NFL Tiebreakers
Posted: December 28th, 2009 | Filed under: Other Sports | 64 Comments »
I generally love NFL tiebreaker talk. I don’t think this is very unusual either … I think many people secretly and not-so-secretly love tiebreaker talk. If this team wins and that team loses and the other team wins and so on … it’s a blast.
Trouble is, this year tiebreaker talk isn’t much fun. It should be fun because in the AFC there are five teams that are 8-7 and three more teams that are 7-8 and this should create all sorts of mayhem.
But it doesn’t. That’s because the New York Jets and Baltimore Ravens have their playoff fortunes in their hands. If they win, they’re in. Baltimore certainly will win. The Ravens play at Oakland, and while the Raiders have had some fun this year taking out Pittsburgh and Denver in ridiculously improbable games, the Raiders stink. The Raiders have been outscored by 174 points this year, most in the AFC. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the Raiders will beat Baltimore, even at home. So, 95% chance, Baltimore is in.
The Jets play CIncinnati, and that’s a bit trickier. The Bengals are a good football team, probably better than the Jets. But the Bengals have nothing to play for, and they looked awful against the Chiefs Sunday when they DID have something to play for. The Jets were given a great gift Sunday when the Colts decided to throw their perfect season in the garbage for reasons that are curious at best.* The Jets will probably beat Cincinnati with the playoffs on the line.
*I guess I understand the reason the Colts decided to tank the game by pulling their starters in the third quarter and putting an overmatched quarterback named Curtis Painter in the game. I guess it makes moderate sense to try and keep your players rested and healthy because it’s the Super Bowl is what matters, not a perfect season. If Peyton Manning or Reggie Wayne or someone that important had gotten seriously hurt in the fourth quarter of a meaningless game against the Jets, I suppose everyone would be raking coach Jim Caldwell over the coals for going after a perfect season when there are more important things involved.
But if that’s the case: Why play Peyton Manning at all? Why start him in the second half? Why allow Reggie Wayne to dive for a ball? My own gut feeling is that it’s a slippery slope to play as if afraid of injuries. Football is a dangerous game, and if you want to be good at it you have to play fearlessly. Something about the Colts’ decision to bench their best players in the middle of a perfect season seems to cut against that fearlessness.
And then there’s another point, one best described in Bull Durham: “I love winning, man. You know what I’m saying? It’s, like, better than losing?” Every pro football player knows how much better a week is after a win than after a loss. Look, I don’t know if momentum can carry a team in the playoffs. But it sure seems to me that a team that decided to go for the perfect season would be a scarier team to face in the playoffs than a team that lost at home to the Jets (and they could lose again this week — what’s the point in starting Peyton Manning in bleeping BUFFALO? Why even have him make the trip?). It seems that an undefeated team would be much scarier to play than a team that decided it was better to lose with a 14-0 record than put its wittle precious pwayers in harm’s way.
If the Colts win the Super Bowl, people will always wonder if they could have gone undefeated and made their case for greatest team ever. If the Colts don’t win the Super Bowl, Jim Caldwell’s decision will live in infamy in Indianapolis for a long time. I understand the decision, but I don’t agree with it.
So, you have two clear playoff favorites — the Jets and Ravens. But here’s the thing: If one of those teams lose, then Denver is next in line. And Denver plays Kansas City at home, which is probably the surest victory in the NFL this week. The Chiefs have not won at Denver since 2000 — when Gunther Cunningham was coach. They usually get humiliated there, and that was true even when the Chiefs had good teams.. In 2003, for instance, they started the year 11-1 and got destroyed in Denver 45-27. Now the Chiefs are just plain horrendous — there is no reason to believe that the Chiefs will stay within three touchdowns of the Broncos.
So, that’s pretty much it. The only complications come about two of those three teams lose — and I just can’t see that happening. So it’s not even fun this year to try and figure out how Houston or Pittsburgh can get in or what would happen if we have seven 8-8 teams.
Loading ...
Thanks for the signed book Joe
Circle me, Earl Morrall.
J-E-T-S. Jets! Jets! Jets!
I guess I have a different view on whether or not to play your starters and go for perfection. There have been 43 Super Bowls. That means there have been 43 Super Bowl winners. If I were to ask a football fan “Who won Super Bowl 13?”, they’d probably have to think for a little bit before they came up with the correct answer, the Steelers. But if I were to ask that same person “Who is the ONLY undefeated team since they started playing Super Bowls?”, they’d probably say the Dolphins immediately. Boils down to this, greatness is great, but immortality is better. Play the starters. Go for immortality.
