# Purpose of NFL Flexible schedule



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Can someone please explain the purpose of the NFL late season flexible schedule? I had thought it was to avoid games with teams with awful 4-9 records like the Washington Redskins. Yet when the NFL has the opportunity to flex in 7-6 Jags vs 8-5 Pats, 7-6 Jets vs 13-0 Colts, 8-5 Broncos vs 9-4 Eagles or 6-7 Texans vs 7-6 Dolphins. They chose to keep the 4-9 Redskins vs the struggling Cowboys. Why on heavens earth would the NFL pass up a chance to air a game with both teams in the playoff chase?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Cowboys draw higher viewers, plus it's a rivalry game. Another reason is that CBS & Fox keep certain game protected from being picked.


----------



## celticpride (Sep 6, 2006)

WE all know americas team is really the patriots not the stupid cowboys right? anybody ?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

It seems kind of crazy on the surface... but as others noted, Dallas is a big draw + it is a big rivalry game... and honestly, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Washington surprised Dallas in this one and effectively knocked Dallas out of the playoffs.


----------



## ladannen (Oct 27, 2007)

celticpride said:


> WE all know americas team is really the patriots not the stupid cowboys right?


I thought it was the Packers?


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Sigma,
CBS protected Ravens-Steelers and FOX did not protect a game in week 16. That means there were 4 games involving 2 teams in playoff contention that were available to be flexed. The 4-9 Redskins should have been flexed out in favor of 2 actually in the playoff picture.

Also Sigma, nowhere in the NFL flexible schedule procedure does it say anything about TV ratings. The purpose of flexible scheduling is getting matchups with 2 teams in playoff contention into primetime. There is no reason why a 4-9 team should stay in primetime instead of playoff caliber teams. A very bad decision by the NFL!


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Despite your belief that because ratings aren't mentioned then they don't matter is silly. They play a massive roll. Cowboys draw big viewer numbers. I guarantee Cowboys/Skins would have a lot more viewers than those other games. The game is very important to Dallas' playoff hopes.

You're 4 games aren't that big for every team, either. After this week, they may be even more meaningless.

Jets vs. Colts means nothing to Indy, they have everything sewed up.
Jags vs. Pats may not mean much after the Pats beat Buffalo & Indy beats Jax. 
Broncos vs. Eagles isn't huge, both will be in the playoffs.
Texans vs. Dolphins...really? The Texans are done and Miami may be done soon, too.

So, if you're a tv exec...Dallas & Washington will bring you the rating$.

Lastly, this is even more of a reason to have Sunday Ticket...we can watch whatever we want.


----------



## tsmacro (Apr 28, 2005)

celticpride said:


> WE all know americas team is really the patriots not the stupid cowboys right? anybody ?


If by Americas team you mean the team that most everyone in American enjoys watching get beat, than yeah the Patriots are Americas team! :lol:


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

We have to disagree Sigma. All the teams you mentioned are still alive in the playoff picture. Washington is eliminated. Denver and Philadelphia have nothing sowed up yet. Philly is tryiing to earn the 2 seed and a first round bye. Denver needs to keep winning to ensure a playoff spot. That game has a much bigger playoff importance than Washington Dallas. Jets are fighting for a playoff spot and the Colts are undefeated so you have 2 big storylines. Jacksonville and New England are still fighting for playoff spots as well. Say what you want about Miami and Houston, but they are still alive in the playoff race. The same cannot be said for the Redskins. They are eliminated. The nfl should have flexed in a game with playoff importance for both teams.


----------



## koji68 (Jun 21, 2004)

The Cowboys are followed nation wide. There will be a lot of people watching hoping to see them crash and burn too.


----------



## Shades228 (Mar 18, 2008)

Any decision made by any executive of a TV station is based on ratings and revenue. They don't care about what game might be more exciting. They're going to use very exact reports of viewership and revenue history to make the decision. Most of those are obvious to us fans. Any station would love to have a saints indy game. However just because a "good game" will be on doesn't mean that the market is bigger than a "trivial" game who has large markets who watch foootball no matter what.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

Unfortunately it starts with a bad premise:


cheryl10 said:


> Yet when the *NFL has the opportunity to flex in* 7-6 Jags vs 8-5 Pats, 7-6 Jets vs 13-0 Colts, 8-5 Broncos vs 9-4 Eagles or 6-7 Texans vs 7-6 Dolphins. *They* chose to keep the 4-9 Redskins vs the struggling Cowboys. Why on heavens earth would *the NFL pass up a chance* to air a game with both teams in the playoff chase?


