balanced 16 games per team with two byes over the year for each team. Eighteen games throws it out of whack. The CFL never seemed to get the schedule right until they went down to 8 teams. It always seemed like there would be many more weekday games, short weeks and an unfair distribution of bye week scheduling when there were 9 teams.

The league would be in a perfect spot with 10 teams. You could retain the current 18 game schedule and play a completely balanced season with one home and one away game against each opponent. This would not only provide complete competitive balance, it would also heighten the importance of division and rivalry games. The Tiger-Cats would only see the Argos at Ivor Wynne on Labour Day. For the fans, you would be treated to a team you haven't seen in competitive action each and every regular season home game.

interesting idea...

It's funny that you would see it that way because I have the opposite opinion on the matter, I think nine teams and 18 games works out perfectly. If each team were to play every other team twice, there would be no division rivalries because you see all of the other teams equally. Edmonton and Calgary would see each other in a back-to-back in September and then never see each other again (save for pre-season and post-season). For this reason, no major league has all teams facing each other an equal number of times, as rivalries would not be forged. I wasn't around in 1986 when they changed it, but I would imagine they increased the number of games played to 18 because of this reason. Granted, playing 81 games in a season means that one team would have to play twice in one week (hence, the weekday game), but again, it only happens once.

So, to answer the original question, I think having Ottawa in the league will bring more balance, as a team will play two divisional rivals three times (rotating per year) and all other teams twice. I'm actually more curious to see how the schedule would be balanced with ten teams.

Do you remember what the 9 team, 18 game schedule was like? Do the math, if you rotate a bye week through the league over 18 weeks, every team will have played 16 games with evenly dispersed bye weeks. That would be fine but this is an 18 game league. The remaining two games for each team have to be wedged elsewhere in the schedule destroying the roughly one game per week balance. Some teams would get their off weeks early, others late. Invariably some teams were subject to a part of the schedule where they played 3 games in 10 days as was the case when the Ti-Cats and Argos would have Labour Day, a return match the following Friday and the subsequent week starting the next Thursday. There were more games wedged in on Wednesdays, Thursdays and even some Tuesdays!

If each team were to play every other team twice, there would be no division rivalries because you see all of the other teams equally. Edmonton and Calgary would see each other in a back-to-back in September and then never see each other again (save for pre-season and post-season).
Division rivalries don't depend on how often you see your rival. They depend on history and the relationship between competing cities. I'd rather see a 9 game home schedule with 9 opponents and the marquee annual rivalry game than see the Argos play the Cats twice at Ivor Wynne after potentially already having seen them in the preseason.
For this reason, no major league has all teams facing each other an equal number of times, as rivalries would not be forged. I wasn't around in 1986 when they changed it, but I would imagine they increased the number of games played to 18 because of this reason. Granted, playing 81 games in a season means that one team would have to play twice in one week (hence, the weekday game), but again, it only happens once.
You're right concerning North American sports leagues. Almost all soccer league competitions abroad work off of completely balanced schedules. Even in the North American context, in the NFL no home team's schedule features one opponent more than once. Division rivals play home and away once each. So at Ralph Wilson stadium, they see the Jets, Dolphins and Patriots once a year and that's it.
I'm actually more curious to see how the schedule would be balanced with ten teams.
I can't see them doing it any other way than everyone once home and away. Its a perfect opportunity for symmetry and easy scheduling. The division games will retain their importance because division standings would still matter and these are the teams you are primarily competing against for playoff spots. If anything, division and rivalry games will have added value and intensity because there wont be 3 and 4 game season series anymore to jockey against one particular team. Its do or die.

As it stands, Winnipeg and Hamilton will face each other this year 4 times in the first 7 weeks. If you wanted to extrapolate it into hockey terms, it would be like the Leafs playing the Sabres 18 times in the first 32 games of the year.

The Winnipeg-Hamilton schedule is a bit of a joke, the CFL should fire the schedule maker, I'll do it for free tickets to a grey cup.

Personally I would be fine with a 16 game schedule or even 14 games. Makes the regular season game more valuable. Less is more sometimes. They would probably be more sell outs that way.

With nine teams and the current 18 game schedule you could do as follows

East Teams

Divisional teams home and away (6) + extra game based on last years ranking so Ham and Mon extra, Tor and OTT extra total 8 games. Or have the labour day games be the extra so ham-tor always play three times, and mon-ott play three times.

all western teams home and away.

West teams

All teams home and away. 16 games + 2 additional games based on last season rankings

extra games home-Away

Sask would be Cal (h) - Edm (a)
Cal would be BC (h) - Sask (a)
Edm would be Sask (h) - WPG (a)
BC would be WPG (h) - Cal (a)
WPG would be EDM (h) - BC (a)

Add an additional week and a game to the season. Each team with two byes and play an opener game Grey cup rematch. Giving Grey cup champ the first bye and a way you go.

you can't change the schedule like that. 18 games is how it should stay.

nuff said.

Do CFL team,s lose money? really? compare to other leagues_ NFL franchise=1 billion$, mlb franchise=750million$, NBA franchise=500million$, nhl franchise=250million$ CFL franchise 10 million$ ? with approx 10 million a year operating costs. with revenue of 8 million again Approx , That = only a cost of 30 million over 10 years to own a CFL team. compared with the other Big league,s the CFL is relatively inexpensive!

Expense is irrelevant, revenue is irrelevant; revenue - expenses IS relevant.

