Do the Patriots have a bye before the play us EVERY YEAR?

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes--more importantly for the way this "arrangement" probably works, I think that the Cheats* do. Hey, smart guy, do the math on the odds of this happening randomly 4 years in a row. It's an easy calculation--1 over (8*8*8*8), or roughly 1 in 4000. That's not even throwing in it happening again to us this year (after we beat them once last year and had them down 21-0 at home) and them also getting the Fins after a bye the year after Miami won the AFCE. If, bearing in mind this team's recent history, you don't think that's all kind of funny, I don't really know what to tell you, other than to wonder whether you still believe in Santa Claus, too.....

 

 

 

Personally I doubt it--I also wonder why the Pats* "had" to have a later bye week each year, while the Bills "had" to have an early one. Isn't that also an advantage to the Cheats*, as I'd personally like my bye week as late into the season as possible?

Is the idea to help the Patriots, or screw the Bills, or a little bit of both? And is this a directive you would say that comes all the way from the top, ordered by The Commish, or somewhat of a rogue force that infests only the scheduling committee?

[Mr. WEO]

Yes, when something involving a known cheating team happens that's less statistically likely than Homer Simpson going a whole episode without saying "D'oh", I'd say yes.....

 

 

 

Never said that for all 4 years, but you may recall that the 2004 team was one of the early Spikes/Fletcher/Bledsoe teams (what a disappointment that turned out to be) and one of the relevant years in question we were 9-7 and apparently on the upswing. Also recall that the rest of the division was putrid during that stretch....

 

Then why did they do it those other years? What is the point of this conspiracy if not what you claimed already?

[Kelly the Dog]

Yes, when something involving a known cheating team happens that's less statistically likely than Homer Simpson going a whole episode without saying "D'oh", I'd say yes.....

 

 

 

Never said that for all 4 years, but you may recall that the 2004 team was one of the early Spikes/Fletcher/Bledsoe teams (what a disappointment that turned out to be) and one of the relevant years in question we were 9-7 and apparently on the upswing. Also recall that the rest of the division was putrid during that stretch....

Wouldn't it have helped them more to beat the Jets or the Dolphins who are bigger rivals and bigger threats to ruin their league sponsored supremacy?

[MattM]

Is the idea to help the Patriots, or screw the Bills, or a little bit of both? And is this a directive you would say that comes all the way from the top, ordered by The Commish, or somewhat of a rogue force that infests only the scheduling committee?

 

Whatever's most likely--all facts considered, if I had to guess I'd say help the Pats* and be done by someone (i.e., an individual) with schedule control or influence on the take. After all, why not? As some may recall, Marv (God love him) didn't even notice this anomaly when he was titular head of the organization until someone pointed it out to him. Kind of like taking candy from a baby....

 

Then why did they do it those other years? What is the point of this conspiracy if not what you claimed already?

 

Did you read the part about the rest of the division being pretty putrid (i.e., a crapshoot).

 

To turn this around, you really think this is random? 4,000 to 1 odds of it happening randomly and involving a team known to cheat in at least one way and suspected of doing anything for an advantage, fair or foul (see reports of headsets cutting out at Gillette, etc. Please don't make me refind the NYT article detailing the charges again--Rodney Harrison getting busted for HGH only because he used his own name, all on a team known for "cagey vets" who seem to find a second career in New England)?

 

Wouldn't it have helped them more to beat the Jets or the Dolphins who are bigger rivals and bigger threats to ruin their league sponsored supremacy?

 

Please see my post above about the historical context of the 4 years in question.

Edited April 18, 2012 by MattM

[Mr. WEO]

Whatever's most likely--all facts considered, if I had to guess I'd say help the Pats* and be done by someone (i.e., an individual) with schedule control or influence on the take. After all, why not? As some may recall, Marv (got love him) didn't even notice this anomaly when he was titular head of the organization until someone pointed it out to him. Kind of like taking candy from a baby....

Maybe Marv didn't notice because he didn't think it made a difference.

 

You still haven't been able to articulate an advantage for the pats for those "4 years in a row".

 

Are you also saying the pats are making the NFL schedule themselves?

Edited April 18, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[MattM]

Maybe Marv didn't notice because he didn't think it made a difference.

 

You still haven't been able to articulate an advantage for the pats for those "4 years in a row".

