What exactly we're missing

[rmcjacket23]

1. Actually, the league refused to move it to Wednesday night but it was perfectly okay to move it the year before.

2. My issue isn't normally how many in a row we play, but which ones get scheduled home and away outside our division.

3. I think the frontloaded is actually going to work in our favor this season however, I might point out that it isn't just that they were frontloaded - they were all in a row. Then we turn around and faced the Bengals & Steelers back to back away games as well. There is something to be said about that type of scheduling.

But again, the home/away scheduling outside of our division is on a rotation as well... the NFL dictates that years in advance. We already know most of our outside division home and away games for several years to come as of right now.

 

As I said, there's only two games on every teams schedule that both the opponent and location aren't determined many, many, many years in advance.

 

Next season, our out of division home games will be against KC, SD, SEA and STL. Our road games will be against DEN, OAK, SF, and ARZ. We will then play one home game and one road game against an AFC East opponent and an AFC South opponent.

 

Literally every single team in the NFL can complain about the order and dates of the teams they play... every single one. There is no difference between the Ravens fanbase complaining about it and any other fanbase complaining about it.

[ravensdfan]

But again, the home/away scheduling outside of our division is on a rotation as well... the NFL dictates that years in advance. We already know most of our outside division home and away games for several years to come as of right now.

 

As I said, there's only two games on every teams schedule that both the opponent and location aren't determined many, many, many years in advance.

 

Next season, our out of division home games will be against KC, SD, SEA and STL. Our road games will be against DEN, OAK, SF, and ARZ. We will then play one home game and one road game against an AFC East opponent and an AFC South opponent.

 

 

 

 

Everyone talks about that prescheduling but then I think about years we played SD in SD every single solitary year. Or how we were always playing NE in NE and never at Home. That is some screwed up scheduling pattern if that's the case and already unfair.

[rmcjacket23]

Everyone talks about that prescheduling but then I think about years we played SD in SD every single solitary year. Or how we were always playing NE in NE and never at Home. That is some screwed up scheduling pattern if that's the case and already unfair.

No, its just perceived that way. On the rotation, you are guaranteed to play an AFC opponent once every three years, with one time being at home and the next time being on the road.

 

What can happen, however, is when you play cross divisional AFC opponents based on seed from the prior year (the two outlier games).

 

You'll notice, however (and probably ignore), that we will now have played SD at HOME in back to back years in 2014 and 2015.

 

And for the record... we played the Patriots five straight seasons from 09-13. The first three seasons we played them in NE, the last two seasons we played them in BAL. Not exactly the unfair imbalance people think it is.

[berad]

No, its just perceived that way. On the rotation, you are guaranteed to play an AFC opponent once every three years, with one time being at home and the next time being on the road.

 

What can happen, however, is when you play cross divisional AFC opponents based on seed from the prior year (the two outlier games).

 

You'll notice, however (and probably ignore), that we will now have played SD at HOME in back to back years in 2014 and 2015.

 

And for the record... we played the Patriots five straight seasons from 09-13. The first three seasons we played them in NE, the last two seasons we played them in BAL. Not exactly the unfair imbalance people think it is.

Is that true? We played the AFC West on rotation in 2009 and again in 2012. Played the Chargers in SD both those years and the Broncos at home both times.

[rmcjacket23]

Is that true? We played the AFC West on rotation in 2009 and again in 2012. Played the Chargers in SD both those years and the Broncos at home both times.

Yes, if we played the AFC West in 2012, then we would play them again in 2015 as part of that rotation. I'm not sure why it would be back to back in rotation though... might have had some scheduling issues with the NFL during that period?

 

If we played any AFC West team in 2013 or 2014, its because of where we finished in the standings in the prior year.

[berad]

Yes, if we played the AFC West in 2012, then we would play them again in 2015 as part of that rotation. I'm not sure why it would be back to back in rotation though... might have had some scheduling issues with the NFL during that period?

 

If we played any AFC West team in 2013 or 2014, its because of where we finished in the standings in the prior year.

I understand all of the other stuff, was just pointing out that we played the Chargers in SD on both the 2009 and 2012 rotations and the Broncos came here both times, respectively, so it's not always back-and-forth.

[1/28/01]

I understand all of the other stuff, was just pointing out that we played the Chargers in SD on both the 2009 and 2012 rotations and the Broncos came here both times, respectively, so it's not always back-and-forth.

Ha, his response had nothing to do with the point you made. I love it!

[rmcjacket23]

Ha, his response had nothing to do with the point you made. I love it!