I think Joe’s last paragraph about the Colts is the important one. There is no winning move for the Colts now, not in the big picture. Even if they win the Super Bowl (or maybe especially) they will be remembered as the team that squandered the chance at perfection. If they lose in the playoffs or Super Bowl, well then they are just losers and this week is where their true colors emerged.
I was actually surprised that they pulled their starters. Didn’t the Pats / Giants game 16 from ‘07 definitively prove that you should play as hard as you can in every game? If for no reason beyond psychology?
As a non-NE person living in NE, I was absolutely DYING for the Colts to go 19-0.
Joe,
What do you think of the job that Pioli and Co are doing rebuilding the Chiefs? I know they stink, but they stunk last year. Is there a sense of some sort of progress, where at least the KC fandom can see a light at the end of the tunnel? Or have they done a lousy job and there’s no hope? It’s hard to get a sense of that from here in Beantown.
Oh, and the Colts’ management are cowards, you have a shot at history you have to take it.
That’s pretty funny–an NFL team worried about its players getting hurt.
If anyone was truly concerned about such things, the game would look quite different. No, it’s a simple CYA move. Which, as you point out, doesn’t even succeed at that.
I think the colts lost the game to get rid of the pressure of the perfect season and not to avoid injury as everyone seems to be saying. So pulling Peyton at one point or another does not really matter. They went about three quarters with their starters, so the starters lost the game. They lost one, not perfect, now go win the super bowl. It may backfire, it may not, but it is not about injuring players.
Your view of the Raiders is too harsh. Since their bye week they’ve been ok. They haven’t been good exactly but they haven’t been one of the dregs of the league either. Their defensive front is genuinely good.
95% chance Baltimore wins? You’re prepared to lay 19-1 odds against the Raiders in a home game?
I mean, Baltimore’s probably going to win but fair odds on Oakland in that game would be more like 3-2.
Manning will start in Buffalo, because he has a consecutive games streak going. How long he plays, of course, is entirely up for debate. My guess is no more than one quarter, and there’s at least even odds that he plays only the opening series.
I think the NFL and the networks had a hand in that decision. They badly want a New York team in the playoffs.
” it’s the Super Bowl is what matters, not a perfect season.”
“If Peyton Manning or Reggie Wayne or someone that important had gotten seriously hurt in the fourth quarter of a meaningless game against the Jets”
I’m troubled by this for several reasons:
1. I challenge the notion that the perfect season doesn’t matter, or more specifically that the superbowl is all that matters.
2. I challenge the notion that the game is meaningless.
3. I think the tanking hurts the integrity of the competition. The Jets are now going to waltz into the playoffs by virtue of a scheduling convienence – two of their toughest games of the year are now getting handed to them while other playoff contenders had to play the Colts and Bengals while they were y’know, trying.
4. I think the fans who paid to see that game got screwed.
I think you are a bit off on your tiebreakers. While you are correct that the Jets and Ravens have their destiny in their hands, the Broncos are not necessarily the 3rd team in this succession. According to the scenarios posted on Yahoo Sports:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AtilzAQ5M7.Dz.J4DGg4759DubYF?slug=ys-09playoffnittygritty&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
1) If the Jets lose, a Steelers win plus a Texans loss means the Broncos can’t get in
2) If the Ravens lose, the same scenario of PIT win + HOU loss knocks Denver out
This is because in the former scenario, there is a 3 way tie at 9-7, and the Ravens and Steelers both beat the Broncos head-to-head this season. In the latter scenario, the Jets prevail over the Steelers and Broncos due to Conference Record (PIT) and Common Opponent Record (DEN). Then the tie between PIT and DEN is broken again by the head-to-head game.
Quite a bit more complicated than you imagined, no? Now try to figure out all the scenarios with NFC seeding. Guh
What got to me was Colts’ broadcaster, Bob Lamey, scolding Colts’ fans repeatedly for booing when Curtis Painter ran onto the field. Earth to Bob: nobody’s booing Curtis Painter. They’re booing the decision to forego a chance at history mid-game. And frank (#12), the starters most definitely did not lose the game. The Colts were up 15-10 with the ball when Painter came in. After that, the ball only crossed midfield on punts and the Jets scored 16 point off two turnovers in Colts’ territory.
