NFL - Wildcard Weekend!

Stadler


^^^ I'm not trying to be a smartass, though it'll come off that way, but yeah, at the end of the game, Denver scored more than Pittsburgh.  They deserved it. 

That's not the point though.  The point is that the Steelers had a MUCH better regular season than the Broncos and they are technically punished by having to play on the road.  I honestly can see both sides though b/c you can always say that if the Steelers are the better team then they should win regardless of where the game is.  But I just think it's unfair that a 12-4 team has to go on the road to play an 8-8 team.  And I'm glad the Broncos won as I don't like the Steelers at all!

One man's 8-8 CAN BE better than the next man's 9-7. 
 
If you want to go by record, then I want to correct for strength of schedule. 
 
Yes, I understand that doesn't have much context this year since Pitt's record was clearly better in every regard to Den's.

Even with strength of schedule, I agree that the Stealers would get the nod...but not by much.  
 
They were never going to make it to the big show anyway...they just aren't that good.  And they *certainly* are nowhere near as good as their 12-4 record might suggest.    If they had been in the NFC North, they wouldn't have even made it to the playoffs in the first place...and I'm not even sure they would have beaten the Bears for 3rd place.
 
EDIT: just checked.   The Stealers schedule strength was rated 27th in the league.  Combined winning percentage of all opponents was .473   The Broncoes schedule was tied for 3rd hardest....opponent winning percentage .520.
 
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

You can see it for yourself here.
 
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/35095/2011-strength-of-schedule

Spunky


One man's 8-8 CAN BE better than the next man's 9-7. 

If you want to go by record, then I want to correct for strength of schedule. 

And this is where the problem would occur b/c yes there certainly cases where an 8-8 team could be better than a 9-7 team.  So where would you draw the line?  That's why in theory it sounds great to seed based soley on record but there are drawbacks to that as well. 

EDIT: just checked.   The Stealers schedule strength was rated 27th in the league.  Combined winning percentage of all opponents was .473   The Broncoes schedule was tied for 3rd hardest....opponent winning percentage .520.

 
"A look at the most difficult schedules in 2011 (based on opponents' 2010 record)."
 
Not really a true indicator in my opinion.  Should use 2011 records to gauge.
 

And this is where the problem would occur b/c yes there certainly cases where an 8-8 team could be better than a 9-7 team.  So where would you draw the line?  That's why in theory it sounds great to seed based soley on record but there are drawbacks to that as well.

 
Which of course was my point.  That's why division winner works for me.  It puts a concrete goal in place.  No BCS type math involved.  None of that.   Win the division, get the home game.

Spunky

EDIT: just checked.   The Stealers schedule strength was rated 27th in the league.  Combined winning percentage of all opponents was .473   The Broncoes schedule was tied for 3rd hardest....opponent winning percentage .520.

"A look at the most difficult schedules in 2011 (based on opponents' 2010 record)."

Not really a true indicator in my opinion.  Should use 2011 records to gauge.

 
2010 Record?  Completely irrelevant.  The Niners sucked last year, and now they're the No. 2 seed.  That's a dumb way to calculate that.

Spunky


Which of course was my point.  That's why division winner works for me.  It puts a concrete goal in place.  No BCS type math involved.  None of that.   Win the division, get the home game.

And the added bonus that the division winner will get some benefit for being in a tough division. 

Numbers I just crunched based on the 2011 schedule....
 
Pitt opponent combined record: 126-130 49.2%
Broncos: 133-123 52%

jammindude


Even with strength of schedule, I agree that the Stealers would get the nod...but not by much.  

They were never going to make it to the big show anyway...they just aren't that good.  And they *certainly* are nowhere near as good as their 12-4 record might suggest.    If they had been in the NFC North, they wouldn't have even made it to the playoffs in the first place...and I'm not even sure they would have beaten the Bears for 3rd place.

EDIT: just checked.   The Stealers schedule strength was rated 27th in the league.  Combined winning percentage of all opponents was .473   The Broncoes schedule was tied for 3rd hardest....opponent winning percentage .520.

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

 
I recall the Colts at the start of the season should have got the W against the Stillers. A side note, more evidence the Colts situation is so weird, what are the odds?
Peyton goes down in a unusual circumstance, and there are a few games like this Stealers example that could have gone the other way, making the notion of trying to "suck for luck" completely moot, so for it to go this way for the Colts is "Lucky". Hey we rock out the horse shoe! 
 
