NFL Scheduling Quirk - Patriots @ Indy for three years straight

[BradyFTW!]

AFAIK the only way we play Indy next year is if we both come in the same place in our respective divisions again, which is likely since I fully expect that we'll win ours and they'll win theirs.

 

[PatsFan24]

The reason for the three year cycles is because that's the way it works with four divisions in a conference.

Every year one division plays one other entire division within the conference. With four divisions, there are three other divisions to cycle through for three years until the cycle is repeated.

why not just go every other?

 

[jmt57]

I'm not trying to be a smartass - nor do I think you are....

I know why we play the Colts so much... duh! I think everyone does.

I know that we play other divisions and have 2 games on the road and 2 games at home. (again, duh!)

Where I have a legitimate "duh" is trying to find the rule that says the NFL schedule makers are prohibited from having the Patriots and Colts swap home games each year?

I'm just not seeing where it say the Patriots have to be the visitor for three years straight and then the home team for three straight years against the same opponent (which given the standings has been the Colts.)

I seems to me that if the schedule makers wanted to they need not make the AFC central game an away game three years in a row. Either of the two could be on the road and any two could be at home? But they've chosen to make the Colts the home game for three years in a row and the visiting game for three years in a row.

What am I missing?

You're not missing anything. It's just that for whatever unknown reason, when the NFL set up the current schedule rotation they chose to have teams play back-to-back home and back-to-back away games against those teams finishing in the same place in another division:

First & second place AFC East teams currently play:
2009: at AFC west; home vs AFC north
2008: at AFC south, home vs AFC north
2007: at AFC south, home vs AFC west
2006: at AFC north, home vs AFC west
2005: at AFC north, home vs AFC south
2004: at AFC west, home vs AFC south
2003: at AFC west, home vs AFC north

The better alternative would be for those AFC East teams to play:
2009: at AFC west; home vs AFC north
2008: at AFC north, home vs AFC south
2007: at AFC south, home vs AFC west
2006: at AFC west, home vs AFC north
2005: at AFC north, home vs AFC south
2004: at AFC south, home vs AFC west
2003: at AFC west, home vs AFC north
This pattern would eliminate back-to-back home or away games against a team from another division in those last two games based on the previous season's record.

Of course there is still the possibility of playing at Indy one year when all the AFC East plays all four AFC South teams, and then the next year the #1 AFC East team is at the #1 AFC South team. However, this rotation would eliminate a team from one division from being at a team from another division in the regular season three years in a row, as we have seen twice with the Colts and Pats.

 

[jmt57]

AFAIK the only way we play Indy next year is if we both come in the same place in our respective divisions again, which is likely since I fully expect that we'll win ours and they'll win theirs.

Based on the current format being continued the Colts would play in Foxboro in 2010 and 2011 (1st vs 1st) as well as in 2012 (AFC South vs AFC East.)

 

[godef]

I would agree - but I don't know if they like it or if they don't - Ultimately it will be discussed at the next owners meeting (In May, I believe) and they will make the decision to keep it or change it.

Or the other possibility would be a change to 17 or 18 games.

 

[godef]

why not just go every other?

Because their are 3 divisions?...

Actually, since there are four other-conference divisions to run through, it's actually a 12-year cycle (3x4), and a 24-year cycle to even up home and away match-ups.

 

[godef]

You're not missing anything. It's just that for whatever unknown reason, when the NFL set up the current schedule rotation they chose to have teams play back-to-back home and back-to-back away games against those teams finishing in the same place in another division:

First & second place AFC East teams currently play:
2009: at AFC west; home vs AFC north
2008: at AFC south, home vs AFC north
2007: at AFC south, home vs AFC west
2006: at AFC north, home vs AFC west
2005: at AFC north, home vs AFC south
2004: at AFC west, home vs AFC south
2003: at AFC west, home vs AFC north

The better alternative would be for those AFC East teams to play:
2009: at AFC west; home vs AFC north
2008: at AFC north, home vs AFC south
2007: at AFC south, home vs AFC west
2006: at AFC west, home vs AFC north
2005: at AFC north, home vs AFC south
2004: at AFC south, home vs AFC west
2003: at AFC west, home vs AFC north
This pattern would eliminate back-to-back home or away games against a team from another division in those last two games based on the previous season's record.

