CFL

[AU64 10,122]

Should have stuck to rugby which is a very popular sport in the British Empire which included Canada until after WWII.    Saw some rugby in South Africa a number of years ago.....a pretty good game. ...plenty tough.  New Zealand "All Blacks"  vs South Africa.....a game for men....

No matter its origins, Canadian style football appears to have developed with more of an eye toward American style football than rugby....not exactly splitting the difference but close to it  ...JMO. 

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, mustache eagle said:

There are a lot of butts in seats for a failed game ... just sayin

Not a failed game....it's Canada's game but when they tried to introduce it to the US it went no where.   If you live in Canada and like "football"....then CFL is what you are going to see.  League average attendance was less than 25,000 last year and single game high was about 42,000.  

As noted, the league rules limit the number of US players allowed ...plus average salary in CFL is about $80,000 which means that bama players would be taking a salary cut to play up there.          https://gazettereview.com/2017/05/average-cfl-player-salary-how-much-do-cfl-players-make/

[aujeff11 6,243]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

It is a descendant of both. Rugger and soccer diverged from each other around the 1820s

They diverged from a common root and branched out. 

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

When spectators (including Princeton students) as well as Yale players saw the advantages of the rugby style, the stage was set for a meeting in 1876 of representatives from Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia to form a new Intercollegiate Football Association based on rugby rules.

Yes

 

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Citing a source to support your argument would be helpful here. 

 

If you say so.

[AUDub 11,131]

49 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

They diverged from a common root and branched out. 

Correct. Things were fluid. Neither sport was formalized until much later. But that's when they distinctly took different developmental paths to codification.

Think of it like evolution. When humans and chimps diverged some 13 million years, those nascent forms of both would have still been very similar to their common ancestor. We might not be able to tell much difference.

There's even still evidence of hybridization up to 4 million years ago, in fact. Think of that like how rugby union actually adopted some of Walter Camp's innovations into their code.

But, given enough time, they're now distinctly different sports.

Quote

Yes

Nothing in the source refutes anything I've typed. In fact, it affirms it. American football is a descendant of both the association and rugby codes. To put this in visual form, here's a helpful chart detailing modern football genealogy:

 

[aujeff11 6,243]

6 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Correct. Things were fluid. Neither sport was formalized until much later. But that's when they distinctly took different developmental paths to codification.

Think of it like evolution. When humans and chimps diverged some 13 million years, those nascent forms of both would have still been very similar to their common ancestor. We might not be able to tell much difference.

There's even still evidence of hybridization up to 4 million years ago, in fact. Think of that like how rugby union actually adopted some of Walter Camp's innovations into their code.

But, given enough time, they're now distinctly different sports.

Nothing in the source refutes anything I've typed. In fact, it affirms it. American football is a descendant of both the association and rugby codes. To put this in visual form, here's a helpful chart detailing modern football genealogy:

 

Your own source says that The American footballers preferred the rugby style of football of Mcgill’s over their own soccer version of football. Association football was merely one of many variations of football that existed at tbe time (rugby, Aussie, school games) in the 19th century and that variation became the most popular and spread like wildfire through countries without its own. 

“The sports of American and Canadian football both developed in the mid-19th Century, evolving from the British game of rugby." - Source BBC

[aujeff11 6,243]

 In 1874, the American Harvard University team was seeking to play against another university team and invited McGill University in Montreal to play against them. However, by this time the American and Canadian versions of rugby-football were substantially different.

Alleged to be a photo of one of the two games between Harvard and McGill, which became the start of the US style of football. © Notman photo- Archives McGill

Thus the decision was made to have the teams play two games, one by Harvard’s American rules, and one game played by Canadian rules.

On May 13 and 14, in 1874 two games were played in the US. The first was played using Harvard’s rules, which was a game more like soccer and using a round ball, the second was played using McGill rules, with an oblong ball.

The Harvard game was a soccer variation known as the “Boston Game.” This allowed a player to pick up the ball and run with it if he were chased, but if the persuer stopped he would yell to the ball-holder who then had to throw or kick the ball.

As it turned out the Americans won the first game 3-0, while the second game with Canadian rules was a scoreless tie.

However, much more importantly for the US and today’s extravangas like the Super Bowl, and all the others. the Harvard squad enjoyed the Canadian game better.

The Canadian team could also only field 11 players at the match, whereas the Americans usually played with 15 members (or more) on the field. Even today, American football only puts 11 members per team on the field.

They Harvard team liked the Canadian innovations to the game such as running with the ball, downs, forward passing, goal posts for a try, or touchdown, and tackling.  They adopted the Canadian rules and they then introduced them into a match with Yale the following year.

American sources tend to cite this all US game as the start of American football, ignoring the fact that Canada was the source of the Harvard game.

It also marked the first time admission was charged to a college sporting event, with a 50 cent fee for spectators, which apparently would be used post game for “entertaining” the visiting Canadian team.   American college football now generates well over a billion of dollars in revenue every year.

In 1876 a formalized rulebook was created by US colleges as the new sport took a much different route from the sports of soccer and rugger (rugby), but one which had been very much influenced by the Canadian innovations.