I mean, frank (#9).
I also think you’re being a bit harsh on the Raiders and (gulp) Chiefs. Presumably there was at least something to the Chiefs’ playing the Bengals close this week, and Denver has been pretty awful themselves lately; the Broncos and Chiefs have the same record over their last nine games.
So this Texans fan has a tiny bit of hope–but would be feeling a lot better if Caldwell had cooperated.
indy_ralph @15: “What got to me was Colts’ broadcaster, Bob Lamey, scolding Colts’ fans repeatedly for booing when Curtis Painter ran onto the field. Earth to Bob: nobody’s booing Curtis Painter. They’re booing the decision to forego a chance at history mid-game.”
Get used to it. Here in Philly, we continuously have to hear about how the fans booed McNabb on draft day, when in reality what they were booing was the non-selection of Ricky Williams, a back fans thought would change the franchise for a long, long time.
Interesting blog post. It is supposed to be about NFL Tiebreakers. Instead you write more about the decision to pull starters. Seems to me you could have titled it something about Caldwell’s decision and it would have made the same amount of sense.
Not that there’s anything wrong with what you did. But I think this post kind of enters into your mind and shows the way your brain processes.
” than a team that decided it was better to lose with a 14-0 record than put its wittle precious pwayers in harm’s way”
ha nice. I don’t believe in doing things for “the fans” in most cases. This is one i do. if you can create a team that will talk about generations from now, than you have to do it. heck, this colts team already won a super bowl. they had a chance at history and they weren’t interested. They’ll sell out games. They’ll sell jersey. Still, I believe they cost goodwill and i gotta believe that counts somwhere and somehow.
@12 – Come on. Think about what you’re saying. An undefeated team is gold for ratings.
Nobody outside NY cares about the Jets, and two-thirds of people IN New York don’t care about the Jets either. Nobody at CBS wants the Jets in the playoffs.
Add to that the fact that the Colts tank job all but eliminated Pittsburgh, which is another ratings winner for CBS and the league.
It would have been hugely in CBS’s interest for Manning et al to stay in the game yesterday.
Marco has it right. These teams sell out from season ticket sales, force the fans to also buy tix for lousy pre-season games if they want season tix, and even them the fans don’t know if they’ll get to see the team actually try to win all the regular-season games. The Colts decided to lose, and if I had paid for a ticket to that game, I’d never buy another. How can you trust any of the results of games if it’s possible to just throw a game in such a blatant manner?
This post has got me thinking about how much the NFL has changed since the league stopped scheduling based on a team’s previous record. The possibility of undefeated seasons just didn’t come along all that often, simply because the best teams were playing tougher schedules. Now we have at least one a year. Which I guess is good for ratings, though I’m already sick of all the concern trolling over the “pressure” of the undefeated season. (It’s just sad that professional athletes are so incapable of handling pressure. If only they had the mentality and toughness of bankers. But I digress . . . ) Also, we seem to have many more late-season meaningless games. I think its very unlikely that Buffalo would be playing Indy next week under the old scheduling.
So why did they switch? And can we now evaluate which system was better for the quality of play in the NFL?
Ralph — I’m not sure what you mean. NFL scheduling is still, at least in part, based upon how you finished the previous season. For example, the first place team in the NFC East this year will play the first place team in each of the other three NFC divisions.
Now, granted, only 2 games are determined by where you finished in the standings (since you play all the teams from one division every year). Still, all told one-quarter of every team’s games will be against teams that finished in the same spot in the standings.
Personally, I think teams have zero responsibility to play their starters if they believe it’s in their best interest not to do so. Doesn’t matter if the game has playoff implications, draft pick implications, or if the fans paid $5000 apiece for tickets. The Colts team has the right to set their own goals, and if their goal is “win the Super Bowl,” then they have every right to go about they as they see fit.
That said, for better or for worse, I’m glad they lost. The 2009 Colts are a good team, byt pale in comparison to the greatest teams in NFL history (including the 2007 Patriots). It would have been a travesty, in my opinion, if they had finished 19-0 and become the de facto greatest team ever.
Yeah, it really hasn’t changed that much. Two games per team are variable based on previous year’s record. Under the old alignment for most teams it was three.
I vehemently CONCUR with roarke regarding Joe’s last paragraph regarding the Colts.
