Writers of Pro Football Prospectus 2008

05 Sep 2017

NFL Moves TB-MIA Game to Week 11

The NFL has announced that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers-Miami Dolphins Week 1 game "will not be played in Miami on Sunday " due to Hurricane Irma.

It has not been decided when or where the game will be played. Both teams have a bye in Week 11, so playing the game that week is a simple option.

UPDATE: Wednesday morning, the NFL officially moved this game to Week 11.

Posted by: Vincent Verhei on 05 Sep 2017

32 comments, Last at 07 Sep 2017, 5:49pm by The Ninjalectual

Comments

1
by Will Allen :: Tue, 09/05/2017 - 5:46pm

If the players are fine with 16 straight games without a bye, playing week 11 is a no brainer. Otherwise, charter an extra plane, and have the players travel with their families to one of cities out of projected path of the storm, where no game is being played this weekend. A missed 12-15 million dollar gate is a rounding error.

(Edit) Now that I think about it, if I was a plutocrat paying million dollar salaries, I'd just want my million dollar salaried employees and their families out of Miami this weekend. Indianapolis, here we come!

2
by johonny :: Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:05pm

Miami now faces the prospect of a possible 6 game home schedule and 10 on the road if they don't play at home in week 11...ouch.

3
by Will Allen :: Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:14pm

I'd think Tampa would be at a lesser disadvantage playing in Miami; a neutral site game this weekend likely doesnt hurt the Dolphins that much.

4
by Richie :: Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:18pm

"I'd think Tampa would be at a lesser disadvantage playing in Miami"

What makes you think that? The famous traveling Bucs fans?

7
by Will Allen :: Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:57pm

Not flying

5
by johonny :: Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:46pm

I think Miami clearly has more of a fan base nationally so clearly they'll have more people at the game if it becomes a road show. Still teams on the road have all the disadvantages of not being at home, hotel, travel etc. Miami could be a road show for 10 weeks this year. I never think that's a good thing or more teams would love to do the London game.

6
by MilkmanDanimal :: Tue, 09/05/2017 - 6:47pm

I'd hope they'd move the game, as essentially having no bye week pretty much screws both the Bucs and Dolphins, both of whom are at least theoretically potential playoff teams this year. Without that rest week, they're both presumably out of luck.

I'm assuming they're trying to find a neutral site at this point, as if the plan was to just not play the game until week 11 that would have been easy to announce right away.

8
by dbostedo :: Tue, 09/05/2017 - 7:47pm

"...both of whom are at least theoretically potential playoff teams this year..."

Sort of like how I am theoretically potentially Margot Robbie's boyfriend. :P

13
by Aaron Brooks Go... :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 9:05am

Speaking of out of Luck, Lucas Oil is available this weekend.

15
by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 10:40am

when the dolphins won their super bwols therte were no "byes'.

big dela on oopen dates. players will be beat up as is byt then. some would prefer nto even having one. might be better to play 16 games in 16 weeks amnd avoid September doldrums and cramping and stuff like that.

19
by SandyRiver :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 11:27am

When the Pats won their 1st SB, their "bye" was scheduled for week 17, which looked kind of useless for a team coming off a 5-11 season. The postponement week due to 9-11 meant that they played Carolina after that bye rather than in week 2. Fortunately, the NFL now bunches the byes toward the middle part of the schedule.

20
by Travis :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 12:03pm

The 1992 Patriots and Dolphins both played 16 straight weeks, as their opener was postponed by Hurricane Andrew and pushed back to Week 7.

21
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 12:17pm

Following up on Sandy Rivers post ...

In the days between the Cleveland Browns and Houston Texans (1999-2001) there were 31 teams.

There was always one team on a bye and therefore someone got it weeks 1 & 17 and got to play 16 straight. Think they tend to give those weeks to the cellar dwellars hence why New England got it after a 5-11 record.

But in week 1 of 2001 it was the Cardinals (3-13 in 2000). Because of the bye and 9-11 postponements, the Cards didn't start their season until Sep 23rd!

30
by johonny :: Thu, 09/07/2017 - 12:04pm

Miami suffered so badly by playing through 16 straight games by going to their last championship game that year :(

26
by Richie :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 4:29pm

redacted

9
by Sixknots :: Tue, 09/05/2017 - 9:16pm

The Miami fans are already screwed out of a home game with playing a "home" game in London this year. And I don't buy the 11-15 million gate as a "rounding error" for a money hungry owner. I'll bet its week 11 in Miami. Players get screwed again.

