Blog Entry

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

Posted on: December 25, 2011 4:47 pm
 
Well...we finally made it through another tiebreaker season.  It's been interesting, especially in the AFC West and with all the potential ties at 9-7 in both the AFC and NFC.  I'm putting out Week 17 scenarios a little early since all AFC games are done for week 16 and the NFC is pretty cut and dry now.

Also...you should know that the scenarios below were simplified as two potential scenarios that would come down to Strength of Victory (SOV) tiebreaker are already locked up.  If BAL wins and NE loses, the battle for the #1 seed comes down to SOV as they would be tied in conf record and common opponents.  BAL has already secured the better record among teams they have defeated (SOV) over NE, otherwise we might have had some games with playoff impact that are not directly related to BAL-NE.  The other scenario where SOV may come into play is a 4-team tie at 9-7 between CIN-NYJ-TEN-OAK (needs CIN loss, NYJ win, TEN win, OAK win and DEN win).  CIN would drop out on conf record and NYJ-TEN-OAK don't have enough common opponents so it goes to SOV.  OAK has already secured better Win-Loss-Tied percentage among defeated opponents (assuming scenario above) over TEN and NYJ.

Also....TEN is probably the most interesting scenario to figure out.   If you look at TEN scenarios below, basically they need another team to match up with them and CIN at 9-7 to avoid losing H2H to CIN.  If Jets win...they win that 3-way with NYJ-CIN-TEN on common opponents over NYJ after CIN drops out on conf record.  BUT...they can't have OAK as Wild Card potential at 9-7 as well because in that case CIN drops out and not enough common opponents for NYJ-TEN-OAK and OAK wins that tiebreaker on Strength of Victory.    BUT....if OAK is there as potential WC at 9-7 (both DEN and OAK win), TEN can advance if NYJ loses as then it would be TEN-CIN-OAK and CIN would drop out on conf record and TEN beats OAK on common opponents.  So TEN gets in if they Win and CIN loses and either NYJ wins or OAK wins (and doesn't win division)...BUT NOT BOTH.  Weird.

So, we're left with below:

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF PICTURE (also includes remaining 2 Week 16 games):

NFC

  CLINCHED:    Green Bay Packers -- North Division and first-round bye.
San Francisco 49ers -- West Division.
New Orleans Saints -- wild card spot.
Detroit Lions -- wild card spot.
  ELIMINATED:  Arizona, Carolina, Minnesota, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Seattle, Tampa Bay, Washington.

 GREEN BAY PACKERS
  Green Bay clinches homefield advantage throughout NFC playoffs:
   1) one GB win or tie
   2) SF loss or tie

 SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
  San Francisco clinches a first-round bye:
   1) SF win
   2) SF tie + one NO loss or tie
   3) one NO loss
  San Francisco clinches homefield advantage throughout NFC playoffs:  
   1) SF win + two GB losses

 NEW ORLEANS SAINTS
  New Orleans clinches NFC South Division:
   1) one NO win or tie
   2) one ATL loss or tie
  New Orleans clinches a first-round bye:
   1) two NO wins + SF loss or tie
   2) one NO win + one NO tie + SF loss

 NEW YORK Giants
  NY Giants clinch NFC East Division:
   1) NYG win or tie

 DALLAS Cowboys
  Dallas clinches NFC East Division:
   1) DAL win

 ATLANTA Falcons
  Atlanta clinches NFC South Division:
   1) two ATL wins + two NO losses
  Atlanta clinches a wild card spot:
   1) one ATL win or tie
   2) one CHI loss or tie

 CHICAGO Bears
  Chicago clinches a wild card spot:
   1) two CHI wins + two ATL losses

 AFC

  CLINCHED:    New England Patriots -- East Division and a first-round bye.
Houston Texans -- South Division.
Baltimore Ravens -- wild card spot.
Pittsburgh Steelers -- wild card spot.
  ELIMINATED:  Buffalo, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Miami, Jacksonville, San Diego

 NEW ENGLAND PATRIOTS
  New England clinches homefield advantage throughout AFC playoffs:
   1) NE win or tie
   2) BAL loss or tie + PIT loss or tie

 BALTIMORE RAVENS
  Baltimore clinches AFC North Division and a first-round bye:
   1) BAL win
   2) BAL tie + PIT loss or tie
   3) PIT loss
  Baltimore clinches homefield advantage throughout AFC playoffs:
   1) BAL win + NE loss

