Official Texans vs. Jags Game Thread, 12/30/2018

[barrett]

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.

[barrett]

I also think it's hilarious that Frank Reich explained away his boneheaded move in the first game against us by saying he'd never play for a tie. And right now today if he'd taken the tie in that game he'd have won the division and be preparing for a home playoff game.

The media has pushed a narrative that has been picked up by 'aggressive' young coaches that going for it on 4th down is always good and not going is always cowardly. It's too bad there wasn't math that proved by win probability added and subtracted when a team should go for it...oh wait, there are tons of studies that quantify that...

http://www.advancedfootballanalytics...4th-down-study

The truth is that NFL coaches just don't trust math and the nerds who use math. Awesome. I hope Frank Reich is happy that always going for the win is the same as getting 2nd place.

[chuck]

Frank Reich looks like the mandolin player in a bluegrass band that exclusively covers Grateful Dead songs.

[HPF Bob]

Originally Posted by barrett

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.

I'll agree with you about the disingenuous part. Is that the League trumpeting this point or merely See-BS? It is generally in the NFL's best interest to see that there's a competitive balance among all members so the bad teams are given slight advantages here and there.

Giving bad teams easier schedules is no more unfair than giving the worst teams earlier spots in the draft order. The Patriots prove the point that schedule alone can't negate the difference between good teams and bad.

Since NFL teams don't have a 31-game schedule, you can't draw a schedule that is totally fair. One team is always going to have an unfair advantage. Therefore, isn't it more sporting to give the bad teams the unfair benefit?

[barrett]

Originally Posted by HPF Bob

I'll agree with you about the disingenuous part. Is that the League trumpeting this point or merely See-BS? It is generally in the NFL's best interest to see that there's a competitive balance among all members so the bad teams are given slight advantages here and there.

Giving bad teams easier schedules is no more unfair than giving the worst teams earlier spots in the draft order. The Patriots prove the point that schedule alone can't negate the difference between good teams and bad.

Since NFL teams don't have a 31-game schedule, you can't draw a schedule that is totally fair. One team is always going to have an unfair advantage. Therefore, isn't it more sporting to give the bad teams the unfair benefit?

You cannot make the schedule the same for all 32 teams without a 31 game schedule, but you can make it the same for each team competing inside of a division (what the other major sport do).

As for the Patriots, they prove the point partly through excellence that trumps an unbalanced playing field and partly through competing in the worst division in football throughout their run.