Why Did No One Complain Before When Colts Had Inhumane Scheduling In Years Past, ( Now Cbs Does In General )

[bayone]

When Colts in years past had crazy Schedule never saw anything written like this though I do now are morew THURS night game than before I believe, Nevertheless , When Colts had it rough who came out and said it, only some Colt FO I Think

.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell this week told a San Diego audience that the league's priority is to "make the game safer for players," though he conceded that "we can do better, and we will." I suggest he start by looking more carefully at what the league asks teams like San Diego and, soon, Green Bay, to endure when it devises schedules that more closely resemble Parris Island boot camps.

.

CBS -'Inhumane' scheduling puts NFL teams and players at risk ( No one had a problem when Colts had all those Thurs night games away yearly against division rivals )

.

EXCERPTS

SAN DIEGO -- I'm not here to make excuses for the San Diego Chargers, their lackluster play or a four-game slide. They're in a funk, and they're in trouble. But I am here to say the Bolts have been victimized, and not just by Philip Rivers and his league-leading 15 interceptions or a defense that has more holes than Market Street.

.

Nope, I'm talking about the NFL office and its scheduling department

..

Thursday night's game was the Chargers' third in 11 days, and, I'm sorry, that's not only wrong and unfair; it's downright inhumane.

.

I know Thursday night football is good for ratings, which means it's good for revenue. But it's not good for the safety and health of its players, and if you don't believe me, you weren't paying attention in San Diego's latest setback when the Chargers lost two starting offensive linemen, as well as linebackerTakeo Spikes. Backup tackle Brandyn Dombrowski was hurt, too, but that was on the game's last play.

.

In essence, the league is penalizing those unlucky clubs because it is asking –- no, it is requiring –- them to suit up three times in 11 days, which is something it doesn't ask of others. A competitive disadvantage? You bet. Cruel and unusual punishment? I'll second that one, too, after seeing San Diego trainers lead a cadre of players off the field –- including tackle Marcus McNeill, who was removed by an electric cart.

.

I understand injuries are part of the game, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out you increase your chances of incurring them when you play more games in less time. Apparently, the NFL schedule makers didn't get the memo

.

The ratings are just too high not to keep them.

http://www.cbssports...players-at-risk

[BIGugly]

When Colts in years past had crazy Schedule never saw anything written like this though I do now are morew THURS night game than before I believe, Nevertheless , When Colts had it rough who came out and said it, only some Colt FO I Think

.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell this week told a San Diego audience that the league's priority is to "make the game safer for players," though he conceded that "we can do better, and we will." I suggest he start by looking more carefully at what the league asks teams like San Diego and, soon, Green Bay, to endure when it devises schedules that more closely resemble Parris Island boot camps.

.

CBS -'Inhumane' scheduling puts NFL teams and players at risk ( No one had a problem when Colts had all those Thurs night games away yearly against division rivals )

.

EXCERPTS

SAN DIEGO -- I'm not here to make excuses for the San Diego Chargers, their lackluster play or a four-game slide. They're in a funk, and they're in trouble. But I am here to say the Bolts have been victimized, and not just by Philip Rivers and his league-leading 15 interceptions or a defense that has more holes than Market Street.

.

Nope, I'm talking about the NFL office and its scheduling department

..

Thursday night's game was the Chargers' third in 11 days, and, I'm sorry, that's not only wrong and unfair; it's downright inhumane.

.

I know Thursday night football is good for ratings, which means it's good for revenue. But it's not good for the safety and health of its players, and if you don't believe me, you weren't paying attention in San Diego's latest setback when the Chargers lost two starting offensive linemen, as well as linebackerTakeo Spikes. Backup tackle Brandyn Dombrowski was hurt, too, but that was on the game's last play.

.

In essence, the league is penalizing those unlucky clubs because it is asking –- no, it is requiring –- them to suit up three times in 11 days, which is something it doesn't ask of others. A competitive disadvantage? You bet. Cruel and unusual punishment? I'll second that one, too, after seeing San Diego trainers lead a cadre of players off the field –- including tackle Marcus McNeill, who was removed by an electric cart.

.

I understand injuries are part of the game, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out you increase your chances of incurring them when you play more games in less time. Apparently, the NFL schedule makers didn't get the memo

.

The ratings are just too high not to keep them.

http://www.cbssports...players-at-risk

Several years ago the Indianapolis Colts played 4 games in 17 days. That certainly can be an issue with Monday and Thursday games. Won all four games. That was the only time I remember Peyton ever being pulled with big leads, Chicago and Detroit, as I remember were the games he didn't finish. Played just three quarters at Chicago, and just over a half at Detroit. Set the record for TD's in a season that year. He actually missed nearly 8 quarters of footbal that season as there was another game that he just played one series, just to keep his consecutive starts going. In a physically demanding game, this had to be devastating to them physically. Or was it just a better conditioning scenario? Tough question, no easy answers.

