Breaking Down the CFL Product Review
Thanks to the diligence of Rosanne Nelson and the rest of the crew at Keep the 55, they were able to get in touch with Chris Morris, president and CEO of the Edmonton Elks. They had a phone call and Morris followed up with an email containing a document called the "CFL Product Review" and some added context explaining what the document contains and why its content is important.
This document is different from the CFL Game Analysis Report and the CFL Statistics Report, both of which are readily available on the CFL.ca stats tab. It is generated weekly by the league's football operations department and circulated internally. In the words of Steve Daniel, CFL Associate Vice President of Football Analytics, the CFL Product Review exists because "you want to be able to advise with something objective. There is nothing subjective about this whatsoever." The document is intended to inform the CFL office how entertaining the game is by quantifying it instead of based on how a fan would react by sitting and watching it.
The primary metric used to measure this is the Game Quality Index (GQI). The GQI is comprised of 12 components that the league values above most others:
- Games still competitive within the final 3:00 of regulation
- Points per game
- Net offensive yards per game
- Red zone opportunities per game
- Percent of drives ending in a touchdown
- Percent of drives ending in a two and out
- Passer efficiency rating
- Percent of second down conversions successfully made
- Field goal percentage
- Big plays per game
- Return touchdowns
- Quarterback sacks
Daniel also stated that in both NFL and CFL, GQI has a direct correlation to the experience and quality of starting quarterbacks. For example, he stated that when Anthony Calvillo and Ricky Ray retired, the CFL's GQI took a big hit. Currently, the NFL's GQI is sinking because of a lower amount of high-caliber veteran QBs starting and playing regularly. Essentially, according to the guy who is in charge of sorting and interpreting these numbers, a good quarterback makes a team more entertaining. Two good quarterbacks makes a game more entertaining. Nine good quarterbacks makes the CFL its most entertaining.
Anyway, back to the explanation and breakdown of the Week 19 CFL Product Review. I have copied and pasted Nelson's forwarded email from Morris below, leaving that untouched in the default font colour. My immediate reactions (which I wrote on a printout of the message) and subsequent thoughts will be in red in the body. There are notations in the email that require going into the CFL Product Review document, and I have notated certain items directly.
Last note: The document we have is from Week 19. The regular season is 21 weeks long. So while these are not the final numbers for 2026, they are very close to representing the whole.
I thought you might find the attached CFL Product Review interesting. It's a report the league produces every week to measure the quality of football we're putting on the field. There are a lot of numbers in it, but I wanted to point out a few that help explain some of the thinking behind the changes.
1. What makes a football game exciting?
In 2025, 51% of games were still competitive going into the final three minutes. This year, that number has jumped to 64%. 2025 was an outlier. The 2022-2024 seasons each had 60 percent of games still competitive inside the final three minutes. [1A]
That's a really encouraging number because almost two-thirds of our games are giving fans a reason to stay engaged right to the end.
The league wants to encourage more of that excitement. The thinking behind some of the changes is that creating more opportunities to move the football, score touchdowns and make big plays will help produce more entertaining games. GQI is up from 7.7 last season to 9.4 this season. The only major changes that could have brought it up that much are the new automatic play clock and the modified rouge rules. Changing the field dimensions and uprights doesn't seem necessary in this sense.
2. Why is the league trying to encourage more touchdowns?
Last year, 18% of offensive possessions ended in touchdowns. This year, it's 22%. We're also averaging almost six more points per game and seeing more big plays. [2A]
Those are all signs that offences are becoming more productive.
This helps explain some of the thinking behind moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone in 2027. Again, GQI is up significantly without this changing.
Right now, the goalposts can interfere with passing plays in the middle of the end zone. Moving them back opens up that area and gives quarterbacks and receivers more opportunities to make plays. Sure the goalposts can interfere, so technically his statement isn't necessarily true or untrue. However, the current position of the uprights doesn't seem to be much of a hindrance to offences, even deep inside the red zone. Passes still occur in the middle of the field, catches are still made behind the uprights, and doinks and player collisions can be counted on one hand.
