A week ago I received a tweet asking if the Week 5 Sunday night game might be our first ever early flex. I didn’t actually read the tweet in detail, only seeing the notification of it on my phone, but seeing it and the mountains of notifications I was receiving put me into a panic mode, as I had fallen way behind on substantial changes I was planning to make to the Flex Schedule Watch this year. It took me all week to prepare the most substantial part of the changes and bring me to the point where I could even start to look at the situation.
The game in question? The Cowboys at the Texans.
I don’t know how many times I have to say this: if the Cowboys and their opponents have two wins between them and the Game of the Century is sitting there unprotected, maybe the league flexes out of a Cowboy game, but I’m not sure I would bet on it even then. Certainly they’re not going to burn the first-ever early flex on America’s Team, no matter how disappointing both Texas teams are. Neither was the undefeated Chiefs against Brady and the Patriots in any real doubt. (Oh, and only a handful of those notifications were actually about Cowboys-Texans.)
Rams-Niners Week 7 is more interesting, though; I’m surprised the Niners have multiple NBC appearances to begin with as I would have tagged them as more of a Monday night team unless and until Jimmy Garoppalo could prove himself to maintain his performance at the end of last season over the course of a whole season, and with him being out for the year and the Niners sitting at 1-3 to the Rams’ 4-0, most of the attraction the game had may be gone. It is a rivalry game between two big, multi-team markets but everyone knows how lukewarm LA has been to the return of the NFL. CBS is likely to protect Cowboys-Indians no matter what so if the Chiefs and Bengals both win it would certainly be attractive with only one loss between them, though probably not big enough names for the league to pull the early flex. Fox’s best games of Panthers-Eagles and Saints-Ravens would be more intriguing if the Eagles weren’t maxed out on primetime appearances (see below).
On to the changes to the flex schedule watch, where I was planning to institute the biggest changes to the structure of the Watch since I started it over a decade ago. My intention was to take all the information previously contained in my post-opening spiel, as well as other bits and pieces of information gleaned over the years, and present it in a coherent fashion on a single static page. That page ended up rambling on for over 3300 words, so it’s likely I’m going to continue providing a Cliffs Notes version of the page at the beginning of each post, but it’s likely to look completely different from the spiels I’ve given in the past.
In accordance with the new page, I’m also going to provide a table of primetime appearances in a single post at the beginning of the season, possibly shortly after the schedule release in future seasons. Recall the appearance limits are six primetime games for three teams, five for everyone else, and four NBC appearances. The Eagles have one SNF game in the main flex period so they could be flexed in if that game were flexed out. In the “Flexible” column, a “+1” indicates that the team has an SNF game in the Week 7-10 period, in other words, vulnerable to an early flex but not in Week 5 or 6 where any decision has likely already been made. This also doesn’t count the games that could potentially move to NFL Network on Saturday Week 16.
| Team | PT App’s | On NBC | Flexible |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 3 | 1+1 | |
| 5 | 3 | 0+1 | |
| 5 | 3 | 0+1 | |
| 5 | 3 | 1+1 | |
| 5 | 3 | 2 | |
| 5 | 2 | 0+1 | |
| 5 | 2 | 1 | |
| 5 | 2 | 1+1 | |
| 5 | 2 | 1+1 | |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | |
| 4 | 2 | 1+1 | |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | |
| 4 | 1 | 0 | |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 2 | 0 | |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| 3 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| All others | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Oh, and see here for why things might look different around here. I invite your comments on a potential future course of action on this post (assuming things actually do look different and the comments here are working), or alternately on Twitter.
Or: Why I’m not impressed with Ruby and Sapphire’s story.
Or: The slow, painful, conversion of Peridot.
Or: Why Connie Maheswaran might be the best, most fascinating love interest in the history of children’s television.
Or: Well, that was a bit of a letdown.
Or: Why I’m not impressed with how the Crystal Gems or Steven treat each other.