 

Sure I did--division games are the most valuable games on one's schedule for obvious reasons and please read the umpteen posts above for the rest. It may not be what you agree with, but it's all up above.

 

How many have the Cheats* had after byes lately? Without even looking we know it's been at least 5. BTW, last year they got the Steelers, always a bit of a revenge game for them considering the recent rivalry, and in 2010, they got the Ravens, who'd ended their season the year before in the playoffs. Over the last 11 years in addition to the 5 division games and Stillers, Crows games they also got the Cowboys, Broncos, Panthers and Niners after they bye.

 

How many have the Bills had? Have we ever even had any? We've had one AFCE game after they bye in the last 11 years. Interestingly it was against the Pats* in 2004, one of the 4 years in a row in question, so let's call that 3 and a half.....

 

Maybe Marv didn't notice because he didn't think it made a difference.

 

You still haven't been able to articulate an advantage for the pats for those "4 years in a row".

 

Are you also saying the pats are making the NFL schedule themselves?

 

Unfortunately, I think Marv didn't notice because Marv at that age didn't notice--he actually thought it interesting when it was pointed out to him in the interview if I recall correctly.

 

As for the bolded part you added, please see my other reply above. I'm not claiming to "know" anything about this, only pointing out for all the reasons laid out above that this seems beyond the statistical pale to be mere coincidence. It could be, but then it would be about a 1 in 4000 case of such coincidence.....

[Mr. WEO]

Sure I did--division games are the most valuable games on one's schedule for obvious reasons and please read the umpteen posts above for the rest. It may not be what you agree with, but it's all up above.

 

How many have the Cheats* had after byes lately? Without even looking we know it's been at least 5. BTW, last year they got the Steelers, always a bit of a revenge game for them considering the recent rivalry, and in 2010, they got the Ravens, who'd ended their season the year before in the playoffs. Over the last 11 years in addition to the 5 division games and Stillers, Crows games they also got the Cowboys, Broncos, Panthers and Niners after they bye.

 

How many have the Bills had? Have we ever even had any? We've had one AFCE game after they bye in the last 11 years. Interestingly it was against the Pats* in 2004, one of the 4 years in a row in question, so let's call that 3 and a half.....

But why always a bye before the Bills?

[K-No]

But why always a bye before the Bills?

 

Pats probably wish their bye was before a bigger foe than the Bills. They might not be happy either.

[MattM]

But why always a bye before the Bills?

 

As noted above, in at least 3 of the 5 years in question we were considered a main challenger in the Division. Other years they've gotten the Fins (the year after they won the division), the Steelers, Ravens, Broncos and Cowboys, among others (only twice did they get traditionally "weak" teams--Panthers and Niners--outside the Bills). I'm too lazy to see if those "weak" teams were supposed to be good the years in question, but you're smart enough to get the drift....

[NobesBLO13]

I'd be upset if we finished second every year in the East.

[nodnarb]

Are people actually thinking the league conspires to help the New England Patriots each year beat the Buffalo Bills by intentionally sticking the bye week for the Patriots just before they play the Bills?

 

Really?

 

Seriously?

 

With a straight face?

 

Did crayonz put you guys up to this?

 

The point is not to draw conclusions as to why, which is unknowable to us armchair hacks, but to point out that it is, in fact, statistically significant. 5/9 seasons - find another divisional rivalry anywhere in the NFL that has had that one-sided luxury that frequently. You can squawk at allegations of the WHY or WHO of it, but you can't deny that it's there, for whatever reason.

Edited April 18, 2012 by nodnarb

[biglukes]

I'm not going to pretend to know what the reason, if there is one at all, that this keeps happening but it is a little more than odd how often we have to play New England off their bye. You don't have to buy any kind of conspiracy theory to at least admit it's strange. .

[DefenseWinzChampionshipz]

"F" the Pats.

[NobesBLO13]

The point is not to draw conclusions as to why, which is unknowable to us armchair hacks, but to point out that it is, in fact, statistically significant. 5/9 seasons - find another divisional rivalry anywhere in the NFL that has had that one-sided luxury that frequently. You can squawk at allegations of the WHY or WHO of it, but you can't deny that it's there, for whatever reason.

Is it really a rivalry though? They own us. They've won three Super Bowls while we haven't made the playoffs in over a decade. I don't think Belechick needed an extra week to out-strategize Mularkey or Jauron.

