Bills scheduling woes

[Doc]

I asked (and answered) this earlier, but nobody disputed it... so I'll bring it up again...

 

Before the AFC/NFC Championships or the SB... does one team get an extra week's time to heal/rest and prepare for their opponent? If not, why do you think that is? Do you think that it would be an unfair situation for one team over the other? Of course it is. With the way the regular season is laid out it's hard to accomodate everyone perfectly (that doesn't exist), but there shouldn't be a 4-5 game discrepancy here... that's all people are having issues with

 

Any dispute to this?

No one can reasonably dispute that having more time to rest and prepare is an advantage. What some are saying is that the Bills shouldn't whine about it because they've sucked for so long/all by themselves.

[bladiebla]

The yearly scheduling complaint that this franchise makes to the league is that there are too many late season cold weather games that are difficult to sell out. This year the league accommodated the franchise. If the Bills fielded a competitive team the scheduling issue would be irrelevant,

 

No, a winning Bills team would make selling out the late season games far less of an issue.

[JohnC]

Oh please! Stop making this out to be more than it really is just to support your soapbox. No one is HOWLING about anything.

 

It is a simple fact that the Bills HAVE been disadvantaged by this flaw in the scheduling process, whether you are willing to admit it or not.

 

 

It is a simple fact, and it deserves attention by the league. And BTW, it is not beyond ALL of our capabilities to understand the variables involved. Moreover, they have software that helps them handle and prioritize all of those variables. This is most certainly under the league's control.

 

 

 

There is simply NO excuse for taking the position that it's all good and the Bills should just grin and bear it, else their babies and whiners. There is no excuse or reason why your division rivals (and especially the top one) do not have to suffer this at all, while you get to "bend over" for it 5 times during the same season and suffer it in silence because, hey, you haven't been that good anyway.

 

For league that prides itself on parity, they need to fix this so it doesn't unfairly disadvantage one team.

 

Are you making the claim that the league acted outside its scheduling formula to specifically hinder the Bills? That is absurd. The scheduling software you referred to is only part of the equation in putting together a schedule. There are many variables associated with TV viewership and game appeal that are factored into the calculation for making up a schedule. Whether you want to accept it or not it is a reality that being a losing, boring and irrelevant team for a generation is without a doubt a consideration when putting together a schedule. If you don't think viewership is a factor in the equation then you are being very naive.

 

On a yearly basis there are always teams that on balance have a favorable and unfavorable balance. That can't be avoided. There are many years where the weakling Bills have had a softer schedule than some of the powerhouse teams. It's not surprising that the scheduler complainers were silent?

 

The Bills haven't even entered training camp and the excuses are being brought to the table. That is pathetic. What happens if the Bills surprise you and outperform your expectations, even with what you believe to be an unbalanced schedule. What will be your response then?

Edited June 22, 2013 by JohnC

[PromoTheRobot]

 

 

No, a winning Bills team would make selling out the late season games far less of an issue.

People say this and yet I can recall the Bills SB years where they had trouble selling out late season games. Heck they had trouble selling out playoff games. They couldn't even sell out their 4th AFC championship vs KC without ch.2 buying up the last couple thousands seats! How freakin' sad is that?

 

PTR

[Dorkington]

I asked (and answered) this earlier, but nobody disputed it... so I'll bring it up again...

 

Before the AFC/NFC Championships or the SB... does one team get an extra week's time to heal/rest and prepare for their opponent? If not, why do you think that is? Do you think that it would be an unfair situation for one team over the other? Of course it is. With the way the regular season is laid out it's hard to accomodate everyone perfectly (that doesn't exist), but there shouldn't be a 4-5 game discrepancy here... that's all people are having issues with

 

Any dispute to this?

 

There's a bit more control in the playoff format. Fact is, the Bills don't produce ratings, and aren't relevant, so the NFL won't really care what happens with their schedule. Best way to fix it is to win games.

[Doc]

People say this and yet I can recall the Bills SB years where they had trouble selling out late season games. Heck they had trouble selling out playoff games. They couldn't even sell out their 4th AFC championship vs KC without ch.2 buying up the last couple thousands seats! How freakin' sad is that?

