Play Fantasy Use your Fantasy skills to win Cash Prizes. Join or start a league today. Play Now
Blog Entry

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

Posted on: December 28, 2009 5:23 pm
 

I have to say that dealing with the below scenarios last night, particularly DENVER that has 16 possible clinching scenarios if you include ties and 10 without ties to get in, was one of the toughest week 16 follow-up nights in memory.   Having 8 teams within one game of each other at either 8-7 or 7-8 and 7 of those teams still have a chance to clinch a Wild Card spot has certainly created some chaos among teams, media and fans.

It should be noted that although you will see current playoff standings listing DEN and Jets as Wild Card teams ( http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/standi
ngs/playoffrace
 ), only the JETS and Ravens actually control their own destiny to capture playoff spots.  This is because the Playoff Race page is listing results "If the Season Ended Today".  As it stands among the 8-7 teams, the tiebreaker between NYJ, BAL, HOU and DEN, which becomes NYJ, BAL and DEN after HOU drops out on conf record, they do not have enough games (need four) to qualify among their common opponents (NE, CIN, IND, OAK) as BAL has not played OAK yet and NYJ has not played CIN.  Detail below.  If they each win, you'll see below that NYJ would have the common opponents tiebreaker advantage at 4-1 vs. 3-2 for DEN and 1-4 for BAL.   After that...it would revert to BAL, HOU and DEN and HOU would drop out again on conf record and BAL beat DEN H2H to claim the #6 seed.

Common opponents for BAL DEN NYJ
BAL record against NE: 0/1 (0.000) (games left 0)
BAL record against CIN: 0/2 (0.000) (games left 0)
BAL record against IND: 0/1 (0.000) (games left 0)
BAL record against OAK: 0/0 (NaN) (games left 1)
BAL overall record: 0/4 (0.000)

DEN record against NE: 1/0 (1.000) (games left 0)
DEN record against CIN: 1/0 (1.000) (games left 0)
DEN record against IND: 0/1 (0.000) (games left 0)
DEN record against OAK: 1/1 (0.500) (games left 0)
DEN overall record: 3/2 (0.600)

NYJ record against NE: 1/1 (0.500) (games left 0)
NYJ record against CIN: 0/0 (NaN) (games left 1)
NYJ record against IND: 1/0 (1.000) (games left 0)
NYJ record against OAK: 1/0 (1.000) (games left 0)
NYJ overall record: 3/1 (0.750)


AFC

  CLINCHED:   Indianapolis -- South division and homefield advantage.
              San Diego -- West division and first-round bye.
              Cincinnati -- North division.
              New England -- East division.
  ELIMINATED: Cleveland, Kansas City, Oakland, Buffalo, Tennessee.

Baltimore, the Jets, Denver, Pittsburgh and Houston can also make the playoffs
if they tie this week with various other things happening. Jacksonville and
Miami cannot make the playoffs with a tie.

 BALTIMORE RAVENS
  Baltimore clinches a playoff spot:
   1) BAL win

 NEW YORK JETS
  NY Jets clinch a playoff spot:
   1) NYJ win

 DENVER Broncos
  Denver clinches a playoff spot:
   1) DEN win + NYJ loss or tie + BAL loss or tie
   2) DEN win + NYJ loss or tie + PIT loss or tie
   3) DEN win + NYJ loss or tie + HOU win
   4) DEN win + BAL loss or tie + PIT loss or tie
   5) DEN win + BAL loss or tie + HOU win
   6) PIT loss + BAL loss + HOU loss + JAC loss
   7) PIT loss + BAL loss + HOU loss + NYJ loss
   8) PIT loss + BAL loss + JAC loss + NYJ loss
   9) PIT loss + HOU loss + JAC loss + NYJ loss
  10) MIA loss or tie + NYJ loss + BAL loss + HOU loss + JAC loss or tie

 PITTSBURGH Steelers
  Pittsburgh clinches a playoff spot:
   1) PIT win + HOU loss or tie + NYJ loss or tie
   2) PIT win + HOU loss or tie + BAL loss or tie
   3) PIT win + NYJ loss or tie + BAL loss or tie + DEN loss or tie

 HOUSTON Texans
  Houston clinches a playoff spot:
   1) HOU win + NYJ loss or tie + BAL loss or tie
   2) HOU win + NYJ loss or tie + DEN loss or tie
   3) HOU win + BAL loss or tie + DEN loss or tie

