Back to back 10am games

[jammerhawk]

The same thinking that has the Seahawks as the most penalized team vs. every single one of their opponents applies to this situation. The Hawks were not the team with the lowest record as the 6th seed in their conference so why does Pittsburg get the more favourable later game? Seems to me setting up the Hawks to fail was in the cards for the league, as a left coast team the Hawks are not exactly league darling besides the team has been there at the top for the past 2 seasons, time to skew everything against them. Meanwhile the darlings from Pittsburg are treated more favourably. I'm going to tune in my tinfoil hat now.

 

[gaucho]

It's called home field advantage for a reason, enough with the 10:00am game thing. In fact i'm pretty sure our win percentage is better in 10:00am games then non 10:00am games this year.

I'm pretty sure it's not, but I'm pretty sure that's just anecdotal. There is zero doubt that it is a disadvantage, and it turns out that it's quite significant. You guys got screwed by the playoff scheduling. As I mentioned in another thread, west coast teams get screwed in the regular season by having to play at 10 am.

Some stats:

From '01 to '14, home teams win 57.5% of their games. This number is remarkably consistent, within 1% of that figure 9 of the 14 years.

Against West coast teams in non 10am games, home teams wins 55.8% of games. Against central teams home team wins 57.2% against east coast teams home team wins 56.7% of games. However, in 10 am games (which are exclusive to west coast teams) home teams wins 64.8%.

Since '01 Seattle has won 39.3% of 10am games, and 45.1% of non 10am road games.
FWIW, my niners have won 31.7% of 10am games, and 51.1% of non 10am road games.
(don't conclude that SF is worse in 10am games than seattle, there just isn't enough data points to have any meaning for the team by team stats, even with 14 years of games).

Want more stats?
in 10am games, the road team commits 7.29 penalties, turns the ball over 1.83 times and drops 5.22% of passes.
In non 10am games, the road team commits 6.42 penalties, turn the ball over 1.39 times and drop 4.97% of passes.

East coast teams playing primetime games on the west coast see a slight decline in performance, but not nearly as significant. (the above is "statistically significant", while the east coast primetime disadvantage is not). It's worth noting that west coast 10am games are far more prevalent (roughly 4x) than east coast primetime games back west.

Finally, some anecdotal evidence specific to your hawks. Since '01, you guys have played 6 playoff games at 10am. You're 1-5 in those games, the lone win coming last week.

Just to piggy back on this. The Montanan 49ers the best west coast team in the Super Bowl era lost every 10 AM road playoff game they ever played. In fact the biggest blowout of the occurred at 10AM 49-3 to Giants. They lost the year before at 10AM to the Giants 17-3 so yes 10AM is a factor.

This awesome do you have a link I can use to point this out to non believers.

Here's the paper that I referenced. It will be presented to Goodell by the 49ers. Fingers crossed.
https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlin ... _Brian.pdf

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Here's the paper that I referenced. It will be presented to Goodell by the 49ers. Fingers crossed.
https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlin ... _Brian.pdf

Awesome. It would be really helpful if all the other pacific and mountain time zone teams would join in and present a united front on this. Any idea if they are on board with the 9ers on this?

 

[gaucho]

SF has been in contact with west coast teams about this issue for the past few years. If I understand correctly, they may have shared the exact article that I linked above this year.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

SF has been in contact with west coast teams about this issue for the past few years. If I understand correctly, they may have shared the exact article that I linked above this year.

Thanks. I'd be shocked if the other west coast/mountain teams weren't fully supportive of SF.

 

[firebee]

After looking at that paper and seeing the statistical differences... I'm not opposed to 10 AM Starts, but the NFL should never make a west coast team play 10 AM games back to back... not during the regular season and especially not during the playoffs. It's clearly a disadvantage to West Coast teams and it's a disadvantage East Coast teams don't have to face.

 

[gaucho]

After looking at that paper and seeing the statistical differences... I'm not opposed to 10 AM Starts, but the NFL should never make a west coast team play 10 AM games back to back... not during the regular season and especially not during the playoffs. It's clearly a disadvantage to West Coast teams and it's a disadvantage East Coast teams don't have to face.