I remember reading a few years ago that a particular season (2007?) was just the 4th season to sellout in Bills history and that another was after the SB years. I was floored, thinking the last 3 SB years at least, plus maybe the 1994 season, would have been at least.

[MattM]

Are you making the claim that the league acted outside its scheduling formula to specifically hinder the Bills? That is absurd. The scheduling software you referred to is only part of the equation in putting together a schedule. There are many variables associated with TV viewership and game appeal that are factored into the calculation for making up a schedule. Whether you want to accept it or not it is a reality that being a losing, boring and irrelevant team for a generation is without a doubt a consideration when putting together a schedule. If you don't think viewership is a factor in the equation then you are being very naive.

 

On a yearly basis there are always teams that on balance have a favorable and unfavorable balance. That can't be avoided. There are many years where the weakling Bills have had a softer schedule than some of the powerhouse teams. It's not surprising that the scheduler complainers were silent?

 

The Bills haven't even entered training camp and the excuses are being brought to the table. That is pathetic. What happens if the Bills surprise you and outperform your expectations, even with what you believe to be an unbalanced schedule. What will be your response then?

 

A few points:

 

--some teams have softer schedules than others each year by design--that's the way the League sets its schedules as a way to encourage parity, with the first place team in a division playing other first place teams, on down the line;

 

--after thinking about it, the ratings and game appeal arguments don't seem to hold much water. The League has to make sure that they have 3-4 good games a week to showcase (Monday night, Sunday night and 1 to 2 Sunday national games). The rest will be regional action, which will cover the vast majority of the country on a Sunday afternoon, including, by definition, the 30 largest TV markets in America. In any randomly generated week of 14 to 16 games, you will easily have those 3-4 needed games;

 

--once again, and following up on the last point, being a losing franchise has nothing to do with getting screwed by playing opponents with more rest. Nothing at all. Each team has two short weeks (a bye and a Thursday night game). Therefore, an average team should play opponents with more rest twice a year (under the new Thursday night rules), whether that team is good or bad, particularly since as noted in the point immediately above and repeatedly by others above, whether a team is good or bad and the concomitant ratings quest really has no bearing on this;

 

--missed in all of this focus on the Bills is to my mind an equally large story if the poster way above on this point is correct--namely how the Pats* have played only one team on more rest in 5 years. The odds of that happening by chance are astronomical. That should be something the League is made aware of people knowing about to prevent it from continuing. If you think that was coincidence, I have a bridge to sell you. As noted above, just one more data point pointing to them getting WAAAYYY better treatment from the League (and media) than anyone else would. More evidence this week is the fact that Aaron Hernandez can shoot a guy in the face in early February and not a peep from the League (who must have known about that) or the media. Remember the sh*tstorm when Lynch was found with a registered gun in his trunk, and the three weeks off he got for that? Then again, when one of the major networks (CBS) has Kraft on their board and actually owns a part of Patriette* Place, I guess I should expect no less. (JW, if you're still reading this (doubtful, I know), I'm curious as to why no one has reported on that story--seems to me something like that would merit a story for sure, unless, of course, the media had been told to lay off it for fear of loss of access perhaps).

 

John--I usually like your posts and agree with many of them, but I think you're missing the mark on this one....

[Doc]

A few points:

 

--some teams have softer schedules than others each year by design--that's the way the League sets its schedules as a way to encourage parity, with the first place team in a division playing other first place teams, on down the line;

 

--after thinking about it, the ratings and game appeal arguments don't seem to hold much water. The League has to make sure that they have 3-4 good games a week to showcase (Monday night, Sunday night and 1 to 2 Sunday national games). The rest will be regional action, which will cover the vast majority of the country on a Sunday afternoon, including, by definition, the 30 largest TV markets in America. In any randomly generated week of 14 to 16 games, you will easily have those 3-4 needed games;

 