1. It did. Try re-reading. Specifically was addressed.

 

I understand all of the other stuff, was just pointing out that we played the Chargers in SD on both the 2009 and 2012 rotations and the Broncos came here both times, respectively, so it's not always back-and-forth.

2. This was what I pulled off Wikipedia, which references the design of the current scheduling. It doesn't specifically state on there that it should be a home and away series over a six year period with every AFC opponent, so again, I have no explanation (other than possibly some issue with scheduling) that explains why we played two straight road at SD and two straight home vs DEN.

 

"Current formula[edit]

Currently, the thirteen opponents each team faces over the 16-game regular season schedule are set using a pre-determined formula:^[3]

• Each team plays twice against each of the other three teams in its division: once at home, and once on the road (six games). This matchup of intra-division opponents is a constant every season.
• Each team plays once against each of the four teams from another division within its own conference, with the assigned division based on a three-year rotation: two at home, and two on the road (four games).
• Each team plays once against one team from each of the other two divisions within its conference, based on the final division standings from the prior season: one at home, one on the road (two games).
• Each team plays once against each of the four teams from a division in the other conference, with the assigned division based on a four-year rotation: two at home, and two on the road (four games).

This schedule was designed so all teams are guaranteed to play every other team in their own conference at least once every three years, and to play every team in the other conference exactly once every four years. Additionally, the schedule guarantees that each team will both host and visit every other team within its conference at least once every six years, and will host and visit every team in the other conference exactly once every eight years. Finally, it guarantees a similar schedule for every team in a division each season, as all four teams will play fourteen out of their sixteen games against common opponents or each other."

 

In most cases, the formula has held true from what I've seen.

[berad]

In most cases, the formula has held true from what I've seen.

True, but "most" isn't "guarantees" was my point. Another instance involving us was on our 2007-2011 NFC West rotation, the Cardinals played us in Baltimore both times while we went out Seattle twice. It's just interesting.

[Inqui]

On my phone on the way to work so I can't post any links, but we played the Broncos and Chargers the way we did because of the West Coast Modification that year.

Basically in 2008 the AFCE played the NFCW and the AFCW, which predictably resulted in a lot of traveling, and the Jests and Patriots had back to back games on the coast.

So prior to the 2009 season, the owners tweaked the schedules a little bit to prevent sides playing too many games on the West Coast in future.

The more you know.

 

ED: There you go

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4009230

[rmcjacket23]

On my phone on the way to work so I can't post any links, but we played the Broncos and Chargers the way we did because of the West Coast Modification that year.

Basically in 2008 the AFCE played the NFCW and the AFCW, which predictably resulted in a lot of traveling, and the Jests and Patriots had back to back games on the coast.

So prior to the 2009 season, the owners tweaked the schedules a little bit to prevent sides playing too many games on the West Coast in future.

The more you know.

 

 

True, but "most" isn't "guarantees" was my point. Another instance involving us was on our 2007-2011 NFC West rotation, the Cardinals played us in Baltimore both times while we went out Seattle twice. It's just interesting.

You are correct, and I found an article related to it...

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4009230

 

Appears starting in 2009 the NFL started going towards this type of format, which prevents East teams traveling West from playing two long west coast games . They paired Denver/Oakland and SD/KC together, and they paired SF/Arizona and Seattle/STL together.

 

So it would appear we would continue to follow the most recent rotation spots, which explains why it deviated from the norm in 2011 for the AFCW and in 2010 for the NFCW.

 

We should then see home games for KC/SD and Seattle/STL next season, and road games for Denver/Oakland and SF/Arizona (I think that falls in line with my original breakdown).

[1/28/01]

1. It did. Try re-reading. Specifically was addressed.

2. This was what I pulled off Wikipedia, which references the design of the current scheduling. It doesn't specifically state on there that it should be a home and away series over a six year period with every AFC opponent, so again, I have no explanation (other than possibly some issue with scheduling) that explains why we played two straight road at SD and two straight home vs DEN.

"Current formula[edit]

Currently, the thirteen opponents each team faces over the 16-game regular season schedule are set using a pre-determined formula:^[3]

• Each team plays twice against each of the other three teams in its division: once at home, and once on the road (six games). This matchup of intra-division opponents is a constant every season.
• Each team plays once against each of the four teams from another division within its own conference, with the assigned division based on a three-year rotation: two at home, and two on the road (four games).
• Each team plays once against one team from each of the other two divisions within its conference, based on the final division standings from the prior season: one at home, one on the road (two games).
• Each team plays once against each of the four teams from a division in the other conference, with the assigned division based on a four-year rotation: two at home, and two on the road (four games).