[quote/]

[AUDub 11,131]

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

Your own source says that The American footballers preferred the rugby style of football of Mcgill’s over their own soccer version of football.

Yes, rugby style, rather than rugby itself. Unique elements were retained, even as the game became more like rugby than soccer. 

The game was originally more like soccer, using the codification of the FA, which still exists today, BTW, with variations. Then it became a mishmash depending upon locale. Then it came to more closely resemble rugby union, with variations.

Then concepts like down and distance were introduced. Then the forward pass was eventually adopted. It became radically unique compared to the other codes.

Saying "it evolved from rugby and nothing else, full stop" is incorrect. 

Quote

Association football was merely one of many variations of football that existed at tbe time (rugby, Aussie, school games) in the 19th century and that variation became the most popular and spread like wildfire through countries without its own.

“The sports of American and Canadian football both developed in the mid-19th Century, evolving from the British game of rugby."- Source BBC

That's a gross oversimplification. Wikipedia's article on the early history of football would be a good read for you. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

19 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Saying "it evolved from rugby and nothing else, full stop" is incorrect. 

This is correct. And I didn’t say this. It’s obvious the influence of Rugby more directly led to the creation of American Gridiron football, though. 

19 minutes ago, AUDub said:

That's a gross oversimplification.

And then you tell me to read Wikipedia.

[AUDub 11,131]

50 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

This is correct. And I didn’t say this.

Yeah, you did. 

6 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

No. American football is a descendant of rugby, which is in its own (carrying)code of football. Soccer and Gaelic football, in the other. 

And if it’s correct, why are we even having this argument? 

Quote

It’s obvious the influence of Rugby more directly led to the creation of American Gridiron football, though. 

You’ll get no argument from me on that one, but then, why are we even having this argument (unless you’re excluding association football when I say “nothing else”)? Just in a particularly nitpicky mood today? 

Quote

And then you tell me to read Wikipedia.

Fine. I’ll cite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_American_football

Quote

The history of American football can be traced to early versions of rugby football and association football. Both games have their origin in varieties of football played in Britain in the mid-19th century, in which a football is kicked at a goal or kicked over a line, which in turn were based on the varieties of English public school football games.

American football resulted from several major divergences from association football and rugby football, most notably the rule changes instituted by Walter Camp, a Yale University and Hopkins School graduate who is considered to be the "Father of American Football". Among these important changes were the introduction of the line of scrimmage, of down-and-distance rules and of the legalization of blocking. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, gameplay developments by college coaches such as Eddie Cochems, Amos Alonzo Stagg, Parke H. Davis, Knute Rockne, and Glenn "Pop" Warner helped take advantage of the newly introduced forward pass. The popularity of college football grew as it became the dominant version of the sport in the United States for the first half of the 20th century. Bowl games, a college football tradition, attracted a national audience for college teams. Boosted by fierce rivalries and colorful traditions, college football still holds widespread appeal in the United States.

[aujeff11 6,243]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Yeah, you did. 

No, I didn’t.

16 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Just in a particularly nitpicky mood today? 

Not necessarily. Words have meaning though. 

4 minutes ago, AUDub said:

You’ll get no argument from me on that one, but then, why are we even having this argument 

You said AF was just as much a descendant as the other when that’s not the case  AF only has indirect roots into the American Football game. 

Football( not necessarily AF) ➡️Rugby➡️American Football 

[AU64 10,122]

Gee.....my little slam at the CFL calling it a cheap imitation of American football sure generated a great debate.

Thanks for the interesting research. …... but I still contend that what passes for CFL football the past 40 or so years has very little similarity to rugby or soccer and not sure it evolved independently of American football with set and timed plays, limited number of downs and yards and of course the American style uniforms and protection along with a number of other features ...none of which are found in Rugby, Soccer or even Aussie Rules football.  

Still so no reason to watch the games, even when former AU players are involved. 

[aujeff11 6,243]

29 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Still so no reason to watch the games, even when former AU players are involved. 

I’d prefer the CFL over any other American Football variation ( arena,) but yeah...the pre snap motions from the CFL and arena football leagues give me a headache. The CFL is competitive though and has good talent. Perfect for the month of June when I’m desperate for anything to watch.

[aucanucktiger 1,789]

On 6/17/2018 at 12:35 AM, AUDub said:

@aucanucktiger

Get in here in fact check me to make sure I have the rule for the rouge right. 

You got it. Canucks usually call it a single. 

Think of CFL as stewed okra and NFL as fried okra. Argument could go on forever about which is better, etc. Re better players being in NFL of course they are - and if the CFL paid twice as much as the NFL that might be different. CFL just gives the option of one more football like product - like the Pac 12. You there Huskie fans? ?

[AUsince72 11,084]

Not a CFL follower nor expert by any means but I always watch a few games as it takes me back...  Remember when Canadian Football was pretty much the only football a young ESPN showed.  Would sit and watch with my Dad during the summer when the Braves sucked and we were bored with baseball.

...and Australian Rules Football...where all of the refs looked like John Cleese.

Ah, memories...