[PDaDdy]

This just seems unreal. This happens every year. Simply amazing.

 

Uh ....YES! Seriously it feels like every year they have 2 weeks to rest and prepare for us. This is what it is to be a Bills fan to have that perception and persecution complex. You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you!

[habes1280]

If anything, putting a team your already familiar with and likely to beat anyway hurts the pats.

 

Look, this conspiracy theory doesn't hold water, and I think everyone knows that. But having an additional week to rest, recover, and prepare for a divisional foe (even one you are likely to beat), who, if an away game, is only a short commuter flight away is definitely a convenience. If you're confident in your chances, it's an extended holiday-- like having nothing of significance due the Monday after a long weekend. If you're not as confident, it's an added week to gameplan, prepare, and get healthy.

 

I don't believe for a moment that the NFL has conspired to give the Pats* an edge, it's just a nice break for a team that catches a lot of them.

Edited April 18, 2012 by habes1280

[NoSaint]

Whatever's most likely--all facts considered, if I had to guess I'd say help the Pats* and be done by someone (i.e., an individual) with schedule control or influence on the take. After all, why not? As some may recall, Marv (God love him) didn't even notice this anomaly when he was titular head of the organization until someone pointed it out to him. Kind of like taking candy from a baby....

 

 

 

Did you read the part about the rest of the division being pretty putrid (i.e., a crapshoot).

 

To turn this around, you really think this is random? 4,000 to 1 odds of it happening randomly and involving a team known to cheat in at least one way and suspected of doing anything for an advantage, fair or foul (see reports of headsets cutting out at Gillette, etc. Please don't make me refind the NYT article detailing the charges again--Rodney Harrison getting busted for HGH only because he used his own name, all on a team known for "cagey vets" who seem to find a second career in New England)?

 

 

 

Please see my post above about the historical context of the 4 years in question.

 

To be fair, as someone else noted im sure guys get certain tendencies with setting the schedule - ways they pattern primetime, and division/rivalry games for TV as we have both fit pretty standard roles of "superbowl contender with lots of network time" and "haven't made the playoffs in over a decade and very few prime games" that we have fit into the basic form they use. You'd be hard pressed to find two teams that have been more consistent the last ten years. I in no way think this is someone out to get us. We haven't earned that kind of respect.

[OCinBuffalo]

Personally I doubt it--I also wonder why the Pats* "had" to have a later bye week each year, while the Bills "had" to have an early one. Isn't that also an advantage to the Cheats*, as I'd personally like my bye week as late into the season as possible?

I am under the impression that the teams that make the playoffs etc., get their byes later the next season. The lowest finishers in the divisions get byes earlier etc. This is not always the case, and is certainly subject to scheduling conflicts, etc., but, in general, this is the case. Pretty sure that's right.

 

If it is, then it's no surprise that the Pats, who have won the divisions a lot in the last 9 years, *had* to have their bye later than the Bills....whose standing in the division over the last 9 years has been

 

The thinking behind this is: having to play more games in a row leaves a lot less room for adjustment. Whereas, if you have an early bye, and are a bad team....it's a lot easier to change QBs, Defenses, etc....with that extra week off earlier in the season. Also, if you include training camp, it's easier on the players health wise to get an earlier break.

 

As you say, there's an argument on the other side of this as well.

Whatever's most likely--all facts considered, if I had to guess I'd say help the Pats* and be done by someone (i.e., an individual) with schedule control or influence on the take. After all, why not? As some may recall, Marv (God love him) didn't even notice this anomaly when he was titular head of the organization until someone pointed it out to him. Kind of like taking candy from a baby....

 

To turn this around, you really think this is random? 4,000 to 1 odds of it happening randomly and involving a team known to cheat in at least one way and suspected of doing anything for an advantage, fair or foul (see reports of headsets cutting out at Gillette, etc. Please don't make me refind the NYT article detailing the charges again--Rodney Harrison getting busted for HGH only because he used his own name, all on a team known for "cagey vets" who seem to find a second career in New England)?

I don't think it's random. But, I also don't think its random for the reasons you say = fix is in. I think that if you are looking for conspiracy anywhere, the most likely place to find it is in how the NFL, TV Networks, and especially, the NFL Network itself, is manipulating the schedule to try and constantly stack up the most viewers possible per game. If anything, the fix is in for $$$$, and I don't blame them for that. Why the hell shouldn't they max out the revenue per game?