This schedule was designed so all teams are guaranteed to play every other team in their own conference at least once every three years, and to play every team in the other conference exactly once every four years. Additionally, the schedule guarantees that each team will both host and visit every other team within its conference at least once every six years, and will host and visit every team in the other conference exactly once every eight years. Finally, it guarantees a similar schedule for every team in a division each season, as all four teams will play fourteen out of their sixteen games against common opponents or each other."

In most cases, the formula has held true from what I've seen.

This post spoke on what Berad was talking about, but you going on and on about 2013, 2014 and 2015 above didnt have anything to do with 2009 and 2012 games being playing home or away. But hey, its your thing and I dig it!

[rmcjacket23]

This post spoke on what Berad was talking about, but you going on and on about 2013, 2014 and 2015 above didnt have anything to do with 2009 and 2012 games being playing home or away. But hey, its your thing and I dig it!

"I'm not sure why it would be back to back in rotation though... might have had some scheduling issues with the NFL during that period?"

 

Specifically addressed.

 

Thanks

[arnie_uk]

Jezz but i just can't stand that guy

[1/28/01]

"I'm not sure why it would be back to back in rotation though... might have had some scheduling issues with the NFL during that period?"

Specifically addressed.

Thanks

Ha, okay. Whatever justifies your rambling in your book is fine with me. Grass is green, sky is (sometimes) blue and footballs are brown. Carry on!

[ravensdfan]

You are correct, and I found an article related to it...

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4009230

 

Appears starting in 2009 the NFL started going towards this type of format, which prevents East teams traveling West from playing two long west coast games . They paired Denver/Oakland and SD/KC together, and they paired SF/Arizona and Seattle/STL together.

 

So it would appear we would continue to follow the most recent rotation spots, which explains why it deviated from the norm in 2011 for the AFCW and in 2010 for the NFCW.

 

We should then see home games for KC/SD and Seattle/STL next season, and road games for Denver/Oakland and SF/Arizona (I think that falls in line with my original breakdown).

 

So basically going forward the formula should work even regarding the rotation of Home and Away games but there was a glitch they had to rework so everything was kosher - thereby resulting in the unfair trips we took to certain locations.

 

But there is no formula for us say playing the Pats 3 years running and whether those games are scheduled Home or Away if it is a h2h based on finishing order. I don't know - that part still confuses me somewhat. I mean didn't we play the Pats 3 years running? How would that happen exactly?

[rmcjacket23]

So basically going forward the formula should work even regarding the rotation of Home and Away games but there was a glitch they had to rework so everything was kosher - thereby resulting in the unfair trips we took to certain locations.

 

But there is no formula for us say playing the Pats 3 years running and whether those games are scheduled Home or Away if it is a h2h based on finishing order. I don't know - that part still confuses me somewhat. I mean didn't we play the Pats 3 years running? How would that happen exactly?

You can play them three years straight if they finish in the same position in the standings in their division as we did. In theory, you could play the exact same team every year into perpetuity if they kept finishing in the same spots in their respective divisions within the conference.

 

We actually played them five years straight I believe from 2009-2013. First three years were on the road, and the last two were at home.

 

I think even Wikipedia said that the Colts and Patriots played every single season between 2003 and 2012 because they were either on rotation or finished in the same position within their divisions throughout that stretch (my guess is 1st place). Rams and Redskins played for four straight seasons because they kept finishing in last.

 

The only thing I don't know is how they determine the home/road breakdown for the two non-rotational games each season. For example, this season's non-rotational games for us were against the Dolphins and Chargers. I don't know how they determined which was a home game and which was a road game.

[ravensdfan]

You can play them three years straight if they finish in the same position in the standings in their division as we did. In theory, you could play the exact same team every year into perpetuity if they kept finishing in the same spots in their respective divisions within the conference.

 

We actually played them five years straight I believe from 2009-2013. First three years were on the road, and the last two were at home.

 

I think even Wikipedia said that the Colts and Patriots played every single season between 2003 and 2012 because they were either on rotation or finished in the same position within their divisions throughout that stretch (my guess is 1st place). Rams and Redskins played for four straight seasons because they kept finishing in last.

 

The only thing I don't know is how they determine the home/road breakdown for the two non-rotational games each season. For example, this season's non-rotational games for us were against the Dolphins and Chargers. I don't know how they determined which was a home game and which was a road game.

 

Okay I understand that part. I do wonder how they determine which games are Home and Away. Interesting. I never really paid much attention to how the scheduling happened thanks for the info.

[rmcjacket23]

Okay I understand that part. I do wonder how they determine which games are Home and Away. Interesting. I never really paid much attention to how the scheduling happened thanks for the info.