Thanks for reading!

I'm surprised that you're okay with 10am games at all. Maybe I didn't do a good job of showing how much of a disadvantage they imply.

One way you can look at it is to note that the 3 point disadvantage that they cost the road team is more than the loss of any single non-QB player in the league. The difference between Lynch and whoever you guys started in minnesota was 1.5 or 2 points. That's accounting for the fact that it was going to be sub 0 in a defensively dominated game, with Rawls out for the year.

Imagine if the league said that Houston had to play half of their road games without JJ watt. That would be less unfair than the current regular season scheduling situation.

And all of that is ignoring injuries. I don't have injury data, but would be shocked if players weren't at greater risk for injuries in these games.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

After looking at that paper and seeing the statistical differences... I'm not opposed to 10 AM Starts, but the NFL should never make a west coast team play 10 AM games back to back... not during the regular season and especially not during the playoffs. It's clearly a disadvantage to West Coast teams and it's a disadvantage East Coast teams don't have to face.

Thanks for reading!

I'm surprised that you're okay with 10am games at all. Maybe I didn't do a good job of showing how much of a disadvantage they imply.

One way you can look at it is to note that the 3 point disadvantage that they cost the road team is more than the loss of any single non-QB player in the league. The difference between Lynch and whoever you guys started in minnesota was 1.5 or 2 points. That's accounting for the fact that it was going to be sub 0 in a defensively dominated game, with Rawls out for the year.

Imagine if the league said that Houston had to play half of their road games without JJ watt. That would be less unfair than the current regular season scheduling situation.

And all of that is ignoring injuries. I don't have injury data, but would be shocked if players weren't at greater risk for injuries in these games.

If the data did show a higher injury rate for western teams playing at 10:00, it's a shame you don't have the data cuz if you did it would be an irrefutable point in your (and west coast teams) favor consifering Goodell's constant chatter about how important safety is to the league.

 

[gaucho]

After looking at that paper and seeing the statistical differences... I'm not opposed to 10 AM Starts, but the NFL should never make a west coast team play 10 AM games back to back... not during the regular season and especially not during the playoffs. It's clearly a disadvantage to West Coast teams and it's a disadvantage East Coast teams don't have to face.

Thanks for reading!

I'm surprised that you're okay with 10am games at all. Maybe I didn't do a good job of showing how much of a disadvantage they imply.

One way you can look at it is to note that the 3 point disadvantage that they cost the road team is more than the loss of any single non-QB player in the league. The difference between Lynch and whoever you guys started in minnesota was 1.5 or 2 points. That's accounting for the fact that it was going to be sub 0 in a defensively dominated game, with Rawls out for the year.

Imagine if the league said that Houston had to play half of their road games without JJ watt. That would be less unfair than the current regular season scheduling situation.

And all of that is ignoring injuries. I don't have injury data, but would be shocked if players weren't at greater risk for injuries in these games.

If the data did show a higher injury rate for western teams playing at 10:00, it's a shame you don't have the data cuz if you did it would be an irrefutable point in your (and west coast teams) favor consifering Goodell's constant chatter about how important safety is to the league.

Given the physiological detriments (less back strength, reduced knee flexibility, etc) associated with 10am starts, I'd be shocked if there wasn't any correlation to injury. Alas, the league cited HIPAA violations when SF requested the injury data. From my prior work in healthcare, I know the HIPAA excuse is BS. The league promised it's own study on injuries... I'm not going to hold my breath.

 

[HawkMeat]

Win the division, get homefield, and 10 am starts aren't a discussion.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

Win the division, get homefield, and 10 am starts aren't a discussion.

That statement has been repeated at least five times in the past month on this board. How many times do we have to hear this mantra? If you believe in it so strongly, just attach that line to your signature!

 

[Bobblehead]

Win the division, get homefield, and 10 am starts aren't a discussion.

Kinda like saying, Be a billionaire and paying bills won't ever be a discussion.

 

[gaucho]

Win the division, get homefield, and 10 am starts aren't a discussion.

new rule: teams with a bird logo are required to play four regular season road games with only 10 players on all special teams plays. Additionally, these bird teams will occasionally be subject to the 10 man special team rule in playoff road games.

