Tie breaker equity

[PatsFanInVa]

I've read here various theories about why the playoffs work as they do. One guy says the goal is the fairest system possible. This is incorrect: 8-8 teams go, 11-5 teams stay home. Not fair. Another guy says it is to get the best Conference representative in the SB. This is also incorrect. Again, the 8-8 team is unlikely to represent the Conference well.

The correct answer is that weights are given to divisions and far less so, to conference, of origin. Obviously they would be purely titular designations if we simply did away with winners and wild-cards, and ranked the teams 1 to 16, then picked #s 1-6, applying some tweaked version of our current playoff logic thereafter. Perhaps head-to-head, then common opponents, then margin of victory, all games? Whatever you consider the best way is to determine which team is best in tied tiers of teams. That would be fair. The playoffs are not exclusively designed to be fair, nor to reward solely the best teams (theoretically coming up with the best way to represent the conference.)

So, one goal is to get generally good teams. A second goal is to reinforce division and conference rivalries. This is evidently deemed good for the league; the AFC and NFC don't totally disappear this way.

A third goal being served here is parity. The idea of parity is for sorry-ass teams not to stay that way too long, so people can live and watch football in Kansas City without slitting their wrists. We all know the idea: On any given Sunday, any given team can beat the Detroit Lions. No, I mean any given team can beat any other team. Everybody has a shot at the big show.

Well, our current schedule-making-machine pits 1s against 1s, 2s against 2s, etc., in interdivisional games (going by the previous year's records.) So it is likely that our opponents will be tougher than Miami's. That is by design, as is the Draft order.

The goal of Parity is to keep dynasties from forming, gelling, and taking over. A lot of people say a few excellent teams this decade, most of all the Pats, disprove the whole idea of Parity. Well, this season was an example of Parity in action (with a big assist from the Injury Bug.)

It is what it is. The Pats did not go to the dance, but it was a hell of a hard-fought, adversity-overcoming type of season. And we got to see a very good young QB talent develop before our eyes (not to mention a ROY-contender LB, and some other young talent stepping up.)

Come on people. Let's not go to woulda-shoulda-coulda-land. Let's not whine about how unfair the playoffs are. We knew the system before this year, and we'll know it before next year (whether it's tweaked or not.)

PFnV

 

[Miguel]

In 2005 did anyone have a problem with the Patriots making the playoffs with a 10-6 record because they were the AFC East division champs and the Chiefs did not??The Chiefs also had a 10-6 record and defeated the Patriots during the regular season. The Chiefs also had a better conference record than the Pats.

 

[stcjones]

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.

I know what you are saying here.....makes absolutely NO sense in any way that an 11-5 team is not making the playoffs........and perhaps an 8-8, or 9-7 team in another conference DOES get in......I'm not sure what they could do to change things though.....

Someone posted who the doofins losses were against and who the Pats losses were against....and since two of them were the Steelers and the Colts....who the doofins didn't even HAVE to play........makes me realize how much harder our schedule was......GO PATS!!!

 

[Delicate Genius]

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.

Agreed.

New England was a better team this year but are missing the playoffs because of the division winner format. Either change the playoff system (which isn't likely and probably shouldn't be anyway) or group the playoff teams together in the draft from 21-32 (which would be a lot easier to do).

What's to stop a team from clinching their division early and then coast into the playoffs to improve their draft position? It's not likely that would happen, but there's nothing preventing it.

In the NHL, for example, draft spots 1 through 14 are always non-playoff teams, no matter if a few of them are statistically better than a playoff team (i.e. a division winner or out-of-Conference team).

 

[godef]

think about it. the Pats played a harder schedule, yet ended up with the same record.

Actually, by last years standings upon which this year's schedule was based, this is false...

There were only 4 differences between the Dolphins and Patriots schedules...

1. Pats played at Indy while the Dolphins played at Houston (moderately strong edge in difficulty to Pats).
2. Pats hosted the Steelers while the Dolphins hosted Baltimore (strong edge to Pats).
3. Undefeated Pats hosted 1-15 Dolphins while the 1-15 Dolphins played at undefeated Pats (HUGE edge to Dolphins).
4. Undefeated Pats played at 1-15 Dolphins while the 1-15 Dolphins hosted undefeated Pats (HUGE edge to Dolphins).

So by all measures, the Dolphins easily had the tougher schedule as the season began. You may argue it didn't work out that way in the current season standings, but there is no way that can be predicted and made a factor.

My beef is the way they minimize the results of games against the other conference when in fact this is the most consistently common set of games (they play exactly all the same NFC teams, but not all the exact same AFC teams). Isn't "common opponents" one of the tiebreakers further down the list? And what this ends up doing is rewarding the team that's less likely to win in the Super Bowl because they were more beat up by the other conference. I think the conference emphasis is absurd: these are ALL NFL teams. If you performed better against a stronger conference, this means you also performed worse against a weaker conference, and vice versa.

That said, the Dolphins did outscore us head-to-head. And while the Pats may have seemed to be the better team at season's end (based on the trouncing we did on them in Miami for their most recent lost), the division championship is not so much about who's hot and who's not at the end of the season as it is who who the better team during the overall course of the season, and the truth is, they trounced us worse at the beginning of the season.

So bottom line is, while the Pats were obviously deserving of a playoff spot and I am disappointed that it didn't happen, the Dolphins were also deserving. We merely got the short end of the straw with what amounts to arbitrary rules in determing tiebreakers. It may as well have been a coin flip.

 

[godef]

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.

But this also means you may end up sending a team that had a more difficult time against the other conference to represent your conference in the Super Bowl.

 

[signbabybrady]

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.

Your point would be more valid if we had won our 2 games VS Pitt and Indy but still lost on this tie breaker. It isn't just that they played two "easier games" than us because we played two "tougher games".

 

[signbabybrady]

In 2005 did anyone have a problem with the Patriots making the playoffs with a 10-6 record because they were the AFC East division champs and the Chiefs did not??The Chiefs also had a 10-6 record and defeated the Patriots during the regular season. The Chiefs also had a better conference record than the Pats.

The scenario you chose doesn't compare to this one. We beat the Chiefs that year because we won the Division, this argument is about the tie breaker we lost to Miami and not about the fact an 8-8 team made it when we didn't.

 

[richpats]

Your point would be more valid if we had won our 2 games VS Pitt and Indy but still lost on this tie breaker. It isn't just that they played two "easier games" than us because we played two "tougher games".

My point was that the "easier games" didn't matter. We were 16-0 last year, of course we would get a couple of tougher games. We weren't going to get the scrubs of a division.

 

[signbabybrady]

My point was that the "easier games" didn't matter. We were 16-0 last year, of course we would get a couple of tougher games. We weren't going to get the scrubs of a division.

I am not complaining about the fact the schedule was easier I am complaining that if you set the schedule up in that manor it is than unfair to use it as a tie breaker. IMO the only real argument to this is that any tie breaker can be kind of abitrary, meaning you can probably find fault in the next tie breakers as well. Outside of head to head, division, and common oppenents most are pretty subjective. I think as we get further away this will frustrate me less as I do realize that the NFL is to brutal of a sport to have the tie played out on the field and thus any decision is going to be pretty annoying to the one thats left out.

 

[winged1dur]

What is unfair to me is using one set of tie breakers for playoff spots and a different set of tie breakers for draft order. It seems like the Pats are being punished for the same thing twice.