--once again, and following up on the last point, being a losing franchise has nothing to do with getting screwed by playing opponents with more rest. Nothing at all. Each team has two short weeks (a bye and a Thursday night game). Therefore, an average team should play opponents with more rest twice a year (under the new Thursday night rules), whether that team is good or bad, particularly since as noted in the point immediately above and repeatedly by others above, whether a team is good or bad and the concomitant ratings quest really has no bearing on this;

 

--missed in all of this focus on the Bills is to my mind an equally large story if the poster way above on this point is correct--namely how the Pats* have played only one team on more rest in 5 years. The odds of that happening by chance are astronomical. That should be something the League is made aware of people knowing about to prevent it from continuing. If you think that was coincidence, I have a bridge to sell you. As noted above, just one more data point pointing to them getting WAAAYYY better treatment from the League (and media) than anyone else would. More evidence this week is the fact that Aaron Hernandez can shoot a guy in the face in early February and not a peep from the League (who must have known about that) or the media. Remember the sh*tstorm when Lynch was found with a registered gun in his trunk, and the three weeks off he got for that? Then again, when one of the major networks (CBS) has Kraft on their board and actually owns a part of Patriette* Place, I guess I should expect no less. (JW, if you're still reading this (doubtful, I know), I'm curious as to why no one has reported on that story--seems to me something like that would merit a story for sure, unless, of course, the media had been told to lay off it for fear of loss of access perhaps).

 

John--I usually like your posts and agree with many of them, but I think you're missing the mark on this one....

The underlying tone with all of JC's rants are that Ralph sucks and is the reason for the losing, and therefore the team deserves to get screwed by the NFL. And whether the NFL is intentionally trying to screw the Bills or whether the Bills are getting screwed because the league is attempting to help other teams is unknown, but again I'm glad they brought it to national attention. And I'd reiterate that if someone thinks a loser shouldn't whine because he/she is a loser and deserves it, use those words on yourself the next time you start whining.

[JohnC]

A few points:

 

--some teams have softer schedules than others each year by design--that's the way the League sets its schedules as a way to encourage parity, with the first place team in a division playing other first place teams, on down the line;

 

The parity schedule is a league designed system that benefits weakling teams like the Bills. It's intention is to mask the lack of competitveness of bad teams and give the illusion that they are still contending late into the seasnon when in reality they are not. Even in this "affirmative action" system the Bills have continued to fail miserably.

To make an analogy it is like the Bills are given an outlandish amount of food stamps by the league and they still continue to go hungry. It is a tribute to the caliber of its ownership and organization.

 

 

 

 

--once again, and following up on the last point, being a losing franchise has nothing to do with getting screwed by playing opponents with more rest. Nothing at all. Each team has two short weeks (a bye and a Thursday night game). Therefore, an average team should play opponents with more rest twice a year (under the new Thursday night rules), whether that team is good or bad, particularly since as noted in the point immediately above and repeatedly by others above, whether a team is good or bad and the concomitant ratings quest really has no bearing on this;

 

I give you credit for your detailed analysis of the scheduling system. But it is squandered effort. The reality is that the Bills are a losing/boring and irrelevant organizatiion in the NFL. You can reasonably make the claim that they are being discriminated against (this year) compared to the more relevant teams. My response is so what----what did you expect when your team has been an invisible franchise due to its own dysfunction for a generation?

 

--missed in all of this focus on the Bills is to my mind an equally large story if the poster way above on this point is correct--namely how the Pats* have played only one team on more rest in 5 years. The odds of that happening by chance are astronomical. That should be something the League is made aware of people knowing about to prevent it from continuing. If you think that was coincidence, I have a bridge to sell you. As noted above, just one more data point pointing to them getting WAAAYYY better treatment from the League (and media) than anyone else would. More evidence this week is the fact that Aaron Hernandez can shoot a guy in the face in early February and not a peep from the League (who must have known about that) or the media. Remember the sh*tstorm when Lynch was found with a registered gun in his trunk, and the three weeks off he got for that? Then again, when one of the major networks (CBS) has Kraft on their board and actually owns a part of Patriette* Place, I guess I should expect no less. (JW, if you're still reading this (doubtful, I know), I'm curious as to why no one has reported on that story--seems to me something like that would merit a story for sure, unless, of course, the media had been told to lay off it for fear of loss of access perhaps).

