Rex Ryan Rips O's for Scheduling Debacle

**alien bird** · 04-19-2013, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

I already explained why. Because when something is balanced 50.6%:49.4% it is a whole lot different than 56.3%:43.6%. Because home field advantage in MLB isn't nearly as important. Because the O's would get a day off in the middle of a late season 20-games in 20 days (excluding any make ups) stretch, which is a minor benefit. Because moving the game to make a double-header in that series has its drawbacks as well. As does moving the game to 1 pm due to travel.

Obviously my solution isn't as ridiculous as yours, because yours isn't a solution at all. The alternative is what we have now, and it doesn't require the Ravens playing any more than 8 away games.

In short, explain why that solution isn't easy, or easier than any other that allows the Ravens to play Thursday night at M&T.

Not as ridiculous to you, but ridiculous nonetheless, and a nonstarter for anyone in major league baseball. The real solution in the minds of the MLB and NFL has already been done - play the game in Denver. But, just for discussion's sake . . .

So instead of playing 20 games in 20 days in September, the Orioles should change the schedule to play 24 games in 24 days in the middle of the summer, give up a home game (which does make a big difference in baseball), lose a travel day (as moving to July 1 would eliminate the day between a home stand and a road trip), and get approval from the White Sox, plus all the other teams in the White Sox division (and probably all of the AL, since there could be wild card ramifications), who would see the advantage of a rival get an extra home game.

That's not really an easy solution, either.

Besides, what are you going to tell all those White Sox fans who would have a conflict that evening because they wanted to go to the Blue Man Concert at the Briar Street Theater?? Or all the Canadians living in metropolitan Chicago who are now offended because MLB scheduled a game on Canada Day?

**middleriverterp** · 04-19-2013, 08:19 PM

I would like to see how they coordinate this as well.

I'm not sure how moving the game is "worse for the league as a whole." They have already been paid by the network for the right to broadcast the game. The ratings do not affect the league, they affect the network, and with the popularity of the NFL a Wednesday night game as the home opener for the SB champ would still be the highest rated program that night.

**Haloti92** · 04-19-2013, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by alien bird

So instead of playing 20 games in 20 days in September, the Orioles should change the schedule to play 24 games in 24 days in the middle of the summer, give up a home game (which does make a big difference in baseball), lose a travel day (as moving to July 1 would eliminate the day between a home stand and a road trip), and get approval from the White Sox, plus all the other teams in the White Sox division (and probably all of the AL, since there could be wild card ramifications), who would see the advantage of a rival get an extra home game.

Yes. It all comes down to the importance of an extra home game in a sport where home field is not that important and where there are 162 games (making the importance of any single game a fraction of other sports).

I never said there was no effect or inconvenience. There is all those things no matter what the solution, including playing extra double headers or shortening travel time between games (7 pm away to 1pm home next day).

Originally Posted by alien bird

That's not really an easy solution, either.

I disagree. In a sport where you play almost everday and travel far and wide. This solution doesnt add any travel (already in Chicago for the series), and makes the long stretch move earlier in the season (gives the needed break in the homestretch of season to synch rotation, or whatever).

Originally Posted by alien bird

Besides, what are you going to tell all those White Sox fans who would have a conflict that evening because they wanted to go to the Blue Man Concert at the Briar Street Theater?? Or all the Canadians living in metropolitan Chicago who are now offended because MLB scheduled a game on Canada Day?

Conflict with what evening? The game is an extra home game for them. You talking about watching on TV? It was 4 months away when this issue was being discussed. And there can as easily be a conflict on 9/5. In fact, despite not having a team playing that night, more Chicagoans will be watching the Ravens at Broncos game than the White Sox at Orioles. Canada Day? Good one.

Obviously this solution was not acceptable to the O's (or maybe even MLB though I doubt it got that far), but that doesn't tell us anything about how much the O's were willing to sacrifice for their NFL brother. And to be clear, I don't think the O's did anything wrong. This was always about the level to which the O's would be generous or sacrifice for the Ravens (and their fans); there was never any obligation.

**Haloti92** · 04-19-2013, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by middleriverterp

I would like to see how they coordinate this as well.

