WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 Sounds like somebody needs this: Wow, it's out early this year! Usually it only comes out in preseason.
BobChalmers Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) How does this compare to every other team? Can you make a list of how many times each team plays a team coming off a mini or full bye? I bet it's higher than you think. The average number of teams coming off byes on your schedule should be ONE. Another ~1.2 average for getting teams off their Thursday game. With 3 plus the extra 3 Thursday-follows the Bills got screwed hard, and this should be a scandal for the NFL. No team should ever have to face more than one team coming off a bye (unless it's their own bye week) and the idea of getting division opponents coming off their bye when you aren't is a crime. The rough math is straightforward: Every team gets one bye week. They play one other team in their next game - that's 32 games, which if divided evenly would be 1 post-bye opponent per team. If there's a Thursday game every week, that's 17 (I feel like this is only 16 - do they do Thursday the last week?) games x 2 teams for 36 + 2 extra on Thanksgiving and games that have post-Thursday oppenents. 38? total teams coming off a Thursday / spread amongst 32 teams - about 1.2? In a nutshell - the average should be just slightly over 2. SIX is a disgusting screw-job. Edited April 20, 2013 by BobChalmers
Nanker Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) For the record, like eBall, I think it's 5. Even so, the schedule makers answer to no one. What I think should become the norm is that every division team should have their bye week at the same time. That would at least cut down on NE* getting us off their bye week - which I believe has happened either 4 or 5 times in the last 6-7 years. No, it is six. The ATL game is them coming off a Thursday night game. So, it's 3-3. NFL Edited April 20, 2013 by Nanker
8-8 Forever? Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) Bills got screwed on schedule. They play 6 teams coming off a mini or full bye wow, that is high. BUT, Bills never travel west of the mississippi this year..so the travel schedule is VERY favorable. that may be why they stick more bye teams into the Bills schedule.. but I doubt it. Bills are a doormat franchise, they want the top teams to beat the Bills , to further enhance the chances the top teams face each other (which is built into the schedule) with something on the line later in the season and in the playoffs, which is good for TV ratings and the TV revenue from the networks. Bills play Pats last game of season because its all over by then. All of this is done to increase TV ratings. Edited April 20, 2013 by 8and8Forever
BobChalmers Posted April 20, 2013 Posted April 20, 2013 The Jets get extra time to prepare against the Bills BOTH games - insane.
ExWNYer Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 The average number of teams coming off byes on your schedule should be ONE. Another ~1.2 average for getting teams off their Thursday game. With 3 plus the extra 3 Thursday-follows the Bills got screwed hard, and this should be a scandal for the NFL. No team should ever have to face more than one team coming off a bye (unless it's their own bye week) and the idea of getting division opponents coming off their bye when you aren't is a crime. The rough math is straightforward: Every team gets one bye week. They play one other team in their next game - that's 32 games, which if divided evenly would be 1 post-bye opponent per team. If there's a Thursday game every week, that's 17 (I feel like this is only 16 - do they do Thursday the last week?) games x 2 teams for 36 + 2 extra on Thanksgiving and games that have post-Thursday oppenents. 38? total teams coming off a Thursday / spread amongst 32 teams - about 1.2? In a nutshell - the average should be just slightly over 2. SIX is a disgusting screw-job. For the record, like eBall, I think it's 5. Even so, the schedule makers answer to no one. What I think should become the norm is that every division team should have their bye week at the same time. That would at least cut down on NE* getting us off their bye week - which I believe has happened either 4 or 5 times in the last 6-7 years. No, it is six. The ATL game is them coming off a Thursday night game. So, it's 3-3. NFL I posted this last fall and I stand by it: "I'd really like to know what the NFL takes into account when determining its final schedule. You mean to tell me that with all of the computer permutations they run to arrive at an "optimal" schedule, that this is what the Bills end up having???: - Back-to-back west coast road games (San Francisco and Arizona) followed by... - A game against a team coming off of 10 days rest (Tennessee). Followed by... - A game against a team coming off of its bye week (Houston), negating your (Buffalo) bye week "advantage". Followed by... - A game against a divisional opponent coming off of its bye week (NE*) {for what seems like the umpteenth time, as JR said}. Followed by... - Another game against a divisional opponent (Miami) on a short week. Really??? This is ridiculous whether it's the Bills or any other team. I know that bye weeks are a money grab for the NFL by stretching the season but how about making it fair for all 32 teams? Who needs a bye in Week 4?! Teams off in Weeks 4 -10? You really need 7 bye weeks and a weakened slate of games for nearly two months?? Here's what I would do and the league still gets its precious extra week: - Four bye weeks starting in Week 7. This ends the useless, early season byes and gives everyone a truer "half season" bye. - There would be two entire divisions off in each of Weeks 7, 8, 9, & 10. One AFC, one NFC to balance out the TV schedule. For example, AFC East & NFC East off in Week 7. This works with an even number of teams in each division. The league has not expanded yet so this model does apply. - The following week, all of the bye week teams would play within their own division. For example, in Week 8 - NE* vs. BUF (since NE* always gets this, anyway), MIA vs. NYJ; DAL vs. WAS, PHI vs. NYG. - Thursday Night games: A team would neither have to play a divisional opponent on one of these short weeks, nor would they be allowed to play another divisional opponent after having the 10 day "advantage" of participating in the previous week's Thursday game. This would take some doing but it could be done. The league works on these schedules for months and comes up with thousands of variations before releasing the final version." Time for the NFL to get it right...hey, it's not rocket science, Competition Committee.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 Anyways this is yet another example of something that we find out by reading TSW. You think The Snooze is aware of the inequities in the Bills schedule?