The timing is what upsets me the most. If you’re going to bench your starters, do not even play ‘em. Let Manning keep his streak alive and have him play the first series, but that is it. Do not tease me through the middle of the third quarter, thinking you’re going for the win, then replace Manning with a lousy rookie QB who has no business yet (if ever) being out there on the field in that situation. That fumble-recovered TD was horrifyingly predictable.
ralphdibny (#23): I could be mistaken, but I thought scheduling is still based on prior finish. This is why the Colts and Patriots play every year – they both finish first most years. Teams play 6 games against division opponents. They play 4 against a division in their own conference, and 4 against a division in the opposing conference. The other two games are against conference teams in the other two division that finish in similar standing. This is why the Colts played the Broncos and Dolphins (2nd place finishers) while the Titans played the Steelers and Chargers.
–off-topic–
I had to ask you guys, is the 2nd photo here of Billy Butler?
http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/2009/12/21/awkward-engagement-photo-contest/#comments
“That said, for better or for worse, I’m glad they lost. The 2009 Colts are a good team, byt pale in comparison to the greatest teams in NFL history (including the 2007 Patriots). It would have been a travesty, in my opinion, if they had finished 19-0 and become the de facto greatest team ever.”
Bullshit. If the Colts had gone undefeated this year, bested the Patriots/Bengals and Chargers to reach the Super Bowl, then beat the NFC’s representative, I think that entitles them to be one of a few “greatest teams ever”.
Not too many people claim that Dolphins’ team was the greatest team ever, yes? I think most people understand that luck, strength of schedule, and timing are significant factors.
Also, I think the 2009 Colts are better than the 2007 Patriots. The 2007 Patriots beat the 2007 Colts 24-20, and I think the 2009 Colts are much, MUCH better than the 2007 Colts. This year’s team would have won that game.
For all the “yuck yuck I shooore am a normal guy” BS JoePos likes to put forth, he sure does make a living talking sh*t on KC teams..
The NFL owners have no problem charging full price for the tickets to these ‘meaningless’ games. The networks have no problem charging their advertisers the full rate as if a ‘meaningful’ game were being broadcast. So then put your best product on the field/TV screens or get out of the football business.
While I will acknowledge that this years edition of the Chiefs is historically bad (and this from a guy who suffered thru many 2-12 seasons back in the day) I have to say that I am pulling for them to beat the hated Donco’s in Denver. We OWE them that for all those frickin last minute Elway escapes. Yep, that’s right, I am still pissed…
“Also, I think the 2009 Colts are better than the 2007 Patriots. The 2007 Patriots beat the 2007 Colts 24-20, and I think the 2009 Colts are much, MUCH better than the 2007 Colts. This year’s team would have won that game.”
Come on. Do you realize what a ridiculous line of argument this is?
Try this: the 2009 Colts beat the 2009 Patriots by 1 point. I think the 2007 Patriots were much, MUCH better than the 2009 Patriots. The 2007 Patriots would have won that game.
John in Philly, only 2 of 16 games are based on the quality of the previous season. Each team plays 6 games in division, 4 games against another in-conference division, 4 games against another out-of-conference division, and the remaining two against opponents from the other two in-conference divisions that finished in the same divisional position as your team.
Glad to see the Jets win, but embarrassed by what it took to do it. A better game on TV at the same time yesterday: 1969 WS, Game 5, on MLB network. An indication of my priorities.
Brad @35: I think I said exactly that. I said:
“Now, granted, only 2 games are determined by where you finished in the standings (since you play all the teams from one division every year). Still, all told one-quarter of every team’s games will be against teams that finished in the same spot in the standings.”
Although only two of your opponents are specifically on your schedule because of where you and they finished in the standings the previous season, a team that wins their division still plays against 4 other division winners the next season — the three others from their conference and one division winner from the other conference.
“Come on. Do you realize what a ridiculous line of argument this is?”
Good point. Yes, it is somewhat ridiculous, as I obviously did not think through my argument.
But my subjective assessment still remains — I think the at-their-best-in-the-season 2009 Colts would beat the at-their-best-in-the-season 2007 Patriots the majority of the time they hypothetically played.
I will be interested to see how well Indy does as they get farther away from the Tony Dungy era. Tampa won a Super Bowl right after he left, but soon went downhill. (Although Indy is better in the GM position)
As for that move, it is asinine. You should decide at the beginning whether you should play people or not, and then only pull them if they get a minor injury, ( something they would play with at another point in the season) or if the game turns into a rout.