I'm not sure how moving the game is "worse for the league as a whole." They have already been paid by the network for the right to broadcast the game. The ratings do not affect the league, they affect the network, and with the popularity of the NFL a Wednesday night game as the home opener for the SB champ would still be the highest rated program that night.

Ratings absolutely affect the league. They affect the size of the TV contracts. The idea the NFL made the game at Denver on Thursday instead of at Baltimore on Wednesday out of spite (vs self-benefit) is a bit hard to fathom.

Of course it would be the highest rated program on Wednesday, but it would have less viewers on Wednesday than Thursday, which is the point.

Do we even know if the league would have had to compensate NBC for the moved date? I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case.

**Ravenswintitle** · 04-19-2013, 09:17 PM

Today (SiriusNFL) I listed to the explanation of how they make the schedules. They have over 1/2 Million schedules to start, boil it down to 20,000 and finally to a little over 100 before they go manual. There are 18,000 "rules" in the algorithm and most of them are about the networks (who pay 2/3 of the money).

Someone asked why couldn't the Ravens have opened in Chicago and the answer was, CBS only gets two Bears games and we can't pull one. It's all about the network money and given what they're paying, it's hard for me to argue

**Bigfish** · 04-19-2013, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

I am not sure there was any possibility of back-to-back double headers due to earlier rainout because we only have one home series against the White Sox (and one away series).

The easiest solution is what Rex said, to have the O's lose a home game. They could play at Chicago against the White Sox at night on July 1st, and not play any game on September 5th. It also would break up the O's 20-straight-games patch with a day of rest.

Yes, the Baltimore ticket holders would need to be reimbursed, but I am not sure this is as complicated as it is made to sound. It happens every time there is a rainout (new tickets need to be printed for make-up game, old tickets need to be exchanged). And the NFL and Bisciotti said they would compensate the O's. Plus the extra game the White Sox would host would give them extra revenue they could partially share with the O's.

The bottomline is, when you play 162 games, any single game isn't all that important, in terms of competitive edge, ratings, revenue, convenience, everything. A handful of times over the last five years teams have finished the season playing only 161 games due to the lack of necessity and ability to make up a rainout.

It is hard to know exactly how this attempted resolution played out, but the rumors are that Selig and the White Sox were willing to accommodate, and the O's were the ones who thought it was too much trouble.

Obviously, the O's are not to be blamed for scheduling the game that night, the issue is how much they would have been put out to free up that night. If it is minimal and they still didn't do it, then that says something different than if the inconvenience was larger.

As for the NFL, I am quite sure that Goodell, the other 31 owners, and NBC all considered this "Baltimore's problem" to work out amongst itself. And "Baltimore" couldn't get it done.

It's a Thursday game except for 2012, I didn't make that up, it's a fact. How many baseball teams schedule can interfere with the NFL schedule? Every year the Ravens and the NFL work around the Orioles schedule without mentioning it. Why don't the Orioles never schedule for the opening game on Thursday just in case it may interfere with a Ravens Super Bowl Celebration? It's the ONLY day out of the entire year that the Ravens can't work around. That would spread good will but that would be completely out of character for Angelos. Another Super Bowl win this year and we start on the road again next year. Screw the Orioles.

**Haloti92** · 04-19-2013, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ravenswintitle

Today (SiriusNFL) I listed to the explanation of how they make the schedules. They have over 1/2 Million schedules to start, boil it down to 20,000 and finally to a little over 100 before they go manual. There are 18,000 "rules" in the algorithm and most of them are about the networks (who pay 2/3 of the money).

Someone asked why couldn't the Ravens have opened in Chicago and the answer was, CBS only gets two Bears games and we can't pull one. It's all about the network money and given what they're paying, it's hard for me to argue

Yeah I have seen a program on how the NFL makes its schedule. And I am sure, since its schedule is made after MLB's, that part of the algorithm deals with blocked dates for every team, especially for scheduled baseball games.

But I am still curious what kind of adjustments MLB makes for the NFL. Obviously the MLB does not have a specific NFL schedule to work around, but I am sure, in terms of the shared-facilities teams, the MLB has some kind of general restrictions/rules. For example, I am fairly certain that MLB would never make a schedule that had the O's play at home on the first two Sundays of September (forcing the Ravens home opener to be as late as week 3). Or am I wrong? And if this is the case, there has to be some NFL factor built into MLB's scheduling algorithm for September games.

