The way it should have been done (playoff format changes)

I agree that if you reduce the number of games against your best-drawing rivals, then the remaining game against those best-drawing rivals should draw better.

However, I worry about increasing the number of games against teams that do not draw so well.

Would the overall attendance in Calgary, for example, be higher for 2 visits from Edmonton, or 1 visit from Edmonton + 1 visit from Montreal?

There is a dip in attendance for non divisional rivals that's a fact but with 10 teams you only play each opponent once home and away so no extra games for any opponent east or west . It would be balanced perfectly so the idea of one division has grown in interest for that reason alone .

Hopefully the East will be more competitive or else the disparity will be even more transparent in the standings with separate divisions .

They will need to stack the expansion draft with Halifax so they are competitive game one much like the Redblacks were after season 1 or it will tilt the East further down in the scales .

Four is too many, in an 18-game schedule. And unless you cross divisions for preseason, it will be five for at least one team, including PS. Add playoffs and you could play nearly 30% of your schedule against one team, and 60% against two teams. Boring.

Woah, you might want to calm down, Earl. I don't need to be told that I should abandon CFL just because I don't agree with your preferred schedule.

I love the CFL, warts and all, and I don't see any harm in preferring to have lots of different opponents at my home games rather than same three or four most of the time. If there are nine potential opponents and nine home games, why limit me to six opponents? When Doug Flutie was the greatest player in this league, fans in every city wanted, and deserved, to see him in their ballpark each year.

With divisions though, well.... guess how that works? With your way, eliminate the divisions. Right? A totally balanced schedule with divisions is just plain stupid. Right?

as a season ticket holder I want to see every team in my stadium every year, this way I get to see all the teams and their star players on my teams home field.
I also like to reward successful teams with a berth in the post season, weather its with a single division or a two division league, with division winners having the first round by and the next 4 best teams seeded as previously stated is my preference.

If you really want to eliminate the crossover, just have 4 teams from each division into the playoffs. More often than not, the last place team in each division won't have a better record than the 4th place finishers.

Translation equals eliminate divisions. I agree with what your saying but only in a one division league. With divisions you MUST play teams in your division more creating an unequal unbalanced schedule and playoffs as a result that may mean less qualified teams from one division may earn a playoff berth compared with teams in the other division, that's what divisions mean. Unless I'm missing something. Not rocket science.

CFL has been playing a fully interlocking schedule since 1981. That's 36 years. I don't see why it's suddenly a problem that has to be solved. (And yet I'm the one being encouraged to stop following it and instead follow better leagues.) Hell, East teams already play 10 of their 18 games against the West, so I guess they should change their Division name to West Division.

With 10 teams we can eliminate the cross over.
Hopefully stay at 6 teams that make playoffs.

balanced schedule seems the easiest but with that you may lean towards just one division.
Playoff: With Divisions Teams 1-3
One division Teams 1-6

Unbalanced:
Play each team in division 3x: 12 games
Play each team in other division 1x: 5 games
1 game left: I would suggest instead of 4 games within division, play 1vs1, 2v2 etc from standings of previous year.
So:
3 games against each division team
1 game against each team from other division
1 weighted game based on previous year standings.

Playoffs 1-3 each division.

We already have teams playing each other 3x now and we already have teams playing each other 4 times due to pre-season.

There's no reason why a balanced schedule would "lean towards one division." We've had a balanced schedule for 36 years (apart from two US expansion seasons). It's not suddenly broken and in need of fixing.

A 10th team would at least mean teams from both divisions play the other division more than their own division -- whereas now that's just true of the East Division. As a fan, I want to see every team in my building once a season, and if I were an owner, I would want to see the Roughriders (and their thousands of fans) in my building once a season.

The question is whether the season ticket holders who want to see every team every year outnumber the season ticket holders who want to see division rivals more than once a year.

Regarding hosting the Riders, they seem to have a much larger impact on attendance for the West teams than for the East teams. If I’m an owner of a West team, I sure don’t want to lose an extra home date vs the Riders. And if I’m, say, the Argos, I don’t want to lose an extra home date vs the Ticats.

Regarding the scheduling, I believe it’s only truly been balanced the past few seasons. It has been interlocking for decades, but not truly balanced, at least not when there were uneven divisions.

A tenth team would allow for teams to play 3 games vs their division rivals, 1 game vs each team from the other division, with 1 leftover, which could be scheduled a variety of ways. Some season ticket holders (and team owners) would much prefer this scenario to the home-and-away vs each team scenario.