 

Don't worry about how teams such as the Pats, Cowboys, Giants, Steelers are compared to your ugly duckling franchise. Put your energy in building yourself up in instead of investing so much energy in making excuses why your plight is so unfair and difficult. In the grand scheme of things the schedule (fair or unfair) has little bearing on the status of the Bills.

 

With respect to the Hernandez situation the league is acting responsibly in the way it is dealing with it. They are not making public statements and are monitoring the situation. Herandez is now not allowed on the team's premises. What more do you want them to do at this point?

 

John--I usually like your posts and agree with many of them, but I think you're missing the mark on this one....

 

I know exactly what point you and many others are making. A lot of good energy and detailed work is put in your effort. From my perspective it is misplaced effort. If you want to focus on the scheduling issue then let's look at it from a wider perspective, rather than this singular upcoming season. The premise that the Bills are being screwed because of the way this year's schedule has worked out belies the reality that the Bills over a number of years are one of the most favored teams from a scheduling standpoint.

Edited June 22, 2013 by JohnC

[JohnC]

The underlying tone with all of JC's rants are that Ralph sucks and is the reason for the losing, and therefore the team deserves to get screwed by the NFL. And whether the NFL is intentionally trying to screw the Bills or whether the Bills are getting screwed because the league is attempting to help other teams is unknown, but again I'm glad they brought it to national attention. And I'd reiterate that if someone thinks a loser shouldn't whine because he/she is a loser and deserves it, use those words on yourself the next time you start whining.

 

Your position that the Bills most often lose because the system is working against it is laughable.

 

My point is simple: The performance of this organization over the past generation has little to do with the schedule made by the league office.

 

With respect to Ralph Wilson my position is well known to you. He is an incompetent buffoon who is most responsible for the status of this organization. Believe it or not, although it might not be reflected in the near term record, I am more confident than ever in the prospects of this franchise because the weird owner is no longer involved in the operation. I am also more confident in the future prospects of team not because Nix is the GM but because he is not the GM. Another perplexinging hire by the inscrutable owner.

[Doc]

Your position that the Bills most often lose because the system is working against it is laughable.

 

My point is simple: The performance of this organization over the past generation has little to do with the schedule made by the league office.

 

With respect to Ralph Wilson my position is well known to you. He is an incompetent buffoon who is most responsible for the status of this organization. Believe it or not, although it might not be reflected in the near term record, I am more confident than ever in the prospects of this franchise because the weird owner is no longer involved in the operation. I am also more confident in the future prospects of team not because Nix is the GM but because he is not the GM. Another perplexinging hire by the inscrutable owner.

No, the Bills don't lose just because the system is against them. But as I said, any advantage helps.

 

Nix as GM was not perplexing in the least. Not sure where that's coming from, considering he was assistant GM with the Chargers.

[MattM]

The parity schedule is a league designed system that benefits weakling teams like the Bills. It's intention is to mask the lack of competitveness of bad teams and give the illusion that they are still contending late into the seasnon when in reality they are not. Even in this "affirmative action" system the Bills have continued to fail miserably.

To make an analogy it is like the Bills are given an outlandish amount of food stamps by the league and they still continue to go hungry. It is a tribute to the caliber of its ownership and organization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I give you credit for your detailed analysis of the scheduling system. But it is squandered effort. The reality is that the Bills are a losing/boring and irrelevant organizatiion in the NFL. You can reasonably make the claim that they are being discriminated against (this year) compared to the more relevant teams. My response is so what----what did you expect when your team has been an invisible franchise due to its own dysfunction for a generation?

 

 

 

Don't worry about how teams such as the Pats, Cowboys, Giants, Steelers are compared to your ugly duckling franchise. Put your energy in building yourself up in instead of investing so much energy in making excuses why your plight is so unfair and difficult. In the grand scheme of things the schedule (fair or unfair) has little bearing on the status of the Bills.

