plenzmd1 Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Interesting article in the News today around the schedule and the UB engineers. Got me thinking again about the upcoming year. I really think the Bills will open at the Pats on Opening Thursday. Rex, winning record last etc I think makes it an attractive game. Plus, I already have reservations at the hotel at Gileete😄 My question is does that count as your Thursday game? If so, that's a big bonus to playing that game along with the Pats being traditionally not as good early in the year.
YoloinOhio Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 IMO week 1 shouldn't count as your TNF game because it's unfair to every other team that has to play a game on 4 days prep. But if it is us this year I hope it does! I'm a TNF hater for division games especially.
eball Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 IMO week 1 shouldn't count as your TNF game because it's unfair to every other team that has to play a game on 4 days prep. But if it is us this year I hope it does! I'm a TNF hater for division games especially. In this era of preaching "safety" it's confounding that the league won't wise up and schedule every team playing on Thursday night with a bye the week before. Add another week to the regular season (two byes per team) and I believe everyone would be relatively happy. The TV networks certainly would.
Nanker Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Won't happen. Everyone knows that Pittzberg will be the Pats* opening opponent on Thurs. The Stealer's RB LéVon Bell will be suspended for the first two games.
ricojes Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Interesting article in the News today around the schedule and the UB engineers. Got me thinking again about the upcoming year. I really think the Bills will open at the Pats on Opening Thursday. Rex, winning record last etc I think makes it an attractive game. Plus, I already have reservations at the hotel at Gileete My question is does that count as your Thursday game? If so, that's a big bonus to playing that game along with the Pats being traditionally not as good early in the year. From that article: “The model is similar to what the NFL uses, however, it differs because it focuses solely on scheduling with fairness,” Greg Aiello, the league’s senior vice president of communications, said in a statement to The Buffalo News. “It does not, for example, take into consideration television ratings and other matters." Thank you for this great research, unfortunately we are the NFL and don't really care what you think... Yours Truly, RG
Beef Jerky Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Isn't the first Thursday night game supposed to be two specific teams that were in the post season?
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Isn't the first Thursday night game supposed to be two specific teams that were in the post season? Usually, yes. They try to make it a SB rematch when possible, or at least some sort of playoff rematch. In this era of preaching "safety" it's confounding that the league won't wise up and schedule every team playing on Thursday night with a bye the week before. Add another week to the regular season (two byes per team) and I believe everyone would be relatively happy. The TV networks certainly would. Bottom line > Safety.
Canadian Bills Fan Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 How's my campaign manager doing today? CBF
plenzmd1 Posted February 27, 2015 Author Posted February 27, 2015 Usually, yes. They try to make it a SB rematch when possible, or at least some sort of playoff rematch. Bottom line > Safety. I don't think Super Bowl rematch as they usually want at least a conference game, at better yet a division game. So the playoffs thing I can see. I see it as 50/50 right now....either us or Pittsburgh. Think Rex is big enough name to get us that opener....and it is the only time I want a prime time game.
Buftex Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 I say Jets @Bills on the early game of the opening week Monday Night Football double header...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted February 27, 2015 Posted February 27, 2015 Has Pegs said what they feel about Night games in Buffalo compared to Ralph?
YoloinOhio Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 This is interesting @ProFootballTalk: Competition Committee considers letting all 53 players dress for Thursday games, with no inactive list http://t.co/stUaDWH5sx
plenzmd1 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Posted March 1, 2015 BTW, I looked at the Packers and Seahawks schedule from last year..both had another Thursday night game after playing in the kickoff game. Grren Bay in October and the Seahawks on Thanksgiving. But still, playing that Thursday opener i think is a scheduling advantage.
Rubes Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 BTW, I looked at the Packers and Seahawks schedule from last year..both had another Thursday night game after playing in the kickoff game. Grren Bay in October and the Seahawks on Thanksgiving. But still, playing that Thursday opener i think is a scheduling advantage. That's interesting, I would have thought that would count as their Thursday game. I guess not. This is interesting @ProFootballTalk: Competition Committee considers letting all 53 players dress for Thursday games, with no inactive list http://t.co/stUaDWH5sx Very interesting. One of the more baffling things about the NFL.
Max997 Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 In this era of preaching "safety" it's confounding that the league won't wise up and schedule every team playing on Thursday night with a bye the week before. Add another week to the regular season (two byes per team) and I believe everyone would be relatively happy. The TV networks certainly would. They tried two byes once and it was horrible
NoSaint Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 BTW, I looked at the Packers and Seahawks schedule from last year..both had another Thursday night game after playing in the kickoff game. Grren Bay in October and the Seahawks on Thanksgiving. But still, playing that Thursday opener i think is a scheduling advantage. Yea but you can't expect things to be perfectly equal. In the grand scheme it's just not reality
Beef Jerky Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 That's interesting, I would have thought that would count as their Thursday game. I guess not. Very interesting. One of the more baffling things about the NFL. The reasoning behind inactives for games is due to competitive balance. If one team has all 53 players healthy and their opponent has only 49 players healthy enough to play, the team with fewer healthy players will be at a disadvantage. With teams having to make seven players inactive, healthy or not, teams will have the same amount of players eligible to play in the game.
NoSaint Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 I don't think Super Bowl rematch as they usually want at least a conference game, at better yet a division game. So the playoffs thing I can see. I see it as 50/50 right now....either us or Pittsburgh. Think Rex is big enough name to get us that opener....and it is the only time I want a prime time game. There's no rule beyond the SB winner hosts barring conflict. After that it's just best ratings possible. We've seen super bowl/conference champion rematches, divisional matchups, or just big draws
purple haze Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 Interesting article in the News today around the schedule and the UB engineers. Got me thinking again about the upcoming year. I really think the Bills will open at the Pats on Opening Thursday. Rex, winning record last etc I think makes it an attractive game. Plus, I already have reservations at the hotel at Gileete My question is does that count as your Thursday game? If so, that's a big bonus to playing that game along with the Pats being traditionally not as good early in the year. I had a dream last week the Bills and Pats opened on Thursday night. I hope it comes true. That hype around that would be dynamite.
Rubes Posted March 1, 2015 Posted March 1, 2015 The reasoning behind inactives for games is due to competitive balance. If one team has all 53 players healthy and their opponent has only 49 players healthy enough to play, the team with fewer healthy players will be at a disadvantage. With teams having to make seven players inactive, healthy or not, teams will have the same amount of players eligible to play in the game. Yeah, that's how I understood it as well, but everybody has injuries that extend beyond the 7 inactives. The problem is that the only option is injured reserve, which screws the season (or most of the season) for the player. I think teams need more flexibility with the roster while forgetting about the inactives.
Recommended Posts