Do the Patriots have a bye before the play us EVERY YEAR?

[section122]

i get what your saying. i dont think i buy that its an effort to help the pats that this is happening though. even in the case of the strong non conference opponent (which is pretty limited in chances to fall after a bye), it is still an important game to win.

 

speaking to the people saying the divisional record is a big deal - that would only be if someone thought we were not just number 2, but were going to tie. any of the tie breakers within the conference for seeding go on head to head and conference record, no? if thats the case a big game against the steelers, ravens, in the past the colts or now the texans or denver would be MUCH more valuable a win than to beat up the bills.

Yeah I don't think I'm buying it either but I can understand how some see this as an issue.

 

Just for fun I looked at the schedule to see how many teams got the Bills off of a bye and interestingly only the Texans come off of a bye before playing us (Bills also have a bye before playing the Texans as they are on bye the same week). I wonder if there are any teams that don't play anyone coming off of a bye and conversely who plays the most teams coming off of bye. I would imagine it will add a little more perspective to this discussion. I would have to say though only playing 2 teams coming off of a bye (and 1 that we are coming off the same bye) doesn't seem to be a bad rap or big deal.

[Mr. WEO]

This is my point. This tendency to always play the Pats after their bye week is not random it is premeditated. The benefit to the Pats is that they get to play a division rival almost every year after 2 weeks to prepare and rest. The cost to us is that we have had to play a division rival and division leader almost every year for the last 8. It's tough enough to take away a game from a division leading rival and much tougher after they have 2 weeks to rest and prepare. Teams don't get rusty middle of the season with an additional week of rest playing at home.

 

It's pretty simple in my eyes.

No doubt it is.

i get what your saying. i dont think i buy that its an effort to help the pats that this is happening though. even in the case of the strong non conference opponent (which is pretty limited in chances to fall after a bye), it is still an important game to win.

 

speaking to the people saying the divisional record is a big deal - that would only be if someone thought we were not just number 2, but were going to tie. any of the tie breakers within the conference for seeding go on head to head and conference record, no? if thats the case a big game against the steelers, ravens, in the past the colts or now the texans or denver would be MUCH more valuable a win than to beat up the bills.

 

Good point.

 

An argument coulbd be made by the pats that having the Bills after the bye is a waste of the bye week. History would support this contention.

[PDaDdy]

An argument coulbd be made by the pats that having the Bills after the bye is a waste of the bye week. History would support this contention.

 

Part of that history is us almost always playing the Pats after their bye week

[NoSaint]

No doubt it is.

 

 

Good point.

 

An argument coulbd be made by the pats that having the Bills after the bye is a waste of the bye week. History would support this contention.

 

To take it a step further, that the bills would win the division, if not for this post pats bye week loss that catapults them to a tie while splitting their head to head (after all, without the bye we beat them) and having a better record then us against the fins and jets.

 

Whereas if you assume the pats are competing for homefield, much more reasonable than us overtaking them during those 4 years, the most valuable games would be othe AFC division winners.

[section122]

Alright just for fun I went through and looked at the Bye weeks and who plays teams coming off of them. I came up with some interesting numbers (not that I'm sure they mean much)

(all of the numbers will be games against teams coming off of byes)

4

Eagles (now they have a beef!)

 

3

Falcons

 

2

Packers, Ravens, Raiders, Lions, Cowboys, Browns, Bills (1 of the teams is also off of our bye)

 

1

Chiefs, Bucs, Saints, Jets, Broncos, 49ers, Rams (49ers and rams face each other coming off of bye and only one each team plays) ,Seahawks, Jags, Bears, Dolphins, Texans

 

and check out the list of teams with 0

Steelers (jewel franchise)

Giants (jewel franchise)

Pats (jewel franchise)

Redskins, Bengals, Colts, Titans, Vikings, Chargers, Cards, Panthers

 

not sure what it means but I did find it interesting that 3 of the top franchises from the leagues perspective don't face any teams coming off of a bye. The Eagles and Falcons got the short end of the stick for sure. Would be interesting at the end of the year to compare this list to the end of year records and see if it meant anything. By the end of the year though we will forget all about this debate as we celebrate our playoff return!

