Tiebreaker which gave Miami the division

[Patsrock]

God, your response is bull.

No one complained because no one knows all the rules. I never even looked at the tiebreakers this closely. I'm sure I could find other things to complain about if I was actively going out of my way to do it.

The point is, you can't justify conference record being there. The point is, something else makes infinitely more sense, like strength of victory. And guess what, the Patriots still don't make it in with that as the tiebreaker.

Jeez, why are people so reactionary around here?

Why shouldn't conference record be there? You play in the same conference. I think the tiebreakers are fine the way they are.

I would be more pissed if someone lost on strength of schedule. Which I will argue shouldn't even be a tiebreaker. You don't control your own schedule so that should be out.

Strength of victory depends way too much on other teams. You winning a game hurts your own strength of victory.

 

[Patsrock]

I would agree SoV is a better tiebreaker than Conf record for the division. BTW Miami would have won that one too.

Pats would have won the SOV tiebreaker.


Pats wins 71-105
Mia wins 70-106

 

[upstater1]

Why shouldn't conference record be there? You play in the same conference. I think the tiebreakers are fine the way they are.

I would be more pissed if someone lost on strength of schedule. Which I will argue shouldn't even be a tiebreaker. You don't control your own schedule so that should be out.

Strength of victory depends way too much on other teams. You winning a game hurts your own strength of victory.

What does it matter what conference a team is in?

Put it this way, we tied Miami on common opponents, and we had a lot of common opponents because 1/4 of our schedules were against the same NFC teams. Then we had the same exact AFC West schedule. only two games were different, and we did equally well in those games. So, they go through common opponents, that tie-breaker doesn't decide things, we both played San Diego, both played Arizona, that's a wash, according tot he common opponents tie-breaker.

Then suddenly you have this arbitrary conference thing come in which values one game more than the other. With strength of victory, at least, it could differentiate between your common opponent based on record. Conference record completely ignores your opponent's record and only weighs what conference they are in.

 

[Patsrock]

What does it matter what conference a team is in?

Put it this way, we tied Miami on common opponents, and we had a lot of common opponents because 1/4 of our schedules were against the same NFC teams. Then we had the same exact AFC West schedule. only two games were different, and we did equally well in those games. So, they go through common opponents, that tie-breaker doesn't decide things, we both played San Diego, both played Arizona, that's a wash, according tot he common opponents tie-breaker.

Then suddenly you have this arbitrary conference thing come in which values one game more than the other. With strength of victory, at least, it could differentiate between your common opponent based on record. Conference record completely ignores your opponent's record and only weighs what conference they are in.

I could see your point if you don't play the same amount of conference games. I don't get your point of the conf record being arbitrary. What is arbitrary is SOV, what ever team played Detriot this year got 16 losses on their SOV this year.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Re: tiebraker which gave miami the division

In the east too........

definitely a conspiracy...

can't we just give this up?

 

[godef]

Re: tiebraker which gave miami the division

Eh, doesn't really matter. If you've reached that tiebreaker, you automatically have a split of the games between you. If you didn't, the tie-breakers would have stopped at the first one (head-to-head).

Understood. I'm just stating I don't understand the confusion to start with.

 

[godef]

Conference tie-breaker makes no sense for teams in the same division.

Miami lost to Arizona, New England lost to San Diego. Miami lost AT Arizona, New England lost AT San Diego. The scores were almost identical, the games were in the first part of the season. Why would one loss count more than the other? Makes no sense.

They need to move another tie-breaker up to #4, maybe strength of victory or something like that.

What this causes is the worse team vs the other conference moving into the play-offs and then possibly representing the conference in the Super Bowl. Seems like a conference should be promoting the team that faired best against the opponent conference in the Super Bowl.

 

[upstater1]

I could see your point if you don't play the same amount of conference games. I don't get your point of the conf record being arbitrary. What is arbitrary is SOV, what ever team played Detriot this year got 16 losses on their SOV this year.

Right, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum. If you're in the same division as Detroit, everyone got fatter off them. It balances out. If your AFC division played Detroit, then everyone in your division also got fatter off Detroit, and the teams you played in the NFC North also got fatter. In other words, all of Detroit's losses also count as wins if you're playing teams in that division.

The only teams hurt by playing Detroit when it comes to SOV are the two NFC teams that finished last the year before. Everyone else wasn't hurt at all by playing them since they played the same teams that Detroit lost to.

 

[SpiderFox53]

Bull. The only reason you are talking about the tiebreaker is because the Pats didn't make the playoffs. We've had the same tiebreaker order for years and no one complained. And now you are trying to say it isn't just about the Pats.

It is simply whining and crying. The rules are fair, they apply to everone equally, and everyone knew the tiebreakers beforehand.

It is childish to complain now.

I don't have a horse in this race, but as to the part in bold, as long as you mean 'only the last 7 years' then you would be correct. Otherwise you wouldn't be as the tie breakers were revised after the '01 season.