 

With respect to the Hernandez situation the league is acting responsibly in the way it is dealing with it. They are not making public statements and are monitoring the situation. Herandez is now not allowed on the team's premises. What more do you want them to do at this point?

 

 

 

I know exactly what point you and many others are making. A lot of good energy and detailed work is put in your effort. From my perspective it is misplaced effort. If you want to focus on the scheduling issue then let's look at it from a wider perspective, rather than this singular upcoming season. The premise that the Bills are being screwed because of the way this year's schedule has worked out belies the reality that the Bills over a number of years are one of the most favored teams from a scheduling standpoint.

 

The Hernandez news I was talking about was not his alleged involvement in killing someone this week, but his shooting of someone in the face in early February this year, which only came to light (along with two other night club disturbances he was involved in last month) when the murder came to light. How could shooting someone in the face not make it into the press or merit discussion by the League is beyond me, particularly when we've seen relatively minor things with our players (the Lynch gun incident comes to mind, as does the Anthony Hargrove bar fight a few years back) get massively blown up by both the League and the media. File it, along with much else about the Cheats*, under "things that make you go, hmmmm?",.......

[MattM]

BTW, I also calculated the rough odds of New England randomly playing only one opponent with extra rest over a 5 year period and found it to be about 750 to 1 using very conservative (ie, pro-Pats*) assumptions, namely:

 

--pre-2012 (ie, pre-Thursday nighters) one-quarter of the League played no one with a bye;

--gave them full (rather than partial) credit for the one year they played one team with extra rest and made that year a "tougher" year (2012, since it also has Thursday night byes); and

--used a 0.10 multiplier for 2012 since less than 10% of the League plays no one with extra rest,

 

Thus you get 0.25 times 0.25 times 0.25 times 1 times 0.1 equals about 0.0015 or 0.15 percent, or one in 750 or so.

Combine that with the other data above re: how many division and important games they got coming off their own bye and it really looks like they have a direct dial line into the schedule makers' office, doesn't it?

[Doc]

BTW, I also calculated the rough odds of New England randomly playing only one opponent with extra rest over a 5 year period and found it to be about 750 to 1 using very conservative (ie, pro-Pats*) assumptions, namely:

 

--pre-2012 (ie, pre-Thursday nighters) one-quarter of the League played no one with a bye;

--gave them full (rather than partial) credit for the one year they played one team with extra rest and made that year a "tougher" year (2012, since it also has Thursday night byes); and

--used a 0.10 multiplier for 2012 since less than 10% of the League plays no one with extra rest,

 

Thus you get 0.25 times 0.25 times 0.25 times 1 times 0.1 equals about 0.0015 or 0.15 percent, or one in 750 or so.

Combine that with the other data above re: how many division and important games they got coming off their own bye and it really looks like they have a direct dial line into the schedule makers' office, doesn't it?

Yeah but they're good so it's okay if they get a favorable schedule.

[MattM]

Yeah but they're good so it's okay if they get a favorable schedule.

 

Actually, since I'd been relying on a poster above for that data, I went back and checked myself. From 2009 to 2013, the Cheats* played two opponents with an extra week of rest and two opponents with an extra three days of rest. Still well under the average you'd expect from a team over that time as there were a lot more Thursday night games pre-2012 than I remembered, but not in the "astronomical" category described by me above on the false assumption I was working under. Over that period you'd probably expect a team to play a total of about 8 games against better rested opponents rather than the 4 the Cheats* got (vs, for comparison, the 9 the Bills got just the last two years). You know what they say about "assumptions", however.....

[JohnC]

No, the Bills don't lose just because the system is against them. But as I said, any advantage helps.

 

I'm very confident that in other years when the schedule was in our favor you didn't complain.

 

Nix as GM was not perplexing in the least. Not sure where that's coming from, considering he was assistant GM with the Chargers.