.

[MAC]

Thursday is too disruptive to the teams schedule. You might have players not even ready to fully participate in practice having to suit up for a big game instead. It's just wierd and uncomfortable. It would be different if they only included teams coming off a bye - but of course they want the byes early in the year and the Thursday games late.

I don't consider the Colts to have been punished in the past, because it goes with the territory of being a successful team. If that's the price, so be it.

Personally I would love it if they dropped all midweek games (including holidays) and instead had a Saturday night game throughout the season.

I wonder if the teams get any opportunity to review the schedule and complain about problems before it is finalized.

[BIGugly]

Thursday is too disruptive to the teams schedule. You might have players not even ready to fully participate in practice having to suit up for a big game instead. It's just wierd and uncomfortable. It would be different if they only included teams coming off a bye - but of course they want the byes early in the year and the Thursday games late.

I don't consider the Colts to have been punished in the past, because it goes with the territory of being a successful team. If that's the price, so be it.

Personally I would love it if they dropped all midweek games (including holidays) and instead had a Saturday night game throughout the season.

I wonder if the teams get any opportunity to review the schedule and complain about problems before it is finalized.

Go online and see how many years in a row the Colts opened "on the road". If the scheduling was done by a computer program, that could easliy be avoided. Sometimes we even start out with 2 in a row on the road, and finish the scedule on the road. Now exactly how does that happen?

Seems so easy to me that if you open on the road, you finish at home. If you open on the road one year, you open at home the next. Sooooo simple. It can be done. Why isn't it?

But Bill said it best when queried about it some years back..."We'll show up at the appointed place, at the appointed time, and we will be ready to play football"....and that's how it has to be...

[MAC]

Go online and see how many years in a row the Colts opened "on the road". If the scheduling was done by a computer program, that could easliy be avoided. Sometimes we even start out with 2 in a row on the road, and finish the scedule on the road. Now exactly how does that happen?

Seems so easy to me that if you open on the road, you finish at home. If you open on the road one year, you open at home the next. Sooooo simple. It can be done. Why isn't it?

But Bill said it best when queried about it some years back..."We'll show up at the appointed place, at the appointed time, and we will be ready to play football"....and that's how it has to be...

There is a LOT that goes into producing the schedule - some computerized, some manual. The point is that any manipulations are done to present the best games at the right times to get the maximum TV exposure. It's all about money. I wouldn't waste a second conjecturing on there being a conspiracy designed to hurt the Colts. The thought is simply crazy. Without said conspiracy, I'd attribute the things you mention partly to coincidence, and partly to the Colts being such a good team that the networks want them on at certain times. For instance the Colts/Pats game took place in virtually the same week for a few years. It was perfect for the networks. If that (and similar adjustments) forced some other minor changes as you describe, so be it. Better that than be a team that nobody wants to watch. Regardless, I'm sure that every team has complaints.

[BIGugly]

There is a LOT that goes into producing the schedule - some computerized, some manual. The point is that any manipulations are done to present the best games at the right times to get the maximum TV exposure. It's all about money. I wouldn't waste a second conjecturing on there being a conspiracy designed to hurt the Colts. The thought is simply crazy. Without said conspiracy, I'd attribute the things you mention partly to coincidence, and partly to the Colts being such a good team that the networks want them on at certain times. For instance the Colts/Pats game took place in virtually the same week for a few years. It was perfect for the networks. If that (and similar adjustments) forced some other minor changes as you describe, so be it. Better that than be a team that nobody wants to watch. Regardless, I'm sure that every team has complaints.

That's correct. It's not about fairness, it's about money.

[chad72]

The theory is the Colts were very strong at home (except vs the marquee teams like the Chargers, Pats etc.)

So, no one wanted to schedule primetime stuff at the Colts' home as much as they wanted to schedule them on the road. It also helped struggling teams make money since they at least wanted to see Peyton play, if not their stinking team .

So, season openers or games that needed to get the ratings normally featured Colts on the road, at least 2 out of every 3, if I remember right.

[MAC]

The theory is the Colts were very strong at home (except vs the marquee teams like the Chargers, Pats etc.)

So, no one wanted to schedule primetime stuff at the Colts' home as much as they wanted to schedule them on the road. It also helped struggling teams make money since they at least wanted to see Peyton play, if not their stinking team .

So, season openers or games that needed to get the ratings normally featured Colts on the road, at least 2 out of every 3, if I remember right.

I doubt that that is true. I don't have that perception anyway. The Pats games seem to have been oddly unbalanced towards the Pats regarding home field, but not prime time games in total. Besides, Jacksonville is the only team that I can think of that wouldn't automatically sell out a prime time game regardless of who the opponent was.