rajncajn Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Or better yet, why does the NFL hate the NFL? NFL considering CFL-style field widening The NFL is reportedly reexamining a proposal to widen the dimensions of the field to promote a safer game environment, which would give the NFL a field width more similar to the CFL, according to Dan Pompei. The CFL field is 35 feet wider than the NFL's 160-foot wide field. There was no apparent discussion about the length of the field, which is 30 yards longer in the CFL. The proposed advantage of a wider field would be that the player would be unable to build as much straight-line momentum, an advantage former competition committee member Bill Polian, who built CFL teams before moving to the NFL in the late '80s, supports. "The farther a player has to run in terms of contact, the less ferocious the contact is going to be," Polian told CBS Sports. "We know the most ferocious hits come from guys who are 10 yards apart and lay each other out. You have fewer higher power collisions in the Canadian League than here." Members of the NFL's competition committee, which reportedly discussed the same proposal last year, will reportedly examine the idea before next month's scouting combine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) It's all part of a grand master plan to make Tebow a star. ETA: step 2: eliminate the forward pass. Edited February 11, 2013 by Jackass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 11, 2013 Author Share Posted February 11, 2013 I wonder how many current NFL fields are capable of accommodating 35' extra feet of field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 The CFL is a more finesse league. So along with the bigger field, there are 12 men on the field, only 3 downs, forward motion allowed, a neutral zone of a full yard beyond the line of scrimmage, a 20-second play clock amongst other differences. Changing only the field width aspect will kill defenses making it more resemble Arena Football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 the answer you are looking for is very easy to find: to promote a safer game environment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I wonder how many current NFL fields are capable of accommodating 35' extra feet of field. my guess would be that all could absorb the extra 17.5/side Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I wonder how many current NFL fields are capable of accommodating 35' extra feet of field. Miami certainly can. along with a few other stadiums. But some stadiums have a more intimate seating experience and would have trouble with this. In 1994, The World Cup had to have some fields narrower that full with that they preferred for their matches, and a CFL field is wider that a maximum-size soccer field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Or better yet, why does the NFL hate the NFL? NFL considering CFL-style field widening My guess is because teams have been employing bounty programs to injure players. With a wider field, they could still have the programs, but it would be harder for the defenders to "hit" the offensive guys, since there would be more space to get out of the way. I'd say it's a win-win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 11, 2013 Author Share Posted February 11, 2013 the answer you are looking for is very easy to find: to promote a safer game environment Do you really believe that? Do you think that it's a valid assumption that the further a player has to run in terms of contact, the less ferocious the contact is going to be? Maybe it's just me, but I find that extremely difficult to believe. my guess would be that all could absorb the extra 17.5/side It's good that you're so familiar with the widths of all the leagues stadiums. I wouldn't even begin to make that assumption. Regardless, I would imagine that many teams would have to spend quite a bit in order to accommodate even if they had the space to spare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted February 11, 2013 Author Share Posted February 11, 2013 Maybe I should just quit posting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 (edited) Do you really believe that? Do you think that it's a valid assumption that the further a player has to run in terms of contact, the less ferocious the contact is going to be? Maybe it's just me, but I find that extremely difficult to believe. It's good that you're so familiar with the widths of all the leagues stadiums. I wouldn't even begin to make that assumption. Regardless, I would imagine that many teams would have to spend quite a bit in order to accommodate even if they had the space to spare. I believe that they need to continue to take the stance that player safety matters as for the fields it was just a guess, hence why I said it was "my guess..." 