Yeah the most important takeaway is that there truly is no NFL conspiracy against the Ravens when it comes to scheduling. Mostly dictated years in advance, and outside of two games, completely undecided by how good other teams are.

[Inqui]

Yeah the most important takeaway is that there truly is no NFL conspiracy against the Ravens when it comes to scheduling. Mostly dictated years in advance, and outside of two games, completely undecided by how good other teams are.

Aside from the seeded games.

[frozen joe flacco fan]

2 out of those 4 teams we blew up.

So I find this difficult to understand.

What is so difficult to understand? The two teams we blew up are in a division which arguably may be the worst in the NFL this year. Atlanta is leading their division with a record of 4-6. The difference between our offense led by Joe and theirs is that they both have legitimate #1 WRs and one is a rookie. If we had Boldin & Pitta playing right now, the original post of what we're missing would be a moot point.

AND, < attack removed > I would say this: "the thing about excuses is that everybody has one." In its game against Tennessee, Pittsburgh had five starters sidelined by injuries and they still found a way to win on the road. Vince Lombardi once said, "The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have." Remember, de Nile isn't just a river in Egypt. If anyone thinks the main reason our secondary is performing poorly is due to injuries, they are in denial. We need a lot of improvement in the level of play by our defensive backfield and more depth.

[rmcjacket23]

Aside from the seeded games.

That's why I said "outside of two games".

[rmcjacket23]

What is so difficult to understand? The two teams we blew up are in a division which arguably may be the worst in the NFL this year. Atlanta is leading their division with a record of 4-6. The difference between our offense led by Joe and theirs is that they both have legitimate #1 WRs and one is a rookie. If we had Boldin & Pitta playing right now, the original post of what we're missing would be a moot point.

AND, I would say this: "the thing about excuses is that everybody has one." In its game against Tennessee, Pittsburgh had five starters sidelined by injuries and they still found a way to win on the road. Vince Lombardi once said, "The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have." Remember, de Nile isn't just a river in Egypt. If anyone thinks the main reason our secondary is performing poorly is due to injuries, they are in denial. We need a lot of improvement in the level of play by our defensive backfield and more depth.

Injuries occur every season. Its an expectation, not an exception. No single NFL team in history has been fully healthy.

Good teams overcome injuries, inferior teams use injuries as a crutch. There's literally one player on this team that would instantly cost the Ravens an average to above-average season, and that's Flacco. You'll find that in most cases losing a QB on a good team is just about the only way that team is going to be bad.

No shortage of teams in this league who have historically lost their best pass rushers, corners, WRs, RBs, OL, etc. and still managed to win plenty of games.

[frozen joe flacco fan]

Injuries occur every season. Its an expectation, not an exception. No single NFL team in history has been fully healthy.

 

Good teams overcome injuries, inferior teams use injuries as a crutch. There's literally one player on this team that would instantly cost the Ravens an average to above-average season, and that's Flacco. You'll find that in most cases losing a QB on a good team is just about the only way that team is going to be bad.

 

No shortage of teams in this league who have historically lost their best pass rushers, corners, WRs, RBs, OL, etc. and still managed to win plenty of games.

Amen!

[allballs]

1. The road game in Denver was due to scheduling conflicts with the Orioles. That wasn't some sort of league conspiracy or hatred towards the Ravens.

2. We did play four of five on the road... we also played 3 of four at home... so whats your point? Its still 8 games both home and away. I also checked your 2000 theory, and at no point in the history of the Baltimore Ravens franchise has this team ever played more than 3 straight road games, just like we've never played more than 3 straight home games.

3. I have no explanation for the "front loading" of division games, other than to say it has to happen to somebody, because putting together an NFL schedule for 32 NFL teams is rather difficult. Somebody, and typically more than one team, are going to somewhat get the shaft at some point, because its impossible to organize a completely fair schedule for each team. This is the first instance I can recall in recent memory of a "frontloaded" division schedule, so again its not some long-standing conspiracy or hatred.

 

For what its worth... you should be sort of happy that its frontloaded in that manner. Given our recent health concerns, not sure playing 2-3 division games at the end of the season would necessarily bode well for our season.

ok, why did they turn the lights out on us at the superbowl when were dominating the 'legendary' 49ers for the world to see?

they hate us because we won that first superbowl too soon. yesterday we had 2 P.I. calls, in the endzone, but they never spotted us the ball at the 1. and then, look how we lost the game... nfl just wants the old teams to continue to win (patriots, packers, broncos, dalla etc, ) thats why every year the keep puttin brady and manning in the AFC champ. i guarantee you i wont happen this year. its never pretty with us, but i still feel we gon win again, in arizona.