2026 Raiders Schedule

Sleet said:
Seattle was +8 (7/32) in rest day disparity. That’s basically a 1-bye week advantage. As to travel miles, Seattle (playing in the north west corner of U.S.A.) was 3rd worst.

The NFL could easily keep the swing no greater or worse than +/- 8. Yet, 7 teams were above or below +/- 8 in 2025 and 9 this year.

The NFL could also easily make sure the rest advantage / disadvantage balanced out year-to-year. For example, of the 4 teams > +8 in 2025, they are collectively -11 this year with only one of them in the positive. And 2 of the 3 teams that were < -8 last year are a net +2 this year.

Raiders got royally screwed twice. They are a -32 over 2 years. Saints are 2nd worse over 2 years at -21. LAC is the only other team < -16 at -19—with a whooping -24 this year. Den’s net -1 and KC’s net 0. Only Sea is above +16 over 2 years—which shows the NFL could easily keep it within range, even if it opted to repeatedly benefit or disadvantage a team.

The NFL has just chosen to screw the Raiders. I’m not surprised Saints are next on the list. For whatever reason, the NFL chose to screw LAC this year in favor of Den and KC.
Click to expand...
Do you ever look at the results of these “rest day” advantages?

Seattle going into week 5 had +3 @home vs Tampa and lost

Week 6 +1 @Jags and beat the Jags

Week 7 @home were -7 vs Texans and beat Texans

Week 9 @home vs Cards were +7 and beat the Cards

Weeks 10 @LA they were +1 and lost to the Rams

Week 16 they were + 3 going into @Carolina and beat Panthers


So in the 6 games they played with a rest advantage or disadvantage they 💩 on the narrative about it being an advantage or disadvantage in 3 of those games. In two of the 3 games where the narrative held true they were not playing teams that were close to their equals in Arizona and Carolina.

What’s amazing about this rest day theoretical advantage is how little impact it actually has on the actual games. As I have pointed out before we are actually better when playing at a disadvantage than at an advantage

NFL Win-Loss Records With A Rest Disadvantage (Since 2011) | BetIQ

What is every NFL team's straight up win-loss record with fewer days of rest than the opponent since the 2011 season?
betiq.teamrankings.com betiq.teamrankings.com
 
alteredst8 said:
Do you ever look at the results of these “rest day” advantages?

Seattle going into week 5 had +3 @home vs Tampa and lost

Week 6 +1 @Jags and beat the Jags

Week 7 @home were -7 vs Texans and beat Texans

Week 9 @home vs Cards were +7 and beat the Cards

Weeks 10 @LA they were +1 and lost to the Rams

Week 16 they were + 3 going into @Carolina and beat Panthers


So in the 6 games they played with a rest advantage or disadvantage they 💩 on the narrative about it being an advantage or disadvantage in 3 of those games. In two of the 3 games where the narrative held true they were not playing teams that were close to their equals in Arizona and Carolina.

What’s amazing about this rest day theoretical advantage is how little impact it actually has on the actual games. As I have pointed out before we are actually better when playing at a disadvantage than at an advantage

NFL Win-Loss Records With A Rest Disadvantage (Since 2011) | BetIQ

What is every NFL team's straight up win-loss record with fewer days of rest than the opponent since the 2011 season?
betiq.teamrankings.com betiq.teamrankings.com
Click to expand...

Good points.

But it's not just about the specific games. It's about the cumulative impact of less recovery time.

Also, using the SB champion maybe isn't the best comparison to a team already short on depth and generally at a personnel disadvantage.
 
I’m not sure how it can be argued that there isn’t an advantage to having more time to recover and prepare for a game than having less… of course it’s not going to be the sole or even the primary determining factor in which team wins or loses any particular game, but it certainly impacts the calculus.
 
alteredst8 said:
Do you ever look at the results of these “rest day” advantages?

Seattle going into week 5 had +3 @home vs Tampa and lost

Week 6 +1 @Jags and beat the Jags

Week 7 @home were -7 vs Texans and beat Texans

Week 9 @home vs Cards were +7 and beat the Cards

Weeks 10 @LA they were +1 and lost to the Rams

Week 16 they were + 3 going into @Carolina and beat Panthers


So in the 6 games they played with a rest advantage or disadvantage they 💩 on the narrative about it being an advantage or disadvantage in 3 of those games. In two of the 3 games where the narrative held true they were not playing teams that were close to their equals in Arizona and Carolina.

