I can't for the life of me find the article now, but I read somewhere a few weeks ago an actual article that had quotes from his highness Roger that the league was going to start doing everything possible to eliminate as many 10 AM PST games as possible for west coast teams traveling east.
I thought I had dreamt it, so I went back and re-read it and it was really said (I'm paraphrasing). But I think once the NFL made changes at a late time to help the Giants because of their frustration at multiple trips west in consecutive weeks and Sando actually going out and making an issue with STATS to back it up that the 49ers, Seahawks, Chargers, Cards, Raiders, and to a lesser extent the Broncos had traditionally for quite a while played below their expected level in every area of the game when they were playing the early start, and there was much more statistical evidence to prove that point than there was to prove the point of the gripe that the Giants had about traveling West. In fact, many of us pointed out, and Sando repeated that traveling west was less difficult because the games were still played in the prime of the day and so didn't change player's sleep schedules, practice schedules, etc. It was just difficult to travel, but it is equally difficult to travel east as it is to travel west, and considering the stats he used in his argument it looks that it is actually easier to travel west than east due to the time loss.
So... here is my question.... do the Hawks end up with no 10 AM games next year or is it just reducing as many as they can, or is it in a future year, or did I flub it all up. If all games were the 1 o'clock west (2 o'clock my time) game, then I'd be stoked, and give Goodell a ton of credit. I'd love it if he'd eliminate early games and go to more prime time Sunday slots (say 2 or 3 games to pick from in prime time on Sunday night once their SNF contract ends). I know that is the least likely possibility, and the most likely is east coast teams play each other in the early games as it isn't early for them, west coast teams play late on the east coast, and east coast teams play the late game on the west coast and teams don't have to do a cross country trip on the weeks they play a Thursday game.
I think some of these changes could have as positive of an effect as anything the team could do to be honest. I know that for me personally I just never felt right playing games at different times, even in lower level athletics (I never made it pro). But say we had to move our usual Friday night football game up to Wednesday because it was Fall Break week and the whole game just felt all wrong to both teams. We never got in sync it seemed and the fans got jobbed out of seeing a good game typically. However... if they moved that game to Thursday NIGHT instead of Wednesday afternoon then it had way less of an impact (because we were used to playing Friday afternoon). I am glad the NFL is looking at this, and I just want more info on when and how exactly the change is being made, or if it is just in the "exploratory" stage at this point. Because with the change for East Coast teams it was done immediately and expanded out for this season without much "exploration". They griped. They got it changed. I think the Hawks, 9ers, Raiders, Chargers, and the Cards and Broncos (although the last two have a bit more flexibility) should be pushing hard for changes to be made. The Seahawks game at Carolina was entirely different in feel. I think we all remember the Monday nighter in Philly too. It was just different, even in the era where we could not win on the road. The later games just made a huge difference and leveled the playing field.
R.I.P. Dad. I miss you. You will never be forgotten
1/12/39 - 8/7/08