 

jammindude


Numbers I just crunched based on the 2011 schedule....

Pitt opponent combined record: 126-130 49.2%
Broncos: 133-123 52%

So, a difference negligible enough to ignore when put against the four game difference in their records.

2010 Record?  Completely irrelevant.  The Niners sucked last year, and now they're the No. 2 seed.  That's a dumb way to calculate that.

 
Yeah, you have to calculate after the year.  But the date on that webpage is Jan 2011.  So, just an old page from last year.  I expect jammin just didn't catch it.  No biggie.
 

So, a difference negligible enough to ignore when put against the four game difference in their records.

 
I'm not talking about Stoolers/Broncos.  I'm throwing the idea out that there are potential pitfalls for those that favor a record-based seeding.   I've already said I don't think it applies this year.   What about injuries?  A team could lose a couple of games due to loss of a key player. 
 
For that matter, why is draft order tiebreaker strength of schedule over head to head?   That has always bothered me.

Spunky

  What about injuries?  A team could lose a couple of games due to loss of a key player. 

 
Injuries are irrelevant.  Every team has to deal with injuries and other issues that affect the team roster.  Too subjective, and can't be considered when ranking teams.
 

Spunky
For that matter, why is draft order tiebreaker strength of schedule over head to head?   That has always bothered me.

 
Agreed.  Why do they use two different methods for playoffs and the draft?

I know know!! (raises hand),  it all works and if you start fucking with it you'll get twice what ever the perceived outrage is now, 10 fold asking for it to go back. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but the NFL operates a certain way and saying that Divisional football is the problem will (because no matter how you slice this, that's the issue, and ask the NFL to break up all of it's classic match up's.. Green Bay v Chi, The NFC East. Not going to happen unless you want the game to look like the AFC south, parity is the NFL and that's how it's preserved.) cause a "Yankees win too much, I don't give a shit about this anymore" backlash. Ask the NBA, MLB. 

But, divisional football is NOT the problem at all.

Bails


But, divisional football is NOT the problem at all.

I'm trying to think a few steps ahead here.. I might be sucking at it, tell me.
The only way your going to see the changes you want is to get rid of divisional football, replacing it with a round robin "shred duel". With the current format there's a 1 in 4 chance you make the postseason, and if you listen to players, win the division first, because that's the first most obtainable long term goal. "Parity" (espn taught me that word) is best preserved by not encouraging the league to abandon this system in favor of one where team's who spend the most money annually can beat up on the bottom feeders. (ie. Cowboys can't buy a playoff win, and the Packers who are owned by a actual share holder base have had continued success.)   ( if you get my comparison)
The NFL has already gone out of it's way to make divisional football meaningful at the end of the season, to prevent teams from sitting starters by making all divisional rivals play late season games. Those games creating a playoff atmosphere is the very thing your peeved about(not enough justice!!) The regular season is settled at the start of the playoffs. Earning a home game is a = winning your division. 

Bails

jammindude


Numbers I just crunched based on the 2011 schedule....

Pitt opponent combined record: 126-130 49.2%
Broncos: 133-123 52%

So, a difference negligible enough to ignore when put against the four game difference in their records.

Sorry...it's NOT negligible.      Let's take the orginal list (based on the 2010 schedule) as a template for this.
 
The total spread between the 1st place team and the last place team is only 11%.   That's 11% spread out over *30* teams.  
 
If we to overlay this new total over the template of last season (assuming that the difference between 1 and 30 should always remain somewhat the same) the Broncos would STILL be tied for 3rd and the Stealers would be tied for 19th!!

 
Notice something. All the bad teams are towards the top, and all the good teams are towards the bottom. I mean the bottom three are the three best teams in the league, bottom 5 are all still playing. The top 4 are the four worst teams in the league. The fact is winning your games makes your opponent lose more games, which hurts your strength of schedule. Using strength of schedule to determine who was the better team is fucking stupid.

I meant "three of the best teams", don't want you guys to think I don't think the Packers are good

Hells Patio




Notice something. All the bad teams are towards the top, and all the good teams are towards the bottom. 

Not all the good teams are towards the bottom... the Giants are #8  
Very interesting though that the bottom 5 are all still alive. 