What’s amazing about this rest day theoretical advantage is how little impact it actually has on the actual games. As I have pointed out before we are actually better when playing at a disadvantage than at an advantage

NFL Win-Loss Records With A Rest Disadvantage (Since 2011) | BetIQ

What is every NFL team's straight up win-loss record with fewer days of rest than the opponent since the 2011 season?
betiq.teamrankings.com betiq.teamrankings.com
Click to expand...
Several responses necessitated by the fact that you don’t respond to my posts, including the one to which you just responded:

To being with, I don’t care about MFN or SNF (+/- 1 or 0.5). Players talk about routine and how prime time games throw that off but those have never troubled me. The issue, to me, has always been about playing with significantly more rest than an opponent to help recover from marginal injuries or increasing fatigue over a long season. I assume coaches will timely install a game plan regardless of a disadvantage.

My last post offered the NFL grace—a range of +/- 8 days—a swing of 16 days. That’s basically 0, 1 or at worst 2 game advantage or disadvantage between rivals. Yet, the NFL not only ignores that broad parameter, it has doubled down screwing the Raiders in repeated years.

Your effort to erase common sense ignores the obvious. You are missing, perhaps on purpose, what “advantage” and “disadvantage” mean. Let’s be clear about this, as it takes only one play to decide one game, and only one game to decide whether a team wins a division or makes the playoffs.

When it only takes one play/one game, why do you tolerate any unfairness? Your example—that Sea overcame a +/- 3 or +/- 7 advantage or disadvantage in 2 of 4 games is non-responsive. Good for them. Nobody said they should not compete or play the game.

There are a lot of things that factor into winning and losing. Having a 3 or 7 day rest advantage or disadvantage multiple times in a season compared to your rival should not be one of them.

You can’t tell me or prove that playing injured or with greater fatigue does not affect performance. Sure, at times, natural Adrenalin or drugs or treatment can mask or overcome greater fatigue, pain or injury.

But why should it? You can’t tell me it did not affect the outcome in the 2 other games, or playing games with much more or less rest compared to an opponent on game day does not affect performance in general or on one play or one game over 17 weeks. It just takes one play, one game.

Because it is needless, and because it is subject to manipulation and bias, it should not exist. Because it exists, and because it exemplifies manipulation and bias, I talk about it. Sharpe could care less about the bias. He just pointed out how Buff and Chi are going to benefit, and LAC’s getting screwed, along with the Raiders.
 
Last edited:
RaiderJF said:
I’m not sure how it can be argued that there isn’t an advantage to having more time to recover and prepare for a game than having less… of course it’s not going to be the sole or even the primary determining factor in which team wins or loses any particular game, but it certainly impacts the calculus.
Click to expand...

If teams are not capitalizing on the advantage as a whole across the NFL is it really an advantage that affects outcomes of games?
 
Sleet said:
Several responses necessitated by the fact that you don’t respond to my posts, including the one to which you just responded:

To being with, I don’t care about MFN or SNF (+/- 1 or 0.5). Players talk about routine and how prime time games throw that off but those have never troubled me. The issue, to me, has always been about playing with significantly more rest than an opponent to help recover from marginal injuries or increasing fatigue over a long season. I assume coaches will timely install a game plan regardless of a disadvantage.

My last post offered the NFL grace—a range of +/- 8 days—a swing of 16 days. That’s basically 0, 1 or at worst 2 game advantage or disadvantage between rivals. Yet, the NFL not only ignores that broad parameter, it has doubled down screwing the Raiders in repeated years.

Your effort to erase common sense ignores the obvious. You are missing, perhaps on purpose, what “advantage” and “disadvantage” mean. Let’s be clear about this, as it takes only one play to decide one game, and only one game to decide whether a team wins a division or makes the playoffs.

When it only takes one play/one game, why do you tolerate any unfairness? Your example—that Sea overcame a +/- 3 or +/- 7 advantage or disadvantage in 2 of 4 games is non-responsive. Good for them. Nobody said they should not compete or play the game.

There are a lot of things that factor into winning and losing. Having a 3 or 7 day rest advantage or disadvantage multiple times in a season compared to your rival should not be one of them.

You can’t tell me or prove that playing injured or with greater fatigue does not affect performance. Sure, at times, natural Adrenalin or drugs or treatment can mask or overcome greater fatigue, pain or injury.

But why should it? You can’t tell me it did not affect the outcome in the 2 other games, or playing games with much more or less rest compared to an opponent on game day does not affect performance in general or on one play or one game over 17 weeks. It just takes one play, one game.

