Tie breaker equity

[BlitzFritz]

one question i havent heard asked is about why the Fish should make the post season over the pats.

i understand the tie breaking formulae.

i am questioning if the formulae are fair.

think about it. the Pats played a harder schedule, yet ended up with the same record.
- split head to head
- same in division record (which are same opponenets)
- same against common opponents

the next breaker is Conf record which is bogus, since the Fish played an easier schedule (they played the last seed in 2 divs, vs we played the top seed in those divs)

so if we end up with the same record, the next breaker should still strive to determine who is the better team. how about pts for minus points against. or strenght of opponent.

my point is that Conf record is random and artificial since we played diff teams.

anyone else see this flaw in logic?

just having fun now that the season is over.....

- FRITZ

 

[signbabybrady]

I was just b*tchin about that in another thread.

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/10/202256-goodell-chat.html#post1230643

What I find stupid is that conference record is what allowed Miami to beat us when the league clearly gives teams in the same division different conference schedules based on where you finished the year before. Miami basically gets in over us because our two seeded games were vs Indy and Pitt when theres were vs Texans and Cincy (I believe). So in the conference you play one whole division which is the same but the other games clearly give one team an advantage over the other.

 

[spacecrime]

Would you be complaining if the tiebreakers worked in our favor?

If we won the tiebreaker, would you be complaining that it wasn't fair how we got in and we shouldn't have, or would you be pleased with how it all worked out?

In other words, are you concerned with inequities or are you ??????

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I asked about this before, and I agree that it's not fair in any particular year. I don't have a problem with the efforts the NFL has undertaken to create parity. So, I don't have a problem with teams in the same division having their handful of non-similar games be disproportionately difficult or easy depending on prior years' performance.

But that ALREADY has its own reward, in that the team should be able to compile a better record against an easier schedule. To also make it a tie breaker advantage seems a bit like double counting.

That said, while I don't think it's fair in any particular year, hopefully it all evens out.

 

[richpats]

the next breaker is Conf record which is bogus, since the Fish played an easier schedule (they played the last seed in 2 divs, vs we played the top seed in those divs)

The point you are missing is that the "easier" schedule had no impact on the tiebreaker b/c Miami LOST both of those games to Houston & Baltimore.

 

[xmarkd400x]

The Pats had two chances to take care of business. They did once. If they were a truely superior team, they would have won both games.

In order to do tiebreakers, you come up with the fairest thing you can, which is what the NFL has. There's no way to have it fair, even if both teams played the same schedule.

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Personally I think SOV would be a better and more fair tiebreaker after head to head, division record, common opponents then conf record.

Dolphins had a better SOV record. SOV is definitely should come before SOS.

Net - net, while I don't think the tie breaker order is the best order, under the one that is the best, Dolphins still win the division.

 

[richpats]

The Pats had two chances to take care of business. They did once. If they were a truely superior team, they would have won both games.

I believe the Pats are a superior team to the Dolphins at this point in the year. The only way the Dolphins are superior is on paper w/ the tie-breakers. To their credit they used a scheme that the league had rarely seen (if ever) but 2nd time around we neutralized it.

We are the only team to beat them in their last 10 games and we hung the most points of any of their opponents. After our victory in Miami it was clear to both teams who was the superior team. Unfortunately we don't get the shot to prove it again in a wild-card game.

 

[upstater1]

The Pats had two chances to take care of business. They did once. If they were a truely superior team, they would have won both games.

In order to do tiebreakers, you come up with the fairest thing you can, which is what the NFL has. There's no way to have it fair, even if both teams played the same schedule.

The OP is saying they are not doing the fairest thing they can, which is to move to SOV or SOS before conference record. Conference record distinguishes between AFC and NFC games, but I'm not sure why that is even relevant. In other words, what's the difference? SOV or SOS makes more sense.

 

[Sicilian]

I'm as critical of the playoff system as anyone, but I don't really have a problem with this one. The NFL is kind of built to make repeating difficult. Draft order going without any kind of lottery, division winners having to play other division winners, etc. Their philosophy seems to be if you're going to stay on top, you're going to earn it. I have no problem with that idea, as it makes our back to back SB wins even more special.

The 8-8 division winner getting in blah blah blah same old story, I will NEVER agree with that. Especially with them STILL getting an 8-8 level draft pick. That will always be a bigger travesty to me.

 

[alamo]

Dolphins had a better SOV record. SOV is definitely should come before SOS.

It does.

Conference record distinguishes between AFC and NFC games, but I'm not sure why that is even relevant. In other words, what's the difference? SOV or SOS makes more sense.

Because the goal if the playoffs is to pick the best team to represent the conference in the SB. Since you are directly competing with other AFC teams for a SB berth, your record against those teams should be important. And that tiebreaker is far enough down that it's important but too important, I like the arrangement.

