They tried that, unintentionally, during the South Division experiments of the 1990s. What ended up happening was that the teams that had full-size fields like Baltimore and Sacramento/San Antonio ended up having play that was very much what the CFL was known for being. But the teams that were shoehorned onto smaller fields, Memphis in particular, ended up having all their home games turned into defensive slogs.Tank55 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 13, 2021 2:57 pm Another potential alternative, which I actually really like, is to make it sort of like baseball and soccer and let there be some variability in field size. The Riders can keep the 150 yard field, the Guardians can keep the 120 yard field, and maybe the Battlehawks decide that they can get to 130 yards safely, and the Alouettes determine that they need to move to 140 to stop shaving off the corners of the end zone. Or whatever. Establish minimums and maximums and then let everyone fit the field to their stadium.
You can talk about football being an 11-on-11 game, but really, it's 11-on-13: the sidelines never miss a tackle. Give offenses less room to move and scoring goes down; that's why the CFL can get away with three downs and still be high-scoring.
Having different-sized fields changes the nature of the game, particularly in gridiron-style football, probably a little too much for me to be comfortable doing that.