I myself would have gone for history, and I believe the players would have preferred it as well, but if he decided to sit players with minor injuries I could understand.
However, benching your team in the 2nd half is ridiculous and unsportsmanlike. They could have (for all practical purposes) knocked the Jets out of the playoff race, but instead they gave them the inside track. They could be undefeated, but instead created team dissension and a lack of momentum and rhythm while still exposing their players to injury. (Unless, unbeknownst to me, there is somehow a much greater 2nd half risk.) This is a waffling, indecisive, bad coaching move. Caldwell failed a big test.
I hope the Colts lose in the playoffs-to the Jets!
John in Philly, writing “one-quarter of every team’s games will be against teams that finished in the same spot in the standings” implies that the 1/4 schedule is based on a team’s previous finish when it’s only 1/8th. Clarification was in order.
thanks for sparing the embarrassing Giants from this list.
Joe, @4 Bob Post, @5 Roarke, and @39 Khazad, I totally agree.
Even being a Ravens fan, after the Colts beat the Ravens in week 11 I was rooting for a Colts undefeated season barring they didn’t play the Ravens in the playoffs, but now I patiently await and root for a divisional playoff loss.
Brad @40: “writing “one-quarter of every team’s games will be against teams that finished in the same spot in the standings” implies that the 1/4 schedule is based on a team’s previous finish when it’s only 1/8th. Clarification was in order.”
What you chose to take as being implied in my text is entirely up to you — especially since I specifically wrote that 2 games are determined based upon where a team finishes in the standings.
What I wrote is entirely correct: 2 games are determined by a team’s standing, and a team plays 4 games — 1/4 of the schedule — against another team that finishes in the same position in the standings.
“Try this: the 2009 Colts beat the 2009 Patriots by 1 point. I think the 2007 Patriots were much, MUCH better than the 2009 Patriots. The 2007 Patriots would have won that game.”
In addition to pointing out my bad logic, the remark above indicates that comparing great teams is extremely difficult given all the noise that is present in the statistics.
Perhaps the argument could be settled if a team wins all of its games in blowout fashion while the quality of its opponents is comparable to most other great teams. Then that team has likely risen above the noise to demonstrate its superiority in history.
That shut everyone up!
I really only know this because I was there, but the Chiefs played the Broncos down to the wire @ Denver last year. The Broncos stopped the ballcarrier on the one yard line to preserve the win.
Chiefs were awful last year too, so no reason they couldn’t make a game of it this year.
[...] See the original post here: Joe Posnanski » Blog Archive » NFL Tiebreakers [...]
John in Philly:
Although its clear from your original statement that you do understand the scheduling formula, you were responding to someone who bemoaned that the standings didn’t affect the scheduling anymore. In that context, you added commentary that had nothing to do with the point you were making about last year’s standings still affecting the scheduling.
Secondly, EVERY SINGLE TEAM plays exactly 1/4 of its games against a division winner. And also against a 2nd place team, a 3rd place team and a 4th place team.
Think about it. If you came in 2nd, you play the 1st place team from the whole division in your conference that you’re playing. You play the 1st place team from the whole division in the other conference. And you play 2 games against the team that won your division.
So every team plays 4 games against a team that finished 1st the previous year, 4 games against a team that finished 2nd, 4 against a team that finished 3rd and 4 against a team that finished 4th. So your statement that if you win your division you play 4 games against other division winners is true but meaningless.
Everyone plays 1/4 of their games against division winners.
Post #14 is right – this blog post isn’t quite correct. If either the Jets or Ravens lose, Denver isn’t guaranteed a playoff entry with a win. The Steelers have a head-to-head tiebreaker with the Broncos, so if the Texans lose, the Steelers are in with a win, and the Broncos are out regardless. However, if the Texans win, the head-to-head no longer applies (because Houston never played the Broncos), and the Broncos are in with a win regardless of the Steelers’ activities.
Of course, it’s all moot because the Texans probably aren’t going to lose against a resting Patriots team.
Damon, I appreciate that this debate is not something that can be settled and is extremely subjective. But it’s hard for me to understand the case for the superiority of the 2009 Colts.
Going into this week’s game, the Colts have outscored their opponents by 132 points. That’s a good total. Not great, but pretty darned good. It happens to be 4th best in the NFL this year.
The 2007 Patriots outscored their opponents by 315 points. That’s an incredible total. Best in the NFL by a wide margin, and one of the very best of all time.
