Thread: Saying Good-Bye to Bad Bye Weeks?

[size=13pt]Saying Good-Bye to Bad Byes?[/size]


By John Holler
scout.com

Posted Jun 16, 2008

and then some people might go the other way on this and say the team coming off the bye is slow or starts the game flat because they have not have game action in a week and the team they are playing has. why do you think there are so many first round upsets of the teams who 'rest' their players in the last week and then have another week off before they actually play. giants had zero time off and went to the superbowl.

what they should do is just have each team in each division have a bye together and then play each other after. then you cannot lose ground in your division when you are not playing.

The Vikings are planning to work out wide receiver Charles Rogers, according to published reports out of Michigan. A former top pick of the Detroit Lions, Rogers was nothing short of a bust with them and is currently looking for work wherever he can find it. He may be facing an uphill battle, since the Vikings have competition for roster spots at wide receiver already.

lol! this guy went from running the 40-yard dash in 4.28 sec in the draft combine to 4.8 sec four years later. It would be hilarious if he made the roster. I don't think he has a chance in the NFL.

I've long felt that eight bye weeks, one division at a time, made the most sense from a competitive standpoint.
I'm sure the reason it hasn't been implemented is the influence of television networks.
If the Vikings are off but battling for first place, fans will be interested in watching to see how the Packers are doing.
But if the entire division is off that weekend, there is a certain segment that won't tune in at all that weekend.
That becomes even more pronounced on the west coast due to the difference in time zones.
Ratings there would surely plunge on the weekends tha NFC West and AFC West were off, unless they could schedule a Colts - Patriots or Cowboys - Giants game for the late game.