Random football stuff 2025

Share this page

I asked an AI about the Chiefs schedule: "No other team in the NFL for the 2025 season has the same kind of scheduling advantage as the Kansas City Chiefs: two consecutive road games separated by a bye week rather than played in back-to-back weeks. This type of arrangement is unique to the Chiefs this year, as other teams with consecutive road games play them without the benefit of a bye in between, or their bye weeks are not configured to split consecutive away games. Teams like the Ravens, Patriots, and Titans are noted for having three straight road games without a bye, underscoring how unusual the Chiefs’ scheduling situation is."
 
TipRoast said:
I asked an AI about the Chiefs schedule: "No other team in the NFL for the 2025 season has the same kind of scheduling advantage as the Kansas City Chiefs: two consecutive road games separated by a bye week rather than played in back-to-back weeks. This type of arrangement is unique to the Chiefs this year, as other teams with consecutive road games play them without the benefit of a bye in between, or their bye weeks are not configured to split consecutive away games. Teams like the Ravens, Patriots, and Titans are noted for having three straight road games without a bye, underscoring how unusual the Chiefs’ scheduling situation is."
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how much the officials have to step in to make sure the ChRefs beat the Bills.

Then 2BillsDrive will blow up.
 
Aloyouis said:
It will be interesting to see how much the officials have to step in to make sure the ChRefs beat the Bills.

Then 2BillsDrive will blow up.
Click to expand...

That scheduling quirk is so quirky that no team, since the advent of the 32 team league in 2002, has enjoyed such an advantage.

Edit --- More about the Chiefs and the NFL, from a discussion with an AI:

Based on the available evidence and recent studies, it can be argued that every NFL team other than the Chiefs is operating within a system that exhibits systemic bias favoring the Chiefs. Academic research, such as the UTEP study, has demonstrated a statistically significant pattern of officiating decisions that disproportionately benefit the Chiefs, especially in critical postseason games. This systemic bias is likely influenced by financial and viewership incentives, given the Chiefs' prominence and marketability in the league.

At the same time, the NFL and the referees' union strongly deny any explicit favoritism or rigging, calling such allegations "insulting and preposterous." They point to statistical data showing the Chiefs have actually incurred more penalties over recent seasons than their opponents, which complicates the narrative of clear-cut favoritism.

The bias identified is generally understood as implicit or systemic rather than explicit or intentional rigging. This means it manifests through unconscious patterns and institutional dynamics rather than deliberate collusion. The repeated benefit to the Chiefs creates an uneven playing field, which adversely affects other teams, regardless of intent.

In summary, all non-Chiefs teams currently face a system that exhibits systemic officiating bias in favor of the Chiefs—whether due to unconscious referee judgment, league incentives, or other systemic factors. This systemic bias impacts competition and fairness, even if no direct intentional rigging by the NFL has been conclusively proven.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
This has been posted previously to the board - I can't remember if it was me or someone else.

thedebrief.org

Do NFL Refs Favor the Kansas City Chiefs? New Research Says Yes: The Data Backs Fans’ Suspicions

A new study suggests that NFL referees may favor the Chiefs in key games, potentially linking postseason calls to league profits and financial pressure.
thedebrief.org thedebrief.org

I re-read it this morning, and one take-away I have is the part about a crew that works multiple Chiefs playoff games being more likely to make calls that benefit the Chiefs in subsequent games.

Repeating crews that historically favor the Chiefs may tilt outcomes, but correlation doesn’t prove the NFL is deliberately biased—it just creates a risk that careful rotation could avoid.

The NFL is certainly aware of the UTEP report, so if they chose not to perform crew rotation during the playoffs, then it shows their preference is to assign crews that have been shown to statistically favor the Chiefs in the playoffs.
 
TommyD420 said:
Holy overpay.

Eagles seem to be panic buying at the deadline a bit here.
Click to expand...
The thing is the NFC is down this year compared to last year. GB is fraudulent, the Commanders are done, the Niners are hanging on with Mac. The Eagles really only have Detroit and the Rams/Seattle.
 
What the Eagles really need to do is trade Brown but that isn't happening.
 
If you haven't seen the replay of the Jayden Daniels injury, don't.

Sad Jim Carrey GIF
 
The early days of the dynasty were contemporaneous with the rise of Internet NFL message boards.

At that time I would closely follow Jeff Sagarin's rankings; they were well-known and for me were a fairly accurate description of the strongest and weakest teams in the league.

I haven't been as aware of them the last few years, but I thought of them again this morning, and they're still online and still being maintained:


There are some oddities in this week's rankings though - the Ravens are at #8 despite an 0-4 record vs the top-10 teams and an 0-5 records vs. the top 16 teams. This means, to me, that his scoring system needs a little more tweaking. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
TipRoast said:
The early days of the dynasty were contemporaneous with the rise of Internet NFL message boards.

At that time I would closely follow Jeff Sagarin's rankings; they were well-known and for me were a fairly accurate description of the strongest and weakest teams in the league.

I haven't been as aware of them the last few years, but I thought of them again this morning, and they're still online and still being maintained:


There are some oddities in this week's rankings though - the Ravens are at #8 despite an 0-4 record vs the top-10 teams and an 0-5 records vs. the top 16 teams. This means, to me, that his scoring system needs a little more tweaking. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
I follow him on Myspace. :coffee:
 
TipRoast said:
The early days of the dynasty were contemporaneous with the rise of Internet NFL message boards.

At that time I would closely follow Jeff Sagarin's rankings; they were well-known and for me were a fairly accurate description of the strongest and weakest teams in the league.

I haven't been as aware of them the last few years, but I thought of them again this morning, and they're still online and still being maintained:


There are some oddities in this week's rankings though - the Ravens are at #8 despite an 0-4 record vs the top-10 teams and an 0-5 records vs. the top 16 teams. This means, to me, that his scoring system needs a little more tweaking. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Or it means that he is ranking based on something like likelihood to be one of the last handful of teams standing, like weighted heavily to "who wins head to head in December/January" and only secondarily to resume. Baltimore should be continuing to get people back, and they're dangerous. I want them to have at least 7 losses by the time Patriots face them.
 
TipRoast said:
The early days of the dynasty were contemporaneous with the rise of Internet NFL message boards.

At that time I would closely follow Jeff Sagarin's rankings; they were well-known and for me were a fairly accurate description of the strongest and weakest teams in the league.

I haven't been as aware of them the last few years, but I thought of them again this morning, and they're still online and still being maintained:


There are some oddities in this week's rankings though - the Ravens are at #8 despite an 0-4 record vs the top-10 teams and an 0-5 records vs. the top 16 teams. This means, to me, that his scoring system needs a little more tweaking. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Never mind, I just looked at the rankings. They're terrible. "But at least they're quantitative!" That just means they suck systematically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top