35' does sound like a big number but when you think about it in terms of 17.5 no quite so much, imo anyway Maybe I should just quit posting... I don't see why you should feel that way. Edited February 11, 2013 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Dick Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 Do you really believe that? Do you think that it's a valid assumption that the further a player has to run in terms of contact, the less ferocious the contact is going to be? Maybe it's just me, but I find that extremely difficult to believe. It's good that you're so familiar with the widths of all the leagues stadiums. I wouldn't even begin to make that assumption. Regardless, I would imagine that many teams would have to spend quite a bit in order to accommodate even if they had the space to spare. I'm pretty sure the Chiefs would have to modify the stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 11, 2013 Share Posted February 11, 2013 I'm pretty sure the Chiefs would have to modify the stadium. I stand corrected, after looking at Arrowhead Stadium I agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 The answer to this, and nearly every other question, is glaringly obvious: revenue. Fans want excitement. They want scoring. They want TD's. They want fantasy studs catching 10/160/2 every week, throwing for 400/3 or rushing for 150/3. The NFL wants to give them that, and can't do it with a QB knocked the F out or a WR flopping around at midfield like a washed up fish. Larger fields promote speed, spacing, big plays, excitement. Imagine RGIII with 17.5 more feet to scramble with. Chris Johnson with 17.5 more feet of a corner to turn. Percy Harvin one-on-one in 17.5 more feet of space to the field side. That's badass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 The answer to this, and nearly every other question, is glaringly obvious: revenue. Fans want excitement. They want scoring. They want TD's. They want fantasy studs catching 10/160/2 every week, throwing for 400/3 or rushing for 150/3. The NFL wants to give them that, and can't do it with a QB knocked the F out or a WR flopping around at midfield like a washed up fish. Larger fields promote speed, spacing, big plays, excitement. Imagine RGIII with 17.5 more feet to scramble with. Chris Johnson with 17.5 more feet of a corner to turn. Percy Harvin one-on-one in 17.5 more feet of space to the field side. That's badass. This was my first thought too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 The answer to this, and nearly every other question, is glaringly obvious: revenue. Fans want excitement. They want scoring. They want TD's. They want fantasy studs catching 10/160/2 every week, throwing for 400/3 or rushing for 150/3. The NFL wants to give them that, and can't do it with a QB knocked the F out or a WR flopping around at midfield like a washed up fish. Larger fields promote speed, spacing, big plays, excitement. Imagine RGIII with 17.5 more feet to scramble with. Chris Johnson with 17.5 more feet of a corner to turn. Percy Harvin one-on-one in 17.5 more feet of space to the field side. That's badass. my first thought was it is another attempt to help them with the concussion suit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I think it is about safety or at least they are trying to make it appear to be about safety. With all the lawsuits and other issues being raised, they will take many actions (and discuss many more) in the coming years to combat that (or give the image they are). As far as stadiums having enough room to do this, I'm sure some would have a problem and need changes to the stadium. While 17.5 feet may not sound like much, that needs to be free space between the edge of the seating area and everything else that is behind the sideline. Bench area, room for TV cameras on wheels, etc. Now would it benefit safety, not sure since comparing stats from CFL to NFL is meaningless given all the other differences. Sure if players have longer to run they can build up more speed. But there is far more involved than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted February 12, 2013 Share Posted February 12, 2013 I think it is about safety or at least they are trying to make it appear to be about safety. With all the lawsuits and other issues being raised, they will take many actions (and discuss many more) in the coming years to combat that (or give the image they are). I really feel like that is the reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Itals Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 What imperical, statistical evidence is the NFL considering to determine that a CFL style field would lessen head injuries? Does the fact that the caliber of athlete in the CFL have anything to do with the amount of head injuries, whether they be higher or lower? Are concussions an issue in the CFL? I have no idea what the concussion rate is in the CFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 On PTI yesterday they said the thinking is with the wider field then smaller and faster players become more of a premium who - the thinking goes - don't hit like the 265lb Mac truck linebackers. I guess CFL players are smaller than their NFL counterparts? That's what they said/implied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 pretty simple answer, really: tv ratings/money While purists would love a 13-7 defensive battle, the average and below-average fan would likely rather see a 49-45 shootout. heck, I remember this board going nuts a few years ago when the Packers and Cardinals engaged in an uber-high scoring playoff game that some deemed "one of the best ever" (my opinion was that both team's defenses stunk it up terribly, and it wasn't a good representation of good football by either team). Point is, on average, I would guess ratings are much higher when the teams involved are known for their offense. If the NFL can alter the rules to make every game a fantasy-football extravaganza, I am sure they would love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.