The league's projections suggest that moving the goalposts could produce approximately 60 additional touchdowns over a season. This is the most infuriating line in the entire email, because WE STILL DO NOT KNOW WHERE THIS PROJECTION COMES FROM OR HOW IT WAS DETERMINED.
That's a projection rather than something we've proven, but it gives you an idea of what we're trying to accomplish. Not proven, just a guess. Great... I mean, I understand the only way to actually capture this data is to put it into practice, but whoever came up with the 60 additional touchdown figure NEEDS to publicize how they came to that number, how those touchdowns will be made (caught in end zone, rushing, carried across goal line, etc.) and what other factors will contribute to that specific increase.
3. Why shorten the field from 110 yards to 100?
The 110-yard field has been part of Canadian football for a very long time, and I recognize that it represents more than just a measurement to many fans. The 110-yard length is far more tangible than the 65-yard width of the field (which the commissioner continues to assure us is protected), and this is one massive reason for the uproar from people who do understand the league's reasoning for these changes. The width has no physical presence on the field. The 110 yards (and especially the 55-yard line) are far more substantive and discernible.
One interesting number in the report is average starting field position. This year, teams are starting their possessions around their own 38-yard line, the highest starting field position the league has recorded. 2025 was 37.2, 2026 is 37.9. Not a drastic increase, and again, the increase the league is boasting about occurred with the current field configurations.
Field position is important because the farther a team has to travel to score, the more plays it generally needs to execute successfully.
The league is also keeping the field 65 yards wide, which is an important part of what makes Canadian football different. That additional width creates space for our 12 players, the passing game and the movement that makes our football so entertaining.
But I also think it's fair to ask whether the improvement in scoring will be significant enough to justify changing such a longstanding feature of our game. That's a legitimate question, and one that the league will need to evaluate as we move forward. Points per game are up 8.3 since 2022, and 5.8 since 2025. So why does the league feel the need to make these changes??
4. What have we learned from the changes already made in 2026?
This might be the most interesting part of the report.
Remember the discussion around introducing the automatic 35-second play clock?
One of the objectives was to create a more consistent pace and reduce unnecessary delays between plays.
Well, here's what the numbers are showing us.
Last year, games averaged about 145 plays. This year, we're averaging over 148 plays. In 2022, the number was 148.0. In 2026, it was 148.1. That's as small an increase as you can calculate. [3A]
Yet the average game still takes exactly the same amount of time — 2 hours and 49 minutes. Games 2022 lasted an average of 2h 46m. [3B]
Even more interesting, we're seeing additional plays in the final three minutes of the second and fourth quarters. This is actually fascinating, but more so because the league DOES NOT USE a 35-second clock after the 3:00 warning. These numbers are actually attained using the 20-second play clock that was the standard for the whole game until this season. Data given does not go back five years so longer-term pattern is not possible to extrappolate. [3C]
In other words, fans are getting more football action in the same amount of time. Debatable.
That's a pretty good example of how a rule change can achieve its intended result. It also shows why it's important to measure what actually happens rather than simply assume a change will work.
5. What about the changes to the single point?
The report also gives us some interesting information about the rouge.
In 2025, the CFL averaged 0.90 singles per game. This year, that number has dropped to 0.41.
That's a reduction of approximately 55%. When you eliminate half the ways a rouge can occur, of course you can expect the occurrences to drop by a proportionate rate.
The intention behind the change was to eliminate situations where a team could score a point simply by kicking the ball through the end zone without giving the receiving team a realistic opportunity to make a play. I find this specific phrasing to be a reasonable counterargument for the modified rouge rules.
The single point hasn't disappeared. It still exists in situations where a team has to field the ball and cannot get it out of the end zone.
The thinking is that we want to reward plays that are earned on the field while encouraging more actual football action.