[NoSaint]

Alright just for fun I went through and looked at the Bye weeks and who plays teams coming off of them. I came up with some interesting numbers (not that I'm sure they mean much)

(all of the numbers will be games against teams coming off of byes)

4

Eagles (now they have a beef!)

 

3

Falcons

 

2

Packers, Ravens, Raiders, Lions, Cowboys, Browns, Bills (1 of the teams is also off of our bye)

 

1

Chiefs, Bucs, Saints, Jets, Broncos, 49ers, Rams (49ers and rams face each other coming off of bye and only one each team plays) ,Seahawks, Jags, Bears, Dolphins, Texans

 

and check out the list of teams with 0

Steelers (jewel franchise)

Giants (jewel franchise)

Pats (jewel franchise)

Redskins, Bengals, Colts, Titans, Vikings, Chargers, Cards, Panthers

 

not sure what it means but I did find it interesting that 3 of the top franchises from the leagues perspective don't face any teams coming off of a bye. The Eagles and Falcons got the short end of the stick for sure. Would be interesting at the end of the year to compare this list to the end of year records and see if it meant anything. By the end of the year though we will forget all about this debate as we celebrate our playoff return!

You could say "wow only 3 premiere teams without" just as easily.

Edited April 18, 2012 by NoSaint

[section122]

You could easily say "wow only 3 premiere teams without" just as easily.

yeah but then all my "hard work" would have been reduced to 6 words

[CodeMonkey]

Put it this way, it probably pisses them off more than it does us, it's not like they usually need it.

That's actually a really good point.

[timba]

New England Bye Weeks since 2000, from the patriots website: http://www.patriots.com/games-and-stats/schedule.html

 

2000 - Bye week: 9 Week 10 opponent: Buffalo

2001 - Bye week: 16 Week 17 opponent: Carolina

2002 - Bye week: 7 Week 8 opponent: Denver

2003 - Bye week: 10 Week 11 opponent: Dallas

2004 - Bye week: 3 Week 4 opponent: Buffalo

2005 - Bye week: 7 week 8 opponent: Buffalo

2006 - Bye week: 6 week 7 opponent: Buffalo

2007 - Bye week: 10 week 11 opponent: Buffalo

2008 - Bye week: 4 week 5 opponent: San Francisco

2009 - Bye week: 8 week 9 opponent: Miami

2010 - Bye week: 5 Week 6 opponent: Baltimore

2011 - Bye week: 7 Week 8 opponent: Pittsburgh

2012 - Bye week: 9 Week 10 opponent: Buffalo

[PDaDdy]

Alright just for fun I went through and looked at the Bye weeks and who plays teams coming off of them. I came up with some interesting numbers (not that I'm sure they mean much)

(all of the numbers will be games against teams coming off of byes)

4

Eagles (now they have a beef!)

 

3

Falcons

 

2

Packers, Ravens, Raiders, Lions, Cowboys, Browns, Bills (1 of the teams is also off of our bye)

 

1

Chiefs, Bucs, Saints, Jets, Broncos, 49ers, Rams (49ers and rams face each other coming off of bye and only one each team plays) ,Seahawks, Jags, Bears, Dolphins, Texans

 

and check out the list of teams with 0

Steelers (jewel franchise)

Giants (jewel franchise)

Pats (jewel franchise)

Redskins, Bengals, Colts, Titans, Vikings, Chargers, Cards, Panthers

 

not sure what it means but I did find it interesting that 3 of the top franchises from the leagues perspective don't face any teams coming off of a bye. The Eagles and Falcons got the short end of the stick for sure. Would be interesting at the end of the year to compare this list to the end of year records and see if it meant anything. By the end of the year though we will forget all about this debate as we celebrate our playoff return!

 

I've done it previous years and stopped because I saw the same type of pattern and it just made me angry.

[RealityCheck]

4 out of the last 5 years and 6 of the last 8 I think. I would say that defies the statistical chance of it being just a "coincidence". If it were relatively random we should get the Pats after OUR bye week 50% of the time when it does happen. This also defies incredibly that statistical possibility. The reality of the situation makes it HIGHLY "suspicious" in my opinion.