Win the division, get homefield, and 10 man special teams rule isn't even a discussion.

 

[TwistedHusky]

At some point, you need to adjust.

Playing 10am games on the EC puts the WC team at a competitive disadvantage. Enough data to make that a reasonable takeaway. So what to do about it?

Those are the rules. Life isn't fair.

What you can do is work with what you can control.

So what can you control? You have a week from the last game to get to the next field. That means you should be traveling immediately to give yourself time to adjust to both the time zone and enervating affects of air travel (there is a mountain of evidence about how traveling for long distance can sap the body of strength for up to 48 hours).

I get that the facilities have specific equipment it is hard to duplicate, which make preparation more difficult. But that is a business expense, most of the equipment out there is able to be found in other locations and frankly most of the real valuable items (information) are easily transferred to any location needed.

So, continuing to travel back and forth between the games when you KNOW you need to return is fundamentally stupid. In the example of Carolina, the team never should have come back to Seattle at all but instead went right to Carolina from Minny. Now to where? Pretty clear that the team needs in invest in an EC practice facilty, a cost that can be shared with other WC teams that might also need to use it for their road trips.

There are plenty of things about there you cannot control, but you can usually control how you deal with it. You can complain about the snow or you can buy some tire chains & a damn snowblower.

Anyone looking at the data should be clearly aware the impact WC to EC travel has (any business roadwarrior could tell you) so failing adjust to the reality after that is just stubborn or stupid.

As for the reality that these are men with families? Football season is one season and EC road trips that would require this type of adjustment would constitute less then 30% of the games played. There are expectations to play the game, being away from family for a few days in a stretch shouldn't be a massive ask. And it isn't as if there could not be arrangements made to transport family members back and forth to compensate.

They need to buy up some land in the midpoint of the EC, and put together a practice facility there, or even better, outfit a few barges with playing surfaces and equipment - making it easier to move nearer the cities they are scheduled to play in. Since this is something that affects other west coast teams, it is likely something you could get built as a joint resource (say for the division teams).

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Given the physiological detriments (less back strength, reduced knee flexibility, etc) associated with 10am starts, I'd be shocked if there wasn't any correlation to injury. Alas, the league cited HIPAA violations when SF requested the injury data. From my prior work in healthcare, I know the HIPAA excuse is BS. The league promised it's own study on injuries... I'm not going to hold my breath.

Yeah, you'll most likely turn blue and pass out before they give that up.

At some point, you need to adjust.

Playing 10am games on the EC puts the WC team at a competitive disadvantage. Enough data to make that a reasonable takeaway. So what to do about it?

Those are the rules. Life isn't fair.

What you can do is work with what you can control.

So what can you control? You have a week from the last game to get to the next field. That means you should be traveling immediately to give yourself time to adjust to both the time zone and enervating affects of air travel (there is a mountain of evidence about how traveling for long distance can sap the body of strength for up to 48 hours).

I get that the facilities have specific equipment it is hard to duplicate, which make preparation more difficult. But that is a business expense, most of the equipment out there is able to be found in other locations and frankly most of the real valuable items (information) are easily transferred to any location needed.

So, continuing to travel back and forth between the games when you KNOW you need to return is fundamentally stupid. In the example of Carolina, the team never should have come back to Seattle at all but instead went right to Carolina from Minny. Now to where? Pretty clear that the team needs in invest in an EC practice facilty, a cost that can be shared with other WC teams that might also need to use it for their road trips.

There are plenty of things about there you cannot control, but you can usually control how you deal with it. You can complain about the snow or you can buy some tire chains & a damn snowblower.

Anyone looking at the data should be clearly aware the impact WC to EC travel has (any business roadwarrior could tell you) so failing adjust to the reality after that is just stubborn or stupid.

As for the reality that these are men with families? Football season is one season and EC road trips that would require this type of adjustment would constitute less then 30% of the games played. There are expectations to play the game, being away from family for a few days in a stretch shouldn't be a massive ask. And it isn't as if there could not be arrangements made to transport family members back and forth to compensate.