**middleriverterp** · 04-19-2013, 10:18 PM

All the networks have signed contracts up to 2022, I don't think moving one game in 2013 will affect the negotiations in 2021.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ough-2022.html

**Haloti92** · 04-19-2013, 10:44 PM

Originally Posted by middleriverterp

All the networks have signed contracts up to 2022, I don't think moving one game in 2013 will affect the negotiations in 2021.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ough-2022.html

I beg to differ. The way this works is the networks are keeping track of their ratings now. And the price they can charge for ads. And the general trends (NFL brand is increasing, plateauing, decreasing). When it comes time to negotiate they look at all these factors and decide what it is worth.

And this doesn't even get into whether the league can legally move the game from the purchased (by NBC) night without paying them for their lost ad revenue. Even if it is legal, it is another thing the networks will sit up and take notice about (bait and switch scheduling).

Nor does it matter how much worse Wednesday night is for the league (a little or a lot), as long as it is worse. This is because the league sees no extra benefit from having Good Opening Game A in Baltimore vs having Good Opening Game B somewhere else, all other things equal. So any cost is enough to tip the scales from their point of view.

When you argue that there is literally no difference as far as the league is concerned between a Wednesday night game and Thursday night game, you are arguing either that a) the NFL is arbitrarily penalizing the Ravens, or b) the NFL is wrong about what ratings and viewership means to their franchise. I don't think either conclusion is sensible.

**Bigfish** · 04-20-2013, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Yeah I have seen a program on how the NFL makes its schedule. And I am sure, since its schedule is made after MLB's, that part of the algorithm deals with blocked dates for every team, especially for scheduled baseball games.

But I am still curious what kind of adjustments MLB makes for the NFL. Obviously the MLB does not have a specific NFL schedule to work around, but I am sure, in terms of the shared-facilities teams, the MLB has some kind of general restrictions/rules. For example, I am fairly certain that MLB would never make a schedule that had the O's play at home on the first two Sundays of September (forcing the Ravens home opener to be as late as week 3). Or am I wrong? And if this is the case, there has to be some NFL factor built into MLB's scheduling algorithm for September games.

I've searched and MLB makes no accommodations to the NFL. The NFL s forced to schedule around MLB in 9 cities.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/...aseball/18950/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...regular_season

In 1973 the Jets were forced to play 6 straight away games.

**The Excellector** · 04-20-2013, 08:07 AM

I can see both sides to this.

On one hand, Haloti92 being ridiculous is not uncommon. Let's get that one out of the way. :)

Belittling MLB is not going to accomplish much, unless you intend to put your foot on their throat in the future. So, I wouldn't shit on the Orioles giving up 1 game out of 81 at home simply, because it is numerically higher than what teams get in the NFL. Playoff spots still come down to the wire, even with 162 total games.

We all knew that if it came down to Angelos, he wasn't budging. So, considering what that man has put the fanbase through the past fifteen years, I think we can blame him for anything we darn well please.

Now, of course, MLB, Chicago and Baltimore would all have to sign off on this thing. According to the article from CBSsports.com, MLB WAS willing to maneuver. However, it was indeed Angelos who wouldn't budge.

I mean, we're talking about a man who practically has the Nationals under extortion, got MLB to put in that new screen in right field and all while fielding a historically shitty team in one of MLB's most beautiful ballparks.

The one snag that I see here is that there's nothing about whether or not the White Sox were willing to play ball in this one.

**Beerracuda** · 04-20-2013, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Haloti92

Yeah I have seen a program on how the NFL makes its schedule. And I am sure, since its schedule is made after MLB's, that part of the algorithm deals with blocked dates for every team, especially for scheduled baseball games.

I don't believe there's any such mechanism. MLB already has it's schedule publicly posted before the NFL season even ends. So the NFL simply has to work around what's already been scheduled.

As for a baseball team scheduling all Sundays at home in September, few if any teams are able to do that. September is the home stretch for every team, and the rules of baseball heavily favor a home team. Add to that fact, weekend games ALWAYS draw more fans - so each team in MLB is entitled to equal amounts of weekend dates in September, thus making it impossible for one team to monopolize all the weekend home dates.