I recognize that the rouge is another unique part of our game, and I appreciate why people feel strongly about protecting it.
6. So what does all of this tell us about the 2027 changes?
We're trying to measure things that contribute to an entertaining football game:
That suggests the football being played in 2026 is performing very well against the league's historical standards. If so, then I have to say it again... then why change the field??
And here's something I think is important: these numbers help explain why the league is considering changes, but they don't automatically prove that every proposed change is the right one.
In fact, you could reasonably look at these same numbers and ask why we need to make significant changes when the quality of football is already improving. Yup.
At the same time, I believe we need to be very careful about protecting the characteristics that make Canadian football unique. Wouldn't that then mean the uniqueness of a 110-yard field (considering it's the only code of football in the world that uses it) should be a protected characteristic of Canadian football?
Rosanne, I know that you, Wendy, Susan and George aren't raising these concerns because you're opposed to seeing the CFL grow. Quite the opposite. You're speaking up because you love the game and want to protect something that's important to you.
I respect that tremendously.
I don't expect this report to change your mind about the 55-yard line or the other changes coming in 2027. That really wasn't my intention in sharing it. I simply wanted to give you a little more insight into the information the league studies and the reasoning that goes into these decisions.
There is a lot more to Canadian football than statistics, and I think the emotional connection people have to our game is every bit as important as the numbers we study. If that's the case, shouldn't we reconsider the proposed changes to the field? Since they're equally important and all...
Again, I am sorry that you have been unable to get any other responses but hopefully what I have provided gives you guys a bit more of a feel for the process that is underway. I, too, was completely stonewalled and ignored by every league/team exec I reached out to. Including you, Chris Morris.
This document is different from the CFL Game Analysis Report and the CFL Statistics Report, both of which are readily available on the CFL.ca stats tab. It is generated weekly by the league's football operations department and circulated internally. In the words of Steve Daniel, CFL Associate Vice President of Football Analytics, the CFL Product Review exists because "you want to be able to advise with something objective. There is nothing subjective about this whatsoever." The document is intended to inform the CFL office how entertaining the game is by quantifying it instead of based on how a fan would react by sitting and watching it.
The primary metric used to measure this is the Game Quality Index (GQI). The GQI is comprised of 12 components that the league values above most others:
- Games still competitive within the final 3:00 of regulation
- Points per game
- Net offensive yards per game
- Red zone opportunities per game
- Percent of drives ending in a touchdown
- Percent of drives ending in a two and out
- Passer efficiency rating
- Percent of second down conversions successfully made
- Field goal percentage
- Big plays per game
- Return touchdowns
- Quarterback sacks
Daniel also stated that in both NFL and CFL, GQI has a direct correlation to the experience and quality of starting quarterbacks. For example, he stated that when Anthony Calvillo and Ricky Ray retired, the CFL's GQI took a big hit. Currently, the NFL's GQI is sinking because of a lower amount of high-caliber veteran QBs starting and playing regularly. Essentially, according to the guy who is in charge of sorting and interpreting these numbers, a good quarterback makes a team more entertaining. Two good quarterbacks makes a game more entertaining. Nine good quarterbacks makes the CFL its most entertaining.
Anyway, back to the explanation and breakdown of the Week 19 CFL Product Review. I have copied and pasted Nelson's forwarded email from Morris below, leaving that untouched in the default font colour. My immediate reactions (which I wrote on a printout of the message) and subsequent thoughts will be in red in the body. There are notations in the email that require going into the CFL Product Review document, and I have notated certain items directly.
Last note: The document we have is from Week 19. The regular season is 21 weeks long. So while these are not the final numbers for 2026, they are very close to representing the whole.
As we discussed today, I think it's important to understand why the league is making these decisions, even if we don't necessarily agree with all of them.
I thought you might find the attached CFL Product Review interesting. It's a report the league produces every week to measure the quality of football we're putting on the field. There are a lot of numbers in it, but I wanted to point out a few that help explain some of the thinking behind the changes.