They need to buy up some land in the midpoint of the EC, and put together a practice facility there, or even better, outfit a few barges with playing surfaces and equipment - making it easier to move nearer the cities they are scheduled to play in. Since this is something that affects other west coast teams, it is likely something you could get built as a joint resource (say for the division teams).

This is a very good post and I agree wholeheartedly. I'd have been very willing to do the things you suggest if I'm Pete this playoff season. I believe he made a mistake not doing so myself i.e. after the Minny game not going directly to Charlotte or somewhere nearby on east coast time. HOWEVER, I feel very strongly it is minimizing the true issue here which is that east coast teams have been given a scheduling break as it concerns travelling out here and it's time for the NFL to treat west coast teams equally. Life may not be fair Twisted, but the NFL can be if they so choose.

 

[fire_marshall_bill]

The Ram move back to L.A. ought to ease the burden a little. I guarantee the Seahawks wouldn't have lost 3/4 to them if they had played in a West Coast or Mountain Time city. Remember the only road game in which they beat the Rams was the Monday Nighter in 2013.

Obviously 10 a.m. games aren't going away, but the league should try to limit the number a team plays to three or four. It's not that hard to move one or at most two games to 4:05/25 (or to Monday or Sunday night...or Thursday) and it's not going to destroy the ratings for CBS or Fox.

 

[fire_marshall_bill]

The Seahawks have to lead the NFL in travel miles almost every year...maybe Miami is close if they play a western division. That has to wear on a team a little.

The NFC and AFC East teams often just have to board a bus to play each other (Redskins/Eagles, Eagles/Giants, Redskins/Giants, Patsies/Jets).

 

[firebee]

After looking at that paper and seeing the statistical differences... I'm not opposed to 10 AM Starts, but the NFL should never make a west coast team play 10 AM games back to back... not during the regular season and especially not during the playoffs. It's clearly a disadvantage to West Coast teams and it's a disadvantage East Coast teams don't have to face.

Thanks for reading!

I'm surprised that you're okay with 10am games at all. Maybe I didn't do a good job of showing how much of a disadvantage they imply.

One way you can look at it is to note that the 3 point disadvantage that they cost the road team is more than the loss of any single non-QB player in the league. The difference between Lynch and whoever you guys started in minnesota was 1.5 or 2 points. That's accounting for the fact that it was going to be sub 0 in a defensively dominated game, with Rawls out for the year.

Imagine if the league said that Houston had to play half of their road games without JJ watt. That would be less unfair than the current regular season scheduling situation.

And all of that is ignoring injuries. I don't have injury data, but would be shocked if players weren't at greater risk for injuries in these games.

Baby steps Gaucho... Baby steps... The likelihood of getting the NFL to ban 10 AM Starts on the East Coast for West Coast teams is almost nil. It's just not going to happen. However, getting the NFL to ban back to back 10 AM Starts for West Coast teams is a very very reasonable scheduling request that the NFL shouldn't have any problem figuring out. You could probably even make a request to limit 10 AM starts for west coast teams to once a month during the regular season, but we're not going to get 10 AM Starts for West coast teams completely banned from the schedule. Just being realistic. It's not going to happen.

 

[rideaducati]

I just don't get it... There are 7-10 early games each week and 2-4 late games. What would make it soooooooo bad to move a game with a West coast team to a later start? I understand the "national" game being a late one, but people would rather watch their own team rather than one picked by a network exec. With Sunday Ticket and sports bars showing EVERY game anyway, why not get the game times to where the beer sponsors paying for advertising time can actually sell their product during the games they are advertising?

NO MORE 10AM GAMES... for the beer advertisers.

 

[gaucho]

Hi Again Guys -
Football Outsiders promised me an article on the "morning body clock" issue when the schedule comes out later this month (hopefully they keep their promise). Anyways, below is a draft of what I'm going to send. I figured I'd post it here to see if anyone has any feedback, and also to give a shoutout to AgentDib whose statistic I used.

http://webpages.sou.edu/~stonelakb/math/pdf/Schedule Release.pdf