Substitute the National Football League (NFL) with the National Broadcasting Company (NBC), and then it becomes clear why the Cowboys and Redskins are the choice for Sunday Night Football.

The reason for the flex schedule is to allow *NBC* the ability to switch a scheduled game that might be a real stinker and not help their ratings. The last time these two played Dallas won 7-6 with the Redskins controlling all but the last two minutes of the game. And the game has playoff implications.

Not to mention the NBC owns both the DC and the Dallas affiliates, which give NBC better local advertising rates that help their bottom line.

Also not to mention that CBS and FOX may have protected any of those listed games.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Greg,
CBS protected Steelers-Ravens and FOX did not protect a game in week 16. So the NFL had several games to choose from that actually involved 2 playoff caliber teams.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Greg,
The NFL not NBC decides whether a game is flexed or not. The networks do have some input, but the NFL makes the final decision.


----------



## raott (Nov 23, 2005)

Dallas is fighting for their playoff lives and Washington has been playing pretty well of late.

The game has enormous significance to the NFC playoff picture.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

raott said:


> Dallas is fighting for their playoff lives and Washington has been playing pretty well of late.
> 
> The game has enormous significance to the NFC playoff picture.


There are a lot of teams fighting for their playoff lives and several games that have enormous significance. Washington is 4-9 and out of the playoff picture. I still say the NFL should have put a game with 2 playoff caliber teams on Sunday night and flexed out the 4-9 team.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Personally, I'd much rather see the Skins than anyone else that I give less than two farts about. Of course, I am biased, being a Skins fan since the days of Billy Kilmer and George Allen.....

Regardless, all this was set in stone months ago, no reason to cry about it now.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

cheryl10 said:


> Greg,
> The NFL not NBC decides whether a game is flexed or not. The networks do have some input, but the NFL makes the final decision.


The NFL bends over backwards to get games in timeslots for their broadcasting partners. How many times does the schedule change in December for games moving to 4:15 from 1:00? It happens quite a bit, at the request of their broadcasting partners.

If NBC didn't want the game, NBC wouldn't have it. Sure, the NFL can do what they want, but why would they want to upset their marquee partner?

I still say NBC wanted the game. Most of the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry has had one national exclusive showing each year because it is a ratings gold mine. And the backstory to this point has been rather interesting: the team fighting for the playoffs that can't win in December against the team that has been playing somewhat solid ball for four weeks.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Greg Bimson said:


> The NFL bends over backwards to get games in timeslots for their broadcasting partners. How many times does the schedule change in December for games moving to 4:15 from 1:00? It happens quite a bit, at the request of their broadcasting partners.
> 
> If NBC didn't want the game, NBC wouldn't have it. Sure, the NFL can do what they want, but why would they want to upset their marquee partner?
> 
> I still say NBC wanted the game. Most of the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry has had one national exclusive showing each year because it is a ratings gold mine. And the backstory to this point has been rather interesting: the team fighting for the playoffs that can't win in December against the team that has been playing somewhat solid ball for four weeks.


That is if you find a 4-9 team more entertaining than 2 teams fighting to make the playoffs. I prefer a battle of teams in playoff contention.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

cheryl10 said:


> That is if you find a 4-9 team more entertaining than 2 teams fighting to make the playoffs. I prefer a battle of teams in playoff contention.


That's what Sunday Ticket is for.


----------



## Greg Bimson (May 5, 2003)

cheryl10 said:


> That is if you find a 4-9 team more entertaining than 2 teams fighting to make the playoffs. I prefer a battle of teams in playoff contention.


Understood.

I went back and looked at some articles. It appears that whatever Dick Ebersol wants, he gets. So I can assume that NBC simply wanted that game.

Don't forget I live in the area of that 4-9 team. As bad as they've been (and I am a Saints fan) they are becoming a fairly decent team.


----------



## coldsteel (Mar 29, 2007)

Greg Bimson said:


> Don't forget I live in the area of that 4-9 team. As bad as they've been (and I am a Saints fan) they are becoming a fairly decent team.


They were 1 FG away from winning that game, dang it. I'd much rather see my Skins than anyone else.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Pointed out on the daily talking heads shows, Washington's turnaround happened when they brought back the offensive playcaller from bingo night!

Much better offense since that time, even in games they have lost... so I again wouldn't be surprised to see them take Dallas out of the playoffs.

As for the games between two playoff contenders being more valuable... The interesting thing about that is, the implications for the Jets game is very much the same as the Dallas game.