The Giants had the unfortunate pleasure of playing the top 4 teams in the league record-wise. If any team left is to be considered battle tested, I'd pick them.

Hells Patio

Using strength of schedule to determine who was the better team is fucking stupid.

 
I think the whole idea of changing it from the way it is now is stupid.   I was just trying to prove a point.

You were trying to degrade the Steelers 12-4 record by saying they played an easy schedule. The top 5 teams in the league record wise had an easier SOS than the Steelers.

I was trying to prove that going purely off record instead of division leaders for home field advantage was a dumb idea.  I was attempting to show that the minute you try to go down that road, the whole idea falls apart.   Because the more you try to crunch the numbers, the stupider it gets.  
 
The answer....*win your division*...

Good, then we agree

Hells Patio




Notice something. All the bad teams are towards the top, and all the good teams are towards the bottom. I mean the bottom three are the three best teams in the league, bottom 5 are all still playing. The top 4 are the four worst teams in the league. The fact is winning your games makes your opponent lose more games, which hurts your strength of schedule. Using strength of schedule to determine who was the better team is fucking stupid.

Did you factor out wins against that team?  Meaning, in the St. Louis line, do any of the wins in the "Opp-Wins" column include wins against St. Louis?  Because you have to remove those for it to be a valid comparison.  That's also a reason why they use previous years.  It minimizes the impact of a "49ers" or "Colts" scenario (though it does create inequities of its own in those circumstances).

Stadler


That's also a reason why they use previous years.  It minimizes the impact of a "49ers" or "Colts" scenario (though it does create inequities of its own in those circumstances).

 
Why would you want to minimize the impact of the 49ers or Colts seasons?  To me, that's the reason not to use the previous year.
 
There is nothing stupid at all with seeding the teams.  What's stupid is rewarding a team that had a bad season but that also happens to play in a terrible division with a home playoff game.  You shouldn't get rewarded for being the tallest midget in the circus.

Yeah it doesn't make sense to me either that you would use previous years.  If you are looking at strength of schedule, what a teams record was the previous year is meaningless!

Bails


Why would you want to minimize the impact of the 49ers or Colts seasons?  To me, that's the reason not to use the previous year.

There is nothing stupid at all with seeding the teams.  What's stupid is rewarding a team that had a bad season but that also happens to play in a terrible division with a home playoff game.  You shouldn't get rewarded for being the tallest midget in the circus.

I know what I'm trying to say, and I don't exactly know how to say it.  You have to develop a strength of schedule when you develop the schedule, and those are done in advance.  If you have the strength of schedule set before hand it locks it in so that there can't be any gamesmanship.  It sets a bar, a standard, that is static and known to all teams.  You can't really have someone's schedule strength fluctuating from week to week, now, can you?
 
Speaking as the tallest midget in the circus, I don't think the idea of seeding is "stupid", but I think the notion of totally 100% objective across the league is sort of a misleading standard.  Maybe I'm just used to it from all those years my team got the shaft playing in the hardest division in the league, but it is what it is.  Everyone knows it and everyone prepares for the season accordingly.  It's like anything else:  there is often more fairness in having static rules that apply to everyone equally than there is in trying to make sure that everyone is rewarded equally under the rules.  There is a difference there. 

Bails

 What's stupid is rewarding a team that had a bad season but that also happens to play in a terrible division with a home playoff game.  You shouldn't get rewarded for being the tallest midget in the circus.

 

 
 
But I just went through all this rigamarole to PROVE BY THE NUMBERS that the Stealers had to play *EVEN WEAKER* teams than the Broncos did!   Thus...inflating their record....by quite a bit....a 3% spread would be a 25% inflation by league average.
 
But you can't really go by that anyway, because of Hell's Patio very valid argument that the whole thing falls apart under its own weight.  
 
Forget it.... 

Stadler

Hells Patio




Notice something. All the bad teams are towards the top, and all the good teams are towards the bottom. I mean the bottom three are the three best teams in the league, bottom 5 are all still playing. The top 4 are the four worst teams in the league. The fact is winning your games makes your opponent lose more games, which hurts your strength of schedule. Using strength of schedule to determine who was the better team is fucking stupid.

Did you factor out wins against that team?  Meaning, in the St. Louis line, do any of the wins in the "Opp-Wins" column include wins against St. Louis?  Because you have to remove those for it to be a valid comparison.  That's also a reason why they use previous years.  It minimizes the impact of a "49ers" or "Colts" scenario (though it does create inequities of its own in those circumstances).

