Suggested new rules for NFL tiebreakers (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

With the Giants on the verge of losing 6 of their last 8 games and making the playoffs, and with Green Bay needing some combination of a win and a Giants loss, or a Giants win plus a Detroit win and a few other things, the tiebreakers are impossible to figure out. In the AFC, it's not much simpler if one of the Bay Area teams pulls off an upset on the road.

Why don't we just give the tiebreaker to the team that's hottest? As good as the six AFC teams are, I think it's a shame we don't get to see Vince Young and the Titans in the playoffs. Tennessee is probably playing better than any team in the entire league, including San Diego. Now I'm not suggesting a 9 win Titans team should get in over a 10 win team, but why not make the tiebreaker either:

-- most consecutive games won

-- best record in last 6 games

-- best record in last X games (where you keep moving back one week until you're only left with one team; so maybe 3 teams have won 2 straight games, then only two have won 3 straight, and only one has won 4 straight).

H2H is probably too entrenched to be eliminated, but right after that I think this should be the tiebreaker. FWIW, I'd eliminate H2H too, as I don't think a 9-5 team that loses twice to a 7-7 team is worse than the 7-7 team. I'd probably consider them equal.

But strength of victory is a bogus tiebreaker. I'm not sure conference record is much better (it's certainly better because it's not stupid like SOV, but I don't think it's much better). I would be alright with using SOS instead of any of the current tiebreakers, including H2H, but I think the "hot team gets in" tiebreaker would be best.

Advantages

1) The teams that are playing best at the end are the ones that make the playoffs. This seems to benefit everyone, including the fans. There's no real "HOT" team in the NFC, but GB would have to qualify under my system. Regardless, I'd rather see a team like GB in the playoffs than the Giants, because a team that's won 3 straight is probably more likely to play well in the playoffs than a team that's lost 6 of 7. I say a team "like" GB, because the actual Packers team has given up 84 more points than they've allowed. Ugh.

2) Fans of teams that are 4-7 now root for their teams to get hot and make the playoffs, vs. tank for a high draft pick. Think of how much more exciting the Steelers and Bills and Titans' runs would have been if we knew they had the tiebreakers if they could just get there.

3) Interest around the league would increase. Teams would hang around longer. Hot teams would feel a bit more confident about their chances. And we'd probably see some more exciting (at least anticipated) playoff games.

Thoughts?

 

[PatsWillWin]

I don't think it's a good idea to devalue the importance of the first half of the season Vs. the second half. Every game should be worth the same, and I don't think a team should be absolved from having a slow start.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't think it's a good idea to devalue the importance of the first half of the season Vs. the second half. Every game should be worth the same, and I don't think a team should be absolved from having a slow start.

That's the only negative I see, but I don't think it's a big win. Every game is worth the same; these are just tiebreakers. And if I knew two teams were tied after 16 games, and I could only pick one stat to figure out which team had the best chance of winning the next week, I'd much rather know how the team has done lately than the team's strength of victory.

 

[AB in DC]

Some teams play their toughest opponents in October...some teams play their toughest opponents in December...

 

[parasaurolophus]

i also think strength of victory is kind of a weak tiebreaker. I guess i just dont see why a team that plays 8 bad teams and 8 good teams, but loses to half the badt teams and half the good teams and finishes 8-8 is a better team than a team that goes 8-8 plays the same schedule, but beats zero good teams, and all the badt teams. Obviously if the strength of schedule is way skewed i think it matters, but if the strength of schedule is identical, how is strenght of victory better?

Is it better to be very inconsistent and choke against bad teams, but beat good teams sometimes. Or is it better to beat every body you are supposed to, but then lose to the teams that maybe you could have beaten if the ball bounced right?

 

[PatsWillWin]

I don't think it's a good idea to devalue the importance of the first half of the season Vs. the second half. Every game should be worth the same, and I don't think a team should be absolved from having a slow start.

That's the only negative I see, but I don't think it's a big win. Every game is worth the same; these are just tiebreakers. And if I knew two teams were tied after 16 games, and I could only pick one stat to figure out which team had the best chance of winning the next week, I'd much rather know how the team has done lately than the team's strength of victory.

