Quote:
Originally Posted by HPF Bob
Except Cleveland and Denver went 13-18-1 this year while Cincy and Oakland went 10-22, implying the Colts had an easier schedule than the Texans had.
At the beginning of each season, people print "strength of schedule" columns as to why Team X will be better and Team Y will collapse and it all looks like crap by the end of the year. You can't base your team's success on the previous year's results (except New England).
Personally, I love how they select opponents. It's like the Electoral College in that it's a little screwy but ultimately is the best and fairest option out there.
I remember going through almost 20 years of NFL schedules with the Cowboys and Raiders in their primes never playing a meaningful game against each other.
Screw that. I want to see everyone *have* to play everyone eventually and this guarantees you face every conference opponent at least once every three years and every non-conference opponent at least once every four years. Plus, it guarantees every division winner will be seeing four other division champs the following season each year.
|
I have no problem with you liking the scheduling for being 'screwy'. I also have no big problem with the scheduling myself. I was pointing out the way the NFL and the media trumpet worst to first stories is disingenuous since the rules are made to create those stories.
But the idea that purposely giving some teams easier schedules is the fairest way to do things is absurd.