There is enough time to finally bring a 10th team and I guess it will or may depend on how the Moncton game goes this year.
And lets try Ottawa as a possibility for 2013 and not 2014.
So with Moncton as a remote chance, yes finally an even 10 team league and each team can play the other home and away and no more nonsensical 4-5 times per year that some teams currently play each other.

That is a worst case situation , I doubt any CFL team,s have cost their owners 30 million over the last 10 year,s _ more likely they have made that much profit.IMO

Heh, I don't have to remember: http://www.cfl.ca/schedule/year/2005/time_zone/0

Over a 16 game schedule there would be 72 games played whereas with an 18 game schedule there would be 81, meaning that in one week (week six in 2005) there would be five games and all other weeks there would be four. I'm afraid I don't don't know what you mean by "wedged elsewhere," it seems to work this way. Granted, some teams would get byes sooner than others, but that is why there are two bye weeks per team - it tends to balance out. As well, I don't think Wednesday, Thursday and Tuesday games were a byproduct of this schedule, seeing as how they easily could have done without. I think that with CFL management in the state that it is now (listening to Eskimo fans about how they hate Thursday games), they would hear these concerns and gravitate away from weekday games.

[b]Division rivalries don't depend on how often you see your rival.[/b] They depend on history and the relationship between competing cities. I'd rather see a 9 game home schedule with 9 opponents and the marquee annual rivalry game than see the Argos play the Cats twice at Ivor Wynne after potentially already having seen them in the preseason.
Ohhhh, I don't know about that... As a Lion fan, it is so much fun having the Riders, Esks or Stamps in town a couple of times per year (the Stamps have been beating us a lot recently, so them, maybe not so much).

• In the NHL, a team sees a division rival six times, an intraconference rival four times, and an interconference opponent once, with three games allocated to three different interconference opponents.
• In the NFL, a team sees a division rival two times, an intraconference rival once every three years, plus two games for opponents with equal standing in the previous year, and an interconference opponent every four years.
• In the NBA, a team sees a division rival four times, an intraconference rival three or four times, and an interconference opponent two times.
• In the MLB, ... ehh, the gist of it is that there are some AL vs. NL games, but not many, I think it's around 15 or 18. the other 140 something are all against foes within the same "league"

Okay, so what's my point? Some of the greatest rivalries are based on divisional games and are predicated upon how often you see an opponent. The history and relationship between cities play a great part, but I think if teams play a lot against each other, they tend to hate each other. Which is fantastic.

Although, to lend to your argument, the dual marquee match-ups between the Bombers and Riders sell out very quickly.

For this reason, no major league has all teams facing each other an equal number of times, as rivalries would not be forged. I wasn't around in 1986 when they changed it, but I would imagine they increased the number of games played to 18 because of this reason. Granted, playing 81 games in a season means that one team would have to play twice in one week (hence, the weekday game), but again, it only happens once.
You're right concerning North American sports leagues. Almost all soccer league competitions abroad work off of completely balanced schedules. Even in the North American context, in the NFL no home team's schedule features one opponent more than once. Division rivals play home and away once each. So at Ralph Wilson stadium, they see the Jets, Dolphins and Patriots once a year and that's it.
Ahh, but the NFL supports my argument, in that match-up frequency fosters rivalries. Since they are a 32-team league, it would be illogical to play any more than two games against the same opponent. However, if division rivalries don't depend on how often you see your rival, then would many NFL fans want a 16-different-team schedule for their team? Give up a Packers-Bears game to see a Packers-Jaguars game? I don't know about that.

In an 18 game-eight team league, three or four times a year is overkill, but in an 18 game-nine team league, three times against two opponents isn't that bad.

I'm actually more curious to see how the schedule would be balanced with ten teams.
I can't see them doing it any other way than everyone once home and away. Its a perfect opportunity for symmetry and easy scheduling. The division games will retain their importance because division standings would still matter and these are the teams you are primarily competing against for playoff spots. If anything, division and rivalry games will have added value and intensity because there wont be 3 and 4 game season series anymore to jockey against one particular team. Its do or die.
I know! It seems so obvious, yet I don't know if they would do that, it seems so... mundane. I thought they might go with three games against each division foe (12 games) and one home and home against interdivision (2) and four singles against interdivision (4), but that's just so ugly. As such, they will probably do the home and away thing, but I'm optimistic for otherwise.
As it stands, Winnipeg and Hamilton will face each other this year 4 times in the first 7 weeks. If you wanted to extrapolate it into hockey terms, it would be like the Leafs playing the Sabres 18 times in the first 32 games of the year.
Yeah, but CFL doesn't have 30 teams, so you'll have to cut the schedule makers some slack.

Look, the bottom line is 16 < 18 = less football, and I'll be damned if these offseasons get any longer. While you do raise some good points, I really don't want to see fewer games.

Gornaldatron,

You make many good points. I can see as a fan you might want to beat up on your rivals more often and I definitely don't want a shorter season.

I do still think that the balanced schedule at 10 teams would be the best selling schedule you could hope for. I know at least in Hamilton that hosting the Argos on any day that isn't Labour Day sells no better than any other opponent and creates no special buzz in the city. On Labour Day the energy is palpable and the stadium is full. That might just be Hamilton. I guess BC doesn't really have a traditional annual game and Montreal on Labour Day weekend isn't exactly a natural rival so whenever you get to beat up on Regina or Calgary is just fine for you guys.