I don't think this should factor into the decision. I think the playoffs should be about earning your playoff spot, not about what your chances are of doing well in the playoffs. And the way you earn your playoff spot is by performaning better than the next team during the regular season.The SOS, as confusing as it may make things, is an indication that the concept of who earned the playoff spot more is what is being pursued. I like it that way; with the emphasis on performance during the entire regular season.

Just my opinion, of course.

 

[stevegamer]

I think it's one of the worst ideas I've seen.

It makes the schedule more crucial as tems who get a schedule that is

hard early/easy late have an edge.

It devalues the first half of the season and essentially makes different games count differently in the standings - last game is worth more than the rest. If you win that, the next one back is also wroth more.

H2H is probably too entrenched to be eliminated, but right after that I think this should be the tiebreaker. FWIW, I'd eliminate H2H too, as I don't think a 9-5 team that loses twice to a 7-7 team is worse than the 7-7 team. I'd probably consider them equal.

But strength of victory is a bogus tiebreaker. I'm not sure conference record is much better (it's certainly better because it's not stupid like SOV, but I don't think it's much better). I would be alright with using SOS instead of any of the current tiebreakers, including H2H, but I think the "hot team gets in" tiebreaker would be best.

You seriously think this is better than division record & conference record as a tiebreaker? And that this should be the #1 tiebreaker?Either you're in the Shark Pool, or ...

 

[NEUPJ]

I'd agree with going with Head to Head, Conference, Division, SOS. (If they're in the same division, then h2h, div, conf, SOS.) SOV is weak.

But the season is 16 games, the last 4, 6, or 8 games don't count anymore than Week 1, 2 or 3. This system doesn't really benefit the "hottest team" only, it also benefits teams with a really weak schedule at the end.

As for the titans being the best team in the league right now, I guess we just see things differently.

 

[videoguy505]

Places too much importance on the last 1-3 games of the season. A good team could start hot, say 8-0, then suffer the misfortune of having 2 star players hurt for 6-8 weeks, but have them ready for the playoffs, should they finish 8-8 I wouldn't say they're any worse than any other 8-8 team that just muddled through as average.

Plus about a hundred other scenarios. Stumbling late shouldn't make you less deserving than some other team you've proved yourself better than on the field in H2H.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Places too much importance on the last 1-3 games of the season. A good team could start hot, say 8-0, then suffer the misfortune of having 2 star players hurt for 6-8 weeks, but have them ready for the playoffs, should they finish 8-8 I wouldn't say they're any worse than any other 8-8 team that just muddled through as average.Plus about a hundred other scenarios. Stumbling late shouldn't make you less deserving than some other team you've proved yourself better than on the field in H2H.

The H2H game could just as easily have occurred when the "hot" and "better" team had the misfortune of having 2 star players hurt for that game, but they'd be ready for the playoffs.BTW, St. Louis beat the Broncos in week 1. I don't think they've proven themselves better than Denver on the field.

 

[Chase Stuart]

It devalues the first half of the season and essentially makes different games count differently in the standings - last game is worth more than the rest.

How is this any different than the current system?It devalues the out of conference games and essentially makes different games count differently in the standings -- conference game is worth more than the rest.

 

[Despyzer]

Alternate rule: Teams must post a winning record to be eligible for the playoffs. If a conference fails to have six eligible teams, the other conference may send its non-qualifying teams with winning records to take those spots.

This year that would mean that NFC would have their own 1 through 5 seeds and the sixth seed would be an AFC team (like Jacksonville maybe).

 

[Chase Stuart]

Alternate rule: Teams must post a winning record to be eligible for the playoffs. If a conference fails to have six eligible teams, the other conference may send its non-qualifying teams with winning records to take those spots.This year that would mean that NFC would have their own 1 through 5 seeds and the sixth seed would be an AFC team (like Jacksonville maybe).

Well yes, this one is long overdue. But baby steps.

 

[NEUPJ]

The H2H game could just as easily have occurred when the "hot" and "better" team had the misfortune of having 2 star players hurt for that game, but they'd be ready for the playoffs.

To go back to the simple answer, "thats why they play the game". Taking tie breakers off the field makes every game less meaningful in the NFL. Teams know what is at stake when they play a conference or divisional rival and makes those games 10x more important and exciting. The Pats lost to the Colts earlier in the season, yet everyone knew going into that game the playoff implications which only enhanced the stage the game was on. Under your system, that game would have been a big game, but not to the level it was. The bigger the games throughout the season, the better for the NFL and the fans. I think the Pats are a much better team than the Colts right now, under your system, the Pats would be ahead, but that's not right. The Colts beat them, they beat them soundly and that matters more when comparing the two teams than their records against other teams.