 JACKSONVILLE Jaguars
  Jacksonville clinches a playoff spot:
   1) JAC win + PIT loss + BAL loss + DEN loss + HOU loss
   2) JAC win + PIT loss + BAL loss + DEN loss + NYJ loss
   3) JAC win + PIT loss + BAL loss + HOU loss + NYJ loss
   4) JAC win + PIT loss + DEN loss + HOU loss + NYJ loss 
   5) JAC win + NYJ loss + DEN loss + HOU loss + BAL loss

 MIAMI Dolphins
  Miami clinches a playoff spot:
   1) MIA win + NYJ loss + BAL loss + HOU loss + JAC loss or tie

Comments

Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: August 21, 2010 2:42 pm
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

Hopefully, there won't be as much confusion over tie-breakers and seeding for the 2010 season.  I started a website to help sort out this confusion.  It's been a fun project.  Take a gander at as the 2010 NFL season progresses.  I'll post the links below.  Hopefully CBS sports won't strip out the links.  But if they do the website name is PLAYOFFRACE and it's a dot com.  You can also get there by going to NFLPLAYOFFRACE.  That too is a dot com. 

http://www.playoffrace.com
or
http://www.nflplayoffrace.com


-Database224



Since: Dec 18, 2008
Posted on: January 13, 2010 10:13 am
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

If my method is wrong, then any other proposed process should be able to explain why the NFL's tie-breaking process talks about situations involving more than three teams in the same division in the wild-card tie-breaking process.  If division winners are truly not supposed to be included in the wild card tie-breaking process then there could never be more than three teams in the same division involved in the wild card tie-breaking process and they would therefore never have written that statement.
This part of the rule was written when there were 5 teams in each division.

In response to your question...
As far as I can tell, the division winners are named first by using the division tie-breakers. Then these two things occur separately:
1) Wild Card tiebreakers are used to break ties amongst division winners (only division winners included in this process).
2) Wild Card tiebreakers are used to break ties amongst non-division winners (only non-division winners included in this process).

There are many things that are confusing about the procedure. Some things are not explained at all; others are explained in a way that leaves some detail open to interpretation.  For a thorough discussion on a lot of these matters, check out Joe's Tiebreaking Procedure blog.


-Brett
 





Since: Dec 27, 2006
Posted on: January 11, 2010 1:59 pm
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

 assume that when they say eliminate all but the highest-ranked clubs in each division they mean exactly that.  database,

The ydo maen highest ranked: highest ranked non-division winner.



Since: Nov 20, 2007
Posted on: January 10, 2010 1:08 pm
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

wayne 1942 says:

I hope that they keep the current 8 year schedule rotation as it is. It is a very good one.They can change it if  teams are added or dropped. In additional to Buffalo never playing another team. It was also changed Because the Packers were scheduled several years in a row to play Dallas, but they also had to play in Dallas.I hope the NFL keeps the current 16 game schedule too and the current 8 year rotation.  One reason I say keep the 16 game season over an 18 game season, is because it is my opinion that with 2 more added games, there's much more of a chance of spread in wins/losses between divisional opponents and thus a greater chance of teams clinching playoff spots earlier and more teams having less to play for as the season moves on.  Baseball is a good example of too many games in a season and until they added WC teams in 1994, the pennant races weren't usually all that compelling.  And what a run just now by Ray Rice!!!!!!  Wow..........I am sure the Pats wish that they didn't defer the return now.  LOL    Surprised



Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: January 9, 2010 10:18 pm
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

"When the first Wild-Card team has been identified, the procedure is repeated to name the second Wild-Card, i.e., eliminate all but the highest-ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. In situations where three or more teams from the same division are involved in the procedure, the original seeding of the teams remains the same for subsequent applications of the tie breaker if the top-ranked team in that division qualifies for a Wild-Card berth."  

