Note that Canadian Football was a direct descendent from their RFU - and kept the same sized Rugby field for gridiron football. And they only reduced from 15 to 12 players. But they are now changing the CFL field to 100 yds. length keeping the same rugby-sized width. With that change they are also shrinking the end zones from 20 to 15 yds and putting the goal posts on the end line like in the U.S. version. So the only thing left even resembling gridiron football with goal posts on the goal line is League Rugby (such as the Australian NRL) with 13 players to a side and 6 “downs”.
If the field width was reduced by the same percentage as the length, the field would be 55-yds wide, or 165 feet, i.e. maintaining a 2-1 ratio of length to width.
It is sort of the other way around. Harvard Stadium opened in 1903, decades after they defined the 160 yard field width. When they considered strategies to open up football in 1906, one suggestion was to widen the field, but since Harvard was a big dog and had recently built the first reinforced concrete stadium in the world that assumed the 160 yard field width, the rulemakers were unable to expand the field if they wanted Harvard to play along. So, Harvard Stadium kept the field width at 160 feet, but played no role in defining that field width back in 1879.
Note that Canadian Football was a direct descendent from their RFU - and kept the same sized Rugby field for gridiron football. And they only reduced from 15 to 12 players. But they are now changing the CFL field to 100 yds. length keeping the same rugby-sized width. With that change they are also shrinking the end zones from 20 to 15 yds and putting the goal posts on the end line like in the U.S. version. So the only thing left even resembling gridiron football with goal posts on the goal line is League Rugby (such as the Australian NRL) with 13 players to a side and 6 “downs”.
I wrote about the Canadian rule changes shortly after they were announced. I enjoy the Canadian game and wish they would leave the rules as they are. https://www.footballarchaeology.com/p/making-history-the-cfls-new-rules
If the field width was reduced by the same percentage as the length, the field would be 55-yds wide, or 165 feet, i.e. maintaining a 2-1 ratio of length to width.
I don't recall seeing a rationale for settling on 160-feet (https://open.substack.com/pub/jamesleegilbert/p/evolution-of-college-football-fields?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1hylf2), but it's possible a measurement ending in '0' was preferred over one ending in '5'. So why not 170 feet? I don't know.
That's very good info about the chains. I wonder if there's any mention of a pre-1912 football as almost an 1/8th of an acre.
My understanding was that the width of the field was arrived at because it was the widest field that could fit into Harvard Stadium.
It is sort of the other way around. Harvard Stadium opened in 1903, decades after they defined the 160 yard field width. When they considered strategies to open up football in 1906, one suggestion was to widen the field, but since Harvard was a big dog and had recently built the first reinforced concrete stadium in the world that assumed the 160 yard field width, the rulemakers were unable to expand the field if they wanted Harvard to play along. So, Harvard Stadium kept the field width at 160 feet, but played no role in defining that field width back in 1879.