Schedule

[Jackson 2]

Before yesterday's game, the Pats last played at home on October 29. Their next home game will be on December 24. I wonder this: when was the last time that an NFL team had one home game scheduled in 55 days?

 

[oldrover]

Plus 5 of the last 6 games are in the division; it's...

...koo-koo.

 

[supafly]

Before yesterday's game, the Pats last played at home on October 29. Their next home game will be on December 24. I wonder this: when was the last time that an NFL team had one home game scheduled in 55 days?

This is yet another obstacle provided by the league, and I’m not one to whine about these things (ref calls, etc). It’s so obvious that it’s difficult to overlook, though. It’s also the main reason why I’m still hesitant to buy into the idea of a win in Pittsburgh being a sure thing, at least in Dec, anyway.

Belichick spoke at length about the team and coaching staff being exhausted after the 2 game road streak out west, so I expect the same after this upcoming 3 game stretch, particularly after having to arrive back in Foxborough from Miami on a late Mon/early Tues, then have to turn around and go to Pittsburgh after a few days of practice.

 

[fxmallon]

Yup, a very trying schedule. And no doubt division games need to be spread out because each carries more meaning, and thus demand more prep and competitive play. And then to throw Pitt in there on a short week in the middle of all these division games, is a low blow.

 

[Gronk]

It certainly seems like an aberration in scheduling, generally, but I’d bet if you put together a matrix of days off with miles covered for all the teams the west coast teams in particular would have many trips or road stretches that were equally if not more intensive on a yearly basis.

In the Pats case this year just flopping the Bills games home v away would be a logical (and not seemingly logistically problematic) fix to the 1 home in 55 days issue, but having 2 home games in weeks 16/17 certainly isn’t unfavorable. Plenty of teams (e.g. Bills, Raiders) have 2 road games to finish. If the Pats take care of business on the road, the next time they have to travel after 12/17 is in February. All other things being equal (I.e. at least didn’t get “home” game scheduled in Mexico), I’ll take that.

 

[Jackson 2]

Patriots travel 17,868 miles (17 of 32), Raiders 32,876 (1st) and Steelers (32of 32) 6,818.

 

[Kargetina]

On the other hand, if he get home field advantage, we won't leave Boston from December 18-th until the Super Bowl.

 

[ALP]

It certainly seems like an aberration in scheduling, generally, but I’d bet if you put together a matrix of days off with miles covered for all the teams the west coast teams in particular would have many trips or road stretches that were equally if not more intensive on a yearly basis.

In the Pats case this year just flopping the Bills games home v away would be a logical (and not seemingly logistically problematic) fix to the 1 home in 55 days issue, but having 2 home games in weeks 16/17 certainly isn’t unfavorable. Plenty of teams (e.g. Bills, Raiders) have 2 road games to finish. If the Pats take care of business on the road, the next time they have to travel after 12/17 is in February. All other things being equal (I.e. at least didn’t get “home” game scheduled in Mexico), I’ll take that.

our last two games of the season usually dont count though!!! lol

 

[Jackson 2]

It certainly seems like an aberration in scheduling, generally, but I’d bet if you put together a matrix of days off with miles covered for all the teams the west coast teams in particular would have many trips or road stretches that were equally if not more intensive on a yearly basis.

In the Pats case this year just flopping the Bills games home v away would be a logical (and not seemingly logistically problematic) fix to the 1 home in 55 days issue, but having 2 home games in weeks 16/17 certainly isn’t unfavorable. Plenty of teams (e.g. Bills, Raiders) have 2 road games to finish. If the Pats take care of business on the road, the next time they have to travel after 12/17 is in February. All other things being equal (I.e. at least didn’t get “home” game scheduled in Mexico), I’ll take that.

It certainly seems like an aberration in scheduling, generally, but I’d bet if you put together a matrix of days off with miles covered for all the teams the west coast teams in particular would have many trips or road stretches that were equally if not more intensive on a yearly basis.

In the Pats case this year just flopping the Bills games home v away would be a logical (and not seemingly logistically problematic) fix to the 1 home in 55 days issue, but having 2 home games in weeks 16/17 certainly isn’t unfavorable. Plenty of teams (e.g. Bills, Raiders) have 2 road games to finish. If the Pats take care of business on the road, the next time they have to travel after 12/17 is in February. All other things being equal (I.e. at least didn’t get “home” game scheduled in Mexico), I’ll take that.

Not sure of your definition of "plenty" of teams having 2 road games to finish the season, but of 32 teams, there are 4 teams which have 2 road games to finish.

 

[Gronk]

Not sure of your definition of "plenty" of teams having 2 road games to finish the season, but of 32 teams, there are 4 teams which have 2 road games to finish.

Ok, how many have 2 home games to finish?