Well this isn't my research, I stole it from http://www.fannation.com/blogs/post/1299408-nfl-strength-of-schedule-after-week-17-2011.  And there it does adjust for the wins that team has against its opponents. So in the instance of the Packers, it takes away the 15 losses they planted on the opposition. While it certainly changes thing a bit, for the most part top teams are towards the bottom and all the bad teams are towards the top, with anomalies like the Lions/Giants. I just posted the SOS thing because that's what they actually use in the NFL for things like tiebreakers/draft position.
 
Anyway, I feel this argument is just going in circles. I understand that it's unfair a 12-4 team has to go to a 8-8 or even a 7-9 team's stadium. But I just feel that everything is laid out for you in the beginning of the year. Win the division, get a home playoff game at least. If you finish 12-4 and get a Wild Card, well you should have been 13-3 then. Should be grateful there even is a wild card to bail your ass out for not getting the job done.

I'll put it this way, since I'm obviously the guy who has the biggest problem with lousy teams getting home field advantage.
 
The whole "strength of schedule" thing is meaningless, for a couple reasons.  First, every team we're talking about here is an NFL team.  Are some better than others?  Sure, of course.  But, they're all professional teams with the best players in the world.  Strength of schedule is needed in college because you have teams like Michigan scheduling teams like Appalachian State - and yes, I know they lost to them a couple years ago, but the point is that there is obviously a greater variety in the level of competition in college than there is in the NFL.
 
Which brings me to my second point, which is that the NFL itself designs the schedule.  In college, the schools themselves negotiate and schedule some of their games, so the idea is to try to promote the idea of teams playing against better competition so that they can't pad their schedules with the proverbial "Little Sisters of the Poor."  The NFL doesn't have that issue, and individual teams don't have any control at all over their schedule.  Punishing them for the weakness of their schedule is completely unfair - they can't do anything about it.
 
Again, I can't imagine anything wrong with the scenario I put forth earlier:
 
Keep everything the same way it is now, EXCEPT, once all of the playoff teams have been determined, rank/seed them using the same tiebreakers that are used to make the playoffs in the first place.  Problem completely solved.  Divisions and rivalries are intact, and no crappy teams rewarded for .500 or losing records.
 
I don't understand how anyone could have a problem with that.

^^^ I don't have a problem with it (well, I don't agree with it, but intellectually. Practically, I could care less, no offense), but isn't there a thing in baseball where the wildcard team can't play the division winner in their own division or something?  I don't know; does that apply to football?

Nope. Steelers/Browns, Steelers/Bengals and Jets/Pats played in the Wild Card round a few years back. It's just unusual because a lot of the time the divisions that produce the 1 and 2 seed also produce the wild card teams. I think it was more common before the re-alignment though.

Speaking of playoffs...
 
I read this on the CNN-SI site, and it got me thinking:
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/321631-brady-more-ornery-than-ever?xid=cnnbin
 
I get that not every elite athlete has to turn into an asshole to be good or at the top of their game, but that Chad Johnson (I refuse...) has to ask about it?  Doesn't even occur to him why he might be like that? 
 
This, boys and girls, is why some incredible athletes have no championship hardware, and why in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure our previous 3+ pages of good discussion really matters in the end.  It's all in the mind.

I had a coach back in the day who used to preach, "the team that wants it more usually wins."
 
Never forgot that.

The NFL doesn't have that issue, and individual teams don't have any control at all over their schedule.  Punishing them for the weakness of their schedule is completely unfair - they can't do anything about it.

 
Is that kinda like punishing them for playing in a weak division?
 

Don't understand what you mean?

Ok so I have been holding off on any NFL threads because my favorite team . . . The 49ers. . . . have been doing so well this season. Some give credit to a new head coach/program, some say Alex Smith is finally hitting his stride, others say weak schedule. I tend to agree with the latter. Regardless of the reason my Niners are in the playoffs and I couldn't be happier, If you had told me this time last year that the Niners would be doing this well I would have never believed you. So I don't want to brag and honestly I am just as surprised as many others. All I can say is this weekends game against the Saints will sum up the  whole season and maybe we can take some pride in the fact that fluke or not 
 
THE 49er's ARE IN THE PLAYOFFS ! ! ! ! !