Of course. Why actually READ about what "mathematical coincidence" actually is and examples of such when empirical evidence would conceivably get in the way of your preconceived notions. The only thing that is not a coincidence when it comes to the Bills and Pats is that the Bills are 1 and for the past 7 years against them.

[PDaDdy]

Of course. Why actually READ about what "mathematical coincidence" actually is and examples of such when empirical evidence would conceivably get in the way of your preconceived notions. The only thing that is not a coincidence when it comes to the Bills and Pats is that the Bills are 1 and for the past 7 years against them.

 

So enlighten us oh wise one. How does mathematical coincidence explain an incredible statistic improbability if this coincidence is based on chance?

[bills44]

Yes, the reason we are suggesting alternative scenarios is.....we are Pats fans in disguise....and not because....

 

....we are trying to help you with your....paranoia.

 

The reason your monitor flickers every once in a while? That's me, watching you. Btw, you need to lose a few pounds, that sweater vest has to go, and no, wearing that scarf doesn't make you look erudite. That girl will never be into you as long as you keep wearing it to the coffee shop. And, yeah, it's time to get a new laptop...but...understand, I will be present on that one as well...way before you even buy it.

 

hopefully, your next attempt at humor will be better than this one.

[The Avenger]

I looked at ALL bye weeks for ALL teams since 2000 - here's what I found:

 

-Since 2000, Buffalo has played 18 games against teams coming off a bye. By contrast, New England has played 10, including a 3 year stretch between 2007-2009 where they played ZERO teams coming off a bye

 

-New England has played Buffalo 6 times after coming off their bye since 2000, by far the most common matchup. Since 2000, no other team has played the same opponent more than 3 times coming off their bye week.

 

-Only 1 team has played more games against teams coming off a bye than Buffalo - Atlanta has 20 games against such teams, Buffalo has 18. Arizona has the fewest with only 5.

 

I know we Bills fans are a sensitive and somewhat paranoid lot - it's hard not to be when you see how we get dumped on. I don't think there's any master plan to screw the Bills and make their life tough or to give someone else some sort of break, but looking at the data you do see that Buffalo has fared far worse than most in this area. To me it's simply a matter of bad luck, but with all the bad luck we've had in other areas I'd rather not have it when it comes to the schedule.

Edited April 18, 2012 by The Avenger

[NoSaint]

I looked at ALL bye weeks for ALL teams since 2000 - here's what I found:

 

-Since 2000, Buffalo has played 18 games against teams coming off a bye. By contrast, New England has played 10, including a 3 year stretch between 2007-2009 where they played ZERO teams coming off a bye

 

-New England has played Buffalo 6 times after coming off their bye since 2000, by far the most common matchup. Since 2000, no other team has played the same opponent more than 3 times coming off their bye week.

 

-Only 1 team has played more games against teams coming off a bye than Buffalo - Atlanta has 20 games against such teams, Buffalo has 18. Arizona has the fewest with only 5.

 

I know we Bills fans are a sensitive and somewhat paranoid lot - it's hard not to be when you see how we get dumped on. I don't think there's any master plan to screw the Bills and make their life tough or to give someone else some sort of break, but looking at the data you do see that Buffalo has fared far worse than most in this area. To me it's simply a matter of bad luck, but with all the bad luck we've had in other areas I'd rather not have it when it comes to the schedule.

 

i knew it was about helping the great franchises like arizona!

[MattM]

Wow--looks like I missed all the fun today on this one. Many thanks to the researchers--the overall opponents after a bye week stuff is interesting. I'd looked at that a few years ago myself when we led the League in post-bye opponents (one of the years when the Golden Boys got zippo). If this and all the other breaks they get "all averages out" as it should if it's truly random, then the Cheatahs* sure do have a lot comin' to them....

[OCinBuffalo]

hopefully, your next attempt at humor will be better than this one.

 

Oh, I'm not kidding. See that flicker? Wait. See it? Yeah, that's me.

