Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Posted on: January 3, 2012 1:51 am
 

Due to incredible demand (okay...maybe it's just a few vocal individuals)...I'd like to float this blog entry to discuss NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures.

Discussion topics should include:

- Any questions on the Rules and how they are applied in figuring out NFL scenarios prior to the end of the regular season (my job for last 18 seasons)

- Historical Anecdotes on NFL Tiebreaking Rules and past examples of the application of the Rules on Prior seasons

- Potential ways for the NFL to improve the Tiebreaker Rules

- Why can't we all just get along?  (kidding...sort of)

- Anything else that comes up NFL Tiebreaker, Draft order, Scheduling Formula related


Hopefully we'll get our regulars here along with some new voices to chime in...and I will check here as often as possible to answer any questions directed at me.


Let the party begin!!! 

 

Comments

Since: Nov 21, 2011
Posted on: January 11, 2012 5:06 pm
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Jerry, 
After rethinking it, I'm also starting to think that unconsolidated is best. This allows for people to just jump to the proper list without having any qualifications for the steps on the list. Also, I think that instead of "Breaking ties among conference clubs", it should be broken down into "breaking ties among wild card contenders", where Note B is at the beginning as "Note: Before applying for breaking ties for wild card, eliminate all but the highest ranked non-division-champion in each division using the previously determined rankings" or something of the like, and then "breaking ties for seeding division champions", which just says: "use list of wild card tiebreakers". Thus, one does not have to read a separate section of wording or notes to know what tiebreaker to use. 



Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: January 11, 2012 3:28 pm
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Everyone,

Due to popular demand at this blog, I've prepared a second procedure (unconsolidated).
Click on the links below to view both versions

 or   

I think they are both great procedures.  Enjoy!

-Cheers
-Jerry 



Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: January 11, 2012 1:47 pm
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Joe...

In my opinion, they are equally easy.  To say that readers have to "sift through one set of language" is probably an exaggeration of difficulty.  However, it's always difficult to settle matters that boil down to a difference of opinion.  It really doesn't make too much difference to me one way or the other.  I'm just basing my opinion on the research results I've been gathering.  That being said, I do value your opinion as well as Santo's.  Ultimately, whose opinion matters most?  Is it the tie-breaking experts?  or...  Is it the fans and media?  I lean towards the fans and media.  

I've got an idea.  Let's just put it to vote.  Who get's to vote? "The Competition Committee", of course.  Smile

-Cheers
-Jerry 



Since: Aug 30, 2006
Posted on: January 11, 2012 1:10 pm
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Jerry...in looking at this more, I do believe that consolidating divisional and wild card tiebreakers would NOT be a great idea.  My cohort at Elias agrees with me as it just appears easier for fans, etc. to see how "To Break a Tie Within a Division" and "To Break a Tie for a Wild Card Team" with one stop vs. trying to sift through one set of language for that.

Will look at your H2H stuff....



Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: January 11, 2012 11:54 am
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Also, what takes precedence in the case of 2-0-1, 2-0-1, 1-2, 0-3?  Team D being swept (advancing A, B, & C) or Team A & B advancing?
nygsb42, you took the words right out of my mouth.  I agree order does not matter for this case.  Based on that I would simply eliminate C & D right away  Placing the largest number of teams into Group 2 is supported by my tiebreaking axiom.

I agree with Joe that it is too confusing otherwise.
It's true that Joe voiced an opinion about a particular step being potentially confusing.  But I'm pretty sure that he wasn't saying that he is against consolidation of the steps.  Joe also said that he was just guessing that people might be confused.  I really like when the data can speak for itself.  As an example, I can tell you that of the couple dozen people whom I've showed the new procedure to, I have not come across a single person who has been tripped up by those steps containing if-clauses instructing the reader of the applicability of the steps.  Not even those fairly unfamiliar with tiebreaking process have had any confusion.  I think in generally people are pretty good at following directions, (adults anyways), particularily when steps are spelled out in plain English.  However, I think there are always going to be a few idiots out there who don't know how to follow directions.  But those idiots are just as likely to screw up the unconsolidated procedure.  So I have no sympathy or remorse for idiots who can't follow basic directions in plain English that a grade schooler would understand.  Having said that, I haven't seen anything in my test research to suggest that there is need to keep the steps unconsolidated.

-Cheers
-Jerry 



Since: Dec 29, 2009
Posted on: January 11, 2012 11:47 am
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Yes I checked it out.  I might remove (or replace) the word asinine from Slide 32.  Otherwise I didn't have issues with it.  Obviously, you can always add more examples (or contrary examples) but it's probably a good length as is.



Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: January 11, 2012 11:25 am
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Also just wondering if any one has found time to view my presentation?

The link is here --->   

-Cheers
-Jerry 



Since: Jan 8, 2010
Posted on: January 11, 2012 11:21 am
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Vito, I sent you an email relating to a .NET question. If you can find time to respond that would be great. -Cheers -Jerry



Since: Dec 29, 2009
Posted on: January 11, 2012 11:06 am
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Wanted to bring up a new topic, concerning scheduling formula.  This bothers me enough that I would make a change, but I want to see if anyone else agrees.  Concerning divisional schedules, each team has essentially a "sibling" team that plays almost the exact same schedule, even when you break it down home vs. away.  This is currently done alphabetically, with exceptions for the West divisions so no team has to play two west coast road games.

For example, Chicago and Detroit had similar common game schedules this year.  Each played ATL, CAR, KC, & SD at home, and NO, TB, DEN, & OAK on the road.  Green Bay and Minnesota played the exact opposite.  So the NFCN teams shared 8 common opponents, but CHI - DET shared 8 "common locations" (new term) while CHI - GB (and CHI - MIN) shared 0 common locations.

My proposal is to switch the home/away formulas such that you share 4 common locations w/ the sibling division rival, and 2 common locations w/ the other division rivals.  The most obvious drawback is some team may have to play 2 west coast road games.

Here's what the 2011 schedule would look like under this proposal (changes in bold):
  • CHI: ATL, CAR, @NO, @TB, @DEN, KC, @OAK, SD (same as original)
  • DET: ATL, @CAR, NO, @TB, @DEN, @KC, OAK, SD
  • GB: @ATL, CAR, @NO, TB, DEN, @KC, OAK, @SD
  • MIN: @ATL, @CAR, NO, TB, DEN, KC, @OAK, @SD
Probably the schedule would have to rotate so that each team would play the 2-west coast teams on the road (e.g. this year MIN, in 4 years DET, then swap so CHI & GB have the road trip in year 8 and year 12).

Obviously, this would apply to the other 7 divisions as well - I just used NFCN as the example.



Since: Nov 21, 2011
Posted on: January 11, 2012 11:01 am
 

NFL Tiebreaking Rules and Procedures Discussion

Vito, the coin flip was a joke I made, so I didn't argue when it was included, but I definitely agree its unnecessary. Coin flip itself is a hypothetical formality enough, and if we go past that, then we have to account for things such as the representative assigned to flip the coin breaking his arm and being unable to flip it (as likely as the flip on its side...). On a more serious note, in your group sweep 2-0-1 example, either application always results in the same outcome. Either the group sweep eliminates C and D, or D is swept, and then restarting, C is swept. It would be merely a formality to say which to apply first


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