A Question About Our 2010 Opponents

by mistamic on Jan 12, 2010 12:44 AM CST

Most of us know who our 2010 opponents are. For those of you who don't know, check it out:

Home: Oakland, San Diego, Denver, Tennessee, Jacksonville, Buffalo, Arizona, San Francisco

Away: Oakland, San Diego, Denver, Indianapolis, Houston, Cleveland, St. Louis, Seattle

Now I have some questions about this and I'm hoping someone can answer it for me:

*Why are we playing Indy & Houston on the road next season? When we played the AFC South back in '07, our road opponents were both the Colts and the Texans. Shouldn't they be coming here? The same goes with the Jags & Titans. They came to Arrowhead back in '07. Shouldn't we be playing them in Nashville and Jacksonville next year?

*Same question, just a different division: why are we playing the Rams in St. Louis next season? And why are the 49ers coming to Arrowhead? When we played the NFC West in '06, we had the 49ers and Seahawks at home. We played the Cardinals & Rams on the road.

*Is the NFL trying to switch things up with the schedule? Are they unaware of this?

If anyone knows the answer, please fill me in. Thank you.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of Arrowhead Pride's writers or editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of Arrowhead Pride writers or editors.

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Hmmm not sure

but good questions I would like to know as well.

by tomahawk44 on Jan 12, 2010 6:56 AM CST reply actions

I don't know either

heard some talk about this on the radio but no answers. The league chooses not to have a symmetrical (fair) scheduling system. My guess is that it is part of the modern centrally planned operating model (flawed), wherein ‘central command’ acts to retain and create maximum loopholes for interventional control.

If scheduling were totally fair, symmetrical or random, the league would have no control to make decisions on scheduling to benefit themselves – it would be out of their hands. This way, the league makes most believe the system is ‘fair’ in some way, while still retaining the power to change the schedule at will.

CNN = ABC = NBC = CBS = FOX = Chris Mortenson Journalism
play better pool - http://www.sticksandstonesbilliards.com

by nayjevin on Jan 12, 2010 8:39 AM CST reply actions

What's unfair about it?

Right now, each NFL team plays an equal number of games against teams that finished first, second, third and fourth in their divisions during the previous season. You can certainly make the argument that some divisions are stronger or weaker than others at any given time, which could have the effect of giving some teams an easier schedule than others.

But for what it’s worth, I prefer the current system to old one, where in non-division games, teams were matched against each other on the basis of the previous year’s record. A lot of people thought that was more fair, but for my money, it was a system that too often allowed mediocre teams that had made minor improvements to rocket into the postseason on the basis of an easy schedule. You don’t see nearly as much of that now – and I think it’s better for the league.

John

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

by RDOGuy on Jan 12, 2010 10:58 AM CST up reply actions

it's unnecessarily complex

and is so mostly to include inter-conference play and attempted ‘parity’ balancing acts that some people find important.

How about each team plays every other team in the conference once? That’s 15 games. The sixteenth game could be #1 seed vs #2 seed, #3 seed vs #4 seed, and so on. Then playoffs are based on final seedings.

I’d like that, cause I care nothing for division rivalries. But if the divisions must be preserved (a laugh to me the way they’ve been blown up in recent years), a team could play division rivals twice (6 games) and 10 random rotating other teams. I’d like that okay (but not as well as my other proposal) because I care nothing for conference rivalries.

the National Fiddling Network has put up a web of weird attempted parity rules that get in the way. Dynasties are too hard to maintain now (rooting on underdogs to take down dynasties gave me some of the best sporting memories I have) – league cap and contract rules determine how many homegrown players it will be financially feasable to keep in the market that has grown to love them – encouraging more player movement, and less long term fanbase relationship.

In just about everything, I wish the league would just get out of the way and let teams play.

CNN = ABC = NBC = CBS = FOX = Chris Mortenson Journalism
play better pool - http://www.sticksandstonesbilliards.com

by nayjevin on Jan 12, 2010 3:33 PM CST up reply actions

There's little about the current scheduling system

that has anything to do with parity. The old scheduling system was mostly about parity, but the current one has only two games out of sixteen that are based on the previous season’s record.

Your first proposal is pretty simple – I’ll give you that. Essentially it adds another round to the playoffs; a team’s opponents for the last week of the season might be unknown until the week before, and these games would be likely to influence playoff seedings. Yet the formula for determining opponents in that sixteenth week seems to about pitting teams with similar records against each other. This confuses me, because that was the essence of the old parity scheduling system… which you seem to hate.

Your second proposal is really very little different than what we have now.

I disagree that salary cap and contract rules are controlling how many homegrown players a franchise may keep. You might consider strolling across Lot M, and asking the folks in the Royals front office if they’d rather be operating with NFL style cap and contract rules… instead of just “letting the teams play.”

John

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

by RDOGuy on Jan 12, 2010 4:13 PM CST up reply actions

good use of the invisible font (), I promise I didn't flip you off in the invisible fonts

by krayfish on Jan 12, 2010 12:31 PM CST up reply actions

They don't guarantee reversing

the away/home for rotational opponents to give themselve more scheduling flexibility. Factors like stadium availability, (Can be a problem during baseball playoffs) kickoff time (KC/SF for example can be a 12:00 kickoff in KC, but must be a 3:00 kickoff in SF) and consecutive road/home games (NFL seeks to prevent teams from playing more than 3 stright games home/away) are all considered more important than flopping home/away for rotational opponents.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KCSatchmo on Jan 12, 2010 8:53 AM CST reply actions

I saw that movie!

by krayfish on Jan 12, 2010 12:31 PM CST up reply actions

I'm just glad we're playing at Seattle

I already have that game pegged for my 2010 installment of my NFL Stadium tour.

For justice we must go to Don Pioli

by Sudden on Jan 12, 2010 10:52 AM CST reply actions

I may have to meet you there.

Looks like the most interesting road trip.

by HIV 2 Elway on Jan 12, 2010 2:52 PM CST up reply actions

I don't know but I like the schsdule.

Our strongest opponents for the most part are at home. WE could use a break after last season. That was a monster.

gordymule

by gordymule on Jan 12, 2010 11:11 AM CST reply actions

yes definitely

I see 7-8 wins hopefully anyway….
spilt each of our divisions and maybe 2 over the Raiders

then the other wins with Cleveland, St. Louis, Seattle, Buffalo

Great players dont win championships.....Great TEAMS win championships

by DT58forever on Jan 12, 2010 11:32 AM CST up reply actions

Only 3 teams...

made the playoffs on that schedule, including SD who we play twice. I also think SD and Arizona take a step back, especially if Warner retires. Although I could see Houston and San Francisco on the up and up.

by I_Bleed_Red. on Jan 12, 2010 3:32 PM CST up reply actions

I believe....

they were talking last off season about tweaking the West teams scheduling because of the amount of cross country flying they had to do when playing the East teams. I suppose this could be a part of it, but I do not know.

by dragon6172 on Jan 12, 2010 1:04 PM CST reply actions