The Patriots 2010 Schedule.....Sadistically Unfair?

[Patsrock]

This may not seem like a big deal....but knowing that you'll never spend more than 10 days at home for the next 5 months will undoubtedly take its toll on you physically....and mentally.

Football travel is not like other sports travel. The players are gone from home at most one night this season.

 

[Wolfpack]

I'd rather start the season at home and end the season at home considering the New England Patriots road record last year.

I'll take the OP's word for it that no other team doesn't have at least one 2-game home stretch. But I decided to do a check of the Jets' schedule to see what people in here would whine about if we had their's. And the Jets actually get quite a few bad deals:

- They have 3 games against teams where they suffer shorter rest than their opponent: The Patriots, the Broncos and the Dolphins. So 2 of those games are big division rivalries which arguably is not fair.
- The Jets have 2 of those "precious" back to back home games - but they also have 3 back-to-back road games.
- We had 2 Monday night games and had a bye after one of them. The Jets had 3 Monday night games and no byes after any of them. So we had "shorter rest" once - but 3 times for them.

In terms of dates and home/away, I think we got a far better deal than the Jets. They only got a break with playing Denver and Houston over SD and Indy, but that came as a result of a schedule formula developed about a decade ago.

 

[Wolfpack]

But everyone doesn't face the same teams nor the same quality of teams. If you have a team in a weak division that means you get to puff up your wins against weaklings 6 times per year. And that's before the rest of your schedule is taken into account. Is it tougher to play Pittsburgh and Indy back to back or to play the 49ers and the Cards back to back?

That's a stupid question because obviously Pittsburgh and Indy are better teams so if I had to choose if I wanted to play them or SF & AZ, obviously I'd take the poor teams. A better question would be if you had to play all 4 of them (Indy, Pittsburgh, AZ and SF), would you rather go hard-hard-easy-easy? Or hard-easy-easy-hard? Or easy-hard-hard-easy? (etc) AFAIC, if you had to play all 4, the order wouldn't matter to me one bit. I'd be disappointed if we had short rest against one of the tougher teams, but that's about it.

Other random questions would be do you want to start the season against an easy team or against a tough team? One is an easy win to gain momentum, the other not quite as easy. Would you like to start at home or on the road? Would you like to finish at home or on the road? Wouild you rather have the home Miami game early in the season or late in the season?

 

[ausbacker]

Watching most sports around the world parity in scheduling is never achieved. You simply can't do it.

 

[PYPER]

I realize with the Patriots at 9-2 and tied for first in the NFL...we shouldn't have much to complain about....But this group of Patriots might be the toughest team...Physically and mentally I have ever seen.


I keep going over and over the schedule and tried to make sense of what appears to be the most lopsided and unfair schedule I have seen an NFL team get in years, maybe ever.

Consider these facts..

The Patriots do not have consecutive home games, and a reprieve from the wear and tear of travel for THE ENTIRE SEASON.

EVERY team in the NFL has consecutive home games at least 1, many times 2 and sometimes 3 times EXCEPT the Patriots.

MANY teams in the NFL have a stretch of 3 games in a row at home....EXCEPT the Patriots.

This may not seem like a big deal....but knowing that you'll never spend more than 10 days at home for the next 5 months will undoubtedly take its toll on you physically....and mentally.

In all my years of following the NFL....I've never heard of anything like it.

They made the Patriots play 3 games in a span of 12 days....knowing full well that the average NFL player can barely recover from 1 game for a week without filling his body with painkillers. Oh, and those 3 games? Pittsburgh and Indy back to back.....Wow.

Now we get the Jets at home Monday, Chicago bears on short rest Sunday and turn around and play the Packers a week later.

2007 may have been the "F YOU" to the NFL....But 2010 is the NFL "F YOU" to the Patriots....

Me thinks that with your conspiracy theory you'd make an excellent Jets, Colts, or Steelers fan.

With every plus there is a minus and vice versa.

No back-to-back home games means few back-to-back road games.

The fact that we had one instance of back-to-back road games allowed us to be home for both the first and last game of the season. Kraft always enjoys opening the season at home and if we need to win that last game to make the playoffs, being at home is a big advantage. If we've got homefield wrapped up by then, then we really don't have any reason to complain.

We're 9-2 against a pretty good schedule with 3 tough games and 2 division rivals still on tap. The schedule is based on a formula that is set years in advance. Sometimes it mean you get an easy schedule like we had in 2008 and sometimes it means you get a difficult schedule like this year.

There's really no reason to complain. It is what it is.

 

[DaBruinz]

Deus,

Both the Globe and Herald have said that the schedule this year was unusual in that we do not have 2 home games in a row. I have come accross multiple websites that have commented that at the very least, our schedule is unordinary and above all, difficult. There is not a single opinion, local or national that said we have the "best schedule in the NFL".

First of all, clearly there has been a "single opinion, local or national, that said we have the "best schedule in the NFL" because Deus said it. Secondly, were you complaining when the Pats had 3 straight away games in 2003 or in 2007 when they had 3 straight home games? If not, then you're a friggin hypocrite.

Hell, for all we know, BB went to the stadium folks and had then set the weekends up like that. Seriously, you are whining about NOTHING.