QB Bills Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 Mini-byes...I like that term. Having said that...good teams don't B word about the schedule. I'd rather be a team that has a "bring them on" mentality than a "let's get them when they're tired/not ready" way of thinking.
Joe W Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 Rather than worry about playing teams after byes the fan base should be outraged that the Bills voluntarily give up a home game to play in Toronto. And don't believe Brandens crap about regionalization even he doesn't believe the stuff he shovels to the press
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 Mini-byes...I like that term. Having said that...good teams don't B word about the schedule. I'd rather be a team that has a "bring them on" mentality than a "let's get them when they're tired/not ready" way of thinking. Yeah well the Bills aren't the ones bitching. We are. In fact you could argue that we're not even bitching but rather, discussing this latest "quirk" in the scheduling. Regardless the fact remains that for the second year in a row, the Bills have been placed at a significant disadvantage by the schedule makers. It's enough to make you feel that there's a conspiracy or something.
The Big Cat Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 Mini-byes...I like that term. Having said that...good teams don't B word about the schedule. I'd rather be a team that has a "bring them on" mentality than a "let's get them when they're tired/not ready" way of thinking. In addition to SJ's response above, I'd like to also add that in this case, good teams don't have anything to complain about. The Patriots and Niners play against a total of ZERO teams coming off byes or Thurs games.
Doc Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 In addition to SJ's response above, I'd like to also add that in this case, good teams don't have anything to complain about. The Patriots and Niners play against a total of ZERO teams coming off byes or Thurs games. Wow, what a coinkidink!
DanInUticaTampa Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 Well, the Bills are also the only team that gets 34 weeks and then 16 weeks between regular season games to prepare for New England...looks like they did us a favor. In other words, quit whining. playing NE with the first game gives us the best shot I think to beat them too. Pats* wont have any tape (other than preseason games) on our new defense and offense, their tight ends probably won't be healthy, and might not even play, plus it is a home game. I think that is the best shot we could have. Not saying we are going to beat them, but best shot we could have.
DanInUticaTampa Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 In addition to SJ's response above, I'd like to also add that in this case, good teams don't have anything to complain about. The Patriots and Niners play against a total of ZERO teams coming off byes or Thurs games. Now that is interesting.... I am not ready to put on the tin foil hat just yet, but make it three years in a row, and I might just construct one.
MattM Posted April 21, 2013 Posted April 21, 2013 In addition to SJ's response above, I'd like to also add that in this case, good teams don't have anything to complain about. The Patriots and Niners play against a total of ZERO teams coming off byes or Thurs games. Didn't the Cheats* have a similar situation last year--something like one or none against folks coming off Thursday or a bye? I seem to recall us having a very similar discussion last year at this time and a lot of people calling those who pointed this out crazy conspiracy theorists. I wonder what point and what amount of evidence, circumstantial as it may be, is enough for some folks. I mean it was literally 4,000 to 1 odds that the Cheats* would play us off their bye in as many consecutive years as they did, for example.....
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) Taken another way: teams get a +1 coming off a bye, -1 when they play a team coming off a bye, .5 coming off Thur and -.5 when their opponent is, the league shapes up thusly: NE 1.5 BAL 1.5 SF 1.5 MIA 1 JAC 1 DET 0.5 MIN 0.5 GB 0.5 PIT 0.5 DEN 0.5 DAL 0.5 WAS 0.5 NO 0.5 TEN 0.5 NYJ 0 CIN 0 SEA 0 STL 0 KC 0 NYG 0 IND 0 CLE -0.5 SD -0.5 OAK -0.5 PHI -0.5 TB -0.5 ARI -1 ATL -1 CHI -1.5 CAR -1.5 HOU -1.5 BUF -4.5 Again...it's not even CLOSE Also, is it Thursday yet!? Edited April 22, 2013 by taC giB ehT
eball Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 Taken another way: teams get a +1 coming off a bye, -1 when they play a team coming off a bye, .5 coming off Thur and -.5 when their opponent is, the league shapes up thusly: <snip> BUF -4.5 Again...it's not even CLOSE Also, is it Thursday yet!? But does the data suggest there's any specific correlation between teams' respective performances either getting or giving up extra rest? Otherwise, your numbers are irrelevant.
MattM Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 But does the data suggest there's any specific correlation between teams' respective performances either getting or giving up extra rest? Otherwise, your numbers are irrelevant. I didn't click through the relevant link, but Poo noted above on Saturday that 10 years of data out to 2011 showed a 4.2% increase in chances for a win after a full bye. That's statistically significant and would also follow what one might intuit based on common sense.....
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) But does the data suggest there's any specific correlation between teams' respective performances either getting or giving up extra rest? Otherwise, your numbers are irrelevant. Determining that information will have to wait another 8.5 months. EDIT: never mind, I've got some time this morning at work, let me see how things shaped up in 2012... Edited April 22, 2013 by taC giB ehT
The Big Cat Posted April 22, 2013 Posted April 22, 2013 LOLZ Premise: shot In 2012 Teams coming off Thurs games were 16-18 Teams coming off byes were 15-15-2 Soooooooooooooooo... :-)
Recommended Posts