Explain this to me (1 Viewer)

[Ghost Rider]

The Chiefs and Broncos both ended up 9-7. The Chiefs had a better division record. The Broncos had a better conference record. The division record was used as the tiebreaker. Thus, KC made the playoffs and got the second wild card spot.

However, had the Jags beaten the Chiefs, the Broncos and Jags would have been 9-7. The Broncos would have had a better conference record. That is the tiebreaker that would have been used. Denver would have made it.

Does that strike anyone else as rather dumb? Shouldn't conference record be the first tiebreaker used in any scenario between two teams, rather than division record, unless it is to decide a division winner? It just seems stupid to me that KC is going over Denver when the Broncos had a better conference record.

I should point out, too, that I am aware that the Broncos have no one to blame but themselves for losing at home to SF yesterday.

 

[Despyzer]

Shouldn't conference record be the first tiebreaker used in any scenario between two teams, rather than division record, unless it is to decide a division winner?

Why should conference records hold more weight than division records? Either choice seems rather arbitrary, but they have to have some means of breaking ties.

 

[gildawg]

Would it make sense to have a team higher in the standings in the division but miss the playoffs?

 

[DropKick]

Perhaps the rational behind it is that divisional standings come first. For example, suppose these two teams were division leaders rather than second and third. Once head to head doesn't resolve the "tie", the divison record is used before conference record. So, officially KC was second within the division and beats Denver to the play-off spot.

The division, after all, is a narrow set of common opponents which each team plays twice (home and away). Anyway, that's my guess and it doesn't surprise me the formal league structure comes into play in the tie break precedure.

 

[sirelfman]

The difference in the two scenarios you present because KC and Denver are in the same Division, so it makes sense to compare division records first. Denver and Jax are in different division, so you can't really compare division records.

If your question is more about why use division record before conference record ever, I think it is because with the division record, you are comparing how the teams did against the exact same pool of teams. This would give a better indication of who the better team is. Once you move to conference record, you may be comparing wins and losses against different teams.