The average schedule does not exist.

Why equal totals can conceal a very unequal season—and what to measure instead.

The league average is nobody’s season

Imagine eight teams sharing twelve late games. That produces 24 team appearances, or an average of three late appearances per team. The same average describes both a distribution of three for everyone and one where four teams receive six each while four receive none. Those experiences are not interchangeable.

Start with the individual team. Count its late starts, early starts, short turnarounds, travel, and long gaps. Then look at the distribution across the league. An average is useful, but it should sit beside a range and a view of the worst-affected teams.

Equality needs a reference point

Some teams deliberately request late games. Others share players or rely on families who cannot attend them. Report raw allocation first, then compare it with each team’s documented preferences and eligibility. A preference-adjusted measure is a different measure; do not quietly substitute it for equality.

For a first audit, report the lowest and highest count of each undesirable slot, how many teams exceed an agreed threshold, and whether burdens cluster in consecutive weeks. A season can be equal in total and still be rough in November.

A decision to write down

Ask the league to choose the fairness rule before you build: equal counts, equal shares of eligible slots, or a disclosed preference-based arrangement. Keep that decision with the schedule. The metric makes the promise visible; it does not decide what the promise should be.

Try the lab on this page. Its concentrated scenario is intentionally extreme so the limitation of the mean is easy to see. It models appearances only; it does not prove that a complete opponent-and-venue schedule is feasible.