 

The real conspiracy here: After losing the battle with the cable companies, the NFL is trying to build value into the NFL Network....so that more of us choose to pay extra on our cable bills for it. This is why every team now has to play at least one Thursday game this year. It's also the reason why match ups of likely playoff teams happen later in the season, so that they can be flexed to Sunday night.

 

I think that the scheduling people have a hell of mess on their hands trying to plan each season, given all of the requirements we know about...and the ones we don't know about, like whatever the TV people are saying about each game, etc.. To combat that, they re-use patterns or segments of the schedule from 4 years ago(the last time all these divisions lined up) etc. that worked last time around. Why would you want to re-invent the wheel every year?

 

I suppose I am arguing utility is a more probable reason for why parts of the schedule repeat, that conspiracy.

[Búfalo Blanco]

And how'd that turn out for them? Funny that after they get beaten, the bye week before playing the Bills comes back. This is not by chance.

I don't usually believe in conspiracy theories, but I agree with you on this one...

[MattM]

Look, this conspiracy theory doesn't hold water, and I think everyone knows that. But having an additional week to rest, recover, and prepare for a divisional foe (even one you are likely to beat), who, if an away game, is only a short commuter flight away is definitely a convenience. If you're confident in your chances, it's an extended holiday-- like having nothing of significance due the Monday after a long weekend. If you're not as confident, it's an added week to gameplan, prepare, and get healthy.

 

I don't believe for a moment that the NFL has conspired to give the Pats* an edge, it's just a nice break for a team that catches a lot of them.

 

How many such "breaks" does a team need to get before people start calling "fire" from the "smoke" is the question (and we haven't even brought up the ridiculous officiating in their games yet--oops, I guess we just did).....

 

I am under the impression that the teams that make the playoffs etc., get their byes later the next season. The lowest finishers in the divisions get byes earlier etc. This is not always the case, and is certainly subject to scheduling conflicts, etc., but, in general, this is the case. Pretty sure that's right.

 

If it is, then it's no surprise that the Pats, who have won the divisions a lot in the last 9 years, *had* to have their bye later than the Bills....whose standing in the division over the last 9 years has been

 

The thinking behind this is: having to play more games in a row leaves a lot less room for adjustment. Whereas, if you have an early bye, and are a bad team....it's a lot easier to change QBs, Defenses, etc....with that extra week off earlier in the season. Also, if you include training camp, it's easier on the players health wise to get an earlier break.

 

As you say, there's an argument on the other side of this as well.

 

I don't think it's random. But, I also don't think its random for the reasons you say = fix is in. I think that if you are looking for conspiracy anywhere, the most likely place to find it is in how the NFL, TV Networks, and especially, the NFL Network itself, is manipulating the schedule to try and constantly stack up the most viewers possible per game. If anything, the fix is in for $$$$, and I don't blame them for that. Why the hell shouldn't they max out the revenue per game?

 

The real conspiracy here: After losing the battle with the cable companies, the NFL is trying to build value into the NFL Network....so that more of us choose to pay extra on our cable bills for it. This is why every team now has to play at least one Thursday game this year. It's also the reason why match ups of likely playoff teams happen later in the season, so that they can be flexed to Sunday night.

 

I think that the scheduling people have a hell of mess on their hands trying to plan each season, given all of the requirements we know about...and the ones we don't know about, like whatever the TV people are saying about each game, etc.. To combat that, they re-use patterns or segments of the schedule from 4 years ago(the last time all these divisions lined up) etc. that worked last time around. Why would you want to re-invent the wheel every year?

 

I suppose I am arguing utility is a more probable reason for why parts of the schedule repeat, that conspiracy.

 

I still really don't see how any of those factors leads to the Pats* being more likely to play us and other good teams after their bye. If it figures into this at all, it's on the margins (say 1 in 4100 chance to 1 in 3900 chance). What may figure in is the fact that NE* gets more games against better quality opponents since they play a first place schedule each year. That said, since we also play them twice a year to make up for that, we play almost as many "good" teams each year, but seem to come nowhere close to having as many "good" teams or divisional games after byes.

 

All things considered, it looks to me like New England seems to get a say in who they play after their bye a good bit of the time. Either that, or it's a heckuva large coincidence....