Before you use the '10 am starts is whining, get over it'. .

[General Manager]

Seattle was given a biased schedule the last two or three years now. It's not an excuse though as long as they make sure to get enough rest and be ready we should be fine.

 

[McG]

Football is football... The good teams win no matter what. If they are what I think they are, what we all think they are then the start time should be the last of our worries. Staying focused, staying healthy those are the things that matter to the great teams, not the start time of a road game against a team that they are better than. This isn't 2007 or 1995 or something. This is a team led by a great head coach, a great young QB and a great defense. It's time they prove it to everyone by putting a Lombardi Trophy in the offices in the at the VMAC.

 

[Joshoeuh]

Every road game outside of the division is a 10 am PST start. I don't study every other team's schedule, but that seems like a pretty big anomaly to me.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

Football is football... The good teams win no matter what. .

False. If that were true, west coast teams playing 10am games on the east coast would have a better winning percentage than 22%.

 

[vonstout]

It's hard not to be critical of the scheduling when you look at all the games outside of the NFC west:

Home: Jax, Minn, NO, Tenn, TB
Away: Atl, Car, Hou, Indy, NYG

Home: Jax and TB (EST) all others (CST)
Away: Atl, Car, Indy, NYG (EST) Hous (CST)

Not only did they sent Seattle East for 4 of those 6 EST, but they are probably the 4 toughest teams. Jax obviously is the weakest. TB and Jax are the longest flights on top of it all.

Someone commented about the fact that they wanted to put Seattle in the better time slots for TV. That's the truth. It's all about TV money. But I find it funny that none of our late starts are against east coast teams. Our night games are against NO, Ariz, and Stl. Why wouldn't they want to put the Atl or NYG game in prime time at night and eliminate the time zone issue? At the very least, they should have at least two of the road games be late starts.

 

[TLD0550]

you know, it doesn't matter who we play, what time we play, or where we play...we could play on the moon at midnight as far as i'm concerned...as long as we stay HEALTHY, teams better be concerned when on THEIR schedule it says vs/at seahawks...not the other way around...

the schedule is what it is, times are what they are, and each team plays 16 reg season games so...whatever..

like all teams, health is main component for how a team does, along with some other things but if you're healthy for the most part all year, your odds of winning go up and if you healthy and a damn good squad like my seahawks...well times, opponents, none of that shit matters

stay healthy my friends...coach has spoken...out

couldnt agree more well stated!!!!!!

Even though the east coast bias is crap.

 

[RichNhansom]

Before you proclaim everyone as whiners consider why the NFL changed the rules for east coast teams traveling west. Without people voicing their frustration that change never happens. Do you think Pittsburgh would have dominated us in Seattle the way they did in Pittsburgh? They were the much better team that year but no so much better that we weren't even a challenge.

Keep your hands in your pockets and nothing will ever change. It's even worse when you support their belief that it doesn't matter. If you think there is any disadvantage at all, you should be supporting the argument to get it fixed. Not telling the voice of reason to quit whining.

 

[loafoftatupu]

This season, the Hawks will smack that 10AM road record crap out of history. They played SO much better on the road last year. Each year has been a forward step of improvement, with that comes the road wins. The 2005 team was 5-3 on the road, simply because of solid defense and QB play, they pulled the starters in the last game, which would have been a win too.

RW and the additions to defense will make a team that was on the edge of dominance last year, over that hump. Not because they focused on the road, but simply because they will be a more experienced, higher caliber team.

Teams of the past would have lost that game in Carolina, certainly the one in Chicago and obviously the one in DC.

In the past, I would have been concerned about the schedule, but this team is different. They know how to win and they have the resources to do so.

 

[BASF]

I was a little annoyed reading Sando earlier today because he seemed to suggest that east coast teams would have just as much trouble going west, which means he doesn't understand the physiological underpinnings for the problem.