[Mr. WEO]

To take it a step further, that the bills would win the division, if not for this post pats bye week loss that catapults them to a tie while splitting their head to head (after all, without the bye we beat them) and having a better record then us against the fins and jets.

 

Whereas if you assume the pats are competing for homefield, much more reasonable than us overtaking them during those 4 years, the most valuable games would be othe AFC division winners.

 

The pats should be the one's complaining to the league about getting the BIlls after the bye so many times the past decade.

 

 

New England Bye Weeks since 2000, from the patriots website: http://www.patriots.com/games-and-stats/schedule.html

 

2000 - Bye week: 9 Week 10 opponent: Buffalo

2001 - Bye week: 16 Week 17 opponent: Carolina

2002 - Bye week: 7 Week 8 opponent: Denver

2003 - Bye week: 10 Week 11 opponent: Dallas

2004 - Bye week: 3 Week 4 opponent: Buffalo

2005 - Bye week: 7 week 8 opponent: Buffalo

2006 - Bye week: 6 week 7 opponent: Buffalo

2007 - Bye week: 10 week 11 opponent: Buffalo

2008 - Bye week: 4 week 5 opponent: San Francisco

2009 - Bye week: 8 week 9 opponent: Miami

2010 - Bye week: 5 Week 6 opponent: Baltimore

2011 - Bye week: 7 Week 8 opponent: Pittsburgh

2012 - Bye week: 9 Week 10 opponent: Buffalo

 

Essentially, this is 5 pages laboring to find evil in a "mathematic coincidence" that hasn't happened in 5 years!

 

Some conspiracy! NFL, you dissappoint.

[RealityCheck]

So enlighten us oh wise one. How does mathematical coincidence explain an incredible statistic improbability if this coincidence is based on chance?

No wonder you are so smart, I mention the idea of reading about something that is actually quite fascinating and I'm the a******. If you don't want to look it up then just say so. The notion that you would prefer my explanation to doing some of your own fact finding says it all.

[MattM]

The pats should be the one's complaining to the league about getting the BIlls after the bye so many times the past decade.

 

 

 

 

Essentially, this is 5 pages laboring to find evil in a "mathematic coincidence" that hasn't happened in 5 years!

 

Some conspiracy! NFL, you dissappoint.

 

"Mathematic Coincidence"? What odds do you need to see the possibility (that's all it is, since none of us were there) that there's something more than coincidence here? Personally, when the odds get over 200 to 300 to 1, my spidey-sense goes off, but that may just be me.

 

Further food for thought. The odds of getting us after the bye each year are actually worse than 8 to 1 when one considers that teams like the Bills who play the Cheats* twice a year are much more likely to play them at least once (or, like last year and some prior years (2003?), both times) in non-bye eligible weeks, making the odds each year that we get them after a bye at probably between 9 to 1 and 10 to 1. So, really the odds of that happening 4 years in a row "naturally" are more on the order of 6,000 to 1 or 10,000 to 1. I'd like one of you to debunk the math--I'm open to being wrong on the odds here, but you'll need to prove that to me and none of you has yet.....

 

Similarly, I must also admit that nothing I've seen above has convinced me that there's little to no chance that the Pats* don't have some influence or say on who they get after a bye. Whether it be a division game (again, we got 1 in 11 years, for ex.) or against another top team or rival (interesting that the years before they got them off a bye, the Pats* had been humiliated by each of the Steelers and Ravens, for ex.), they seem to get meaningful games after a bye, the kind of games one would want after a bye more often than randomness would suggest....

[Mr. WEO]

"Mathematic Coincidence"? What odds do you need to see the possibility (that's all it is, since none of us were there) that there's something more than coincidence here? Personally, when the odds get over 200 to 300 to 1, my spidey-sense goes off, but that may just be me.

 

Further food for thought. The odds of getting us after the bye each year are actually worse than 8 to 1 when one considers that teams like the Bills who play the Cheats* twice a year are much more likely to play them at least once (or, like last year and some prior years (2003?), both times) in non-bye eligible weeks, making the odds each year that we get them after a bye at probably between 9 to 1 and 10 to 1. So, really the odds of that happening 4 years in a row "naturally" are more on the order of 6,000 to 1 or 10,000 to 1. I'd like one of you to debunk the math--I'm open to being wrong on the odds here, but you'll need to prove that to me and none of you has yet.....

