What I'd like to do to the Bye Week
Every year as we know each team gets a bye week. Some of these byes come early, and some late. For some teams it can be helpful, and for some, not so much. In a world where "Mechem" rules, the Bye week would be completely re-changed. And how? Observe:
The Bye week is a good thing. A chance for teams to rest, and for some, to make changes. Practice for an upcoming game and so forth.
However, the Bye week, as it is currently established, has faults. Firstly:
Its subject to random assignment. Meaning, some teams will get an early bye, others a late one.
It promotes unfair matchups. For some teams, the bye is a momentum killer. For others, its a blessing and a vacation week to restore strength. The problem is, some teams play a team after that teams bye, and are disadvantaged from a rest position. And sometimes, the schedule makers stick a team with 3-4 of those scenarios. Whereas, you only can possibly have one yourself.
What should be a blessing to all teams becomes a potential weapon against some.
So how to fix it? Simple answer. Level the playing field.
I would propose a universal bye week for each conference. Of course, the last thing we want is a week without football. So week 8 would be the AFC bye. Week 9, the NFC.
So look at the impact. The Bye week is now centralized. All teams heal equally. No more week 4 bye's for a team with no injuries.
No more teams playing others after uneven rest periods.
No more stupid teams being a half game back for 5 weeks in the season.
The only possible drawback would be the Fantasy Football impact. Half the players out at once. Oh well, make due with what you got. I would propose a bye week bench system, so you could retain your AFC players on the NFC week, and vice versa.
Whats the consensus BTSC? Elect me Fuhrer of the NFL!
0 recs |
19 comments
| Add comment
Comments
Two byes
I’d rather see each team get 2 byes. One in the first half of the season and one in the second half. That way the season is 18 weeks long, which the owners want without having to add extra games, which the players hate.
by RobZagnut on Oct 7, 2009 6:58 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
I elect you to the NFLPA President or whatever its called
I think that is the correct term
"Polamalu’s lineage can be traced through several roots. Chuck Norris mated with an Amazon Queen, and on the other side, Tony Hawk mated with Mother Nature.
The two children of these spawned and fused in a tantric love session to create Troy Polamalu. The mother however died as he tore through the birth canal with a spin move."
Mechem on the roots of Troy Polamalu
by WVPiratesfan on Oct 7, 2009 10:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd be for 2 byes
If and only if there are two more games.
As it stands, two times off in 16 weeks means likely you are looking at week 6 and 12 roughly. And if its not structured, you’ll have teams getting wide gaps or small ones.
by Mechem on Oct 7, 2009 10:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How soon-ish they forget
In 1993, the NFL went with a two-bye 18 week schedule. It was almost universally despised by both fans and players as a real momentum killer.
If teams start playing more games, I could understand adding more byes just for reasons of keeping players from killing themselves out there.
And getting back to the original post, sitting out a whole conference would be bad for TV, which is what drives everything. Neither CBS (AFC) nor Fox (NFC) wants to spend a whole week not showing any football. I have never understood why they don’t sit a whole division each week, though, for equality purposes, instead of a mishmash of teams. Maybe that’s also because of TV.
by TheSpatulaMessiah on Oct 8, 2009 11:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That was then...
Back in 1993 byes were not a staple of NFL seasons. Over the past 16 seasons players, coaches and fans have experienced the value of byes within a season for players to heal and recharge batteries.
The fact that people are talking about the importance of where byes happen within a schedule (week 7-8 is much better than week 4-5) leads to credence that the NFL should revisit the bye issue.
by RobZagnut on Oct 8, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good idea
13 years and no playoff wins for the Dallas Cowboys... SWEET!
by idiscgolftexas on Oct 7, 2009 7:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
makes perfect sense
Fantasy leagues could easily adjust by just taking wks 8 and 9 as bye weeks themselves.
I think 18 game schedule is going to happen and with it will probably see 2 bye weeks so we will have a 20 wk season but only 2 preseason games.
by DarinS on Oct 7, 2009 9:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
not me..
I hate the Bye Week….it’s in my list of S*** I Hate about the NFL.
No need…..only in to extend the season. I HATE the week that the Steelers aren’t playing, ESPECIALLY if we’ve lost going in………makes it unbearable.
by swissvale72 on Oct 7, 2009 10:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
So...
No bye week at all? If so, I don’t think that’s very realistic.
by NYSteelersFan4 on Oct 8, 2009 10:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fantasy football solution
the two bye weeks count as one week of fantasy. done.
by schnifin on Oct 7, 2009 10:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Eihn Division, Eihn Bye Week, Eihn Fuherer!!!!!!
Me likes.
Bring a towel to the game. Black or gold or yellow. If you don't have one buy one, If you can't buy one, dye one!!!
by SoCalSteelerFan on Oct 8, 2009 12:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
4 teams have a bye this week and play each other next
I’ve alway thought that would make sense.
by SNW on Oct 8, 2009 3:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That does help one issue
But it still creates such a disparity across the board. I just dont like that some teams will get a late bye, which I personally think is better, and others a really early bye.
I mean who REALLY needs the bye at week 4?
by Mechem on Oct 8, 2009 4:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Combine that with a week off for the AFC and NFC rotate year to year
and the week the AFC is off it would be a NFC vs NFC weekend and vis versa for the NFC off week and you have it there.
I would leave town on the NFC weekend though.
by SNW on Oct 8, 2009 6:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually you'd have two of each in a row. Four weeks of rivalrys in a row.
On the AFC off first senario; AFC vs AFC team and NFC vs NFC teams would play. Then the AFC would be off and NFC vs NFC teams would play. The next week AFC vs AFC and NFC off. The next week would be AFC vs AFC and NFC vs NFC again.
I think I like it.
by SNW on Oct 8, 2009 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
In general...
I agree with you Meechem. There is quite a disparity in the value of said bye week depending on where it falls in the schedule. To have the maximum impact my theory is that the later the bye week the better. Teams with an early bye that are relatively healthy have the potential to get really screwed with a few mid-late season injuries. Unfortunately, those that brought up television are correct: the networks will NEVER go for it. And one thought on what Swissvale said….I used to hate the bye week as well, but have grown used to it. The only thing that makes it bearable is that for the most part the Steelers have been relatively competitive thoroughout the season, and it makes it something to look forward to each week. Now, if I were a Browns or Lions fan, and my team stunk annually and was usually eleiminated from contention by the end of preseason, it would be agonizing….just delaying the inevitable recitation of the “we’ll get’em next year mantra.”
"Whaddya' mean all the beer is gone..?
by OhioYinzer on Oct 8, 2009 4:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
On the Networks
Here is a solution to please the networks…
Make week 8 and 9, half NFC and AFC. And the teams that are off play eachother cross-conference.
Week 8 is AFC North and East, and whatever two NFC divisions they play that year. And likewise with week 9.
So now both networks get to have games both weeks.
by Mechem on Oct 8, 2009 8:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 


