I did the research on this back in 2010 (these numbers are only through 2009), simply because I was tired of this coming up every other season or so, but I found that Sando's suggestion is accurate:



I do have the two images that I can post here if you are actually interested how it breaks down by year, and obviously I haven't updated the numbers since then. The disparity of teams that finished .500 or better of 21 games under .500 for east coast teams traveling to the west as their west coast counterparts is very telling. It is also worth mentioning how the 21 game difference could be largely attributed to night games where the east coast teams visiting the west are only 16-42.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

We all know that good teams find ways to win games. I really don't see anyone whining here.

The question is, how far can the league (any sports league, for that matter) push an unfair advantage before it's too far? How many fans does it take to believe the evidence, and how loud do they have to be about it before it's fixed? When does "whining" become "legitimate concern for fairness"?

I think the concern is already legitimate. It happens to be up against billions of dollars and a LOT of east coast fans and media who just don't give a crap, so it's a foregone conclusion that nothing will change.

Imagine it reversed, though. If the Giants, Steelers, Ravens, Redskins, etc. had to travel as much and start games at off-times. What if the Patriots wound up with 5 west coast starts at 6pm. New England would go NUTS and everyone would be screaming, "Nearly one-third of our games are ending at midnight our time! That's ridiculous!" Would their fans be "whining" when they took to the blogs and comment sections with their entitled vehemence? 'Cause you know they would. And you know they would get their way right quick.

No whining. No excuses. You play to win the games. The question is, do the human beings who create the game setups include a tilt that knowingly affects one team more than the other? And if so, why is that okay?

 

[RichNhansom]

They said on talk radio that one year (not sure which) the Seahawks played more 10am starts than the Patriots. This keeps happening because we aren't putting up a loud enough voice to get it changed.

 

[sutz]

No east coast team ever plays at "10AM." The only exception is when they play in London. When East Coast teams travel, they tend to play later than normal, not earlier because they are traveling west. And, the farthest east they travel tends to be only one time zone, not three.

The 10AM thing is real, and it is something that West Coast teams have to deal with every season that East coast teams seldom have to.

 

[60niners]

I just read through this whole thread (not sure why) but I didn't see anyone mention the fact that the majority of teams in the NFL do not reside on the west coast. Knowing that, it's just a given that west coast teams will be required to make trips eastward. Outside of our division, there's really only 3 other teams within one time-zone... and those are the AFC west teams. So if you're not playing the AFC west that year - like this year we play NFC south and AFC south - your team is going to travel at least 2 time-zones east regardless. As the schedule rotates, that's just the way it is. When you look at it that way, it appears less and less like east coast bias, and more a product of simple geography.

With regards to strength of home opponent vs away opponent, I also believe that rotation is supposed to switch every other time they play. Example: Last time we played the NFC south, Niners played IN Atlanta, and this year we have the game at home. I think it's just the luck of the draw honestly.

 

[Navyhawkfan187]

Russell Wilson will tell you all. 100yds is 100yds even at 10AM.

 

[Hawknballs]

I just read through this whole thread (not sure why) but I didn't see anyone mention the fact that the majority of teams in the NFL do not reside on the west coast. Knowing that, it's just a given that west coast teams will be required to make trips eastward. Outside of our division, there's really only 3 other teams within one time-zone... and those are the AFC west teams. So if you're not playing the AFC west that year - like this year we play NFC south and AFC south - your team is going to travel at least 2 time-zones east regardless. As the schedule rotates, that's just the way it is. When you look at it that way, it appears less and less like east coast bias, and more a product of simple geography.

With regards to strength of home opponent vs away opponent, I also believe that rotation is supposed to switch every other time they play. Example: Last time we played the NFC south, Niners played IN Atlanta, and this year we have the game at home. I think it's just the luck of the draw honestly.

except that teams on the east coast play 1 and 4 pm games, so they could schedule those games at 4 pm taking into consideration the west coast times, while moving east coast vs. east coast games to 1 PM.

before you say that is unreasonable remember that my point in posting this thread was to simply highlight the 2009 schedule change that made it so east coast teams would only have to travel ONE time to the west coast. One. If that wasn't an unreasonable schedule tweak than neither is demanding some parity between west coast teams themselves, as well as balance with the rest of the league.