I assume that when they say eliminate all but the highest-ranked clubs in each division they mean exactly that.  So if every team in the conference finished with an 8-8 W/L record then the first step in determining the wild card teams using the wild-card tie-breaker would be to eliminate all but the highest-ranked team in each division before proceeding to step 2.  In a season where every team finishes with an 8-8 record the collection of teams that would advance to step 2. of the wildcard tie-breaker would be by definition the four division winners.  Once it was determined which of these four teams wins the wild-card tie-breaker, you would necessarily have to repeat the process again excluding this winning team because they would have already secured one of the top four seeds (presumably the top seed, but this assumption hinges on whether the tied non-division winners are supposed to be included in determining the division winners' seeding). The next time through the Wild card tie-breaking procedure, there will be the three remaining division winners and one non-division winners which advance to step 2 of the wild-card tie-breaking process.  This process is continually repeated until a non-division winner wins the wild-card tiebreaker.  Then the entire process starts over to name the second wild card team.  This is my best understanding of how the tie-breaking process works but if someone can please verify this would help me a lot.  

Lastly, the NFL tie-breaking procedures don't describe in detail what process is to be used other than to apply the wild-card tie-breaker to break ties amongst the division winners.  What isn't clear is whether you are supposed to include non division winners that have the same tied record as the division-winners.  IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE whether they are used in the tie-breaking process or not.  So, since it simply says use the Wild-Card Tiebreaker, I'm left to assume that you would include all conference teams in the wild car tie-breaker when determining the seeding of tied division winners.  Should a non-division winner win the wild card tie-breaker, you'd simply reapply the wild-card tiebreaker excluding that team non-division team that won the previous application of the wild-card tie-breaker.  This entire process would be repeated as many times as required until all four division winners have been seeded.   

If someone believes this process to be in error, then please provide some rationale as to why this method is wrong and please justify it why it is wrong.  If my method is wrong, then any other proposed process should be able to explain why the NFL's tie-breaking process talks about situations involving more than three teams in the same division in the wild-card tie-breaking process.  If division winners are truly not supposed to be included in the wild card tie-breaking process then there could never be more than three teams in the same division involved in the wild card tie-breaking process and they would therefore never have written that statement.
Thanks for any help or confirmation of my understanding of the tie-breaking process.
-database224



Since: Dec 17, 2008
Posted on: January 9, 2010 12:16 am
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

Noob:

NOTE: Don't forget the rest of the tiebreakers: overall SOS, Conference Rank in scoring, Overall Rank in scoring, Net Points in Conference or division, net touchdowns. Also maybe they should add net points in common games.


NO ONE wants to see a coin flip.

Even though it is very rare to get to the tiebreakers after SOV.

I also agree with your idea of placing common games before conference record in both divisional and wild card selection



Since: Dec 26, 2009
Posted on: January 8, 2010 6:28 pm
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

Note:

I have put common games in front of conference record as within the discussed 18 games schedule playing 2 full divisions,
a) the common games record becomes more conclusive than today with then 8 games vs. 8 opponents, instead of the current usually 5 games vs 4 opponents;
b) because such order eliminates the possible advantage a team may have on the then 14 games conference record just by playing an easier 6 divisional games, as that has already propelled their overall record and I don't like to give them an edge twice on the very same easier divisional games.



Since: Dec 26, 2009
Posted on: January 8, 2010 6:15 pm
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

I have Changed my view about Matt's and Nobb's idea of playing 2 full divisions:
Nice. Including Brett, that makes 4 of us. Now all we need to do is getting the Commissioner on board. *g

Would-be-tiebreakers within a division.

1. H2H
2. Division record
3. Conference record
4. SoV

There would be no need for a common games tiebreaker within a division any more. If teams are tied in overall record, in H2H, and in division record, then all remaining games against teams not involved in the tie would automatically be common games and would therefore automatically result in a tied common games record.

Would-be-tiebreakers within a conference.


1. H2H
2. Common Games
3. Conference Record
4. SoV

If two teams are tied, then in every 2 out of 3 possible ties, there is a H2H. Problem solved. In the 3rd case, there would be exactly 8 common games as both teams played every opponent of both other the divisions. Let's for example assume, the tied teams are NYJ and BAL. Either they played H2H, which would happen in every 2 out of 3 seasons if playing 2 full divisions. Or both must automatically have played against every team from the AFC West and the AFC South.

If three teams are tied, there will always be exactly one team that played both other teams. They is a somewhat 50% chance, that this team has swept the series or that this team was swept. In case the team has won both, they win the wildcard, obviously. In case the team lost both, they are eliminated, with the two remaining teams going to Common Games as there is no H2H. In the remaning somewhat 50% other percent, the tie is broken by Conference Record, as there are no Common Games, minimum of 4, among three tied teams anymore.