31
by The Ninjalectual :: Thu, 09/07/2017 - 5:48pm

Most of the NFL's revenue comes from TV, not ticket sales

10
by James-London :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 5:29am

There must be empty stadiums within a reasonable travel time for two Florida-based teams, surely? Asking both to play 16 straight weeks is bonkers, and contravenes the NFL's strong commitment to player safe... oh.

Phil Simms is a Cretin.

12
by Will Allen :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 7:51am

Indianapolis would be fine. The Colts are on the road, you can guarantee good conditions, and you can be pretty sure the storm won'tbhave much effect thete, if everybody has to wait a few days before returning to Miami. Anywhere onbthe east coast or in the southeast may very well get some terrible weather next week.

32
by The Ninjalectual :: Thu, 09/07/2017 - 5:49pm

Why are so many people suggesting Indy? That seems like a completely random suggestion.

11
by Lyford :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 6:44am

The bye week is not about player safety. The bye week is about getting 17 weeks of television revenue and ratings while paying the players for 16 weeks of play. I'm sure that the players would prefer to have their bye in week 11 rather than in week 1; I think that preference is very unlikely to have much of an impact on the scheduling decision...

14
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 9:36am

Just been announced as moving to week 11.

They had the bye preceding their game against the Patriots (who will be coming off a tough game against the Raiders and the Broncos the week before that).

I'm sure the Dolphins coaching staff were looking forward to the extra prep and rest time for such key divisional matchup. They actually play the Pats twice in three weeks with Denver sandwiched in between.

16
by johonny :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 11:04am

I like this move to week 11 way better than adding a road game to Miami's schedule. The Pats are likely going to have a 2-3 game lead going into that home game. In theory Miami can tank the @Pats game that they seem to always lose bigly anyways so it's not that big a deal to lose the extra prep time. This also allows them one extra game with their starting left guard who comes back circa week 8. That's a positive. The huge negative is week 1 through 4 are the real pre-season these days and Miami will be slightly rustier than their foes going into week2 and 3. Those are two road games Miami has to win to make any kind of a play off run so it would help to be on the same page as the rest of the league. Plus, there's the huge distraction of your house and family dealing with a hurricane :(

18
by ChrisS :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 11:25am

This seems like the easy logical choice. I am suprised the NFL made it.

22
by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 12:18pm

I liked this comemmnnt

17
by MilkmanDanimal :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 11:25am

The lack of an actual bye utterly screws both these teams. No rest week? So much for any hopes for a late-season playoff push.

23
by Raiderjoe :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 12:19pm

not sure I can agree. do oyu have any proof they will be screwed>?
maybe someone (you, me, some other person depending on hwo has time) can do study of teams that had a bye very very early or very very late in season where maybe had to play 14, 15, 16 straight games vs majority of league that had bye more in middle of season

25
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 12:29pm

It's not all bad news.

One benefit for the Dolphins (as well as Bucs) is that they get an extra week of practice now with Cutler and the final roster. Most offenses usually struggle in the early weeks of the season.

Also their week 2 opposition won't have any gamefilm on him, the Dolphins will be get some on their opponent.

29
by Noah Arkadia :: Thu, 09/07/2017 - 11:25am

It's probably a lot worse for the Bucs. The Dolphins were screwed anyway. How could they concentrate on a football while their hometown was being razed by a hurricane? Plus, losing their homefield advantage. Actually, I think this way is better for the Dolphins.

24
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 12:24pm

I wonder if this might give the NFL impetus to go back to the 18-week regular season that gave teams two byes that they had in the early-to-mid 1990s?

Apparently that didn't work then because there were only 28 teams and too many bye weeks meant it could be difficult to find decent games. Don't think the NFL cares about that anymore even though they now have 5-6 prime time slots that they're struggling to fill!

Just seems like a bit of a no-brainer in the Goodell era. Say it's about player safety, avoiding hurricanes and snow storms and rake in another week's worth of revenues.

27
by Richie :: Wed, 09/06/2017 - 4:32pm

FWIW, 1993 was the only season of 2 byes per team.

28
by Bright Blue Shorts :: Thu, 09/07/2017 - 3:20am

Thanks mate. I never realised that, thought they did it for about 3 seasons.