Yes a football field is 100 yards no matter the time of day, however if there are concessions made for east coast teams then I simply wanted to point out that there are no concessions made for west coast teams and there isn't even an attempt at parity between west coast teams either.

 

[Uncle Si]

Football is football... The good teams win no matter what. .

False. If that were true, west coast teams playing 10am games on the east coast would have a better winning percentage than 22%.

Exactly... at some point the bravado of fandom needs to take a backseat to the mathematical realities. It is what it is and won't change based on anything we say... but 5 10am starts makes our schedule more difficult.
While this may not be "holmgrens seahawks" it doesn't change the fact that all west coast teams have struggles in this fixture. And assuming super bowl teams just win these types of games really ignores the precedence of the last decade. Once in the playoffs it becomes far more even. Being at home in those games will help.
The Seahawkshave their work cut out for them. They need to be 3-2 (no worse than 2-3) in those games to have a chance at a division title in my mind.

 

[kobebryant]

No excuses. Just ball out.

Pete isn't worrying about it, Russ isn't. They're going to show up at 10am and smack people around.

 

[60niners]

I just read through this whole thread (not sure why) but I didn't see anyone mention the fact that the majority of teams in the NFL do not reside on the west coast. Knowing that, it's just a given that west coast teams will be required to make trips eastward. Outside of our division, there's really only 3 other teams within one time-zone... and those are the AFC west teams. So if you're not playing the AFC west that year - like this year we play NFC south and AFC south - your team is going to travel at least 2 time-zones east regardless. As the schedule rotates, that's just the way it is. When you look at it that way, it appears less and less like east coast bias, and more a product of simple geography.

With regards to strength of home opponent vs away opponent, I also believe that rotation is supposed to switch every other time they play. Example: Last time we played the NFC south, Niners played IN Atlanta, and this year we have the game at home. I think it's just the luck of the draw honestly.

except that teams on the east coast play 1 and 4 pm games, so they could schedule those games at 4 pm taking into consideration the west coast times, while moving east coast vs. east coast games to 1 PM.

before you say that is unreasonable remember that my point in posting this thread was to simply highlight the 2009 schedule change that made it so east coast teams would only have to travel ONE time to the west coast. One. If that wasn't an unreasonable schedule tweak than neither is demanding some parity between west coast teams themselves, as well as balance with the rest of the league.

Yes a football field is 100 yards no matter the time of day, however if there are concessions made for east coast teams then I simply wanted to point out that there are no concessions made for west coast teams and there isn't even an attempt at parity between west coast teams either.

Actually I did not know that there was a rule stating that east coast teams only had to travel west one time. That's pretty sucky.

Just thinking out loud here, I don't think even given a rule saying that west coast teams only had to east once, would work out this year. Since I don't know the Seahawks schedule by heart, I'll use the Niners as an example. We have 8 home games and 8 away games: 3 home games are already against division opponents as a given, so that leaves 5 home games against inter-division or inter-conference opponents. Let's make those 5 remaining home games against the furthest away (geographically) opponents; Atlanta, Washington, Tampa Bay, Carolina, and Jacksonville (pretend it's not in London). That invariably leaves 8 away games against: 3 division opponents, and Indy, Houston, Tennessee, New Orleans, and Green Bay. All of those are at least 2 time-zones away.

I don't really see a way out of it. Though I suppose having the games start later in the day couldn't hurt.

I do agree with the other poster about taking time to acclimate to the time difference though. Right now I sit in Virginia, and it takes at least a few days before I don't feel like a useless zombie. Also, watching primetime games on the east coast SUCKS!!! Imagine having to stay up until 1am just to see your favorite team play, then having to be at work by 6.... That has to be the most ridiculous thing on the planet. Just as the earliest day games on the east coast are 1pm, the late games don't start til after 8pm and usually don't end until after midnight. I bet we'd all be screaming our faces off if we had to deal with that on the west coast!

 

[Throwdown]

We got Russell God Damn Wilson, I"m not worried about 10am starts or dragons, or alien invasions anymore.

 

[BASF]

I love Russell Wilson as much as the next guy, but Wilson at the NFL level in games that start at 10am PST: 1-5.