PDA

View Full Version : Football Bye Weeks - why not spread them over 2 weeks in the middle of the season?


Pawnmower
09-26-2010, 06:24 PM
Just wondering about this..

Why wouldnt the NFL have every team have a bye on week 7 & 8 (or 8 & 9) instead of the way it is now? It seems a much fairer way to do things...Just have 1/2 of the teams take a bye in week 8 and the other half take a bye in week 9....(or pick two better weeks)...And there would still be football every Sunday so the NFL wouldn't lose revenue...

I am sure there is a simple refutation to this idea, but I can't think of what it would be...

Thanks in advance.

chiefzilla1501
09-26-2010, 06:26 PM
You know, this sounds like a really stupid idea, but I actually think it makes sense. I think the placement of a bye week can sometimes give a different advantage and I believe the playing field should be evened out as much as it can be. Unfortunately, it looks like instead, they're going to add 2 games at the end.

Pawnmower
09-26-2010, 06:31 PM
Unfortunately, it looks like instead, they're going to add 2 games at the end.

Yah, I am not too happy about that....but maybe in 5-10 years I might change my mind. I kind of doubt it though.

keg in kc
09-26-2010, 06:33 PM
I was thinking the other day about this, maybe spread them out between weeks 6 and 12. It really seems to me like the teams who get them early are at a disadvantage to the teams that get them late in the year. Maybe there's nothing to that, but it's never seemed right to me.

petegz28
09-26-2010, 06:35 PM
I was thinking the other day about this, maybe spread them out between weeks 6 and 12. It really seems to me like the teams who get them early are at a disadvantage to the teams that get them late in the year. Maybe there's nothing to that, but it's never seemed right to me.

You want a bye late in the season? Get a 1st round bye in the playoffs.

Though this has traditionally been a thorn in our side.

The next best thing is to dominate so much the last game or two is meaningless.

In other words, earn one.

Pawnmower
09-26-2010, 06:36 PM
I was thinking the other day about this, maybe spread them out between weeks 6 and 12. It really seems to me like the teams who get them early are at a disadvantage to the teams that get them late in the year. Maybe there's nothing to that, but it's never seemed right to me.

I guess what I am saying is why not JUST 6 & 7

Having only a 1 week difference is as fair as you can get without taking a week off.

keg in kc
09-26-2010, 06:37 PM
You want a bye late in the season? That's not what I said, in any way, shape or form. Next time read.

Bearcat
09-26-2010, 06:43 PM
I was thinking the other day about this, maybe spread them out between weeks 6 and 12. It really seems to me like the teams who get them early are at a disadvantage to the teams that get them late in the year. Maybe there's nothing to that, but it's never seemed right to me.

I think 6-12 is a little better, or condense it a little to 6-10/6-11. I don't think the NFL would ever condense it to two weeks, because then you're talking about two weeks with only 8 matchups... 3 early games, 3 late games, SNF, and MNF... that would barely cover all the divisions, and CBS & Fox would not agree to selecting between 1 or 2 games per time slot unless they were big games.

-King-
09-26-2010, 06:53 PM
Because I don't want to watch only 4 games each of those two weeks.

Rain Man
09-26-2010, 07:00 PM
It would destroy the fantasy football industry.

Guru
09-26-2010, 07:32 PM
How about we get rid of bye weeks completely. I hate them.