 PITTSBURGH STEELERS
  Pittsburgh clinches AFC North Division and a first-round bye:
   1) PIT win + BAL loss or tie
   2) PIT tie + BAL loss
  Pittsburgh clinches homefield advantage throughout AFC playoffs:
   1) PIT win + BAL loss or tie + NE loss

 DENVER Broncos
  Denver clinches AFC West Division:
   1) DEN win
   2) DEN tie + OAK loss or tie
   3) OAK loss

 OAKLAND Raiders
  Oakland clinches AFC West Division:
   1) OAK win + DEN loss or tie
   2) OAK tie + DEN loss
  Oakland clinches a wild card spot:
   1) OAK win + CIN loss + TEN loss or tie
   2) OAK win + CIN loss + NYJ win
 
 CINCINNATI Bengals
  Cincinnati clinches a wild card spot:
   1) CIN win or tie
   2) NYJ loss or tie + OAK loss or tie
   3) NYJ loss or tie + DEN loss or tie
 
 NEW YORK JETS
  NY Jets clinch a wild card spot:
   1) NYJ win + CIN loss + TEN loss or tie + OAK loss or tie
   2) NYJ win + CIN loss + TEN loss or tie + DEN loss or tie

 TENNESSEE Titans
  Tennessee clinches a wild card spot:
   1) TEN win + CIN loss + NYJ win + OAK loss or tie
   2) TEN win + CIN loss + NYJ win + DEN loss or tie
   3) TEN win + CIN loss + NYJ loss or tie + OAK win + DEN win

Comments

Since: Dec 27, 2006
Posted on: December 30, 2011 4:27 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

@nflrules,
Here's one to make you proud.

There is a good chance DET and NYG will face each other next week. These long-standing NFL teams have a long and storied play-off rivalry... NOT
 ... the last time they met in post-season was...



1935!!




Since: Dec 27, 2006
Posted on: December 30, 2011 4:11 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

We all know that NBC will take the  BAL/PIT @ DEN as the late saturday game if the Broncos win the AFCW.
If OAK wins AFCW instead, I would think that NBC would want OAK game, no?

CIN/OAK/TEN and even NYJ @ HOUS just doesn't cut it. It'll be the early game on Sunday.

Any thoughts on the early saturday NBC NFC game? Would NBC even get a choice on this? I'm thinking NBC will only get to grab one game, and let league/FOX decide saturday/sunday NFC game.






Since: Dec 27, 2006
Posted on: December 30, 2011 3:59 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

Thanks brett for the additional outcome. had not considered 5-6 seeding.

There are no 3-4 seeding issues as AFCW and NFCE are locked into the #4 seed.



Since: Dec 18, 2008
Posted on: December 30, 2011 3:11 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

Minor addition:
If Detroit loses at 1:00pm (at Green Bay), then Atlanta can earn the #5 seed by winning their 4pm game on Fox (vs. Tampa Bay). Earning the #5 seed would allow Atlanta to play Dallas or the Giants in the 1st round (instead of San Francisco or New Orleans) and then allow them to host Detroit in the championship game if both teams were to get there.



Since: Dec 18, 2008
Posted on: December 30, 2011 2:54 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

[Agn said]
For one thing, I would be quite sure that teams that lose their first play-in game would not be in contention for wild-card. There would not be two distinct tournaments, the losers of the division championship games would play-off for the wild-cards.
[Matt said]
This has not been the historical position of MLB.  MLB does say that losing a 163rd game (which is considered a regular season game, not a playoff game) does not change the fact that a team was tied after 162 games.  So if there was a team that was tied for first place and the wild card, they have been given the opportunity to win the division, then the loser of that game would still be allowed to play against the team they were tied with for the wildcard.

Matt: my thinking in setting up the Wild Card tournament with all the division losers in the "81-81 all tied" was based on knowledge of the above. However, that statement from MLB very likely was written to explain why the loser of the one game playoff for the division championship, despite now having one extra loss in the standings, is still going to play against a team in another division for the Wild Card spot. Hence, I believe Agn's argument for only including the loser of the division championship games in the Wild Card tournament is a very sound argument. (his argument that MLB would not have time to accommodate a 12 team tournament for the Wild Card.)
[Agn asked]
has MLB even stated that here will be 2 wildcards next season. And have theys said the 2 wc's can come form the same division or not?
The goal is to have the details ironed out in time for the 2013 season. So the idea for it has been approved and they are officially working on the details. Also, the Astros will not move to the American Leauge West until 2013 (When I referenced this move in a previous post, I was under the assumption it was for 2012). I'm 99.9% sure that both Wild Cards can come from the same division, although I don't know of any official statement made regarding this. I can't figure out any way the league could justify, for example, giving the 86 win Angels the 2nd Wild Card over the 90 win Red Sox - don't think fans would like that or think it was fair in any way.