Yes, the 2007 Pats famously “ran up the score” on a couple of opponents – but isn’t it kind of hard to argue that the 2009 Colts were more dominant over their opponents given that massive disparity in point differential?
And as for beating great teams, the Pats in 2007 beat basically every other good team in the NFL: Indy (13-3), Dallas (13-3), Pittsburgh (10-6), San Diego (11-5) twice, Jacksonville (11-5). The 2nd San Diego victory and the Jacksonville victory happened in the playoffs. Except for Indy and the 2nd San Diego victory, everyone of those victories was by a double-digit margin. Three of them were by more than 20 points.
The 2009 Colts have played exactly 2 10-win teams all year: New England and Arizona. Hardly the same caliber of competition. And one of those victories was by 1 point and required a miraculous finish and a (possible) blunder by the opposing coach.
Again, I know these things are subjective, but on what basis other than “I just think they’re better” do you believe the 2009 Colts have been superior?
why does the nfl have two nation-wide confrences? they sort of resemble the old nlf/afl divisions, but cleveland, pittsburgh and baltimore/indianapolis were nfl teams that were placed in the afc. it seems like the only reason to have two confrences is for tv purposes.
what i am getting at is the playoffs should not be the top 6 teams in either confrence. it should simply be the top teams across the league. seed the playoff teams league-wide, and make the wild card spots open to all teams. this will decrease the chances an 8-8 team makes the playoffs. combined with the nfls system of reseeding teams after every round, a confrence-agnostic playoff would setup the super bowl to be a matchup of the top two teams in the league.
The part that bothers me about the pulling players because of injuries is that teams don’t do it consistently. Earlier this season, the Colts beat the Rams 42-6. It was 28-6 at the end of the third quarter, yet Peyton Manning played the entire game. If injuries were something you worry about, why not pull him then? Likewise, they were winning 28-9 going in to the fourth quarter against Tennessee in week 5 (before Tennessee woke up), and Manning played the entire game, and Dallas Clark and Reggie Wayne were in there the entire time. It just seems like if you want to rest people, if you rest them week 5 and 6, they are less likely to be tired in week 16.
bsg@51:
What a brilliant idea. In fact, let’s just have the Yankees play the Red Sox in the World Series while we’re at it.
@53
in the nfl, rivalries are maintained within the eight divisions. the divisions are generally maintained by region and should stay that way.
the two confrences however are irrelevant. there is no regional base for them (ie east vs west), there is little historical base (nl vs al), and scheduling wise each team only plays two extra games within their confrence.
the eight divisions in the nfl are natural, while the two confrences are artificial. there doesnt seem to be any need to have them.
and while a red sox/yankees world series is indeed ludacris, a patriots/colts super bowl would actually be a good matchup… a rarity for the super bowl.
I don’t see any reason to change the playoff format. For one thing, 8-8 teams making the playoffs is pretty rare, so changing the format to avoid that rare outcome seems silly.
Also, the idea that it’s important to get a good matchup in the Super Bowl seems about 15 years out of date. There was a long stretch when the SB seemed to be a boring blowout every year, usually with a powerhouse NFC team dismantling an AFC team. Back then there was some clamor to change the system because the NFC title game was perceived as the de facto super bowl. But the pendulum swung and since then the Super Bowl has mostly been nothing but great game after great game.
Seriously, when was the last time the Super Bowl was not good? You have to go back 7 years to find a blowout (Bucs-Raiders) and there have really only been 2 bad games in the last 12 years (that one and Ravens-Giants). And many of the games have been more than just “not bad,” they’ve been thrilling, down-to-the-wire contests. 7 of the last 12 Super Bowls have not been decided until the final possession, and many of those not until the final play.
So what, exactly, are we trying to fix if we change the playoff system? It’s not broke.
maybe there isnt a problem this year, but last year the pats went 11-5 and did not make the playoffs, while the eagles went 9-6-1 in the nfc and made the field.
the biggest point i was trying to make was the fact that the afc and nfc are arbitrary. to a team like the broncos, both the jets and giants have little relevance. they do not play either team that often, so why should they compete against the jets for a playoff spot and not the giants?
bsg…i understand what you’re saying, but the Broncos do play the Jets more often than they play the Giants. They play the Jets every 3 years by rotation, and will occasionally play off rotation when they finish in the same place in their divisions. The play the Giants once every 4 years. Yes it’s not much but it is something. And more to the point in terms of competing for a playoff spot, they will almost always have more common opponents with the Jets than the Giants.