Of course there is still the possibility of playing at Indy one year when all the AFC East plays all four AFC South teams, and then the next year the #1 AFC East team is at the #1 AFC South team. However, this rotation would eliminate a team from one division from being at a team from another division in the regular season three years in a row, as we have seen twice with the Colts and Pats.

The home-and-home scheduling cannot be avoided. You may fix it for the South #1 vs the East #1, but this would then foul up the rest of the schedule and force some other pair of division positions to go home-and-home (or away-and-away).

 

[brdmaverick]

But your telling me that the NFL has formula that says that the games are on a three year Home and Away cycle?

That's exactly what I am saying.

 

[Disco Volante]

Do you people who say he's whining actually read ?

They do not.

In fact I'm sure they read the topic title then immediately posted a response.

 

[brdmaverick]

Because their are 3 divisions?...

Actually, since there are four other-conference divisions to run through, it's actually a 12-year cycle (3x4), and a 24-year cycle to even up home and away match-ups.

Thanks, you are correct in the number of years for each cycle. I just kept it to three to avoid adding too much confusion to this discussion and to clear the matter at hand.

 

[carolinatony]

What I find interesting it that INDY/PITTS have not played each other much over the last 5/6 years.

 

[jmt57]

What I find interesting it that INDY/PITTS have not played each other much over the last 5/6 years.

While the Steelers may have won two Super Bowls this decade they haven't been quite as consistent as the Colts - or Pats.

2009: no game; Colts finished in 2nd place behind Titans in '08
2008: Colts 24, Steelers 20
2007: no game; Steelers finished 8-8, in 2nd place in '06
2006: no game; Bengals over Steelers in tiebreaker in '05
2005: Colts 26, Steelers 7; Steelers won 21-18 in playoffs
2004: no game; Steelers finished 6-10, in 3rd place in '03
2003: no game; Colts finished in 2nd place behind Titans in '02
2002: Steelers 28, Colts 10
2001: no game; different scheduling format (3 divisions in '00)

 

[Keegs]

Do you people who say he's whining actually read ?



He's saying it's a weird quirk. And he's right, it is.

no.

hey op, do you want cheese with that Boone's Farm?

 

[zoostation]

yawnnnnn..... doesn't matter

 

[godef]

While the Steelers may have won two Super Bowls this decade they haven't been quite as consistent as the Colts - or Pats.

2009: no game; Colts finished in 2nd place behind Titans in '08
2008: Colts 24, Steelers 20
2007: no game; Steelers finished 8-8, in 2nd place in '06
2006: no game; Bengals over Steelers in tiebreaker in '05
2005: Colts 26, Steelers 7; Steelers won 21-18 in playoffs
2004: no game; Steelers finished 6-10, in 3rd place in '03
2003: no game; Colts finished in 2nd place behind Titans in '02
2002: Steelers 28, Colts 10
2001: no game; different scheduling format (3 divisions in '00)

This is because the Steelers have not consistently finished in first like the Colts and Pats (another argument for the Pats being team of the decade).

 

[brdmaverick]

While the Steelers may have won two Super Bowls this decade they haven't been quite as consistent as the Colts - or Pats.

2009: no game; Colts finished in 2nd place behind Titans in '08
2008: Colts 24, Steelers 20
2007: no game; Steelers finished 8-8, in 2nd place in '06
2006: no game; Bengals over Steelers in tiebreaker in '05
2005: Colts 26, Steelers 7; Steelers won 21-18 in playoffs
2004: no game; Steelers finished 6-10, in 3rd place in '03
2003: no game; Colts finished in 2nd place behind Titans in '02
2002: Steelers 28, Colts 10
2001: no game; different scheduling format (3 divisions in '00)

yes, and this is because the years that the Steelers and Cotls both finished in first 2001 2004, and 2007, the following year happened to be the season in the AFC division rotation in which all AFC South Teams played all of the AFC North teams anyway.