When the game starts Dallas has a good chance of being in, while Washington has no chance... but if Dallas loses, they are probably done. Similarly, if the Jets lost their game they are probably done... so arguably that game isn't truly a game of two playoff contenders either if you really look at it.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Greg Bimson said:


> Understood.
> 
> I went back and looked at some articles. It appears that whatever Dick Ebersol wants, he gets. So I can assume that NBC simply wanted that game.
> 
> Don't forget I live in the area of that 4-9 team. As bad as they've been (and I am a Saints fan) they are becoming a fairly decent team.


Exactly! You would still get the Redskins if they were moved to a noon start on FOX. But for the other fans, the NFL should have moved a matchup of 2 playoff contenders to a national broadcast on NBC. The 4-9 Redskins do not deserve a national audience. The NFL ignored their purpose of flexible scheduling in order to showcase a team that is 5 games under 500 and eliminated from playoff contention.

Greg,
Dick Ebersol does not always get what he wants. The NFL has final say on which game will air on Sunday Nights.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

You just don't get it...ratings matter more.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

sigma1914 said:


> You just don't get it...ratings matter more.


You seriously think ratings mean more than showing a quality game? The Redskins got outscored 62-12 in their 2 night games the last 2 weeks. Only a person who sipped way too much spiked egg nog would think that Cowboys-Redskins was more competitive than Broncos-Eagles.

Like I said before, the NFL made a big mistake by showcasing the 4-9 Redskins. One of the worst teams in the NFL should not be playing in front of a national audience.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

And it is not about ratings.

http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/sunday-night-football-scores-best-ratings-ever_1127030


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Ratings will always matter more.

Good shows with low ratings get canceled all the time... Competitive games between 2 teams that nobody wants to watch happen all the time in all sports.

Dallas vs Washington gets a big audience even if both teams are 0-15 playing the final game of the season.

I wouldn't want to watch that game... but lots of folks in Dallas, DC, and other markets appear to want that more than other games.

Meanwhile, one of those possible "flex" games would have been Indy vs the Jets where Indy pulled their starters in the 3rd quarter and essentially stopped playing... so that game had pretty much the same appeal to me as the Dallas v Washington game did.


----------



## lwilli201 (Dec 22, 2006)

Stewart Vernon said:


> Meanwhile, one of those possible "flex" games would have been Indy vs the Jets where Indy pulled their starters in the 3rd quarter and essentially stopped playing... so that game had pretty much the same appeal to me as the Dallas v Washington game did.


Being a prime time game, with the whole world watching to see if they could stay undefeated, they may not have pulled the starters. The regional games do not have the exposure except on Sport Center.


----------



## jodavis (Jan 9, 2007)

These decisions all come down to money. Dallas had just set the all time record for a Sunday Night Game (Giants). Everyone knew Indy wasn't going to play their starters the whole game so who cares about that one. Pats vs Jags is important to New Englanders and people in Jacksonville but noone else cares and those people are going to get it on their locals earlier in the day. Broncos - Eagles had the potential to be a good game, but neither team has the national appeal of the Cowboys with their playoff hopes on the line and Texans - Dolphins only mattered to people in Houston because Miami was already pretty much out of it and hadn't played well in three weeks. Dallas and Washington routinely draw the top two audiences for their games which means they will have a much larger audience than any other game when playing each other. That translates into millions more viewers and therefore millions more Dollars for NBC which is all they care about.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

lwilli201 said:


> Being a prime time game, with the whole world watching to see if they could stay undefeated, they may not have pulled the starters. The regional games do not have the exposure except on Sport Center.


Yes they would have.
They basically were the national "daytime" game.

From everything that has been talked about it, my understanding is that all parties knew this was the game plan. Owners, Coaches, and the Players knew after half time, the bulk of the starters were going to be done.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

cheryl10 said:


> You seriously think ratings mean more than showing a quality game? The Redskins got outscored 62-12 in their 2 night games the last 2 weeks. Only a person who sipped way too much spiked egg nog would think that Cowboys-Redskins was more competitive than Broncos-Eagles.
> 
> Like I said before, the NFL made a big mistake by showcasing the 4-9 Redskins. One of the worst teams in the NFL should not be playing in front of a national audience.