1. What makes a football game exciting?
One of the things the CFL studies is how often games remain competitive right down to the final few minutes.
In 2025, 51% of games were still competitive going into the final three minutes. This year, that number has jumped to 64%. 2025 was an outlier. The 2022-2024 seasons each had 60 percent of games still competitive inside the final three minutes. [1A]
That's a really encouraging number because almost two-thirds of our games are giving fans a reason to stay engaged right to the end.
The league wants to encourage more of that excitement. The thinking behind some of the changes is that creating more opportunities to move the football, score touchdowns and make big plays will help produce more entertaining games. GQI is up from 7.7 last season to 9.4 this season. The only major changes that could have brought it up that much are the new automatic play clock and the modified rouge rules. Changing the field dimensions and uprights doesn't seem necessary in this sense.
Of course, more scoring doesn't automatically mean closer games. That's why we need to continue measuring both.
2. Why is the league trying to encourage more touchdowns?
Take a look at page 2 of the report.
Last year, 18% of offensive possessions ended in touchdowns. This year, it's 22%. We're also averaging almost six more points per game and seeing more big plays. [2A]
Those are all signs that offences are becoming more productive.
This helps explain some of the thinking behind moving the goalposts to the back of the end zone in 2027. Again, GQI is up significantly without this changing.
Right now, the goalposts can interfere with passing plays in the middle of the end zone. Moving them back opens up that area and gives quarterbacks and receivers more opportunities to make plays. Sure the goalposts can interfere, so technically his statement isn't necessarily true or untrue. However, the current position of the uprights doesn't seem to be much of a hindrance to offences, even deep inside the red zone. Passes still occur in the middle of the field, catches are still made behind the uprights, and doinks and player collisions can be counted on one hand.
The league's projections suggest that moving the goalposts could produce approximately 60 additional touchdowns over a season. This is the most infuriating line in the entire email, because WE STILL DO NOT KNOW WHERE THIS PROJECTION COMES FROM OR HOW IT WAS DETERMINED.
That's a projection rather than something we've proven, but it gives you an idea of what we're trying to accomplish. Not proven, just a guess. Great... I mean, I understand the only way to actually capture this data is to put it into practice, but whoever came up with the 60 additional touchdown figure NEEDS to publicize how they came to that number, how those touchdowns will be made (caught in end zone, rushing, carried across goal line, etc.) and what other factors will contribute to that specific increase.
3. Why shorten the field from 110 yards to 100?
This was obviously one of the big concerns raised today, and I understand why.
The 110-yard field has been part of Canadian football for a very long time, and I recognize that it represents more than just a measurement to many fans. The 110-yard length is far more tangible than the 65-yard width of the field (which the commissioner continues to assure us is protected), and this is one massive reason for the uproar from people who do understand the league's reasoning for these changes. The width has no physical presence on the field. The 110 yards (and especially the 55-yard line) are far more substantive and discernible.
One interesting number in the report is average starting field position. This year, teams are starting their possessions around their own 38-yard line, the highest starting field position the league has recorded. 2025 was 37.2, 2026 is 37.9. Not a drastic increase, and again, the increase the league is boasting about occurred with the current field configurations.
Field position is important because the farther a team has to travel to score, the more plays it generally needs to execute successfully.
The thinking behind shortening the field is that teams will have less distance to travel to reach the end zone, potentially creating more scoring opportunities and encouraging coaches to be more aggressive. If the theory is a shorter distance to the goal line makes scoring occur faster, then why not move the kickoff from the 30-yard line to the 20? That would create the same net result and still not require an infrastructure change of this magnitude.
The league is also keeping the field 65 yards wide, which is an important part of what makes Canadian football different. That additional width creates space for our 12 players, the passing game and the movement that makes our football so entertaining.