BTW, St. Louis beat the Broncos in week 1. I don't think they've proven themselves better than Denver on the field.

Cherry-Picking random games that make your point isn't a great way to make your point.

 

[BGP]

Well the ADD crowd would love this idea. I don't like it though.

 

[Chase Stuart]

To go back to the simple answer, "thats why they play the game". Taking tie breakers off the field makes every game less meaningful in the NFL. Teams know what is at stake when they play a conference or divisional rival and makes those games 10x more important and exciting. The Pats lost to the Colts earlier in the season, yet everyone knew going into that game the playoff implications which only enhanced the stage the game was on. Under your system, that game would have been a big game, but not to the level it was. The bigger the games throughout the season, the better for the NFL and the fans.

Everyone knew the playoff implications because that's the system we've designed. It doesn't have to be that way. I agree, though, that the Colts-Pats game would have less interest under my system.

I think the Pats are a much better team than the Colts right now, under your system, the Pats would be ahead, but that's not right. The Colts beat them, they beat them soundly and that matters more when comparing the two teams than their records against other teams.

Why isn't it right? Why does it matter more that they beat them? And it doesn't matter more when comparing the two teams, because we look at records first. If the Pats end up with one more win than the Colts, than how New England did against other teams matters a lot more when comparing the two teams than that one game.

Cherry-Picking random games that make your point isn't a great way to make your point.

It's not cherry-picking random games. You wrote that "Stumbling late shouldn't make you less deserving than some other team you've proved yourself better than on the field in H2H." Either the logic applies, or it doesn't.I think it's pretty clear that you can't prove yourself better than another team with a sample size of one game. There are lots of different possible outcomes in a matchup, and we only see one. I don't think H2H is a very good tiebreaker. Think how many times a team loses its first game against a division opponent but wins the second. My scenario would reward teams for how they finish, and I'm fine with that. It's what college football does, too. A team like the Giants isn't a very attractive playoff team; the Titans are.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Well the ADD crowd would love this idea. I don't like it though.

Why's that BGP?

 

[stevegamer]

It devalues the first half of the season and essentially makes different games count differently in the standings - last game is worth more than the rest.

How is this any different than the current system?It devalues the out of conference games and essentially makes different games count differently in the standings -- conference game is worth more than the rest.

It's different in one major way:You are competing against certain teams for your division title, and your WC berth. So what the current system does is that it makes games withing the AFC more important for determining AFC seeding than a NFC game when teams are tied, just like division games are more important for determining division order.So every year, IN ADVANCE, you know who is important to beat right now, if you troundce your divison foes, you likely win it, or are in good shape for a WC berth if not. This is why the divisons make rivalries.The importance of the different games is because of whom you play, not when. The Jets will have the Patriots as rivals no matter when they play, as they are in the same division.Right nowivison game>Conference game>non-conference game.Chase system:Game 16 > game 15 > game 14 ... game 3 > game 2 > game 1So you want to reduce the import of divisions & conferences while increase the import of who plays whom when? Okay. A team who plays in a town where the baseball team shares a stadium and goes to the World Series is helped, because they can't schedule games early in the season at home - maybe they flip a home & home with an opponent later in the yar who's in divison. Oh wait, that team doesn't want to do that - it hurts them in the tiebreakers.Teams whose home stadia are booked for concerts in advance early in the year have an edge, because they get more late home games.

 

[BGP]

Well the ADD crowd would love this idea. I don't like it though.

Why's that BGP?

I don't like how it diminishes the early part of the season. If anything, the NFL probably should look at ADDING meaning to the last two preseason games by turning them into regular season games. This is the reverse.

 

[Memphis Foundry]

Alternate rule: Teams must post a winning record to be eligible for the playoffs. If a conference fails to have six eligible teams, the other conference may send its non-qualifying teams with winning records to take those spots.This year that would mean that NFC would have their own 1 through 5 seeds and the sixth seed would be an AFC team (like Jacksonville maybe).

This should definitely be a rule.