Because it is needless, and because it is subject to manipulation and bias, it should not exist. Because it exists, and because it exemplifies manipulation and bias, I talk about it. Sharpe could care less about the bias. He just pointed out how Buff and Chi are going to benefit, and LAC’s getting screwed, along with the Raiders.
Click to expand...
More words won’t change the data since 2011 and the CBA. Even road teams are not feeling much of a change with more rest vs less rest. It all hovers near the regular road teams win loss record where the home team has the advantage. This isn’t some Tom Foolery conspiracy to hold the Raiders down and prop other teams up.


  • General Road Win Rate: Since 2011, the average winning percentage for all road teams typically hovers around 43% to 45%, reflecting a home-field advantage of roughly 10.7%.

  • The 2011 Shift: The 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) significantly altered rest dynamics by mandating time off, which reduced the previous advantage teams gained from extra preparation.

  • Rest Impact on Road Teams:
    • Short Rest (Road): Teams playing on short rest (less than 6 days) on the road have a win rate of approximately 42.9% to 43.9%.
    • Extra Rest (Road): When road teams play with extra rest (over 6 days), their win rate increases slightly to approximately 46.9%

  • Equal Rest Context: Because home teams win roughly 56-57% of games on equal rest, road teams naturally capture the remaining 43-44% in those scenarios.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 007
Uh Oh Comedy GIF by Paramount+
 
There will be 69 games played this year where a team has +3 rest advantage. Of those 69 games roughly 2-3 could have the bar shifted in their favor due to rest. It’s not a big number.
 
alteredst8 said:
More words won’t change the data since 2011 and the CBA. Even road teams are not feeling much of a change with more rest vs less rest. It all hovers near the regular road teams win loss record where the home team has the advantage. This isn’t some Tom Foolery conspiracy to hold the Raiders down and prop other teams up.


  • General Road Win Rate: Since 2011, the average winning percentage for all road teams typically hovers around 43% to 45%, reflecting a home-field advantage of roughly 10.7%.

  • The 2011 Shift: The 2011 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) significantly altered rest dynamics by mandating time off, which reduced the previous advantage teams gained from extra preparation.

  • Rest Impact on Road Teams:
    • Short Rest (Road): Teams playing on short rest (less than 6 days) on the road have a win rate of approximately 42.9% to 43.9%.
    • Extra Rest (Road): When road teams play with extra rest (over 6 days), their win rate increases slightly to approximately 46.9%

  • Equal Rest Context: Because home teams win roughly 56-57% of games on equal rest, road teams naturally capture the remaining 43-44% in those scenarios.
Click to expand...
Your response does not change my point or JF’s good point either.
RaiderJF said:
I’m not sure how it can be argued that there isn’t an advantage to having more time to recover and prepare for a game than having less… of course it’s not going to be the sole or even the primary determining factor in which team wins or loses any particular game, but it certainly impacts the calculus.
Click to expand...
 
alteredst8 said:
There will be 69 games played this year where a team has +3 rest advantage. Of those 69 games roughly 2-3 could have the bar shifted in their favor due to rest. It’s not a big number.
Click to expand...
:banghead:
 
Sleet said:
:banghead:
Click to expand...
I’ve never said zero impact my thesis has remained since last year. The impact across the league is minimal and the likelihood of it being US that gets screwed by it is highly unlikely. Good teams overcome bad teams don’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 007
alteredst8 said:
I’ve never said zero impact my thesis has remained since last year. The impact across the league is minimal and the likelihood of it being US that gets screwed by it is highly unlikely. Good teams overcome bad teams don’t.
Click to expand...
Often teams with a lot of 1SW the year before regress. Let’s see if Chi (+15) regresses this year. Let’s also see if Buff (+14) benefits in the east (although NE has a +8) after last year having a rest disadvantage. Joe Brady might get accolades for great coaching! Dal (+12) has a clear advantage over Philly (-15). Let’s see how that works out.

I’m hoping the return of Slater and Alt and addition of 5 OL this offseason is offset by LAC’s shit schedule. But even if it is, it likely only benefits KC and Den. :(

As to bad teams not overcoming getting screwed, not sure how that makes it right? Similarly, why does a good team overcoming a disadvantage make it right?

If it was difficult to accomplish what the NFL says it is trying to accomplish (ratings), it would not be as bad. But having a fair or fairer schedule is not an impediment. NFL easily could achieve its stated objective within +/- 8 and, if it had to deviate more, by offsetting it the next year.
 
What games are people going to? I think that I might go to my first game in 14 years when they play the Jets. Anybody else?
 
boknowsvt said:
What games are people going to? I think that I might go to my first game in 14 years when they play the Jets. Anybody else?
Click to expand...
We'll see how it plays out but considering doing the Arizona game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top