But I also think it's fair to ask whether the improvement in scoring will be significant enough to justify changing such a longstanding feature of our game. That's a legitimate question, and one that the league will need to evaluate as we move forward. Points per game are up 8.3 since 2022, and 5.8 since 2025. So why does the league feel the need to make these changes??
4. What have we learned from the changes already made in 2026?
This might be the most interesting part of the report.
Remember the discussion around introducing the automatic 35-second play clock?
One of the objectives was to create a more consistent pace and reduce unnecessary delays between plays.
Well, here's what the numbers are showing us.
Last year, games averaged about 145 plays. This year, we're averaging over 148 plays. In 2022, the number was 148.0. In 2026, it was 148.1. That's as small an increase as you can calculate. [3A]
Yet the average game still takes exactly the same amount of time — 2 hours and 49 minutes. Games 2022 lasted an average of 2h 46m. [3B]
Even more interesting, we're seeing additional plays in the final three minutes of the second and fourth quarters. This is actually fascinating, but more so because the league DOES NOT USE a 35-second clock after the 3:00 warning. These numbers are actually attained using the 20-second play clock that was the standard for the whole game until this season. Data given does not go back five years so longer-term pattern is not possible to extrappolate. [3C]
In other words, fans are getting more football action in the same amount of time. Debatable.
That's a pretty good example of how a rule change can achieve its intended result. It also shows why it's important to measure what actually happens rather than simply assume a change will work.
5. What about the changes to the single point?
The report also gives us some interesting information about the rouge.
In 2025, the CFL averaged 0.90 singles per game. This year, that number has dropped to 0.41.
That's a reduction of approximately 55%. When you eliminate half the ways a rouge can occur, of course you can expect the occurrences to drop by a proportionate rate.
The intention behind the change was to eliminate situations where a team could score a point simply by kicking the ball through the end zone without giving the receiving team a realistic opportunity to make a play. I find this specific phrasing to be a reasonable counterargument for the modified rouge rules.
The single point hasn't disappeared. It still exists in situations where a team has to field the ball and cannot get it out of the end zone.
The thinking is that we want to reward plays that are earned on the field while encouraging more actual football action.
I recognize that the rouge is another unique part of our game, and I appreciate why people feel strongly about protecting it.
6. So what does all of this tell us about the 2027 changes?
If you look at the report as a whole, I think it helps explain the approach the league is taking.
We're trying to measure things that contribute to an entertaining football game:
Are we seeing more touchdowns and big plays? [4A]
Compared to 2025? Yes.
Compared to NFL? Yes.
Compared to NFL? Yes.
Are quarterbacks and offences performing at a higher level? [4B]
Compared to 2025? Yes.
Compared to NFL? Yes.
Compared to NFL? Yes.
Are games remaining competitive longer? [4B]
Compared to 2025? Yes.
Compared to NFL? Yes.
Compared to NFL? Yes.
Are fans getting more action without games taking longer? [4B]
Compared to 2025? Yes. Compared to 2022? No.
Compared to NFL? No. NFL has 159.0 plays per game. CFL has 148.1.
Compared to NFL? No. NFL has 159.0 plays per game. CFL has 148.1.
Are the rules encouraging players and coaches to make exciting plays?
Impossible to tell based on the CFLPR. Only way to know is to ask OCs and QBs if their game plans changed at any point going into or throughout the 2026 season based on the rule changes enacted.
The league combines 12 different measurements into something called the Game Quality Index. This year, that number is 9.4, compared with 8.3 at the same point last season.
The league combines 12 different measurements into something called the Game Quality Index. This year, that number is 9.4, compared with 8.3 at the same point last season.
That suggests the football being played in 2026 is performing very well against the league's historical standards. If so, then I have to say it again... then why change the field??
And here's something I think is important: these numbers help explain why the league is considering changes, but they don't automatically prove that every proposed change is the right one.
In fact, you could reasonably look at these same numbers and ask why we need to make significant changes when the quality of football is already improving. Yup.
I think that's a fair question.
