Jacky Roberts
2nd Team Getting Their First Start
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2005
- Messages
- 1,607
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.No chance for the #2. Patriots need to win out while SD needs to lose 2. Can't see it happening.
Guess you all missed the tiebreaker analysis I posted earlier in the week:
http://208.109.107.176/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=45599&highlight=tiebreaker
It's all about the Bills and Denver games for the San Diego tiebreaker, they have to lose one of those and then we get probably get it.
Here's the common games and strength of victory aspect with the Chargers:
3rd tiebreaker: common games
Common games:
Sep 17 Tennessee Won (Pats to play)
Nov 12 @Cincinnati Won (Pats win)
Nov 19 @Denver Won (Pats loss)
Dec 3 @Buffalo (Pats win X 2)
Dec 10 Denver
Current: SD 3-0, Patriots 3-1
Remaining: SD - Denver and Buffalo; Pats - Tenn.
Outlook: If the Patriots beat Tennessee, SD needs to lose to Denver or Buffalo to force a tie.
4th tiebreaker: Strength of victory. Currently (http://www.nfl.com/standings/conference) the Patriots have an enormous lead, so if it came to this the Patriots probably get it.
Thanks, I guess I was right but not nearly so certain as you.Guess you all missed the tiebreaker analysis I posted earlier in the week:
http://208.109.107.176/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=45599&highlight=tiebreaker
It's all about the Bills and Denver games for the San Diego tiebreaker, they have to lose one of those and then we get probably get it.
Aside from the #2 seed, that's a REMARKABLE link.4th tiebreaker: Strength of victory. Currently (http://www.nfl.com/standings/conference) the Patriots have an enormous lead, so if it came to this the Patriots probably get it.
Aside from the #2 seed, that's a REMARKABLE link.
After all the talk about how we only beat bad teams, we have the #1 strength of victory in the league. #1 in the league.
.517% vs. SD's .390%. Ha, the joke's on them I guess. We're tied with the top Strength of Schedule too. I realize both numbers will come down starting tomorrow but it's a statement on what we've done so far.
Sorry I missed Tennessee. Regardless, the point remains the same - it also points out that Tennessee may be a little better than we give them credit for and having road games left against Miami, Jacksonville and Tennessee is a lot more difficult to win out than we're assuming.We're actually tied for second in strength of schedule:
Tenn - .574
NE - .566
Oak - .566
Is there any scernario where a 3way tie at 13-3 would get us the 1? I think not, because we would need the 3rd team to have a head to head win over Indy I think.
Here's what bugs me about understanding Common Games - why should common games count when one team plays a common opponent one time and the other plays them twice (divisional opponents).
If one of the teams is a doormat that the team that plays them twice happens to have them in their division, versus the the other team may be a very good team in which case they only have to play them once.
The whole notion of "common games" is very confusing. The rules do NOT say "common opponents."
I'm not sure what it means, but the whole idea of there being "common games" when team A plays a common opponent once but team B plays that common opponent twice is very confusing. I would argue that for tie breaking purposes, there really is only one common GAME in that situation.
With the San Diego comparison, it balances out, because we each will have played one common opponent one more time than the other guy (Denver for them and Buffalo for us). It seems to me that if San Diego were to beat Buffalo but lose to Denver, they would FEEL more deserving of the tie breaker than we would. Doesn't seem to work that way, though.
One other thing that's interesting is that it appears that strength of victory percentages take into account the loss that you hung on the other team. It shouldn't be that way. In other words, your opponents' win percentage should be calculated by taking out what they did against you. So if the bears end up the season at 13-3, I would argue that their record for purposes of figuring out OUR strength of victory should be considered to be 13-2. Where this would matter is when you're talking about teams that you've beaten twice. You shouldn't get punished by having both of those losses count against your strength of victory, since you were the team that won the games. Think of it this way -- imagine that Buffalo finishes the season at 9-7, and we beat them twice but San Diego beats them only once. Buffalo's record for purposes of our strength of victory should be better for us than it is for San Diego. We shouldn't be punished for having won two of those games. For purposes of our strength of victory, Buffalo's record should be 9-5 and for San Diego it should be 9-6. Put another way, rather than dealing with percentages, I agree with what a poster above said -- just count up how many wins the teams you beat had, and whichever team's number is higher is the winner.
There is a huge advantage to getting the #2 seed instead of the #3 - a bye week is huge. Only the first two seeds in each conference get a bye.Maybe but I bet we get the #3 seed.