NFL Bye Weeks Are Coming

I just realized this, and thought I'd pass it on for what it's worth.

The bye structure is different this season than in most previous ones, and I don't know why - other than all the possible lockout ramifications. Instead of starting at week 5 with 4 teams per week, then a couple weeks with 6 teams on bye, wrapping it up at week 10, this is how it is this season.
Image Source

The odd & interesting thing is there are no byes week-10:

Wk-5: 6 teams (CLE, DAL, STL, MIA, WAS, BAL)
Wk-6: 6 teams (DEN, TEN, KC, ARZ, SD, SEA)
Wk-7: 6 teams (BUF, CIN, NE, NYG, PHI, SF)
Wk-8: 6 teams (ATL, CHI, GB, OAK, NYJ, TB)
Wk-9: 4 teams (DET, MIN, CAR, JAX)
Wk-10: NONE -- wtf?
Wk-11: 4 teams (HOU, IND, NO, PHI) ..and DONE!

Thanksgiving falls in wk-12, so I'm not sure what's so special about wk-10, but hey if they're gonna spread it out more like this, they ought to spread it out even more, I say.

32 ÷ 4 = 8 Eight weeks, 4 thru 11, four teams each!

Or why not bunch 'em up? 32 ÷ 8 = 4 (duh) Four weeks, 6 thru 9, eight teams each?

Fantasy struggles either way. The ideal scenario for fantasy football is NO friggin' byes, but for some reason the NFL feels the need to give every team a week off - even though it is at a different time of the season for most of them. Which begs the question - what is the reason for the bye weeks anyway? Hmm...

Fantasy football would obviously be more "slammed" with the 2nd of those two options. For those four weeks fantasy teams would be scrambling to add/drop half their roster perhaps, and the result would suck... but it would "get it over with" in a much more concise period of time. The first idea provides fantasy teams to not be bogged down by a bunch of substitutions at one time, but it would simply stretch out the period of worrying about bye weeks a lot longer.

We all hate the bye weeks and must deal with them - or must we?