Scheduling Question Why are we playing @ Oak

[Kulko]

When the ne schedule was released in 2002 it was said, that a team will play each year one of the other conferences, with HFA fliping each 3 years, so that each teams sees each other conference teams at least every three year, and every years at home.

But when I search at our oakland games sind 2002 I find:

02 @ Oak
05 Oak
08 @ Oak
11 @ Oak

Of course we also get 2 homegames in a row aainst another team (KC).

Does anybody understand why this is happening, I didnt notice in prior years, although I only really keep track of this for indy.

 

[Wolfpack]

When the ne schedule was released in 2002 it was said, that a team will play each year one of the other conferences, with HFA fliping each 3 years, so that each teams sees each other conference teams at least every three year, and every years at home.

But when I search at our oakland games sind 2002 I find:

02 @ Oak
05 Oak
08 @ Oak
11 @ Oak

Of course we also get 2 homegames in a row aainst another team (KC).

Does anybody understand why this is happening, I didnt notice in prior years, although I only really keep track of this for indy.

I believe they shifted things around a bit to reduce the maximum amount of miles travelled by a team in any given year. Sort of level things out a bit.

 

[jmt57]

When the ne schedule was released in 2002 it was said, that a team will play each year one of the other conferences, with HFA fliping each 3 years, so that each teams sees each other conference teams at least every three year, and every years at home.

But when I search at our oakland games sind 2002 I find:

02 @ Oak
05 Oak
08 @ Oak
11 @ Oak

Of course we also get 2 homegames in a row aainst another team (KC).

Does anybody understand why this is happening, I didnt notice in prior years, although I only really keep track of this for indy.

It used to be two teams in a division would have to travel much further (to Oakland and San Diego) than two other teams in their same division did (to Kansas City and Denver), so they split that up. Now when a division plays the AFC West each team gets one long-travel game to the Pacific, and one relatively shorter-travel game.

If I recall correctly they made a similar adjustment to divisions playing NFC West teams at the same time.

It was a one time fix and the schedule should continue on the standard rotation going forward.

 

[captain stone]

I suppose it's better right now to go to Oaksterdam, than to go to SD and play da Faiders in Foxborough.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

It used to be two teams in a division would have to travel much further (to Oakland and San Diego) than two other teams in their same division did (to Kansas City and Denver), so they split that up. Now when a division plays the AFC West each team gets one long-travel game to the Pacific, and one relatively shorter-travel game.

If I recall correctly they made a similar adjustment to divisions playing NFC West teams at the same time.

It was a one time fix and the schedule should continue on the standard rotation going forward.

Sadly, I believe it was NOT a one-time fix.

What makes this so galling is that East Coast teams were boohooing about having to make two West Coast trips (or, as the Pats did in 2008, play FOUR games on the West Coast—something that would happen once every 24 years under the old scheduling rules).