Road to the One Seed Stops at Number Two
- Thread starter bakahump
- Start date
- Status
I just did it again and got the same result. They say NWE beats DEN by better WIN % in conference games. Seems to be ignoring head-to-head. May be a glitch.
Weird. Just checked NFL.com and I think you might be right: the Broncos would be the #1 there.
1) under other tiebreakers, it says: "To determine home-field priority among division-titlists, apply Wild Card tie-breakers."
2) under Wild-Card Tie-breaker, 3 or more teams, it says "2. Head-to-head sweep. (Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others.)"
I think this is one situation where the ESPN machine is wrong. Is that possible?
http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakingprocedures
Edit: and agreed, NYT says we're the #2 as well. I think the ESPN machine is just wrong.
Head to head is bypassed in a three way tie. First tie breaker is common record and pats didn't play cincy. Next tie breaker is conference record.
That's what I thought but doesn't the link I posted above say otherwise?
Legitimately confused.
It says, as #3 under Other Tie Breaking Procedures - "to determine home field priority amongst division titleists, apply Wild Card tiebreakers".
#1 there doesn't apply since they can't be in the division.
#2 doesn't apply since they didn't all play each other and no one swept.
#3 is conference record.
If all three end up tied, pats win.
No, Denver has "defeated each of the others", so they'd win the three-way tie. Cin having played NE at some point wouldn't affect that fact one way or another, and isn't required by the rule in any event.
#2 doesn't require that they all play each other. All it says is "Applicable only if one club has defeated each of the others or if one club has lost to each of the others." Denver has defeated each of the other two (CIN and NE) in this scenario so Denver gets the tie breaker.
Thats not how I interpret it, but have at it. It can also be read as merely pointing out that if no one swept the other two, all three would be 1-1 against each other and it is thus not applicable. I'm not sure how you have a three way tie breaker with no common denominator being the primary decider.
But Denver HAS swept the other two. And if Cin played NE next week, that would continue to be the case regardless of the outcome between those two.
Websites for NFL, CBS Sports and Fox Sports all say the same thing: If the Pats lose and Denver wins, Denver gets the No. 1 seed. There's no mention of the Bengals game mattering at all. That essentially backs up the notion that since Denver has beaten both, they get the No. 1 in case of a three-way tie
The common denominator is Denver: everyone has played a Denver game and Denver swept the other two. How would a CIN-NE game change anything? If that game had existed, the best NE or CIN could do is be 1-1.
It's not been a very common tiebreaker, so the best example of a three-way tie-breaker broken on head-to-head record I can find is from 1983, which admittedly predates the current tie-breaker rules (in 1983, head-to-head was first tie-breaker, not division tiebreakers) but illustrates that the NFL does allow tie-breakers without 3 common games. In 1983, Cleveland was eliminated from AFC wild card contention in a three-way tie because of head-to-head record, with Seattle and Denver were 2–1 and Browns 0-2.
(Edit: sorry realized that's not a very good example since all 3 teams did play each other - will find a better one.)
Have I stated that I don't understand what you're saying? I just disagree with it. ESPN agrees with me. Nyt agrees with you.
Tie breakers are always thrown up in the air by results of games that change the slot of tiebreaker you use. There were implications tonight with Indy and Houston for the division, tho neither are directly tied to the game.
You're choosing to focus on the words of "if one team has swept or lost all games". I'm choosing to focus on "head to head". They have not all played head to head. There's likely little chance we find out, but it can be read in more than one way until someone clears it up.
NFL, Fox, CBS (not to mention every commentator) seem to agree with us too. Have you heard anyone mention this (not hugely unlikely) scenario playing out with the Pats taking the one seed? I'm actually curious (though highly skeptical).
You could have stopped with it not being a very good example when you typed that it predates the current tie breaker rules. I'm not saying I'm 100% unequivocally correct. I'm saying that it's not exactly precise wording and I don't find pedantic arguments all that relevant when dealing with an NFL rule book. Of course, I'm using logic, so that's probably thrown out the window with the NFL as well...
Logically, if they all had played head-to-head, Denver would be the winner of that 3-way. It would be weird to not consider Denver the winner of the tie when they did beat the other two head-to-head.
Anyway, Yahoo's playoff machine says Denver wins the 3-way, and CBS Sports specifically says Denver wins the #1 seed at 12-4 based on head-to-head:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25428648/sorting-the-sunday-pile-your-nfl-playoff-picture-need-to-know-is-all-right-here
Also, based on Occam's Razor, the easiest explanation for many things in dispute is that ESPN got it wrong.
Nothing to cite since I don't really go read those sites much anymore, at least for NFL stuff. I do recall it being mentioned when the pats lost to Denver (the hypothetical of all three being tied), but I really can't source that so I won't claim it as gospel.
I'm reading the rule differently than you are. You're as welcome to be as skeptical as my interpretation as I am of yours, or of trusting a beat writer to get it correct an hour after the game. Unless it actually comes to pass or an NFL official speaks to it, sorry, you're not going to change my opinion, as stubborn or incorrect as you may view it. It makes no sense to me that the primary tie breaker in almost any iteration is head to head but if it's three or more, you don't all have had to play each other - and YES, I realize it wouldn't make a difference - but the tie breaker steps are pretty convoluted to begin with, as witnessed by the fact this is even a conversation.