 

Similarly, I must also admit that nothing I've seen above has convinced me that there's little to no chance that the Pats* don't have some influence or say on who they get after a bye. Whether it be a division game (again, we got 1 in 11 years, for ex.) or against another top team or rival (interesting that the years before they got them off a bye, the Pats* had been humiliated by each of the Steelers and Ravens, for ex.), they seem to get meaningful games after a bye, the kind of games one would want after a bye more often than randomness would suggest....

 

 

Each year?? It hasn't happened in 5 years!!

 

You say the pats get a bye before "meaningful games" after a bye, yet the topic is about them getting them the Bills after a bye--a team they have completely owned for the last 10 years, bye or no bye. They've beaten us 15 of the last 16 times--only 4 of those were after a bye.

 

If there is some scheme by the league to pair the pats with the Bills after a pats bye, what is the point?? They clearly haven't benefitted from this "special treatment".

 

And why do you keep harping on "natural odds"? The schedule isn't something that is fed into a random number generator. A bunch of guys sit around and make it up--this is news to you??

Edited April 19, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[PDaDdy]

No wonder you are so smart, I mention the idea of reading about something that is actually quite fascinating and I'm the a******. If you don't want to look it up then just say so. The notion that you would prefer my explanation to doing some of your own fact finding says it all.

 

Riiiight. What I am doing is giving you a forum to explain how this whole thread is useless by educating me to how mathematical coincidence explains this all away. I'm not a statistics or math major. I don't want to guess or infer what your point is which is why I asked you to enlighten me.

 

So, here is your chance to explain your stated opinion. Remember, if you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it that well. The fact that you dodged the question in the way you did makes it seem very suspicious.

[OCinBuffalo]

Each year?? It hasn't happened in 5 years!!

 

You say the pats get a bye before "meaningful games" after a bye, yet the topic is about them getting them the Bills after a bye--a team they have completely owned for the last 10 years, bye or no bye. They've beaten us 15 of the last 16 times--only 4 of those were after a bye.

 

If there is some scheme by the league to pair the pats with the Bills after a pats bye, what is the point?? They clearly haven't benefitted from this "special treatment".

 

And why do you keep harping on "natural odds"? The schedule isn't something that is fed into a random number generator. A bunch of guys sit around and make it up--this is news to you??

Well, per my words in your sig....here we are...talking in terms of reason, data, and fact....and here they are, once again, talking in terms of emotion, wishful thinking, and delusion.

 

Let the hazing continue.

 

Remember, if you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it that well.

Yeah....I'll remember that the next time I go into a client and am tasked with explaining why the F ups in how their chart of accounts are set up, are causing supply chain problems, which in turn are causing inventory shortages at the point of sale/care...while I am fighting a 2 front political war against the CFO who is trying to cover his ass for the crappy state of the COA, and 2 operations ladies, who are trying save their asses from having their excuses for non-delivery taken away.

 

"As long as I can explain it simply"....

[NoSaint]

Each year?? It hasn't happened in 5 years!!

 

You say the pats get a bye before "meaningful games" after a bye, yet the topic is about them getting them the Bills after a bye--a team they have completely owned for the last 10 years, bye or no bye. They've beaten us 15 of the last 16 times--only 4 of those were after a bye.

 

If there is some scheme by the league to pair the pats with the Bills after a pats bye, what is the point?? They clearly haven't benefitted from this "special treatment".

 

And why do you keep harping on "natural odds"? The schedule isn't something that is fed into a random number generator. A bunch of guys sit around and make it up--this is news to you??

 

although once in 5 years isnt that far off natural.... so truly the bulk of this is thread is based off something that happened years ago

Edited April 19, 2012 by NoSaint

[Matt in KC]

1. I don't think it's random we often play the Pats after their bye week.

 

2. I don't like it that we often play the Pats after their bye week.

 

3. I don't think it helps the Pats that we often play them after their bye week.

3b. I definitely don't think it helps the Bills that we often play the Pats after their bye week.