*Yes, ratings matter and it was proven. As I told you, the game will get more viewers.*
http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/sunday-night-football-scores-best-ratings-ever_1127030


> NBC on Monday boasted that its Sunday Night Football telecast in which the Dallas Cowboys defeated the Washington Redskins 17-0 was the top-rated Sunday-night broadcast for the 14th time in 15 weeks, making it the highest-rated season yet for its NFL coverage....Last Sunday's game drew an enormous 34.4 rating and a 54 share in Dallas.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

cheryl10 said:


> You seriously think ratings mean more than showing a quality game?


Absolutely, Cheryl. Welcome to the reality of sports programming.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

lwilli201 said:


> Being a prime time game, with the whole world watching to see if they could stay undefeated, they may not have pulled the starters. The regional games do not have the exposure except on Sport Center.


As already noted, Indy had pretty much already decided to pull players in the 3rd quarter regardless of the likelihood of winning the game.

If the home Indy crowd booing them for doing so wasn't motivation to change their mind, being on national television where they couldn't hear me booing wasn't going to change that decision


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Lord Vader said:


> Absolutely, Cheryl. Welcome to the reality of sports programming.


Lord, I was posing the question to the average fan not a greedy TV executive. Guys like Dick Ebersol will never relate to the average fan. He is out of touch with reality. Is their any true football who thought Dallas/Washington was a better game than Philly/Denver? ESPN had to be sick the week before being stuck with the dreadful deadskins. At least the nfl and nbc had the chance to flex the cowboys/deadskins to noon and put a good game at night.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Which is more important to the networks--a subjectively better football game, or one that gets more viewers? That's an easy answer and will always be the reason why the Cowboys get priority as they did here, and the boffo ratings that game received only reinforce the networks' preference.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Lord Vader said:


> Which is more important to the networks--a subjectively better football game, or one that gets more viewers?


Ratings, ratings, ratings..............


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

That is what it's all about, and what I tried explaining to Cheryl.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cheryl10 said:


> Lord, I was posing the question to the average fan not a greedy TV executive. Guys like Dick Ebersol will never relate to the average fan. He is out of touch with reality. Is their any true football who thought Dallas/Washington was a better game than Philly/Denver? ESPN had to be sick the week before being stuck with the dreadful deadskins. At least the nfl and nbc had the chance to flex the cowboys/deadskins to noon and put a good game at night.


I think what you're missing is that it is the "average fan" who was tuning in more to that Dallas/Washington game historically that forces the network to make that decision.

IF the average fan truly wanted to always see the best game, no matter who was playing, then that's what the NFL & networks would show.

But the average fan wants to see his team even in a bad year, especially fans of Dallas... so that's almost always going to trump another game that week.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Lord Vader said:


> Which is more important to the networks--a subjectively better football game, or one that gets more viewers? That's an easy answer and will always be the reason why the Cowboys get priority as they did here, and the boffo ratings that game received only reinforce the networks' preference.


So who you think a 4-9 team (now4-11) deserved to be in primetime? The NFL flexible scheduling procedure was supposed to prevent terrible teams like Washington from playing in primetime. The TV networks and announcers prefer close games over blowouts. But if you would rather watch the Redskins get pounded by someone, then more power to you. You got your way, I hope you enjoyed the two poundings Washington took.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> I think what you're missing is that it is the "average fan" who was tuning in more to that Dallas/Washington game historically that forces the network to make that decision.
> 
> IF the average fan truly wanted to always see the best game, no matter who was playing, then that's what the NFL & networks would show.
> 
> But the average fan wants to see his team even in a bad year, especially fans of Dallas... so that's almost always going to trump another game that week.


Did you enjoy watching the Giants pummel Washington 45-12 or Dallas blank them 17-0? Was that more exciting than a game with 2 playoff contenders?


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cheryl10 said:


> Did you enjoy watching the Giants pummel Washington 45-12 or Dallas blank them 17-0? Was that more exciting than a game with 2 playoff contenders?


No... but I also didn't enjoy the Jets pummeling Indy because Indy quit playing in the 3rd quarter... so both playoff contenders didn't play in that game.

Also, I'm not really the NFL's target audience because I didn't watch the Dallas v Washington game at all.

The proof is in the ratings.. IF no one watched that game, then next year they'd flex a different game.


----------



## cheryl10 (Dec 15, 2009)

Stewart Vernon said:


> No... but I also didn't enjoy the Jets pummeling Indy because Indy quit playing in the 3rd quarter... so both playoff contenders didn't play in that game.
> 
> Also, I'm not really the NFL's target audience because I didn't watch the Dallas v Washington game at all.
> 
> The proof is in the ratings.. IF no one watched that game, then next year they'd flex a different game.