 

Other than Ralph what other owner would hire the 70 yr old Nix as a GM? He was hired by the secluded owner simply because he knew him and didn't know the other prospective candidates. His three year record was 16-32. From a record standpoint the Levy/Jauron/Brandon era was more successful than the Buddy era. The Bills are now undergoing another rebuilding process i.e. undoing much of what he has done. If you think he was a good hire and did a good job then your standards are not very high.

Edited June 22, 2013 by JohnC

[Bufcomments]

Excuses , Excuses.

 

I'm tired of writers trying to post excuses for the Bills before the season has even started yet. Chris Brown does a good job but this is reaching to me.

 

If the Bills are good they enough will beat these teams coming off the bye. Plan and simple.

[Mr. WEO]

I asked (and answered) this earlier, but nobody disputed it... so I'll bring it up again...

 

Before the AFC/NFC Championships or the SB... does one team get an extra week's time to heal/rest and prepare for their opponent? If not, why do you think that is? Do you think that it would be an unfair situation for one team over the other? Of course it is. With the way the regular season is laid out it's hard to accomodate everyone perfectly (that doesn't exist), but there shouldn't be a 4-5 game discrepancy here... that's all people are having issues with

 

Any dispute to this?

 

The question is irrelevant. Both teams get 2 weeks off before the SB. Also, the best teams do get a week off at the start of the playoffs (it's called a "bye")---is that fair??

 

Anyway, what we are talking about are in season bye weeks.

 

 

--missed in all of this focus on the Bills is to my mind an equally large story if the poster way above on this point is correct--namely how the Pats* have played only one team on more rest in 5 years. The odds of that happening by chance are astronomical. That should be something the League is made aware of people knowing about to prevent it from continuing. If you think that was coincidence, I have a bridge to sell you. As noted above, just one more data point pointing to them getting WAAAYYY better treatment from the League (and media) than anyone else would. More evidence this week is the fact that Aaron Hernandez can shoot a guy in the face in early February and not a peep from the League (who must have known about that) or the media. Remember the sh*tstorm when Lynch was found with a registered gun in his trunk, and the three weeks off he got for that? Then again, when one of the major networks (CBS) has Kraft on their board and actually owns a part of Patriette* Place, I guess I should expect no less. (JW, if you're still reading this (doubtful, I know), I'm curious as to why no one has reported on that story--seems to me something like that would merit a story for sure, unless, of course, the media had been told to lay off it for fear of loss of access perhaps).

 

The Hernandez news I was talking about was not his alleged involvement in killing someone this week, but his shooting of someone in the face in early February this year, which only came to light (along with two other night club disturbances he was involved in last month) when the murder came to light. How could shooting someone in the face not make it into the press or merit discussion by the League is beyond me, particularly when we've seen relatively minor things with our players (the Lynch gun incident comes to mind, as does the Anthony Hargrove bar fight a few years back) get massively blown up by both the League and the media. File it, along with much else about the Cheats*, under "things that make you go, hmmmm?",.......

 

I should have stopped reading after you said, with great candor, "in my mind"....but I had to continue!

 

Gee, why didn't the press jump on that story in February? Hmmmm....maybe because the guy who got shot never mentioned AH to the police (and still hasn't) and only filed his suit naming him 4 days before this other guy was found dead last Monday?

 

Nah, that couldn't be it. It must be that CBS, NBC, ABC, ESPN, Fox, SI, Yahoo, TSN, all print news organizations were all "sitting on" that story "for fear of loss of access".

 

Well, I'm glad to see the 4th Estate finally got over that fear and have been hovering over AH ever since this most recent shooting story (somehow!!) broke!

 

A true loser accepts being screwed. I'm glad the Bills finally said something.

 

They "said something"? By having Bagdad Bob put out a piece on their website?? Is that what "winners" do?

 

Why isn't Ralph on the phone about this to the Commish and the other owners? Or why isn't Russ, for that matter?

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Looks like WEO woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

 

Again.

[Mr. WEO]

Looks like WEO woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

 

Again.

 

Oh please, SJBF! How can nonsense go unchallenged. How is MattM going to convince anyone of anything if he can't get basic stuff straight?