I think the reasoning is when the extra games played against division opponents disappear and the East is just so awful in terms of their record over their west counterparts it would no longer make sense to reward teams with terrible records home field advantage it makes the regular season a joke . You cannot have a regular season games appear worthless .

It's also quite evident after the last two years that the Grey Cup Champs with their pitiful records are getting a much easier path to the Grey Cup . The optics of what we are declaring champions looks like a low standard to reach . Being a Redblack based fan I was ecstatic that we won in 2016 but I wish we won with the 12-6 record the year before the 8-9-1 record was not a championship team record . Now if they won on the road like they should have instead of a cheap bye and won on the road it would have been a much better story about how the Grey Cup was won that year . That goes for the Argos too they did not win legitimately they should have played on the road to get to the finals . If they did that the story and legitimacy of their championship would withstand criticism .

Unless the games are played significantly unbalanced against division opponents the current format cannot exist with a home and home against every team . The absurdity for fans to see a 6- 12 team make the playoffs and maybe have home field advantage is a great way to kill interest in the league .

The whole idea of the regular season is to seed the playoffs . They play to win the Grey Cup and how they get there is very important .

This east / west nonsense with a 9 team league is hold over to a different era of train travel . This is no way to run a professional league in 2018 .

An interesting thing about this is that although the Argos only played the Ticats at home last year once, the opener, there were 4 games with higher attendance that weren't against Hamilton. 5 if you count the playoff game. The Edmonton game was only a few hundred short than the Hamilton game. So Hamilton isn't necessarily the be-all-end-all of Argo attendance, although both Hamilton fans coming in and Argo fans being increasingly interested in the rivalry game does help

I do not believe that there should be any changes to the format until a 10th team is added.

At that time I would like to see top 3 teams in each division and then the next two best records. This would give 2 semi-finals in each division so over all there would be two additional playoff games.

I know that this means only 2 teams miss the playoffs but that might translate into more bums in seats for the bottom teams still fighting for a playoff spot at the end of the season. It would be rare that the playoff teams were all know with weeks yet to play.

As well, while the regular season does determine the playoff position, it does not always determine the best teams at the specific point in time, the beginning of the playoffs. A team may tank for the first half, get it's act together towards the end of the season and be playing very competitive ball. Not always but possible

I would have the playoffs as follows:

Semis:
The top team in the league host 1 game and gets to select the opponent from the 7th/8th team. While the top teams no longer have a bye, they can select the opponent they best match up against so a bit of an advantage earned by finishing first.

The top team in the other division hosts the 7th or 8th place team depending on which opponenet the top team picked.

The 2nd place team in each division hosts the 3rd place team.

Finals:
The highest ranked team in the division hosts the winner of the other semi in their division

Grey-Cup
The winners of each division play each other at the Grey-Cup site.

Nice, this is exactly what I have been saying! My only change is that pre-season would be inter-divisional so there isn't an abundance of one opponent in one stadium (see Montreal at Ottawa three times in 2018.). In that set up, there would be 10 scheduled home games with two same-division teams visiting twice and one inter-divisional opponent not making a visit. It beats the NFL where inter-conference teams visit each other every eight years!

Since it looks like we'll reach 10 teams in a few years, I don't think we should change the current playoff structure. Otherwise I agree with OP's post.

OK, why would we eliminate the cross over just because there is 10 teams ?

The cross over format has nothing to do with the number of teams 9 or 10.

IF Halifax gets in in 2020, they will most likely go 0 - 18.

The 4th place team should still get in ahead of a 3rd place with a lower record.

Highly doubt the Schooners will go winless.

In the age of the salary cap, new teams can becomes completive pretty quick. Ottawa lost allot of close games in year 1 and look what happened shortly there after. Never mind what the Vegas Golden Knights are doing this year

Saying that, I would be open to phasing out the crossover until after the Schooners third year of play or the season after they make the playoffs for the first time. Whatever happens first. Keep the playoff field at 6 teams.

To me it would depend on the way the scheduling is set up.

If they continue to treat the regular season as if there are no divisions, then yeah keep the wildcard crossover (or just seed 1-6 based on that undivided regular season schedule).

However, if they schedule so that teams play 2/3rds of their games against their own division, then do away with the wildcard spot and just seed the top 3 of each division.

And I agree we should keep it to only 6 teams in the playoffs . . . unless at some point the league expands to 12 teams, and then maybe go to 8 teams.

I do not want to nit pick , but .......

There is no " wild card " in the CFL.

That term has never been used in our play-offs.

It is just always been called the 3rd place position.