I'm perfectly willing to consider its poor wording on the NFLs part. But it could be poor wording on either end of that.
And logically a tie would break over common opponents, minimum of four, before it did for conference record, wouldn't it?. But that's not the case is it?
Considering ESPN is basically an outlet of the NFL and uses Elias, I'm not sure your final conclusion wins the day on something like this.
Anyway I'm done here. As stated - I could very well be wrong, but I'm not exactly seeing anything definitive either way.
If all three win next week, the ESPN machine shows NE, Cin and then Den, 1-2-3, respectively (Den would obviously hold the two-way tie breaker over Cin).
Proof that it's majorly frizzed out at the moment.
Proof that it's majorly frizzed out at the moment.
I really don't think it's that ambiguous: the only thing that suggests that NE wins the three-way is ESPN's Playoff Machine. I doubt an NFL official will ever speak to the actual tie-break rules - why would they if all the reports agree that Denver wins the three-way and there's no ambiguity? NFL.com's own playoff scenarios generator has the Broncos winning the #1 seed in the event of a 3-way-tie between Denver, NE, and CIN. Even ESPN.com's own view of playoff scenarios says that Denver clinches homefield if it wins and NE loses, suggesting that the fact that the Bengals can have the same 12-4 record is irrelevant. I was being facetious about Occam's Razor and ESPN earlier, but it really does seem like when every beat reporter and every other playoff seedings generator agrees on one thing and ESPN's Playoff Machine disagrees, the simplest explanation is that the machine was coded wrongly.
Also, while I can't seem to find a case of the 3-way-tie head-to-head tiebreaker actually coming into play in previous seasons, that tiebreaker was used to determine the playoff scenarios prior to week 17 in previous seasons. Here's an example based on last year's playoff scenarios: the Colts were 10-5, Steelers 10-5, and Broncos 11-4 by week 16 in 2014. If the Colts and Steelers had won and Broncos had lost in week 17, they would all be 11-5 with identical 9-3 conference records and all have the 2nd best record in the conference. And yet Colts.com, USA Today, and other sources stated definitively that the Colts could not clinch a bye in week 17 and were locked into the 4 seed (barring a tie between the Bengals and Steelers). Why? Even though those articles don't say it, you can reconstruct the logic and see that it was because Colts lost the head-to-head sweep and were 0-2 against Pittsburgh and Denver, even though the Steelers and Broncos never played each other. (Not enough common games - I think the Browns were their only common opponent.)
In the playoff machine, if you set "home team wins", Pats get the 1 seed based on:
AFC Tiebreakers
- 1st Seed - New England
AFC East Champ
Wins tie break over Cincinnati based on strength of victory. Wins tie break over Denver based on best win percentage in conference games. - 2nd Seed - Cincinnati
AFC North Champ
Wins tie break over Denver based on best win percentage in conference games.
I just played with the playoff machine, it is a bug. If you start switching some random NFC games back and forth you see Denver pop into the 1 seed.
edit:
edit:
This scenario has not changed since last week. If the Pats lose to Miami, Den needs to lose for the Pats to get the one seed.
There are 9 combos of results from the Pats and Broncos games (including the extremely rare ties). In only one of those 9, -- Pats lose, Denver wins, -- do the Patriots end up as #2 seed. In all others, they end up as #1.
Well you really only have to look at scenarios where NE loses since any other outcome for them automatically gives them the #1 seed. If they take care of business (which they better) nothing else matters. Of course the scenario you cite is the most likely scenario to occur if NE does in fact lose. Especially since DEN will likely know by kickoff the outcome of the NE game and are facing a SD team that has already packed it in.
The NFL sent out its official press release on playoff scenarios: https://nflcommunications.com/Pages/Playoff-Scenarios---Week-17.aspx
The relevant part is this:
The relevant part is this:
So there it is, official confirmation that the ESPN Playoff Machine is wrong.
I agree that he was bound to be the starter one way or another.
I am torn between wanting the Steelers out and the prospect of Rexy pulling it together enough to knock the Jets out.
More than likely, we're talking the 6th seed ... so, the team that likely goes to Cincinnati. If you suspect one of those teams can beat the Bengals, that seems like the team to root for
Last edited:
...which probably puts the Chiefs in Foxboro instead. I'm not sure that's an improvement over Pittsburgh or the Jets...
Now that Pitt is the 6 seed, do we even WANT the #1 seed? Because Pitt will beat Denver at Mile High.
Why do people seemingly prefer Pittsburgh in the AFC Championship Game over playing them in the divisional round?
I think the Pats need a tuneup game in either the Bengals, Texans or Chiefs before they face a true offense like the Steelers.
Don't get it either. If Pittsburgh really is the team to beat for NE, they will have to beat them at some point.
Losing the 1 seed may not turn out to be bad, but let's not pretend like it is the preferred option.
My point is, Pitt will likely wind up playing IN Denver, which I prefer bc they have a good shot at beating Denver so we would still have HFA throughout.
- Status