Still, I do see your point. But I think you cannot make changes to a system to fix a problem that rarely occurs. Yes last year the Pats went 11-5 and didn’t get in while the Eagles went 9-6-1 (and the Cards went 9-7). But they don’t play the same schedule so if they did you cant know for sure that the Patriots were better just because they had a better record. More importantly, the Patriots missing the playoffs at 11-5 was only the 2nd or 3rd time in history that an 11-win team has failed to get in. You really want to make changes to solve a problem that occurs once every 20 years?
[...] again, I don’t believe in momentum. But then again, neither does Joe Posnanski, really, and his blog post on the Colts, perfection, and NFL tiebreakers 1) threatens to put this blog out [...]
COULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN COMMON GAMES.
IT WAS REPORTED THAT THE JETS HAVE A BETTER RECORD (3-1) IN COMMON GAMES THEN DENVER (2-2) AND BALTIMORE (04).
WHAT WERE THE COMMON GAMES BETWEEN THESE 3 TEAMS????
Betty, there’s no need to shout. Try typing without the CapsLock key on.
“Common games” refers to games that a set of teams have played against the same opponents. Each of those 3 teams played the following opponents: Patriots, Raiders, Colts, Bengals.
The Jets are 3-1 in those games so far (with 1 more game against the Bengals this week). The Broncos are 3-2 in those games. The Ravens are 0-4, with 1 more game against the Raiders this week.
A lot of interesting points. I had been defending the Colts for preparing for the Super Bowl. I mean, imagine it’s Colts-Saints, Colts up 35-20 early in the fourth quarter, and Manning gets crushed and has to leave the game. The experience Painter gets in these last two games might give the Colts the extra first down or two they’ll need to hold on and win. The rest Feeney got might enable him to sack Brees to preserve the win. But Bill@4 raised the argument that persuaded me. If the Colts went 16-0 and didn’t win the Super Bowl, they’d be just as memorable as if they went 14-2 and did win the Super Bowl.
And as for the tiebreakers, don’t count out the Raiders. They’ve beaten four teams that are in the playoffs or still in the hunt. They’re – ah, who am I kidding. Without Bradkowski, they have no chance against the Ravens, unless JaMarcus Russell starts channeling Peyton Manning. But don’t throw margin of victory at us. The Raiders right now have a pretty good defense that wears out because they have such a bad offense. When the offense is halfway decent, their defense stays strong, and the game stays closer. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Raiders get shut out Sunday. Give Flacco and Rice enough shots, and they’ll score a few points.
Bill @48, you’re wrong. Every team has 4 games against a division in the other conference, and for that you’re correct. Every team has 4 games against a division in their conference, and for that you’re also correct. Every team has six games in its own division. But the other two games are in conference based on your record from the prior year. If you finished first, you’ll get two other teams that won their division. So for two games each season, you opponents picked based on how well you did last season.
Where this tends to have the biggest effect is when teams change within your division. The Greatest Show on Turf didn’t just start with a loser’s schedule in 1999. They also saw the 49ers fall apart (the rest of the division was mediocre at best), so they had six easy games in their division, plus two easy games in their conference, plus four more games against also rans in the two divisional schedules. So they had 12 easy games and 4 tougher games (assuming most teams stay about as good as they did the year before). Okay, back then there were only 3 divisions in each conference, so it’s not precisely accurate. But I’m sure you see the reason why you can go from 4-12 to 13-3 and then back to 8-8. You improve, teams underestimate you, you have an easier schedule, your own division leader gets weaker, and boom, suddenly you’re great. Next season, everybody knows what to expect, you have a winner’s schedule, and you regress to the mean.
Do two games mean that much? I think so. It’s like all those teams with perfect records in college football. They schedule weak opponents so they can rest all the starters, make sure they have experienced backups, and lessen the chance of injury. All of which is to show just how impressive the Colts, Patriots, Chargers, and especially everybody in the NFC East is. Year in year out the NFC East gives each of its teams at least four and maybe six tough games. If you win the NFC East and assuming the top two teams in each of your division-division matchups is good, then you could have 12 tough games, depending (these days) on the Redskins. All that attrition has to add up.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question…DAVE!!!!
Hope everyone had a SUPER New Years
Except that the Chiefs won . . .