The league's thinking is that we shouldn't wait until something is broken before looking for ways to make it better. We should be studying our game continuously and trying to understand how to make it as exciting and entertaining as possible for both existing fans and the next generation.
At the same time, I believe we need to be very careful about protecting the characteristics that make Canadian football unique. Wouldn't that then mean the uniqueness of a 110-yard field (considering it's the only code of football in the world that uses it) should be a protected characteristic of Canadian football?
Rosanne, I know that you, Wendy, Susan and George aren't raising these concerns because you're opposed to seeing the CFL grow. Quite the opposite. You're speaking up because you love the game and want to protect something that's important to you.
I respect that tremendously.
I don't expect this report to change your mind about the 55-yard line or the other changes coming in 2027. That really wasn't my intention in sharing it. I simply wanted to give you a little more insight into the information the league studies and the reasoning that goes into these decisions.
There is a lot more to Canadian football than statistics, and I think the emotional connection people have to our game is every bit as important as the numbers we study. If that's the case, shouldn't we reconsider the proposed changes to the field? Since they're equally important and all...
Again, I am sorry that you have been unable to get any other responses but hopefully what I have provided gives you guys a bit more of a feel for the process that is underway. I, too, was completely stonewalled and ignored by every league/team exec I reached out to. Including you, Chris Morris.
Chris
One of my first thoughts after taking all this in is that the fact the CFL Product Review offers a direct comparison to the NFL (rather than also to NCAA, UFL, U Sports, CJFL, or any other league) seems to suggest that the CFL thinks it needs to compete with the NFL or, at minimum, use the NFL as its model for its own success.
On page one of the document, the CFL also compares its weeks to the corresponding week in the NFL, rather than doing so by actual dates played. Two notable items from this:
- CFL Week 14 (Labour Day weekend) had zero games on Saturday 9/5, which also happened to be Week 1 for NCAA
- CFL Week 15 was a quadruple-header with all four games played on Saturday 9/12, presumably (at least in large part) to avoid competing with the NFL's first Thursday and Sunday games of the season.
Page one also shows a 2020 GQI value of 4.4 for the CFL in 2020. The CFL did not play games in 2020. Where does that number come from?
On page three, the league highlights points per game, likely because other than competitive games inside 3:00, it values its scoring difference over the NFL as one of its best assets.
Also on page three, I interpreted the presence QB sacks as part of the GQI as a bad thing. More sacks leads to more disrupted offensive possessions, leading to fewer scoring drives.
And one of my biggest takeaways/inferences after reading both the email and the CFL Product Review is that the shrinking field is the league's best attempt at finding a way to close the gap between its plays per game (148.1) compared to the NFL (159.0). It is the only GQI metric that the NFL has a significant advantage in, so what else could the CFL possibly be trying to accomplish?
On page one of the document, the CFL also compares its weeks to the corresponding week in the NFL, rather than doing so by actual dates played. Two notable items from this:
- CFL Week 14 (Labour Day weekend) had zero games on Saturday 9/5, which also happened to be Week 1 for NCAA
- CFL Week 15 was a quadruple-header with all four games played on Saturday 9/12, presumably (at least in large part) to avoid competing with the NFL's first Thursday and Sunday games of the season.
Page one also shows a 2020 GQI value of 4.4 for the CFL in 2020. The CFL did not play games in 2020. Where does that number come from?
On page three, the league highlights points per game, likely because other than competitive games inside 3:00, it values its scoring difference over the NFL as one of its best assets.
Also on page three, I interpreted the presence QB sacks as part of the GQI as a bad thing. More sacks leads to more disrupted offensive possessions, leading to fewer scoring drives.
And one of my biggest takeaways/inferences after reading both the email and the CFL Product Review is that the shrinking field is the league's best attempt at finding a way to close the gap between its plays per game (148.1) compared to the NFL (159.0). It is the only GQI metric that the NFL has a significant advantage in, so what else could the CFL possibly be trying to accomplish?