 

4. I don't think anyone is trying to give a team an advantage in any part of the scheduling.

 

4b. I do think TV ratings are considered in the scheduling, but don't ask me how this comes to bear.

 

 

If I could choose, I'd want to play a team we're evenly matched with, or a slight underdog after our bye week. Ideally it would not be after their bye week, and they'd be flying cross country coming up to the Bils game.

[MattM]

Each year?? It hasn't happened in 5 years!!

 

You say the pats get a bye before "meaningful games" after a bye, yet the topic is about them getting them the Bills after a bye--a team they have completely owned for the last 10 years, bye or no bye. They've beaten us 15 of the last 16 times--only 4 of those were after a bye.

 

If there is some scheme by the league to pair the pats with the Bills after a pats bye, what is the point?? They clearly haven't benefitted from this "special treatment".

 

And why do you keep harping on "natural odds"? The schedule isn't something that is fed into a random number generator. A bunch of guys sit around and make it up--this is news to you??

 

 

Way to miss the point or try to avoid the main mathematical argument. Please explain to me the odds of them playing us 4 years in a row if the schedule were made randomly--if "randomly" (i.e., each game having an equal chance of occurring after a bye) is not how we should look at this, please explain to me why not. As noted above, I've laid out a factor that we can all easily understand that makes it actually less than a 1.8th chance that we get them after a bye in any given year. With the additional factors I laid out above, for ex., I'd say it's about 6,000 to 1 to 10,000 to 1 (1/9th or 1/10th per year by 4 years) that we should play them 4 YEARS IN A ROW after their bye. Also please explain to me why the Pats* seem to get "extra value" games (defined as above as divisional games, quite often against a team THAT YEAR (no revisionist history or hindsight benefit allowed, since the schedule makers wouldn't have that) that was seen to be a potential contender (us in at least 3 of the 5 we played them and the Fins in their other divisional game) or a premium/grudge match opponent (see the Ravens and Steelers the last two years)) after a bye nearly every year. Then we'll talk.....

[CodeMonkey]

Way to miss the point or try to avoid the main mathematical argument. Please explain to me the odds of them playing us 4 years in a row if the schedule were made randomly--if "randomly" (i.e., each game having an equal chance of occurring after a bye) is not how we should look at this, please explain to me why not. As noted above, I've laid out a factor that we can all easily understand that makes it actually less than a 1.8th chance that we get them after a bye in any given year. With the additional factors I laid out above, for ex., I'd say it's about 6,000 to 1 to 10,000 to 1 (1/9th or 1/10th per year by 4 years) that we should play them 4 YEARS IN A ROW after their bye. Also please explain to me why the Pats* seem to get "extra value" games (defined as above as divisional games, quite often against a team THAT YEAR (no revisionist history or hindsight benefit allowed, since the schedule makers wouldn't have that) that was seen to be a potential contender (us in at least 3 of the 5 we played them and the Fins in their other divisional game) or a premium/grudge match opponent (see the Ravens and Steelers the last two years)) after a bye nearly every year. Then we'll talk.....

It is not unusual to see short term anomalies like this. But they generally smooth out when you look at a larger sample, like this has.

Additionally, teams in the AFC east would have a better chance of this happening than non AFCE teams simply because of the fact that they play the Bills twice a season, every season.

 

Bottom line, I know there is not a lot else to talk about right now, but this is a non-issue.

[MattM]

It is not unusual to see short term anomalies like this. But they generally smooth out when you look at a larger sample, like this has.

Additionally, teams in the AFC east would have a better chance of this happening than non AFCE teams simply because of the fact that they play the Bills twice a season, every season.

 

Bottom line, I know there is not a lot else to talk about right now, but this is a non-issue.

 

Unconvinced, and the bolded part is accounted for in my math (see above.) Still looks to me like there's a fairly good chance that the Pats* have input into who they get after their bye. Interesting article in the NYT yesterday about how the schedule is made--skimmed it (no time to read the whole thing yet), but one thing he does note in there is he takes requests from teams with respect to their schedule and one of the big requests is "no teams after a bye".....