If four teams are tied, no H2H sweep is possible. Also no Common Games, so it goes directly to Conference Record. But under the current format, there is hardly ever any H2H sweep nor 4way Common Games nowadays. So basically no change compared to todays tiebreakers.

So the tiebreakers could also be pointed out as follows:

Would-be-tiebreakers within a conference.

If two teams are tied:
1. H2H
2. Common Games
3. Conference Record
4. SoV

If three teams are tied:
1. H2H sweep (win or loss)
2. Conference Record
3. SoV

If four teams are tied:
1. Conference Record
2. SoV







Since: Dec 17, 2008
Posted on: January 8, 2010 1:23 am
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

Brett: and others

I have Changed my view about Matt's and Nobb's idea of playing 2 full divisions:

Legend:
PLAY: Play all teams in division
N/A:   NO Games Played

      
;     &nbs
p;     EAST    NORTH   SOUTH    WEST
East     &
nbsp;     
PLAY    PLAY      PLAY     &
nbsp;  N/A
North     
     PLAY&
nbsp;   PLAY &n
bsp;     N
/A     &nb
sp;   PLAY
South     
    PLAY &
nbsp;    N/A     &n
bsp; PLAY     &
nbsp; PLAY
West     &
nbsp;     N/A      PLAY     &
nbsp;PLAY    &n
bsp;  PLAY

NOTE:  ERROR when team from East plays team from North. That is not a common game. Therefore, It should be 9 Common Games instead of 8. ERROR That it should be 6 Divisional Games not for for a Total of 9 Games

I Have tried this example of 1 team tied with division they did not play'

1 Team from East vs 1 Team from West

NOTE:  both the East and West have both played the North and South.  8 Common Games

Therefore: That Only 2 Teams tied for a Wild Card will  have 9 Common Games with a division they have played against all teams in that division. Also ONLY 2 Teams tied for Wild Card will  have 8 Common Games with division they have not played




Since: Dec 17, 2008
Posted on: January 8, 2010 12:23 am
 

WEEK 17 AFC SCENARIOS - Chaos continues

Jeff:
   
I hope that they keep the current 8 year schedule rotation as it is. It is a very good one.They can change it if  teams are added or dropped. In additional to Buffalo never playing another team. It was also changed Because the Packers were scheduled several years in a row to play Dallas, but they also had to play in Dallas.

Brett:
You interpreted it correctly that the 1st place club play either(2nd,3rd, or 4th place club) also plays other 1st place clubs. I wanted the pairings because it increases the number of common games between opponents. I didn't want the 1st place club, who are playing other 1st place clubs to play a 2nd place club in one division and in the other division play a 3rd place club. 

So far, I disagree with Matt's and Noob's idea of playing all teams in a 2nd division. There will be NO 3-way or even 4 way H2H games between the tied teams. I have NOT yet throughly studied what the common game situation will be. In another year the divisions will be different

See  Table below:
Legend:
N/A   No games played
Play  Team play all teams in another division(or same division)

      
;     &nbs
p;   EAST    NORTH   SOUTH  WEST
East     &
nbsp;   PLAY &n
bsp;  PLAY     &
nbsp;PLAY    &n
bsp; N/A
North     
  PLAY   &
nbsp; PLAY      N/A     &n
bsp; PLAY
South     
 PLAY    &
nbsp; N/A     &n
bsp; PLAY     P
LAY
West     &
nbsp;  N/A  &nb
sp;    PLAY     PLAY     PLAY

Divisional ties:   NOTE: Increase in common games

2 teams 16 games   4 divisional, 8(from the 2 divisions they played, NONE from division they don't play, 4 inter conference
3 teams 14 games
4 Teams 12 games

Wild Card:  Note: Decrease in common games from 9 and 11 games

2 teams: i.e. 1 from east division and 1 from north division

Total Games: 8     &nbs
p; 

Eastern Team:  4 divisional  4 with North teams, None vs South Teams(North didn't play against South, and None vs West Teams(East didný play West Teams)
Northern team: 4 divisional &
nbsp;4 with East teams, None vs South Teams(North didn't play against South, and None vs West Teams(East didn't play West Teams) 




The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com