I'm surprised this hasn't gotten much attention.

[gpngc]

Originally Posted by Mufasa

[/thread]

The time slots were assigned to the teams with the byes before their opponents were known. That time slot was given to Atlanta. The Falcons would be playing at that time no matter if it was against the Vikings, Redskins, or Seahawks.

And considering the alternative would be playing a better team a day earlier, what the **** are you complaining about?

Sorry, but you really made yourself look like a whiny idiot with thread.

The point still stands.

ATL-SEA and GB-SF were the likeliest scenario.

The networks did not have to put ATL on that 1 ET slot.

I'm whining about it and if they lose I'm blaming it 100% on this.

[asdf1223]

They cant have the Broncos or 49ers games at 1 ET. Means only Falcons or Pats games as viable options. After a late sunday game much harder to play Saturday than a Sunday 1 ET game especially travelling cross country. The league did the Hawks a big favor IMO.

[regoob2]

Originally Posted by TACKLE

Are you familiar with these things called 'Time Zones'?

Is one team playing in one time zone and the other in another?

[XxXdragonXxX]

Originally Posted by regoob2

Is one team playing in one time zone and the other in another?

You see, there's this thing called "Jet lag." It happens when you travel to a different time zone and are not used to the change. Your body thinks it's 10 am, when it's actually 1 pm. The team that is not traveling does not have to deal with this problem.


Do you understand this concept?

[fenikz]

it's called East Coast bias, the NFL has it

[njx9]

oh stop it. they're not going to sydney. any effects of jet lag are so negligible they might as well not exist.

[Caddy]

Jet lag from a few hours time difference? Cry me a ******* river.

[BigBanger]

Can you imagine Richard Sherman with jet lag? Or him having to take his aderall three hours earlier than normal? That's totally going to **** them up.

[Brothgar]

It seems that some people are not so sure seattle beating atlanta is such a slam dunk.

[NotMyJob]

Originally Posted by njx9

oh stop it. they're not going to sydney. any effects of jet lag are so negligible they might as well not exist.

this. what is it, three hours difference? that's nothing.

[Rosebud]

Originally Posted by gpngc

The point still stands.

ATL-SEA and GB-SF were the likeliest scenario.

The networks did not have to put ATL on that 1 ET slot.

I'm whining about it and if they lose I'm blaming it 100% on this.

Now I hope they do lose and try to blame it on the early game so that the whole world can laugh at the seahawks for being whiny little bitches.

[mqtirishfan]

The Packers have had two night games in a row! Total ******** if you ask me!

[San Diego Chicken]

The Chargers had the 10am Sunday game in the divisionals in the 07 playoffs but still managed to pull off an epic win. I'm still picking Seattle in this game. It's going to be a tough trip but they're good enough to pull it off.

[Malaka]

I don't know how NFL teams do it but... SEA just played in Washington D.C I would have you know... stayed somewhere on the east coast available for me to practice... and then just go to ATL... East coast bias solved....

[Trogdor]

Since the West Coast QQ party is fully in motion I pose a question. Using this as an unfair advantage does that mean whenever an East Coast team plays on Sunday/Monday night it's an unfair advantage for West Coast teams who feel as if it's 5pm when it's actually 8pm?

It's three freaking hours and the team has the option to fly in early. This isn't flying to London to play a game. :P

[XxXdragonXxX]

West coast teams were 19-52 from 2007 to 2011 in early east coast games.

[cmarq83]

Originally Posted by XxXdragonXxX

West coast teams were 19-52 from 2007 to 2011 in early east coast games.

Don't you think it's far more explainable that West coast teams simply sucked during the time period you're describing, rather than a 3 hour time difference?

[SuperPacker]

Originally Posted by XxXdragonXxX

West coast teams were 19-52 from 2007 to 2011 in early east coast games.

What was it this year?

[kalbears13]

Originally Posted by XxXdragonXxX

West coast teams were 19-52 from 2007 to 2011 in early east coast games.

Maybe it's because a lot of west coast teams sucked between 2007-2011 and playing on the east coast means they were away so that added to the suck.

PS I ******* hate stats.

[FUNBUNCHER]

Don't worry.
I'm sure Richard Sherman has a few bottles of adderall left at the crib he's willing to share with his teammates to keep everyone pepped up and focused.



"No I'm NOT tweaking!! Eye of the tiger, babeee!!"

[WinslowBodden]

This Browns fan have so much sympathy for you.

[Rosebud]

You guys only think they sucked because of your east coast bias and simple stats like Wins and Losses. But where it truly mattered, deep in the hearts of their fans, in a place where not even the most hardest of hardcore homers can't lie to himself, they sucked even harder.

[XxXdragonXxX]

132-117 in games not played at 1 on the east coast.

That's a damn large discrepancy...

[vidae]

I'm surprised this thread has two pages.

lol jk, not surprised at all.

[Shane P. Hallam]

Originally Posted by XxXdragonXxX

132-117 in games not played at 1 on the east coast.

That's a damn large discrepancy...

And aren't most of those games against each other? As someone else said, win the division and this isn't an issue.