And you also posted that Pats are median (17 of 32) in total travel. I’d bet that goes down as it probably assumes they went back to NE between DEN/MEX also. So you help make my point that their schedule is probably relatively average compared to some others, and then cherry pick the word “plenty” re: last two weeks. Many of us thought they were a lock for 14-16 wins. Where and when they play em is a problem for other teams. Just go win.

 

[Jackson 2]

Ok, how many have 2 home games to finish?

And you also posted that Pats are median (17 of 32) in total travel. I’d bet that goes down as it probably assumes they went back to NE between DEN/MEX also. So you help make my point that their schedule is probably relatively average compared to some others, and then cherry pick the word “plenty” re: last two weeks. Many of us thought they were a lock for 14-16 wins. Where and when they play em is a problem for other teams. Just go win.

To answer your first sentence question, once again, not "many." Now, here's some research for you: how "many" teams play 1 home game in 55 days?

 

[PatriotsNumero1Fan]

I know they have been road warriors thus far but i would prefer to be home for the playoffs this year. It's still tough to play on the road in the playoffs even if it's a place like ****zburgh!

 

[Gronk]

To answer your first sentence question, once again, not "many." Now, here's some research for you: how "many" teams play 1 home game in 55 days?

Okay so to your first answer/question, the Pats are then a positively affected outlier in that regard.

To the second, I’m not going to dig up math in that. It’s rare, I’m sure. But to your travel point, even with that (and w/o a stolen “home” game), the Pats have 1/2 the total travel of the Raiders. One team finishes 2 at home, other 2 on road. Who’s got the beef? Not NE, to my mind. If you disagree that’s fine, but of the many scheduling compromises to make, I find this a fair and positive one.

 

[Ring 6]

There is no evidence that teams perform worse in road games following road games than in any other road game.
Playing back to back road games (which means they were preceded and followed by home games) is no different than Home, away, Home, away. It’s just that you are less likely to win those games because they are road games. Every team has 8 of them and the order they are scheduled has never been shown to make a significant difference.
The patriots recently actually gave a better record in the second consecutive one than in all road games.

 

[bbobbo]

Before yesterday's game, the Pats last played at home on October 29. Their next home game will be on December 24. I wonder this: when was the last time that an NFL team had one home game scheduled in 55 days?

the answer is: this year.

note that the patriots' span includes a bye at the beginning, which is 13 days from game-to-game.

the minnesota vikings have 1 home game in a 55-day period (includes bye):
10/22 ravens
11/19 rams
12/17 bengals

the eagles have 1 home game in a 49-day period (includes bye):
11/5 broncos
11/26 bears
12/25 raiders

the bengals have 1 home game in a 48-day period (includes bye):
10/8 bills
10/29 colts
11/26 steelers

the chargers have 1 home game in a 48-day period (includes bye):
10/1 eagles
10/22 broncos
11/19 bills

considering the top 3 teams by this metric have the best records in the nfl, i think it's a pretty irrelevant stat.
.

 

[jmt57]

If I recall correctly the Patriots asked for the Denver and Oakland/Mexico City games to be played back-to-back. They have done this in the past with west coast games as well.

On the other hand I am sure the Pats did not ask for three consecutive late season road games, with the final leg coming on a short week after a Monday night game, at their primary competitor for the AFC top seed.

 

[supafly]

On the other hand I am sure the Pats did not ask for three consecutive late season road games, with the final leg coming on a short week after a Monday night game, at their primary competitor for the AFC top seed.

Especially when that primary competitor is playing a 4/5 home stretch at the same time.

 

[luuked]

Patriots travel 17,868 miles (17 of 32), Raiders 32,876 (1st) and Steelers (32of 32) 6,818.

Which is nothing the league can rig because the matchups and their location are set on a rotating schedule.


On a more general note towards the thread, complaining about a schedule is for losers and AFCN coaches. It is what it is and we will have to get over it.

 

[supafly]

It is what it is and we will have to get over it.

Sure, but it does kind of look like the league was doing its best to help narrow the gap between NE and PIT in their respective 5/6 road versus 4/5 home stretches.

 

[luuked]

Sure, but it does kind of look like the league was doing its best to help narrow the gap between NE and PIT in their respective 5/6 road versus 4/5 home stretches.

In general I understand your point but if the Steelers have a 4/5 home stretch now it means that at some point early they had an overloaded away schedule.

As others have said on some level the Pats put a constraint on the schedule makers by requesting the two west coast games to be put together. It sounds like a little thing but could have easily resulted in reshuffling of 4-5 games for a couple of teams given all the things that need to be considered scheduling wise.

Honestly the most important thing for me every year is just where the BYE is placed. If they wanted to screw us they would have given us that ****ty early BYE and not one right before the west coast trip. That is an easier way to screw a team than projecting that Pittsburgh will be in a close battle with us for the #1 seed in a league where many potential playoff teams have gone off the rails due to injuries.