 

[Watson's IQ]

I don't have any problem at all with the way it's done. Yeah, it stings, but if it was the other way around I would have no problem with it, so it would be a bit hypocritical to whine about it.

I don't think anyone doubts that we are a better team than the Dolphins, it just works out this way sometimes.

 

[aluminum seats]

The tie-breakers are fine. A writer to Reiss did have a good suggestion on one possible change, though, related to the draft. As things stand now, the Chargers will pick several spots ahead of the Pats. Bah! Chargers deserve the playoffs because they won their division, but the Pats should be higher up the draft ladder. You'd still rather make the playoffs, but it helps a little bit, it's fair, nobody would complain, etc. I'd wager they make that change.

 

[upstater1]

It does.



Because the goal if the playoffs is to pick the best team to represent the conference in the SB. Since you are directly competing with other AFC teams for a SB berth, your record against those teams should be important. And that tiebreaker is far enough down that it's important but too important, I like the arrangement.

For me the logic doesn't stand up because the AFC opponents play the NFC as well. We're taking about two teams in the same division, Miami and New England. We each played the same opponents in the NFC. Why does a Patriots loss to a random AFC team hurt them more than the Dolphins loss to a random NFC team?

I have no problem with the conference tie-breaker deciding wild cards between conference teams. But we're talking about a division tie-breaker here.

 

[RunOut]

The tie-breakers are fine. A writer to Reiss did have a good suggestion on one possible change, though, related to the draft. As things stand now, the Chargers will pick several spots ahead of the Pats. Bah! Chargers deserve the playoffs because they won their division, but the Pats should be higher up the draft ladder. You'd still rather make the playoffs, but it helps a little bit, it's fair, nobody would complain, etc. I'd wager they make that change.

This is the thing that hurts the most in all of this. I don't think the NFL should change anything regarding the playoff seedings or tiebreakers, since they're probably as fair as they're going to get. However, the playoff teams, regardless of record, should be picking in the bottom twelve. Non-playoff teams should be picking above them, dependent on their recond only.

No way should the Pats be picking 24th, behind what, four playoff teams? That doesn't seem quite fair.

 

[Pat the Pats Fan]

It was fair, Miami had 4 conference losses, Balt, Houston, NE and NYJ.
'Pats had 5 conference losses, Pitt, Indy, SD, NYJ and Mia.

We both lost to the opponent from the North and the South divisions. The difference, Miami beat the Chargers and we didn't.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

I don't think anyone doubts that we are a better team than the Dolphins, it just works out this way sometimes.

This is the first time it has EVER worked out this way actually (an 11-5 team missing the playoffs). Just sayin'.

 

[Absurdly Metro]

Just imagine if it had gone down to the last tie breaker and the division title was decided on a coin flip???



Oh wait. IIRC, the division title might just have been decided on a coin flip one night in November vs. the NY Favres.

 

[Kontradiction]

Would you be complaining if the tiebreakers worked in our favor?

If we won the tiebreaker, would you be complaining that it wasn't fair how we got in and we shouldn't have, or would you be pleased with how it all worked out?

In other words, are you concerned with inequities or are you ??????

I would be VERY concerned.

 

[PYPER]

one question i havent heard asked is about why the Fish should make the post season over the pats.

i understand the tie breaking formulae.

i am questioning if the formulae are fair.

think about it. the Pats played a harder schedule, yet ended up with the same record.
- split head to head
- same in division record (which are same opponenets)
- same against common opponents

the next breaker is Conf record which is bogus, since the Fish played an easier schedule (they played the last seed in 2 divs, vs we played the top seed in those divs)

so if we end up with the same record, the next breaker should still strive to determine who is the better team. how about pts for minus points against. or strenght of opponent.

my point is that Conf record is random and artificial since we played diff teams.

anyone else see this flaw in logic?

just having fun now that the season is over.....

- FRITZ

The difference between our conference record and Miami's is that the beat San Diego and we didn't. They went 4-0 vs the AFC West and we only went 3-1.

I understand your point and that's exactly why the league moved the common opponent tie-breaker ahead of the conference record. For a long time, it was the other way around.

I think the tie-breakers are exactly how they should be. What I'd like to see the league do is pass a new rule that would expand the playoffs to include 3 Wild Card teams in any year where 3 or more non-division winners win at least 11 games. In such a year, the #2 seed would lose their 1st round bye and host the 3rd Wild Card team. It wouldn't happen very often but when it did, it would create one hell of a Wild Card Weekend. The extra game would be played on Saturday at 1:00, joining the 4:00 and 8:00 games already scheduled.

The reasoning is that 11-5 is too good of a record to miss the playoffs. NFL fans are very passionate about their teams denying an 11 win team the opportunity to see what they can do is horrible. I wouldn't wish this on any other fanbase. Not even the Colts, Steelers, or Jets. It's bad enough that it happened to us this year but I'd like to see something in place so that it never happens again.