You don't understand my point. NFL adopted flexible scheduling to replace dissappointing teams like the 4-9 Washington team and flex in with a game with playoff chances for both teams. Nowhere in the flex schedule policy does it say anything about tv ratings dictating flexing procedures.

Stewart, would you rather watch a game with 2 teams in the playoff hunt or a 4-10 team just because of ratings?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

I did learn something about the Flex recently. Week 17's flex is completely controlled by the NFL. Sure some lobbying by the teams and networks, yet there are no reserved games for Fox or CBS that week. They pick totally based upon what they think the ratings will be.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

cheryl10 said:


> You don't understand my point. NFL adopted flexible scheduling to replace dissappointing teams like the 4-9 Washington team and flex in with a game with playoff chances for both teams. Nowhere in the flex schedule policy does it say anything about tv ratings dictating flexing procedures.
> 
> Stewart, would you rather watch a game with 2 teams in the playoff hunt or a 4-10 team just because of ratings?


No, Cheryl, you don't understand _our _point. It ultimately comes down to *ratings*. Those will trump better match-ups, competitive teams, etc.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Tom Robertson said:


> They pick totally based upon what they think the ratings will be.





Lord Vader said:


> No, Cheryl, you don't understand _our _point. It ultimately comes down to *ratings*.


Seems mighty clear.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

cheryl10 said:


> You don't understand my point. NFL adopted flexible scheduling to replace dissappointing teams like the 4-9 Washington team and flex in with a game with playoff chances for both teams. Nowhere in the flex schedule policy does it say anything about tv ratings dictating flexing procedures.
> 
> Stewart, would you rather watch a game with 2 teams in the playoff hunt or a 4-10 team just because of ratings?


I would rather watch a game with 2 competitive teams, yes... and that is usually in fact what I do.

However, the flex scheduling was primarily adopted to avoid games at the end of the season that people didn't want to see. They (NFL and networks) wanted to be able to flex some more desired games into the prime TV timeslots instead of being stuck.

The ENTIRE motivation to do that, though, is about ratings. Theoretically a better/competitive game would be more desirable... but that's not always the case.

Rivalry games are ALWAYS a big draw... and often rivalry trumps competitiveness.

It's really not about what you or I want to watch... but what the most people want to watch..... thus, Dallas v Washington will continue to be a prime flex game even if BOTH teams are out of the playoffs unless and until those fans quit feeding the ratings monster by tuning in.


----------



## IM Rags (Aug 7, 2008)

ladannen said:


> I thought it was the Packers?


you're both wrong. the Steelers are "america's team". biggest nationwide fan base and best traveling fans!


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

IM Rags said:


> you're both wrong. the Steelers are "america's team". biggest nationwide fan base and best traveling fans!


Guess we'll have to agree that either: you are wrong and Packers are America's real team or we'll disagree. 

I've never seen a team fill an opposing team's home stadium like I have with the Packers. So often more Packers fans than the home team. 

Now, there are rivalries where a home team can be overwhelmed by the traveling teams' fans--still not as consistently as the Packers do even without a rivalry. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

STEELERS fans are everywhere, with different ones popping up in droves at each away game their team has, so much so that they often drown out the home team's fans. No team can match them, including the overrated, exaggerated Packers.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Lord Vader said:


> STEELERS fans are everywhere, with different ones popping up in droves at each away game their team has, so much so that they often drown out the home team's fans. No team can match them, including the overrated, exaggerated Packers.


I will grant you that Steelers fans are _almost_ as everywhere as Packers Fans... 

And seriously, the Steelers' organization and fans seem to be great members of the NFL community, like the Packers. I'm glad the Steelers solved their ownership issues.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Packers have fans that have sold out at Lambeau for 44 years running now.

Many other NFL teams have "attendees" to their games.


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

Well, what the hell else is there to do in Green Bay?


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

Lord Vader said:


> Well, what the hell else is there to do in Green Bay?


Apparently you haven't been there. :lol:

I own 2 shares of Packer stock, so I get invited every year to the July shareholders meeting at Lambeau - usually fly up there every other year...just for the fun of all. (There are over 30,000 other such "financial investor"s by the way - its the only public-owned sports franchise in the world).

To answer your question....there are a disproportionate number of special beverage establishments located there, providing social interaction, plenty of popcorn, and enough liquid refreshments to assist you in forgetting where the heck you are.

There's no place like it....


----------



## Lord Vader (Sep 20, 2004)

I can accomplish the same enjoyment at the Brat Stop in Kenosha and not have to drive nearly as far.


----------