Since: Dec 27, 2006
Posted on: December 30, 2011 1:33 pm
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

Back to football (why not?):

This is what can (or will) be determined by the 1:00 games:

NE CAN lock-up HFA. (It cannot lose HFA until 4:00 games).
PIT and BAL CAN lose HFA (cannot win HFA until 4:00 games)
NYJ and/or TEN WILL be eliminated from the play-offs. (neither can clinch before 4:00 games)
OAK CAN lose any chance at wild-card. (Cannot lock either division or wildcard until 4:00 games)
(in other words there is no 1:00 scenario which keeps all current AFC hopefuls alive until 4:00 games, nor which allows any team to clinch)

SF or NO WILL clinch 1st-round bye

All other AFC issues will be resolved by 4:00 games
No other NFC issues will be resolved by 4:00 games (b-bye FOX)
NFC East will be decided on SNF.



Since: Dec 27, 2006
Posted on: December 30, 2011 9:27 am
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

AGN, I think it might be possible that the baseball-reference link you sent is out of date. I thought the league removed the need for drawing straws within the last two years. I could be wrong. But if I'm right it begs the question of what else is out of date. -Cheers -Jerry


I'm sure it is now out-of-date, but the philosophy will be adhered to, I would think.

There is the matter of equal scheduling, greater inter-league play, and as was pointed out, the second wild-cards.

The fact that now there can be "two of something" may mean they need to change from an qualifying-based system to an elimination-based

That is, when only 1 of 3 (or more) tied teams can make it, the system is geared to "qualify" the single team. When 2 of 3 (or more) teams can make it, the emphasis should shift (even if only for time constraints) to "eliminate" the single team as efficiently as possible.




Since: Dec 27, 2006
Posted on: December 30, 2011 9:19 am
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

So if there was a team that was tied for first place and the wild card, they have been given the opportunity to win the division, then the loser of that game would still be allowed to play against the team they were tied with for the wildcard. 
This is True.  MLB does allow for losers to continue. This would make the casefor there being 2 distinct ply-offs for chapmps and for w-c.


I guess when we hash this out it might be good to come up with the 4- and 5-way division ties break for champ first. I think this can be done without regard for other division situations, and then incorporate if other division 2nd place team(s) are ahead, tied, or behind the 2nd place team,

has MLB even stated that here will be 2 wildcards next season. And have theys said the 2 wc's can come form the same division or not?






Since: Dec 21, 2008
Posted on: December 30, 2011 8:03 am
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS

OK, knowing that the MLB discussion is not really germane to this topic, I do think it would be helpful to recognize that the NFL really cannot do what the MLB  does.  Having said that, here are some responses.

 They also take the position that  breaking the division/wil-card tie does not absolutely require a ply-off game. It can be decided on other factors. A team tied for first place does not have an inherent 'right' to play for 1st place. 
It may be worth noting that this changing now that the wildcard is a substantially different playoff spot than a division winner (with two wild card teams and a one-game playoff).  There is now a one game playoff to determine division winner and wildcard winner.

For one thing, I would be quite sure that teams that lose their first play-in game would not be in contention for wild-card. There would not be two distinct tournaments, the losers of the division championship games would play-off for the wild-cards.
This has not been the historical position of MLB.  MLB does say that losing a 163rd game (which is considered a regular season game, not a playoff game) does not change the fact that a team was tied after 162 games.  So if there was a team that was tied for first place and the wild card, they have been given the opportunity to win the division, then the loser of that game would still be allowed to play against the team they were tied with for the wildcard.  

Of course the NFL does not have the opportunity to play extra games.  So, we can only look to their process of breaking ties (for home field in that one game playoff).  Which before 2009 was merely done by a series of coin flips, but is now determined by head to head (if HTH is tied, they then go to coin flip).



Since: Dec 18, 2008
Posted on: December 30, 2011 7:23 am
 

WEEK 17 PLAYOFF SCENARIOS


They could determine in a 3-way where 2 will qulaify , although I too could not parse this from the explanatory text, that once they rank the teams, the bottom 2 play-off and that is it.
My initial thoughts on the MLB "3-way tie for 2 playoff spots" were centered around a perceived unwillingness to award a playoff spot to a team by tiebreakers alone (without requiring a team to win a one-game playoff). Although, I admit that your reasoning for the proposed procedure (above) is as sound as any.



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