[Matt in KC]

Unconvinced, and the bolded part is accounted for in my math (see above.) Still looks to me like there's a fairly good chance that the Pats* have input into who they get after their bye. Interesting article in the NYT yesterday about how the schedule is made--skimmed it (no time to read the whole thing yet), but one thing he does note in there is he takes requests from teams with respect to their schedule and one of the big requests is "no teams after a bye".....

I agree it seems something more than cooincidence is at play here, but why do you think the Pats want to play us after their bye?

 

 

I haven't read it yet, but here's the NY Times article for anyone who's interested: The Art and Science of Scheduling Meet in the N.F.L. Office

[RealityCheck]

Riiiight. What I am doing is giving you a forum to explain how this whole thread is useless by educating me to how mathematical coincidence explains this all away. I'm not a statistics or math major. I don't want to guess or infer what your point is which is why I asked you to enlighten me.

 

So, here is your chance to explain your stated opinion. Remember, if you can't explain something simply, you probably don't understand it that well. The fact that you dodged the question in the way you did makes it seem very suspicious.

If you were to READ about it, you would easily understand it. Are you just being lazy, or are you afraid of learning new things? Whatever I type you will just respond as if I made it all up, but if you look it up yourself (God forbid) you would have the entire mathematical and scientific communities to be at odds with. Your mentality is right in line with why superstitions come into being.

[CodeMonkey]

I agree it seems something more than cooincidence is at play here, but why do you think the Pats want to play us after their bye?

They wouldn't.

[MattM]

Remember that you need to view that not with the benefit of hindsight, knowing how crappy we've turned out to be, but as it would look to the Pats* before the season starts. Looking at it that way, I'd say that at least 4 of the 6 (yes, it's been 6) times they've played us after bye over the last 13 years we were considered the closest challenger to them in the AFCE. As noted above, division games are premium value games because of tie-breakers (and not just "head-to-head" as someone noted above). Of the other 7 games since 2000, one has been against Miami the year after Miami won the division (i.e., they were the Pats* closest competitor) and others were against the Ravens (the year after the Birds destroyed the Cheats* in the playoffs), the Stillers (who hate the Pats*), the Cowboys, Broncos, Panthers and 9ers. As you can see, most of those games, in fact nearly all of those games, are against either division rivals, AFC rivals or good teams that year. To contrast, the Bills have had one bye week game against a division rival (vs. NE's 6) since 2001.

[NoSaint]

Remember that you need to view that not with the benefit of hindsight, knowing how crappy we've turned out to be, but as it would look to the Pats* before the season starts. Looking at it that way, I'd say that at least 4 of the 6 (yes, it's been 6) times they've played us after bye over the last 13 years we were considered the closest challenger to them in the AFCE. As noted above, division games are premium value games because of tie-breakers (and not just "head-to-head" as someone noted above). Of the other 7 games since 2000, one has been against Miami the year after Miami won the division (i.e., they were the Pats* closest competitor) and others were against the Ravens (the year after the Birds destroyed the Cheats* in the playoffs), the Stillers (who hate the Pats*), the Cowboys, Broncos, Panthers and 9ers. As you can see, most of those games, in fact nearly all of those games, are against either division rivals, AFC rivals or good teams that year. To contrast, the Bills have had one bye week game against a division rival (vs. NE's 6) since 2001.

 

Against us the first (or anyone in the AFCe) head to head is first, with division second. The rest (wild card, home field) are conference based. Unless you are talking 3 way ties with us and someone else too, then division is first between us and them. The head to head against a team that's projected close in your conference is ultimately your best bet, and if that's a division rival, great, but I don't think anyone saw us as that team outside this board. Indy, for instance, would have been far more important

 

http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures

 

Division games are important as its the quickest way to the playoffs. Go 2-0 against someone and you are 3 games up as you have the unconditional tie breaker. It's rare you can beat a team heads up twice but have them get 3 games ahead in the other 14. But to say division record is a highly valuable tie breaker, only occasionally.

Edited April 21, 2012 by NoSaint

[Jim in Anchorage]

This thread is unbelievable.